Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

9 comments from readers

MatthewBlott
14 September 2008 at 18:42

Please let this be true

Newmania
14 September 2008 at 21:37

That , coming from you , sounds like an obituary. What next though , surely there would have to be an election and it would be on Brown`s record anyway ?

BegbiesEvilTwin
14 September 2008 at 22:11

Most political parties usually have key people from opposing factions in key posts for no other reason but to keep them fairly in line using the collective responsibility doctrine. Perhaps it's time for the NS to get a bit more serious -and start getting as fiercely independent as it has recently claimed to be.

Those who have put their heads above the parapet. Kilfoyle was a moderniser but he uses a near marxist iconoclasm in his critique of whoever the current leader is. The McDonagh's are Blairites. Field utterly loathes Brown and Hutton is much closer to Blair, etc.

As a not entirely unrelated asides, Political Betting has speculates: "Could it be John Reid who is behind the plot?"

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/14/co...

Which refers to the Telegraph: "John Reid could be the next Labour leader – and here’s how"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2008/09/14/joh...

writeon
15 September 2008 at 12:52

I'm not sure politics in the UK is serious anymore. It's become retualized and detached from reality, as democracy has degenerated into a kind of spectator sport.

I think the real battle for the leadership of New Labour will occur after the next election with Labour in opposition. The party will be a very different party in these circumstances, substantially reduced in size and strength.

So a new leader now is a sign of desparation and probably won't reverse the parties electoral woes. Looking at the state of the polls, who would want to take over from Brown and lead the party to a massive defeat? Why not wait and let Brown go down with the ship?

The calculations are head-spinning. How big will Labour's defeat be? Who inside the party will benefit? Is there a possibility of turning the party into a truly democratic socialist party, with an energized and determined mass membership? Will New Labour go the way of the old Liberal Party? Will there be some kind of re-configeration post New Labour?

A savage defeat for New Labour could see the party out of power for a decade or more, perhaps even permanently.

If the Conservatives get a substantial majority in Westminster, I believe the Scottish Nationalists would be stupid not to call a referendum about independence. It would be the chance of a century for them. The unpopularity of the Tories in Scotland will only grow after they take power in London, which will seem even further away and more foreign.

What happens after a resounding victory for the nationalists and Scottish independence? What happens to the 56 Labour Scottish seats in Westminster? Without those seats will Labour ever succeed in gaining power again south of the border?

It's odd how little discussion there is of this prospect, which seems quite probable in my opinion. It seems like one is sleepwalking into the break-up of the United Kingdom and the possible demise of the Labour Party as a major political force for the foreseable future. Now, that seems pretty serious to me.

Old Pomfretian
15 September 2008 at 13:59

"The emperor has no clothes".

Once stated it is obvious to all that Brown is not a leader. No amount of denial from his supporters can remove the point of view we now all enjoy.

At best he aspires to be a technician and even that reputation is in tatters.

He should now leave the UK political stage and go and run the World Bank or become Chancellor of Oxford University (I jest!).

Old Pomfretian.

writeon
15 September 2008 at 21:30

All leaders require, as the ancient Chinese understood so well, the 'mandate of heaven' in order to rule successfully. Blair had it, until he squandered it on Bush's wars. The manner of Brown's accession to the throne, meant that he only had it fleetingly and when the moment past it vanished never to return, sealing his fate and place as one of history's great losers.

ProperTory
16 September 2008 at 20:39

What a boring article. Who cares about Labour! The future is Blue and we should all celebrate the iminent return of sensible government after 13 years.

writeon
16 September 2008 at 21:02

I think we've had various shades of 'blue' government for the last thirty odd years. Sometimes a little lighter, sometimes a little darker, but still a recognizable shade of blue.

The idea that the new blue government will be substantially different from the current blue is highly debatable, if not absurd. All that changed after classic bourgeois democracy was displaced by the blue state decades ago.

Christ this is boring, it's like discussing the difference between different types of washing powder, one would have to be credulous beyond belief to maintain one can tell any substantive difference between the rival brands on the supermarket shelf, which is probably closer the truth than we appriciate.

BarBar of Oz
17 September 2008 at 15:33

Have just come back from a couple of weeks in London where the lack of anticipation in air was palpable.

My sense is, Miliband didn't throw down his gauntlet after East Glasgow; he did but wave it in the air.

Pathetic, we would say in OZ., given our more robust post-colonial political style. .

Still, the Blairites gave it away politcally when they didn't stake their claim to the future by challenging Gordon and his Brownites right from the start last June. The ghastly outcome has been written in the stars since then.

Bring on the New Labour Tories and get it over. Labour is now the past. Didn't Cameron say something like that to TB in the H of C a couple of years ago?