On the Today program on Radio 4 Gordon Brown was interviewed on a series of issues: the NHS, Northern Rock, rate of borrowing and his state in the job. All in all it was a painful listen, with a Prime Minister that had clearly gone into an interview situation somehow wishing to dictate the agenda and continually finding himself on the back foot and defending himself on pretty much every decision he's made...most of the time without necessity.

NHS

First of all was the NHS issue, clearly the press release of the day that is intended to mask the recent Tory initiative on moving the NHS issue up the agenda. Of course this is to say that supposedly everyone will be able to have free screening for certain diseases "before 2011". When pressed for just how many people the PM started the long road down the faultering road by not really answering the question and actually introducing some confusion as to whether he is talking about everyone being able to or just everyone "that would want to take it up" which of course is a very different figure. With no timetable, as Nick Clegg has said, there is also a clear worry that such a figure of those that "want" the service will be ascertained and then be inflexible after April 2008.

Northern Rock

The next item on the interview question list, despite Gordon trying to move the conversation on to grounds he can feel much more comfortable on (transportation, education to 18, etc), was about the guarantee of the taxpayers money given to Northern Rock. Now don't get me wrong, I actually agree completely with what was done. If we can afford to help out businesses that in turn will mean that any significant proportion of the population of this country won't face serious financial turmoil then we should...but here a question was quite simply asked if that money is going to be received back to the government purse. It should be a yes or no question, yet the PM mangled it into almost missing the chance to actually say that he would make sure that the money was returned. Of course as an ex-chancellor he retreated to very comfortable ground in turning it into some defensive spiel about economic stability.

National Borrowing

This led on nicely to borrowing, avoiding answering the question about where borrowing is potentially at currently (suddenly his ties and experience as a chancellor mean nothing) it is once again the well trodden path of "meeting targets" and economic stability. When challenged on the issue of completely misjudging how much debt the government said they would take on by 2006 (by the tune of £100bn) Gordon rather disgustingly told the host that he thought it'd be difficult for him to "make and prove (his) point".

Now the sad thing is that Gordon Brown had a point, and given his previous position in government it really shouldn't have been a problem for him to explain the economics in layman's terms and quite politely. Instead he somehow felt he had to take an aggressive tone and a defensive stance and managed to single handedly turn the interview onto a sour note from this point on. Now it is only my opinion, but while it is one thing to speak in an unsociably frank manner when someone is being facetious with you regardless of your status, it is another to do so when someone is asking you a very simple question...and it is also something you do when you are really growing tired of this aspect of the job, not a good sign.

Crisis and Disaster

The show then moved, perhaps as it always would, in to the PM's ability to deal with problems on the job. It is here that yet another fatal mistake has been made by the man. Time and again he wants us to forget that he has been working in Parliament for 10 years as a key policy maker on the economy when these questions come in. "I am in a new job, I've only been in it for six months" he says.

...What?

If I was showing incompetency in my job. If I was especially in a high pressure, high profile job, then I certainly wouldn't expect to turn around to my employer after screwing up several times and say "well, it's been 6 months but I'm still new in the job". Well...maybe that isn't fair. If I was a graduate going into a completely new experience maybe my employer would expect a year of on the job training and the risks that come with it. But can we really compare Gordon Brown, 10 years experience in creating massive policy changes for our economy, to an on the job trainee that would almost definitely be the only people in this country to even contemplate such a puerile excuse as "I'm new" so far into their contract?

Now talking about these crisis's Gordon went right on to the back foot when the conversation started hitting a little too close to home, listing just how many he has dealt with, the following being paraphrased...

We dealt with Floods, Avian Flu, Terrorism, Foot and Mouth and Bluetongue

I think now is far enough after the lot that it is acceptable to ask...how the hell did HE deal with any of these? The floods are a natural disaster and by the time he waded into the mess it was largely the end of the issue. The terrorism was failed attacks, dealt with in no more way than simply following protocols that even a junior minister could follow and making a few sound bites for a proud British press. Avian Flu? I didn't realise he had control over migratory patterns to keep them from our shore and, consequently, from ever being a big issue. Likewise, the Foot and Mouth and Bluetongue successes were more to do with lessons learned under the Blair government and by the steadfast and efficient work of health and emergency agencies to stop the spread from being a disaster...certainly nothing that he has done.

The Job

He finishes off by very clearly saying that he doesn't enjoy the job in the full, enjoying only some challenges and "just getting on" with those things he doesn't enjoy. Coming from a student political background I can completely engage with him on this feeling. I never "enjoyed" my job in a rounded fashion as a full time student representative, but I loved some of the challenges, the feeling of progress, and the people I worked with. The nitty gritty, the "dirty politics" and the unreasonable nature of some parts of the job would always mean it couldn't be a job I "love", but it was a job I would gladly and readily get up to do every day. I hope that is what it is like for him because if that's so then there is certainly no shame in being that way about that kind of job.

But loving the job or not, if the sum total of your ability to lead is to try and get aggressive in response to perfectly apt questioning that should be simple to answer, constantly avoid questions and put yourself on the back foot, and to take credit for averting disasters that never were then you won't be in it as long as you may have wished.