PDA

View Full Version : Blair to leave office in 2007?


Sayhey
Sep 6, 2006, 12:25 AM
From Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-05T224919Z_01_L05434410_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-POLITICS.xml&archived=False):

UK's Blair to resign next July: report
Tue Sep 5, 2006 6:44pm ET
By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - Tony Blair will leave office on July 26, the Sun newspaper reported in its Wednesday edition, as the increasingly unpopular prime minister faced growing pressure to quit from within his own Labor Party.

The report comes a day after a top Blair ally said the prime minister would probably leave office within a year.

The Sun said Blair would step down as head of the Labor Party on May 31, less than a month after his tenth anniversary in office. He would resign as prime minister eight weeks later, after an election to choose a successor as party leader, expected to be his finance minister, Gordon Brown....

As much as I'd rather it happened sooner, this would be a relief. Sometimes I envy parliamentary systems.

iGav
Sep 6, 2006, 08:17 AM
Can't the Labour Party see the damage they're doing to themselves over this little escapade? haven't they been paying attention to what happened to the Lib Dems earlier this year? The way they're going... at the next election the Tories are going to get back into power and we'll all be ********* doomed because they're a bunch of ********* morons.

What really pisses me off a treat though, is all this crap about "People in the country want a change"... like really???? is this the same country that voted Blair in again for a 3rd term just over a year ago on the premise that he was going to serve a full 3rd term? :rolleyes:

I'd rather Blair stayed in power until 2009, then handing over the reins then... does anyone seriously think that Gordon Brown is better able to try and solve the current problems facing the government than Blair?

Sayhey
Sep 6, 2006, 03:55 PM
OK, now it looks as if Blair is trying to put off any timetable for his resignation.

7 British Officials Resign in Revolt Over Blair

By ALAN COWELL
Published: September 6, 2006
LONDON, Sept. 6 — Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to face down a revolt within his Labor party today as seven junior aides resigned to protest his refusal to set a date to leave office.

The spectacle of Mr. Blair fighting off such challenges, in such sharp contrast to the euphoria of his rise to power nine years ago, recalled the memory of Margaret Thatcher’s final days as her authority seeped away in 1990. Even as the chorus of dissent mounted, however, Mr. Blair was still scheduling Middle East diplomacy, with a planned visit to Lebanon next Monday.

Mr. Blair has dismissed challenges in the past — he was once nicknamed Teflon Tony — but British political analysts said the mood seemed more venomous this time. Some depicted the latest moves as a renewed effort by supporters of Gordon Brown, Mr. Blair’s heir apparent, to force the prime minister from office within the next few months.

The day’s events seemed to indicate that the rivalry between the two men was moving toward a showdown over what Mr. Blair depicted as the future of Labor.

“We are three years from the next election,” Mr. Blair said in a letter to one of the defectors, Tom Watson. “We have a strong policy platform. There is no fundamental ideological divide in the Labour Party for the first time in 100 years of history. For the first time ever, we have the prospect not just of two but three successive full terms. To put all this at risk in this way is simply not a sensible, mature or intelligent way of conducting ourselves if we want to remain a governing party.”

His adversaries saw it differently....NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/world/europe/07blaircnd.html?ex=1315195200&en=8ed0e242e6627077&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

OnceUGoMac
Sep 6, 2006, 09:42 PM
I always liked Blair. I understand how many of my British cousins may have been put-off by Iraq, but would you rather have had Major in there? In the U.S., the question asked is "are you better off now than before?" Well, are you, punk?

Agathon
Sep 7, 2006, 02:24 AM
I've sent Blair a sympathy card

Scarlet Fever
Sep 7, 2006, 02:34 AM
maybe he's going off to see the love of his life (http://www.lovecalculator.com/love.php?name1=tony+blair&name2=george+bush) :p

skunk
Sep 7, 2006, 04:30 AM
No, he's off to collect his pay-off: that fat seat on the board of Carlyle Group, profiting from the worldwide instability and inbsecurity he has done so much to promote.

He should be strung up.

Applespider
Sep 7, 2006, 04:35 AM
I always liked Blair. I understand how many of my British cousins may have been put-off by Iraq, but would you rather have had Major in there?

Yes... he didn't have the smug air that Blair has. Don't trust Tony as far as I could throw him... I don't trust David Cameron much either mind you probably because he's a similar 'play to the media' type clone in many ways

iGav
Sep 7, 2006, 05:32 AM
Yes... he didn't have the smug air that Blair has.

He didn't really have any 'air' about him.

That, and he was really inept at his job.

Queso
Sep 7, 2006, 05:51 AM
He didn't really have any 'air' about him.

That, and he was really inept at his job.
I think history is rather unfair on Major. He was unfortunately in charge of the Tory party whilst the Thatcherites were throwing their childish tantrums about The Great Leader being overthrown. They undermined Major at every turn simply because the poor little lambs weren't getting their own way for the first time in a decade, and until the old witch finally dies and therefore stops meddling in how any successive Tory leader can lead the party, it's best we don't put them back in office as the same thing will only happen again.

Personally, I'd like to string all the Thatcherite arms-dealing back-stabbing money-grabbing backhander-accepting ***** up once and for all. And you can add to that their cabal of lobbyists from various "public image challenged" industries and foreign Governments with atrocious human rights records.

Cameron does appear to be an Old Guard Tory rather than a Thatcherite, which is a plus as far as I'm concerned, but I still can't trust him to lead that party rather than be led by it. Which is a colossal shame, because if I had my way Bliar and co. would not only be kicked out, but kicked repeatedly up and down Whitehall before being shipped to The Hague to face trial.

Corrupt twisted c**ts, the lot of them. We'd be better off with a dictator in charge.

skunk
Sep 7, 2006, 08:13 AM
Corrupt twisted c**ts, the lot of them. We'd be better off with a dictator in charge.You feeling better now, dear?

Queso
Sep 7, 2006, 08:21 AM
You feeling better now, dear?
Yep. Needed to get that off my chest, but back to my usual equilibrium again.

Stand by every word though :)

skunk
Sep 7, 2006, 08:29 AM
Stand by every word though :)Couldn't agree more. :)

Sayhey
Sep 7, 2006, 10:34 AM
Corrupt twisted c**ts, the lot of them. We'd be better off with a dictator in charge.

Nah, believe me, you wouldn't like it. The last six years here prove that.

Queso
Sep 7, 2006, 10:41 AM
Nah, believe me, you wouldn't like it. The last six years here prove that.
I was thinking someone far more sensible and well balanced than Bush. Napoleon perhaps? :D

solvs
Sep 7, 2006, 02:23 PM
Nah, believe me, you wouldn't like it.
I don't know. Might work with the right one. What's that Prince's name? The good one, not the drunken Nazi. Proof that not all of those who come from powerful family have to be terrible people. Dunno, maybe he gets it from his Mom. Unfortunately, based on what I've heard Babs Bush say, GW gets it from his too.

You'll see Vista in stores before you see Blair stepping down of his own volition.

zimv20
Sep 9, 2006, 01:16 PM
a friend of mine, a brit, thinks blair will be gone within two weeks. anyone here feel the same way?

Blue Velvet
Sep 9, 2006, 01:20 PM
a friend of mine, a brit, thinks blair will be gone within two weeks. anyone here feel the same way?


Unless he's planning on standing down before he delivers the party leader's address at the Labour Party Conference (24-28 of September), I don't think so.

Odds are it's going to be more like March-May 07. Gordon Brown is keen to establish a parliamentary timetable before the summer recess, not that it's a sure thing that he'll be PM anyway.

Glen Quagmire
Sep 9, 2006, 01:25 PM
If he does go soon, he'll go at the Labour party conference at the end of the month, not before. He'll make a grand speech, announcing he's stepping down as leader and as Prime Minister and go out to tears (of joy?).

Charles Clarke aside (has anyone ever seen an uglier man?) Labour seem to be trying to put a lid on all the infighting (about time too). There have been a number of ministers cropping up, asking for calm and people to keep quiet.

Personally, I find it fascinating. Blair bought it all upon himself - he didn't have to say that he would quit mid-term - and is reaping the consequences. I don't think there is any other viable candidate than Gordon Brown - Alan Johnson is too inexperienced and John Reid is a nutcase. Brown would be a strong Prime Minister, despite his dullness and serious nature. I would much prefer him to David Cameron, who is even more slick and smarmy than Tony Blair (Blair's slickness has become tarnished - no-one buys it any more).

As much as I disliked John Major at the time, I can't see him - assuming he would have survived as Prime Minister until 2003 - putting British troops in to Iraq. Iraq has been Blair's biggest mistake. I can (probably) forgive him everything else (in time), but Iraq (and the Bush love-in that accompanies it) will be his lasting political legacy.

iGav
Sep 9, 2006, 01:26 PM
a friend of mine, a brit, thinks blair will be gone within two weeks. anyone here feel the same way?

I hope not... I still think he should do what I, and the majority of voters, voted him to do e.g. serve a full term. I reckon he'll scrape into 2007, though only just, then we'll be saddled with Mr Charisma himself, who'll never be voted in as PM. So that leaves David Cameron, and I bet he's laughing his arse off right now, I can just see them getting back into power, and ********* the country over again, well at least everyone other than the fat, old, racist, homophobic contingent that makes up the attendence of your average Conservative Conference.

iGav
Sep 9, 2006, 01:30 PM
As much as I disliked John Major at the time, I can't see him - assuming he would have survived as Prime Minister until 2003 - putting British troops in to Iraq.

I wouldn't be so sure... he did after all do it before.

Nickygoat
Sep 9, 2006, 01:53 PM
a friend of mine, a brit, thinks blair will be gone within two weeks. anyone here feel the same way?
No - May the 4th. That lets him carry the can in the local elections, and lets the new leader (we'll assume ATM it'll be Gordon) have a relatively clean start.
Any earlier and GB runs the risk of being associated with a putsch, any later and he becomes ineffectual for 3 months while Parliament is on holiday - not the best start.
On the subject of Gordon - has anyone really answered the West Lothian question?
@ dynamicv - I agree with your thoughts but are our current masters any better?
@ iGav - yes the PLP can see the damage but most of those who aren't Blairites just don't care - it's descended into a free for all, a chance to give Blair and his cronies a good kicking before going quiet again.
EDIT: How sad that at 7.45 Saturday night most of the London MR members are at home :)

iGav
Sep 9, 2006, 02:02 PM
How sad that at 7.45 Saturday night most of the London MR members are at home :)

I have a fractured ankle. :(

Nickygoat
Sep 9, 2006, 02:03 PM
I have a fractured ankle. :(
I have no life :(

Blue Velvet
Sep 9, 2006, 02:04 PM
EDIT: How sad that at 7.45 Saturday night most of the London MR members are at home :)

I know. Even worse, I'm working right now on some spreads to free up time on Tuesday for some R&R... and it's all Tony Blair's fault, of course.

Queso
Sep 9, 2006, 02:13 PM
On the subject of Gordon - has anyone really answered the West Lothian question?
It won't happen until the Tories get back in. Labour depend on Scottish MPs' votes too much, whereas the entire Tory powerbase is in England. However, if the Tories legislate away the Scots and Welsh votes on English matters, it effectively gives them control of English education and health policy indefinitely. There's a nice happy thought for you.

(And yeah, we are sad for being in. My excuse is that I've been in a ****** mood all day and don't want to go out drinking as it'll probably only make me worse.)

®îçhå®?
Sep 9, 2006, 02:20 PM
I've sent Blair a sympathy card
Haha :D nice one. The damage that the Labour party are doing to themselves is great!!! Get that SOB out of power.

KingYaba
Sep 9, 2006, 02:36 PM
Apart from Blair, only John Howard seems to be friendly towards Bush. One down, one to go? I don't know what to feel about this. Part of me says great, the other says US - GB relations may go down the tube?

Queso
Sep 9, 2006, 02:47 PM
I don't know what to feel about this. Part of me says great, the other says US - GB relations may go down the tube?
Won't happen. There's too much blind loyalty from our leaders towards yours. It suggests to me that the US has serious leverage over the UK Government whoever is elected, and that any British PM that gets out of line is reminded of the fact.

Glen Quagmire
Sep 10, 2006, 05:43 AM
Won't happen. There's too much blind loyalty from our leaders towards yours. It suggests to me that the US has serious leverage over the UK Government whoever is elected, and that any British PM that gets out of line is reminded of the fact.

Hasn't always been like that. LBJ wanted British troops to get involved in Vietnam. Harold Wilson, the (Labour) Prime Minister of the time, refused.

Lau
Sep 11, 2006, 04:49 PM
I was about to publish this rant in another thread, but decided to move it here as it was a bit off topic. Forgive me, as I'm a bit tipsy.

----------------------

I started typing a post a few days ago, as in 1997 when Blair was elected I was 17 (1 year too young to vote) but was studying politics at A level. For my whole life, the Conservatives had been in power, and when Labour got in (although I didn't necessarily see myself as a future Labour voter) I and many of my friends were chuffed to bits. I think we thought things were going to be a lot better, and that a lot of the Conservative policies we hadn't agreed with were going to radically change.

Well, that didn't work out, did it? It seems a long way from a 17 year old kid staying up all night and watching the election and lying in the grass the next morning before school smoking and looking at the sky half asleep and thinking things were going to be different.

As it happened, I never voted Labour anyway. But I do worry that we're screwed. If Labour aren't in at the next election (which they won't be, and I think that's probably right) who are we left with? I could never vote Tory. it goes against everything I believe in (and I don't agree with a lot of what they say, even when they're trying to get in with the lefties). The Green party had some good foreign policy as well as their environmental stuff last time I looked at their manifesto, but they'll never get in. Lib Dems are ok, and some of their policies are also good, but again, will they ever get in? So who are we left with? I imagine it to end up with another 10 year Tory thang, interspersed with a few BNP. And on that note, any other countries/planets you'd suggest moving to? :o

--------------------

By the way Gav, how'd you fracture your ankle? :(

Sayhey
Sep 11, 2006, 08:20 PM
You know you have gone wrong if the Tories think you are too close to Bush. :eek:
Cameron criticises Blair's 'slavish' relationship with Bush
By BENDICT BROGANLast updated at 19:16pm on 11th September 2006

Britain should drop its "slavish" support for the United States and restore "moral authority" to its foreign policy, David Cameron has said.

The Tory leader issued a detailed indictment of what he said were the failures of George Bush and Tony Blair since the Sep 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

His criticism of the lack of "patience and humility" of the American and British governments came on the fifth anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers....Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=404730&in_page_id=1770)

Blue Velvet
Sep 11, 2006, 11:50 PM
You know you have gone wrong if the Tories think you are too close to Bush. :eek:

That's just posturing reported by their house-rag, the Daily Mail. The Tories also supported and voted for the war in Parliament.

Sayhey
Sep 12, 2006, 01:34 AM
That's just posturing reported by their house-rag, the Daily Mail. The Tories also supported and voted for the war in Parliament.

I've no doubt you're right, but if the Tories see political gain in criticizing Blair for being too close to Bush it is further evidence of the Prime Minister's serious lack of judgement concerning his electorate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard a Conservative Party Leader be farther to the left with his rhetoric on the "Atlantic Alliance" than a Labour PM. Up to now, it has been a consistent drone of baiting the Labourites as weak on the Alliance and having a too dangerous "European" outlook.

Blue Velvet
Sep 12, 2006, 01:39 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard a Conservative Party Leader be farther to the left with his rhetoric on the "Atlantic Alliance" than a Labour PM.

You're absolutely right but I also see that as evidence of an opposition in flux, prepared to say almost anything to capitalise on the Govt's unpopularity... nothing's new under the sun.

The Tories are also trying to stop votes slipping away to the LibDems in many areas of the country as well.