Andrew Marr‘s producers will be delighted with the ripples in the media pond spread by his question to the Prime Minister this morning. In a tortuously roundabout way the big-eared BBC presenter asked Gordon Brown if he was ‘one of those people’ who take prescription drugs. Is the reason he asked it because of the ‘right-wing blogosphere‘?
The blogger that first raised the issue admitted he had no actual evidence. But it took a while to take off. Leading right-wing blogger, Guido Fawkes, actually posed the question ‘Who Will Ask The Prime Minister’ as the title of this article from nearly two weeks ago:
“Last night Guido was on a panel chaired by Jeremy Vine when the subject of Gordon Brown’s alleged anti-depressant pill popping came up. Jeremy had read Simon Heffer’s article the night before (on his iPhone in bed) and thought that this blog had ran the story. Guido had not, but on Monday this blog ran a cartoon that referenced the rumour that everyone in the Westminster Village has heard. The Prime Minister is said to be taking powerful mood altering anti-depressants, specifically Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs) which are very rarely prescribed since the arrival of Prozac derivatives, used only sparingly when dealing with severely depressed patients.”
This is significant because it indicates the growing influence of online political gossip upon the mainstream media agenda. It is the kind of incident that is cited by those who fear that the Internet is polluting political discourse.
However, as Guido himself pointed out, it was mainstream media that was also indulging in this very personal speculation:
In the broadsheets Simon Heffer, Matthew Parris have touched on the issue and this morning Matthew Norman in the Independenthas explicitly referred to the allegation that Gordon Brown is taking “heavy duty antidepressants known as MAOIs (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors)”.
So by the time Marr got around to putting this bit of gossip to the Prime Minister, it was already up and running. In that sense I think it was a legitimate question. Brown was obviously surprised and upset by the question but he answered it very clearly: ‘No’. In that sense Marr was doing his job, which is partly to allow politicians to categorically kill off untrue allegations. As long as the BBC doesn’t now bang on about it all day I think Marr is absolved of accusations of following a sinister right-wing agenda.
But even if it is not a Tory plot it is ammunition to those like Alastair Campbell who think the whole media is in the gutter. But that’s odd coming from someone who carefully honed the presentational politics of personality while working for Tony Blair. It’s just that TB could handle that kind of character-based campaigning, Gordon can’t.
I am deeply fascinated and concerned about the PM’s character. I think the country is, too. It is an issue. His leadership style is bizarre. It has had a deep effect upon this government’s effectiveness and his Party’s catastrophic decline in the polls. Brown’s reaction to the Marr question and the way he rambled off into what was obviously a heart-felt disquisition on his eyesight ‘handicap’ indicated to me that his health/state of mind is a factor. Let’s be honest, if you had taken over a country only to walk into one of the world’s worst economic disasters you would be sorely tempted to seek chemical assistance. What makes it worse for Gordon is that his colleagues, let alone the media, are not providing any kind of balm.
Here is a very good blog post by Tory MP Nadine Norries, someone who has suffered from malicious and unsubstantiated gossip in the past in which she argues that Marr should NOT have asked the question:
“If Gordon Brown were blind, we would notice. Is it a crime to have poor eyesight?
Do we believe that, as three out of five people suffer with mental health problems/depression at some stage during their life, those people should be excluded from holding high office forever?
I use my blog frequently to criticise this Government and indeed Brown himself.
However, regardless of the political differences parties and politicians have between each other and regardless of how desperate we Conservatives are to expose Labours failings, remove them from office and get behind the wheel ourselves, I cannot believe there is one Conservative MP, who, if sat in Marr’s place, would have asked those questions.”
The Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan says he is ‘uncertain’ on this one and I think that is a good thing. There are no rules about these dilemmas and each case should be taken on its own merits. Although I notice that Ben quotes my former colleague Jon Snow, the Channel 4 News presenter, as having no qualms:
“He put up a good argument that the Prime Minister’s state of mind is always a legitimate question, even more so in Mr Brown’s case because of the frequent accounts we hear of his outbursts of temper in No10.”
It was the Indy wot done it. I just highlighted what others were talking about.
Alastair Campbell would know that the whole media is in the gutter, after all he lives there.
It’s far from clear that Brown denied it. It looks like a classic “non-denial denial” to me. (and FWIW Brown denied that there would be Labour Cuts, that anyone would lose from the abolition of the 10p tax band etc.. etc..)
“he answered it very clearly: ‘No’”. No he answered the question about his eyesight, he very carefully said nothing about painkillers or “pills to help them get through”.
“Big-earned” BBC presenter or big-eared BBC presenter. Was this a Freudian slip
Of course a well-honed and accomplished media performer would have laughed it off with a “Goodness Andrew! What a question – of course not!”
Gordon applied himself to the question in his usual manner which led the audience to the conclusion.
Probably lying. Spectacularly badly.
Just because something is being talked about in the rather narrow circles of Westminster isn’t always a good idea to raise it publicly. The fact that the rumour is doing the rounds on the internet is immaterial – it just means the circle is a little wider.
Evidence is key.
Marr may have raised the subject of of painkillers/anti-depressants with Brown because he (and every other political journalist) had felt guilty about keeping the lid on Charlie Kennedy’s drinking all those years, and then were somewhat exposed when Kennedy announced it at a press conference and Marr etc had to say: ah yes….we knew about it all the time, but we didn’t talk about it because, you know, at its heart Westminster is a bit of an Old Boys club, and there are some things we don’t talk about in front of the servants etc
All very embarrassing for everyone.
But the crucial difference of Kennedy compared to Marr v Brown was that with the former it really was common knowledge – not rumour – that CK was on the sauce. Stories about him missing meetings, bottles sloshing about in the back of taxis, and first-hand encounters with a visibly pissed Charlie at inappropriate times of the day were legion, and yes, the political establishment did conspire to cover up the problem until it couldn’t be kept secret any longer.
But is there a real basis to this current rumour about Brown and prescription drugs? I’ve not read, or spoken to anyone with proper serious evidence, apart from reading John Ward’s initial blog post earlier this month which linked some speculation about Brown’s diet, with some off-the-record briefing from unnamed (and possibly hostile) civil servants.
That’s all been repeated ad nauseam by columnists and bloggers, none of whom have (so far) added to the story. I look forward to being proved wrong, by the way.
So, I’d be very surprised if Marr’s producers are in any way celebrating the current furore that’s followed his cheeky question.
In fact I’ll predict that if they can’t come up with proper hard pill-popping evidence to justify intrusion, Marr and his team might soon be toast, career-wise.
I watched Andrew Marr’s programme yesterday morning and have to say that I was astonished at the manner in which the ‘pills’ question was posed. Whatever his or her faults the Prime Minister of the day deserves more than a degree of respect from us all – and certainly from a mere hack! Where will this tirade of abuse lead if not stamped out now? Andrew Marr is, I am sure, a polite and caring individual in his private life. So why try to adopt a Paxman approach now which just does not suit him.
“the Prime Minister of the day deserves more than a degree of respect”
Geoffrey Bennetts
Why?
Respect is earned, and GB has proven time and again that he deserves none whatsoever.
Within weeks of his *selection* I knew he was doomed, but that he would go down kicking & screaming to the end. I’m afraid he deserves all he gets.
If he had a smidgeon of honesty, he would have packed up ages ago.
“the Prime Minister of the day deserves more than a degree of respect”
Geoffrey Bennetts
Gordon Brown might deserve a little respect once he stops treating the British public with utter contempt and lying through his back teeth.
Until then, no hope of any respect from me.
We all know GB is a bit of a teeny weeny distorter of the truth,
so yes means no… ergo no means….. wonder how many he takes a day?
It’s a legitimate question given the posing in the Indie originally.
Indeed we should know, if our leader is a nutter and taking drugs to control his mood swings. Given Gordo’s known short temper and penchant for throwing things around and sweeping tables clear I would be annoyed if the question had never been posed.
“the Prime Minister of the day deserves more than a degree of respect”
Geoffrey Bennetts.
Like he and his party respect the wishes of the nation. He has treated the electorate with utter contempt, he and his party promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They are blatent liars.
If anything my betting, on which I posted, is one of the many things stressed people fall prey to, notably gluten or other food intolerances but perhaps other reactions common in ageing persons. Very many of us get something like this. The other thing is all the idiots he has working for him.
If anyone thinks it was not appropriate to ask GB about his pill popping, then did they stand up and say that it was not appropriate to ask Charles Kennedy about his drinking. If not, then they are hypocrites.
Brown did not satisfactorily answer no. He said how typical of the kind of question that is doing the rounds (or some such) and then started to answer a question he hadn’t been asked, about his eyesight which we all know about and are expecting to be used as a figleaf when the narcotics no longer do the business.
Microband was later asked about it, and rambled on interminably about tractor production without saying no.
So there you are, two non-denials – for me that’s a yes, and jug-ears’ place in history assured.
And yes he is right to ask it, if these are mood-altering drugs they will affect the man’s judgement. His failure to resign despite being the most unpopular and self-evidently incompetent and dishonest PM in history, makes him fair game.
He is bankrupting the country and doing irreparable damage to our standing with our major partners and allies as well as betraying our soverignty to brussels, and popping uppers to keep at it? Of course it’s a public interest issue.
Thanks for all the comments. A lot of them are political banter but noiamsparticus makes some interesting points to differentiate this case from others such as Kennedy’s drinking.
Others point out that Brown’s denial was perhaps not as clear as I implied, although that does not mean that Marr was therefore right to ask the question.
Overall, I think that these cases are all different and have to be judged on their own terms rather than by absolute rules.
I can’t help feeling that if MPs were more open generally, then we would be more prepared to grant them a private space and some respect.
Until they are more transparent I think they have to take the rough with the smooth and sometimes get pushed further than may appear decent.
cheers
Charlie
We all understand the premise behind the question very well though, don’t we?
The premise is that Gordon is mentally unbalanced and requires medication to support him, as raised in the Indy recently.
Gordon Brown is the mendacious leader of a mendacious government.
Who cares if he takes medication? The man and his government are corrupt, venal and totally unsuited to government. he should resign now along with his government. These people are not fit to govern. Now, what’s the issues about drugs? Does it matter? Get rid of them now
The other thing is all the idiots he has working for him.
But Demetrius, he hand picked them. They are they type of people he prefers.
It was probably the only question that Gordon and his spin doctors hadn’t rehearsed an answer for.
In the event he was still able to use a ‘smart bomb’ (kills everything in the vicinity) answer of “This sort of question is becoming all too prevalent in the lexicon of British politics… “. (No it isn’t: this sort of question has clearly never been asked before, judging by the reaction.)
And then he was still able to deflect the question towards a slightly related , but irrelevant, tale about his well-known rugby injury.
The thing I feel is that we, the voters, know absolutely nothing that’s important about the man (or any other politician). I want him to tell us what he believes and what he knows, rather than being left to try to work it out from his actions. Does he really believe that PFI and PPP benefit the country, or is he just trying to keep debt off the official balance sheet? Did he really not notice the housing bubble before it burst? Did he really think that CPI was the best way to measure inflation? Can he explain to us just how he sees ‘Keynsian stimulation’ working? Do the country’s real problems stem from just a few gung-ho bankers or is it much deeper than that? What does he think of the influence of China? What happens when North Sea oil runs out? What happens when the baby boomers start retiring in a couple of years’ time? Did he really think it was his brilliance that made the economy grow for “sixty consecutive quarters” and not that the whole world’s economy was growing on a giant bubble? etc. etc.
All he does is make a few assertions without any other evidence or explanation. The strong impression I have is of an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ situation, where people assume he must know what he’s doing because of his position and because he reputedly reads a lot of books, but in reality he has no special insights, no special knowledge, no ideas. Worse than that, he is clinging to the dream of a ‘legacy’ and taking the country down with him.
I recall Labour being all FOR asking questions about drugs, as long as the person concerned is David Cameron, and the alleged incidents are way back in Oxford University days (pre 1988).
Concerning the comparison with Kennedy, the current questions are far more important – did Kennedy have his finger on the nuclear and financial black button, compared to Brown, who DOES ?
And for Alistair Campbell to rave about journalism in the gutter, remind me, who was it that made the PM’s underpants front page material ? Ha.
Labour = Hypocracy.
Alan Douglas
Alistair Campbell says that ‘the whole of the media is in the gutter’ ? He should know – he is in the media and the gutter is his natural habitat but h is probably looking up to the rest of the media.
If anyone is still logging on to this post – some months later; I have a personal hope that this issue will be re-visited in terms of Andrew Rawnsley’s book and our democratic choices.