Laying it in with a trowel

Nick Robinson as usual decides to cover a major story from a Labour supportive angle:

"Dressed in a dark suit and sombre tie, his voice deeper and more gravelly than usual - suggesting he'd had even less sleep than usual - and with damp eyes occasionally glistening in the camera lights, Gordon Brown sought to limit the damage created by a carelessly written letter to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

The prime minister's tone was, at times, painfully personal as he strove to demonstrate the emotional connection which modern politics demands and with which he is so obviously uncomfortable.

So, after describing himself as "shy" he insisted that he did "feel the pain of those who'd lost loved ones". Without directly referring to the death of his own baby daughter, he declared that "I'm a parent who understands the feelings when things go dreadfully wrong".

His message was that he had been trying to offer comfort, to do his duty and would never have intended to cause further grief."

Good grief; anyone would think that Gordon Brown was the only man working in Britain. All managers need to get their work/life balance right. It is accepted by most that Gordon Brown does not delegate enough and thinks that appearing to work 24/7 will make him seem dependable and hard-working.It used to but I think people have realised that it is the quality of work that counts not the hours spent.

Over the last week Gordon Brown did not need to break with tradition and campaign in Glasgow North East, he chose to have photo-opportunities at the G20 and Berlin Wall celebrations were they necessary for the man who claims to be saving the world economy?

Gordon Brown seems to micro-manage, I have worked for such bosses and they make very bad leaders. Either they delegate more and trust in those they delegate to or the businesses suffer. Gordon Brown is unwilling to delegate after all who in Cabinet is up to the task other than him? When leaders try and do too much the result is mistakes and a dispirited workforce. In this case we have mistakes by the lorry load and a dispirited Cabinet, Labour party and Country.


Nick Robinson takes a breath and continues:

"Like any public gathering a prime ministerial news conference develops its own mood and personality. Often with Gordon Brown it's been one of irritation or anger at his unwillingness to answer straight questions.

On this occasion though the mood was more sympathetic. Many journalists know first-hand that Gordon Brown has poor eyesight and poor handwriting and feel that his staff should have checked this letter and prevented it from being sent.

They know that the prime minister struggles to express sincerely held emotions. They know that the Sun is out to get him and is channelling the raw grief of those who have lost family in Afghanistan to do so. It's clear from the phone-ins, the text messages, the blogs and the like that many share that sympathy."

Really I have heard very little sympathy for Gordon Brown over the past few days, most people's detestation of him has grown and even people who I have not really thought of as 'political' have expressed their displeasure with his actions.

The Sun is out to get him? This is along the lines of The Today programme this morning and it won't wash. The BBC didn't point out that the press was anti-John Major in 1995-1997, nor did they point out how the Labour spin machine and the media were working together in 1995-2000. It is strange that Nick Robinson like the Today programme now decide that it is so unfair.

Nick Robinson tries to blame Gordon Brown's staff; has it occurred to the experienced political journalist that they are possibly scared to correct anything Gordon Brown does, his temper is well attested to.


Nick Robinson continues:

"It is equally clear, though, that many will feel passionately that the prime minister has got it wrong again. They will point out that the prime minister said he'd apologised to Jacqui Janes when in fact he only did so in a statement issued the day after they spoke on the phone.

They will feel that he tried to explain away her anger about the lack of equipment for British troops by putting it all down to her grief. They will feel that Gordon Brown himself used the emotions surrounding Remembrance Day, the return of five more bodies from Helmand Province and even his own personal grief to avoid the tough questions about Afghanistan."

Many do feel this way because the lack of funding for the armed forces is blatantly true, also that Gordon Brown's decisions to use the army for party political purposes stink.


Nick Robinson continues:

"People's reaction to this story will, in large part, be determined by their pre-existing attitude to Gordon Brown and to the continuing presence of British troops in Afghanistan.

What must follow now - at least once President Obama unveils his plan - is a debate about whether there is another strategy which would more effectively safeguard Britain.

Gordon Brown made clear that he'd looked at and rejected the option of bringing the troops home and creating "Fortress Britain" with money saved.

He made plain that he'd examined and rejected the idea of focussing the military effort exclusively on al-Qaeda while ignoring the rise of the Taliban."

I disagree, there are many who agree with Gordon Brown about the need to continue the operation in Afghanistan who think he was crass in his attempts to right a wrong. There are many who have sympathy for Gordon Brown who think he has screwed up here.


Nick Robinson concludes:

"The real debate - beneath all this anguish - is surely whether men like Guardsman Janes died in vain or made a sacrifice that is vital to protecting their country. It is a debate that has scarcely begun."

No, that is the debate the BBC want us to have with the desired conclusion that it is all in vain and that the troops must come home leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban. The debate many want is when can we have an election and rid ourselves of this control-freak, incompetent who still thinks he's the best man for the job when so much evidence is to the contrary.