Let’s be clear about about one matter. Darling insisted that he had never been bullied by Gordon Brown. What he is saying openly is that No10 briefed against him. He could have chosen to make ‘no comment’ about an event that took place nearly two years ago, but decided against this.
We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer directly criticising the operation of the Office of Prime Minster and First Lord of the Treasury and the contact of staff working within or for Downing Street.
The experience that Darling suffered is similar to that of Nigel Lawson, who resigned. Darling survived, a point that he rammed home:
Frankly, my best answer for them is, I'm still here, one of them is not.
Whatever the result of the election, Darling is unlikely to survive in his present job. So, why he has spoken out now, when we are weeks away from a possible budget and the general election:
Is Darling just demob happy?
Has there been a difference of opinion on the budget, whether to have one and how the deficit should be addressed this side of the election?
Whatever Darling’s reasons, it is a very strange time to remind us of “the forces of hell” that were “unleashed” against him.
Darling’s outburst highlights, yet again, the way Gordon Brown has conducted himself and managed those who have worked for him.
The timing of his remarks are without precedent within the lifecycle of any government.
With the information available, it is a curious intervention that Darling has made at this time.
Posts
Unless, of course, he knows of a plan close to fruition.
ReplyDeletePolls closing and Brown resigns suddenly for health reasons.
Darling takes over pro tem and Labour squeak it or Cameron just does. Everything to plan for in the second half of 2010 and into 2011.
Maybe you are right, but why go public over this? If there is a plot on (very doubtful on the information available) it is better carried out with the element of surprise.
ReplyDeleteBut, I as I have said, it is a very odd intervention at this time.