Leave Gordon Brown alone (just this once)
Welcome to 'Letters From A Tory', covering British politics from a conservative perspective. Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts about today's letter, and don't forget that you can CLICK HERE to get my letters sent to you by RSS every morning.
Dear The Sun,
Yesterday, both Sky News and the BBC were fixated with your story detailing how the mother of a dead soldier was said to be upset by Gordon Brown’s letter of condolence to her, in which he made several spelling mistakes including the soldier’s name. You also attacked Brown for failing to bow at the Cenotaph. The story is still running today after you published the transcript of the conservation between Brown and the soldier’s mother from Sunday evening. While these incidents are all regrettable, your suggestion that this amounts to evidence that Gordon Brown does not care about Britain’s armed forces is absurd.
First, the Cenotaph. I don’t think anyone will be particularly thrilled with Brown if questioned about it, but before you tried to make a big deal out of his failure to bow, I didn’t see a single newspaper, blog or website make an issue out of this – presumably because they didn’t even notice. I also think it’s ridiculous that you extrapolated from this minor error and used it to attack Brown’s commitment to our armed forces, as there is clearly no link between the two. In fact, I could reasonably argue that Brown was so caught up in a moment of reflection and sadness during the service that he was unable to think straight and therefore forgot to bow.
Second, the letter to Jacqui Janes about her son’s death.
As you noted, PMs write to all next-of-kin of the fallen and Brown telephoned Jacqui yesterday to apologise for his mistake. However, you didn’t think this was good enough. Jacqui apparently said: “He couldn’t even be bothered to get our family name right. That made me so angry. Then I saw he had scribbled out a mistake in Jamie’s name. The very least I would expect from Gordon Brown is to get his name right. The letter was scrawled so quickly I could hardly even read it and some of the words were half-finished. It’s just disrespectful.” You went on to gleefully detail Brown’s errors: spelling Jamie incorrectly and then correcting it by scrawling over the last letter, committing four other spelling mistakes (greatst, condolencs, you instead of your, and colleagus) and writing the letter “i” incorrectly 18 times – mostly by leaving the dots off them but once by using two in “security”.
Jacqui went on: “In the days after Jamie’s death I got letters from Prince Philip, Buckingham Palace, the Defence Secretary and his regiment. They were all written from the heart and made me feel Jamie’s death was important to them. Then I got Gordon Brown’s. I only got through the first four lines before I threw it across the room in disgust. I re-read it later. He said, ‘I know words can offer little comfort’. When the words are written in such a hurry the letter is littered with more than 20 mistakes, they offer NO comfort. It was an insult to Jamie and all the good men and women who have died out there. How low a priority was my son that he could send me that disgraceful, hastily-scrawled insult of a letter? He finished by asking if there was any way he could help. One thing he can do is never, ever, send a letter out like that to another dead soldier’s family. Type it or get someone to check it. And get the name right.”
I understand why Jacqui is upset, but a little bit of common sense often goes a long way in situations like this. A spokesperson for Brown said last night: “The PM takes a great deal of time writing letters of condolence. The reason he personally writes to every family is to acknowledge the debt of gratitude owed by the country to those who have died. He would never knowingly mis-spell anyone’s name.” Yes, Brown could have typed it, and yes, he should not have made so many mistakes, but I can almost guarantee that if Brown sent out typed letters then some parent somewhere would complain that he doesn’t even care enough to write the letters himself as they would assume that it was just another standardised letter sent to all families of the deceased. The fact that Gordon Brown has very bad handwriting is presumably down to the fact that he only has one eye and, unlike some other bloggers, I think it is appalling to attack Brown for his disability and make reference to it (Iain Dale pointed out that he has to write in felt tip because of his poor eyesight). Sure, Brown could get someone to check his letters but apparently he writes them himself and personally puts them straight into an envelope to be posted. Does that sound like a man who doesn’t give a damn?
I think this entire episode is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves. There are a million and one reasons to have a dig at Gordon Brown right now, including his funding of the military and failure to come up with an effective strategy in Afghanistan. Sadly, you have stooped to the lowest common denominator (no change there) and taken aim at his disability and suggested that he doesn’t care about our armed forces, even though the evidence that you cite suggests quite the contrary.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“Sure, Brown could get someone to check his letters but apparently he writes them himself and personally puts them straight into an envelope to be posted. Does that sound like a man who doesn’t give a damn?”
Actually, it sounds like a man who doesn’t trust anyone else, and doesn’t realise what the consequences of his actions are likely to be. Someone who cannot empathise with someone else.
“Sadly, you have stooped to the lowest common denominator (no change there) and taken aim at his disability…”
Plenty of other people have pointed out that they too have a disability and this makes them take more care, not less. And that’s when writing a note to the milkman! This was a little different, wasn’t it?
I don’t think this is in any way about his disability. His poor handwriting may well be a consequence of it but do please remember that by the time Thatcher was dragged kicking and screaming from no10, her signature was reported to have degenerated to a tick.
The spelling and the lack of error checking is the thing that shows a certain…contempt. Or maybe arrogance. Either way, its not good but despicable as it is, it shouldn’t distract from the overarching issue of under-resourced troops being killed due to a lack of high quality equipment (if its not helicopters, its armoured vehicles or snatch land rovers or body armour if you recall).
How exactly is his spelling linked to his disability?
It was the Prime Minister which brought his ‘disability’ into the equation by trying to claim that the fault was Mrs Janes’ for not being able to read his handwriting rather than admitting that there were 25 spelling mistakes.
Dear A Tory,
Unlike the previous commentators, I entirely agree with you, in all regards.
His disability is not a problem. His apparent inability to spell is not a problem. His handwriting is not a problem.
However, he is the Prime Minister. We expect certain standards of our PM. We expect him to represent the country in a manner of which we can be proud. One example of this is that we expect letters that emanate from Downing Street to be correctly spelt, and legible.
If, therefore, he cannot see the paper in order to write legibly on it, can he not realise that he needs to use a shorthand typist, or a dictaphone? We would be making an issue of his disabilities if we criticised him for being unable to write these letters. We are not making an issue of his diabilities by pointing out his refusal to accept and accommodate them, his refusal to use perfectly unobjectionable means in order to meet the standard that can be expected of a Prime Minister.
Look at the letter. Imagine that it had been written by a foreign Head of Government. What impression would it give you of the country concerned? Now imagine it typed, and think of your reaction to being told that the Head of Government was virtually blind and therefore used a typist.
Brown has a standard to meet. He has failed to do so, and has displayed a lack of judgement in the manner of his failure.
The real reason for the fuss, though, is explained well at Oxford Spring.
Julia, although I disagree with you, it just goes to show how wildly subjective this situation is – which is precisely why I find the Sun’s black-and-white interpretation so irritating.
Shaun, there are certainly more important issues at stake, making it even more annoying that the Sun has decided to focus on what is in my opinion nothing more than an unintentional error.
Anna, sorry but I haven’t seen the PM claim anything of the sort. From the BBC: ‘In a statement issued on Monday, the prime minister said: “I have telephoned Jacqui Janes to apologise for any unintended mistake in the letter. To all other families whom I have written to, I can only apologise if my handwriting is difficult to read.”
AT, much obliged.
Patently, I’m not saying it doesn’t look bad, I can see why Jacqui is upset and you are right that it gives a bad impression. However, like I said in my letter, I still think that Brown sending out typed letters could easily result in equally bad press and people would be criticising him for not caring enough about our armed forces to write a letter himself. The Sun have made an issue of this just because they could, not because they needed to. There are bigger things at stake here.
I agree with the disagreers.
I’ve written about this in more detail back at my place (who hasn’t?), but in summary, if I’m just writing a sick note to school for one of my kids, and I make a mistake, I screw up the paper and write it again.
It’s the “f*** it – that’ll do, I’m busy” attitude that boils my p***.
Great commentary, I agree completely. Nice to see a blog getting this particular incident right. So many have interpreted it the way the Sun wanted them to. Brown deserves the benefit of the doubt here.
“Shaun, there are certainly more important issues at stake…”
There are indeed. So it’d be ironic if this was the thing to topple him, wouldn’t it?
“Anna, sorry but I haven’t seen the PM claim anything of the sort.”
Making the statement ‘I can only apologise if my handwriting is difficult to read’ is doing precisely that.
Because it begs the question ‘Well, why do you handwrite them then? Or why do you not ensure the letter that goes out is as free of obvious errors as can be?’
“However, like I said in my letter, I still think that Brown sending out typed letters could easily result in equally bad press…”
Not sure about this. What do other heads of state do?
I think we are all missing something here.
In my opinion the whole thing was a stunt set up by Gordon and his cronies. It was done on purpose.
It has just spectacularly back fired.
Or I may just be a cynical bastard…
Welcome back LFAT- hope the holiday was a good ‘un.
Totally agree, this has been reported by the Sun purely because it might do Brown a bit more damage. To be in such a rage over spelling mistakes or poor handwriting is absurd. To equate these common writing difficulties (I too suffer occasionally) with being disrespectful to the dead is ridiculous. The only reason this has become an issue is due to the circumstances surrounding the letter.
Brown may be a deluded social engineer who has surrounded himself with eejits, cretins, and the occasional criminal but as much as I try, I just can’t bring myself to label him a monster. I don’t doubt for a second that if the Sun continues with this campaign, it will become even crasser and even more personal. Brown has done enough to this country we can attack him on through the legitimate channels, let’s stick to that and leave out the personal jibes. After all, we’re supposed to be adults.
While I agree that the way this incident has been used by the Sun, and that Brown is perhaps being treated unfairly looking narrowly at this isolated issue.
However, it has to be viewed in a wider perspective – especially bearing in mind the smear tactics he has himself at the very least encouraged in the past.
Those that live by the sword….
After his spectacularly ignorant letter, full of self importance , addressed to DC on the subject of repealing the hunting ban, its unfortunate that this wretched individual is still masquerading as a Tory.
A certain logic seems to have been left out here. If it were a question of Mr Brown’s eyesight, surely he would write in a much larger style, than the very small scribble that he does.
The letter looks hurried, probably written late at night when he wasn’t at his best. I don’t think necessarily that he should be castigated for it, but it goes towards a pattern of behaviour.
Brown has always lacked attention to detail. People always accused him of micromanagement at the treasury, but control freakery and attention to detail are distintly different attributes. This is how we have ended up with the most perverse and overblown tax laws in the world, because every time he passed one tax law, he had to add another to it to attempt to mitigate the unforseen consequences.
LFAT,
I’m in two minds – while I feel the paper has gone too far, I think it is right that the PM is held accountable for the lack of presentation – especially when it comes to this sort of letter.
In knowing that he has terrible handwriting, it is feasible that he would have it typed, and in the letter apologise for the typing stating that his handwriting is shocking. Alternatively, he should get someone else to hand write the letter and sign it himself.
I am fairly confident that GB will be gutted that he has managed to upset a bereaved parent, and I am also appalled at the way this bereaved mother has behaved which is not dignified in the slightest and to me, is a slur on her son’s memories.
I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are playing down two important points. By far the most important point is that he is Prime Minister of this country – and as such everything he does is open to public inspection and challenge. Its no good playing the sympathy card – it just doesn’t wash.
But it is also surely relevant that the grieving mother has an important point to make about why her son died – and is perfectly entitled to make it as loud and as visibly as she can. The Sun newspaper is perhaps an easy target, but she is not. Her son died fighting a war whose objectives are still not clear, and died for the want of proper equipment. She is correct that government shares a big part of the blame for this, and entitled to have that view widely reported.
You should pack away your sentimentality, and tomorrow of all days you should be supporting a mother who has lost her son to this country needlessly.
The problem isn’t so much the letter and its spelling mistakes, much as they might be incredibly irritating and annoying to Mrs Janes, but the fact that the man who sent it appears to have no comprehension of the fact that his policies have contributed to Mrs Janes losing her son when it need not have been so.
Remember she’s from an army family, through and through. She knows from the people on the sharp end just how bad the effects of Brown’s policies have been on the Army. And then to receive a letter from the man himself, who’s clearly oblivious to the fact of his own responsibility, simply rubs salt further and further into the wound. I’m not surprised she’s hit the roof .
Yes, The Sun concentrated on his cack handed handwriting and poor spelling, but to me that looks like it’s a letter dashed off in a couple of seconds without any thought. In a similar situation I’d expect a first draft and then a carefully written letter. And if he’s such a terrible speller, why not use the telephone as a first choice instead, except that would leave him open to too much personal insight into his policies…
As I’ve said at http://cogitodexter.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/complaining-about-the-suns-janes-coverage-misses-the-point/ the whole attack-the-Sun thing is dangerously missing the point. This is ultimately about soldiers’ lives and the failure of the PM, both now and when he was Chancellor, to adequately resource the military even when it was being asked to do more and more to meet the political objectives of the government.
In a conversation with Mrs Janes Mr Brown claims to have written the letter, “passing on the condolences of myself and on behalf of the country.”
Ordinary people would make sure that such a letter is properly written and without any spelling mistakes. Is it too much to expect him, the Prime Minister, to do the same?
Wow, this was really a Marmite post – split the commentors down the middle (apart from Backwoodsman, who rather stupidly decided to try and make this into a party political issue when it is nothing of the sort).
I should reiterate that I’m not in any way excusing what Brown did, but I am most certainly attacking the Sun for the inferences that they made about what Brown did. The PM should never be let off the hook for not equipping our troops properly and there is a bizarre sense of justice about him being berated by the mother of a dead soldier in full view of the press. That said, I do not think Brown’s carelessness with a pen is in itself good reason to declare him a failed leader.
Going by this Brown is autistic,
And does not have the ability to be in Downing street, well we knew that!
So you are shooting the messenger but not the message. Are you a Scouser?
I think he’s gained a fair bit of undeserved sympathy. Not because of what happened, but because today he looks so utterly, wretchedly, defeated.
He has reached his own personal John Major moment where everything he does, says or doesn’t do is going to be wrong.
So a little sympathy is to be expected for the man on the green mile.
He’s arguing the toss with Louis Walsh on X-Factor over Jedward, ffs, so he’s clearly forfeited any residual dignity in the office of Prime Minister. Bad handwriting and glib remarks to those who have been bereaved, in part, because of his penny pinching make no difference to the fact that when you are lowered to arguing over minor noncelebs with a minor celeb, nobody really cares WTF you have to say about anything.
Well I agree with LFAT. If I had received this letter I would have found it rather touching. You can tell, for example, that the last “my sincere condolences” has been added later.
I also have to say that revealing private correspondance, especially to the press, is atrociously bad manners in itself.
My heart goes out to Mrs Janes. Her son was killed as a result of a monumentally stupid war run by a discredited and pathetic government – led by Brown. But this letter looks to me as though it is sincere.