A thought
There are obvious differences, I know, he would have faced the prospect of either tying himself firmly to the Blairites and losing some of that “New Broom” shine or else aligning himself with Old Labour and losing all of it. Furthermore Brown, unlike Clinton, actually has had a vast amount of experience in high government.
But still…A challenger striking entirely from the blue and decapitating someone who had, for many years, seemed like the unquestionable successor that there was a ubiquitous consensus was beyond challenge? A fresh face leapt for by a party that had seemed unquestionably certain to opt for the politician that had long bided their time and not taken earlier opportunities to make a lunge for the throne, no matter how ripe? A young spark upsetting the order and using charisma and longing for change to upset the order to his own advantage? Sheer momentum devoid of true message defeated by charm and an offer of something else, something completely different?
Surely Milliband can not be so loyal as to have elucted the mildest pangs of regret at his earlier prudence.
Milliband would have divided his party, creating a Brownie/Blairite gulf. 2007 may have been too soon for the division: he probably would have lost. This way he gets a bare-knuckle fight with Balls in the same argument, just three years later and with an election defeat behind them.
From a personal point of view, he did exactly the right thing. Evidence, perhaps, that we would be better off had he dared to try.
As an aside, it may be worth pointing out that there was no public deliberation on the issue. Unlike Brown’s handling of the phantom election, Miliband did not venture any speculation on the suggestion that he might run. He’s more sensible than many give him credit for, and certainly more sensible than his cretin of a leader and his cronies.
Milliband would have divided his party, creating a Brownie/Blairite gulf. 2007 may have been too soon for the division: he probably would have lost. This way he gets a bare-knuckle fight with Balls in the same argument, just three years later and with an election defeat behind them.
Eh. You’ve been reading to many Tory blogs, Ali. Taking a Conservative win as a given is severely unwise.
From a personal point of view, he did exactly the right thing. Evidence, perhaps, that we would be better off had he dared to try.
I’m just saying that given the example of Obama he must at least be wondering. At least a little divided over his apparently wise lack of boldness given the events of this year.
As an aside, it may be worth pointing out that there was no public deliberation on the issue. Unlike Brown’s handling of the phantom election, Miliband did not venture any speculation on the suggestion that he might run.
It was an easier decision to make. At the time it would have been madness. In hindsight though, it would simply have been bold. Obama has not just changed his own domestic politics.
He’s more sensible than many give him credit for, and certainly more sensible than his cretin of a leader and his cronies.
Again, too many Tory blogs. ^.^ Brown is as much an architect of New Labour as Blair was. Indeed if you take David Finkelstein’s analysis as correct {and he certainly seems to have a better grasp of the philosophy that defeated him than any other does} it was Blair deviation from the firm Triangulation template that caused most of the electoral problems.
Had they stuck with it {as there is evidence Brown would have} they would have avoided anything so blatant as a massive war arranged by Neo-Conservatives and Blair would have one a third landslide, most likely crushing the Tories forever. But for Iraq the political landscape would be utterly dissimilar to the one we see today, but far more like the one that allowed the loss of a single seat in the 2001 general.
I fear that you are giving Brown insufficient credit. His failings are disheartening but not crippling. He is far from an idiot and to fail to realise this will damage your understainding of the man irreparably.