Spot changing
What on earth made him do that? That was the first question all who know the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull asked when they heard of .
It is not his style and, unlike some other senior civil servants, he's not known to have had any particularly fierce battles with the chancellor. I confess that my first thought was to ask how they'd managed to get him to say it and I hadn't. The answer is now clear. He didn't intend his comments to be public at all.
He believed, I'm told, that he was speaking off the record for a feature to be published after the Budget. Not that he denies making the comments or has distanced himself from them. Nor indeed has he criticised the FT but, friends say, he refers to his interview as "a classic cock up".
What matters, of course, is the contents and the credibility of what was said and not the intent of the person making the comments.
No one can question Lord Turnbull's qualifications to pass judgement. He's uniquely well placed to give an insight into the pros and cons of the chancellor's working methods. He was on the receiving end of Brown's dictats as permament secretary in the Department of the Environment. He then worked at his side at the Treasury before moving to Number Ten to see the Blair end of the Brown/Blair battles.
No one can suggest that his criticisms are not widely shared. Lord Turnbull's attack mirrors that of the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke - another who went rather further in print than they had planned to - and that of the anonymous Cabinet minister who told me that "Gordon Brown will make an f鈥ng terrible prime minister".
No one close to Gordon Brown protests that there's no truth in the suggestion that their guy exhibits "Stalinist ruthlessness" and has, at times, ignored, belittled or insulted other ministers.
No, the debate is about whether Brown's uncompromising style was good or bad for government and whether he needs to and is capable of changing his spots if he gets to Number 10.
The case against Brown is clearly spelt out in Turnbull and Clarke's interviews. Government, they argue, should be a team sport and he is not a team player. He and his clique have fought colleagues rather than working with them; divided government rather than united it; and been dictatorial rather than consultative. He has, in Tony Blair's phrase been "a great clunking fist".
The case for the defence is that Whitehall needed a good punch because it is still deeply conservative, resistant to change and risk averse. There would, it's argued by his allies, never have been independence of the Bank of England if the mandarins had had their way. There would never have been a plan to build thousands more houses without the Barker Report to challenge the environment department's complacency. What's more, they argue, some of the government's greatest mistakes came from the Treasury not interfering enough - look, they say, at the absurdly extravagant GP contract.
Does he need to change in Number Ten? All agree that the answer is yes. Prime ministers depend on wooing and cajoling other departments and have few levers themselves to pull. The debate is between those who think he's capable of it and those who, like Turnbull have... well... doubts...
PS Someone did persuade Lord Turnbull to go public with his concerns about not just Gordon Brown's approach but Tony Blair's as well. Anne Perkins' excellent documentary for Radio 4 called (MP3) is well worth listening to.
In it Turnbull says: 鈥淲as too much policy developed at the centre? Yes, I think it was. The occupants of 10 and 11 have got to be very sensitive to the downside of taking over a piece of policy that could be done in a department. It鈥檚 often a short sighted view because if you are constantly taking something over you will not develop the capability and also people won鈥檛 develop the sense of pride, they will actually feel belittled.鈥 He goes on 鈥淎ll the time you are leaning in the other direction, to say 鈥榥o, don鈥檛 do it that way, take it through a cabinet committee or something, something that may look quite bureaucratic but ultimately gives you a better decision and a better sense of buy in鈥 鈥︹ That is the tide that you are always swimming against 鈥. I felt I was swimming against the tide which is quite tiring, but hopefully I wasn鈥檛 swept away.鈥
I'm 
Comments
You are not seriously suggesting that Turnbull did not know exactly what he was doing! Come of it Nick. Of course he did. Some people have clearly had enough in regards to how this government operates. I laughed so much this morning when I heard your piece on Today. Of course Turnbull knew what was doing. You just want us to believe the spin you have obviously been fed from No 10. Just remember it was you some months ago who said that Yates would get nowhere. Get real Nick. Enough is enough. Take some tuition from Peter Hennessy in how this Government operates!
I think it is now clear to those on the outside what those on the inside already new as to the modus operandi of GB.
Have to say, it reminds me of a certain Mrs T - now there'a thought...
And, all those Tories unhappy with the "Blair-isation" of their party may prefer a such a Prime Minister?
The only question is, is he going to swerve left, or stay to the right?
The Government says that good government is damaged when the civil servant becomes the story, all very well but
a) Bad Govt becomes exposed as is clearly the case here.
b) This govt made civil servants scape goats so it is arrant not to mention gross hypocrisy.
c) This only confirms all the indications that despite their ruinous stupidity PFI and other damamging nonsense is pushed through by stifling rational debate.
I do wonder if Labour will seriously peddle Brown as a leader at the next election. I'd probably shift from a nuetral to an anti Labour vote if they turn up again with Blair or Brown anywhere near power.
I'm an FT reader and was delighted to read that Gordon Brown has been outwitting his civil servants, seeking and publishing independent advice from outsiders and insisting on setting objectives for Ministers to achieve with their plans and budgets. And then gripping them when they fall short. Because the most important reports are published and available for public comment (such as on the Euro, the BoE's reports and on planning policy and much else) this is both democratic and helpful. That is what we should expect from a government leader isn't it?
David Cameron must be rubbing his hands with glee. First Tony Blair needed the Tory votes to get Trident through, and there will no doubt be huge marketing mileage made out of that at the appropriate time.
Then within a week, one of Gordon Brown's closest colleagues says that no-one will want to work with him because of his style, and the Tories have another gift on a plate.
They say "every dog has its day", and it's now time for the Labour dog to retreat, initially to the sidelines and then to the Opposition benches.
Now, I'm no fan of Gordon Brown, but let's remember that Stalin was responsible for the death of 30 million people, at a conservative estimate.
Frankly, anyone who bandies about accusations such as Lord Turnbull's, seemingly based on a dislike of someone's working style, deserves to be ignored.
Nick
I have read these remarks by Lord Turnbull and if true - why NOT on the record. Er - full disclosure and all that.
Who on earth is he helping by keeping such views under wraps? It may not be true but it could be discussed at least.
Mr Gordon Brown aspires to be the Prime Minister in a short time. I thought "invalidity" of any sort in a prospective leader should be known about. Churchill, Eden and a couple of fairly recent USA Presidents come to mind - when we found out they did their jobs despite physical impairments.
We can do without Donald Rumsfeld's "Unknowns and knowns" thank you - especially by anyone wanting Number 10 Downing Street as their address.
Gordon Brown will be remembered for the Tax Credits (Child) debarcle and increasing tax to the highest levels for over 20 years. His tenure as Chancellor may also be remembered for its stability but it is the legacy of his spending and taxing that will end Labours rule. That and the fact that he has no charisma, no connection with the middle classes and no attraction to the working class. He will be a disastrous Prime Minister, just a run out leader.
I would be less worried about making sure Blair got a bit of bad mouthing as well and worry more about the state of this country if Brown gets into power.
I wouldn't put it past Brown to postpone the next election for a few years as it would be inconvenient! There have been warnings from history before - don't you think we should be listening out for them now?
Nick,
I think someone is pulling the strings here, knowing full well that Gordon Brown will deliver his final Budget tomorrow, before his attention is diverted to the leadership race. I personally think that there is rumblings within the Labour Party, whether Gordon Brown is the right choice to succeed Tony Blair. If I was a Labour activist (and I'm not), I would be terribly worried that all the opinon polls published over the last few months, including the recent one in the Guardian this week, always point to the Tory party leading. What is more worrying is when Gordon Brown is up against David Cameron that lead extends even more.
What do I think is happening, is that the first shots in a VERY BITTER Labour party leadership race has started, with the Blairites and the Brownites begining the opening skirmishes on what the future direction the Labour is going to go, and also scores of Labour MP's looking at their slim majorities and see the Tory party breathing down their necks.
O
Actually I was wondering when Blair's camp was going to start their anti-Brown spin and briefings against him becoming PM. My answer is well, they would, wouldn't they. They are arch-enemies now and it looks like Jonathan Powell is the main instigator of doing the dirty deed. He probably had a lot to do with the cash for peerages mess and is one of Blair's main lieutenants in dealing with leaking and spin now that Alastair Campbell is not around. Remember that No. 10 were hand in hand with the Security Services which was very convenient in getting any message he wanted across to the public and media. We all remember that Blair started out his laughable efforts on the stage in his band 'Ugly Rumours' if I am not mistaken. Well the title was very apt for him as it now appears. If Brown does not have the intellectual and statesmanlike qualities to take over the lead from a charlatan such as Blair then nobody else on the political stage could qualify. Brown will prove to have exactly the qualities which are now needed after the nightmare Blairite years of absolute chaos he has caused. Bring on Brown I say and clear out all the rubbish in No 10.
I鈥檓 persuaded that Gordon Brown鈥檚 policy understanding is fragile, given that its main source was a briefing document and his interview performance was shaky. From my own understanding of the underlying philosophy and character issues, I have strong doubts about his capacity to be an effective Prime Minister. The rise of practical and social aspects in politics, authority, and the public supports this view.
However, I鈥檓 not sure Lord Turnbull escapes from this unharmed. While he may like convention and dislike Ministers with a strong will, both convention and foot dragging don鈥檛 strike me as being fully alert to the responsibilities of his position. I don鈥檛 believe his outlook is one which best serves the organisation he represents, the Parliament he serves, or the people who depend on effective governance.
Habit and reactive behaviour is something we all suffer from, to one degree or another, and no amount of ambition or position can insulate us from that. Those at the top are as susceptible as anyone. Indeed, the higher the perceived loss that may flow from meaningful change, the harder the clinging to established patterns. A little less talk and a little more real world example from both would be better.
Is this why Brown has been mysteriously silent since he got his foot in the door of number 10? Are his advisers afraid he might compromise his position or authority before he moves in? Isn't anybody in Labour worried about the dramatically increased exposure that Brown will get as PM. He can't hide forever.
I will repeat something I said almost a year ago. Why does Brown want to become PM? He can only go down in the public's estimation. He's done a fair job as Chancellor so why not work for the UN or the World Bank where he can keep his reputation? For Gordon Brown I fear the only way is down...
Unsurprised by Lord Turnbull's comments to be honest. I met GB at a formal dinner before Labour won power and he was very stand offish, very hi-faluting and not interested in anyone else. He made little or no effort working the room and I got the impression then that he didn't really want to be there. Lord Turnbull's comments that he has a contemptuous view of others and uses the denial of information as an instrument of power fits with the image I gained when I met him. You can see from this what a Brown government would be like - dictating from Downing Street; increased taxes to pay for ever more wasteful initiatives that no one has been asked whether we actually need; ever more state control in the minutae of people's lives because government doesn't trust individuals to make the right decisions for themselves; and so on. How cynical this once ardent Labour supporter has become!
It is clear that Gordon Brown has always enjoyed enormous power as chancellor. Many of the government policies are his own making and they are not the most rejoicing or left wing. Privatisation of the tube, raid on pension funds, huge reliance on means testing for benefits all bear his mark.
Blair has managed to keep his enemy closer. It is unheard of to be chancellor for 10 years and enjoy such a stranglehold on government. However, now that he is doomed, Blair will make sure Brown does not stand a chance at the next election.
If brown has got problems with his management style then why not have someone who is in the know "spilling the beans". After all he's in line for the big job so surely us voters should be allowed to take opinions from his previous collegues. We'd certainly do that if we were employing him to run our company.
Thank you for that Lord Turnbull, your insight is most appreciated...
Nick, I have to say this is a damning attack on Brown. You need to be a team player in government to get things done.
Part if the problem with centralised policy making is that you do not get the feedback from departments about why things may go wrong or when something similar has been tried before, has gone wrong.
Can he change? No I don't. However it would not matter if he did, it matters if people think he has. I can't see that happening.
I suppose what we all out here in the real world are wondering, Nick, is - why now..? If it really was meant to be 'in private' (can any comment from those close to government to a journalist really be considered 'not for publication'..?) then it was ill-timed, to put it mildly. However - the cat is now out of the bag, and I suspect that no amount of poo-pooing from nos. 10 or 11 will manage to stuff it back..! So - what now for a one-horse race to no.10..? Is he not now damaged goods..?
Battleship Brown seems to be getting torpedoed below the water line before he even gets a chance to float.
The first question I would ask, what is Lord Turnbulls political bent, is he a closet conservative coming out?. Until we know what hymn sheet he's singing from we cannot assess his remarks.
Charles Clarke is a failed minister bent on getting his own back, so does the same apply to the honourable lord, a failed civil servant, moved from department to department, bent on getting his own back.
Government is a serious busness not a game on the playing fields of Eton. all teams need a strong captain. Better a strong Mr Brown than a hug a hoodie Cameron.
The first job for Mr Brown on becoming PM is to clear out the old dead wood in the Civil Service, and promote young, dymanic, can do personnel, and hold them accountable for their performance. For far to long the Turnbulls of this world have got away with blue murder.
Why should we believe an unelected official who may have some agenda of which we are unaware (book deal in the offing?)
If I were Gordon Brown, would I really want to takeover as PM?
Let's face it, Major supposedly governed with Thatcher's eyes boring into the back of his head - what chance does Brown stand with bitter and senior Blairites set loose on the backbenches if he became leader?
The briefing against him has already started in earnest.
Gordon Brown has never (to my knowledge) formally said he will run for leadership. He should keep it that way and leave for a position more suited to his track record - an organisation which takes more money, and provides less service. Perhaps he could work for First Great Western...
Nick, I am left wondering if this "classic cock-up" is actually supported by Number 10. Could we be seeing the Blairites wanting TB to stay on a tad longer so Milliband can be prepared for leadership? We have after all a good deal of time before the next election needs to be held.
Steve
Gordon Brown will change spots when he takes up place in the opposition benches after the next elections.
Des Currie
Perhaps he's not getting his share of quangos? Terry Burns did so much better, and it's just not fair. You give all your life for a measly salary and a few opera tickets, and they don't put you on the best quango..
To be fair to McCavity Brown, who wouldn't have "contempt for colleagues" if they included such luminaries as Geoff Hoon, Goldsmith, Tessa Jowell, Margaret Hodge, Alan Johnson, Richard Caborn & Co ?
(Not that the Brownite quartet : Darling, Browne, Alexander and Balls don't deserve equal contempt).
Nick, just as accountants should NOT be imaginative, civil servants SHOULD be conservative.
The fact that Nick and the McCavity sympathisers have had to work so hard to lay-off blame (no one actually seems to disagree with Turnbull's judgement), tells us all we need to know.
The Murdoch press have been feverishly busy all morning, backing, filling and disembling, to try to rescue the reputation of their annointed.
A sonorous guffaw is in order !
It now appears we will have the choice of a 'Stalinist' Brown or, given his family background,a 'Marxist' Milliband as leader of the Labour party.
What will the 大象传媒 lead story be, Lord Turnbull's comments, or that Gordon Brown 'may not face a leadership vote' ?
Do you think that No 10 could have put him up to it ?
Teflon Tone would love to get his own back on his mate in No 11.
I reckon Tone doesn't want to give up office, and this is a ruse to get us all to plead with the 'straight kind of guy' to stay after all.
Described by Tony Blair as a "Clunking Fist" now by Lord Turnbull as "Stalinist" .....fitting descriptions for this Contemptuous, means- testing control freak...my words!
Not the sort'a politician I wish for as PM.... but then the electorate are not being given a choice are they?
Nick your style of reportage can be extremely frustrating. Using Tony Blair's quote about a 'clunking fist' in relation to this story is clearly inappropriate. The context in which the comment was made was completely different, and refers to a future Labour leader (perhaps Brown, perhaps not) who would decimate the Tories. It was nothing to do with relationships within government.
By using words such as 'dictat' to describe Brown's operating methods, you are feeding the Turnbull side of the story in a way which is a bit depressing.
Noting that no allies have come out against Turnbull's reading of Brown's methods should not be taken as meaning that Labour MPs share this reading, as you assume.
To get bogged down in debates over Gordon Brown's assumed aloofness would surely do their campaign no good. It's a Catch 22 situation. You say no-one is better informed than Turnbull but it is precisely because of his unique position, and his own closeness to events that would make any reasonably critical thinker suspect he is not the most impartial source.
Honestly..the leaps of faith you make in creating 'the story' are truly depressing at times.
Not actually to do with the subject directly but as it is a Lord ho is discussed I do have a question and thought this the best way to ask it. Nick, the recent block, another in a long line of blocks by the Lords of the Trial by Jury in serious fraud cases, how does this overall affect the position of the Lords and the Government? I mean with the Government trying to change the Lords, is this some kind of fight back showing how an appointed chamber may actually be in the publics best interest due to a certain degree of impartiality and how the Lords have been credited recently standing up for laws founded on the rights of the Magna Carta and before which hold the liberties of all people in this country very dear? Or put simply are the Lords overall just putting in a last gasp and trying to show how important and good they are and making the Government look like bad guys?
Thank goodness, Lord Turnbull, permanent secretary to the Treasury for four years under Brown, has let some light in on such dubious practice.
Under Comrade 'Stalinist' Brown, the UK will be heading for a long stay in the fiscal gulag.
SUMMARY:
Look to history for a lesson ....
- He and his brother used to sell programmes at the football ground and as a result Gordon Brown says: "You got in free for the second half and they paid you as well" [1]
Not this time Gordon, for god sake, someone blow the whistle !
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
I think Blair would have been a far more successful Prime Minister if he had run against Brown for the leadership, he would have won easily. Instead he has let Brown run the domestic policy, to the detriment of those 'hard working' families he never shuts up about, at least the middle income ones. Failing that he should have the courage to sack Brown once he went on his wild spending spree, without reform and started building his client state. Brown is a deeply unlikeable character who has ruined pensions, made a complete mess of tax credits etc. he takes the blame for nothing and the credit for everything, including the economy he inherited. Blair had the chance to do so much with all the goodwill in the world and a massive majority and Brown held him back. Nothing would induce me to vote for Brown, I have totally lost faith in Blair but I would still prefer him to Brown. Turnbull, and the rest of Browns critics are spot on.
Personality clashes exist simply because we are talking about politics and politicians. What worries me is not what is said but the reality of it. A Prime Minister has so much power that we need to ensure that whoever becomes Prime Minister has a balanced pesonality. I think that much more should be decided by Parliament as a whole and a lot less by the Prime Minister acting as a single figure. I would not want to end up with a Soviet style regime in Britain and we know exactly what we are talking about. I want a Prime Minister that is able and willing of taking on board other peoples' views, somebody who will not try and run over everybody else, somebody that understands and accepts the fact that we are in a Parliamentary democracy.
I wonder...
Take one of those imposing pictures of Stalin, remove his head and put Gordons on it instead. You then have a brilliant election poster for the opposition parties. Trouble is, I'd never get the job in the marketing company because I wouldn't be able to decide between one of Stalins photo's taken on the balcony of the Kremlin (with him resplendent in his medals and uniform) or one of him in his tomb.
All the talk of "cut" or "con" is merely Nick Robinson spin. Why doesn't he stick to reporting the news rather than trying to create news by applying spin to every story
Anthony Jaynes asks what is the political stance of Lord Turnbull why?? the idea of a civil cervant within government is and should NOT BE POLITICAL it is only Labour who have turned the civil service into a political tool for their own devices. The politicians should stick to politics and descision making and allow the civil servants to implement them (IF generally agreed to do so). IF GB is a great leader then the majority of labour politicians and supporters will back him, if he is not and there is a battle he will not win - simple. However if GB were NOT to be contested THEN there should be a snap General election as we should NOT have a Prime Minister Who is not elected by the population of this country. Democracy rules within this country and to have a prime minister PUT into a position of power without some form of contest smacks of Robert Mugabes Zimbabwe
Nobody seems to have realised that Brown has frozen defence spending this year (despite announcing an "additional 拢400m" for defence). The estimated outturn for the combined capital and resource defence budgets in 2006/07 was 拢40.8bn; the defence budget (including the new "reserve") for 2007/08 is also 拢40.8bn (detailed maths and link to Treasury figures .)
In real terms, that's a cut of 拢816m in the UK defence budget. And this man wants to take over the foreign policy decision making ... !
Dear Nick,
Aren't many of your respondents very fickle when it comes to assessing Gordon Brown - both as a decent person and a canny Chancellor. He does not go in for any flashy gismos, he is a truly loving Dad and a good husband. He works extremely hard to keep on top of his job - some might well say too hard? We have had no "BOOM AND BUST" during his 10 year period of office; no Black Wednesday; he has presided over low inflation and low unemployment despite the HIGH oil and energy prices. Just because he doesn't suffer fools gladly that is no reason to call him a Stalin character and Turnbull should apologise for making such a crass remark - but of course he will not do so. Working alondside Tony Blair for the best part of 20 years can not have been that easy and it is no wonder that the two men have had their rows. I believe that Gordon Brown will make a fine Prime Minister and that he will step up to challenges that lie ahead.