Has Gordon got it?
The torture chamber. That's how Harold Macmillan described television when it first began to intrude into politics. And that was when a tough question consisted of a reporter asking the PM, "have you anything to say prime minister?".
Compare that with what Gordon Brown is going through today. This morning the chancellor moved from one camera and microphone to the next in Manchester's Midland Hotel. At each he was followed by a crowd of onloookers watching his every smile or grimace and listening to and scrutinising every word.
Even between interviews - as he consulted his notes or asked for a drink - zoom lenses were pointing at him. Throughout this everyone knew that he was not being asked to defend his actions or his policies or his beliefs - but his personality. That is also how his speech today will be judged.
His enemies in the Labour Party have set him a test - prove that you can be popular. Let's be clear, it's a test that's been set mainly by people who want him to fail and believe he will. They know that they cannot afford to do "a Clarke" and launch a full-frontal assault on Brown. They know that the polls don't look too good for Gordon - in part, of course, because they have provided the media and the public with a script - "he's psychologically flawed... he's not a team player... he's an obsessive".
Now they are challenging Gordon Brown to prove them wrong. All feuds have two sides, of course. Mr Brown must now be rueing how easily he's made enemies rather in the past.
The question hanging over this conference today is, "has Gordon got it?". There is another question though - if he proves he has got it, has the Labour Party got it within themselves to forgive, forget and back him, or are some determined to bring him down?
I'm 
Comments
I feel the Labour Party really must ask them themselves if they dare sweep clean, and rid themselves of both Gordon and Tony.
Actually, it would make the political map more open and more openly democratic. Brown and Blair are only there because we the voters had little choice given the other parties and their poor behaviour.
This is where brave men can fall on their swords if they dare. Gordon can fall on Tony, Tony can fall on Gordon, and Tubby Prescott can just flounder about until someone bites the bullet and retires him to obscurity.
There are far better politicians not getting their chance because they are obsessed with Gordon and Tony.
The Truth
The truth is they will be out of office if they don't get rid of their lame ducks and be brave now with enough time to prove new labour is a party and not just two people.
If labour cannot produce without either Gordon or Tony, then they deserve to go out of office next time.
Brown and Blair, if they were real statesmen would resign and make the path clear to new and vibrant politicians in their labour ranks.
Will they? They don't have the guts or wit to see the obvious, that is a complete reformation mid term and wellbeing of their party, made ready for the next election!
Are they statesmen? No, they are egoists and spoiled by their length in office, corrupted by power, and in severe debt as a party!
Being watched ever so closely is the price of being in real-time politics or in the public limelight. The Chancellor has solid experience and so should be able to handle the media frenzy with exceptional calm. But what political pundits and voters are looking forward to is whether the Chancellor can step up a gear and ooze with political charm instead of being dour. If he succeeds in making the audience relax with off-the-cuff jokes along with astute political, economic truths he could transform himself and get the momentum really going to occupy Ten Downing Street in a year's time.
So we are being asked to judge Gordon Brown on his persona? Well, here is a man who has got married and had a family only in his 50s and doesn't drive. What experience does he have of what normal people's lives are like? With our experiences of his dour and sanctemonious policies on taxation while he has been Chancellor, why on earth should we want him to be our Prime Minister?
Dear Nick,
Please, not "for we in the media" (91Èȱ¬2 Your intro to Gordon's big speech). It's not what we expect from the 91Èȱ¬'s influential political editor.
goodbye
from I
He needs to not only prove that he can be popular, but he needs to prove that he governs with the consent of the electorate. He won't even be elected directly by Labour members because of the byzantine system the party has.
I'm not political journalist or expert, but it's becoming very clear the the hideous infighting in the Labour Party will bring their downfall at the next election. Whether it be Gordon Brown, or Joe Bloggs round the corner leading the Labour Party, they'll stand about the same chance if they don't stop.
Gordon Brown is the man to lead the Labour Party at the next election. Whether people like him or not, they all have the same objective; to win the General Election, and to form the next Government. They can win together, or lose together, and it's plain to see where they're heading.
Brown did not lift pensioners out of poverty. one of many embarrassments with the truth.
A self serving speech with glib references to serving, almost in an abject manner, the "people"
Teresa Wood
The answer, Nick, is a plain, simple 'NO'.
One of the big ideas Gordon Brown has floated is the idea of constitutional reform. Personally, I think, this shows some clarity of thought and determination to sweep away some of the stupidity and featherbedding in the British political system. I’m all for a savage pruning of the system to clear the sclerosis from the veins, create real opportunity instead of, merely, changing figureheads, and laying of foundations for what could well be an unparalleled period of social and economic prosperity.
If it requires Gordon Brown to develop a sense of sparkle and a few egotistical backbenchers to have their legs broken behind the scenes, so be it. Politics can and, perhaps, should be fun but, also, it mustn’t be forgotten that peoples wellbeing is riding on the back of this. If Gordon Brown is aware of both extremes and maintains a mindful attitude, I have some confidence he will be able to transcend goals, process, and outcomes, and encourage success for everyone in Britain.
Gordon has had years to proove that he's "got it" but has consistently failed to provide the goods.
I don't see how he can magically discover the required presence and charisma that will make the rest of the world take him seriously.
To be absolutely honest I don't see enough of those qualities in any of Blair's successors, nor do I see them in either Cameron or Campbell for that matter.
Gordon has gained an enormous amount of respect as a Chancellor but there is only one direction he can go. He can produce all the fancy policies he likes, but surely even he can see that the sinusoid of time is against him. The public is ready for change and in David Cameron there is change. Gordon Brown can't win; if he suggests he is the agent of change he will alienate one half of his party and if he suggests he is going to continue as Blair might have he will alienate the other half. He is the wrong man at the wrong time. If I was advising him I would say give it a rest Gordon and go for a UN or EU job; he doesn't have the same tainted background as Blair. And who knows; a couple of weak governments down the line and maybe Gordon's time will come.
Gordon to become PM, just because he and Tony struck a deal in the 'nineties... There's democracy for you!
Constitutional reform, devolution of powers from Whitehall, hmmm.
Surely he doesn't mean something that really matters like electoral reform so that in future minorities , say with only 36% of the vote aren't handed untrammelled authority over the 64% who voted against them?
Devolution of powers for the English from the Scottish mafia who run Whitehall and can force through measures in England which don't affect Scotland. Relief of the feudal tythes that Englishmen and women have to pay the Scots via the Barnet formula enabling social benefits to be so much better in Scotland than here.
Real democracy for the English........No? thought not.
His idea of devolution is setting up more Quangos eg the recently mooted NHS board so that politicians can abrogate responsibility and accountability whilst throwing vast amounts of taxpayers money into it. When it goes wrong its never the politicos poor strategy its the Quangos poor implimentation.
This man spends so much time looking at the microdetail of the leaf litter he can't see the trees let alone the wood. I just cant wait to see him at the dispatch box for PMQ's.
Nick,
Do you have anything to add to the Bloomberg story about Cherie Blair storming out of GB's speech accusing him of lying?
Its rather sad, but the reality is we live in an age dominated by image as opposed to substance. That is the reason Tony Blair succeeded, the reason Cameron is succeeding now and the reason Gordon will have a rough time. We may have the legislation in place to deal with discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of race gender sexuality and now age, where people must be appointed on the basis of their ability as opposed to their charm, but that legislation does not extend to the ballot box where prejudice and ignorance are permitted, even encouraged! So Gordon will have an uphill struggle endearing himself to the British people. But what is the alternative? A pitbull Stalinist or a turncoat trade unionist? Glad I'm not a member and don't have to choose!
Sorry, we've been here before!
Gordon will walk the leadership election and the next general election.
Most of the public will have their media-influenced desire for "change" satisfied with the end of Tony Blair. Come 2009/2010, Gordon Brown will be fighting the General Election as Mr Dependable/Boring/Delivery Man.
Exactly as John Major fought back from a truly vast opinion poll deficit in 1990, to win in 1992. He had as much charisma as a limp lettuce, but won the argument with policies and delivery.
If Brown had "it" would he not have been PM instead of Blair in '97 ?
He wasn't good enough then, and he certainly hasn't done anything to prove otherwise in his years at the treasury.
The fact that he acts as though he deserves to be PM by default is very distainful. That he wants it so much is exactly the reason he shouldnt be allowed it.
I don't think Gordon will get there - 2 coming interest rate rises and his "miracle economy" of debt, debt and more debt will be seen as the signal to get the tories back in and sort the economy out again. We only have a socialist government when we can afford one and we can't afford one any more.
an excellent speech. if people can get past their obsession with appearence they will see he is a great politican and will b a great leader of this country.
er, no.
Hi Nick, In my view John Reid would make a better all round PM than Gordon Brown. I would say John Reid has more experience due to holding high profile Cabinet Jobs like Health,Defence,Northern Ireland Sec posts, he also seems to come across more Diplomatic in difficult circumstances this has been clearly evident in the past few months with the uncovered Terrorist Plots and the recent Community Mtg in London regarding British values etc.. And let's not forget his open and honest approach to the select commitee when describing the condition of the 91Èȱ¬ Office. Also Reid would have the balls to stand up to GWB and put an end to this puppet relationship. In Comparison What's Gordy got to offer? We shall wait and see.
I'm no expert, but I really don't think this can be a simple handing over of the baton of leadership. Most of the coverage is saying "when" Brown takes over, not "if".
I think he's going to have some competition for the leadership, it's a chance to become PM afterall, and when does the favourite ever win a contest like that?
I've read today about a Poll which shows voters prefer John Reid to Brown. I'm sure Dr Reid has read that too....
I have read the GB speach (several times as I'm a bit thick) I found myself searching for clues. Surely an obsessive, psychologically flawed, loner would have left a few fingerprints. A flaw indicating a personality quirk. The odd hiccup. I didn't find any.
If television is the torture chamber then the last few weeks must have been like trial by fire for the Labour Party. What astounds me is the way that they have been let off the hook, save for perhaps a reasonable ding by Ming. The other lot havent really fired a shot of worth. British politics has failed its people by not coming up with a David for this Golioth scenario.
Just to end with are there any takers for a small wager that I bet Tony Blair will chuck in the towel tomorrow?...
I don't particularly like Gordon Brown and don't believe he has an exceptional record as chancellor (however I think letting the bank of england set interest rates was one of the best things this govt has done) but I do believe he will be a good labour Prime Minister. Thats not to say I will vote for him (when I can- not 18 yet) but that doesn't mean he won't make a good PM- at least he might have a bit more substance than Blair.
P.S. How are you liking the conference in Manchester Nick??
Nick,
Alastair Campbell just called you "that ridiculous person" on Channel 4 News n relation to your 91Èȱ¬ 6 o'clock report. Any comeback? Go on...
The question 'Has Gordon got it' should surely be more of an assessment of virtues such as Integrity, Honesty, Truthfulness and Leadership rather personality, appearance and soundbite - I believe these are a valid and necessary foundation for the debate on the new Labour Leader and ultimately Prime Minister.
Cherie Blair has clearly decided that anyone but Gordon will do - even if it's David Cameron.
What I find strange about politics is the impression I get that voters seem to want someone utterly ordinary to govern the country. Governing the country is surely not something any Tom, Dick or Harry can do.
Personally, I want the person for whom I vote to be extraordinary, to be excellent. I demand excellence from any party that supposes so much as to govern the country in which I live. Moreover, when a government takes my hard-earned money as tax, I demand transparency in how it is used and delivery in what it achieves. If a party or a politician falls short of these requirements, and my requirements seem to me to be very fair, I become offended.
And having been offended by lack of transparency and lack of delivery, the last thing I want to hear is emotive appeals about values and talk of aims. The gun ain't firing, son, stop talking about the aim already.
I tell you, these politicians have lost the plot entirely. They are a motley crew of charlatans and we the public, whom they suppose to represent, must take it upon ourselves to show our discontent. All, and I do mean all, of our political parties need to reconnect, not with 'the people' because that's just spin, but with what politics is supposed to be about, which is trying to run a country.
In some ways I feel sorry for GB, because TB wants to hand him the poisoned chalice of a party in disarray. Not only will have have a massive uphill struggle, he will also have to contend with things like being a Scottish MP in London when Scotland has its own Parliament. How could the electorate be happy with someone who presided over the wholesale destruction of million's of people's pensions, his unstinting support of TB's policies (particularly those involving our military) and his never-ending dour attitude?
Spare a thought for the comedians - they will have a field day with GB - he chomps his bottom jaw as if with ill-fitting dentures. Plus, GB has only ever been caught smiling twice - on the birth of his child and on being given an ice-cream by TB on the electrion trail.
What a disappointing speech from the potential leader in waiting.
US intelligence estimates indicate that US actions in the ME have increased terrorist activity, as expected. Brown sounds like he will live up to his name and stick to the rear-end of the US president. Nothing new to offer there.
No idea how to tackle globalisation. When will politicians make it clear that globalisation just means moving jobs to areas where the costs are minimised and in so doing maximising profits. Face facts boys, call centers didn't move to India because the workforce was able to provide a better service, they went there because it costs less.
The man has a plan for the NHS, yes indeed. Throw money at it and let someone else control how it is run. Actually that makes some sense!
So basically Blair leaves and "mini-me" takes over the reigns. I am not surprised that Brown relishes the idea of a contest against Cameron, we will have a man with nothing new to offer squaring off against a man who has nothing to offer - should be the kind of contest that compares favourably with watching paint dry.
The Labour Party has shot itself in both legs and feet. They have not learned from the mistakes made by the Conservatives when they removed Thatcher. All this infighting is going to carry on for some time, and if Brown is not made Prime Minister, that probably leaves even poorer choices. Why oh why can they just not sort things out in a mature manner, instead of apparently fighting to secure their own political future?
Im I the only person in Britain who is excited by the ascent of Gordon Brown? That Gordon Brown is uncorfortable smoozing with celebs and letting cameras pry into his personal life strikes me as a very good thing. The politics of spin and style under Blair inevitably lead to a polity based on lies and a culture of cynicism. Brown comes accross as a man who put himself in a position of power because he wanted to make a positive difference to British society- the intrusion this entails is endured not enjoyed. Brown can legitimately portray a race between himself and Cameron as a choice between style and substance- and after 9 years of Blair its a no brainer.
Gordon lift pensioners out of poverty?
His smash and grab on the pension funds was a major cause of the hole in the pension funds, and a key contributor to the demise of *many* final salary schemes.
He wants everyone to be a client of the *state*; so, they'll owe allegiance to their paymasters. The rise in benefits being paid to middle income families is just another facet in the centralising jewel that is our Gordon.
I can confidently predict that after Gordy's competant but lack lustre speech today, Tone will trump him tomorrow with one of his famous flights of hyperbolic fantasy.
It happens every year.
It's Guy of Gisbourne hitting the bulls-eye, then Robin Hood splitting his arrow.
I swear Tone loves this little charade each year - putting Gordy in his place !
It matters not a jot. In another week, it will all be forgotten, except by the political jornos.
BTW Nick, what did you say to so upset Alastair Campbell ?
Whatever it was, well done (wink smiley).
Am I the only one who thinks Gordon Brown's performance had just a whiff of the IDS "quiet man"?
He's probably destined for the same fate... particularly after the astonishing results of Frank Luntz's focus group for Newsnight.
Fantastic, hot on the heels of an executive untramelled by small details like an elected chamber when it comes to decision making, we now face having a Scottish PM elected by a population of Scots legislating on issues that dont even affect his constituency just the rest of the UK
This man has nothing but an over-inflated ego. Would be nice to see him disappear from the political scene before he does any more damage.
Isn't it amazing? Gordon can publicly claim that he is proud to be Scottish, but if I dare say that I am proud to be English I am somehow a small-minded nationalist! He was a major player in the Blair government which introduced devolution for Scotland (without giving the English who would be expected to pay for it any say in the matter). I now find that MP's like him, sitting for Scottish seats, can vote through top-up fees for English (not Scottish) students, foundation hospitals for England (but not Scotland), and a funding formula that gives Scotland (but not England) sufficent capacity to allow free personal care for the elderly without having to sell their homes. Many English voters now feel as though they are living under Scottish occupation. And he seriously expects the English to allow him the top job just because he now uses the word British?
Nothing in his speech showing any contrition for the destruction of pension funds through his taxation burden, yet he claims to support "hard-working families". Whose life savings did he think he was robbing?
He supports the "war on terror", but whose Treasury is it that has slashed military budgets in real terms, consistently called for more cuts still, and is now closing down the last dedicated military hospital while our forces are fighting in two seperate theatres and taking causalities in increasing numbers?
It has long been my belief that his real vocation was as a missionary in the third world. Nothing he has said leads me to change my mind.
GB for PM? Well why not. He can do sums, doesn't seem to drink too much, and doesn't drive. He's got kids, so wants the world be be ok for the next few decades .... The fact that he was born north of the English border doesn't really matter, as the executive is riddled with other, non-English Brits - and why not? His 'form' to date is pretty good - And he obviously loved his granny, to judge by the 'little extras' for the OAPs. He seems to care for the less fortunate both in these Isles and elsewhere, and I haven't heard a bellicose 'Brown' speech yet. So, on balance, he seems a nice guy and I think he's at least as well, if not substantially more, qualified than the present encumbent. I wish him luck.
So Gordon believes "in duty, responsibility and respect for others, honesty and hard work and that things that matter have to be worked for".
So why stealth taxes? Why repeat over and over new investments but fail to mention new taxes? Why move people out of self reliance onto benefits? Why penalise hard working people who try to save for their future?
Sorry, I don't believe a word Gordon says. What he really believes in is Power and that's why he should never be Prime Minister.
And am I the only one that remembers Labour doing really badly in the polls at the last election till Blair relented and had his picture taken with Brown and effectively said, "vote for me and you get him soon"? And lo and behold, Labour pick up in the polls.
What's all this business about Blair handing Brown the baton? I'd say it was the other way round.
I feel sorry for him - it's a job that he has invested his life in pursuing. When he gets it, he will only get it by default and will lose it come the next general election.
Personality rules! If anyone fails to realise this, they should look at the Tories - they have not changed one bit, they still have a rank and file membership that can be described as 'weird' at best - yet, their fortunes have been revived due to Cameron. If such a positive reversal of fortune is possible through the appointment of one man, then it follows that the appointment of one man can also have a negative effect. So, by electing Brown, Labour are choosing to lose the next general election.
Mainstream Labour members no doubt love Brown - but they have to realise that he is not loved by the electorate - and that, in British politics, is all that matters at election time.
The last thing I want is a Tory govt - but I am starting to think that I almost abhor a Brown govt as much.
Andy 36
There's nothing wrong with having a Scottish PM. There just would be everything wrong with having Gordon Brown - anywhere. I don't think the man can be trusted. I am Scottish but I never heard this much griping when we had English PMs for years.
Um, No, I don't think that the tax-a-holic social engineering scot can be PM when decisions he makes might not affect his own Constituency.
Yes, I think Gordon Brown will make an excellent Prime Minister. I am disappointed that he appears to support Tony Blair on his decision over Iraq, but even so, I think he will by dint of his nature prove less keen on going to war as a means to an end than Blair and, although an Atlanticist, I think again, that his much derided 'dour' personality will mean that he is much less likely to cosy up to an American President in the embarrassingly uncritical way Blair appears to have done. Also, I believe that his style will be less presidential than Blair's. I think Blair sometimes forgot that he was 'merely' the leader of the party in power and not someone chosen directly by the electorate. If Gordon holds to his intention to devolve more power to Parliament and to re-instate collegiate cabinet meetings (I understand Blair held relatively few cabinet meetings and they were generally short)he will do very well as Prime Minister. Charisma and an ability to act are great qualities to have, but we should know by now that they don't always deliver substance.
You ask "Has Gordon got it"
Of course he's got it "It's called POISON"
The species is
"Sanctimonious Viper"
The mere fact that this dicussion is occouring is adequate proof he hasn't got 'it'. We never feel to ask this question of Blair or Cameron. He's probably the unstoppable leader of the next opposition party.
I think Gordon Brown is a clever politician who's done a commendable job as Chancellor. I do however struggle with his personality but most of all I'm not at all comfortable with a Scottish MP representing a Scottish constituency becoming Prime Minister of the English parliament.I'd like to see the West Lothian question debated again during the coming leadership contest. As one of the many englishmen working in Scotland I am in no doubt that this situation would be unthinkable in the Scottish parliament, indeed most parts of Scotland wouldn't entertain an englishman as an MSP. I believe that residents of Scotland already enjoy greater financial support per capita than south of the border and in a number of areas individuals are considerably better off....tuition fees, care for the elderly etc. For an MP in Scotland to lead the cabinet in Westminster could only lead to further imbalance in my view.
Been too busy working and bringing up my family of three kids to even follow more than snippets of politics which I used to read in-depth and follow passionately on Radio and TV from about the time of the Viet Cong offensive in the late 1960's until about the mid-1980's (Miners' Strike etc) Life without a newspaper can go on!
However, I am truly mystified as why Gordon Brown has not been subject to in-depth and regular villification by his political opponents over the Government's decision to sell off the UK's Gold Reserves a few years ago.
I genuinely cannot believe the crassness in which Brown announced to the market that he was going to follow this policy - i.e. increasing supply and depressing demand hence a smaller price obtained. I really would be most grateful if anyone of any political persuasion can enlighten me as to why this was a "Good Idea" when my view at that time , based on what I read and saw on TV - was this was criminal incompetence which, had its equivalent taken place in a PLC in the private sector, would have led to potential Disqualifiaction as A Director under the Companies Act?
Can someone please, please enlighten me on the justification (politically , economically or otherwise)for what seems to me to be a very poorly managed sale of a national asset.
God knows, the PFI initiative for Schools etc is shockingly bad and will ensure LA's etc are in a state of perpetual crisis for next decade or so
Further to my recent post re selling of Gold by Brown etc in 1999, I checked the price then - $281 dollars
Last night's price was nearer $600
It seems to me that the entire sale (even with New Labour's mauch vaunted stable economy etc) has cost the UK in very simple terms as follows:
Current Price less Sale Price = Loss (adjusted for inflation)
How can anyone defend this action of the Government? And does this bode well for the UK as a whole if Gordon Brown becomes PM?
I think he should be judged on his record - including instances such as this. Surely, that's being air minded?
At this time no doubt about it,Gordon Brown has delivered the lowest interest rates and highest employment ever,more doctors and nurses,more teachers,more police,there is no doubt G.B. has already made the history books as the best chancellor to date.So will he cut the mustard and get the big cheese,well politics is about deception and timely events.Lets just look at one possibility,if Blair holds on till may next year,Brown will have to distance himself from Blair,especially in the run up to the Scottish and Welsh elections,this alone will cause the type of friction that will separate the Blairites and Brownites, "THUS SPLITTING THE VOTES OF POTENTIAL LEADERS " and the probability of a long drawn out contest,which in turn will divide the labour vote."TIME AND TIMELY EVENTS THATS MY ADVICE!"
I have just read the other postings. For the first time that I can recall someone has mentioned GB ruining the Pension system. Anyone who is party to the wringing of hands over the state of Pensions and was directly reponsible for the demise of so many Schemes is definitely not fit to be PM. Does anyone remember 2 Jags ruining Liverpool? I would never vote Labour despite the poor Opposition and I believe the in -fighting in Labour will at last cook their goose.
Gordon Brown could offer free beer to the electorate and he still wouldn't be popular simply becuase has has no charisma or personality and most importantly he's scottish.
I would never in a million years vote for a Prime Minister of England who isn't English.
So what on earth is the labour party thinking? Are they mad?
What's "it" an English accent?
Not one political party has any oomph to make a difference, the people who run them are not passionate about this country and probably never will be.
The only way to sort this country is to replace the present taxation madness, VAT, NI Contributions, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, Corporation Tax, Business Tax, Road Tax etc etc etc with a simple Sales Tax. Somthing that is easily administered, easily collectable, little room for fraud and provides everyone with an ability to live without the burden of administration in their daily lives.
Why don't the media ask the right questions of GB, TB or DC? What is any of there policies without the fundementals being sorted?
Sam said: "I would never in a million years vote for a Prime Minister of England who isn't English."
Um, you aren't being asked to vote for a Prime Minister of England. You're being asked to vote for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Blairism has failed and Brown has been a silent & complicite partner in its failure.He is seen by some as the most successful Chancellor in history. On the contrary, he is seen by millions as "the most successful burglar in history" since his 1997 smash and grab raid of £5 billion pounds annually from private and company pension funds.He will not be allowed to forget it.
Brown along with other champagne socialists have run their course.His promotion of the Govt using central power to control has failed because their aspirations have been superseeded by self serving interests.It is hardly credible to believe he did not known of other 'dark secrets' within No10 and his silence over the true reasons why he let Blair con us into war with Iraq. He is a self-serving individual that I would not trust with the Prime Ministerialship of Britain.
If Gordon Brown reduced duty on wine and tobacco to below the level of Belgium.
He would
(a) Become the most popular person in the history of British politics.
(b) Stop Tobacco smuggling at a stroke, saving untold millions on Customs inspectors.
(c) Generate a huge tourism boost TO the UK ..
or have I got that totally wrong ?
I have to say that whilst Brown may not be ideal he is at lease a serious politician who has clear ideas of how to manage a budget and run a country. What are the alternatives - a smiling play actor in Cameron or a Liberal non-entity in Campbell? I don't think there is any competition and I cannot believe that Brown is being criticised for being too serious looking or too harsh - running UK PLC is a serious job and I for one know who I'd prefer at the helm!