Mr Brown can't play within a team, can't pick a team and can't manage a team

One good way of judging any leader is the quality of their appointments.  All of Brown's big appointments are looking suspect.

Most of his 'big tent picks' are backfiring:

• Alan West disagrees with the Government's detention-without-trial plans (before u-turning).
• Lord (Digby) Jones won't take the Labour whip and has failed to vote in 22 of 23 divisions since he was enobled.
• The Spectator reveals that Mr Brown is himself regretting appointing Lord Malloch-Brown to the Foreign Office.

More significant are the failings of Mr Brown's most senior appointments...

• Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has had a terrible fortnight.  David Davis humiliated her in the Commons last week and this week her stock fell further after her attempts to cover-up the extent to which illegal immigrants had been cleared for security jobs were revealed.  In today's Daily Mail Amanda Platell concludes that Ms Smith has no real intellect, courage or integrity.  Brown is desperate to keep The Mail onside and will worry at Ms Platell's judgment.  She is seen as a growing influence on Editor Paul Dacre's thinking.
• Chancellor Alistair Darling has introduced changes to Capital Gains Tax that have upset entrepreneurs in every corner of Britain.  He has even upset leading Brown donor, Sir Ronald Cohen.  Sir Ronald has called for a change of policy.  A deeper problem for Mr Darling is Northern Rock.  Vince Cable asked the right questions at PMQs on Wednesday.  The scale of taxpayer lending to this troubled bank is worryingly high.
• Foreign Secretary David Miliband had to suffer scorn from his own benches during his poor performance in Monday's foreign affairs speech.  In the last twenty four hours he has had to suffer the humilation of Downing Street briefing against him (Martin Kettle writes about it here).  Milibandites are, in turn, suspected of briefing against Malloch Brown to The Spectator.

Mr Brown can neither pick a good team nor manage one.  Peter Oborne writes about Mr Brown's reluctance to seriously back ministers in trouble (Jacqui Smith this week), his eagerness to steal their most high profile work (his decision to give Wednesday's terror plans statement) and his pampering of favoured colleagues (Ed Balls).  Oborne's conclusion:

"[Gordon Brown] was always extremely divisive in Cabinet. He concentrated only on his own successes, and always gave the impression that he did not take pleasure in the achievements of others, even when they benefited the Government.  This narrow and ruthlessly selfish attitude can carry a man or woman right to the top in politics.  But once the summit has been reached, such characteristics undermine those qualities needed for successful leadership.  I very much hope this is not the case with Gordon Brown, but there are some worrying signs. One thing is, however, quite certain.  If he is to restore his increasingly fragile and battered premiership, then he must attend as a matter of extreme urgency to his deeply flawed methods of man management."

Comments

[Kevin Davis]

I could never have believed that this appalling man would have his premiership fall apart so quickly.

[greg]

Am I the only one who shudders at the thought that "[Amanda Platell] is seen as a growing influence on Editor Paul Dacre's thinking"?

On anyone's thinking, come to think of it.

[Daniel Kawczynski MP]

The problem that Mr Milliband has come be summed up in one word- arrogance. When he was DEFRA Secretary I took some farming representatives to see him in my capacity as Chairman of the All Party Dairy group. We were treated as a distraction rather than a potential source of helpful information and assistance to problem solving.

[Daniel Kawczynski MP]

The problem that Mr Milliband has can be summed up in one word- arrogance. When he was DEFRA Secretary I took some farming representatives to see him in my capacity as Chairman of the All Party Dairy group. We were treated as a distraction rather than a potential source of helpful information and assistance to problem solving.

[Iain]

Peter Oborne did a program on Channel 4 which took a look at Brown's character flaws before he crowned himself Prime Minister. Pretty much every point Oborne raised has been shown to be on the money.

The salient points of his program pointed out that Brown is someone who nurses grudges, nurses grudges for 10 years or more.

Who is petty and vindictive, he wouldn't supply discussion papers to Blair.

Who is indecisive, sitting on issues for months and months.

Who isn't big enough to admit error, for while he will take the plaudits for policies when announced, he disappears when they go wrong. Like tax credits, where he basked in the applause to start them, yet left his minions to take the flak when they went wrong.

Whose ego needs nursing, so much so that other departments, in order to get stuff done, had to let Gordon Brown take the praise.

He is plain rude, senior officials were left hanging around the Treasury corridor hoping to catch a word with Secretaries etc to find out what he was thinking on issues, for nothing was coming from him or his eight close associates.

Who is so controlling, he doesn’t even negotiate with the Government department which is going to be effected. Maff only found out what budget they were going to get when he announced it, prior to that they had no discussion with him.

Who is crippled by over bearing arrogance. The only point of view is his point of view. He went to the EU for a finance ministers meeting, here he read his piece, then took off his headphones and didn't listen to other views, then at the end he was asked to comment, he then picked up his paper and re read his opening comments, the other ministers thought he was a joke.

Is a bully, so surrounds himself with juniors

He is tribalistic. He ranted at the Scotsman's editor who did a poll of Scottish MP's to see who they preferred, Blair or him, they preferred Blair, which Brown couldn't accept. If he sees Scotland as his own personal fiefdom, how is he possibly going to deal with England where he will have to set policy.

[HF]

I agree with the article that Brown has a Govt Of All The Incompetents (GOATI). There are a number of factors coming together which have caused this.
1. Brown's preference for accolytes rather than than individuals. His Stalinist trait.
2. Brown's inability to take proper rest breaks leads to irritability and tense relationships with those outside his accolytes. He drives away talent.
3. His inability to delegate frustrates his Ministers and civil servants.
4. Brown has been in control of domestic spending of Govt for 10 years and has rode roughshod over many Labour ministers who just will not serve in his Govt.
5. This is their third term and the normal attrition rate of the able ministers has reduced the Labour talent pool.
6. AWS in Labour dramatically improved the female ratio but had the result that females found it easier to become an MP than their male equivalents who made up the majority of candidates. Brown's "talent pool" is bare.

[David Belchamber]

Does Gordon Brown exemplify the Peter Principle? "In a hierarchy, employees tend to rise to the level of their incompetence".

[Tony Makara]

The current cabinet, the Gordon Brown cabinet, is probably the lowest calibre cabinet our country has ever had. Jacqui Smith is completely out of her depth and Amanda Platell gets to the core of the problem when she says that Jacqui Smith lacks intellect. She is mediocre, not cabinet material, certainly not home secretary material. Just compare Jacqui Smith with some of the giants who have held her position in the pre-Blair years and we see how woefully inferior she is. Clearly all those years of smith enjoying spliff has softened her brain.

As for Milliband, again yet another example of a pseudo-intellectual pigmy in giants clothing. Milliband's recent comments about enlarging the EU to the furthest corners of the globe show the boy's naiviety. Whenever I see Milliband being interviewed or grilled in the house he looks to be groping around for a clever retort but is unable to conjure one.

These third-rate appointments tell us much about the judgment of Gordon Brown. A man who wants to surround himself with yes-men. A prime minister afraid to appoint anyone who might have the intellectual weight to shine and ultimately offer an alternative to his blundering leadership. This really is the worst cabinet ever.

[Iain]

"This is their third term and the normal attrition rate of the able ministers has reduced the Labour talent pool."

HF not to the extent to which it is reflected in the Brown Cabinet of nobodies, that I feel is in large part due to his character flaws, and his need to surround himself with juniors he can bully, for even if he realised he had a dearth of talent to work with, you might have thought he would give them as much support as possible, instead what we have seen is Brown going out of his way to sabotage their positions and humiliate them. He wrote Darlings budget. He gave Jacqui Smith a security bill, but she is waiting for him to tell her how many days pre-charge detention she should be pitching for, and Brown muscled in and made the Commons announcement, finnally Miliband, humiliatingly had his speech ripped up before the worlds media.

[Annabel Herriott]

David!(10.27) You are right on the money here. You are the first person I know who has a copy of the Peter Principle besides me. It should be required reading, and it should be reprinted. I dare not lend out my copy in case I dont get it back.

[Richard Woolley]

As Margaret Thatcher once said about Michael Heseltine, 'He's not a team player let alone a team captain'. The same is true about Gordon Brown. The psychological flaws which people said would make him unsuitable for the premiership have started to come to the surface since his honeymoon period.
Peter Oborne's article in the Daily Mail is broadly correct except on one thing. Was he really impressive when he was in Blair's cabinet? A Chancellor who hindered the competitiveness of British industry, turned a 20 billion budget surplus into a 30 billion pound deficit, introduced 100 stealth taxes, tried to block public sector reform, mis-sold gold, wrecked private pensions, squandered billions on expensive flops such as the New Deal, Sure Start and Tax Credits, presided over massive debt with PFIs can hardly be seen as impressive.

[Norwegian Conservative]

I find it quite extraordinary, that the Tory Shadow Cabinet looks more like a real Cabinet than the actuall governenment of Mr.Brown

[Tony Makara]

Richard Woolley, you are right. There is great intellectual poverty among the higher tier of the Labour party. Tony Blair was a very skilled political operator, but he was no intellectual. Gordon Brown was said to be the man with the big ideas, but that is clearly not true now that we have seen Brown having to resort to recycling old policies and promises. The Labour party's intellectual think-tank is empty, and there is no-one to fill it. Something interesting that I keep hearing from Labour supporters is "Maybe we need a time in opposition to redevelop our thinking" This is very true for labour as it reflects the reactive nature of the Labour party. They are better as an opposition party, reacting to and bouncing off ready made events. Yet when in office they can no longer be reactive, they have to do the running, to be proactive, and they are unable to do that.

[Iain]

"Maybe we need a time in opposition to redevelop our thinking"

Yes, there are times when Governments run out of steam, and this Labour one has not only run out of steam but hit the buffers. The Americans have it right when they put a limit on the time and Executive has in office, two terms, no more.

As an aside, I get pretty cross at media presenters accepting the Brown line that he needs time to lay out his vision. The time to lay out a vision is in an election, that's what they are there for, so that the electorate can look at the competing visions and vote for the one they like. What Brown is giving us is his vision whether we like it or not, without any mandate to do so!

[Bruce Bould]

Oh come on people, enough hyperbole.

There are some able ministers, and some less able ones - like every cabinet in history.

Platell's column is just spiteful re Jacqui Smith. The current fracas is hardly on a par with previous Home Office debacles - Clarke, Blunkett, dare I say even M.Howard and his Derek Lewis moment?

This really is the worst cabinet ever.

If you think that, you really are ignorant of political history. Even keeping it relatively modern (i.e. in the last century), how about Bonar Law's "Cabinet of the Second Eleven", as Birkenhead labelled them? Or the National Government cabinets of the 1930s - some shockingly bad ministers in those ones. Many, tho not all, Conservatives...

[Curly]

The ship is rudderless, and the captain will see it drifting in stormy seas and break up upon the obstacle that was Northern Rock - mark my words!

[Iain]

"There are some able ministers, and some less able ones - like every cabinet in history."

Well the three most senior ones, Darling, Smith and Miliband, are about as light weight as we have ever seen, and if that's not bad enough, Brown has gone out of his way to sabotage them.

But please would you care to enlighten us with examples of this Government of the talents?

[strapworld]

I have found Oborne's articles to be like watching someone licking boots! He is desperate to say good things about Brown whilst damning him with not so faint accusations. No doubt he is under the care of Dacre..WILL HE BE CHOPPED SOON??

As for Brown. He talks big but he is a coward. The test will be Iran. IF the USA decides on Military Action - even as suggested in the Mail the Atom Bomb!! God forbid, - watch Brown. IF you can see him. He will be upstairs collecting fares, as we used to say about people not willing to be in the action!

Did you note that he has joined Cameron (according to The SUN and it is that paper that does it- as we all know!) in supporting the Sun's crusade for our hero's - The armed Services.
What a craven double faced liar Brown is. Denies them the equipment and salaries when Chancellor and now acts as if nobody will remember. He is an absolute disgrace.

Northern Rock and the selling off of our Gold Reserves should never be forgotten.

Bring back Blair.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce Bould, whilst I concur over David Blunkett, who is probably the most ridiculous person ever to have served in a cabinet and was laughingly considered a potential Labour leader!, I might disagree with your historical comparison. I would bet my life that ministers in those days were intellectually superior to the floundering cabinet of today.

The problem Labour face is that they have no thinkers, no-one to stand back, take stock, and actually assess a given situation. It is precisely because of this that they react to every situation with overkill and never pay much attention to the long-term consequences. The recent fiasco over Northern Rock being a fine example, Alistair Darling's knee-jerk reaction was a stop-gap measure, and reflects perfectly the sort of elastoplast politics that we have come to expect from the Labour government.

[strapworld]

I have found Oborne's articles to be like watching someone licking boots! He is desperate to say good things about Brown whilst damning him with not so faint accusations. No doubt he is under the care of Dacre..WILL HE BE CHOPPED SOON??

As for Brown. He talks big but he is a coward. The test will be Iran. IF the USA decides on Military Action - even as suggested in the Mail the Atom Bomb!! God forbid, - watch Brown. IF you can see him. He will be upstairs collecting fares, as we used to say about people not willing to be in the action!

Did you note that he has joined Cameron (according to The SUN and it is that paper that does it- as we all know!) in supporting the Sun's crusade for our hero's - The armed Services.
What a craven double faced liar Brown is. Denies them the equipment and salaries when Chancellor and now acts as if nobody will remember. He is an absolute disgrace.

Northern Rock and the selling off of our Gold Reserves should never be forgotten.

Bring back Blair.

[HF]

Iain I agree that Brown has made matters infinitely worse. But whoever was their Leader would suffer from the problems of a third term.

In the USA it is noticeable that the 2nd term team is much weaker than the first. Partly through attrition but also because some of the talent jumps ship into private work before the end.

[HF]

On the issue of intellect, that cannot be true as many of them went to top universities. I suggest it is life experience that is lacking in this cabinet.

How can teaching Economics prepare you to be Home Secy? Vs David Davis management career in Business?

[Bruce Bould]

please would you care to enlighten us with examples of this Government of the talents?

OK - people I think are able ministers in the current cabinet? Jack Straw, Hilary Benn, John Denham stand out for me. John Hutton and Alan Johnson seem to be doing ok. I also think Jacqui Smith, when she gets past this squall, could surprise you all. She's a tough woman.

I would bet my life that ministers in those days were intellectually superior to the floundering cabinet of today.
Well, a difficult line to prove either way really.

However, if you want my views, recent as these people are in office I would not yet put any of them as the "worst in my lifetime" holder of each job.

"Worst I've known recently" accolades would go to:

Chancellor: 1st - Lamont. 2nd - Major
Foreign Sec: 1st - Major. 2nd - Beckett
Home Sec: 1st - Waddington. 2nd - jointly won by Baker and Blunkett. 3rd - Reid.

[Tony Makara]

HF, I can't agree that going to a top university automatically qualifies someone as an intellectual. However I do agree on the subject of life experience. No person should ever become chancellor without real hands-on experience of economics, the ideal person should either have come from the world of business or have studied economics at the highest level. A major failure with cabinets is that they don't job-match, instead they engage in a continual round of musical chairs with some ministers getting a senior position in government because it is simply 'Their turn'.

[Paul Kennedy]

And before too long, the team might well decide that they don't want Mr Brown on the team......and that the previous captain wasn't that bad afterall. ;) :D

[D]

Tony, how I agree with you @ 12.21:

"However I do agree on the subject of life experience. No person should ever become chancellor without real hands-on experience of economics, the ideal person should either have come from the world of business or have studied economics at the highest level".

This is why I promote John Redwood; not to everyone's liking as a personality perhaps, but a real businessman and a Fellow of All Souls, I believe. We need just one or two other people in the shadow cabinet with greater experience and maturity to balance the young guard - who are showing themselves to be immensely promising and far more impressive than the retreads in Brown's government.
Annabel, glad you enjoyed the Peter Principle.

[Bruce Bould]

I do agree on the subject of life experience. No person should ever become chancellor without real hands-on experience of economics

Er, how does Osborne fit in with this? Appointed shadow chancellor by Howard at the ludicrously young age of 33? And Cameron, Leader at 38 having been in the shadow cabinet less than 6 months and in parliament less than 5 years?

This above all weakens any Tory charge of youth and inexperience against Miliband et al.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce Bould, you can't possibly argue that David Cameron isn't an intellectual? Especially considering the way he shows great analytical skill in dissecting given situations and constructing viable solutions?. David Cameron's entire approach to politics is based on hard analysis and realistic resolutions. George Osborne has already proven that he is way ahead in terms of out-thinking Labour and he completely knocked Labour out of kilter with his proposals on IHT. The fact that Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have risen so quickly is a reflection of their pedigree.

[Tony Makara]

D, yes, John Redwood's diary is one of the best blogs online and one of the few that regularly tackles the complexities of macroeconomics. As you say John's grounding in economics makes him a vital asset.

[Bruce Bould]

Come on Tony, you're shifting your arguments to suit your case. So life experience is vital, but not in the case of Cameron and Osborne because they've proved themselves intellectually?

Anyway, you think Cameron's an intellectual, others will disagree. There's no right or wrong answer. Gordon Brown is an intellectual by most standard criteria - PhD, widely-read, delivering stern lectures on philosphical subjects such as On Liberty - but there are plenty of people on these boards who would argue that he's not an intellectual, indeed that he's a fool.

BTW - I agree with your point in too-frequent cabinet reshuffles resulting in poor job match and "buggin's turn" portfolio allocation. Reshuffle mania was started by Wilson to address short term political problems, and brought to an art form by Thatcher and Blair. Brown has actually said he wants to leave everyone in post until the election - refreshing, no?

[John Leonard]

This is all pure speculation but I always thought that Brown put Smith in charge of the Home office because of the following:

1) She is expendable.
2) No one else was fool enough to take the poison chalice of the Home Office.
3) It didn't matter if she fouled up because Brown was going to have an early election and he could replace her in the victory reshuffle (of course this is not going to happen)
4) If she did foul up with a bit of luck Smith might even lose her seat.

As for Milliband (D) I thought his appointment was for the following reasons.

1) Brown had to offer Milliband something decent to stop Milliband from running against him.

2) Foreign was also a poisoned chalice (EU, Iraq, Iran etc.) and Milliband could possibly screw it up and leave himself open for replacement after the early election victory. in any case there is a suggestion that Foreign policy is not 'Gordon's Passion'.

3) To Brown having got his own mandate Milliband would have carried far less significance and could be moved.

4) If all else failed Brown could step in and get his people to start briefing against Milliband (as seems to be happening now).

I suspect both would have been replaced by Brown men (say Ed Balls to the Home Office and Alexander to the Foreign Office?).

Unfortunately Gordon miscalculated.

1) He bottled the election
2) He's now seemingly stuck with Smith and Milliband.
3) His own people are increasingly being discredited with Darling identified for what he always was - Brown's puppet.

There may be some half decent Ministers but those that are, are not 'Brown people' or seen to be significant players (not even Johnson).

So now what does Brown do? To remove any of the three puts another question mark against his judgement and would be another blow for his Government.

It doesn't look good for Brown. Two years to go and potentially unwanted or lame duck ministers in all three senior ministerial posts. A fairly easy target for the Conservatives to aim at and a potential moral destroyer for the Labour back benches.

I think we are in for interesting times!

[Tony Makara]

Bruce Bould, Gordon Brown is too rooted in statist ideology to ever have the freedom of mind to be an intellectual. Gordon Brown is typical of a person who thinks in blocks, in black and white, with little room for fine-tuning. I had to smile at the idea of Gordon Brown lecturing people on the finer points of 'On liberty'. Pure paradox!

On the subject of cabinet re-shuffles, the Labour government have largely used these to make it more difficult to pin blame where blame is due. A revolving door of failure. I doubt if Brown will leave the cabinet unmolested until the next election. There are clear cases of ministers failing and commonsense dictates that Brown will have to remove the chaff eventually.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I think the comments re Brown are correct.It's still possibly too early to say whether Smith and Milliband will turn out to be the worst ever Home and Foreign Secs.Even though neither have begun promisingly and Milliband's speech this week was truly awful.
Bruce Bould, Major did virtually nothing during his very brief time as Foreign Sec so rating him as a worst ever is ludicrous.

[Oliver Arthurs]

"Bruce Bould, Major did virtually nothing during his very brief time as Foreign Sec so rating him as a worst ever is ludicrous."

Both wrong. Firstly, he was clearly not the worst ever. Secondly, he did virtually nothing, did he? If you actually take a look into the achievements of Major's time at the FCO, there's a strong argument that he was the best Foreign Secretary of all time.

[Bruce Bould]

Major did virtually nothing during his very brief time as Foreign Sec so rating him as a worst ever is ludicrous

I didn't say he was the worst Foreign Secretary ever, merely the worst in recent years. Lord Halifax and George Brown are two obvious examples from the last century who might pip him to that accolade.

However, nice man though Major is, he was overpromoted beyond his abilities - his niche was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and he (and we) would have been better if he'd stayed there. He was out of his depth as Foreign Secretary just as, more seriously, he was as Prime Minister.

[Northernhousewife]

I remember a commentator [Portillo?] stating after the last election that the Tory party would need another election to restock the benches with more talent. At the time, I thought he had a point but not now. I don't think he thinks it anymore either.
The leadership contest surprised everyone with the display of depth. The Lib Dems are disappointed that their contest can't emulate it.

Team Cameron have been on a steep learning curve - but they have LEARNT from it and showed courage.
Cameron is not afraid of his team shining. He welcomes it with the confidence of someone who expects the best from them. If you can't show some loyality and faith in your team, why should they give it to you?

"Team" Brown are a microcosm of all that is wrong with Labour's education policy - where there is talent, intellect or independent thought, it is stifled by top down control and made into a one-size fits all. The PM looks for the same "qualities" in his ministers, regardless of the position they hold, namely "They hold my line, defend me - look just competent enough and a shadow of me".
He needs to ensure that collectively, his Cabinet do not have enough vertibrae to muster a backbone. It does not leave him much room for manoeuvre or the country the direction it needs.
The result of these contrasting headships is that one team is ready to take on the jobs for which they have trained in the happy knowlegde that their leader will be supportive where it is right and reasonable to do so and the other needs the benefit of its own NEW DEAL .

[Tony Makara]

Northernhousewife, yes, the cabinet today do seem to be very much the supporting acts in the Gordon Brown roadshow. Not a single one of them looks as if they could step forward and take over if Gordon Brown were ever to step down for ant reason. Labour have been so locked into the concept of Blair/Brown that they have no-one up and coming through the ranks.

As you rightly say, team Cameron has been tested, has been through stormy waters, and have proven its worth. During the time of the Brown bounce there was a lot of pressure on David Cameron but he didn't buckle and showed his steadfast strengths as a leader.

When David Cameron spoke of the whiff of decay coming from the Labour government he articulated the problem that besets Labour. It is a dead government, a zombie government, rotten and stumbling around with no sense of direction.

[M Dowding]

Has anyone sen how deserted the "labourhome" web site is? Spookily empty!!

[John Leonard]

New Poll

Sunday Times/ Yougov

Con: 41 (-)
Lab: 35 (-3)
Libdem: 13 (+2)

Browns personal ratings dropping rapidly. In this poll personal rating is -10

Metro report of poll

[Patsy Sergeant]

HF @ 12.08 - Perhaps this cabinet is lacking both life experience AND intellectual capacity!

Last Sunday my youngest grandson, just 5yrs, asked his mother while she was driving on a longish journey -- 'Mummy, is the future real?' and a few minutes later, -- 'Where does it live' !!!! He has just started at a STATE primary school. But apart from that I can't imagine anybody in this cabinet having has that sort of mental capacity at that age!!!

Another thought, Mr. Brown may not be the most popular man in town these days, and even with his own party, but as a man with immense CONVICTION, he will be convinced that if he goes on long enough, bulldozing ahead with his convictions, that in the end he WILL become popular, and that the public WILL see everything from his point of view. AND NOTHING WILL SHAKE HIM FROM THAT CONVICTION!!

[Oberon Houston]

Guys, Peter Obourne is taking his que from Tom Bower's excellent biography of Brown, as everyone should, except the BBC who would consider criticism of the guy too risky (hyphenated please). Tom Bowers biography is truly excellent, and anyone who hasn't read it must make the effort. The book is ahead of any history of the man, absolutely compelling. On Brown himself, I don't actually think the guy knows himself what it is he should be trying to do. He is Prime Minister of Great Britain and finding himself in a job that is completely unsuited to him, its incredible, to me.

[Ted]

Agree with Oberon - Brown is unchanged and apart from getting the office doesn't really know what he wants to do with it.

However - The most important thing to recognise about Brown is he must be kept away from sporting events - he watched England, Rugby World Cup lost, watched Scotland, Scotland out of Euro 2008. Keep him away from Wembley!

[Scotty]

Oberon, anyone who has read Tom Bower's book should not be surprised at the unfolding of events since Brown's move into No10. That insightful biography should have convinced most people that Brown would bottle the Autumn GE.

Ted, Brown is a sporting jinx and my heart sank when I saw him turn up for the match!

[Ted]

Scotty - he's the Curse of Kirkcaldy! Hope he realises it's entirely his fault Scotland aren't in the finals. Note he wasn't around last week when Glasgow got the Games though he tried to associate with it once they had won.

[Northernhousewife]

Ted/M Dowding
Please,please stop posting on old polls sites!!!!! You gave me a fright. I choked on my wine.

[Ted]

Northernhousewife - it's only a week old! Fun to point out that the hopes of Labour last Sunday are dashed already.

[Bruce Bould]

Not a single one of them looks as if they could step forward and take over if Gordon Brown were ever to step down for any reason.

This is just wishful thinking I'm afraid. Jack Straw would be perfectly capable of stepping into the breach in an emergency - he's certainly more experienced/qualified than anyone in the current shadow cabinet.

I wouldn't be surprised if Alan Johnson and Hilary Benn challenge for the leadership next time either, especially if a chance comes unxpectedly in the next year or two - both are competent ministers who are generally respected on both sides of the House.

I'm no cheerleader for the Labour party - not at all - but I don't see the point of slagging off the intellectual capabilities of the cabinet, other than to make you all feel better. Harold Wilson's cabinet in the 1960s was crammed with Oxbridge firsts, more than any since, but it's not exactly remembered as one of the great successful governments is it?

[Scotty]

"he's the Curse of Kirkcaldy!"
Ted, its payback for his less than credible claim that Gascoigne's goal against Scotland was his all time favourite! I mean what *honest* Scot is going to choose that one above this goal?

[Oberon Houston]

Scotty: Yes, my heart dropped when I saw the camera watching him making for the padded seats.

What a show though, and that dour B****d was studiously ignored after the build-up, probably as previously agreed, if we lost, with Murdoch, in return for 10,000 troops in Iraq until June 08. Paranoid?

Question.
On the day we declaired war with Iraq, how many calls did Murdosch make to Blair in private at No. 10?

Answer:
4.

[Ted]

Oberon

After Brown bottled it he had breakfast with Murdoch. Murdoch then called Cameron to "hastily arrange" dinner. The Sun has since been more and more anti-Brown. The Sunday Times also. The Times is comparing Brown against Blair and finding him wanting. Cameron hasn't had to court Murdoch, but the Murdoch Nu Labour love-in is most probably over.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce Bould, I wouldn't put too much faith in Jack Straw. He would hardly be good for community relations, he is lucky to still have his seat. Actually, the fact that you mention Benn is interesting. He seems to be good at keeping his head down and getting on with the job and would certainly appeal to many in the Labour ranks as a compromise candidate in any leadership contest. I can't see a future leader coming from the female side of the party. Ruth Kelly has tripped up too many times to be credible and Yvette Cooper, though a very doughty fighter, is a little bit too overbearing to have a wide enough appeal to lead. Either way Labour can look forward to several back-to-back periods of opposition after they lose power.

As ever the Labour party finds it difficult to produce leaders with the gravitas needed to be prime minister. John Smith certainly would have become prime minister and people often forget that Tony Blair had circumstances his favour after the passing of Mr Smith. One thing the Labour party does lack these days is conviction politicians, there seem to be no more Barbara Castle's, Peter Shore's or Eric Heffer's. The Labour party would need to change direction to get its passion back, currently the party only appeals to grubbing career-politicans.

[Annabel Herriott]

Oberon at 20.06 and Ted at 20.43 You both have "got it!" That's it. The job.That is ALL!! It's like the dog chasing cars. It wouldnt quite know what to do with one if it ever caught one. Thats why Macavity disappears all the time. I've said before. GB is an old Queen who is better ruling from behind the throne, sniping and snarling at her enemies. Put her ON the throne, and shes lost it.

[Ted]

Tony Makara

John Smith wasn't a popular leader with the electorate. Mori have a decades long record of leader satisfaction and Smith had abysmal ratings for an opposition leader facing Major - not much different from Majors in fact. Under Smith 1997 would most likely have been a smallish Labour victory, if they won at all, as economy was doing well and the Blair/Brown/Mandelson project wouldn't have happened. Major lost because of the sleaze, perceptions of incompetence and that was from a very professional opposition - Smith couldn't have delivered that.

Don't be misled by the hagiographic view of the "lost leader" - he really wasn't that good.