Fisking Gordon Brown

Let's leave Tony Blair's statement to one side for a moment and concentrate on Gordon Brown's.

The Chancellor has mounted a coup against a serving Prime Minister, and a successful coup at that. He owes the public an explanation for his behaviour. Instead he gave us this.

Let's take Mr Brown's statement paragraph by paragraph (a process that in the blogging world has become known as Fisking):

We are in the unique situation in our country where the Prime Minister has said, as he has said on a number of occasions, that he does not want to lead our party and our Government into the next general election.

Who knows whether the Prime Minister wanted to lead the party into the next election. Mr Brown's persistent campaign made it impossible for him to ignore speculation any more.

But if Mr Brown is going to make a virtue out of Mr Blair's stated desire to leave office before the next election, he ought to point out that the Prime Minister also pledged to stay through the whole Parliament.

As Matthew D'Ancona points out in his Spectator account, Mr Blair said in the October before the election: "There have been all these stories rolling round that maybe I might stand for election, but stand down in year one, year two. I'm not going to do that." Mr Brown has not, therefore, supported the statement that the Prime Minister made before the election, he has forced Mr Blair to abandon that statement. 

As a result of that, there are questions about what happens in the time to come, and it's right to say that I, like others, have had questions myself.

This is a ludicrous way for Mr Brown to describe his behaviour. He clearly thinks we are all fools. 

But I want to make it absolutely clear today, that when I met the Prime Minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision.

Given that the meetings took several hours, involved a great deal of shouting and ended in deadlock, this assertion of Mr Brown's is, ahem, surprising. Perhaps what the Chancellor meant is that "on several occasions I shouted at him 'well it's up to you, sunshine'."

I said also to him, and I make it clear again today, that I will support him in the decision he makes, that this cannot and should not be about private arrangements but what is in the best interests of our party, and most of all the best interests of our country - and I will support him in doing exactly that.

This is entirely, almost embarrassingly, untrue. Mr Brown was only willing to support Mr Blair's decision once Mr Blair agreed to do what the Chancellor wanted him to. Indeed the Prime Minister himself said later that he hadn't wanted to make the announcement he made. Mr Brown's reluctance to support Mr Blair's original decision that he would not set a date was the foundation of the entire crisis. And the idea that it is not about private arrangements is also an insultingly obvious untruth.

Tony Blair and I have worked together for 20 years and we have done so in difficult times as well as in very good times.

Yeah, yeah, get on with it.

We continue to work together because we share a determination, both of us, that we will advance and get down to the business of the Labour Government, and doing our best by the people of the country.

Sharing a determination to get on with the business of government isn't sharing much is it? He didn't say they shared values, policies, approaches to government. I suppose if they did then there would be no need for Labour to replace Mr Blair with Mr Brown, now would there?

I am determined that in the months and years to come we continue to do our duty by the people of Britain - and it is my determination and his to do that - that will influence everything that happens in the time to come.

It is his determination to be Prime Minister that has influenced everything. "Continue to do our duty by the people of Britain"? Do me a lemon.

Comments

[Jeff]

This really is too much! This naked contempt for the intelligence of the British electorate will rebound on both of them. The sooner Brown is in charge the better - we'll then be able to see what a devious and spineless person he is. As for Blair and integrity, well what happened to pre election undertakings?

[Thomas Carey]

Will Gordon Brown turn out to be Paul Martin of British politics? He deposed three-time election winner Jean Chretien but survived just two years as PM.

[Frank Schnittger]

The big mistake was to have announced an intention to resign before the next election in the first place. The press were bound to keep asking "are you resigning yet?" in the same way kids keep repeating "are we there yet?" ad nauseam in the back of the car.

Politicians have to cultivate an air of immortality to retain the fear and respect of their rivals. The Prime Ministers' powers of control by patronage migrate to his likely successor as soon as he announces an intention to resign at some point in the future.

No US President since Abe Lincoln has had a successful second term (and he was assassinated a short time in to his). Politicians and those they need to influence are always thinking about the next election – not the last.

The logic of the process is almost irrefutable. Why are you going to resign then, and if then, why not now? What, precisely, is Blair going to achieve in the next few months that could not be better achieved by a successor girding his loins and his party for the next election?

It may be that he is hanging on in the hope of an end to his nightmare in Iraq (unlikely), some big achievement at European level (even more unlikely) or perhaps a breakthrough in devolved Government in Northern Ireland (now most unlikely given that the parties will kick for touch until his successor is appointed).

We can certainly take it that all his New labour policy initiatives are dead in the water at least until a successor is appointed.

Perhaps he wanted to spare Bush embarrassment at a successor pulling Britain out of Iraq. If that is the case, why wait beyond the November mid term elections? It is in any case unclear that Brown would take any precipitate action in that area.

Perhaps, as with Harold Wilson, it is simply vanity, that he wanted to be Britain’s longest serving Prime Minister. Enoch Powell said that all political careers end in failure. However this one could end in humiliation unless he can give us one good reason why he is saying on.

[Sardonic]

I actually think Brown's behavour is completely disgusting and the Labour Party will rue the day they allowed his power complex to rid them of the only man who could win them an election. Now I'm faced with a serious dilemma. Can I bring myself to vote for a party to which I have given my vote for more than 30 years, when it's led by Gordon Plotter and Undermine Brown?

[chris]

If Mr.brown treats Tony Blair in this under handed, slightly devious fashion, do we really want him as PM. Will the people vote for a man whose values and principles are pretty self focused? It is in do doubt that he will become PM but it is very doubtful that he will be remembered as a good leader.

[Ali]

Brown clearly wasn't behind this - it is the Blairites who have revolted.

The Tory press making Brown out to be the villain of the piece has the smell of fear about it.

[Jamie]

Leadership is about courage, honesty, conviction and vision. Which man - Blair or Brown - has shown the most of these qualities over the past two days? Blair wins by a mile. Brown lags behind by a mile and The Labour party is still at the start line. Oh what happened to those heddy days of 97?

[Will]

I think that Mr.Brown must have got carried away after watching the Three Musketeers on television recently. Charlton Heston's Cardinal Richelou and Gordon Brown are uncannily similiar.

[Tom]

It was what Brown didn't say that was more interesting: nothing on the rebelion, critising or distancing himself (or even repeating Blair's comments on Tom Watson).

I wonder if Watson can expect a job in a Brown government.

[PJ]

If only people had fisked Bliar's statements in this way throughout his time as Labour leader, maybe he'd never have got away with much of the vacuous drivel he's spouted. Politicians generally are allowed to get away with much too much by simply appearing sincere when they tell the most outrageous lies on TV. New Labour are masters of this art, because they have absolutely no scruples about doing whatever it takes to remain in power. I hope Mr Finkelstein does a similar "fisking" for each mendacious New Labour statement. Of course, that would employ an army of people full time ...

[EU Serf]

Gordon Brown has the air of Gollum about him. He is constantly dreaming about ....my premiership..... to the complete exclusion of anything else. Like all who crave power so much he has become completely corrupted by his quest.

In answer to Ali who seems to think that we fear Gordon, at least some of the Conservative Blogosphere can't wait to take him on.

Tories for Gordon
http://rightlinks.co.uk/linked/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=16

[Old Hack]

Blair should have set the agenda immediately after the last General Election by confirming he would do as he intended and stand down in 2009.

That may have forestalled all this and made Brown's ambition to oust him much harder.

Ambiguity has led to opportunity on this occasion methinks. But Mr Brown is ambiguity personified and may yet die by the same sword.

Keep on fisking Danny.

[Frank Fisher]

But *why* isn't Brown going in for the kill? Why delay? I'm reminded of a scene in Frank Herbert's Dune - pass by if you haven't read it - the young Paul Atreides is fighting a knife duel against a Fremen and is derided by a watching crowd who think he is toying with the man, they cannot understand his reticence at delivering the killer blow. It's because Paul is used to fighting against opponents covered by a "shield" that can only be penetrated by a slowly delivered blow - perhaps Brown similalry knows that no conventional political blow can dislodge Blair; he is too well "protected". Or perhaps Brown knows that if he attempts to deliver the killer blow, Blair has something far worse to throw back at him.... Ore it could be something else entirely.

[Rachel]

Liking the blog, good to see journalists doing it properly ( blogging) and using proper blogger terms like fisking too! And thank you for the link. Am updating blog roll this weekend and this is going on.

Maybe Blair is hanging on hoping for good news from Iraq or some seismic feel-good event. Like the sudden appearance od Bin Laden in handcuffs just before the October US mid terms. If so, he misunderestimates the capacity of the UK ( and probably the US) electorate to swallow micro-managed spin and stunts. In fact, he insults our intelligence with all this dog in the manger nonsense, and has made succeeded in making himself an object of derision and pity. Toxic laughter, the one thing he can't bear. And Gordon's not much better. This hasn't hoisted his popularity ratings much either.

[Matthwe]

"Who knows whether the Prime Minister wanted to lead the party into the next election"

We do, surely, as he said he didn't.

[Gabor Kovacs]

But surely just about every politician can be "fisked". Everything a politician says nowadays is for immediate effect - take both Blair and Brown's statements yesterday, each was quite obviously a short piece of a length to fit tv news.

I agree with the approach of dissecting what politicians say, call it fisking if you will. In many ways it's quite an easy game to play.

[William Norton]

Bullseye! Got him in one. A lovely article.

[Frank Schnittger]

You guys are so soooo sofiskticated!

Get real, grow up, get a life, get a grip!

Politics is about people and policies. Blair has pursued a policy on Iraq which he knew very few in his party supported. Had it been an unqualified success he might just gotten away with it.

Because it has been such an unqualified failure, it is normal and natural for him to pay the price for that failure. Especially so as many feel that he misled them over the intelligence and reasons for doing so.

When you consider the relatively trivial grounds the opposition and media cite as reasons for Ministerial resignations - his crime is about as serious as it is possible for a politician to commit.

He led his country to war under false pretences. He was utterly incompetent in the in the execution of that war. Many good soldiers have died as a result. The world is less safe, the country less secure, and a great deal of taxpayer’s money has been wasted on a vainglorious attempt to ingratiate himself with Emperor Bush.

The Labour Party's crime, if it has committed one, is not that it has sought his early political demise, but that it has tolerated his Iraqi adventure for so long.

It is utterly irrelevant what statements Blair or Brown put out now to paper over the cracks and try to preserve some pretence of a dignified exit.

Getting rid of a failed leader is a logical thing for any political party to do. The more so when he has frequently shown his contempt for their views. It’s called POLITICS guys!

We do not have a fixed term Presidential system. Leaders resign when they lose the confidence of their party. What on earth else do you think should happen in the circumstances?? Do you WANT a lame duck administration for the next few years?

He's a big boy now. He knows the rules. Why on earth don't you get it?

[M. Fernandez]

Sorry, I thought the link said, "FISTING Gordon Brown".

[Sir Edwin Mole]

I am absolutely infuriated to read Frank Schnittger's remarks. How DARE he be so bloody right and the rest of us so feeble minded!

We have in this country something called PRINCIPLES which means we stick by our leaders and don't abandon them when the going gets tough. Blair got an unprecedented third mandate to pursue his policies a very short time ago.

Politics, in Frank Schnittger’s view, is purely opportunistic. You kick people when they are down. And if the war in Iraq had "been an unqualified success" I'm sure he and lots of others would have claimed to have been in favour of it all along!

This is not the sort of behaviour that made Britain Great.

[Snoop]

Am I the only one to recall that during the last general election, when Blair was doing badly he dragged Brown into the arena, having pretty well side-lined him earlier, and gave Brits to understand that if they voted for him (Blair), they'd get Brown in the not-too-distant future?

As I recall, as soon as Brown made an appearance on the election scene, Labour started to pick up in the polls.