Friday, 30 April 2010

Really, really terrible

The comment below is from a columnist on The Atlantic responding to last night's debate. I guess he's from the centre-left, at least in US terms (he worked for Carter) and I have no reason to think he isn't objective and fair-minded about British politics. It reminds you what a wonder it is that such a figure as G***** B**** was ever able to maneouvre himself into power.
Gordon Brown is really, really terrible as a public figure. Every time he wags his head scoldingly "No, No" when the opponents are speaking, he must lose another 500 votes. No policy judgment here. Just saying that -- based on this sample, plus these past few days' "bigot" disaster -- this is someone with neither aptitude nor (apparently) training as a TV-era public figure. The more that the general election becomes "presidential," the harder it is to imagine that people will choose to have him around for a few more years as the main figure to listen to in the news.


worm said...

...yet the american fails to notice that the other two blokes running against GB have possibly even less charisma than even the dour gurning scot

Sean said...

BB is the product off institutional corruption, or the Labour Party in other words.

DC has a plan to kill them off as best you can in a democracy.

A smaller commons and more equalised bigger constituencies will go a long way to making it possible for Clegg to really grow up which will not allow Labour to pile votes up in low turnout city seats...Whigs V Tories, now that will really be a choice, I am guessing you will be more Whig in the new paradigm.

zmkc said...

His one and only appeal for me is his inability to be scrubbed up for TV era politics.

Gaw said...

Worm: I'm not sure that's possible.

Sean: That would be funny sort of modernisation, to find ourselves with a Whig party.

z: But how he's tried! I fear that grimace is the product of lots of misplaced coaching.