“A party conference can be many things.
A show of confidence, an agonizing reappraisal,
or, as in this case, a series of auditions by pretenders to the throne,
while the lost leader withers before our eyes.”
A show of confidence, an agonizing reappraisal,
or, as in this case, a series of auditions by pretenders to the throne,
while the lost leader withers before our eyes.”
Chief Whip Francis Urquhart in the opening sequence of House of Cards.
16 comments:
Gordon Brown: nooo I'm just a back-room boy!
At the risk of being horribly pedantic, it wasn't in the opening sequence - I think it wasn't even in the first episode.
Nope I don't see Geoff Hoon playing the Urquhart part, quietly Whipping people in the background whilst the young pretenders try to claim the throne, just so he can snatch the crown. He simply does not have the inner cunning and bite to carry it off.
In fact I can't think of anyone in the Labour ranks that remotely qualify for this grand part. Lots of pretenders. Most likely scenario in my opinion, post conference, is for Brown to be persuaded to step down (do an Eden), a caretaker is then crowned (probably Straw) and then utter defeat in a general election late 2009 or early 2010. Milliband then eyes Cameron across the dispatch box.
Just let us hope that the country's finances have not been so damaged as to require Osborne to put up taxes.
I reckon the careful calculation being done in the cabinet concerns those who will survive the general election under Brown - as only they will be eligible to stand as party leader - compared to those who would survive under a Straw or Miliband caretaker. So if you are a hopeful but with a slim majority then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by changing your leader now.
Francis U. would appreciate that thinking I'm sure.
I couldn't possibly comment, except if Hoon invites you to sample the view from the tower of the House I would leave it.
Of course, they couldn't make anything like that now, the BBC being run by a bunch of fourteen year olds.
Just let us hope that the country's finances have not been so damaged as to require Osborne to put up taxes.
I believe over the next 21 months Broon will deliberately run up the deficit to huge levels in order to force Osborne to do just that. This will enable Labour to claim any credit for the results of the spending, while postponing the inevitable reckoning until after they're out of power. They can then later claim that it was the Tories wot put the taxes up.
You'd think it too transparent to work, but enough people were fooled by Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 to let them back in three times.
Labour thinks the electorate is stupid, and only needs to be right about the floating voters to get back in.
Oh. Priceless! I had completely forgotten that wonderful sequence. F.U. for P.M.
No what Urquhart would have appreciated is that if you've got a big personal Labour majority, absolute loyalty to Brown before the election would ensure greater thinning of one's potential rivals and a better chance of the leadership after the election.
I loved that series when it was on Telly.
It should also not be forgotten that Urquhart was a Tory Chief Whip.
Tories generally have less loyalty to their leaders than Labour folk - since 1975 three Tory leaders have been forced out by their own party (Heath, Thatcher, IDS) compared to only one Labour leader (Blair.)
shame about that Paul really is it not? Now we are stuck with a complete moron wrecking the country because your 'tribe' is so spineless.
As a labourite; would you rather the Tories had left Thatcher in, to show their loyalty?
Paul Linford - you obviously like statistics! Could the reason for the higher level of Tory whip-induced disposals of their leaders
be because the Tories have been in power for longer than Labour? (OK, I know it doesn't work with IDS - that was just pure revenge for being a Major "bastard" - although I think he has now been rehabilitated!)
The attitude towards the leader accurately reflects the character of the parties.
The Tories binned Heath because he lost three elections out of four and let Labour in, to appalling effect. They binned Thatcher because she was looking like an electoral liability. Major, Hague and Howard all quit after failing at elections. IDS was binned because he looked like doing so. In all cases, actual or likely election performance was the catalyst for their departure. The leader's job is to win elections and if they don't do that, sorry, they're no use. Thanks and all, but buh-bye.
Now consider Labour. Blair was binned simply because it was Buggins' turn, in favour of an older and even more incompetent and unprincipled successor. Broon has not been binned because Labour has made it as hard to get rid of an incompetent leader as it is for a company to get rid of an incompetent employee. The irony is delicious - the party of the producer interest has wished on itself exactly the problem that it has inflicted on employers.
The fact that Labour is proud of this situation says it all, really.
Nobody in Labour today could even begin to match Urquhart in intellect and scheming.
However, for one to allow others to step forward to stab and then slip in to take the crown? Milburn.
Miliband tried to juggle plates and dropped them. Straw is a man of. Harpoon could do it, I suppose, getting the wimmin vote, for all their sins.
Fact is, though, Labour are too far gone to win, but I feel that though people will desert Labour, the Tories are a step too far and the FibDumbs are just the pathetic sharks.
The idea of a Labour intriguer plotting and murdering his way to the top this coming year is both depressing and amusing. Can we take it as granted then that whoever deposes Brown will be a sociopath (and not averse to being called "daddy")?
Post a Comment