Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Sunday Times

February 25, 2007

The trouble with Gordon

India Knight

I am reliably informed that Gordon Brown is, in private, absolutely charming — enormously clever, funny, interested and interesting; apparently he even smiles with his eyes as well as with his teeth. Sometimes, he tells jokes. Sometimes, some of them are funny. Everyone laughs and is pleased and proud to be in his company. I don’t disbelieve any of it for a second.

Why, then, would I find it difficult to make myself vote for him? It’s not just me: a quick straw poll of my female friends, both lefty and floaty, comes up with the same unfortunate — and ideologically problematic — answer. No. Nope.

Why? Nothing wrong with his policies, people say — and at least he has some. It’s just . . . well, it’s just a no. (Michael Meacher doesn’t seem to be setting anyone’s world on fire either, frankly, but that’s another story and it’s early days.)

An ICM poll last week put David Cameron’s Conservatives 13 points ahead of a new Labour with Brown at its helm. Thirteen points is an awful lot, particularly coming, as it did, hot on the heels of Cameron having admitted to smoking pot at Eton (irritatingly, he only got gated. I did the same thing at an equivalent school and got expelled so fast my feet barely touched the ground).

Our attitudes to drugs may have relaxed but I had always been of the opinion that our attitudes to class hadn’t, in any greatly significant way: last week I nearly wrote about how those hauntingly awful photographs of a foppish, entitled-looking Cameron in full Bullingdon rig might well do for him.

It’s just as well I didn’t: apparently they’re not a problem — not an insurmountable one, at any rate, which is pretty weird and interesting in itself. I was privately educated and they make me want to gag — you’d think they’d prove violently emetic to anyone with an ordinary sort of experience of life.

Just what is it about Brown, then? Granted, he may be delightful in private but has difficulty conveying any kind of delight in public. This makes him seem a little severe but that’s no bad thing in a potential leader of this country: you’d rather have severe than Coco the Clown. He is clearly brainy, committed, ambitious, on the ball — all of which are marvellous attributes for a human being and a politician. He doesn’t exude warmth, but we’ve probably had our share of toothsome grins for the time being. There really oughtn’t to be a problem — but there is.

Perhaps he’s too Presbyterian, too dour? After all, we’re now apparently a Catholic country, thanks to the influx of immigrants from eastern Europe — perhaps he’s like a finger-waggy John Knox to our skittish, pleasure-bent Mary Queen of Scots?

But I don’t think that’s quite right either — it’s not like he makes a habit of denouncing fun from the pulpit (although he does sort of look like he’s denouncing fun in his head, or maybe it’s just me).

I am the mother of a special needs child myself, so this is not a particularly comfortable thing to say, but our attitudes to Brown and Cameron tend to come into clearer focus on the issue of their respective children, where I’m sorry to say there is clearly a degree of very discreet, very successful spin going on.

Cameron’s son, Ivan, is not well. He has cerebral palsy and an especially unpleasant form of epilepsy; Cameron has two other young children. Brown’s daughter Jennifer was born prematurely and died when she was 10 days old in January 2002. Brown and his wife Sarah went on to have a healthy son, John, in 2003; a second son, Fraser, was born last July. It was reported last November that he had cystic fibrosis, for which there is no cure.

This is more sorrow in five years than most people could bear in a lifetime — and the Browns have clearly borne it with admirable, off-the-scale heroism and stoicism, too.

But ask yourself which one’s the “family man” and I’ll bet you think of Cameron, breezily pushing Ivan’s special pushchair through the streets of west London. I’ll bet that even if you dislike and distrust him and loathe the Tories, you take your hat off to him in this respect alone. Which is quite right. But what about Brown?

There isn’t a grotesque kind of special needs competition — or at least I very much hope there isn’t.

But it does seem peculiar, to say the least, that the more heartbroken man gets the least sympathy and that, unlike Cameron, he is seen first and foremost as a politician, not a fellow parent you might have round to supper. It’s wrong — on many levels — but there you have it: it’s also true.

Poor Gordon Brown. I think at the crux of it all lies the problem of the eternal bridesmaid. Rightly or wrongly, many of us see him — in political terms — as tugging away at Tony Blair’s jacket, saying, “Is it my turn yet? Is it my turn yet?” and then getting all huffy and beetle-browed and bear-like when it turns out that no, it isn’t, quite. One does see how irritating this might be for him, but from the outside it’s not entirely unamusing.

No wonder we can’t make our minds up about him: he is a complicated and uncomfortable mixture of tragic, tormented, ambitious and slightly comical.

He is also, I am sorry to say — and I would put any amount of money on this, because my little antennae are never wrong about this kind of thing — the man most likely to redeliver the nation to the Tories if he carries on as he has been.

What is to be done? Brown must out himself as the person his friends describe him as being. It’s an unfortunate situation because he is clearly a man of integrity, a good friend, a good parent and a good husband — but he is also private, as he has every right to be. Cameron has perfected the clever trick of seeming wholly, transparently public, not least with his artless seeming little homemade webcasts. What nobody remembers about seeming to be transparently public is that the art lies in concealing as much as you appear to be giving away.

Brown, one feels, recoils in horror from the idea of that kind of transparency. Someone should tell him there’s a trick to it — and it’s one he’d better learn pretty damned soon. Because even people who profess themselves to be wholly uninterested in politics, or nauseated by the whole sorry shower, perk up a little at the mention of David Miliband. That’s exactly the position David Cameron occupied 18 months ago . . . and just look at him now.

india.knight@sunday-times.co.uk

None of this shows anything about policy. Brown puts up my taxes every year and has still made a mess of the public finances. If he brings this level of competance to the job of Prime Minister heaven help us. This counts for more than image.

David, Harrogate, Yorkshire

Of course the elections are decided, in large part, by which candidate the voters think seems nicer. No matter how good party policies are, if candidates aren't capable of delivering said policies in a way which encourages people to believe in them then how can voters expect them to be able to deliver the same policies any more effectively to other politicians? I think this article deals with an interesting, often overlooked aspect of what influences people when voting, or even influences them not to vote.

Bridget, Epping, UK

What a pathetic article,was it written by Camerons PR team. This lady must live on another planet if she cannot see that Cameron has no policies or substance.As a PR man himself he survives on spin and hype. When he produces policies then he can be judged.At the moment its all "BRANDING".

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

I doubt Gordon Brown will destroy new Labour.
It seems to me it is a good thing that he is complicated and uncomfortable mixture of tragic, tormented, ambitious and slightly comical.

After nearly eight years of George W Bush and Tony Blair at the helm of the Atlantic Alliance, Gordon Brown and a popular US Democrat might be just what we need.

Lawrence Gulotta, New York, New York USA

As an American who usually identifies with the Democratic party, and one who admittedly doesn't understand all the ins and outs of the British political system, I can only give my (ultimately meaningless) opinion from my perspective. Maybe it's just that I sense a kindred-spirit/fellow minister's kid sort of thing with Brown, but I'd love to have someone like Gordon Brown to vote for in 2008--someone with enough of the right social and economic priorities, less frat-boy. Maybe John Edwards.

C Campbell, Birmingham, AL

if you want a front bench stuffed full with old etonians vote forthe tories and "podgy" dave...but if you want stability and an inflationary conscious prime minister vote for the proven ability of gordon brown.I would ask the Times {which i take for the business pages and the sport...not for the very biased editorials}to please be more honest in their reporting.

maxwell seaford , milborne port,sherborne , dorset

I would say that the 'heartache' card hasn't really been played by either the Tories or Labour . It is twaddle like this article that I find shameless. Mentioning their respective disabled children was an entirely pointless exercise- the argument was basically that Cameron looks friendly/benign/easy going, etc. How superficial.

Mitchel, Aberdeen, Scotland

From a Canadian perspective. Mr Brown only has to study recent Canadian political history. A perfect example of why a minister of finance should not long for the job of prime minister. Is poor old Paul Martin, who not only destroyed the Liberal Party, but himself in the process. Mister Brown, please for your own and the Labour Party's sake, stay at # 11.

Peter Ferris, Waterdown, Ontario, Canada

Drivel drivel drivel - whatever happened to commentators focussing on anlaysing current party policy? Too demanding for Ms Knight so she would rather comment on who has the prettier face - oh dear!

Simon, London,

"Lightweight piffle" hits the nail on the head with this article. Yawn.

Karl S, Long Beach, California

Philip you are laughable, cheers. Good article India I too think there is a good chance the election will be decided in a horrible american style of opting for the man you would most like to have a pint with. Hopefully though people will notice those standing behind the pr behemoth that is Cameron.

paul, swindon, wiltshire

Short memories? Well it depends on your framework for recent history! The people who goon about how bad the Tories were in the 80s and 90s are forgetting what a vast improvement they were on the Labour Governments of the 70s!

And Davies, Reading, UK

How can someone get paid for scribbling such lightweight piffle?
If Labour lose the next election it will be far more down to Brown and Blair's policies than some silly Cameron effect. That tired old notion that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them probably still rings true.
As for Brown, we'll only really know how he matches up to the young Etonian when Blair has finally gone. If he goes. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still can't see him simply handing over to Gordon and shuffling off the stage.
We may yet be surprised.

Harlan Leyside, Basildon, Essex

Oh, please! Can we get over the ridiculous English/Scottish debate and concentrate on real issues?

Perhaps I see things differently as a Scot living in Germany, but it galls me to read that the "English have had enough being overtaxed by a Scotsman". Apart from the fact that the Scots also pay taxes, I don't believe that Brown or Blairs' politics are hugely influenced by their birthplaces.

Lynn, Duesseldorf, Germany

Your antennae are spot on - there is certainly a Brown thing. The issue I have with the man is his inability to accept responsibility for increasing taxes, and for unwise spending decisions. He is reaching into all our pockets and taking our money but can't bring himself to tell us he is doing it and why. A smiling media manipulator is better than a silent automaton. Re your introduction, I don't accept that Gordon has social skills - if he had why save them for only a few in this media driven age. I prefer the Lance Price view that there is something not entirely right about Gordon.

lisa trimble, Perth,

As a Disabled person, I hate it when people wrongly describe their children as "special needs" - it's depply dehumanising. And just because Cameron has a Disabled son, I'm not going to vote for him - he has more available to him as the rich parent of a Disabled child than most parents of Disabled children, and I don't trust him to look after the interests of Disabled people when in power, especially advocating the separatist "special schools" of the type which I was forced to go to in the 70's.

Chris Page, Letchworth Garden City, England

I wouldn't vote for David Cameron, there's something slightly slimy about him. Gordon Brown would get my vote any day, I see all the things you described which his friends say about him. I think he'd make a great pm.

Billie, York, UK

No India, you have this one quite wrong. The English have had enough of being over taxed by a Scotsman. Brown has turned me and many others into a fervent Scottish nationalist. The sooner the Scots are independent the sooner the English can reassert their traditional dominance of these Isles.

Philip , London, UK

You're absolutely right, India. As a floaty liberal myself, as things stand, I could not bring myself to vote for Brown or New Labour. I could see myself voting for David Cameron, but unfortunately that also means voting for the ragbag of unpleasantness that is the Tory party. As for the liberals, I'm afraid Ming was a disaster and on principal I won't vote for them until they show more courage in electing a leader. I'm in a lather of indecision........

Melanie, Farnborough,

The problem lies in having short memories or none at all. This country has had it so good the last 10 years or so, that they have forgotten the disastrous Tory years. We prefer boyish good looks to a tried and tested steady hand, thank you. Such shallowness is what defines the modern Briton. No wonder we respect coke sniffing celebrities more than we do Nobel prize winning scientists and worked to the bone NHS doctors and nurses. Welcome back 15% interest rates and home repossesions. Hope you are coming back to stay. Keeps the adrenalin flowing. If Churchill got the boot after saving this country from Hitler, Brown does not have a prayer of a chance no matter how genially he smiles.

Charles Madinga, HULL, United Kingdom

Regarding smiling with his eyes - you forgot to mention that Gordon Brown had another tragedy in his life, prior to his children's problems. When playing rugby as a teenager, he damaged his eyes. I think he spent six months in complete darkness (something that would have crushed most teens). The left eye is completely dead, including the muscles around it, which is a problem when smiling.

Hence the dour look. It's because the man is disabled on top of everything else. But he doesn't really complain about it, so no one makes allowances. Instead they complain that he can't smile properly and can't drive (cause legally blind).

You are right, there is something weird that the more tragic figure gets less sympathy. It's as though we all shy away from real tragedy. We don't want to know about the man who spent his teen years in darkness coming to terms with disability. We prefer the story of the man who did cannabis in his teens and got away with it.

BP, Portsmouth, UK

Forget it! The problem is his preachy Scottishness that dooms him after devolution. Am I the last Englishman who says I don't want the World Cup in 2018 or whenever if it gives Brown any kudos. What a phony!

Brown may well be PM for a short time but he is the last Scot to be PM from a Scottish seat. In the future if one has such ambitions he will have to represent an English seat, as rifking now does as well as Fox.

oldasiahand, Hong Kong,

I heartily agree with Michael of London. Does he have any suggestions as to how we can avoid a second disastrous
mistake. Even David Cameron falls short of being an ideal leader.

Patricia, Telford Shropshire,

The problem with Brown, apart from being old and Scottish is that he has been part of the disastrous Labour experiment for so long. Never once did he raise one concern about the Iraq fiasco.

What the media fail continually to mention is that Labour won only 35% of the vote in 2005. It is a disgace in a democracy that such a figure gives a working majority in parliament.

As one who voted Labour in 1997 I find that Labour has lost its soul. There does not seem any point in even having a parliament when all u seem to have is Labour poodles.

Michael, london, london

Brown's fundamental flaw is his arrogance, his insistence that he is always right & never makes mistakes. Whilst most people expect politicians to be strong willed nobody, no matter how intelligent they are gets it right every time.
Without causing any damage to his reputation, Brown could improve his standing immeasurably by admitting that in the past, he got it wrong on occasions, such as on the pensions raid in 1997.

Stuart Bailey, Camberley, UK

Stuff the lot of 'em I say. Every one of them is after every penny you've got.

Phil Evans, newport, England

"Dour Brown, solid and prudent Treasury man"

Good grief. He has borrowed so much that we have a national debt of £500 billion, yet at the same time we are taxed more than we have been in decades, and money has been hurled at public services without any perceptible improvement. In fact, if anything, things are worse than before this government came to power, borrowed left right and centre, taxed viciously and squandered the proceeds.

Gordon Brown may have declared himself wedded to Prudence, but I think he's now certainly a widower - the poor woman must have expired in shock at the man's sheer, flagrant, wanton incompetence.

THAT is why he will lose to Cameron - although his public persona and his Scottish constituency and correspondingly peculiar constitutional position will not help . The Iron Chancellor has gone rusty.

Martin Marston-Paterson, Hereford, England

after the way gordon brown has decimated the private pension schemes and bolstered the home office scheme with our taxation monies Icould never trust him to run the country.

B Cowan, Ivybridge, Devon

"Nothing wrong with his policies people say" Colin ?!??

So you think it's ok that the UK has underperformed the rest of the Western world for the past 7 years. You think its ok that old age pensioners are living in poverty because of his tax raids on them and his remorseless increases in Council Tax to subsidise Labour's client voters. You think it's ok that 3 billion is wasted this year and every year, without any change, on VAT fraud. You think it's ok that another £3 billion is wasted on Tax credit maladministration and theft, again without any improvement from one year to the next, and then a further £2 billion paid in error and ruthlessly clawed back from those least able to afford it. You think it's ok that the NHS is in permanent financial crisis or that our soldiers get sent to war without even the basic proper kit to protect their lives?

Any by the way, you say at least he has some policies. What exactly are they then apart from just continuing as before?

Scary, Windsor, Berks

I agree with a lot of the article.
But I suspect she is wrong on the core concept.
Cameron is coming to epitomise what everyone is fed up with in Blair.
Dour Brown, solid and prudent Treasury man, not given to Presidential behaviour like Blair, will make a welcome change. Lets hope he remains more silent, less accessible and only speaks when he has something important to say.

John Collins, Lewes, East Sussex

"Nothing wrong with his policies,people say -and at least he has some".I wonder which people these are-not regular readers of "The Times" or of any informed writer on economic affairs.

COLIN , Hong Kong,

I absolutely agree with most of this article. I too believe that Brown is the man most likely to redeliver the nation to the Tories if he carries on as he has been. I also believe that a large percentage of Labour MPs hold the same view as well as many in the Cabinet. It is quite obvious that his friend Balls will not take him on and it appears that gernerally there is a lack of balls to take him on.

Stephen Jones, Penarth, South Wales, UK

Also in India Knight

Back off, boardroom bitches

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

India Knight

India Knight was born in 1965. She lives in London with her three children, writes a weekly column for The Sunday Times, and a weblog, Isn't She Talking Yet?, on bringing up a child with special needs. She has also written two novels, My Life on a Plate and Don't You Want Me?