It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should The Labour Party Oust Blair???

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Are parts of the Labour party right to call for the resignation of the man who single handedly re-built the labour party and turned them into the biggest party in the UK?

Before Blair the Conservative party looked as though they would be in power for many more years to come(had it not been for Major this may of still applied), after Blair the Tories really have a fight on their hands if they ever want to control us again.

The reputation of the Labour party may have dwindled in the last few years, but this is solely because of the war, yet most of the Labour party supported the invasion of Iraq, which means no matter who was PM we would have joined the US in Iraq.


Should the party let Blair carry on with his third term, or should he step down and hand over his job to Brown? And are the Labour party right for wanting Blair to resign???




[edit on 23/5/2005 by MickeyDee]




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Are the Labour party right to call for the resignation of the man who single handedly re-built the labour party and turned them into the biggest party in the UK?


The leader of any political party is the focus for all the ill that the party has caused, Blair is leader so Blair is viewed to be the image of the problem.
Blairs approval amongst the people of Britain is low for good reasons, a change in leadership is Labours only real hope of remotely regaining the trust of the people.


The reputation of the Labour party may have dwindled in the last few years, but this is solely because of the war


Me think there are other reasons apart from Iraq



[edit on 23-5-2005 by UK Wizard]

[edit on 23-5-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Are the Labour party right to call for the resignation of the man who single handedly re-built the labour party and turned them into the biggest party in the UK?


- Er, actually the Labour party has not called for Tony Blair's resignation. Nor will it. Ever.

A handful of disgruntled MP's have but then they are simply 'the usual suspects' attempting to catch the last of the general election fever to push their agenda.

They failed.

Tony Blair announced some time ago now that he was not going to do any more than 3 terms, the actual change over may take place around half way through this Parliament or it might happen towards the end.
It hasn't yet been made clear.


Before Blair the Conservative party looked as though they would be in power for many more years to come(had it not been for Major this may of still applied), after Blair the Tories really have a fight on their hands if they ever want to control us again.


- Quite so.
I can imagine watching the tories choose and decide on which tory is going to lead them to lose to Gordon Brown will be a mildly diverting and amusing experience for us all.


The reputation of the Labour party may have dwindled in the last few years, but this is solely because of the war, yet most of the Labour party supported the invasion of Iraq, which means no matter who was PM we would have joined the US in Iraq.


- I agree and disagree.

The war hurt Labour (but only the war was a significant minus), an issue that will not be there at the next general election but as for the rest no, the war has been skillfully associated mainly with Tony Blair and when he goes so, IMO, will much of the problem over it.
When that happens I expect much (even if not all) of the Labour vote that went to the LibDems at this election to come back to Labour.

However, the really funny part of all this has been a brazen tory party even more 'pro-war' (who saw Howard in the general election campaign saying that even if it were known as a matter of absolute fact that Saddam did not have WMDs he would still have committed British troops?) criticising the gov for committing British troops!
A hypocricy by the way that has yet to be commented upon by any of the leadership contenders.


Should the party let Blair carry on with his third term, or should he step down and hand over his job to Brown?


- It's not a matter of the party "letting" TB carry on, they want him to.
Firstly any such move would be utterly unnecessary, the general election has been won and with a handsome majority.
Secondly TB himself has said he is going to step down and thirdly Gordon Brown will be chosen by the party whenever that moment comes.


And are the Labour party right for wanting Blair to resign???


- Er, they don't.
A small group of MP's and a minority within the party do (but then they have always wished he had never become leader and imagine success - despite TB and 'New Labour' winning 3 polls on the trot - lies by moving way out to the left
, as if).

But lets be real about this.
Tony Blair's public approval ratings are (like the Labour party's Parliamentary majority) only lower compared to their own previously huge level. Not compared to any other alternative (except for Gordon Brown) and they are certainly not "low".

Tony Blair will make an excellent 'lightning rod' for Gordon Brown and will be there to take the flak and keep Gordon looking good......that is the kind of fortunate circumstance canny and highyl successful and experienced politicians do not throw away.


[edit on 23-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Me think there are other reasons apart from Iraq


There are no reasons that would have damaged TB's reputation like the war has though!!!


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Tony Blair's public approval ratings are (like the Labour party's Parliamentary majority) only lower compared to their own previously huge level.


Very true. Labours ratings may have been down this time round but they were massive in 2001 and 1997!


Originally posted by SminkeyPinkey
The war hurt Labour (but only the war was a significant minus), an issue that will not be there at the next general election


I dont want to get into a debate about the war here, but can you honestly see there being no British soldiers left in Iraq in 2009?
I think our boys still being in Iraq will still be an issue when Brown takes on the Tories next time aswell!!!





posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
There are no reasons that would have damaged TB's reputation like the war has though!!!


But look at what you said: The reputation of the Labour party may have dwindled in the last few years, but this is solely because of the war

You said solely which isn't true, people have lost faith for other reasons.


[edit on 23-5-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

But look at what you said: The reputation of the Labour party may have dwindled in the last few years, but this is solely because of the war

You said solely which isn't true, people have lost faith for other reasons.


I hold my hands up and admit that i was wrong there then!

But if it had not been for the war, Blair would have won with another massive amount of votes! Like said before(i think), if not for the war, all those people who voted Lib Dems would still be voting Labour!



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
But if it had not been for the war, Blair would have won with another massive amount of votes! Like said before(i think), if not for the war, all those people who voted Lib Dems would still be voting Labour!


I think Labour would still have lost votes even without the war, although no way near as much as they did lose.

In time Labour's vision for Britain will present the structural cracks in its foundation and politics will swing around again.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
In time Labour's vision for Britain will present the structural cracks in its foundation and politics will swing around again.


Swing where???



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Swing where???


To the opposing political idealogy to the current Government whatever it maybe at the time.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Stepping into the mix.... This may be a dumb question since Blair was re-elected.. do the people see him as trustworthy, or has that kind of been shot with the WMD lies?



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Stepping into the mix.... This may be a dumb question since Blair was re-elected.. do the people see him as trustworthy, or has that kind of been shot with the WMD lies?


Well this is my opinion, but I believe the people of Britain no longer reguard Blair as trustworthy, the lies linked with the WMD's being the main reason.
However theres a general feeling of apathy towards politicians that seems to have grown rapidly in the current years.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
However theres a general feeling of apathy towards politicians that seems to have grown rapidly in the current years.


Are we all (US/UK) drinking the same polluted water?

[edit on 6/9/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Are we all (US/UK) drinking the same polluted water?


Sadly I think so



Apathy is one of the major problems in modern day politics, we take our democracy for granted but when someone tries to take it away people can be woken up to defend it.



[edit on 9-6-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Are we all (US/UK) drinking the same polluted water?


Sadly I think so



Apathy is one of the major problems in modern day politics


Nice graphic!


Damn sad, though. I guess that's what happens when people have it made, eh? Interesting that its not just the USA who is apathetic.

Do you think you all would be better off if Blair was ousted?



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Do you think you all would be better off if Blair was ousted?


I believe that it was the combination of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that has turned the Labour party around over the last decade. And if Blair resigns he will more than likely hand over to Brown, so IMO even if the Labour party turns against Blair or Blair resigns, Britain will still be the same, as Brown was a driving force in all of Blair campaigns and stands by him on most of his policies!

[edit on 9/6/2005 by MickeyDee]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Do you think you all would be better off if Blair was ousted?


I guess it all depends on who replaces him:

Option 1 I guess is Gordon Brown, current money man of the nation in which the public believe he is doing a good job, he's a thinker politcian if you ask me, he's not arrogent like Blair but I still don't think he'd make a good leader.

Option 2 is the Liberal Democrats which is a no hope mission, far too Liberal I believe, the nation needs a centralist Governement not a left wing one.

Option 3 the Conservative Party, this all depends on the leadership battle which I believe is in December, depending on whom they pick for leader will either shoot them in the other foot or patch them up and march the party to at least a proper election campaign (unlike the last campaign).



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Stepping into the mix.... This may be a dumb question since Blair was re-elected.. do the people see him as trustworthy, or has that kind of been shot with the WMD lies?


- Interesting question ECK.

IIRC polls show 'trust' in TB has fallen..........except one has to bear in mind that the UK public has little actual 'trust' in any politician here.
(Blair's rating used to be way above, or more accurately 'inordinately above', any another politician, now I think it is just a little above)

Think of it like this.

Imagine almost 20yrs of 'dub-ya' and that type of crowd.
Then picture a Clinton-esque character coming in on a huge tide of initial support, then we see the flaws and all but recognise they have been running a successful economy etc etc for 8yrs+ ........and with a total absence of any obvious economic failure or that brutal and vicious streak - skewed to benefit, mostly, the few - that ran through the previous crowd's policies.

That's what we had here in the UK.
Now can you see why TB is elected time after time?
It's also perfectly normal that the compromises actual real government requires acts to diminish their levels of popular support.

I think most people have a realistic view of politics.
It's a dirty business. There never was a time when it was a clean business.
It's actually fairly clean at the moment; even if it isn't perfect.
Younger people will - as usual - tend to see this in more 'black and white' terms but nevertheless we have not seen senior figures from this government sent to jail, unlike with the last lot.

Tony Blair's big problem has been almost entirely about a war the UK people wanted nothing to do with because (mainly) they want nothing to do with 'dub-ya' and anything he stands for.

Anyhoo one can grossly over-do the personality stuff.
(It's interesting that many who complain about what they call a 'Presidential style' spend so much time criticising him as if he were the only figure in this gov!)

In any event, regardless of what anyone thinks of him, TB steps down at some point during this Parliament (a 4yr term is usual up to a maximum of 5yrs).
Most pundits expect the mechanical moves (the Labour party must select it's new leader etc etc) to start being made at around the halfway point.

He isn't going to be ousted.

The man who is odds on to replace him though, Gordon Brown, is a shoe-in.

He is also very popular with the public and a great contrast to TB.
He is the understated steady sober guy to TB's media-friendly 'charisma'.
He is also not associated with the war in anything like the degree TB is/was (in fact he is widely believed to have been hostile to the war without a 2nd UN resolution and seen to be a lot less pally with 'dub-ya').
He is (as our Chancellor of the Exchequer) so deeply associated with our recent economic success, and, what records apparantly say, is the longest period of continous growth since records began.

My bet is he absolutely cake-walks the next general election in 2009/10 (polls last time suggested a Labour majority of 250+ had he been leader then.)
Events might prove this wrong but there really is no likely plausible alternative on the horizon at the moment.

In fact our press has been full of tories fighting (the only likely alternative to a Labour gov just yet - the LibDems didn't 'break through' sufficiently last time.......it's all about how our 'First past the post' electoral system works).

We've had tory rows over when Michael Howard should step down.
Then we're due a row over how they select their leader.
Then we're due a row over who becomes the next tory leader.
Then we're due a row over their policy direction and whether or by how much they change it.


Modern Tories seem like they are a "privileged and distant" group of people recruited from the City, said ex-deputy premier Michael Heseltine.

news.bbc.co.uk...

and


the party had "alienated a whole generation" and risked "being stuffed" at the next election......


and


Mr Duncan warned his party risked "historical oblivion" if it failed to learn to reflect modern Britain.

He argued the party appeared "socially distasteful" and "economically irrelevant".


news.bbc.co.uk...

The trouble for the tory party seems to be enough of them have decided a 0.5 - 0.6% increase in their vote at the last election was a great result.
Enough of them are so loopy these days that they seem to think they just need to either carry on much as they are (or head even further to the right) and it'll all just drop into their laps!



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I love watching the debates in your chambers. What a howl!
They really get in there and give it to each other. If you watch our folks debate on C-Span, most likely you will fall asleep quickly, as they politely drone on.


Anyway, thanks all for giving me your views. I will admit to not knowing all that I should about UK politics. Bad me! We Americans are very self-centric on that count.

How long will your involvement in the war go until the people simply say NO MORE?! I watched the anti-war protests. Man, they were huge.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I love watching the debates in your chambers. What a howl!
They really get in there and give it to each other.


- There's still genuine passion, which bodes well for us all still IMO.


If you watch our folks debate on C-Span, most likely you will fall asleep quickly, as they politely drone on.


- I've watched some of it.
I know what you mean.

There's a time for that too (some of our 'select committees look a bit like that), but if that is all that is going on, wow, lifeless or what?

I can certainly see how come George Galloway (to be honest hardly one of our biggest hitters here) shock people up when he was interviewed by your politicians.
I don't know WTF you'd have made of a Dennis Skinner or Tony Banks!



Anyway, thanks all for giving me your views. I will admit to not knowing all that I should about UK politics. Bad me! We Americans are very self-centric on that count.


- You're welcome ECK, I wouldn't beat up on yourself too much about the 'centricity' we all have waaaay too much of that in us IMO.


How long will your involvement in the war go until the people simply say NO MORE?!


- IMO when Blair goes, if it hasn't already started by then, Brown will act to internationalise the issue and/or wind down the British involvement.


I watched the anti-war protests. Man, they were huge.


- Yup. It's a deeply unpopular war.

......and almost entirely because 'dub-ya' is such a deeply unpopular President here.
It's true that there has always been a hostility to the more 'right-wing policies some US presidents have persued (we didn't like Vietnam and Reagan was disliked intensely until he stopped talking 'evil empires' and started actually making the world a safer place with Gorby) but I have never seen a US President so intensely and almost universally loathed and held in such contempt.

Roll on 2008/09/10.
Maybe and hopefully a new set of leaders will do us all the power of good.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You're welcome ECK, I wouldn't beat up on yourself too much about the 'centricity' we all have waaaay too much of that in us IMO.


If I am elected to this P@ATS council position, y'all will havta keep me up to date on what the what is, is over there. I want to know as much as I possibly can, ya know?



- Yup. It's a deeply unpopular war.

......and almost entirely because 'dub-ya' is such a deeply unpopular President here.
It's true that there has always been a hostility to the more 'right-wing policies some US presidents have persued (we didn't like Vietnam and Reagan was disliked intensely until he stopped talking 'evil empires' and started actually making the world a safer place with Gorby) but I have never seen a US President so intensely and almost universally loathed and held in such contempt.


It is more unpopular here, than you would ever know listening to ANY media.

President Reagan is a man and president I have always very much admired. I always thought folks were way too afraid of him, thinking he was crazy or some kind of warmonger. I never believed that; and he proved me right. He wanted peace.. peace through strength. He was no where near the warmongering fool that today's (NEO CON) pseudo-Republicans are.
He knew diplomacy and how to win hearts and minds without ever firing a shot. I so miss his integrity & strength in leadership.







 
0

log in

join