John Denham has written an article in the Guardian about how Labour needs to concentrate on more than swing voters. What's really interesting is the reaction to the article, in the comments.
Even when they disagree with his thesis, the comments open in a friendly and respectful manner. Here's some examples:
CharlieMcMenamin: John Denham is a man I admire for his integrity and honesty, even if I don't always - or even usually - agree with him. & I'm not just talking about the War - it is characteristic of his general approach to politics
MikeMorris2: John is one of the few good souls left.
Msay: Very good article from John Denham, who ought to return to high ministerial office come the changeover.
porsupuesto: John Denham MP, You are an honourable man who put your country ahead of immediate career when you resigned from the cabinet. Your instincts about Iraq have proved correct and your analysis of the type of government the country needs appears reasonable to me.
It's clear that there is a well of deep respect for him and because of this, people pause to give his opinions a fair hearing. I think it also indicates a deep yearning on the part of many for "good" Labour to return to the fore. Given the choice between Good Labour and the Tories, people will opt for the former.
I hope Mr Brown puts Mr Denham into a very senior position in the Home Office. The public trust in John Denham's integrity will go a long way towards restoring faith in that department.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree, Snowflake. He was a very good Home Office Minister. He does dserve to be back in a senior post
I'll drink to that.
I think there's something to this, John does seem to draw this sort of reaction from all sides.
But I wonder whether some of it might dissipate should he return to government. Take a look at the reaction he got when suggesting that sentencing should reflect on the whether people were time rich or not. Now imagine if he'd posed the same idea (or something equally controversial) as a member of the government.
Not saying he won't be an asset to the government, but lets recognise that there's a difference between where he is now and when he is under the burden of collective responsibility.
Good for people to know.
Post a Comment