A topical commentary on 'The Great Leader' by William Briggs.
For InChelsea Magazine making any reference to Prime Minister Gordon Brown represents a slight editorial risk. The reason for this is simple - no one knows if he will remain Prime Minister from month to month. At any moment he could throw us a curveball by reverting to plain Mr Gordon Brown, or the slightly less plain Rt. Hon Dr. James Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Put simply, the opinion polls, the economy, pure human frailty, or a combination of all three mean that he could be gone at any moment. So what is it that's stopping him?
Asking this is not necessarily critical of the Prime Minister, but recognition that the intense pressures weighed down on him would make anyone think about a change of career. Apart from the political reasons why he should go (and there are many), consider the evidence before your eyes. Is this not a man who looks like a change would do him good?
It's easy to forget that a short while ago, i.e. when a Brown Premiership was a promise rather than a reality, he seemed destined to become a successful leader. Even one with a strange form of anti-charisma. Mr Brown entered Office amid much chatter on the lifestyle pages attesting to his brooding, Byronic good looks and even more the mild turn-on of his dour seriousness. A little over eighteen months in the top job have rendered him tetchy, grey and hangdog. Of course no-one steps down from such a stressful job looking better than when they came in. But only the most rabid Brownite (of which there are now very few and virtually none in the Cabinet) would deny that the Prime Minister has all the physical and temperamental signs of a man who wants out. And that's only the shallow, outward appearence. How must being the most unpopular Prime Minister in living memory actually feel?
Brown is not, in the parlance of the focus groups, a "connector" or particularly talented at "reaching out". Judging his personal thoughts (even to the limited extent that it's appropriate to do so) is a skill based on working out the differences between one type of glowering look and another. But even with only this to go on, certain assumptions can be made. In recent weeks his expression seems to have changed from that of a man who knows his colleagues are stabbing him in the back to that of a man who longs to chuck it all in and hit the international lecture circuit. His admission after his Party's disastrous showing in the European Elections that it would be at least possible to "walk away from all of this tomorrow" is not unusual for a politician owning up to the strains of being in power. His further admission that leaving would "probably be good for my children" may be true, but is more personal than even the most touchy-feely of politicians normally allow themselves in public. Maybe he needs a longer break than a few extra weekends at Chequers.
And what of those publicly voiced and often veiled criticisms from his own side? When Frank Field observes that he simply doesn't look happy or Peter Mandelson says that the next set of leadership challenges are just around the corner, it could be that they are not speaking purely out of malice. Remembering that one doesn't have to actually like somebody to offer them blunt advice, might they actually mean well, both for the Prime Minister and their Party? And look at Sarah Brown. Wouldn't you rather stay at home with her, writing your score-settling memoirs and an occasional well-informed article for the op-ed page of the Financial Times than spend another morning looking at Jack Straw's face across the Cabinet table?
The official line from Downing Street is that Gordon won't leave early for two reasons. Firstly, he doesn't quit, even when the going gets tough. The argument here is that Gordon is riding the waves of an unprecedented international economic crisis, bruised and bloody but still determined to do his (as yet unelected) duty. Eventually the sheer force of his honesty and integrity will reverse the tide of unpopularity and the British electorate will learn to, if not love him, then at least admire him enough to give him a mandate.(Time, of course, is running out). Second, Gordon is uniquely able to deal with the recession, both worldwide and at home. His international standing and economic expertise is such that, even though he is too modest to say so himself, he is acting as something of a saviour, single-handedly preventing the slide into another Great Depression. Look at all the examples. Could anyone else have chaired the G8 summit? Wasn't that 12-month VAT cut a stroke of genius? Surely you want five more years of the same sort of thing?
Unfortunately, both arguments crumble when subjected to the slightest scrutiny. While there has been something admirable about the Prime Minister not just raising his hands and saying, "Sorry folks, it's all a bit much for me" in the face of disintegrating banks and a falling Stock Exchange, it would be an exaggeration to say that he has actually risen to the challenge facing him. The kindest thing you can say is that the actions taken by the Government during the current crisis haven't exacerbated the mistakes they've already made in the past. The Prime Minister is personally associated, both in his current post and as Chancellor, with many of the past failures that are likely to make the recession longer in this country than in others. Take your own pick from selling off gold reserves at a knock-down price, removing the 10p tax rate, allowing public spending to run out of control, stealth taxes, too much financial regulation, not enough financial regulation (Brown is remarkably balanced at failing in ways that stimulate criticism from both the left and the right), etc. There is no logic in the argument that the man who did it could also be the man to fix it. Maybe the worst of all is his present failure to acknowledge that national debt is such, that whoever wins the next Election, a brief period of raised taxes and a probably longer period of frozen or cut public spending is inevitable. Still, it's not likely to be a problem which he will have to face.
All of which leads back to the long-term appeal of being an ex-Prime Minister, once the initial pain of electoral defeat or simply being asked to go by colleagues has worn off. Apart from the obvious perks (the pension for life and the obligatory offer of a seat in the Lords or a Knighthood if preferred) there are quality of life benefits. No former occupant of 10 Downing Street has gone on to have an unpleasant lifestyle. The question is which one would best suit Gordon? A brief period of unhappily leading the Official Opposition while Labour tear themselves apart looking for a new leader (such as that served by Jim Callaghan in 1979-80) will probably be unavoidable. But then what? Churchill spent much of his twilight years on Onassis' yacht Christina. A desirable option, but the modern equivalent (riding the seas for long periods with, say, Roman Abramovich) would probably be considered a bit showy by the outgoing Premier. A long sulk, with added fun of criticizing those who follow after him, a la Sir Edward Heath, is so certain that it's almost not worth mentioning. Maybe something ex-Presidential, such as the Jimmy Carter option of following a failed period in office with a successful and useful period of good public works would put a smile on his face.
Whatever he chooses, InChelsea would like to wish him a long, happy retirement and one which begins soon.
InMagazines are a brand name owned and published by INDEPENDENT NEWS LIMITED (c) copyright 2009.
.jpg)
Posts
.jpg)
