THE Henley voters certainly know how to send a message to Downing Street in democratic fashion. The real humiliation is not that Labour came fifth or lost their deposit – but that they trailed in behind the BNP, which just should not happen.
We can now expect the steady stream of comments on Gordon Brown's personality to become a torrent, raising the question: Have politics and political journalism hit a new low in personal abuse? Why has our present Prime Minister been singled out for
the nastiest campaign of sustained character assassination I can recall in my long love-hate relationship with politicians? Is it, as his most malevolent detractors claim, something in his character. Or is it in theirs?
It's a rough old game but there is something particularly vindictive in the verbal assaults. The explanation lies in the Tory belief in "bring down Brown and we're in", but the method of achieving it is dragging down the standard of public discourse and bringing more discredit on politics.
"Clown Brown", "Bottler Brown" even "disingenuous ditherer" are the rough-and-tumble of political caricature, and "needs a charisma implant" and "the style statement of an overweight Atlas dressed by M&S" are superficially silly. But I have also seen in print "incompetent liar", "contemptible git" and one commentator raved that the PM is "petty, vindictive, small-minded… a disgrace to his office… a standing affront to decency and democracy".
Taking part in an examination of the PM's plight on radio, I was appalled to hear a London contributor describe him as "a liar", without being pulled up by the presenter. Gordon Brown has his faults but, to my certain personal knowledge, that is one thing he is not.
Lest you think I have gone soft, I write as one of those responsible for the death of deference to Ministers. Forty years ago, when politicians patronised the Press, I had a head-to-head confrontation with another namesake, Foreign Secretary George Brown, after an outrageous after-dinner speech. Next day, it was headlined as "Brown-v-Brown at the Savoy", which signalled open season on the foibles and failings of the political class.
My (then) newspaper appointed me persecutor-in-chief to follow the Foreign Secretary and wait for the inevitable escapades, explosions and embarrassments. When George so much as stumbled, we were there. When he fell down outside the Commons or crashed his car into the wall of his home while trying to park, we were on hand.
He was no drinker and it only took a couple of glasses to get him tipsy, hence the famous "tired and emotional" euphemism, whereas I – a graduate of the Glasgow hauf-an-hauf school – could easily outdrink him. Or so I thought. My assignment ended with the Lord Mayor's banquet, with seven courses and seven wines, George raising each glass to me from the top table; I returned to the office to sleep it off and re-decorated the news editor's room with what had been on the menu.
On sober reflection, the Foreign Secretary realised the implications of his and our behaviour and told the Commons: "The lessons to be drawn … will weaken the basis on which political journalistic life has been conducted for a long time." His prediction was accurate but my justification still is that when a politician's faults affect his ability to do his job (for instance, drunkenness does not help diplomacy) or his private life is a betrayal of his public, it is in the general interest to expose it.
The 'Hate Gordon Brown' phenomenon is depressingly different because the attacks are peculiarly personalised and vicious in a way not used against previous Premiers. It is not that they were more likeable: Tony Blair effortlessly assumed any personality you wanted; John Major was Mr Bland; and there was little to like about Maggie Thatcher.
Gordon Brown, whatever his imperfections, should surely be given credit at the very least for being a decent, hard-working man whose motives are honourable. Others go further, like the philosopher A. C Grayling who is disappointed on civil liberties and performance but declares: "Brown is a fundamentally thoughtful man, and it is absurd that part of the reason why he should be so pilloried is for lacking the oily slickness of his predecessor."
His qualities – intellectual, workaholic, serious, sober – are seen as defects. If being dour is a fault, then most Scots are deficient and perhaps anti-Scottish prejudice is a factor. Has being cuddly now become a qualification for Prime Minister? Brown says: "It is character that people look for in the end, not personality." In these days of media-dominated politics, Brown may be hoping for the impossible because polls say he is the most unpopular Premier of modern times, mainly due to personality.
He has the summer recess to work on the things that are his fault: How did Capability Brown acquire a reputation as a ditherer? Why are so few members of his government in the frontline to take the flak? How can the electorate be persuaded to look at the long-term gains instead of the short-term pain caused by global forces?
No other politician has as credible policies as Brown on poverty, protecting ordinary citizens from market forces, climate change, oil-dependence, job creation and social justice. Does anyone really think David Cameron and Oliver Letwin will be the champions of the poor and public services?
The choice should be made on policies and performance, not malicious sniping. The next election, whenever it comes, should be about the country's future, not a referendum on one man's personality.
