This isn't a banana republic, so why do tolerate coup d'etat's?

Unlike many people on the left, I'm happy to concede that there are areas of policy where the Conservatives have much to offer. I'd even go as far as to say that changes of government are healthy for the political process and are a great way to prevent complacency and corruption. Given that it's pretty clear that Gordon Brown's government has run out of steam, you may wonder how I view the prospect of a Cameron government?


I'm rather worried by the prospect. I've detailed my fear before. It seems I was closer to the mark than I realised. This report in Todays Observer details how some of Camerons top generals want to get rid of the NHS. They see it as "no longer relevant to the 21st Century".

I take David Cameron's statements regarding the NHS at face value. He's seen it 1st hand at it's best with his disabled son. I don't believe that anyone can't be moved by such an experience. I have heard talk that some on the right have realised this and see Cameron as an obsticle to their plans to "transform" Great Britain. They see Cameron as a useful front man to win an election, as the acceptable face of Conservatism. They know that the public will never go for abolition of the NHS, so they have to get in, then do a "Mike Freer" and axe the leader and replace him with someone more "ideologically sound".

You may think this is scaremongering, but consider this. Ted Heath was the last leader of a party (until Brown) not to face either a Leadership contest or be knobbled. Wilson resigned - Callaghan took over, then lost an election to Thatcher. Thatcher was booted out by the Tories and replaced by Major. Major called a leadership contest after winning an election to try and stem the backstabbing. Strangely enough for a man derided as weak and indecisive, he won the contest. He lost the next election to Blair. Blair was knobbled by Brown.

In Great Britain, electing a leader is no guarantee whatsoever that he'll actually see out a term of Government. I think that a law should be passed whereby if a party replaces it's leader, a general election Must be held within 6 months.

If Brown had worked under these constraints, strangely enough, he'd have won and would lead the country with authority. I'd tolerate a Cameron government, if he wins an election. It's called democracy and it's the only form of Government I trust. I also fully understand why Tories despise unelected Gordon Brown. When some right wing nutcase slips the stiletto into David Camerons back, so he can abolish the NHS, the saddest thing is that he'll claim his legitimacy based on the actions of Gordon Brown.

I have one last question. How many of these leaders, who've come to power via palace coup's have done a good job? How many of them have left their party in a fit state to manage a whelk stall, let alone a country. Whatever you thought of Thatcher and Blair, at least they got there by fair means. My question - This isn't a banana republic, so why do tolerate coup d'etat's?