Editorial

Big beast in the jungle

For weeks the Conservatives have subjected Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer and likely next Prime Minister, to hard political pounding. An accompanying chorus of muttering has been heard on the Labour back benches, looking forward with dread rather than hope to his assuming the leadership of party and country in a few weeks' time. So far the desire of those MPs for a convincing rival candidate has failed to produce anyone willing to stand against Mr Brown. Just when his success seemed unstoppable, however, certain former senior civil servants added their solo voices to the clamour, calling in question whether he has the personal qualities necessary for the top job. And the polls have duly recorded a widening of the lead of the Conservatives over Labour, with antipathy to Mr Brown a crucial factor.

Yet in the middle of this drubbing he can get up in the House of Commons and barnstorm his way through his eleventh Budget speech, confirming his own record of outstanding economic management of the country's finances and bestowing tax-cutting and public-spending largesse in all directions. Lord Turnbull, who was his senior civil servant at the Treasury for four years, is reported to have said in some off-the-record remarks that Mr Brown handled other government ministers "with Stalinist ruthlessness" and treated them with contempt. There was certainly something ruthless about his Budget Day manner: he may not suffer fools gladly when they are his colleagues in Government, but he has no time at all for Tory politicians.

Another former civil servant, Sir Stephen Wall, has questioned publicly whether Mr Brown was the right person to succeed Tony Blair. What is clear, at least, is that his style as Prime Minister would be utterly different from that of his predecessor, and people in Government can expect bruised feelings and high-handed decision making. But that does not automatically make him a bad Prime Minister.

From now on Mr Brown is likely to be the biggest beast in the political jungle. He palpably suffers from the weaknesses of his strengths. The public may not much like his dourness or want him as a dinner guest, but they respect his competence and intelligence and acknowledge that he has proved an exceptionally safe pair of hands. Perhaps that is not possible without bruising some feelings. He is not a cold man, but he is certainly a driven one. And choosing a prime minister is not the same as choosing a dinner guest.

The contrast is made between his personal style and that of the Tory leader David Cameron, who oozes charm and self-confidence and is manifestly most people's idea of a decent sort of bloke. He is much closer to the Blair pattern of leadership than the Brown one, whose Scots Presbyterian "take no prisoners" style is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher. It is too soon, however, to classify the likely clash between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron as substance versus style, chalk versus cheese. Mr Brown has two years to work on his style, and seems already to have adopted a strategy of smiling under all difficulties and finding decent jokes for his speeches. Mr Cameron has two years to acquire some policies, realising that opposition is not enough. Both ways, Britain benefits. The post-Blair era will be a new chapter, and it is waiting to be written.

Back to the front page