The Spectator’s Notes | 12 September 2009

One can understand — if not agree with — Gordon Brown’s idea that a deal with Libya was so worthwhile that the release of al Megrahi was a price worth paying. One can see, by the same unpleasant reasoning, why Mr Brown wished to avoid trying to get compensation out of Libya for the victims of its supply of explosives to the IRA. But two points occur. The first is that, as the plot unravels, the boldness of the Libyans shows that they have nothing to fear from us: they have us over a barrel (of oil?). When they first came to the table with us, they were frightened that they were next in George Bush’s war on terror. Now it is only we who look fearful. The other point is about Mr Brown’s way of making decisions. It is not necessarily a disgrace to find it hard to make up your mind. Margaret Thatcher was often surprisingly, exasperatingly indecisive when she weighed options in private. But once she had decided, and announced her decision, almost nothing would make her go back on it. This gave ministers and officials comfort, because they knew she would not drop them in it. Mr Brown seems to be almost exactly the opposite. He is said to be very demanding in private, insisting that he is right about what should happen, and dismissive of those who disagree. But once a decision is made, and controversy about it starts, his way of dealing with the problem is either to deny the decision, or to indicate that it was nothing to do with him, or to reverse the decision without admitting that this is what he is doing, or all three at once. In future years, Mr Brown’s decision-making style will surely head the ‘don’t’ section in leadership courses at business school and army staff college.