Originally posted by infinite
Blair and Brown should have a fight to the death for the leadership

- Televised live.....talk about injecting some much needed interest back into politics.

Labour MPs are creating a mini "left vs right" in their party.

- But that is what is so weird about this.
There isn't a single significant ideological difference between Brown or Blair.

The 'far left' in the Labour PLP are probably the tinniest nub (not even enough to make a 'rump'!) of the party that they have ever been.

I believe the far left are standing someone against Brown (McDonell?), but the likely hood of him becoming PM is the same of my chances of being Declared King Daniel of the United Kingdom, blah,blah,etc

- That doesn't bother me, in fact I'm all for a proper competition, it'll be the perfect demonstration of Browns command of the party and the degree of unity that exists - when it gets the chance to happen.
I'd be glad of the so-called left standing someone who'll get trounced just as I am for one of those so-called 'ultra-Blair-ites' to stand and get trunced by Brown.

But anyone who knows anything about how the Labour party works knows that it's Brown by a country mile whenever it happens; IMO anything anyone else thinks is mere delusion, wishful thinking and day-dreaming.

Skynews have made a good point.
if they kick out Blair before the Queen's speech, she will have to ask (which is a scary thought) the Deputy Prime Minister to form a Government lol its really interesting because i do think certain Labour MPs haven't thought their agenda through.

Originally posted by infinite
Skynews have made a good point.
if they kick out Blair before the Queen's speech, she will have to ask (which is a scary thought) the Deputy Prime Minister to form a Government lol

- You're worried JP would try and jump into the top slot himself?!

It surprises me that the one element in all of this that is never referred to is the Labour parties' own proceedures because unless something unique is going to happen the new PM will 1st of all have to be elected as leader of the party and those proceedures are defined.

its really interesting because i do think certain Labour MPs haven't thought their agenda through.

- I'm still not convinced a lot of this isn't choreographed to a degree.

Put it like this, compare it to the usual idea of a 'split'.

This so-called 'split' is highly defined and very very widely and well known, it is almost totally bogus in terms of anything substantive ideologically between the 2 so-called 'camps' and as soon as the change happens it's all so obviously completely over.

It's a world away from the old idea of 'deeply damaging splits' on matters of policy, ideology and substance.

Plus it always runs to type.
Always just enough to keep it looking credible (in the gullible press) always just so far and never any further.
The moment it looks like getting out of hand or developing a life of their own in come both Blair and Brown to make sure things settle back down again.
Always.

If it is a stretegy how clever is that, huh?

10yrs of one 1/2 of what has always been a double-act and then the other (supposedly new) bloke comes in (to huge support having been built up over a decade as 'not that Blair guy we're all suppoesed to be so tired of'.....and Brown has always polled better than Cameron on all the substantive issues) and there you go.
Successive general election victory no. 4.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You're worried JP would try and jump into the top slot himself?!

well, if Blair goes before the Queens speech. In the terms of constitutional laws, Deputy Prime Minister would be asked to form a Government.

(thats our crazy, unwritten constitutional for you)

and no, im not worried about Prime Minister Presscott

Originally posted by infinite
if Blair goes before the Queens speech. In the terms of constitutional laws, Deputy Prime Minister would be asked to form a Government.

There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be the process at all. As has been pointed out already we have no written constitution and to make matters more interesting the position of the so called "Deputy Prime Minister" is little more than a nonsensical fabrication dreamt up by Margaret Thatcher for the benefit of Willie Whitelaw. The role doesn't exist in any meaningful sense whatsoever even given the vagueries of our ridiculous non-constitution.

The only requirement for an MP being Prime Minister is that he be invited to form a Government by the Queen and whilst protocol and custom would dictate that this person be the leader of the largest party there is absolutely nothing in law to impose this decision.

In prtactice, the only way that Tony Blair could be unseated as Prime Minister would be if he was removed as party leader and that is effectively impossible without a new leader being elected - step this way Mr. Brown.

Very true.

It is indeed - technically at least - open to question.

But I doubt the old prerogative and nod and wink system would get too much further if they really did do anything outrageous.

That's it's inherent paradox; on the one hand we are supposedly 'open' to all sorts of underhand and unusual goings on and on the other 'tradition' and 'custom and practice' ensure that the formula rarely changes in that manner, a sort of rigid 'system' with at least the theoretical quality of flexibility if it ever really should be needed.

Arcane rules ok?

After Blair goes though wonder if any ole ministers will be right in there If Bbrown gets the leadership of the Labour party.

Like Claire Short or is she a done deal now?

Least Blair has come an said, that he will decide a date and not the other mp's who have been pressuring him. Yanno something I may notlike the guy but he has balls to to come out with his back against the wall fighting. With his apology to the british public that gives him to me some respect. But that is far as I will go.

Nice to see some generosity on the man, sj.

Much as I find one-dimensional caricatures of certain tories silly so I do with TB, even if it is sometimes a little fun.

Personally I came to believe Blair was a genuine man with a decent sized pair when he went to Libya to meet Gaddafi

(.....and bear in mind that was before Gaddafi decided to join the real world and denounce any kind of connection with terroism etc and started to act in accord with the values most of the rest of us hold).

You might not agree with him or his policies in every instance but for my money - same as he has done in Ireland - the guy has personally taken risks for peace when he didn't have to.