Why was the body language between Gordon Brown and George Bush at their White House press conference so much warmer than at their frosty first joint appearance at Camp David last July? Camp Brown would argue that the PM is going positive so that he can move transatlantic relations into a new phase in time for the new President who will take over in January. He's making a big speech on his vision for the "post Bush era" in Boston today. Described as his "letter to America", he will urge it to engage more fully with the rest of the world on climate change as well as terrorism. So needed to deliver that message on a more positive footing.
There are other reasons for Brown's change of tack on Bush.
The Americans were not happy about Brown's froideur and they don't like British forces in Iraq being virtually confined to Basra Airport while US troops help the Iraqis put down the insurgency in Basra. Bush has been cuddling up to Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel in the meantime, so Brown was advised that a rebalancing of his July position was required.
I suspect there is another reason, though his aides would never admit it. Last summer, Brown was in a much stronger position politically after succeeding Tony Blair. In his honeymoon phase, he had the strength to distance himself from Bush. Now he is a much weaker position domestically, as the constant distractions from London have shown. Remarkably, Brown had to break off from his meetings at the White House to plead with Angela Smith not to resign as a ministerial aide over his decision to abolish the 10p lower rate of tax. Unfortunately for the PM, that may be the abiding image of his visit to America, a sign of the dangers that lie ahead when he returns tomorrow.
I wonder if your analysis is flawed here. Given Brown's popularity here in the UK will not being perceived as warming to Bush damage his image further?
Posted by: Darren Lilleker | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 10:27 AM
I totally agree with Darren Lilleker, this will go down like a led balloon. Brown has no guiding principal, it's embarrassing to watch him.All our hopes for a change are an illusion.
Posted by: Robert Baxter | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 10:34 AM
Dear Andrew, I do agree with your analysis. Gordon Brown right now is a very unpopular P M. Both he and his discredited is out of touch. When the Iraq Study Group presented their report, the President rejected out of hand all the recommendations. Similarly The House of Lords in its report said that there is no evidence that large scale immigration is good for the country and it is just not true that migrants contribute to the economy. Gordon Brown rejected the report and said that he does not agree and that there should be no cap. There is no way New Labour will win the 2010 election, It is far too right wing esp on foreign policy.
Posted by: Mr Y Bhatt | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 10:42 AM
Hehehe - you said Brown loves Bush.
Posted by: Boner McBonerson | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 11:27 AM
Gordon Brown speaks of his "moral compass" but he appears to just flutter on the wind, easily spun around by any passing spin doctor. Poor old George Bush looked positively bemused by the awkward numpty he was forced to stand next to at the podiums and then invite for dinner.
I wonder if Gordon Brown could ever say the simplest sentence without reading his notes and moving his hands up and down them like an awkward puppet?
Posted by: Mikko Takala | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 12:02 PM
I think we have to be very vigilant with these two dangerous rogues....watch out for Brown giving Bush support to attack Iran...that's how Brown can get to feel important to Bush, and it's what Bush wants from Brown....the rest is small-fry stuff in comparison.
Posted by: Brian | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 12:25 PM
brown is a war criminal as are bliar and bush. if milosovic
was guilty of genocide for 20,000 dead then this trio are
guilty ten times over,at a conservative estimate.
michael culver
Posted by: michael culver | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 12:32 PM
Can we please judge Brown less on his physical traits and more on his policies? People expect too much from PMs.
Posted by: Mary White | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 01:06 PM
Unfortunately I have to agree with most of what's being said here, specially with Mr Culver's.
You do realise that with climate change, raging capitalism and the destruction of wars for oil, power and greed, the North is once again leading the planet to an embarrasing and pittyful situation, right?
The "unfortunate" dictatorships of the '60s, '70s and '80s in south america (supported in many cases and ways by powers of the north) had little effect in terms of global impacts. The so called developed countries are driving our only ship straight into a waterfall, a wall, hell or any other metaphore you like. If by any chance the leading countries think they're doing enough to change things around, the must think again.
Sincerely
D. Adamson (a global citizen living in the South)
Posted by: D. Adamson | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 01:19 PM
I agree with Mary White in so far as we should not just judge Brown on his physical traits but they have a place too as it's hard to trust someone who can't say "hello" without reading it awkwardly from a sheet of paper. Blunkett is totally blind but he manages without constant reference to notes and never looks cringingly awkward.As for policies, Gordon doesn't have any. He sails around in the wind and lets himself get spun about by "advisers" and then picks on somethiing, dithers about it and then changes his mind again completely. The man couldn't decide whether to eat dinner or not.
Posted by: Mikko Takala | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 01:36 PM