If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Brown forced to support war?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1892458,00.html
Blunkett has suggested that Brown only supported the war in Iraq because he thought he was going to get sacked otherwise.
I think this is rather important if Brown is to be our next leader, it seems to say two things about him:
a) his natural stance was to oppose the war
b) he will put personal gain over principal
What do people think, if it were true then would Brown look better or worse in your eyes?
or is Blunkett just talking bollocks as usual?
Blunkett has suggested that Brown only supported the war in Iraq because he thought he was going to get sacked otherwise.
I think this is rather important if Brown is to be our next leader, it seems to say two things about him:
a) his natural stance was to oppose the war
b) he will put personal gain over principal
What do people think, if it were true then would Brown look better or worse in your eyes?
or is Blunkett just talking bollocks as usual?
0
Comments
You are surprised by this?
Depends whether his objections were moral or more preactical though.
I find Brown's position quite bizarre and an unwelcome addition to our democracy. It would be easy to mistake Brown as being part of a 'dual premiership' - indeed, many would say he is. The arrogant view of Brown and his supporters that Brown has some kind of 'right' to inherit the role of PM with an assumption of automatic succession is democratically offensive and it's a failure of Blair that his Chancellor is not clearly defined as answerable and inferior to PM's office. Blair should have demoted or sacked Brown years ago...That said, Brown will be a lot easier for the Conservatives to beat than a Blairite challenger so Blair's failure to assert his authority doesn't bother me greatly.