The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
if he had had interesting policies, policies that really looked to the future, rather than merely pretending to, electoral legitimacy wouldn't have been so important. the policies would have made sense to more people, and would have started getting traction by now.
instead we got 'we didn't see it coming' (yeah right...)
instead we got selling us the idea of nuclear energy, and downplaying renewables, we got more coddling financial trickster-whizzkids in the city, we got more deaths in afghanistan, we got bleating platitudes, ossified ineffectiveness personified.
ok, he took the brits out of iraq, maybe he deserves more props for that.
with respect, your question itself is an excursion into pure tail-wag-the-dog territory!
this whole 'timing the elections' thing smacks of puerile politics, as if the energy-wave of novelty, (still intact public image as Great Leader!) was more important than the policies the man was promoting...
it's short term political maneuvering, as if divorced from reality.
people aren't nearly as stupid as the blairs and browns of this world think.
we knew iraq would be a clusterfuck, informed bloggers (such as yourself, one of the very best, imo) have been warning about the crunch for 5 years +, all that time wasted enriched his buddies in banking and multiplied the pain felt by the generations in hock his policies create.
i think a lot more of the public distrust brown than ever, whatever old labour cred he established has been long consumed by his naked hard-on for tony's power, the power he fretted and schemed on for years.
as for wearing that power, he's right of john major!
substituting pompousness for statesmanship, and hoping people won't know the difference. duh.
the little grey men rule england, but i think that era is about over.
once out of politics, i wouldn't be surprised if he reverted to a much more genial, positive side to his character.
power, and his addiction to it, have simply brought out the worst in him. present circumstances would test any leader in his shoes, it's true, but i can't believe there aren't much more intelligent, and most importantly able people in labour's ranks.
as an man, there are a lot worse in politics, his predecessor for example, but as a prime minister, he's hopelessly out of his depth, and it shows.
a stooge for the banksters, inadequate for the role of leading the UK out of the most difficult period since ww2.
'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 7 comments
by Oui - Jan 10 75 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 3 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 6 7 comments
by Oui - Jan 4 91 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 31 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 5 41 comments
by Oui - Jan 6 115 comments
by Oui - Jan 17
by ARGeezer - Jan 172 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 147 comments
by Oui - Jan 133 comments
by Oui - Jan 131 comment
by Oui - Jan 1075 comments
by Oui - Jan 931 comments
by Oui - Jan 812 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 67 comments
by Oui - Jan 6115 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 541 comments
by Oui - Jan 491 comments
by Oui - Jan 382 comments
by Oui - Jan 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3118 comments
by Oui - Dec 2913 comments
by asdf - Dec 285 comments
by Oui - Dec 28
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2612 comments
by Oui - Dec 263 comments