Blair Criticizes Brown's Leadership In Scathing Memo

[Amadeus]

We have dissed our own record: Astonishing secret memo in which Blair accuses Brown of ‘hubris and vacuity’

 

Tony Blair has delivered a savage attack on Gordon Brown in a secret memo accusing him of playing into David Cameron’s hands by his ‘lamentable’ and ‘vacuous’ performance as Prime Minister.

 

The former Prime Minister boasts that Mr Cameron was ‘in trouble’ before he resigned a year ago.

 

And he claims Mr Brown’s incompetence has made the Tories look like the party of the future and on course to win the next Election....

 

It just isn't gettting any better for him, is it?

[hboy]

It just isn't gettting any better for him, is it?

 

Whilst I'm no fan of Gordon Brown who seems to be following the manx model of holding an executive post without any form of mandate from the voting public, Blair seems to be missing the point.

 

Blair created the instability thats affecting the UK economy by crawling up the arse of George W Bush, lying to the voting public, and perpetuating a false war that has seen oil prices wreak havoc on the global economy.

 

He's a smug fucker who having farted in the room is now happy to sit in his own stink whilst pointing fingers at someone else.

[triskelion]

What are you talking about 'mandate from the public?'

 

First Lord of the Treasury is not an elected post, but an appointed one. The British public only elect councils, MSPs, AMs and MPs. Britain has no precedent of electing leaders. They elect parties, and Gordon Brown leads the biggest party in the Commons right now. Did anyone demand an election when John Major took over? Or when Winston Churchill became PM in 1939?

 

Tony Blair didn't create the oil price problem. Do you think the outcome would have been much different if Britain decided not to join in with the invasion of Iraq? Might it in fact have been worse?

 

Gordon Brown's biggest problem is that he doesn't appear to be doing ANYTHING in response to the problems Britain now faces. Blair was a man of many (many) faults, but he would take action, or at least appear to take action. It was the basis of his style of Government: New Labour had to have a view on everything. Brown's last chance is the conference season, if he doesn't pick things up then, he's got to go.

 

Drift....

[VinnieK]

Blair was a man of many (many) faults, but he would take action, or at least appear to take action. It was the basis of his style of Government: New Labour had to have a view on everything.

 

But then again, that's one of the criticisms that's most often levelled at Blair and his government: in striving to achieve a blizzard of policy and constant change they've managed to effectively undermine and confuse a lot of the institutions and procedures designed to keep things stable, especially when it comes to matters like regulation. It's true that Brown is often seen as ineffectual and dithering, but this is simply the other extreme, and not in itself a ringing endorsement of Blair's time in office: what's wanted is a serious government that looks to the long term, not the initiative driven magic bullet whirlwind of activity that characterised Blair, or the gormless stumbling around the houses that Brown offers.

 

To me this smacks of Blair trying to distance himself from current woes for which his government must take a considerable amount responsibility - just another exercise in self promotion and damage limitation.

[Albert Tatlock]

Did anyone demand an election when John Major took over?

Yes - none other than Gordon Broon himself.

 

 

_

[hboy]

What are you talking about 'mandate from the public?'

 

As Albert Tatlock pointed out Brown himself did raise the same issue with John Major when in opposition but is happy to ignore the issue when its about himself. The fact is he's a weak Prime Minister who has been handed a poisoned chalice by a man who was more gifted in spiel than him.

 

The Iraq war, a reluctance to apply anything other than weak regulation to the finance sector, and a reliance on spin and bullshit over anyhthing of political substance has created this economic mess. That's not down to Brown.

 

Blair was a pathological liar and a charlatan who should have gone years ago. The truth being though that Brown might go out of office tomorrow if he's pushed; but its Blair that will need to be driven around in a bulletproof car 20 years from now because of what he was part of.

[manshimajin]

Tony Blair has delivered a savage attack on Gordon Brown in a secret memo accusing him of playing into David Cameron’s hands by his ‘lamentable’ and ‘vacuous’ performance as Prime Minister.

 

The former Prime Minister boasts that Mr Cameron was ‘in trouble’ before he resigned a year ago.

 

And he claims Mr Brown’s incompetence has made the Tories look like the party of the future and on course to win the next Election....

As Oscar Wilde put it so well - this is another example of "the unspeakable chasing after the uneatable"

 

Sounds like Gordon didn't offer to put Tony's name forward for a title....talk to a local cafe owner Tony...

[bluemonday]

Labour pulling themselves to pieces in public, Cameron must be lapping this up.

[Skeddan]

My feeling is that the New Labour's problem isn't just Gordon Brown - it's the perception of New Labour as a whole - seen by many as up to its eyes in sleeze, spin, erosion of civil liberties, being in bed with shady businesses, lapping up to Bush, and taking the public for a ride.

 

What's the point of Blair's leaked 'secret' memo (why put it in writing if meant to be so secret?). IMO it is a salvaging tactic for New Labour as a party - put the blame on Gordon Brown and make him a scapegoat, and then be able to have a chance of winning the next election, and so have four more years at the trough for the New Labourites.

 

New Labour's style of 'friendly fascism' really only holds together if there is a charismatic leader - which Brown isn't. Either they need to get a wunder-kid Blair Mark 2, or NL will probably fizzle - and someone like John McDonnell will take it back to being more like old style Labour.

 

I don't see them 'tearing themselves apart'. They have too much to lose - so it will be an orderly leadership change and not really a contest - at least not once the party sponsors settle on who will follow. My guess is the replacement will be signalled by Blair - maybe another 'secret memo'.

[P.K.]

It's not the piece per se that bothers me. It's more that this thread seems to indicate that some idiots actually believe what's written in The Wail about a Labour government! It's such a bizarre concept I'm actually struggling to come to terms with it. I mean, taking their load of old rubbish as fact, dear me, whatever next.... Errr, you're not David Eike are you?

[Skeddan]

PK - could you explain - what is it about the piece in the Mail which you don't think should be taken seriously? You're not suggesting the Mail fabricated the memo - are you?

[P.K.]

What piece in The Wail do I think shouldn't be taken seriously?

 

Well, all of it actually...

[Pragmatopian]

What is it about the piece in the Mail which you don't think should be taken seriously?

 

The fact that it's in The Mail and about a labour government would be the significant indicator for me.

[Jimcalagon]

PK - could you explain - what is it about the piece in the Mail which you don't think should be taken seriously? You're not suggesting the Mail fabricated the memo - are you?

 

They've done it before. Why do you think Labour Party members refer to it as "The Forger's Gazette"?

[Skeddan]

Blairites also attempted to play down a leaked memo said to have been written by the former prime minister lamenting his successor's flawed leadership.They confirmed its authenticity, but stressed it was written last September after the Labour conference and did not reflect his view today.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...nic-885187.html

 

I don't think you could seriously suggest the Mail fabricated this by themselves. But it wouldn't surprise me if the memo was concocted for 'leaking' as part of a media strategy to pave the way for a change of leadership to salvage New Labour. It also wouldn't surprise me if the outcome has already been decided together with how this will be stage managed. If so, my money would be they've decided on Miliband - note how he is being depicted, and the somewhat telling choice of photos and layout in the Mail article.

 

If 'Blairites' wanted to play this down, why confirm its authenticity rather than not comment? Aside from all the posturing, the subtext is fairly clear. Of course the way this is being done is all a bit of political pantomime, but that's the way the game is played - isn't it? I don't see that just because the Mail is being used to stage this that it's not relevant or worth giving attention to.

 

Anyway we are already into the next phase of the campaign:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4460676.ece

 

Anyone have any guesses on how this will be stage managed? Here's one scenario - Miliband heaped with praises in media, but remaining 'loyal', being handed some 'wins' and successes putting him in the spotlight and winning yet higher praises from media and colleagues as the golden boy, Brown being 'tired' and wanting to retreat to Suffolk and giving Miliband his blessing as his successor... (all with a bit of argy-bargy in the background so as not to make it look too smooth and slick). In the end the result will only change the figurehead while retaining the same old New Labour Politburo - just more marketable to Jo Public.

 

You might almost think that they could write the newspaper stories before it happens.