Friday, September 02, 2011
Come off it Ed!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f88e8/f88e828bc39cb834db018f80bdec99b2acb799b9" alt=""
According to memoirs and the received wisdom at the time, Gordon was furious with Darling for describing the economic crisis as the 'worst for 60 years' when his line was to say the economy was well able to withstand any likely buffeting. He wanted to shift him to another job but Darling refused to budge, judging, rightly, that Brown lacked the political strength to sack him during such fraught times and when his own
personal stock was so low. He courageously stoodhis ground and his fellow Scot decided not to take him on.
Ed now denies he ever knew of such a plan and that he in any case opposed it. This is a problem of credibility: who would you believe first? A sober, hardworking, unrufflable Scot or a clearly ambitious master of the political black arts like Ed Balls? Nuff said.
Comments:
<< Home
Totally agreed. Darling comes out of the affair, and subsequent events, with credit. Given the state of sovereign debt, it was simply not credible to say that this was 'just another dip' as Brown et al were arguing. I am not as partisan as to not give credit to those on the left when they deserve it, but nothing I have ever learned about Ed Balls(from reading, discussion or observation) makes me like or respect the man at all.
I do not know look at the mess we are in now and I suspect if labour had stayed in power meaning Brown would now be leader, would we have had anything different.
But I have never seen so many poor leaders who were unable to sack the Chancellor, Blair could not sack Brown, Brown could not sack Darling, and believe it or not Balls did not want the job, my ass.
Post a Comment
But I have never seen so many poor leaders who were unable to sack the Chancellor, Blair could not sack Brown, Brown could not sack Darling, and believe it or not Balls did not want the job, my ass.
<< Home