Yet more Labour crises
Hurrah for John McDonnell, who seems to be about to set himself up as a stalking horse candidate for the inevitable post-Blair leadership election. Precisely what he's intending will remain unclear until the official announcement tomorrow, and it sadly looks like there's a good chance he's not actually trying to provoke an election at the next party conference, merely to ensure that Gordon Brown's succession isn't uncontested.
Still, a quick glance at his voting record shows he could be quite an appealing figure for the few old Labour types who haven't deserted the party in the last few years: he's one of the most rebellious Labour MPs going, firmly against Iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals, the curtailment of civil liberties, ID cards, etc. etc. etc. - in the absence of any more feasible traditionally Labour candidates to take on the Chancellor, could he be worth a flutter?
(Oh, and though his surname might sound Scottish, he's a London MP, so the Tories couldn't attack him for being a tartan-clad, ginger-haired, woad-covered, haggis-eating, caber-tossing Pictish savage, as they seem intent on doing with Brown...)
Meanwhile, yet another part of the government's ill-conceived anti-terrorism laws could receive a hearty blow as the Independent Police Complaints Commission apparently recommends that the officers involved in the repeated shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes a year ago should be charged with manslaughter.
(Minister appearing on the TV to complain about how this will undermine the government's ability to prevent further atrocities, and how the blood will be on the prosecutors' hands in 5... 4... 3...)
3 Comments:
I must say, it seems somewhat harsh to go after the officers who actually pulled the trigger. Oh I know that "I was ordered to do it" is generally acknowledged as not entirely foolproof defence, but here I would say it is a reasonable one - they weren't the people watching Jean Charles De Menezes coming out of the block, following him down the street and then making the judgement call as to whether he was a danger - they just had voices shouting "we think he's a bomber - get him!" at them.
The person who TOLD them to pull the trigger on the other hand...
Nope - he certainly isn't worth a flutter!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4680344-103588,00.html
Hmmm... But is that really so different to various other lefty types (Livingstone, Galloway, etc. etc.) going on about how they can understand why Palestinians would want to attack Israel?
Post a Comment