Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The thoughtful Dizzy has picked up on Paul Linford's posts which I blogged about as well. He's done so via Political Betting. But he picks up the wrong end of the stick. The issue is not whether there is a Tory "conspiracy". Or whether Brown looks strange. Cameron seems to have taken an approach on Brown which is just to attack him as a person. Is it the right one? My view is that of course political leaders are strange, perhaps none more so than Blair the hollow man himself, whom Cameron has adopted as a role model. You cannot be "normal" and be Prime Minister. This is why it is wrong to attack politicians in this personal manner - it plays to the gallery and the worst aspect of the media spectacle. We should not be judging our politicians on whether or not we'd vote for them in Big Brother or a so-called reality game show. Brown is blind in one eye and has impaired vision in the other. This makes his facial expressions strange and his capacity to see at long-range limited and produces some of the odd characteristics of his mannerisms. These are exacerbated, I have no doubt, by his capacity for immense concentration. So what? Cameron's decision to attack Brown for being a "strange man" degrades our politics (even more).
This is NOT to say that character and the personal are unimportant. If a man is a ditherer when he needs to be decisive - or, perhaps worse, in love with the appearance of being a 'decision maker' when thought is needed (T. Blair) this is a fair political charge. Someone can indeed be the wrong man for the job. But if so this is because the way they are doing things is wrong or their prejudices lead them to the wrong decisions. Judge them by their deeds not their appearance.
