Give them a brush! They need to tar Gordon Brown... or someone.
Yesterday, Gordon Brown did one of the rarest things a politican can do. He admitted failure publicly.
I for one was filled with respect and admiration for a man, who not just resigned, but who did so publicly and accepted his failure before the nation. It takes a man of some stature to do that. Let us not forget this. Not many politicians of today will stand up and say - "I failed", and we better appreciate it because we won't see many doing it in the future. Very few people of today, least of all politicians, can do what Gordon Brown did yesterday. And Britain should be proud of politicians such as him. He may have failed, made mistakes, but please everyone, he admitted it and left.
Yet very few in the media or the political arena highlighted this or dwelt much on this. It was passed lightly over. What did arise was much bad press for resigning at "this point of time", speculation of his motive, judgement about his holding on after elections. All of which may or may not be true. None of us will know, because that is in his conscience and between him and his God.
I thought much about this. And came up with a few puzzling things. For instance, when else could he have resigned - just before elections leaving the Labour party without a leader and destabilised? Maybe Labour did not at that point have a suitable leader to match GB's expertise or stature - and a new face just before elections may have been suicidal. Maybe. I don't know.
If he resigned soon after the elections would he not have left the country destabilised? I wonder if people are aware that Gordon Brown followed due constitutional process in the event of a hung parliament. A document drawn up prior to the election for just such a prcess.
He did so to the letter, as yesterdays general political consultancy indicated (an official political process with an official committee of consultants televised during its discussion on the process and governance - not a mindless wittering from a passing politician or opnionated wotsisname!). GB was "expected" to act the way he did, or else the nation would have been paralysed at a time when it was fragile and unstable (although I am really not sure I understand why every flipping thing in this world depends on the MARKET! It is a bit of a sorry state is it not?).
What were people muttering? A lot of unkind things. He would have to be "hosed out of No. 10" said one. That he was "camping there and would have to be removed" said another. For goodness sake...get a grip! I find these uninformed and malicious responses quite abhorrent. Mostly because they are incorrect, and unkind. And made without a clue about what it is like to stand in the shoes of GB!
Is it so wrong for GB to put the future of the party first in the precipitous resignation? Is it one hundred percent clear that all he did was because he was a selfish moron? If it is the case that he was the reason Labour failed - which is what everyone said (and I am sure the Labour party said it again), then he was merely doing what was right by them. Of course the timing was vital - because it appeared that even after *three* days the Libdem and Tory talks were not yet conclusive. Surely, the Labour party are "obliged" to offer a coallition in a situation like this? Unless of course the entire country wanted to go for another election and leave the country in so called "peril" at the mercy of "market forces". In the event of Tory-LibDem talks falling through, where would a minority government of the Tories, with LibDem and Labour votes going against their policy in the economic crisis leave the nation? In chaos I suspect. Where would a delayed offer from Labour to the LibDems - a week after their talks with the Tories concluded - leave the nation? In chaos I suspect. There is an urgent definite need for even a small majority vote in parliament to take the nation through the recession. Or at least the next few months.
Without that the nation's future is not very stable.
We might do well to consider, just a little bit, the difficulties politicians and parties face right now. We need to believe in the possibility that there might be principled (yet fallible) people in there - Tory, LibDem and Labour - working towards the best decision for the nation. We need to believe that leaders might be trying to put aside differences to ensure the stability of the nation. Not everyone is a Devil or Deep Blue sea all the time. Or a yellow submarine for that matter.
We are looking of a group of fallible people, with fallible parties, prone to mistakes, prone to be unsure, prone to not be omnipotent, omniscient or in any sense "god" in this situation.
Can we just treat them as such and appreciate what they are attempting to do!
I for one was filled with respect and admiration for a man, who not just resigned, but who did so publicly and accepted his failure before the nation. It takes a man of some stature to do that. Let us not forget this. Not many politicians of today will stand up and say - "I failed", and we better appreciate it because we won't see many doing it in the future. Very few people of today, least of all politicians, can do what Gordon Brown did yesterday. And Britain should be proud of politicians such as him. He may have failed, made mistakes, but please everyone, he admitted it and left.
Yet very few in the media or the political arena highlighted this or dwelt much on this. It was passed lightly over. What did arise was much bad press for resigning at "this point of time", speculation of his motive, judgement about his holding on after elections. All of which may or may not be true. None of us will know, because that is in his conscience and between him and his God.
I thought much about this. And came up with a few puzzling things. For instance, when else could he have resigned - just before elections leaving the Labour party without a leader and destabilised? Maybe Labour did not at that point have a suitable leader to match GB's expertise or stature - and a new face just before elections may have been suicidal. Maybe. I don't know.
If he resigned soon after the elections would he not have left the country destabilised? I wonder if people are aware that Gordon Brown followed due constitutional process in the event of a hung parliament. A document drawn up prior to the election for just such a prcess.
He did so to the letter, as yesterdays general political consultancy indicated (an official political process with an official committee of consultants televised during its discussion on the process and governance - not a mindless wittering from a passing politician or opnionated wotsisname!). GB was "expected" to act the way he did, or else the nation would have been paralysed at a time when it was fragile and unstable (although I am really not sure I understand why every flipping thing in this world depends on the MARKET! It is a bit of a sorry state is it not?).
What were people muttering? A lot of unkind things. He would have to be "hosed out of No. 10" said one. That he was "camping there and would have to be removed" said another. For goodness sake...get a grip! I find these uninformed and malicious responses quite abhorrent. Mostly because they are incorrect, and unkind. And made without a clue about what it is like to stand in the shoes of GB!
Is it so wrong for GB to put the future of the party first in the precipitous resignation? Is it one hundred percent clear that all he did was because he was a selfish moron? If it is the case that he was the reason Labour failed - which is what everyone said (and I am sure the Labour party said it again), then he was merely doing what was right by them. Of course the timing was vital - because it appeared that even after *three* days the Libdem and Tory talks were not yet conclusive. Surely, the Labour party are "obliged" to offer a coallition in a situation like this? Unless of course the entire country wanted to go for another election and leave the country in so called "peril" at the mercy of "market forces". In the event of Tory-LibDem talks falling through, where would a minority government of the Tories, with LibDem and Labour votes going against their policy in the economic crisis leave the nation? In chaos I suspect. Where would a delayed offer from Labour to the LibDems - a week after their talks with the Tories concluded - leave the nation? In chaos I suspect. There is an urgent definite need for even a small majority vote in parliament to take the nation through the recession. Or at least the next few months.
Without that the nation's future is not very stable.
We might do well to consider, just a little bit, the difficulties politicians and parties face right now. We need to believe in the possibility that there might be principled (yet fallible) people in there - Tory, LibDem and Labour - working towards the best decision for the nation. We need to believe that leaders might be trying to put aside differences to ensure the stability of the nation. Not everyone is a Devil or Deep Blue sea all the time. Or a yellow submarine for that matter.
We are looking of a group of fallible people, with fallible parties, prone to mistakes, prone to be unsure, prone to not be omnipotent, omniscient or in any sense "god" in this situation.
Can we just treat them as such and appreciate what they are attempting to do!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home