Gordon caught not hitting his staff

Over at Nick Robinson’s politics blog, there’s a healthy debate going on about Gordon Brown’s personality. The PM isn’t doing very well so far.

The Slogger has just posted this:

‘I think there comes a point (in every debate about a man’s personality) where what we are really talking about is his character. I think personality traits are no more than symptoms of character: and now more than ever, we need someone of good character in Number Ten.

In that context, we must ask ourselves, “Is Mr Brown a man who seems to be straight and frank in his dealings with colleagues, opponents and the media?” I think the answer would have to be “there are grave doubts about that”. Consider:
1. There are so many on-the-record statements about Gordon briefing against Tony Blair, it seems odd to many that he still denies this.
2. The evidence from colleagues and actions that he seriously considered an election in 2006 is even more overwhelming. But still he denies that the thought ever entered his head….while his hand was on his heart.
3. Brown’s succession to the leadership involved both briefing against potential opponents and very obviously orchestrated pressure on the then Prime Minister. No, he insists – that never happened.
4. The change in the current PM’s dental gleam is obvious when comparing pre and post photos. He denies having had any dental work whatsoever.
5. When accused of sight problems, he categorically denied there were any new tears on his retina. He then admitted that two new ‘unimportant’ ones had been reported the previous March. So he knew about the tears, but kept quiet about them…until the evidence surfaced.
6. Throughout the build-up to the Iraq War, Mr Brown never made a single statement supporting the Government of which he was Chancellor. He signed the cheques for the War, but has only made any statement about his role in it since public and Libdem pressure forced him to face the Chilcot Inquiry. His defence is that he wasn’t in the loop (which all the Chilcot witnesses except Clare Short deny) and that he supported non-compliance (not WMD) as the reason for the invasion being legal (which leaves him beyond most – although not all – of the controversy).
7. During two months of Commons debate on the fiscal measures to combat the UK’s deficit, the Prime Minister denied over and over again that any
budget cuts were involved. This is clearly an untenable position he has now, at last, abandoned.

Mr Brown is not on trial here. He is merely a top politician arguing vehemently that he is a man of good, ethical and caring character. As you so rightly say Nick, based on the consistent mountain of evidence laid out above, the People must now decide whether the PM’s self-image is reflected by the reality of his behaviour.’

So far, 12 out of 15 comments are virulently anti-Brown.

There is but one reason why this twisted, disloyal, compulsive liar and socially autistic man is still Prime Minister: the Labour Party lacked either the principles or the guts to fire him.