Resigned to what?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
I read the reports of Gordon Brown's "resignation" this morning with some amusement. In business when we resign, we hand over our responsibilities and walk away. More often than not, the "resignation" is a polite fiction to conceal that we have been fired. That is not quite what has happened here is it? The only sign that Brown has any real understanding of the election outcome is in this passage;
There is intent there, certainly, but intentions can change. If the deal with the Liberal Democrats (and the assorted fellow travellers they would need) can't be made, what then? The conference is not until the Autumn. Until then, Brown is not handing over to his deputy and going to Scotland on "gardening leave," "to spend more time with his family," or even "to pursue other interests." He is going to lead the country as Prime Minister and lead the Labour Party.
He goes on to say that the British People;
...want us to continue to pursue the economic recovery, and I will do so with my usual vigour and determination...
Vigour and determination are wonderful qualities, but only if applied to good ends. The Kray Twins, for example, were much noted for their vigour and determination. The Labour Party has vigorously and determinedly driven the nation into beggary. I loved the fact that The Guardian reported markets fell on news of his "resignation," as if even the wicked capitalists thought it a bad thing. At no other time in Brown's career, even when people and press were fooled by his Humpty Dumpty like redefinition of profligacy as "prudence," would the markets have trembled at his demise. They fell on fear of more Labour, not less Brown.
So Mr Brown is going months from now, perhaps. Between now and then, anything can happen. For all the grave-dancing in the excitable blogosphere, it's far too soon to celebrate. Not that celebration is at all appropriate neck-deep in the mess of debt in which Labour, true to historic form, has mired us. While the supreme proof of the mediocrity of Labour's apparatus is that Brown could rise as he did, the Labour Party is an evil in itself, not because it's led by him.
There was no hope of a positive result from this election. The only good outcome would have been the destruction of Labour. It didn't happen. It bred its client vote parasites on the body politic to such numbers, that it was simply not possible. Those blood-suckers are not even dimly aware that their future depends on the health of their host animal. So, while the politicians bicker over titles and ministerial Jaguars, the fight for our nation's survival is still on.
The markets are not finding it so, Colin. Britain's financial standing is slipping while these clowns play their games.
Posted by: Tom | Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 10:58 AM
This period of negotiation is more interesting than Florida and hanging chads.
Posted by: Colin Campbell | Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Was Broon pushed or was he shoved? In any even he is not going honorably and I suspect without a fight. If he was being honorable as you quite rightly said he would have handed over to his deputy. His hanging on for another 6 months or more tells me that he is banking on something that will not make his departure inevitable. I think he is relying on another election and leading Labour to victory and so remaining leader and Prime Minister by popular acclaim.
He is a loathsome man at the head of loathsome party and like all things rotten there will be a day of reckoning, problem how long will we have to wait for it and at what further cost.
Posted by: Antisthenes | Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 07:34 AM