Was Marr right to ask Brown that question?

Sally Chatterjee

It's open season and many are on the hunt. The media is certainly targetting him.

It is disrespectful in some ways but then again, given the billions of pounds of damage the man has inflicted on the economy - he makes Sir Fred Goodwin look like a petty cash fiddler - it is only normal that he meets his nemesis after a decade of unrivalled political hubris and arrogance.

Shirley Dobson

It would had been in order to ask about anti-depressants but Marr asked a very vague question and referred to pain-killers, plenty of wriggle room which Brown used.

paracelsus

Good, the lower Labour's share of the vote the better.

They need to be wiped out, forgotten, and consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

SNP Tactical Voter

I'm no doctor but is asking someone if they are on prescription painkillers the same as asking if they are on anti-depressants?

StevenAdams

I see no problem with the question, insofar as there's validity in knowing why the PM is taking anti-depressants, if indeed he is.

If there was an underlying health issue that explained his reported rages, sullen responses, etc, then this (in my opinion) impacts upon his ability to be effective and is relevant to the electorate.

However, if indeed this was a worthy enquiry by Marr and not a journo fuelling tittle tattle, then he should have given the PM some prior warning. The look of thunder on Gordon's face at the end of that interview was something to behold...

Silent Hunter

It's a shame that Marr let the PM off the hook with his claim to have helped folk struggling to pay their mortgages using Labours Mortgage relief fund, set up at the cost to the taxpayer of several millions.

So far to date it has helped precisely EIGHT families.

It would have been cheaper for the taxpayer to simply have paid off the mortgages of the 8 families.

WASHBROOK

John Forsyth says''Burt on the other hand, I wonder if Brown should have been asked such a question without some more evidence for it to be based on. ''
Who is Burt?

biggestaspidistra

Maar's question was: "a lot of people use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through, are you pne of those people?"
Brown answered with an unconvincing 'no'. Anti-depressants weren't mentioned. The whole thing looked staged.

Beer Moth

I think we are way beyond the stage at which such information might make a difference.

He is dead meat and the stench has been with us for far too long.

Doug

For once Marr asked the tough question and he was right to do so. It wouldn't need to be asked if we had a proper report on the PMs health as every modern President of the US has been required to produce. Now can I see the income tax returns for all UK polticians?

GoodbyeGordon

Can you imagine how miserable, negative and downcast he would be if he was not on anti-depressants?????

mitch

with gordon in charge we should be putting them in the water.

JohnW

The rumours are about anti-depressants, the question was about painkillers.

Not sure what to make of this.

Catesby

What would be worrying is if the question had been agreed between the interviewer and interviewee beforehand, perhaps at the instigation of Brown's media handlers, as a way of neutralizing the issue.

But I'm confident such things never go on at the BBC.

James Burdett

I don't think he was to be honest. I am not Brown's greatest fan but some things should rightly be beyond the scope of an interview and asking questions about rumour and gossip doing the rounds is one of them. I also think that knowing all the ins and outs of a politicians medical history or ongoing treatment is also wrong. Politicians should be able to have some control over what information is in the public domain and what isn't. I frankly don't care whether Brown is or is not on any form of medication for any condition physical or mental, and I have a low opinion of those that do care.

Senor Frizby

The only time Brown will not dither is when in denial. I don't believe him on anything so I now assume he is high as a kite - his actions never cease to confirm my suspicions!

The conferences should be the announcement of the next general election so that Brown can put himself before the judgment of the people. His cowardice is deplorable.

Moraymint

Gordon Brown now finds himself in a vicious, downward spiral - indeed, he's been in this mode for a long time now. Questions like Marr's are simply a reflection of the extent to which Gordon Brown is a busted flush.

It beggars belief that his Party is unable and/or unwilling to jettison him. It's hard to imagine any other walk of life apart from politics where an organisation could tolerate such a disaster at the top.

Like I've said before, I don't who's behaviour is more dishonourable in all of this: Brown's or his colleagues?

Doctor Crippen

He didn't deny being on medication, he simply didn't address that question. He did deny that there was a problem with his one remaining eye...

robert williams

"But Brown’s reaction, suggests he wasn’t expecting the question."

Brown was VERY quickly into a VERY quizzical look as the question was posed. He may have been overacting his ignorance of the question.

elagabalus

er... he didn't ask Gordon if he's on anti-depressants. He asked if he was on prescription painkillers. Not a question anyone else has asked, as far as I know.

Wilfred

As I understand it, all the speculation about Brown's mental health is based on nothing more substantial than a dubious second-hand report that he doesn't like Chianti or camembert. Is this evidence of the final dumbing-down of the fourth estate?

macca

Whether you like or loathe Brown, this marks another step in the wrong direction for British politics and the 4th estate. Another reason why any sensible person wouldn't consider a career in politics just in case personal and confidential information is leaked, just to fulfil the self-serving 'Public Interest' as defined by arrogant journalists...

Since Marr asked this question today - how about asking Dave Cameron about the drugs rumours next week? All in the name of fairness - or is it in the name of dragging British politics into the gutter?

Simon Stephenson

Marr

"A lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of them?"

Brown

No

I think Shirley Dobson, SNP Tactical Voter and biggestaspidistra have it right, Doug is wrong, and I hope that catesby wrote tongue-in-cheek.

To my mind, there's no way that this wasn't a staged attempt to give Brown the opportunity to say something that, although misleading, would be taken by many to be a reassurance about his health. It allowed Brown to interpret the question as being "are you on your own initiative taking pills to help you through", to which he could truthfully answer "No". If Marr is worth his BBC money, and he wasn't deliberately giving Brown the opportunity to mislead, he would have asked whether Brown at any time during his Prime Ministership had taken prescribed anti-depressant medication. This is what the rumours were about, not painkillers or pep pills. So why does Marr give Brown a get-out?

It's a put-up job, like all Marr's interviews with Brown have been.

styrofoamplates

People act as if we haven't had Prime Ministers on medication in the past. Churchill was depressed, but he self-medicated with enormous amounts of alcohol - I'd rather a PM who has seen a medical professional and on a prescription medication every time.

The implication is that if Brown is depressed and on medication then he's not fit for office - and that is not only disablist in nature, but implies that people with disabilities aren't as capable as those without, and that their contribution doesn't mean as much.

This is both false and pernicious, and only serves to further stigmatise people.

Liz Brown

perhaps he'll do us all a favour and overdose

biggestaspidistra

@styrofoamplates:'The implication is that if Brown is depressed and on medication then he's not fit for office - .....This is both false and pernicious, and only serves to further stigmatise people."

That is the implication and it is a sound one. It is ridiculous equation to think the mentally challenged can govern as well as others. There is no common sense in what you are suggesting.

In2minds

Under the Nulabour ID card scheme over 50 pieces of information are required form us all. So Brown can answer this question about his medication.

Anne Wotana Kaye

I don't take either pain killers or anti-depresents, but if I spend too long watching Brown or indeed any of them on TV, I could probably benefit from a large bottle of both!
On a more serious note, has there ever been a medical study done researching if even more Britons need these medications after TV appearances by Brown and other members of his Cabinet?

FrankFisher

Umm. Marr didn't mention anti-depressants. No one did. So Brown could hardly have denied he was taking them, could he?

How *hard* is it to watch TV and take notes?

logdon

Liz Brown
September 27th, 2009 4:06pm Report this comment

perhaps he'll do us all a favour and overdose"

Is this a family vendetta?

Peter Stroud

@macca. David Cameron's drug history was related to his days as a student. The question of Brown taking anti depressants relates to the memtal health of our Prime Minister. The two bear no comparison.

@Simon Stephenson. I agree entirely with your view of Marr.

Fearless Frank

Churchill was depressed, but he self-medicated with enormous amounts of alcohol - I'd rather a PM who has seen a medical professional and on a prescription medication every time.

I'd rather we had Churchill.
Right, now I'm off to "self-medicate" (that is a rather ugly expression, by the way).

Mrs S.Brown

logdon:
Liz Brown:
"perhaps he'll do us all a favour and overdose"

Is this a family vendetta?

I'll take care of Liz, thank you!

NB

Look closely, it was a non-denial denial.

And it's a perfectly legitimate question. I hope someone asks it in parliament, since Brown has quite a history of telling blatant lies esp outside the house.

Scallywag

Liz Brown
September 27th, 2009 4:06pm Report this comment

perhaps he'll do us all a favour and overdose"

We can live in hope, can't we?

Any Colour but Brown

It comes across, on the face of it, as if Brown has denied taking any pills, at all, when he hasn't - he's denied taking pain-killers.

I suspect that this was a set-up (created by Mandleson?), to which Brown was not party. The reaction was genuine, because he didn't know he'd been set up - if he'd known, he'd have given one of his God-awful smug grins, dropped his jaw and given Marr 5 minutes of tractor stats - and everyone would have known that this was a tame question.

Moonpig

"but implies that people with disabilities aren't as capable as those without, and that their contribution doesn't mean as much."

This is simply the most asinine comment ever. If you are missing an ability, or reduced in an ability, there is something you can't do as well. Otherwise you are not disabled. If that disability is relevant to a job or task, it is not "disabilist" to consider it relevant, it is absurd not to. And wishing otherwise does change it.

Being blind in one eye with issues in the other is a disability that can be compensated for and - while possibly limiting - is one factor among many. Having seriously distorted thinking and feeling about oneself, ones position in the world, again is a factor we can trade off in choosing a PM (Churchill earned some leeway) but would by many people be perceived as a genuine disqualification for the job for Brown. Final nail in coffin.

Or is there some crass anti-disablist doctrine that says doubly incontinent adults with a mental age of 3, or people with locked in syndrome should have those conditions disregarded or compensated for in seeking high office.

Haven't laughed more in weeks.

Roger Slade

It's about time Marr asked a slightly controversial question of a Labour MP as he is usually licking their boots. The question of Brown's health has been widely reported in the media and it is not only a matter of public interest but also a matter of great importanceand concern. Unfortunately Brown is never going to tell the truth and it is a bit thick that a corrupt politician called Lord Mandelson should get on his high horse and make derogatory comments about the BBC who, after all is said and done, is the propoganda mouthpiece of the government and will be campaigning on Labour's behalf at the next election.

David Williams

Expect equal fury from the Cameroonians if and when DC is challenged on rumours of his own history of drug taking.

CJ Lucey

There are well-documented cases of political leaders concealing medical conditions in the past e.g. JFK, Eden, Churchill in the 1950s. So politicians' health is a legitimate - if unsettling - area for public scrutiny.

Labour's hyper-sensitive reaction is the more interesting aspect of this particular episode. Had Marr asked the same question of Blair, he would probably have got a self-deprecating answer and that would probably have been the end of the matter. Media focus would have reverted to more substantive political matters.

But Labour's touchy reaction to Brown being questioned keeps this subject in the headlines instead of allowing the resumption of "normal service". Brown/Mandelson must have anticipated that when deciding to make Marr's question the issue of the day.

Could the Labour high command have decided that forgoing a day's distraction from "more substantive" themes at the start of their conference was worth it if it put in place a "chill factor" for any other journalist who might follow this particular line of questioning? Why might they choose to do that?

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.