Now, I'm not one of those looking forward to a Labour defeat in 2010. But in my bleaker moments, I do wonder if it wouldn't actually be better for Brown to lose next time than to cling on for a Majoresque fourth term. It's quite clear that the party now needs to have an internal debate about its very purpose - a debate it missed last year by skipping straight to Brown - and that is precisely what a spell in opposition is for. Besides, a defeat in 2010 would be recoverable: it could be like 1970, with Labour returning four years later. But if the party were to soldier on, as Major did, 2015 would bring a massacre that would exile Labour for a generation - and the Conservatives would be back in for another 18 years. That would be bad for Labour - and worse for the country.
Writes Jonathan Freedland in this morning's Guardian.
Is he right? and is it better to cut the losses?
The argument comes back to the old perennial which suggest that if Gordon Brown had faced a leadership challenge,the party would have had the debate over policy that it may now be forced to have in opposition
No comments:
Post a Comment