New Labour Project's Blair, Campbell, Mandelson and Darling plus a host of others and hundreds of underlings have all said the same thing but with different words: Gordon Brown was a seriously flawed effing loon. So, the big question: why let him become Prime Minister? In fact why give him so much leeway as Chancellor? In fact why was he Chancellor in the first place? Writing a history of the Labour party doesn't really show you've got what's needed: and there are plenty of 'clever' people, of 'mighty intellect' that are raving moronic fuckwits when common sense or similar is needed. And Why wasn't he SACKED years before? "The truth about Brown does not reflect well on him, but it also raises further questions about the people around him" writes John Rentoul in the Independent today; he also asks "How did Brown succeed unopposed to the leadership?".
6 comments:
The funny thing is that Gordon Brown's behaviour only appears to be strange because so few of the population have any experience of business meetings. I'm sure you have experienced the turning to the wall thing, I did last year and it was most bizarre, the shouting and throwing of things was fairly commonplace (unfortunately) in the old days.
The bigger question though is your/JR's last line and I think you have to look at how close all political parties are to breaking up and yet try to keep the lid on things. Look at the coalition now and compare the disquiet on the Internet with the happy faces you see on TV, when people like your goodself and Devon think David Cameron is too wet it shows you how far politics has moved to the centre since 1997.
Brown was Blairs man just as Major was the son of Mrs T, he was a good chancellor until 2001/2 because he obeyed the rules about the economy coming before personal ambition or popularity, then something happened which I don't think will ever be explained properly.
After the problems of the 1970's and 1980's I don't think the Labour party wanted a public falling out although the signs were there all along whether you are talking about Frank Field, Claire Short, John Prescott or whoever, everybody was 'on message' or out.
It's all very well in a SME or even large companies but head of a country (or should IMHO!) requires a different approach and usually the 'wall' approach is because you know you are right but in Brown's case that is not the case.
Indeed, someone somewhere will spill the beans about the second term and what happened - and hopefully why.
I agree it should have a different approach but as somebody said on TV the other day politics is one of the few jobs that doesn't seem to require much in the way of qualifications or interviews. In hindsight he probably wouldn't have got beyond a decent HR manager.
Governing a country should be different to running a country but a lot of it still comes down to who you know, what favours you promise and contacts made. Safeguards are put in place but there are always ways around them and only a few are caught.
Funnily enough one my most recent posts was about a place I used to work...
One of the most popular retailers in the UK(possibly abroad too)and yet it was like stepping back into a world perhaps 30-40 years earlier.
As I say it was run like the old department store featured in Are You Being Served, the staff behaved like them, the manager was ineffectual and really just concerned with completing his time with company and getting his pension at 65.
But that means that in many ways there is a comparison that others are always willing to cover for them(usually because it benefits them too)
LOL at the image of Brown as an HR manager!
Gildy, yes I read that post and giggled at the possibilities...and Mrs Slocombe's pussy (it really isn't funny!) Re your first paragraph well i bet less than 10% of MPs actually do what MPs are supposed to do i.e. look after and represent their constituents.
I agree with what you say Span.
No, I don't see Gordon being in HR somehow... :-)
Post a Comment