The limit to Alan Johnson's ambition
James Forsyth 2:21pm
If--and this is still phenomenally unlikely--this current sleaze scandal either topples Gordon Brown or brings about a challenge to him, Alan Johnson is being tipped as the man to watch. He is certainly the opposite of Brown—charming, comfortable in his own skin and English—and is, as Nick Boles wrote in The Spectator during the Blair era, the Labour figure the Cameroons fear most. But Johnson suffers from a self-inflicted wound that makes it very hard for him to consider running even if Gordon had been forced out.
When Johnson appeared on Desert Island Discs, Kirsty Young asked him about why he didn’t rune for leader. Here’s what he said: "I don't think I would have been good enough, frankly.
"I don't think I've got the capabilities. You get to a level and look around and think 'Perhaps I could go to the next level'. I don't think I could go to that level, which is the only level up from being a cabinet minister.”Now, if he became PM, or even ran for the job, these words would be like a mill-stone round his neck.
Previous
Teesbridge
November 30th, 2007 3:30pm Report this commentI think you're right that Johnson is a non-runner. This leaves us with Straw - whose ascent throught the wreckage looks more like that of Francis Urquhart as each day passes.
dave, surrey
November 30th, 2007 3:45pm Report this commentthis ought to read the limit to johnson's professional ambition. many people recognize they're not cut out for the mealy mouthed, insincere world of middle management and above, but are better cut out at getting the work done. Hats off to AJ, more cash on Benn as next leader
pip pip
cath dibble
November 30th, 2007 4:27pm Report this commentThis is probably one of the most refreshing things you'll ever hear from a politician. Not sure it's the millstone you think it is.
William Norton
November 30th, 2007 4:40pm Report this comment"I don't think I would have been good enough, frankly." "I don't think I've got the capabilities." Perfect job description for a Labour premier.
Simon
November 30th, 2007 4:50pm Report this commentKirsty Wark? When did she start doing DIDs?
James Forsyth
November 30th, 2007 5:19pm Report this commentSorry Simon, my bad. Too many melifluous voices.
David Lindsay
November 30th, 2007 6:13pm Report this commentThe Tories are making hay, of course. But their party is now so confined to the South East and East Anglia that it has no more chance of removing the Government than has, say, the SNP, or Plaid Cymru, or any of the parties peculiar to Northern Ireland. (In which case, with no Tory bogeyman that really exists, what is the point of the Labour Party?) And anyway, what POLITICIAL difference would a Tory victory make? There is none. But that will be the question, and answer, that really matter over the next year and a half.
jsheppard
November 30th, 2007 7:27pm Report this commentMr Lindsey The Conservative Party had the largest number of votes in England in the last election and will certainly take all the Midland and SW marginals next time.Wales and NI are irrelevant and I predict that Cameron will come to a deal with Salmond to cast Sctland adrift That only leaves the utterly corrupt Northern seats and inner London which can be written off.A few boundary changes could sort them out This means there will never be another Labour govermnent
Matt Wright
November 30th, 2007 10:25pm Report this commentInteresting this Lindsay fella is making excatly the same post on various sites. Are Labour getting desperate. By the way JSheppard is also wrong, Labour lost seats in the Welsh Assembly elections and very nearly lost several others. They will lose a number of parliamentary seats, that is certain. As for Scotland, yes that probably is long term situation for us.
Griff
December 1st, 2007 6:49am Report this commentGordon Brown is a dead ringer for Richard Nixon. Alan Johnson is a dead ringer for W.C. Fields. Looks do matter and comparisons with the originals will be made.
David Lindsay
December 1st, 2007 12:22pm Report this commentI couldn't care less whether David Cameron or Gordon Brown won the next Election, if that is the "choice" on offer. It is to that "choice" that I object. Why do you care? Why, specifically, in philosophical policy terms? There is no reason to. And that is the problem.
Back to top