Sir, It was good to hear Gordon Brown standing shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair on their record over the past nine years.

This means that, in addition to the advancements for which they both regularly — and justifiably — lay claim, they are also both equally responsible for the war with Iraq and the intelligence and dossier leading up to it, for tuition fees and foundation hospitals and a host of other initiatives which have so dented the Prime Minister’s public image.

The Brown-Blair legacy looks like a lot of baggage to take forward if the Chancellor is to step into Mr Blair’s shoes. No amount of spin in the future will help him to avoid his responsibility for the past.

ANTHONY HOLLIS
Camberley, Surrey

Sir, Gordon Brown’s only new “big idea” has been to give the NHS independence from government. His last “big idea” was granting the Bank of England independence from government. That was nearly a decade ago.

Mr Brown may have been a reasonable Chancellor, but he lacks personality or an air of youthful energy. These are essential qualities for a leader of a political party in the modern era.

Labour beware, Mr Brown is a one-trick pony with no charisma. Mr Blair may have his faults, but he has been a winner, even in the face of the Iraq debacle. He has a mandate to remain in office for at least three more years and he could win again. After all, Mr Blair has seen off four Tory leaders since 1997 and he could do it again. David Cameron’s stick of green broccoli looks fresh now, but could have grown mouldy by 2010. Labour should keep Blair on for now and seek a new, younger leader after the next general election.

ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ
Staines, Middx

Sir, Were Gordon Brown to succeed Tony Blair in the leadership of the Labour Party without an election, it would be a shocking indictment of nine years of Labour government. It would imply that not one Labour politician has emerged with the stature or popularity to defeat the unpopular, dour and even deluded Chancellor.

LAWRENCE FREEBORN
Tonbridge, Kent

Sir, Why on earth should Middle England trust Gordon Brown as Prime Minister (report, Sept 25)?

He has presided over the pensions debacle, the tax credit fiasco, unwarranted council tax increases, the flawed aid-to-Africa plan and the wasted amounts thrown at the social services to little apparent effect; all are damaging to the Middle England that he now wishes to espouse.

He plans to decentralise the running of the NHS, and this is likened to the delegation of interest rate management to the Bank of England; the two cases could not be more different. Mr Brown, should he become Prime Minister, will still control the purse strings, and it is disingenuous to think that he will be able to resist his instinctive bias to tinkering and micromanagement.

The NHS does need radical treatment, to return it to a true national service in England, Scotland and Wales with nationwide standards of care. Mr Brown has had plenty of time to tackle this, but has not done so. To repeat: why should Middle England trust Mr Brown as Prime Minister?

JOHN HARRIS
Winchester

Sir, The pollsters and political pundits claim Gordon Brown cannot win a general election because he lacks charisma. May I remind them that in 1945 the uncharismatic Clement Attlee, arguably the greatest peace-time Prime Minister of the 20th century, easily defeated the charismatic Churchill. Of course the electorate in 1945 did not have the guidance of PR men to tell them how to vote.

IAN J. HARTILL
Chandlers Ford, Hants

Explore Letters

• Feedback