One of the great clichés of 1980s vox pops was hearing people contend that you could say what you like about ‘that Maggie Thatcher’, but at least you knew where you stood with her.
The basic idea here was that the politics of Thatcherism could be boiled down to a single sentence, such as ‘the free economy and the strong state’, or even a pithy two-word designation such as ‘authoritarian populism’.
Now try this for an intellectual exercise; can you encapsulate what Gordon Brown is supposedly all about, in seven words or less? Difficult, eh?
Unfashionable as it is to discuss such foreign nonsense as ideology in a British political context, an inability to devise a straightforward bullet point actually does matter, if only because it makes it harder for the spin-doctoring classes to get the USP over to the public.
I’m not aware of any pollsters having asked a cross-section of the electorate what policies automatically come to mind when they hear the name of the present occupant of Number Ten. But I suspect that one little-credited reason for the prime minister’s woes right now is that most voters probably couldn’t come up with an answer.
Part of the Great Clunking Fist’s present predicament is his seeming inability to distil anything resembling a distinctive and coherent set of ideas of his own. This is curious, when you consider the man's undoubted intellectual ability.
Perhaps it is simply too difficult to pull off such a trick, given the paradox that while Brown was one of the co-architects of New Labourism after 1994, for presentational reasons he has to present himself as the negation of Blairism on the basis of Blairism itself. But Blairism minus the ‘pretty straight guy’ routine is not proving much of a vote winner.
Such ideological passivity gifts the opposition the chance to set the agenda. Cameron and the team around him may not be doing particularly well, but at least are making efforts in this direction.
Once Gordon Brown is gone - perhaps by palace coup over the summer, perhaps following ejection by the electorate in 2010, even perhaps in some manner not yet foreseen - we may have very little by which to remember him.
Posted at 23:44, 1 July 2008
Comments (59)
"Now try this for an intellectual exercise; can you encapsulate what Gordon Brown is supposedly all about, in seven words or less?"
New Labour without the smiles? Apart from anything else, the reason why no-one knows what Brown stands for is because he's never had to spell it out in a competitive election.
7 words or less?
not blair, same old shite
The thing I will remember him by is what a great and clever bloke he was.
I mean he must be. I recall that when he was crowned, near enough every Labour MP said how wonderful he was.
A tiny number did support McDonnell instead at first. But then after McDonnell was zapped ,they ALL had nothing but praise for Brown - a great leader, responsible for a great economy etc, etc. Not a single reservation was expressed.
Now I must say, as just an ordinary punter, Brown struck me then as unpleasant, cold, a manoeuvrer rather than a policy person. I also thought public dislike of him would rise quickly if things went quickly wrong (as it did).
Of course I must have been wrong. Who was I, a lunatic ultraleft Trot (and millions of others?) to think this when our intellectual betters - the former policy think tank heads / barristers / Oxbridge types who make up the mass of Labour MPs - said not a word of criticims about Brown but praised him to the skies instead. I mean, can you just try and even visualise the number of PhDs holders with post doctrinal studies in the 'Saving the Free World' at Yale who did this - dozens?
I mean, it would be understandable for them to keep schtum if they were looking after their own backs but when it was on their own neck that’s on the line - it will be those with the slimmer majorities out on their ear, and maybe even before they have got us to fully pay off the mortgage on their 2nd home - an idiot like me may have thought they would have thrown caution to the wind and spoken out.
A fool like me may also have thought that these Labour MPs, with their extremely well developed self preservation skills, may have said, even to a private meeting, 'we can't have him, he has no charisma and the public will hate him - Let's have Milliband, Millburn, Johnson etc instead.” But none did.
So as the Labour MPs all told us - Brown is such a great bloke.
Or could it just be that these paragons of the people were –
a) too cowardly to go against a manufactured consensus amongst their peers even though it was stark staring obvious what would happen
or / and b) they are, in fact, really fucking stupid.
(Except of course, those soon to be ex MPs who will doubtless return to be CEs in Quango land where they worked before and where doubtless I will be working for them again, and so better mind my Ps and Qs in light of the complaints they made about such before they become MPs - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.)
Tory front benchers fantasy served on a plate.
Two words: authoritarian unpopularity.
While it's true it's hard to spell out Brown's exact ideology (certainly not in seven words) Marxists I always thought looked to practice, or, by their deeds shall ye know them.
1) Brown obviously holds to the central New Labour doctrine (set forth in The Blair Revolution by Mandelson and that SDP chappie whose name I forget), that the working class is no longer an adequate base for 'progressive' politics. This is firstly, because it is not the dynamic force for change and advance, having been overtaken by the dynamic entrepreneurial, globalising, leaders of capitalist enterprises. This is the creative engine of the world, only held back by restrictions on free trade. Secondly, fragmented and declining, it cannot form the core base for winning elections.
2) New Labour must encourage the dynamic economy, slightly tame it, inject some measure of social justice into it (tax credits for example), though make sure that this does not interfere with said dynamic force's capacity to compete on the global market. At the heart of this is a mechanism: state accountancy must be modelled on that of the private sector (resource accounting). To end the direct financing of services vast amounts of money must be given to private companies to leech off the public purse in reward for providing provision of those services that can only be financed collectively. Gradually all direct state services will be contracted out. The well-known bad money drives out good principle works here: the more these schemes fail the more cash they receive.
3) The central problem of the Welfare State is how to make it adjust to the demands of the world market (that is, to gradually reduce universal provision with forms that mimic private insurance and 'personalised' welfare and health that put the burden on the recipients as far as possible). A key objective is to reduce 'dependency' and to end state responsibility for this. Another objective is to transfer the delivery from the public sector to the private and 'voluntary' one (notably to faith groups). Welfare claimants will be made to comply with compulsory re-education - obligatory labour-trials and workfare schemes. The unemployed and thsoe on Incapacity Benefit are most affected: the state claims rights over them, and their responsibility is to comply. This will help the great unwashed become self-reliant and respectable, and make them capable of playing a role in the great dynamic etc etc etc (see above).
Finally: loads and loads of moralising legislation, hectoring, orchestrated campaigns against young people, drinkers (how long before they try to ban under 21s buying alchool?), and chavs (ASBOs), equality legislation infected with racist multiculturalism (positive discrimination), solving world poverty by cloying speeches and harmless conferences and stunts drawing in well-meaning people, solving the ecological crises by Wind Turbines on every roof top, and a ten year programme to ban plastic bags from supermarkets
Stalin, er um, dither, Mr Bean!
Politically Correct totalitarian Stasi control freakery - that just about says it all & I even 'saved' a word as my description is only six words.
Don't need 7 words to describe Brown's ideology. Don't even need 4. One'll do. Fucked
"What is Brownism? It’s statist, it’s authoritarian and it’s profoundly Scottish Labour."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2554190.ece
"yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no..."
What's next?
On second thoughts, I should have used my whole 7 words & dropped 'Stasi' as 'totalitarian' would equate to that - here we go again - Politically Correct INCOMPETENT CORRUPT totalitarian control freakery.
Cock-ups, cowardice and centralisation. How's that?
Gordon Brown: what was that all about?
"miserable presentation, dithering incompetence, obsessive counterproductive targets".
Not smiles, Lies + S & M
Blairite
Reactionary
Only
Without
Newness
Gordon Brown and the state knows best
"given his undoubted intellectual ability."
??????
No more boom and busts for Gordon.
What a load of rubbish.
Completed in 5 words.
Brevity is the soul etc..
Monocular, shirt lifting, son of the manse.
The Wizard of Oz. A fraud hiding behind a curtain and lording it over the little people.
The biggest bag of shite there is
"(Except of course, those soon to be ex MPs who will doubtless return to be CEs in Quango land where they worked before and where doubtless I will be working for them again, and so better mind my Ps and Qs in light of the complaints they made about such before they become MPs"
You want to join a union if you're facing that sort of grief, SPP
Only one working eye.
"Done nothing wrong? Nothing to fear! Suckers."
Inept.
Fear and loathing, but no loafing.
Dead man walking!
TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX!!!!!
Tractor production is up!
After Blair glitz, Brown Substance
Alan Douglas
Gordon Brown in seven words?
Standard editorial: The return of bleak times
Definitely not flash, just boring useless Gordon.
Intellectually autistic fiscally incompetent deceitful twat. Is what he IS. What he is ABOUT God only knows.
Wow.
Even his own haven't got a decent word to say about him.
He's a twat of the absolutely highest order...
Fucking delicious!
The white heat of technological revolution. Not.
"Made it Ma: Top of the world!"
Uncanny............
Given much of the comments here are not from 'regulars' its hard to tell if they are from the right or left.
If from the left its depressing that many of the descriptions are based on what they consider personal insults and not his politics.
It is pretty disgusting if it is lefties on here using the fact that he has one eye, may be autistic or the archaic homophobic golden oldie 'shirt lifter' as insults.
The quote Dave used about Thatcher reffered to her politics. When asked to come up with 7 words many here have not bothered to encasulate his politics at all. Cheap shots.
I dont care if Brown is charmless, whatever that may be, or shy or awkward. I care that he is right wing and dismantling civil liberties.
Why is having a disability, being gay or an aspie or autistic an insult to some here , regardless of whether he is all these things?
Seven Words theme eh? ok.
1]Grumpy
2]Dopey
3]Snotty
4]Creepy
5]Basherful
6]Clunky
7]Ugly
or
1]Gluttony
2]Lust
3]Sloth
4]Wrath
5]Envy
6]Pride
7]Greed
or
1. Fine lines and wrinkles
2. Rough skin texture
3. Uneven skin tone
4. Skin dullness
5. Visible pores
6. Blotches and age spots
7. Skin dryness
[the seven signs of aging]
or
1] 10p
2] 42 days
3] 5th place
4] 100 billion pension pot
5] 43% tax rate
6] Crewe and Natwich
7] 129p a litre
or
"At least I am better than Clegg"
Incompetent Inept Inefficient Incapable Useless Unable Unskilled
Or
Lying Deceitful Dishonest False Fraudulent Misleading Treacherous
on a related topic I detect that an increasing number of people's attitudes to Brown are ...
Acerbic, Antagonistic, Bitter, Caustic, Sardonic, Scathing, Vitriolic
Wall eyed Scottish communist bogey eating thief
COMETH THE AUDIENCE,COMETH THE PRINCIPLE
Another go:
James Maxton's biographer; The Labour Party's undertaker.
All "post neoclassical endogenous growth theory" Balls.
Brown's intellectual ability is a wholly subjective matter. I have seen a man was lapped up the glory as Chancellor but hid when things didn't go his way, and now he is totally unable to manage his party, set out coherent policies or communicate with voters.
As my dear departed dad would have said;
i would,nt piss on him if he was on fire
Don't say Brown say useless
Seven words:
1. Lots of lists and reviews at PMQs.
2. Tony Blair without the weird toothy grin.
3. Neo-classical endogenous growth theory is prudently sexy.
4. Let's have by-elections during the Glasgow Fair.
Stoppybird's right that some of the comments here are pretty disgusting.
From the frequent references to tax and 'political correctness' though, I should think that a right wing website has linked to this post.
how about 'loser' ?
As I've said elsewhere he's philosophically and financially bankrupt. But why should we be surprised? Useless policies lead to financial ruin
Brown in 7 words -
"Really needs to read some Von Mises"
Why on earth do people on the left associate a loss of civil liberties with being on the right? Historically, those societies that pursued collectivist economics, that is to say left-wing economics, have been the greatest transgressors of liberty. The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, most of post-colonial Africa (typically followed Marxist economics), much of South America etc The have all pursued collectivist economics, and inevitably have destroyed civil liberties along with their economies. This is inevitable as to enforce the lunacies of collectivism within a market requires force to keep things moving.
Richard - of course it's true that communist regimes have destroyed civil liberties, but whether this is inevitable is another question. If you ask a neo-classical economist why 'collectivism' must inevitably lead to the abolition of civil liberties they typically end up with vague hand waving comments about 'nature' and 'human nature' and so on - it ends up as a pure ungrounded assertion or with some kind of appeal to neo-classical metaphysics.
Look at the history of the emergence of market economies - it never emerged 'spontaneously, but was always accompanied by heavy state coercion (land closures, clearing peasants off the land etc). The market wouldn't exist without state intervention to generate it in the first place and couldn't continue to exist without state coercion to continually prop it up. One shudders to think about the degree of state coercion that would be necessary to prop up the extreme 'free market' system (no welfare, no public provision of goods) that neo-classicals dream of. What do you do with all the poor and dispossessed - ramp up spending on the police of course.
Two words:
Nothing Left
Several meanings. Space for five words available to highest bidder.
I think I'm doing rather well.
Power at any price morally bankrupt.
Richard wrote: ``Why on earth do people on the left associate a loss of civil liberties with being on the right? Historically, those societies that pursued collectivist economics, that is to say left-wing economics, have been the greatest transgressors of liberty. The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy''
China has pursued capitalist economics for the last twenty years or more, and what Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are doing on this list is a mystery to me. Richard should read Daniel Guerin's book Fascism and Big Business for starters.