|
The instinct for self-preservation is a strong one, often bringing out the most reflexive, animalistic instincts in fretful politicians – as the Conservative party demonstrated in the ten years from their ‘utter destruction’ of 1997.
The problem is not that Mr Clarke is offering a plausible alternative to the leader – it is that he offers no alternative at all. There is certainly an absence of authority in Mr Brown’s leadership, but publicly admonishing the Prime Minister is not a particularly intelligent way of going about getting what Mr Clarke wants.
There are two potential directions for the Labour party – indefatigable pursuit of clear convictions, or a self-destructive tailspin of regicide and recrimination. There is no ‘middle way’ to glorious reinvention.
Rudderless nihilism of the sort espoused by Mr Clarke threatens to eviscerate the Labour leadership and leave the party adrift and listing, carried into the next election by the prevailing currents rather than under its own steam.
See also: Ukraine if you want to
|
|
4 September, 2008 The battle of Clarke’s drift
Charles Clarke jumped the queue for the Brown-baiting bandwagon this week by declaring that the leader should shape up or ship out. Few are indifferent to his message, but his delivery merely serves to make a spectacle of both his party and himself.
Mr Clarke is responding to a climate in which Gordon Brown is being heckled from every corner, his authority is withered and his leadership faltering. His latest article, however, has sparked just the sort of unsightly and undignified back-biting which will occupy the Labour party just long enough to take its eye off the already-elusive ball.
Observing the publication of Mr Clarke’s article, and the ensuing rebuttals from loyalists, is a little like watching an unhappily married couple fight at someone else’s wedding. Any kind of intervention, however well-meaning, rarely ends well and serves merely as an unsavoury distraction from the real business of the day. |
|
Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine |