Posts Tagged "Gordon Brown"

The Wax Wings of Barack Obama

Obamamania will end in disappointment for all. Barack Obama’s media portrayal, persona and reception really are too good to be true, and the result will be hubris on his part and disillusionment on ours.

While there is a feeling of inevitability (a word used advisedly) that Obama is the president-in-waiting, his image is also built around the theme of “Hope”- everything is designed to suggest that he is some sort of Messiah. His logo, a capital letter “O” in the colours of the American flag, with a sort of rainbow at the bottom, giving the roof of the “O” the look of a rising son in the horizon inspire great expectations. Even the image on the cover of his book “The Audacity of Hope” with him wearing an almost glowing white shirt in front of a white background reinforces this god-like impression.

Obama has been on a “world tour” recently meeting various heads of state/government supposedly trying to rectify his perceived weakness as someone with a lack of foreign policy experience. While this is done with admirable intention, the concern is that, in addition to acting as if he were the current president of the USA, Obama has been taking extreme liberties with European leaders.

Obama seems uninterested in Europe, using it for his ‘experience building’ (as much experience as anyone can gain when they go on a holiday trip, despite being chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the continent. The French newspaper Le Monde announced on July 24 that Obama has never asked to meet the European Union’s ambassador in Washington.

This primadonna behaviour was particularly evident not in Berlin, where he was greeted by about 200,000 cheering and fawning supporters, but in London, where he was given a low-key reception outside 10 Downing Street, which made him no more humble. He had a meeting with Gordon Brown followed by a press conference, which Obama conducted on his own, despite the fact that it would be unthinkable for a British prime minister to appear in the White House Rose Garden without the president.

At this stage of the campaign, rhetoric and personality takes priority over real policy, and for the moment at least, Europeans adore Obama. When it becomes time to talk about the issues, especially trade and defence, where Obama has advocated protectionism and hinted that Europe should commit more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, the shine may wear off. Barack Obama has not even been elected yet, and may just be the hare to McCain’s tortoise.

Gordon Agrees to Go

Gordon Brown is stepping down. The internet and newspapers have been buzzing with the new that the Prime Minister will fight only one election.

“Friends” and “Senior Cabinet Colleagues” have sent out this brief, which is therefore not official in any way. Nevertheless, while Labourites can calm down slightly and not worry so much about ousting him Tories are likely to cry first with joy because Brown is leaving, then with sorrow that his unpopularity will fade with him.

There are two scenarios predicted at present: if Labour wins the next general election, Brown will stand down half way through the next parliament so that a successor within the part can be selected and scrutinised. If Labour loses in 2009/2010 then Brown will mimic Michael Howard after 2005.

Although the move is designed to put Labourites at ease and to prevent a coup within the party by Members fearing for their seats, the gesture will undoubtedly fuel flames of speculation regarding the next Labour leader.

Now the main issue is who will take over. At present, it seems like there is no obvious candidate as for years Brown was seen as the only suitable heir to Blair, dissenters were quashed by the Brownites while any surviving contenders held back and were washed aside by a sense of inevitability, Alan Milburn, Charles Clarke and John Reid to name but a few.

Every prominent Labour figure has had their merits and demerits weighed up by now. Alan Johnson would be the most likely and able leader if there were to be an ousting before an election. He is a respected and broadly popular “good chap” with connections to the party base of C1 and C2 voters (‘working classes’), although he seems to have ‘no ambition in that direction’.

David Miliband is the other favourite, mainly because he is young and articulate. As Foreign Secretary, he will have gained significant experience and demonstrated his competence in high office by the time as election has been fought. However, Brown spent 10 years at the Treasury and was the most successful post-war chancellor, and that did not seem to help him much.

Like his predecessor, the announcement of the departure will be another thorny issue, but hopefully Brown will have learned from the “non-election” that speculation gets out of control very quickly. The difference here is that while the public wanted a faster transition from Blair to Brown, weakening Tony’s authority, Browns authority will not suffer as there is as of yet no alternative. The party must get behind Gordon.

The 'Clunking Fist' Means Serious Business

[THUNDER BROWN: The Former Iron Chancellor starts the year all guns blazing.]

The Prime Minister is back in Stalin-mode. In fact, based on his message over the New Year and his performance at Prime Minister’s Questions on Jan 9th, calling him ‘Stalin’ may have been an understatement; this time the Clunking Fist is showing no mercy.

David “The Chameleon” Cameron chose to start the session by undercutting the new Nick Clegg, by stealing the Lib Dem Leader’s pet topic, ID Cards. It seemed like a good attack, but Gordon Brown turned it right on its head, nailing Cameron and showing another one of his inconsistencies; he said his ‘personal view’ was against identity cards, and yet he was forced to concede that he was actually in favour of them for foreign nationals. As Brown pointed out to the House, “I see his incursion into Identity Cards did not last long!” After another attempt at an offensive, Cameron was smashed down by Brown, saying, “Once again, all these pre-rehearsed lines, all these lines rehearsed in front of the mirror! Nobody knows what he thinks about the big challenges: not the country, not the party, and probably not even himself.” The House was cheering the PM on, “More! More!” Cameron remained silent for the rest of the session.

The new agenda of Brown ideology is encapsulated in one simple idea; he wants to make ‘the right long-term decisions’. “For Britain, 2008 will be a year of real and serious changes.” His reassuring theme is “steering a course of stability through global financial turbulence”, with this year destined to be “the decisive year of the decade”.

Evidently, the media has hated brown since last summer, purely because he refuses to play the PR game in the same way as David Cameron. His strengths are twisted into negative qualities, no matter how essential to the job they are; rational calculation turned into devious manipulation, caution turned into indecisiveness, determination into dogmatism, long-term vision into inflexibility, seriousness into paranoia. Some of the psychobabble about his personality has been nothing short of disgraceful and lamentable. It is almost amusing how some critics have complained that he is rigidity, unwilling to compromise, unable to cooperate and labelled him a control-freak, then follow up with paragraphs calling him weak-willed quick to abandon his principles.

David Cameron also tried to fight the Prime Minister from an economic front, not really the wisest choice of topic, considering Brown was also nicknamed “The Iron Chancellor” during his ten years at the treasury.

The economy, to give some credit, is in a much better shape than that which Labour inherited from the Tories. At that time, inflation was 10 per cent and the Conservatives could not reduce interest rates, whereas inflation now is 2 per cent, and the Governor of the Bank of England was able to reduce interest rates. There were 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives, and Labour has created 3 million more jobs. Under the Conservatives, 250,000 people lost their mortgages and their homes were repossessed; there are 2 million more homeowners under Labour. Interest rates went as high as 18 per cent under the Conservatives; they have averaged 5 per cent under Labour. We face the global crisis with higher employment than ever before, and we face the global turbulence with low interest rates and low inflation. Of course, all these measures were fervently opposed by the Conservatives, so perhaps that is why they are in opposition.

Brown has had quite a learning curve due to the series of setbacks he faced towards the end of last year. Over Christmas, he has discovered that he is going to have to tighten his grip. Whatever lies in store over the next few months, any trouble will be met “with unbending determination” by the ruthless ‘clunking fist’.

Article published in Impact on 14/01/08

Headline: The ‘Clunking Fist’ Means Serious Business: Careful Dave, Gordon Brown is Back in Town

Standfirst line: Hadleigh Roberts reviews Gordon Brown’s New Year Message and performance at PMQs. The Prime Minister has gone from Stalin to Mr. Bean and back again; he’s taking no prisoners.

Use Correct Change Only

Gordon Brown has literally not stopped since moving into Number 10. Rumour has it that while most of us are asleep, he is grinding his way through a mountainous in-tray and calling ministers at 6am to demand action.

While he has yet to set about changing the country, it is evident that he has changed the way government works. For years, there have been four main jobs in the government: Number 10, the Treasury, the Foreign Office, and the Home Office. Now however, Brown has successfully dismantled any obstacles to his agenda.

In the very early days of his premiership, he proclaimed that he wanted a “government of all the talents” meaning that he would call in civil servants, diplomats, anybody, to serve as a GOAT rather than politicians. His second alteration was the mimic the intrepid Sarkozy, by calling in a few opposition ministers, thus expanding the big tent. For all this expansion though, there has been contraction. The Foreign Office has been weakened by the creation of ministries for International Development and the European Union while the Home Office has been dismantled by the introduction of the Ministry for Justice. The most important thing to look at though, is the Treasury.

The Treasury has always acted as a brake for overambitious plans. In the old sitcom Yes, Minister the PM asks, “How do I get the Treasury to agree?” to get the response “You must get the Chancellor to agree.” “But how do I get the Chancellor to agree?” “You must get the Treasury to agree.”

Brown has finally defeated the dragon. After ten years expanding the remit of the Chancellor, blocking (a great deal of) Blair’s madcap antics, he has relegated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to something of a mere Finance Minister. Alistair Darling, appointed for his loyalty and solidity, is a simple puppet.

The Prime Minister’s strength is also one of his greatest weaknesses. Blair had the formidable Iron Chancellor; Robin Cook was famous for ripping Major to bits, and Peter Mandelson was known as a most sneaky strategist. Cameron has an accomplished team of George Osbourne (who earned his stripes over the inheritance tax row), William Hague (with party leadership experience) and David Davis (David Davis has seen off three home secretaries and vying for a fourth). Labour’s Fantastic Four has consolidated to Labour’s Big One.

This asks a very serious question; is it even possible that Brown did not know about the recent scandal, in which illegal immigrants were cleared to work as security guards at various locations including, incredibly, the car park for the PM’s Jaguar?

In Prime Minister’s Questions on the 14th November, Cameron inevitably asked when Brown was informed. He asked three times, but the PM did not waver, and his ‘clunking fist’ slammed down, “I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition thinks everything should go through No. 10; the Home Office was responsible, and it took action!”

The problem for Gordon Brown is that so few people understand him. Politics moves faster than business, and as such the languages is constantly updating. We heard a lot about the word ‘trust’, which has since been replaced by ‘change’, which has since been replaced by ‘vision’.

The vision argument is an interesting idea. It is also ironic, since Brown’s vision is impaired literally, the lost the sight in one eye during a rugby match, and politically, since it is in a language most people don’t understand. David Cameron was furious after the Queen’s Speech, claiming that the Brown Agenda “lacks vision”. This is of course utter nonsense, but the problem is that because people do not look beyond the ‘big ideas’ of the day, his speciality day-to-day legislative programs go unheeded.

One of Tony Blair’s genius traits was that he was able to present incremental changes as revolutionary, compromising while crusading. Cameron, who was brought in to be ‘Blairer than Blair’ can do this too, and can attract progressives despite lurching to the right. Brown does not have such articulation, and finds it difficult to understand that his audience has such little background knowledge.

Some measures are genuinely radical. The leaving age of education will be raised to 18, and the introduction of diplomas is designed to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries. Of course, this comparison will not be widely publicised, since the British are prone to irrational anti-Europeanism. The house building scheme is ambitious, albeit the minimum required. Nobody can deny that Gordon Brown has vision, but sometimes it is necessary to participate in a committee reporting to a think-tank regarding “universal progressivism” to find it.

Labour does have a number of talented individuals, but they have yet to prove themselves. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, can project beyond Westminster although his political talents are currently engaged in seeing off his Africa minister. Ed Balls, the schools supremo, has the requisite intellectual and mental toughness as well. Whatever the case, Captain Brown will only succeed if he takes his lieutenants over the top with him.

Good Leaders, Bad People

I am going to make an educated guess; Gordon Brown is not your ideal Prime Minister. I would further venture in suggesting that your perfect leader was neither Blair, nor Major, nor Thatcher. If so, what kind of person should we put in charge?

Think about this carefully, and then construct your own Frankenstein elected representative. Mix Blairite charm with Thatcherite resolve, add the dependability of Major and throw in some Churchillian gravitas. Is he going to the listen to the people? Is he the one who knows best? Is he reliable? Is he a she? Does he focus on the big picture? Is he a good representation of the public? Is he setting an example? I would imagine “all of the above” but also some important characteristics like honesty, integrity, courage, kindness and fairness. He must respect the people; he must bring the nation together. He is a man of great stature and dignity who serves as a symbol for all things good about the nation, has a strong moral compass, but is tolerant of others. As was the case of Dr. Frankenstein, the monster you have just created will turn on you.

I came to a sad realisation not long ago; a great leader is inherently a terrible person. Consequentially, a simple discussion about Nicolas Sarkozy with my French friend quickly became a forty-minute argument. I asked her why she thought the man to be such an awful president; “because he is horrible, he destroys his opponents and shouts at his cabinet” and while this is all true, it is actually an advantage rather than a weakness.

Sarkozy is a particularly good example of how a bad person is ultimately a force for good. He pushes his agenda with a force Chirac could barely have imagined, he gets things done quickly with little regard for whining. In many cases such a “my way or the high-way” attitude can backfire, yet I am sure any politician would be delighted to have the same fifty-five per cent approval rating. France in particular needs Sarkozy’s “reform, reform, REFORM!” considering the fact that by tackling the unions, he is set to become the French version of Margaret Thatcher. Sarkoism is particularly necessary at this time since currently the French system of government works in three stages; the parliament passes the laws, the president signs the laws, and then subsequent strikes bring the nation to a standstill.

There have been even more attacks on the character of Gordon Brown, but I feel that most people dislike him for all the wrong reasons. On October 26^th, Jeff Randall of the Telegraph claimed, “When it comes to misleading, Brown is the boss. Where others employ fake magic, Gordon’s trickery is real: successes appear from nowhere; failures vanish.” Nobody wants their superiors to lie to them, yes-men are useless, but it is a universal truth that lying is sometimes necessary. I want to be safe in the knowledge that the Prime Minister can lie and cheat, for it shows that he is not naive, and nobody can take a cynic for a ride. I respect Brown for fooling the Conservatives repeatedly.

In a simple bid to outline his ‘vision’ for Britain, the PM has been making speeches on liberty in constitutional reform and equality in education. Fraternity in immigration is sure to follow; I would advise the Queen watch her back, I imagine he is sharpening the guillotine. The adjective ‘dour’ has been thrown about a lot recently, positively or negatively, but the world does not run on smiles and sunshine, the man I vote for will be the one who holds the cards. Of course, maybe your ideal Prime Minister is yourself, in a tie.

A Snap Election

Gordon Brown has been Prime Minister of Great Britain since June, following the resignation of Tony Blair and an uncontested ascension to the Leadership of the Labour Party. While this is in itself unremarkable, I find a great deal of opposition to his government, despite the fact that it is entirely legitimate.

A friend of my recently said “I hate Gordon Brown”. Surprised by the lack of apathy, I optimistically enquired “Why?” hoping for an even semi-rational reason. “Who elected him?” I was asked rhetorically.

I think this represents a view that is fairly common among the public, and has been fuelled or manipulated by the talk of a “snap election” so that Brown can secure himself a full term, making use of “the Brown Bounce” – the relief that Blair’s ‘spin’ style has been displaced. The speculation grew with the poll numbers, and when Labour was 10 points ahead, an autumn election seemed imminent. Against my instincts, I made sure I was registered.

This represented a great weapon for Brown (the Prime Minister is wholly responsibly for setting an election date, pending royal approval) and he exploited it well, using the idea like a taser to shock David Cameron into spouting policies and striking fear down the Conservative spine. I fear that this electrocution may have backfired slightly, since Brown announced that there would be no early election, giving the Tories more time and essentially a ‘dress rehearsal’ for 2009. It is hard to ascertain whether this was an easy of difficult decision. Easy because his poll numbers had dipped after the Conservative Party Conference (I would never vote for a PM who was stupid enough to call an unnecessary election when it looked like he might lose), but difficult because it has shaken his reputation, making him look like a coward, or a ‘bottler’.

History was against a snap election; Clement Attlee called an early election, he lost, Harold Wilson called an early election in 1960, he lost, Ted Heath called an early election in 1974, he lost. His advisers were divided between the young ‘Turks’ who said “Go for it!” and the older ‘Greybeards’ had cautioned against it. In an interview with Andrew Marr, he admitted that he had thought about calling an election (with a three-figure majority prediction, you would be mad not to), but claimed the reason for his decision was that he wanted “a chance to show the country that we have a vision for the future” – ‘getting on with the job’ and ‘vision’ or ‘change’ have been catchphrases for Brown.

Legally, there is no need for such a general election. We use a parliamentary system of government where the executive is drawn from the legislative. Therefore, there is no popular plebiscite for an individual candidate to become prime minister. Hence, at the last election, the Labour party stood on a manifesto on which it was elected and thus the job of the PM is to implement that manifesto commitments. The only reason a general election should be held is if the government loses or the confidence of the House of Commons or its current working majority of 69. The people have chosen Labour, Labour has chosen Brown, Brown will choose the election date, and the process will repeat.