Gordon Brown: a troubled and
troubling man given to appalling
outbursts of ungovernable temper

Frank Field is, most would think, a sober and sensible individual, unlikely to be given to flights of fancy. His observations on the character of McStalin, therefore, should be taken seriously. Whilst it was almost certainly McStalin who was responsible for stopping Field from ‘thinking the unthinkable’ on welfare reform, what he said of Our Dear Leader has been corroborated on all sides this weekend.

It is this corroboration that enables us to dismiss any notion that Field is consuming copious cold dishes of revenge. Instead he is articulating much that we mere mortals already fear in our hearts and Labour Lickspittles deny implausibly.

Firstly there is the issue of the Prime Minister’s temper. We have had some hints of this of late – the throwing of numerous mobile phones at the wall comes to mind. Of this Field says that he was on numerous occasions the victim, describing Brown as being prone to ‘tempers of indescribable rage……he shouts with rage’. In any person holding a position of responsibility this would be a matter, at the very least, for concern. In the man responsible above all others for governing the country it is an alarming and deeply troubling characteristic, particularly in a man whose finger is on the button of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

Then there is the evident unhappiness of the man. When he sloped on to the set with Fern Britton the other day, I noted that, the weird applied smile apart, his body language spoke volumes as to the state of this oddball: he oozed unhappiness from every pore. Frank Field had this to say: ‘the awful fact is that he is unhappy in himself…..it is that the Prime Minister looks so unhappy in his own body and it conveys the most dismal message to people.’ So the nation will begin to have this question: is he sufficiently well to withstand the rigours of office? Andrew Marr, of course, asked him to his face whether he was all right. McStalin insisted he was but it was the fact of the asking of the question that was noteworthy, more than the inevitable answer.

Labour Loyalists, most of whom would support a sheep if it happened to be elected leader of the party, continue to swear that they do not ‘recognise’ this view of Gordon Brown, suggesting they have been wilfully closing their eyes to this man’s personality defects for years. But before this man came to power as Prime Minister there were numerous people who went into print to hint at his psychological problems. Yet three hundred and thirteen of the Bovine & Ovine signed their monikers to his nomination papers. Each is individually and collectively reponsible for allowing this man of sometimes ungovernable temper to be let loose upon us as Prime Minister and must, therefore, be judged accordingly.

I have believed from the moment that Brown cancelled the elction in the autumn that he was done for. I hold to that, though I doubt he will be replaced unless Labour goes into a complete panic after a seminal loss at the Crewe & Nantwich bye-election. Who, let us face it, would volunteer to lead Labour beyond the wilderness except perhaps someone like Jack Straw who might be asked to hold the ring until better times return?

In the end it will be the economy that is the stake through his heart. His reputation was built on the notion that he was a prudent steward of the national finances. That, of course, was so much hooey, a fact that is now becoming plian as a pikestaff as we discover that the economy has not been tuned to withstand the hard times. Immediately it is the galloping of inflation that will undo him. He has been keen to use the Consumer Prices Index as his crutch. Meanwhile in the real world inflation has been far above that and for the essentails of life, the things we have to pay for to keep food on the table, a roof over our head and to transport us to our place of work, that has all risen at a rate far above the massaged figures that Brown has tried to gull us with but has ended up gulling himself.

Of this I wrote in December. The smell of death is now upon him: the vultures know this and have begun to gather on the rocks. He is likely to linger until, as Field said, for another two years and two weeks, to wit to the very legal end of this Parliament. Then we can remove him and as many of those who supported his elevation so enthusiastically as we can, flushing them all into the sewer of history.

Tony Blair, meanwhile, will be thanking his lucky stars he got out whilst the going was still reasonable. We have not forgotten him, though: he appointed Brown and allowed him to stay in office ten years. He must bear equal reponsibility for the state in which we now find ourselves.

The destruction of our economy in the late part of this decade will be Blair’s true legacy and thus will history remember him.

COMMENT THREAD

Powered by ScribeFire.

Advertisements