Why is Brown SO unpopular?

[liberalpragmatist]

As an American (who follows British politics), I don't quite understand why Brown is SO unpopular. It's the depth of the unpopularity that's stunning, not the fact that he's unpopular.

Certainly, there is plenty to slam New Labour for. Bureaucracy, budget deficits, privatization run amok, Iraq, civil liberties, etc. And Brown deserves blame for a lot of those policies, as well as scorn for his poor presentation and political skills.

Yet while times are bad in the UK, they are nowhere near as bad as they were in the mid-70s or early 80s. The economic crises that have hit Britain are nowhere near as bad as the ERM crisis of the early '90s. Why is Brown SO unpopular?

Moreover, when he first took office, his bounce was fairly sustained -- people seemed to *like* that he seemed serious and uncharismatic, after the Blair years.

So my questions are, to summarize: (1) Why IS Brown so unpopular?, (2) Is this unfair or not?, (3) Is the problem the whole party or just Brown -- in other words, could Labour's position improve much with a new leader?, and (4) Would Blair be doing better or worse than Brown right now?

On another note, if they were to replace Brown, who would it likely be? Jack Straw? David Miliband? Harriet Harman? Hilary Benn?

[LeftishBrit]

1. In part it's what tends to happen to a party after a long period in office...

especially in a period of economic downturn.

One of the last straws was the government decision, just before the local elections, to scrap the 10p Income Tax Band, disadvantaging people on lower incomes and making the tax system less progressive.

Also, Brown was perceived at first as being at least competent; but after some spectacular cock-ups, such as discs with confidential data on thousands of people being lost on trains, he has come to share some of the perception of the government as incompetent.

It's a cruel world in the British media, and once someone is seen as unpopular and a loser, this tends to be self-fulfilling.

I think a lot of the problem *is* the party, at least the section of it that has been in power. I think Blair would be doing worse; and I don't think any likely leader would make things much better.

If there were a replacement: I think it would be either Straw or Miliband, with Ed Balls and Alan Johnson also in the running - though Balls as Education Secretary has suffered from a mess over exams; and in any case try saying 'Prime Minister Balls' without collapsing into hysterics!

There's still the chance of the Tories fucking things up badly enough to lose next time. I hope, anyway. I'm no fan of Brown, who *is* a Tory at least on economic policy; but the real Tories would almost certainly be worse.

[emad]

2. Press famously dubbed him psychologically flawed ie raving psychopath

completely sold on his own mythology.

Looking forward to the slow but certain unravelling of his Treasury career history.
Anybody who thinks that hoary old chestnut of Thatcher's Tory homes-for-votes is done and dusted may have a bit of a surprise.

Ditto God's Banker business.

[T_i_B]

3. In answer to your questions

(1) Why IS Brown so unpopular?

A number of reasons, chiefly the worsening state of the economy and the 10p tax fiasco. People are finding that food prices are up, fuel prices are up, the removal of the 10p tax band has hit people in the wallet and wages are not really keeping up with things. That's a very bad recipe for any governing party.

Add to that the "bottled" election, a lot of dithering and u-turns and problems such as the current SATS marking and the loss of Revenue & Customs discs and it's not hard to see why people might be turning against the government.

(2) Is this unfair or not?

Only in part as some of the biggest problems such as the prices of food and fuel are a bit beyond Brown's control. That said I do think that Labour's failure to renew themselves as they said they would has cost them dear.

(3) Is the problem the whole party or just Brown -- in other words, could Labour's position improve much with a new leader?

Brown is considered to have his faults, he's not as charming as Blair, he's seen as less decisive and at times in interviews he's just a tad too evasive. That said, I do believe that the Labour party as a whole has been at fault in allowing Brown to become leader unopposed, thus stifling any debate about the future direction of the party and therefore stifling much needed reform.

And to that end I suppose if I were a Tory I'd be quite amused at the current round of speculation dominating the papers about Brown's future. The Labour party went out of it's way last year to avoid have any sort of genuine debate about the future direction of the party after Blair left in case it generated public splits in the party. Now they appear to be gearing up for exactly the sort of leadership dogfight that could cause the electoral damage they have feared for so long. Whatever Brown's merits and faults, changing leader so soon is not going to be the answer to Labour's problems, especially if (as is likely) they plump for another Blairite who will carry on leading the party down the same path as before.

(4) Would Blair be doing better or worse than Brown right now?

Labour would be just as deeply in trouble with Blair in charge right now. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems for Labour is that they have failed to change direction as they needed to after Blair left.

[fedsron2us]

4. As in most Greek tragedies

Brown has been the author of his own undoing. In the Blair years he essentially ran the goverments's domestic policy agenda from the Treasury while Blair was the figurehead leader and had more or less free reign in foreign affairs (often with disastrous results). This gathered Brown a lot of kudos in the economic good times while it also enabled him to dodge most of the flak that resulted from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Brown got promoted to the top job exactly as the money and the luck ran out. As a consequence he finds himself now responsible not only with the mess from the blessed Tony's hopeless foreign policy but also landed with the problems arising from his own mishandling of the economy as Chancellor. In particular he is reaping the fallout from the BOE decision following Greenspan's ludicrously lax monetary policy in the wake of 9/11 which allowed a crack up credit boom to occur. Now the debt markets have imploded the population of the UK are finding that much of their recent economic prosperity has been built on sand. As the edifice collapses Brown is copping a lot of the blame. Ironically, much of the criticism arises in the areas where the media formerly heaped praise upon him. For example, back in the 1990's Brown was hailed as a far sighted statesman for his decision to allow the monetary policy committee of the BOE to set interest rates zand to give the FSA the role of watch dog over the city. As always with new Labour, this removal of tricky decisions from the heart of government, was as much to do with blame avoidance as any real long term strategy. I am sure much of the thinking was that the BOE/FSA rather than the government would be the fall guys in the event of any financial disasters. Sadly, for Brown it has not worked out that way. Instead, much of the populace hold him responsible for their economic miseries (usually conveniently forgetting their own financial profligacy). In addition (and with more justification) they are starting to query why they get such a poor deal in terms of public services when they appear to be paying relatively high rates of taxation. Much of their ire is really directed at the New Labour project as a whole which many now suspect of welding the worst aspects of socialism (bureaucratic, undemocratic, petty minded, interfering, bossy, process driven rather than caring) with the worst excesses of capitalism (greed, financial excess, speculation, malinvestment, cronyism, corruption, privatising profits and socialising losses etc). Brown as leader merely acts as the lightening rod for the discontent. I am sure that if Blair was still in office he would also getting in the neck. The only difference is that as a more slippery character he would probably be better at dodging the incoming fire than Brown whose personality traits do not make him a natural in the art of PR.

The real tragedy is the fate of the Labour party rather than its leader. It is finally reaping the consequences for selling out to the media and big business so that it could get into government. Soon it will not only have lost its soul but also the power it so desperately craved.

[Briar]

5. There's a

Blair effect too. Many of the commentators leading the wolf pack are still Bliarites. They want payback, and just hug themselves at Brown's woes, as Bliar must be doing. On the other hand, a lot of people had convinced themselves Brown was not tainted by Bliar's neocon and neoliberal leanings (despite obvious evidence to the contrary) and are massively disappointed to find out that Brown is to all intents and purposes a Bliarite ideologically.

Add in the purely animal aspect of human nature. The boys in the playground/animals in the pack, were screaming: "Fight! Fight!" last autumn, wanting to see two alpha males battle it out on the playground/in the pack. It didn't happen, and so the leader has lost authority. It's animal instinct, not rational at all. But this is what drives human affairs as often as not, self destructive though it may be.

Brown is a thinking man, not a brute. Again and again he displays a failure to understand the symbolic gestures that would cement his leadership because he just doesn't operate on the animal instinct level.

(Edited to correct expression.)

[TheMightyFavog]

6. Because he has less charisma than...

Second Technician Arnold Judas Rimmer BSC, SSC.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. 1) No charisma and too long in power, among others 2) yes, 3) not really, 4), hard to say.

1) There are several reasons.

While he's a pretty good technocrat, he's strikingly uncharismatic; he needed a frontman like Blair.

He is the head of a party that's been in power for 11 years, and has thus accumulated a lot of things for the electorate to hold against them.

He's a labour leader in country with an overwhelmingly right-wing press. At the moment, one of the major themes in the press is that Britain is in the grip of a crime wave and it's Brown's fault; unless you actually look at the data you wouldn't realise that by most measures crime is actually falling.

And he's attracting a lot of flack for the economic downturn Britain is experiencing.

2)Yes, it's unfair - he's been an above-average Prime Minister at worst; the Blair/Brown government has been the best Britain has had for 58 years.

3)Some of each, I think - labour has been in power for 11 years, but Brown's lack of charisma certainly isn't helping.

4)Hard to say. Blair was more hated than Brown, for a variety of reasons, but he also had far more charisma.