Brits, help a clueless yank, what's with the new P.M.?

[Philosoraptor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/30/nbrown230.xml

Perhaps more surprisingly, Mr Brown is by no means dismissed as old-hat, somebody who has been around so long that he cannot breathe new life into Labour. Fifty-two per cent of those interviewed reckon that even though Labour has been in power for a decade "it should be possible for the Government under Gordon Brown to make a fresh start". Only 37 per cent demur.

Many voters even expect the new Prime Minister to terminate Labour's decade-long era of spin and alleged sleaze. As the chart shows, one voter in three reckons there will be less of both. A mere eight per cent fear that there may be more.

However, as a general proposition, few voters expect much in the way of good things. Forty-nine per cent of those interviewed admit to being pessimistic about the prospects for the new premiership and only one in four reckons Mr Brown will prove a better premier than Mr Blair.

------------------------------------

Sounds like low expectations for Brown, but no one can beat America's low expectations of bush, and he didn't let us down.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Brown is completely different from Bush

For Brown, "low expectations" aren't because of ability - everyone agrees (even opponents) that he's very intelligent, and works hard. It's more that he's been Blair's chancellor for 10 years, and while most people were sick of Blair, and his spin/lying, we wonder how different can Brown be, when he was so closely associated with Blair?

His style will be different - Blair was all about slick presentation, and apparent charm, enthusiasm and passion (Blair was rated a good actor right from school). Brown isn't so flashy, but he hasn't been above misdirection himself, but that was normally with figures - various announcements about new money for this programme or that have turned out, when analysed, to be old allocations just respun to give them another headline. There are also some doubts as to how healthy the British economy really is - Brown boasts that it's had GDP growth in every quarter he was chancellor, while other developed economies have just about all had some form of mild recession, but some think there a problems building up over pension plans and the Private Finance Initiative (where companies own the buildings for schools, hospitals etc., and the government rents them) that clever accounting has hidden.

In origin, Brown is true Labour - a proper socialist when he was younger. He's gradually got closer to private and market-oriented policies, but is still, I think, to the left of a fair amount of the US Democratic party (I might match him with John Edwards, perhaps?). Another aspect of "low expectations" for him is that although he largely kept quiet about Iraq, and most of the rest of Blair's foreign policy (international aid, which he's keen on, is the only aspect he's really dabbled in), he never complained about what Blair did, and when Blair's back was against the wall, Brown did defend him. So many of us suspect he won't oppose Bush in any significant way in foreign policy - but he won't do the enthusiastic cheerleading that Blair did, either. I suspect Brown's foreign policy will be "let's try and have nothing happen until Bush is gone". Could be worse, could be better.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Good analysis!

Brown will probably be better on foreign policy than Blair; less of a Bush-poodle and more cautious. I doubt that he'd support a war with Iran, for instance, even if Bush calls for one. On the other hand, I'm less sure about domestic policy: he has strongly promoted Blair's target-driven, managerial, NCLB-like policies on health, education, etc. and I suspect that he will continue to do so.

Unlike Bush, he is not stupid, lazy or crazy. He is undoubtedly well to the left of Bush; but that may still not make him left-wing.