I think Clockback that your suggested reference to Ainsworth’s involvement in the IMG is too long and that something along the lines of ‘brief flirtation’ would be better. I think that the IMG reference needs to be short/somewhere in the early career section/posted after the article has been expanded a little, otherwise the article might appear weighty. I think the last point is important as it seemed to be a consensus reached by a number of Wikipedia editors after much wrangling and gnashing of teeth))

But bedsides, this brief dalliance with Marxism, in an overall consideration of his political career, pales into insignificance compared to his being controversially thrust as a third choice candidate into the position of Defence Secretary at a time of crisis for the British Army in terms of the number of casualties being sustained and a lack of resources. This is simply not reflected at all in the Ainsworth article. I tried reflecting it as follows: "His appointment formed part of a chaotic cabinet reshuffle by the Prime Minister, who "considered at least three other candidates before appointing Ainsworth" but this was dismissed as "speculative opinion" by Off2riorob above, even though from my point of view it is easily the most significant event in Ainsworth’s biography. Perhaps we can reach a consensus that if a better reference can be found—which I suspect should not be difficult—that it can be re-included? I want to stress that this is again not meant to be an ad hominem slight against Ainsworth, but merely drawing attention to the fact that his appointment was the equivalent of throwing someone in at the deep end (and indeed he has had a very difficult time of it since his appointment). Actually it reflects worse on Brown and the farcical reshuffle.