Wednesday, 12 May 2010

THE U.K. GENERAL ELECTION (2)

Three last thoughts on last week's general election, which has now brought about the first formal coalition in the U.K. since the national unity Government during the second world war, and the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool at the beginning of the 19th century.

First, nothing became Gordon Brown more than his departure speech, which was dignified and personal, the latter something he very rarely manages to achieve.

Secondly, rather lost in all of the constitutional speculations of the past week is the recollection that Gordon Brown never had an electoral mandate. I always thought that his premiership would be shortlived, and I put the beginning of the end down to his decision not to go to the country and get one in the autumn of 2007, shortly after he had become leader of the Labour Party (and thereby automatic Prime Minister). It was always going to be uphill after that. Whatever the precise details of his deal with Tony Blair (and we shall never really know them), whereby one would replace the other in Number 10 after a specified period of time, the office is not like any normal job. However talented, you can't just "shotgun" it, as my children would say. Not least because 45m outsiders, namely the electorate, also have an interest in it.

Thirdly, there is the wonderful comment from former Labour Minister Kim Howells, that the Liberal Democrats are "opportunistic toerags". Well, yes they are. But who can blame them? Being a Liberal MP or leader has been a soul-destroying exercise for at least the last 40 years. Against that background, if you get a chance, then you should take it. They still have to make it work, of course, which is a different matter entirely, Government always is. However, it would appear that to date, Nick Clegg has played his weakish hand to perfection.

Walter Blotscher
Posted by Walter Blotscher at 09:35

3 comments:

  1. Michael14 May 2010 at 14:46

    We do not have a presidential voting system though the newspapers and TV like to make it so. Maybe we should have. But several Prime Ministers have come to have the job prior to an election, some have gone on to win elections. You vote the party not the man.

    Your comparsion of Gordon Brown to the Early of Thawdor is a good reference to your acquaintance with Shakespeare but not a very fair comparison. Mr Brown did some good things and seems to be a sincere fellow, but, yes, not the right character to be a modern prime minsiter.

    And to bridge. Mr Clegg did indeed make a slam from his less than 15 points.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Walter Blotscher14 May 2010 at 22:57

    Hi Michael,

    I agree about the precedents. Major took over from Thatcher, Callaghan from Wilson, there were occasions before that. I think the difference between them and Blair/Brown though was that in the latter case, it was publicly stated what would happen in advance. As a voter, I found that irritating.

    If Brown had gone to the country in 2007, I think he might well have won. Cameron was still getting his feet under the desk, Clegg didn't exist. He bottled it. When all is said and done, I think that that was a mistake, which ultimately boomeranged.

    Regards,

    Walter

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael15 May 2010 at 08:18

    He did, they say he was scared of the polls following a tory promise on inheritance tax, now abandoned as part of the deal. But the Labour Party lost badly in England and to me looked tired. Perhaps the sentiment is that is was time to let the other lot have a go.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)