Why didn't Blair sack Brown?
There’s a new revelation about the war between Blair and Brown in the Jonathan Powell’s new Book, “The New Machiavelli
Given the Treasury’s refusal to share information with us, we had real trouble working out what the financial implications for Britain of the Luxembourg proposal would be. In desperation, we kidnapped the Treasury’s expert at the UK mission in Brussels and took him with us to Luxembourg so that he could explain to us what the offer really meant.
He was enormously relieved when we finally let him go. He didn’t mind that he was being dumped in Paris, the next stop on our trip, without a passport or any money. He just wanted our assurance that we wouldn’t tell the Treasury that he had been travelling with us: that would blight his career for ever.
Why didn’t Blair just sack Brown?
I know he was afraid of Brown creating a backbench rebellion, but surely nothing could have been worse than this?