Comments:Minor tears found in Gordon Brown's retina
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
The tears discovered in Gordon Brown’s retina should not, in themselves, be a hindrance to his continuing in office until the next election. He has lived with deteriorating eyesight for most of his adult life and has access to the best treatment the NHS can provide.
The real question hanging over him relates to the rumours regarding his mental suitability for high office that have dogged Brown since he became Prime Minister.
His frequently haggard appearance, notoriously short fuse, demonstrated most recently when he stormed out of an interview with Sky’s Adam Boulton and the rumour the he is taking antidepressants alluded to in a television interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr all suggest Brown is struggling to cope with the pressures of his job.
This, more that anything else, throws into sharp perspective the lack of wisdom in allowing Brown to be ‘crowned’ as Labour leader and Prime Minister in 2007, a leadership contest fought between Brown and one or more serious contenders would have exposed the strengths and weaknesses of all the participants allowing party members to make a choice based on the evidence as they understood it, not to have the decision handed to them as a done deal.
That might not have helped Labour to avoid the troubles that now beset them, but it would, at least, have lessened the chance of a decent but fatally flawed man being appointed to a role he is not suited for with disastrous consequences for his party and country.