Home » Media » Alan's Letters »

Friday, May 18, 2007 – Part 1

By Alan W Collins on Friday 18th May 2007 13:02 / 4 comments

Medway Messenger

Sunlight Centre
Brown’s visit so hypocritical

I WATCHED the news with keen interest as Gordon Brown paid a visit to the Sunlight Centre (Gillingham North) with Gillingham and Rainham MP Paul Clark.

What astonishes me is the hypocritical way in which the Labour Government can refuse funding for the Sunlight Centre, then send the local MP to accompany the man in charge of the budget on a media circus in the grounds of the same place.

I wonder if any of the assembled Labour members stopped to think about that when they arrived, or whether their logical vision was momentarily blinded by the celebrity of a celebrity who didn’t want to become a celebrity?

Alan Collins
Goudhurst Road, Gillingham

No Related Posts

4 Comments

Socia Lists says:

Wednesday 23rd May 2007 at 18:18

I think you need to find your facts out before posting this – the fact is that one votes for a party at an election, not an individual. Providing Brown sticks roughly to the manifesto he has as much of a mandate as Blair.
Alan Collins says:

Wednesday 23rd May 2007 at 18:50

I had to laugh when you started talking about facts.

Let us review, shall we? In 1997, Tony Blair’s New Labour came to power with a landslide majority. Never had a left wing (if not Socialist to your apparent liking, judging by the name you give yourself) party been so popular with a nation that was, and remains, in some ways right-of-centre.

People started supporting New Labour because they liked Tony Blair. He had a sense of likeability that attracted people who would never dream of voting for Old Labour. A lot of people voted for New Labour because they liked Tony Blair, and now that they have seen that it is not all about personality, and that Tony Blair isn’t as much of the likeable person he once appeared to be, New Labour’s support has dropped.

Fact number two. Gordon Brown kicked off his campaign, and is spending the next few weeks (while the Prime Minister is on his fairwell tour and the Country is in limbo) “campaigning” and distancing himself from Tony Blair. “New” has already been dropped from the Labour Party website, and he is already indicating substantial shifts from the direction of the 2005 Labour Party manifesto.

I might just remind you that if, as you are so clearly indicating, people do vote for the “whole package”, then they also voted for Tony Blair sticking around for a full third term, which is precisely what he indicated at the time of the election. By standing down before the end of the term, then the mandate of the “whole package” expires.

That, and the previous point about changing policies after being coronated unchallenged, makes him nothing short of a dictator. And, if he wants to restore the democratic “power of Parliament”, he can start with the top of the pile – and seek a mandate from the British people first!
Alan Collins’ Political Opinions » Blog Archive » Another day, another letter says:

Friday 25th May 2007 at 12:24

[...] All comments are fully welcomed (here’s looking at you, Socia Lists). [...]
Socia Lists says:

Friday 25th May 2007 at 12:54

does that mean it was wrong for
1 – Sir ALec Douglas Home to succeed Macmillan?
2 – Callaghan to succeed Wilson?
3 – Major to succeed Thatcher ( )?

????
Alan Collins says:

Friday 25th May 2007 at 13:15

A lot of people would disagree with me on this one, but yes to all three.

But what is important to remember in this case is that the implication from Blair at the time of the 2005 General Election was that he would stay for a full third term, and (36% of) voters gave him their mandate based on that. Since then he has decided to leave mid-term, and it is of his own choice.

Mrs. Thatcher, on the other hand, was forced out of office by her own Party. I don’t think she should have gone, but my personal opinion is that when she went there should have been a General Election. Although I wasn’t even one at that time, so I couldn’t speak up about it.

My firm belief is that if a Party, regardless which one it is, changes leader mid-way through their time in Government, they should be allowed 100 days to hint at what they are going to do (and set the ball rolling in a way which can be undone if the public disprove and vote them out) then call a General Election.

What is unique about the situation we have here is that in two of the three examples you give above there were contests fought before a leader was chosen (there was no formal precedent for a contest in the case of Sir Alec Douglas Home) and there is strong, multi-party and national support for a General Election.

Surely Gordon Brown will want to start off on the right side of the electorate and call one, winning in his honeymoon period, rather than ignore them (again) and lose in two years time?