So, Gordon Brown has been nominated by 313 Labour MPs http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,2082653,00.html
as the next party leader – and Prime Minister – so that’s that. No contest required. Blair and Brown’s dodgy little deal made in Granita in 1997 has decided the succession, and if you don’t like it – tough shit. After all, we’re just the electorate, the people who are supposed to have a say in who rules us. We’re not God. Gordon is.
Plenty of people are unhappy about the way this has happened, and I’m not just talking about Labour left-wingers and Tories. Alastair Darling, a staunch Brown ally, said: “Personally I am all in favour of the ancient British tradition of the prime minister being there one day and gone the next”, referring to the usual way prime ministers bugger off. But now we have a “two Prime Ministers” situation, Blair hanging around for six weeks getting up to God knows what before Brown takes over properly.
One major problem could arise at the 21 June meeting of EU leaders, where they are to discuss further integration – the “Constitution by any other name”. It’s fairly well known that Blair is far more keen on European integration than his successor, and some commentators fear that Blair may agree to moves that Brown would oppose. Anything Blair agrees to here will be binding. So Brown may find himself having to toe a federalist line that he doesn’t want.
Blair’s premiership has been more akin to US presidential practice than historic UK tradition, and this coronation of Brown and the ensuing “two prime ministers” mess is just more of the same. Brown’s own aides have accepted that “the transition had parallels with those normally associated with a change of presidency in the US.” But British Prime Ministers are not presidents. Any attempt to give the swine US presidential-style powers must be opposed. But how? It’s not like we have a vote on this matter – they’ve stitched it up nicely so we won’t have a chance to make our voice heard democratically until the next General Election.
So maybe we should make our opinions heard in an undemocratic way. Am I advocating revolution? Armed uprising? Slaughtering the bastards? Of course not- that’d be illegal.
Makes you think though.