« Who should own schools? | Main | There's more... »

September 27, 2010


Paolo Siciliani

David experience is a disadvantage because he didn't have the gut to topple Brown and run for the elections - it is a big IF but with hindsight he might be serving now as PM in a la-lib coalition.
Hw is also too charmant, too telegenic and an easy communicator, which I guess people is growing increasingly suspicious of this kind of politicians. . .


"Given the pressures from the US and the security services, I suspect that lots of decent people would have done what David did"

But lots of decent people didn't aspire to power like David did. It's the desire for power in the first place, with the full knowledge of what that will involve, which is the objectionable trait.


Its not unreasonable to want, and indeed expect, your leaders to be above merely "decent". If David proved to be just normal in caving to the US, then I don't want him as Prime Minister. Ed may turn out to be same, but he may not - I'd rather wait and find out than assume he's also weak-willed but decent.

But I don't understand this idea that Ed will "be his own man", and won't be pressured by the unions. I always thought the Labour leader merely reflected the will and wishes of the party, and wasn't some kind of a dictator. Indeed, if Ed Balls ends up as Chancellor then he'll be almost as powerful and influential as Miliband, and in some regards even more powerful. Am I just naive?


This is wet. It's precisely because it's easy to slide into doing unspeakable things in power that it's necessary to maintain norms against them. One way of doing this is exemplary punishment, which is just what Torture Dave just got.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad