Do we really need a prime minister?
Francis Sedgemore, Tuesday 5 May 2009
It struck me yesterday while taking in news bulletins and commentary on the latest goings-on at the heart of New Labour™, that if no-one in that pitiful organisation wants to replace Gordon Brown as prime minister of the Disunited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, why not simply abolish the office altogether?
I mean, it’s not as if the prime minister serves any useful purpose beyond creating discord and scandal on which the media may feast. It also works against the kind of open, democratic political culture that offers some hope of igniting public interest in civic life.
What a legacy this would be for Gordon Brown, who would surely go down in the history books as a revolutionary on a level with the great Oliver Cromwell. Brown’s likeness could even replace that of Horatio Nelson in London’s Trafalgar Square.
Meanwhile, the Tories’ Old Etonian prime-minister-in-waiting is promising “glorious change”. Yawn.
Feed the writer! 


Wednesday 6 May 2009 at 06:16 GMT
“glorious change”, eh? I told you to watch this guy. While we’re about it, why not name the Conservative Party the People’s Popular Peasant Front.
Wednesday 6 May 2009 at 09:39 GMT
There’s not much peasantry in the ranks of the Tory Party. But neither is there much in Labour, despite the mockney accents of certain cabinet members. Alan Johnson is just about the only working class member of the government.
Wednesday 6 May 2009 at 10:29 GMT
Cameron could slip up badly. He leads the Conservatives, whose raison d’etre is to stop all change. Bring back Baldwin.
Wednesday 6 May 2009 at 10:35 GMT
Indeed, Cameron is a bit of an oxymoron.