![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another review, this one 9/11 related
Sep. 13th, 2006 09:06 amI suppose it was inevitable that I would have to write something about it - and, as it happened, I had to write a review. ( Lawrence Wright's book is really rather perceptive. )
*******
It seems to me that the best case that can be made for Gordon Brown is that Charles Clarke and David Blunkett hate him like poison, and Tony Blair does not like him very much. He was, after all, one of the architects of New Labour and his obsession with PFI means that many important parts of the nation's infrastructure will be in hock to private companies for decades to come. In particular, a combination of this and his personal dislike of Ken Livingstone - which I don't regard as a fault, BTWm, merely as something which should not be allowed to get in the way - meant that he opposed the idea of sorting out the Underground by bond issue, which might actually have worked. Either he supported Iraq or he failed to make a fuss over it - this is not a good sign; criticising over-investment in the American alliance on financial grounds alone is not good enough.
On the other hand, he is surrounded by real people and not grinning plastic suits - I met his wife at parties many years ago and she always seemed sane. And, as I say, his enemies are people I detest so much that perhaps I can reconcile myself to him purely on the basis that it will annoy them deeply.
Which is more of a principled position than it appears. You always have to choose the bad against the worse in these matters, and Blunkett and Clarke are both representatives of a brutal philistinism which tries to outflank the Tories by being even viler on social issues. There are things Brown has not ever done, like sign the papers that send asylum seekers back to persecution, torture and worse for the sake of a positive headline in the Sun.
I am so glad not to be a member of the Labour Party any more, because it means that I can opt out of making the decision.
Gordon it is then, but only because Robin Cook is dead.
*******
It seems to me that the best case that can be made for Gordon Brown is that Charles Clarke and David Blunkett hate him like poison, and Tony Blair does not like him very much. He was, after all, one of the architects of New Labour and his obsession with PFI means that many important parts of the nation's infrastructure will be in hock to private companies for decades to come. In particular, a combination of this and his personal dislike of Ken Livingstone - which I don't regard as a fault, BTWm, merely as something which should not be allowed to get in the way - meant that he opposed the idea of sorting out the Underground by bond issue, which might actually have worked. Either he supported Iraq or he failed to make a fuss over it - this is not a good sign; criticising over-investment in the American alliance on financial grounds alone is not good enough.
On the other hand, he is surrounded by real people and not grinning plastic suits - I met his wife at parties many years ago and she always seemed sane. And, as I say, his enemies are people I detest so much that perhaps I can reconcile myself to him purely on the basis that it will annoy them deeply.
Which is more of a principled position than it appears. You always have to choose the bad against the worse in these matters, and Blunkett and Clarke are both representatives of a brutal philistinism which tries to outflank the Tories by being even viler on social issues. There are things Brown has not ever done, like sign the papers that send asylum seekers back to persecution, torture and worse for the sake of a positive headline in the Sun.
I am so glad not to be a member of the Labour Party any more, because it means that I can opt out of making the decision.
Gordon it is then, but only because Robin Cook is dead.
