Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Brown (And Cameron's) Major Problem

Whatever you might say (and they have said) about Major, he was nice, bright and won his premiership the hard way. He won fair and square and then proceeded to leave behind a golden legacy in '97.

Compare and contrast Brown. Nasty, not as bright as Major, the embodiment of economic catastrophe - and terrified of elections to boot.

If Cameron can finally get his political kit together and squash Brown, what, I and millions of other people are asking, will his legacy be? At the very least it must equal Major's. That's the new Tory - and our - benchmark.

But that's one issue. The other is that it's important people everywhere these days know that any comparison the moronic, bullyboy, obsessive Brownite Ballses of this world make between '92 and '10 - between Major and Brown - are patently absurd. But that's what Balls et al are desperately hoping - that Brown can "do a Major".

Er, no chance. Reason? Brown is no Sir John Major. Brown's not fit to shine Major's shoes. And everyone apart from Ed Balls and the manse man himself knows that.

That's how bad Brown is - far worse than Major! And the Barry Sheermans of the PLP absolutely know that, which is why Brown's support, apart from fanatical henchmen like Balls, continues quietly to ebb away.

Whatever you might think about John Major, he was, unlike Brown, always hungry for democracy in victory or defeat. In those terms alone, he was an honest politician and a respected statesman. He'll have his place.

Who will ever dare say that, long after his ejection from public life, of Gordon Brown?

Not I.


  1. Great post Denverthen - especially enjoyed the clip, which I've never seen before.

    Just one quibble:

    "not as bright as Major"

    I don't think Gordon Brown isn't bright - possibly even brighter than Major. PhDs from Edinburgh are not handed out with the rations! What he lacks is common sense and good judgement, which are different things.

  2. Many thanks.

    I concede the point about 'brightness'. Not sure where I was going with that. Perhaps it's simply that I find it bewildering the a man as intellectually solid as Brown can have made such a pig's breakfast of just about everything he's even touched in public life.

    An absence of sound judgment and common sense would go some distance to explaining this conundrum, so thank-you for that!

  3. I think that history is finally coming around to the truth of Major's premiership, that it was actually very successful and ultimately good for the country. The economic inheritance that Brown and Blair received was probably unmatched. The fact that it's taken this long for Brown to torpedo it underlines how good the books at the time were and also blows apart the Brown myth of a 'cerebral economist'. I wouldn't trust the blithering incompetent to run a school tuck shop.

  4. Not that the Major premiership was without it's pitfalls. The ERM problem was the glaring one but joining it was supported by the trots (including one G. Brown) and Ashdown's hippy commune at the time.

    I don't think following Major's approach to leading the country should really be Cameron's goal. I feel he needs more of a thatcher-like zeal for reform though maybe a tad more diplomatic in the delivery (With Osborne taking a sensible grip on the nation's purse, like a mate saying 'Leave it Dave, they ain't worf' it!' as he stops him from eviscerating several quango bosses).

  5. All true, UB. Indeed, the challenge for Cameron (of leaving the country in the kind of shape Major did) is certainly no mean one. And to achieve will certainly take "Thatcherite zeal" in terms of reform and economics as you rightly say.

    The picture in my mind of Cameron and Osborne ripping the guts out of quango supremoes is one I like, btw. Very much :)

    It's as good a place for Cameron to start as any.

  6. They should set Hague on them, judo expert apparently.

  7. lol.

    Just a side issue, watching the little spat between John Cole and the psephology professor bloke again, it occurred to me that while Cole might have imagined his shallow interpretation was bang on the money, the Labour party, once John Smith had passed away, clearly believed the professor - hence "New" Labour and Blair. And they won in '97 with a landslide, so the good professor was right, too!

    It's interesting too that once Blair had gone, and taken New Labour with him to the political grave, they've imploded again.

    People have bloody long memories, it seems, which is disastrous news for Gordon Brown.


Any thoughts?