Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: Tony Blair
Should he, or shouldn't he?
Quote:
I will quit within a year - Blair
Tony Blair has confirmed that he will step down as prime minister within the next 12 months.
Mr Blair said the Labour conference in two weeks' time would be his last as Labour leader - but he did not name a precise date for his departure.
He also apologised for Labour's conduct in recent days, admitting it "has not been our finest hour, to be frank".
Allies have suggested Mr Blair will announce a timetable early in the New Year and hand over power in May.
Mr Blair and his supporters will be hoping his statement will end the civil war that has broken out in the past week among Labour MPs over his departure.
International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said he wished "people would understand what it is required" and get on with the business of governing.
But some Labour MPs are already saying Mr Blair's statement will not be enough to quell dissent.
When I met the prime minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision
Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer said he did not think Mr Blair's statement "took us any further forward".
And he called on Mr Blair to "fire the starting pistol on a leadership election" at Labour's conference later this month.
Newcastle North MP Doug Henderson, a close ally of Gordon Brown, said: "It doesn't seem to me that the public knows any more about the PM's retirement plans.
"People keep saying to me that the Labour party must have a clear direction forward with clear priorities and a new leader before the May 2007 elections."
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said there was still a lot of "poison" emanating from Labour MPs - and allies of Mr Blair and Mr Brown were continuing to fight behind the scenes.
'No precise date'
In his brief statement, made during a visit to a London school, Mr Blair said: "I think what is important now is that we understand that it's the interests of the country that come first and we move on.
I think that Labour has had its moment of madness this week and I hope it will now move on
"I would have preferred to do this in my own way but it has been pretty obvious from what many of my Cabinet colleagues have said earlier in the week.
"The next party conference in a couple of weeks will be my last party conference as party leader, the next TUC conference next week will be my last TUC - probably to the relief of both of us.
"But I am not going to set a precise date now. I don't think that's right. I will do that at a future date and I'll do it in the interests of the country and depending on the circumstances of the time."
He also had a message for warring Labour MPs, saying: "It's the public that comes first and it's the country that matters, and we can't treat the public as irrelevant bystanders in a subject as important as who is their prime minister."
Speaking earlier, Chancellor Gordon Brown said it was for Mr Blair to decide when he quit.
"When I met the prime minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision," he told reporters during a visit to a Glasgow athletics track.
Mandelson reaction
Giving his reaction, EU trade commissioner and key Blair ally Peter Mandelson said: "I think that Labour has had its moment of madness this week and I hope it will now move on and that the plotting and the shenanigans will be put behind them once and for all.
KEY LABOUR DATES
25-26 Sept: Mr Blair and Mr Brown make speeches at the Labour Party conference in Manchester
15 Nov: State opening of Parliament including the Queen's speech outlining the government's agenda
2 May 2007: Tenth anniversary of Mr Blair's election as prime minister
3 May 2007: Elections for Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and most local authorities in England
"They've got to concentrate on the needs of the country, not themselves."
He said he always thought Mr Blair would step down after 10 years in office, as "it was as much as someone could do that job for".
Speaking earlier, Commons leader Jack Straw said he would expect Mr Blair to stay "to the halfway point of a normal four-year parliament", which would be May.
But Downing Street rejected suggestions a deal had been struck to hand over power on 4 May, three days after Mr Blair notches up 10 years in power and the day after the local elections.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Just resign Tony and call an election
Edward Dowty, Kings Lynn, UK
Send us your comments
Mr Blair has been under pressure to quit earlier than May in order to get a new leader in place before the elections in England, Scotland and Wales - which are expected to be disastrous for Labour.
Mr Brown - the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair - was also thought to be unhappy at the prospect of taking over at the end of a Parliamentary session.
The two men were reported to have to have had an acrimonious meeting over the issue on Wednesday morning.
It was followed by a day of open warfare between supporters of the chancellor and Mr Blair - and a string of government resignations - over when the prime minister should quit.
Report - BBC _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
:o ???????????? :o
Well, I'm not a Blair fan myself, but I won't go that far. :wink: _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
:o ???????????? :o
Well, I'm not a Blair fan myself, but I won't go that far. :wink:
I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.
I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.
I think I'd have to agree there. He's a politician. Yes, he's extremely irritating, and is often untruthful, and frequently does the opposite of what he says he'll do, and goes on lots of expensive holidays, and sent his children to a private Catholic school even though he and his party are supposed to support the state-run schools. But that's what politicians seem to be like.
I doubt that John McDonnell — who has already started his campaign to replace Tony Blair with himself — would actually turn out to be a great philanthropist if he were to actually get some power.
I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.
I think I'd have to agree there. He's a politician. Yes, he's extremely irritating, and is often untruthful, and frequently does the opposite of what he says he'll do, and goes on lots of expensive holidays, and sent his children to a private Catholic school even though he and his party are supposed to support the state-run schools. But that's what politicians seem to be like.
I doubt that John McDonnell — who has already started his campaign to replace Tony Blair with himself — would actually turn out to be a great philanthropist if he were to actually get some power.
Very true. Politicians are all the same. Believe me, I've worked very closely with politicians the past two years. :roll: But some are better than others. :wink: _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
If I were a Labour supporter, I'd think it's a horrible mistake. Nothing augurs worse for a political party's fortunes than a party that is more distracted by in-fighting than national issues.
Gordon Brown may or may not be have a hand behind the forcing of this issue, but it is certain that he has the power to stop it. He has chosen to stand aside.
I suppose Labour has forgotten how the Tories were driven into the wilderness. Of course, they have been in power for almost a decade and ten years is a long time by any standards. After forcing Margaret Thatcher out of power, John Major's Tories were able to survive a beleagured term that ultimately ended in a catastrophe. Would Labour go down the same route?
When Tony Blair won the General Election as a dashing and reform-minded leader 10 years ago, he probably would not have expected to bow from the political stage in this manner. He continues to believe that his presence is more of an asset than a liability but he ought to remember that authority is like virginity - once it is lost, it can never be regained.
I look forward to the Chancellor becoming PM and getting trounced by David Cameron in the next GEs. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I think that in all this turmoil the winner is democracy.
In democracy when people are finally fed up with a politician they simply don't elect them any more or force them to step down. I'm more anxious about all those untouchable politicians who are immortal on their posts.
I think that in all this turmoil the winner is democracy.
In democracy when people are finally fed up with a politician they simply don't elect them any more or force them to step down. I'm more anxious about all those untouchable politicians who are immortal on their posts.
Totally agree. That's the problem we have in SA today. The ANC seems unbeatable, and therefore they act as if they are untouchable. :x
Also agree with Loic. History is repeating itself in Britain, and Labour's going the same way the Tories did. My prediction is Cameron as prime minister after the next election (unless something drastic happens). _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
:o ???????????? :o
Well the guy has deliberately let terrorists spread their hate in public in his own country (the ones who blasted Parisian underground 10 years before they did the same in London).
He has given shelter to the murderers, whom French justice has claimed for 10 years, of French citizens.
He has violated international law and basic human rights by attacking Iraq in 2003 : he *is* a war criminal.
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.
He has betrayed the remainings of the"left" in the UK.
He is still militarily occupying Northern Ireland.
He has happily supported the recent massacre in Lebanon.
He has sold his country to the US : many Britons do feel so ashamed about that (and rightfully so : no one likes their country acting like a prostitute).
He has backstabbed the EU so many times that I don't know which example I should start with.
He is still militarily occupying Northern Ireland.
I feel that I should point out though that Labour, Tony Blair's party, officially support the SDLP in Northern Ireland — one of the main 'Catholic' parties which support a united Ireland. Unfortunately, according to various treaties, a united Ireland is not possible until a majority of the people in Northern Ireland appear to support such a motion, which is currently not the case.
Of course, we don't actually know whether or not the Republic of Ireland even wants Nothern Ireland anymore, which raises another question — would those who'd ideally support a united Ireland favour an independent Northern Ireland, or a Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom?
Quote:
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.
A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.
And when I was in Aberdeen in the North of Scotland last week, there were huge billboards everywhere which were trying to encourage people to stop smoking heroin... oh dear.
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.
A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.
There is something I can't quite understand. According to rough estimates, since May 2004 (when Poland entered the EU) some 1000 000 (one million) people have left for the UK to seek a legal job. Most of them have found it and although it's often not a well-paid-super job they earn enough to live with dignity and for sure most of them don't live in "unthinkable conditions". Logically, I think that if unemployed British wanted to work in bars, hotels, as cleaners, plumbers, or bricklayers, they would be preferable employees to the immigrants from Poland.
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.
A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.
There is something I can't quite understand. According to rough estimates, since May 2004 (when Poland entered the EU) some 1000 000 (one million) people have left for the UK to seek a legal job. Most of them have found it and although it's often not a well-paid-super job they earn enough to live with dignity and for sure most of them don't live in "unthinkable conditions". Logically, I think that if unemployed British wanted to work in bars, hotels, as cleaners, plumbers, or bricklayers, they would be preferable employees to the immigrants from Poland.
Thatcher and Blair organised massive unemployement, general sub-employment and all-out precariousness throughout the UK. Poles and Pakistanis go to the UK not because this country is a labour heaven : they go there because this is a jungle where even the natives — especially the worst off — have no rights. The UK is a caricature of Europe : the health of the people is a non-issue, the culture for the people is a joke, the political awareness of the people is best encapsulated by The Sun's page three, the right to strike is considered an obscenity and now the British find themselves a dream target for terrorists. Lies and falsehood have been set up as institutions : the economy is "booming", the unemployment rate is "4 %", it was "right" to invade Iraq (a country able to deploy WMD in "45 minutes"), Lebanon is a "threat" to Israel, the euro is a "farce", the "new" "Labour", the communautarian "model" is the best and so on and so on.
I don't want to be a doomsayer, but the worst for the UK is still to come — in all fields. This is the reason why it must be thrown out of the EU : it must cope alone with the problems (from economy to security) it has willfully created on its own. As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.
So, when I renounce my nationality in a few years time, what do you think would be a good replacement? Maybe I should become Dutch... what do you think?
Quote:
As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.
I don't understand why you seem not to differentiate between government and people. If France where to go into an extreme economic decline, I'd be more than happy to help support its regeneration for the sake of the people there, even if it had been the French government's own fault. Why? Because I don't equate the government with the people in general.
Greg, I think you'd be disappointed. History would judge the current First Lord of the Chancellor i.e. the Prime Minister in a much more benign light. For one, he has transformed Labour into a politically viable party that can win votes as well as elections. We've forgotten how often Labour were relegated to the backbenches in the most of the 20th century and how the Conservatives were seen as the 'natural party of government'.
I maintain that Messrs Bush and Blair were misled by their firm convictions that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction as well as being linked to Al-Qaeda. On hindsight, discoveries disclosed have embarrassed these two leaders quite a bit. But I do not buy the story that the Prime Minister deliberately and wilfully misled the entire nation into participating in the war. This is just the case of an individual who thought he was right and who acted on his convictions.
As for inner-city working class poverty, this is all relative. I am sure you have not seen more dire conditions in other parts of the world. At least I don't see anyone starving, do I?
And pray tell me, what exactly is the 'left' nowadays when they have almost all become the 'right' in pratice? The left would have abolished all features of the market economy; they would perceive capitalism as I quote Jaures: L'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme. Of course, all lefties would eagerly be at the beck and call of Moscow when it comes to all directives.
Do not forget the towering icons of the left: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc. I am sure every East European who once lived under the yoke of the Soviet Union would agree that there is nothing admirable about the left. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
As for inner-city working class poverty, this is all relative. I am sure you have not seen more dire conditions in other parts of the world. At least I don't see anyone starving, do I?
No. I supposed that Greg meant that they are cut off from society, rather than that they have significant material inadequacies. But even though one cannot pretend that poverty found in the UK is as bad as that found in much of the rest of the world, the psychological effects, including depression and humiliation, can be similar, especially when you are fully aware that others are significantly better-off than yourself.
As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.
I don't understand why you seem not to differentiate between government and people. If France where to go into an extreme economic decline, I'd be more than happy to help support its regeneration for the sake of the people there, even if it had been the French government's own fault. Why? Because I don't equate the government with the people in general.
Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.
loic wrote:
For one, he has transformed Labour into a politically viable party that can win votes as well as elections.
This is no longer the case, it seems. And the Labour was transformed into a provisionally electorally viable party — certainly not politically —> how many political failures do you need to see that Blair is in an impasse ?
loic wrote:
But I do not buy the story that the Prime Minister deliberately and wilfully misled the entire nation into participating in the war. This is just the case of an individual who thought he was right and who acted on his convictions.
Oh loic, why are you romanticising everything ?! You think he chose to sacrifice young British guys, murder innocent Iraqis, betray his own people and waste huge amounts of money because of his "convictions" ? T'es un idéaliste, loic...
loic wrote:
Do not forget the towering icons of the left: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc. I am sure every East European who once lived under the yoke of the Soviet Union would agree that there is nothing admirable about the left.
loic : believe it or not, I have never voted for a leftist party or candidate in my entire life ! I don't like communism — either in theory or in (Soviet-like) practice.
Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.
You actually believe that democracy is a reality? :shock: C'est toi qui est un idéaliste, je crois. D'autre part, you've said yourself that Blair has betrayed his own people.
Before I address the numerous problems with your assumption here, I will ask you this: What do you suggest that those British citizens who didn't support Tony Blair do when everything completely collapses in this shithole (implicitly your words, not mine), as you're expecting? Emigrate to New Zealand?
Okay:
1. They didn't 'elect' Tony Blair as such. They elected individual MPs. The leader of the party with the most MPs elected becomes the Prime Minister. For example, my parents voted for Dr Lynne Jones in the General Election last year — she's been an MP for years now, and she's very very good. Although she's a Labour MP, she is very much the opposite of Tony Blair and is frequently seen as one of the most rebellious MPs in Parliament. Although my parents do not support Tony Blair, they definitely support Dr Lynne Jones. Thus, were they wrong to elect her because they'd notionally be helping Tony Blair into office again? This sort of situation can't be that uncommon.
2. It is important to remember that the British electoral system is one of the least democratic in Europe anyway:
Of course, the Liberal Democrats support changing the system to one of proportional representation, because they'd have significantly more influence if it was. Why haven't the current Labour government changed the system? Because it clearly wouldn't work in their favour.
3. Only 61.3% of people actually voted at all the General Election last year. I'm sure you will agree that this can largely be attributed to the fact that the leading politicians have alienated large sections of society, as you have already mentioned. Taking both this and what was mentioned in No.2 into account, I conclude that only 21.6% of British citizens actually voted for Labour. And then taking into account what was mentioned in No.1 about people supporting their Labour MP without intentionally supporting Tony Blair, and also taking into account what I'm going to say in No.5 about how a sizeable number of Labour voters are actually Liberal Democrats in reality, the figure for people who actually wished to elect Tony Blair would be even lower. 10% maybe, I don't know. Do a significant proportion of the 38.7% of British citizens who didn't vote support Tony Blair? I entirely doubt it.
4. The result of last year's General Election cannot be taken as evidence for widespread public support of the war in Iraq. Actually, it wasn't really possible for it to be a large election issue. Why? Because Tony Blair relied heavily on support from Conservative MPs in order to do what he did; I understand that a majority of Labour MPs actually opposed the war. However, if people had been electing Tony Blair himself (à la française ou à l'état-unienne), things may have been different last year.
5. Various opinion polls and studies have suggested that if everyone were to vote for their favourite party, or for the party of the leader who has impressed them the most (I remember that one distinctly from 2001), the Liberal Democrats would have a very good change of winning. Unfortunately, since people have got the idea that the Liberal Democrats 'won't win' stuck in their heads, insufficient numbers of people vote for them, so they don't win. And as mentioned in No.2, their representation at Westminster greatly undermines the votes they get due to the archaic 'first past the post' system. Personally, my favourite party are the Greens. Will I vote for them? Probably not. It's quite likely that I'll move to Scotland next year — I may consider voting for the Scottish National Party there.
6. A great many people take a fairly superficial interest in politics and vote based upon just a few issues. A lot of people might choose to vote for the party which promises to sort the chronic problems with the hospitals and the NHS out. Or for the party who wants to reduce immigration. Or maybe even for the party who promises to give them the best pension deal. Things which seem important to them personally, and things which they can understand (most people don't understand complex economic programmes, for example). Essentially, I see it as a grave error to assume that because someone votes for a particular candidate or party, they necessarily agree with many (or are even aware of) of their views.
Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.
You actually believe that democracy is a reality? :shock: C'est toi qui est un idéaliste, je crois.
You're right : I'm still idealising. Can't get cured...
Benjamin wrote:
What do you suggest that those British citizens who didn't support Tony Blair do when everything completely collapses in this shithole (implicitly your words, not mine), as you're expecting? Emigrate to New Zealand?
No. Just fight a little bit harder. Look at France : they had the government step back with the CPE (PS : I was not against the CPE, but I admit its opponents succeeded in kicking the PM's ass effectively).
Benjamin wrote:
They elected individual MPs. The leader of the party with the most MPs elected becomes the Prime Minister.
That's precisely what I don't like at all with Anglo-Saxon politics : there's no *DIRECT* ballot. In France we do elect our president : we just have ourselves to blame for any instatisfaction of any sort (which is by the way garanteed of course).
Benjamin wrote:
It is important to remember that the British electoral system is one of the least democratic in Europe anyway.
I know. Here the system is formally democratic but the brainwashing is quite powerful and the crooks rather astute, well-organised, talented and tenacious : on avale des couleuvres en permanence (sang contaminé, Outreau, nucléaire etc)...
Benjamin wrote:
A great many people take a fairly superficial interest in politics and vote based upon just a few issues.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
