Brown's first year: leadership

By general consent Gordon Brown has wanted to become prime minister ever since he entered public life as a precocious student politician at the University of Edinburgh.

Why has it gone so wrong so quickly, when he has been preparing for so long?

After 15 years of electoral dominance, the mood in Labour's ranks is bleak. Some are bewildered; others say: "I told you so." There are few left in either camp who remember the bad old days. That makes matters worse.

Yet 313 of them nominated Brown in that "coronation" leadership contest just one short year ago, so it is their fault, too. How could they have been so wrong about their chancellor for a decade? With his own financial chickens now noisily heading home to roost, had they been blinded to his weaknesses by his apparent successes?

Some believed he would be more Labour, less modernising, more honest, less flashy. Others, realising there was no alternative, just crossed their fingers and hoped that – once his life's dream had been fulfilled – the grumpy, secretive and suspicious Gordon they knew would relax and open up. He knew the problems, too: in an early speech he diagnosed them.

Brown himself would stubbornly insist it isn't over yet. Tony Blair stayed too long and bequeathed him an awkward legacy. Things started well, then rapidly deteriorated: first the global credit crunch last summer, then fast-rising global food and fuel prices over the winter.

Brown is ticking all the right policy boxes, he tells friends. But voters are angry and in no mood to listen at present.

That should change before the election, his supporters argue. The government's doom is not yet sealed. Voters have not made up their minds. In public Blair says much the same.

It is true: events have been tough on Brown. Even the Tories have finally got their act together. But much the gloom among Labour MPs is focused on the personality of their 58-year-old leader.

He cares; no one who knows him disputes that. Marriage and kids have softened his bleaker side. But he intellectualises problems and lacks human empathy, they complain. He bites his nails in public, but does not smile easily.

He does not give the cabinet or the watching public a clear sense of direction - much of what leadership is about. He is not good at taking all the decisions a PM must take every day. So they pile up.

An introvert rather than a sunny extrovert like Blair (and most successful politicians), he just works harder – to the point where they are desperate that he takes a proper holiday and gets a good night's sleep: no 5am calls to trusted aides, too many of whom are there just because they are loyal.

As chancellor, Brown was the ultimate backroom boy. He and his trusted acolytes took a handful of important decisions a year, usually at times of their own choosing. They fought Blair in private. It suited them. Blair warned them No 10 would be very different – the difference between a chessboard and a 24/7 pinball machine.

Serious men, they thought they could do better than this lightweight, this intellectual gadfly. They have yet to prove their case and time is running out.

Verdict: Iceberg ahead? Or ice cube?

• This week the Guardian's specialist correspondents are delivering their verdict on Gordon Brown's first year. Today they will be looking at leadership, the economy, foreign affairs and defence. Tomorrow they will tackle home affairs and justice, health and education, while on Wednesday they will cover the environment, welfare, and the constitution