Alastair Darling's take on Gordon Brown tenure as Prime Minister is devastating even if it merely confirms what has already been written- that Brown was deluded about the economic situation, impossible to reason with, a bully and governed through lackeys.
It also confirms my belief that if Labour had wanted to be a serious opposition to the coalition, who could form a credible alternative government, then they should have persuaded Alastair Darling to stand for the leadership.
Still given that this is the latest memoir- following on from Mandelson's and Blair's- to confirm that all the hotly denied rumours of Gordon Brown's behaviour were in fact true and had been an issue in government since day one- why was he elevated to the leadership without any opposition? It is hard to believe that there were not enough MPs who knew about Brown's behaviour to give their signatures to a rival candidate. They chose collectively to put their own careers ahead of saving their party and the country the disaster of a Brown premiership.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ever wondered why the school bully gets elected prefect? (It happens surprisingly often when pupils have a say.)
Brown had a coterie of 'enforcers' riding on his coat-tails who may well have had something to do with it.
Alternatively, I've long held the belief (for reasons listed in my blog) that Brown's hearing was deteriorating by the time he assumed office - an unpleasant situation for a man with only one working eye; just think of the adverse publicity for the party had he claimed to have been discriminated against on the grounds of disability.
"They chose collectively to put their own careers ahead of saving their party and the country the disaster of a Brown premiership."
That's it isn't it? They knew it would be a disaster and did nothing.
Macheath- Yes Brown had enforcers but they weren't going to break anyone's legs if they opposed Brown.
AKH- Yep. Many of them were briefing against Brown without actually having the integrity to try to stop him.
I think that part of the problem was that the image of Gordon Brown that had been built up in the public's mind over the preceding 10 years was of this capable manager of the economy - far from being seen as emotional and unstable he was seen as boring, monotone and stable.
Also the media had been speculating about when Gordon was going to take over for so long it was a question of when not if to them.
If the BBC and the broadsheets elect, for whatever reason, to downplay any concerns over Mr Brown's suitability then it's a done deal.
Also, when Brown took over it was pre bubble burst - everyone was still pretty much making money and operating under the assumption that there was nothing bad on the horizon. In such environments its easy for people to think that the job of PM doesn't really matter much and that all the action was elsewhere.
Been talking this one over with Ma Peachum, who thinks that New Labour had been striving to create a Camelot myth with Blair as the just and charismatic King backed by the financial wizard, Brown, ready to create economic miracles.
By Blair's departure, the myth had been so thoroughly promulgated that it had become the default opinion; New Labour had begun to believe their own propaganda, forgetting Brown's lack of financial background and the reality of his temperament.
Macheath:
I'm strugging to find the words with which to lash you TBH. The fact that you could *even contemplate* that someone who was the chancellor of the exchequer of *years* might consider that they were discrimintaed against is a dark, dark day....
Surely he has to be the worst PM in history, with Blair marginally above him on skill level.
"everyone was still pretty much making money and operating under the assumption that there was nothing bad on the horizon"
Everyone? Really? I wasn't. I always knew that Brown is economically illiterate, and forecast the crash years before it happened.
Peter
Brown's popular reputation was at odds with what those who looked at thigs in depth believed.
Post a Comment