Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I just heard a clip of Brown being interviewed in Beiijing on the BBC 8 o'clock news. He used an extraordinary formulation about his future. The presenter said that, asked about his prospects of still being PM when the Olympics came to London in 2012, "He said it was up to voters to decide if he was in No 10 in four years years time". But he didn't. In the actual clip that was carried the unnamed interviewer said,
You must be absolutely desperate to still be Prime Minister in 2012 that must keep you awake at night
And Brown laughed with his somewhat forced, I saw that coming and have decided in advance to to laugh it off laugh, and replied,
That's for the public. That's for the public.
He then changed the subject as fast as he could, i.e. immediately:
I think er, everybody is looking forward to 2012. Look, the next four years I think for Britain are going to see more and more young people getting interested in sports.
The formulation, and it seemed to me to be a deliberate one that he repeated rather than corrected, of "the public" deciding is very much not about voters. The "public" is a contrived entity that only decides things through opinion polls, the press and media, and perhaps canvassing returns. To say that "the public" will decide means not putting the matter to the vote. It felt to me like a clear signal that, if he concludes that 'the public' will not re-elect him, Brown will not stand.
Not logged in (not verified) said:
Tue, 2008-08-26 15:39Anthony, I'm sorry to say so, but I think this might be a bit of tea-leaf reading on your part. It reminds me of the US blogs last week with their 'veepstakes' speculation. I don't think we can read what you read into Brown's turn of phrase.
We could posit that if Brown thinks he can't win, he won't stand. But it is more likely to be the case that due to pride, and as a face-saving measure, Brown will stay on if he thinks he will only lose marginally, which must be the best that he hopes for, deep down...
... if he has considered it at all. Surely the horse-trading we have witnessed recently has been based on the idea that there are two types of people in the Labour party - those who believe Labour will lose the election; and Mr Brown. Only that analysis leads to the conclusion than nothing other than an internal coup or overt challenge will be required to remove him, ahead of time, from the leadership. "Wait for Gordon to resign" is not a tactic anyone is recommending.
Robert