It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who will be the next Prime Minister?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:56 PM
Will it be Gordon Brown who will succeed Tony Blair or will David Cameron of the Tories be the next Prime Minister?

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:41 PM
I expect Gordon Brown will become the next PM some months before the general election, so in that sense it can only be GB next.

He will then fight the general election in 2009/10 as PM and I fully expect him to soundly defeat Cameron's tory party - if Cameron even lasts that long as tory leader, which is not a foregone conclusion, he has upset many within his party and has many critics.

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:45 PM

Labour are in decline, despite the spin by ATS most famous Labour supporter
a recent poll suggested that 75% of English voters do not want a Scottish Prime Minister. With all the problems and drama in the Labour camp, it will be a suprise if they get a Fourth term.

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:21 AM
Found this interesting article, its a good read.

Since New Labour came to power in 1997, it has drawn criticism from old adversaries and traditional Labour supporters alike. On a number of occasions, New Labour has been called fascist and Blair has been compared to Mussolini [1]. In so far as fascist is merely seen as a political expletive this is unremarkable, but recent legislative efforts make the possibility of a fascist orientation appear more plausible. This rather long posting compares New Labour’s political agenda with that of classical fascism.

At first sight, the suggestion of a substantive ideological overlap between the current Labour government and historic fascist regimes seems preposterous. So where can substantive similarities be found?
An appropriate basis for such a comparison are the fundamental principles of classical fascism rather than its most extreme manifestations during World War II. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that New Labour’s record in government is comparable to that of Hitler, but the contrast with Mussolini or Franco is less pronounced. Furthermore, what is at issue is also the potential for worse things to come.
The central programmatic reference for Mussolini’s fascist ideology is his discourse on the Doctrine of Fascism [2]. This can be compared with broader ideological statements from Tony Blair as well as with pivotal constitutional changes under New Labour.

I agree with the authour that New Labour are not a fascist movement, but they do share afew things in common.

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)

[edit on 28-5-2006 by UK Wizard]

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by infinite
I agree with the authour that New Labour are not a fascist movement, but they do share afew things in common.

- Squint your eyes enough and everything can look a little like anything else.

The fact that 'New Labour' are annoying those on the right and left mightily is probably good enough reason to believe they are on pretty much the correct course.

Maybe when the tory party has the guts to actually formulate some policies we will see something worth a debate over but right now they are little more than a quibbling chorus of smart-arsed nay-sayers comfortable in the position of generalising everything, having to take no tough decisions nor be responsible for anything.

The election is a long way off.

Despite rather silly polls about English and Scot (kind of blown away by Tony Blair actually being a Scot, I'd say) the contest between little the tory Lord Fauntleroy (never done anything but be a very junior bit-player in Major's disastrous fag-end) and Labour's Gordon Brown (probably the most successful Chancellor we have had, certainly in living memory) will not be one I'll worry over too much.

(.....if Cameron even makes it to the contest in 2009/10, from the current grumblings in his party that is by no means certain at all.)

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 05:10 PM
Isn't Cameron a Scottish name? How about Menzies Campbell? He's a Scot as well. Whatever way you look at it, Scots are running Britain. Not a bad thing really...

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:57 AM
Keep spinning sminkeypinkey....

You might land that Labour job one day

(.....if Cameron even makes it to the contest in 2009/10, from the current grumblings in his party that is by no means certain at all.)

Yes, Cameron might get removed by his party. Even though they are ahead in the polls and just had a good local election result. Yes, you keep using that Labour spin of yours

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by infinite
Keep spinning sminkeypinkey

- Shut your eyes to it if you must infinite but this isn't spin, this is cold hard fact.....and there are still some rational and calculating types in the tory party who know the truth of this.

You might land that Labour job one day

- I would doubt that very much.
But then again you never say never I suppose.

Yes, Cameron might get removed by his party. Even though they are ahead in the polls and just had a good local election result.

- Well, let's take a look, here's the unpalatable truth.

1) Maybe you should look beyond the tory spin.

The truth is that their current poll showing really isn't particularly impressive.

A high point of 36 - 38% (which they have had once before this Parliament and slid back to being behind Labour from) in 2 polls 3 - 4yrs out from a general election isn't so impressive when you consider the appalling and very public repeated difficulties the Labour party are currently having.

.....also, remember, it's not enough.

They need a record 'swing' to form the next government (bigger than 1945 or even 1997), you're just kidding yourself if you think the mood of the country is heading anything like that way.
Labour had sustained 40%+ polls for years (from just after the 1992 general election, in fact) before they took over in 1997, the tories are doing nothing like that, never have done and don't even look like coming anywhere remotely close to repeating that right now.

......and watch out for Blair and Brown timing the leadership change properly so as to maximise the 'he's not TB' poll 'bounce' when GB takes over
(a poll 'bounce' that will not be wasted by taking place years before the general election like the tories did with Cameron).

2) Their local election results weren't really especially impressive either.
In 1995 Labour took 46% of the vote as opposed to the tory performance this time of 40% (which was mainly concentrated well away from the midland/northern areas they need to be capturing,
ie piling up votes where they can do you no good under the FPTP system).

3) There are more than a few (including senior people) in the tory party convinced he is heading in the wrong direction.
Unimpressive results of the kind we are seeing will not calm those people.

So, as I said, read it and weep.

If Cameron does make it (no foregone conclusion) to run against Gordon Brown in 2009/10 and if the tory policies (when they get the nerve to actually present any) aren't the usual ghastly reheated neo-Thatcherite guff they've clung to for so long then I still don't imagine Gordon Brown (with his excellent record in the toughest job in Government) having much trouble with the (record-free) ultra light-weight Blair wannabe Cameron.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:21 AM
with any luck I will be the next prime minister if not then the one after that so i can get rid of all these stupid laws that keep people locked up indefinetly without any prove that any crime has been committed, it is now "guilty until proven innocent"

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:26 AM
I wonder Xenesthad if you will be one of the people locked up indefinitely without trial or charge, before you become Prime Minister?

As for Brown...
Well normally the question of who will be the next Prime Minister doesn't seem worth asking because kind of like the crown to a monarchy the order of succession seems set in stone: Blair, then Brown and then maybe Cameron.

But what if Brown decides against becoming the next PM? This might seem unlikely but its not a completely unfounded suggestion ether.
If Blair stays in office till 2008 that will give Brown a maximum of 2 years to call the next election. Meanwhile because its still the same Party; surely Labour will still produce much the same ideas and leading public faces?
If (with Brown in office) the public finds that it wasn’t Blair they really disliked but more to the point; the political machine on which Blair’s power and ideas grew from, then maybe they may be in almost the same mood for a change of government as if Blair were still leading the party.
To counter this New Labour basically needs: New PM, New faces, New ideas, New political party (with the only things guaranteed to remain the same being commitment towards to schools and hospitals as that's now pretty much a universal commitment in British politics).

Brown will have to deal with an opposition that's had their own crown longer than him. It's an opposition with a young face, and dare I say a slightly more charismatic one.
If Blair holds up the passing of power much longer, then if I was Brown I would let someone else have the political disgrace of "being the man who lost us power". Instead I would wait for this sucker to be terminated once they loose the election, and privately I would want this person to be someone who WILL loose Labour the election. Because once they are gone I would then be free to claim the Labour crown myself. Yes it would mean being in opposition for maybe 5 years, but that also means being a (almost unchallenged) leader for 5 and not 2 years.

Personally I think Brown would be more effective as the next Prime Minister in waiting, than he would be the PM of a dying-struggling government. After all he has had plenty of time to practice.

Also if Brown does becomes leader in 2008 he could have to deal with I.D card demonstrations in the same way Thatcher had to deal with Poll Tax protests; that is a nasty legacy of Blair’s which could even have been left there with Browns name on it (after all apparently Blair doesn't actually like some of Browns politics). Then again if Blair decides to try staying beyond 2008 he may find that the I.D issue will sign his political death warrant (that's if nothing else does).

Another (lesser) question: To what degree might Tony Blair and Gordon Brown be friends? Could this supposed power struggle be a way of keeping "charismatic" Blair in power for longer? After all as long as everyone in Labour thinks Brown will be the next PM then they rally behind him, and not someone who might be more effective at getting the first stage of the job done (i.e. Blair out of party leadership).

So yeah I wonder if Brown will be the next PM.
By the way: Some of Browns ideas like introducing Central Cadet Force into state schools could end up making the Tories seem pleasantly liberal.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:27 PM
The idea that the British public are going to be, in 3 or 4yrs time, so enthused by the the 'young' Cameron so soon after we will have just seen the back of the 'young' Tony Blair is very much open to question.

I suspect the tory slogans about 'new', future, 'young' will have bored everyone to death and become a simply annoying, predictable, tedious and drearily obvious 'catch-phrase' long before the poll in 2009/10.

It's also all to do with the problem inherent to 'reactive' politics' (which Cameron absolutely embodies).

Blair will have been and gone and 'young' (which in this case doesn't even really mean 'young' at all, more middle aged anyway - Cameron will be 44 in 2010) might well not have anything like the winning appeal it once had - given the UK's aging population a track record of competence and experience may well prove the more attractive quality by far.

As for the country 'rising up' against ID cards like they did with the poll tax!?
I'll believe that when I see it.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:07 AM
Lets face facts, none of us are psychic so none of us can say with certainty who is going to be the next Prime Minister, its all guess work and lets face it any number of things could happen between now and the next general election.

The issue that tickles the back of my brain is whether there will be a leadership contest for the head of the labour party.
Will we get a straight handover of power from Blair to Brown, will there be a proper leadership contest or will we have a show contest just for the sake of it.
Because if the Lib Dems or the Tories just simply handed power over instead of having a leadership contest, the other parties would have torn into them with a vengeance.

My opinion? We'll get a show of an election contest for the leadership of the Labour Party.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Prometheus James]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:51 AM
Of course it's pure speculation but that's the fun of it, surely?

As for the Labour leadership situation?
There will be a contest, there has to be under the rules of the party.

I expect Brown to be challenged even if only by a token figure from within the party.

Not because it is a stitch-up or some sort of a sham "show" but simply because Brown is genuinely far and away the leading figure in any 'race' - so much so that the notion that there are any credible and sizeable opposition figure(s) capable of defeating his bid for the Labour leadership is fanciful dreaming by a handful within or outside the Labour party, IMO.

The only faint possibility of anything different happening to that scenario is if one or two characters on the edge of the 'Blair-ite wing' think someone like Alan Milburn, Douglas Alexander, Stephen Timms or David Miliband might be a better bet than Brown and really try to wrest the leadership from him.

Because if the Lib Dems or the Tories just simply handed power over instead of having a leadership contest, the other parties would have torn into them with a vengeance.

- Perhaps you missed how Michael Howard was *ahem* 'elected' by the tory party in nov 2003?

I suppose one has to bear in mind the old adage about 'a week in politics' and all that, but, unless there is some unforeseen and enormous catastrophe with Browns name all over it looming in the next 3 - 4yrs - and remember even that might not be enough, the tories kept on winning despite the 2 deepest and most severe recessions post-war during their time - I really can't see anything but a Brown Labour leadership victory.

I expect the process probably to start in early 2008 with Blair stepping down and Brown formally taking over at the party leadership at the party conference in the autumn of 2008.
Subsequently Brown to win his first general electoral victory in may 2009/10 (I think it most likely to be may 2009 as Brown capitalises to the maximum on the likely poll 'bounce' he will get when he takes over from Tony Blair).

[edit on 2-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

top topics


log in