Yes, I really am that old.
If, after all his blather about "all the talents", Brown appoints only Labour Ministers, then his position will be untenable. However, if he appoints non-Labour Ministers, then the Labour Party, already reeling from Harriet Harman's volte face over Iraq, must seriously consider, at this year's Conference, the Leadership challenge that MPs fondly dreaming of office denied it, only to find that they had given the green light to a man who considers them all, and indeed all Labour Party members generally, to be incapable of at least some Ministerial offices.
So, which is it to be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Once a Chadsman, now Mr Chad.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mrchad.co.uk
Yes, that must be right. So drawing a logical conclusion from your remarks, Brown *must* one way or the other face a leadership challenge later this year. Really, there is no other alternative. And if, by some, miracle, he *doesn't*, then this could only mean:
ReplyDeletea) that, once again, the shadowy Henry Jackson Eustonite mafia has struck.
b) that, once again, you are talking complete and utter tosh.
a) it is then. Pretty much, anyway. Except, of course, that it's not "shadowy": it's perfectly open, and very effective.
ReplyDeleteYes, Brown MUST face some sort of challenge to his coalition, which even you must surely admit that, had he owned up to it before close of nominations, he would have struggled to get onto the ballot paper, never mind been elected unopposed.
Since I assume that you are a Labour Praty member, why are you so pro-Brown, considering that Brown despises you simply because you are a Labour Party member? Were ten years of Blair not masochism enough for you?
Er, no, I don't agree. Yes, he would have lost some level of support, and there would have been grumblings. But I can think of almost nothing that would have prevented Brown being nominated onto the leaership ballot. To think that this would have been an event worthy of such a significant change in the political weather shows your judgement sadly awry.
ReplyDeleteWhat, he would have got 44 MPs to sign up for a promised coalition with the Liberals? Come on!
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, you must be writing from the South. But surely, even there...?