Matthew Parris has written an article for The Times saying that we need to give Labour more time in power. I'm not really sure if I agree with him but I certainly get the main thrust of his point.
Essentially he's worried that if we win the next general election it may be premature and Labour will be able to bounce back sooner rather than later. That is to say Labour has not failed enough to ensure that they will be out of office for a very long time.
Like I say, I can see the argument and do understand it, but accepting it means I also have to accept the possibility of nearly another decade of Labour rule. I'm not sure I want that even if it did give us the ability to say "18 years of Labour rule".
4 comments:
Parris must be snorting the hard stuff Dizzy. If we just sit back for five minutes and consider the damage this government has done to the UK over the last nine years, to go along with the the idea of granting them another nine years is tantamount to lunacy.
Yep, I think I agree. The problem with Parris's argument is that it assumes that if we win the next election we'll bugger it up and be out on ear quick. Call em naive but I have a little more faith than that.
Six years maximum if Brown calls an early election next year. Which I think he will.
And we've already got Gary Streeter on ConservativeHome saying he expects Brown to have a working majority at the next election. Defeatist or what?
I don't agree with Matthew Parris this time. We have to strike while the iron is hot. Labour has already slunk to an all time low.
Post a Comment