So-called "climb downs" are positive sign of ability to listen
If Brown hadn't made compromises on expenses, DNA data, Gurkha's residency rights and detention periods, we would be complaining about the fact that we don't live in a democracy, that our leader doesn't listen. It's better to have a PM who listens and makes a considered, consultative decision.
From a comment from Andrew McKewan:
"Would we rather have an overmighty, unconsultative Prime Minister?
Andrew McEwan (6/22/2009 3:01:00 PM GMT)
Prime Ministers such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair have been heavily criticised for neglecting Parliament's and even their cabinet's views. A cohesive parliament can be a very powerful thing. However, when it bends to the will of a Prime Minister that refuses to climb-down, is Parliament really effective? Do we really have democracy? Do our representatives represent us? If Parliament is unable to assert some degree of control on a government, the decisions that Parliament make can potentially suffer from a lack of credibility, which is something that Westminster indeed suffers from today. If Parliament is going to become the servant of the electorate, rather than the servant of the whips, then we need to start viewing positively when a Prime Minister makes compromises. If Brown hadn't made compromises on expenses, DNA data, Gurkha's residency rights and detention periods, we would be complaining about the fact that we don't live in a democracy, that our leader doesn't listen. I would much rather have a Prime Minister who listens and "dithers" i.e. makes a considered, consultative decision. The opposite is Blair, who didn't listen, who didn't make a consultative decision - and that's how we ended up going to war in Iraq."