I would love for someone to put forward a convincing argument on why Gordon Brown should stay as leader of this Party. After all this time I have only heard one: that the Party can’t afford a leadership election. My mate David reminded me earlier. That’s hardly the inspiring clarion call – but can someone come up with a good argument that he should stay?This is just a snippet from Tony's article. I recommend that you read the full article by clicking HERE.
Let’s look at a few:
“We should support our leader.”
We should support our party in order to help improve this country. We should support our leader when we believe in him and his capability. At this point the majority do not.
Incidentally, did he support the last leader? Can he really demand loyalty? I think not.
“Who will you replace him with?”
If we continue as we are, Brown WILL be replaced by David Cameron.
What were his qualifications before the Conservative leadership? Are you really saying that despite 11 years in Government, we have nobody comparable to Clegg or Cameron who can’t do a better job than is being done now?
Wouldn’t someone less qualified than Brown need the experience of people around him or her? Wouldn’t this be a collaborative effort where a new leader couldn’t afford not to listen?
Friday, 25 July 2008
A great post from the left - The case against Brown staying.
Of late, I tend to find myself agreeing with certain Labour bloggers more often. These tend to be the grassroot bloggers who have realised that any damage to the party which may come from ditching Gordon Brown, will be insignificant when compared to keeping him on. One of those Bloggers is Tony Hannon over on Labourhome. Following last night's disastrous result in Glasgow East, Tony asks the readers of Labourhome to put forward a convincing argument in response to his "Case against Brown staying":