Bliar's come-uppance

[mancroft]

Looks like Bliar might be about to get his come-uppance:

http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/

[C.J.Woolf]

Moved from the Pub.

[mancroft]

Moved from the Pub.

I hadn't realised that INTP Central > Life, the Universe and Everything > Current Events & History existed.

Thank you so much for enlightening my darkness.

[slacker]

Looks like Bliar
Is that a Freudian slip?

Blair has been done for a long time... this is more like the final nails on the coffin...

[mancroft]

Is that a Freudian slip?

No it was purely intentional and most apposite.

[omnirook]

Why doesn't the Labour Party ask the Queen to dismiss him? She's done it before - she dismissed Churchill, for God's sake! It was nicely done - he put his head down, resigned, and left - and the Labour Party as the majority party in Parliament has the right to ask the Queen to dismiss Blair. The Conservatives threatened Thatcher with same, and she resigned. Then, Her Majesty could w/draw the peerages and honours by attainder. That would be that. Labour isn't going to win the next general election, anyway, no more than the Republicans were going to win after Nixon. At least save some face for the Party's new leadership.

[zhang_bob]

Why doesn't the Labour Party ask the Queen to dismiss him?

Surely it would be better if Gordon Brown just challenged him for leadership of the party, therefore as prime minister.


Labour isn't going to win the next general election, anyway, no more than the Republicans were going to win after Nixon. At least save some face for the Party's new leadership.

Well it does not look like it currently, but nor are the Tories going to get enough members of parliament to stop it from being a hung parliament.

[Dom]

Well it does not look like it currently, but nor are the Tories going to get enough members of parliament to stop it from being a hung parliament.

Good 5 years of HAVING to compromise would be great....

[zhang_bob]

Good 5 years of HAVING to compromise would be great....I always thought if that were to happen, we would see a Labour/Liberal Democrats coalition, just like past Liberal-Labour pacts. With the liberal Democrats supporting them on the condition the Labour party drop their anti-civil liberties bullshit. Maybe I am too idealistic.:)

[omnirook]

Surely it would be better if Gordon Brown just challenged him for leadership of the party, therefore as prime minister.
That would take awhile; besides, it could backfire in today's volatile world. And it would involve getting support beyond the Party's first bench, wouldn't it? It would be easier and tidier just to ask the Queen to dismiss him. Technically, because they elected him to the Party's leadership, she appointed him at the Party's request; there could be no Constitutional issue to her dismissing him at their request, and there have been precedents for such being done set in this very reign.




Well it does not look like it currently, but nor are the Tories going to get enough members of parliament to stop it from being a hung parliament.

Then the next government will not last long - not unless there's a very skilled politician in the Prime Minister's post. A slim majority is better than nothing; besides, minority governments have functioned in the past, filling in gaps when needed ... Point is - the British have to get over the idea of British Prime Ministers being like US Presidents. If they don't, their system of government will end up being like ours - which you don't want. People never appreciate what they've got: the British enjoy the best political system in the world, and one of its keystones has been the possibility of shoving a prime minister out the door when he had lost support. Bush is down to low numbers, and even those people hold their noses when supporting him - but we're stuck w/him ... Blair should have been dumped when Whitehall broke ranks and went public w/their opinion that Iraq had no WMD's. But, no - he stayed in office as though he and not his party had been popularly elected. It's been time for him to go for a long time. Britain needs to get back to the Westminster System and get over emulating the US by allowing prime ministers to act as though they were heads of state. Elizabeth II is Head of State, and she does a fine job, does not need the prime minister's help.

[immortalmack]

Isn't Tony Blair term limited?

[Dom]

I always thought if that were to happen, we would see a Labour/Liberal Democrats coalition, just like past Liberal-Labour pacts. With the liberal Democrats supporting them on the condition the Labour party drop their anti-civil liberties bullshit. Maybe I am too idealistic.:)

We can all hope no?

[Dom]

Isn't Tony Blair term limited?

Not really, as long as his party can win the general election then he can stay.

The only way to be rid of him is for him to lose a leadship contest of his party or lose a general election...

His term is currently limited I guess by his agreement to go... (agreed to avoid a leadership contest so he can go without being forced out)

[immortalmack]

Not really, as long as his party can win the general election then he can stay.

The only way to be rid of him is for him to lose a leadship contest of his party or lose a general election...

His term is currently limited I guess by his agreement to go... (agreed to avoid a leadership contest so he can go without being forced out)

Wow! That's seriously different than the US. (hmmmmm, interesting)

[zhang_bob]

And it would involve getting support beyond the Party's first bench, wouldn't it?

Yes, but Gordon Brown has the backing to be able to do it.




It would be easier and tidier just to ask the Queen to dismiss him. Not really, because Tony said he is going by the end of the year, so for that to happen he would have to resign by May 31st.

Why?

Because there's no point in him staying beyond the end of the parliamentary year (the end of July), and it will take the party a couple of months to elect a successor.

There are two reasons Tony has not gone, he wants a "proper" competitor to Gordon Brown, and for the reason I said in another thread.


So ironically the only thing that has stopped Gordon Brown challenging him and taking over his leadership is the cash for honours affair, because Blair does not want to go in controversial circumstances.








Then the next government will not last long - not unless there's a very skilled politician in the Prime Minister's post.........


Britain needs to get back to the Westminster System and get over emulating the US by allowing prime ministers to act as though they were heads of state. Elizabeth II is Head of State, and she does a fine job, does not need the prime minister's help.John Major lasted 7 years with a small parliamentary majority of just 21 seats, so it just depends.

Normally governments can easily survive for a full parliamentary term on a majority of more than 20 seats over all other parties.

It would need swing 4.52% - 6.10% to the Conservative for a Conservative hung parliament. It would need a swing of 6.11% to the Conservatives to have overall majority.




No, Westminster is not emulating the US. The more seats you win the more crap you can get away with. If you win 646 you are a legal dictator, if you win 163 you can go to war with Iraq, if you win 67 you have to watch your back, and if you win only 21 like John Major did you are a dead man walking.

[omnirook]

Yes, but Gordon Brown has the backing to be able to do it.



Not really, because Tony said he is going by the end of the year, so for that to happen he would have to resign by May 31st.

Why?

Because there's no point in him staying beyond the end of the parliamentary year (the end of July), and it will take the party a couple of months to elect a successor.

There are two reasons Tony has not gone, he wants a "proper" competitor to Gordon Brown, and for the reason I said in another thread.








John Major lasted 7 years with a small parliamentary majority of just 21 seats, so it just depends.

Normally governments can easily survive for a full parliamentary term on a majority of more than 20 seats over all other parties.

It would need swing 4.52% - 6.10% to the Conservative for a Conservative hung parliament. It would need a swing of 6.11% to the Conservatives to have overall majority.




No, Westminster is not emulating the US. The more seats you win the more crap you can get away with. If you win 646 you are a legal dictator, if you win 163 you can go to war with Iraq, if you win 67 you have to watch your back, and if you win only 21 like John Major did you are a dead man walking.

I appreciate all of that. Very informative.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Most Britions are not registered w/any one particular party. Of those who are registered w/a particular party, the largest number are registered Conservatives, w/Labour following, and the Liberals coming in a distant third. Also, from what I understand, the Conservatives picked up quite a few offices in the local elections, perhaps the worst embarassment for Blair having been Conservatives getting in in the locals in his own constituency ... Also, my reading is that poor old Gordon Brown is pretty much set to do a John Major - be a stopgap while the public is making up its mind, that it all depends on his own abilities as leader. Is he nearly as charismatic as Tony Blair? I mean, I've seen him on tv several times - he does not seem to be quite up to Blair's mark in that department ... Why isn't Blair letting Brown take the PM's questions now and then? It seems spiteful ... I saw a piece - I think that was USA Today - doesn't matter - it suggested that Misters Blair and Brown are not as chummy as they once were. Is that true?

[zhang_bob]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Most Britions are not registered w/any one particular party.True.



Of those who are registered w/a particular party, the largest number are registered Conservatives, w/Labour following, and the Liberals coming in a distant third.

Seems about right.

Labour has about 198,026 members, according to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6209399.stm). Half as many members as they had when Tony Blair came to power in 1997. I Have not got a link for the other two, but according to my local paper they put the Conservatives on 247,394 down 6,000 since Mr Cameron won the Conservatives leadership contest. And to my knowledge the Liberal Democrats have about 72,000 members or they did before the last general election,it sells papers.



Also, from what I understand, the Conservatives picked up quite a few offices in the local elections. Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2006/locals/html/region_99999.stm



Also, my reading is that poor old Gordon Brown is pretty much set to do a John Major - be a stopgap while the public is making up its mind, that it all depends on his own abilities as leader. Is he nearly as charismatic as Tony Blair? I mean, I've seen him on tv several times - he does not seem to be quite up to Blair's mark in that department. No, he is not as charismatic as when Blair first got in to power. Listening to Gordon, is like listening to your grandpa tell you stories about his mischievous childhood.

But the thing you have to remember is he is very popular because he has done a "good" job with the economy. When he took over Britain had the one of the most unstable economy for a developed country. We now have the longest period of sustained economic growth in UK history, unemployment down 2% and the lowest interest rates for nearly fifty years.

All he has to do to knock David Cameron and Conservative party down to size is ask David Cameron one question, that is "do you remember Norman Lamont?".




Why isn't Blair letting Brown take the PM's questions now and then? It seems spiteful .Mr. John Prescott Grumpy has to earn his keep some how.:)



I saw a piece - I think that was USA Today - doesn't matter - it suggested that Misters Blair and Brown are not as chummy as they once were. Is that true?Probably true to a degree, but I feel the media like to make a story of these sort things, it sells newspapers.