OP/ED: Blair to go! Bush to follow?

Looking ahead to the next six months we can see the potential for seismic shifts in the political make up of the UK and the USA administrations.

To explain we will first have to look at the current situation in the UK.

Tony Blair has been leader of Britain's Labour party for almost ten years and Prime Minister for just over seven years but since September 2002,where it appeared he might persuade President Bush to take the UN route over Iraq, he has become increasingly isolated from his party and the core supporters of his party.

Iraq has dominated politics in the UK despite efforts to focus the general public on the domestic agenda.Now Blair is seen as an electorial liability.

This last weekend has seen some of the most open speculation about the replacement of a Prime Minister since just before Margaret Thatcher lost her job.The British Prime Minister is not directly elected by the British People he, or she, is simply the leader of the political party with a majority in the Parliament thus if the party changes it's leader the country gets a new Prime Minister.The speculation of Blair's departure is no longer confined to the press or even Parliament,the speculation reaches all the way to the government and even it's cabinet as John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) admitted when he suggested that Cabinet Ministers were already "jockeying" for position within the next government.

Heir apparent is Gordon Brown currently Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister).The economy has been one of the great success stories of the last seven years under Brown's stewardship.Except for finding the money for war with Iraq he has kept assiduously out of the developing crisis and is in prime position to take over when Blair goes.

And the big question is when will Blair go ? He is increasingly looking like a lame duck Prime Minister and bookmakers have drastically cut the odds of Blair going before the next general election.Supporters of Brown have even leaked the probable make up of a Brown government(more on that later) so sure are they.

I can reveal that the word on the street is August

Why ?

Well, there are a number of reasons.The first is a general reason.The situation in Iraq is expected to get alot worse rather than better in the coming months.It is thought that Blair has only one use now and that is to shield Brown from the controversy.

On June 10th the UK will go to the polls for local and European elections and the Labour party is expected to get trounced.It is better to get that out of the way before Brown takes over.

On June 30th there is the Iraqi hand over of power.This is a farce and when the violence continues there will be greater controversy.Again it's better for Blair to get dirtied by that so Brown can come in clean.

In the run up to June 30th the UK and USA will seek a new UN resolution for Iraq.France and Russia look set to veto any resolution that does not give greater control to the Iraqi government.Though this would be acceptable to Blair it is unlikely to be acceptable to Bush.Again Blair will look weak and there will be more controversy.

August is the month of the Labour party annual conference.This is the ideal time for handover giving six months for Brown to settle into the Job before the next election and disposing of all the bad feeling and dirt over Iraq that has stuck to Blair.

For Bush this Summer will not be any better.There will be the same controversy over the UN resolution and the continuing deterioration of security in Iraq up to and after June 30th but worse is to come as Bush loses his closest international ally,Tony Blair,and finds himself in coalition with Gordon Brown who knows he must distance himself from Bush to regain the trust of the British Electorate.Expect admissions of mistakes which will reflect badly on Bush.

Brown is very close to John Kerry.They have held a series of private meetings over the last year and they have links that go back over a decade.

And tipped to make a return to government after his resignation on the eve of war is Robin Cook,former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House, who has been outspoken over the last year especially against Bush and is expected to become Prime Minister Brown's Foreign secretary or even Deputy.

So the next six months should be very interesting.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by John bull 1]

Great post John.

I reckon you could be spot on with the timing, and net result of what is going on behing closed doors in Whitehall at present.

More stuff from the street: Blair will 'retire' on health grounds, the foundations for this having already beel laid late last year with his 'heart scare.' He will take a back seat in the party, but still be active, up until the general election. Rumours suggest that although the election can be called any time between May 05 and November 05, it is likely to be sooner rather than later depending on how smoothly the hand-over goes.

That said, Gordon Brown is now not looking like the sure thing he was a month or two back. I would not be at all surprised to see someone else sneak in there, possibly Robin Cook.

B

Gordon Brown supposedly has Robin Cook already onside.So too is Jack Straw.One will be Foreign Secretary the other Deputy PM.Alastair Darling is set to be Chancellor (With Brown holding the purse strings).Nick Brown is set to return as Chief Whip.Blunket to remain though Home Office split.

There will certainly be a challenge.Look to Blairites who'll get no second chance like John Reid,Charles Clarke,or even Alan Milburn.

A challenge for sure but not a contest.

Almost a coronation.

If Brown gets in I am going to move all my cash offshore and arrange for my salary to be paid directly to my offshore account. The man is a dangerous megalomaniac with no concept of how to run a country. Also, and I hate to be 'racist' here, but he is a Scot. Now, I have no problem with Scot's at all, but we (the UK tax payers) have just shelled out �101 million, that is �101,000.000.00 to build them their own Parliament Buildings. If he wants to be 'the daddy' so badly he can go up there and do it... Just my (highly inappropriate) �0.02.....

Simple really. If Brown is in, I (and most people I know) will stop paying taxes in the UK.

I'm thinking the schedule to get Blair out is actually speeding up, and i foresee him leaving around mid-june and a general election being called for December, the tories are making slow gains --contrary to their own reports-- against labour seats, if they make strong gains in the June 10th european parliament elections then it may be a litmus test for the publics feelings, after all nobody actually cares about the european elections except for the hard core of the public who always vote.

Originally posted by benjj
Now, I have no problem with Scot's at all...

Yeeeees... The Holyrood disaster isn't something we're exactly proud of, but governmental screw-ups aren't the sole preserve of the Scots. After all, we had nothing to do with the Millenium Dome... Just goes to show that Labour are Labour whichever side of Carlisle they're on

There are good points about Blair's imminent departure. With luck, Prescott the Hutt will be cast into the political wilderness where he belongs. And, of course, Blair's own humiliating excision will make a great many people do the happy dance. I don't believe that Cook will be reintegrated into the cabinet, however - his anti-war attacks were too general to be written off as criticism just of Blair. He's out for good. As, it goes without saying, is Short, and soon Hoon will join them. That leaves Brown, Straw and Adolf Blunkett at the heart of a new cabinet.

Can you say "authoritarian"?

The future is clear. Blair will be out after the June elections, sacrificed to compensate for Labour's losses. Without competant opposition, and after deploying a barrage of carefully hoarded tax-cuts, Labour will win the next election - for my money, in March '05.

At this point, Michael Howard will step down (or turn to dust in the light of a new dawn, one of the two). The Tories will turn to Michael Portillo to face up to Brown across the floor of the Commons. Charles Kennedy will retire/explode/vanish into ignominy, and Menzies Campbell will take over the Lib Dems. Thus reinvigorated, the Commons will once again be home to the thrust and parry of idealogically-driven political debate, voter apathy will vanish, Jenson Button will win the F1 World Championships, and the sun will never set on glorious Brittania.

I know, I know. But don't disillusion me. Just leave me alone until Blair is a distant memory and Bush is being tried for war crimes.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by StrangeLands]

Given the lack of legitimate response, both in quantity and, perhaps to a lesser degree in quality, I would characterize the dogs in this thread as the variety that don't hunt no more!!!

And here's another perspective given:
The real enemy that Blair must face

Today, the situation is very different. To exchange Blair for Brown in mid-campaign would be tantamount to an admission of defeat. With a cabal of Scottish internationalists, led by Robin Cook, in the ascendant, and Labour reverting to its former role as the peace party, the new prime minister would perforce disguise his undoubted Atlanticist sympathies.

If Mr Brown were to follow Mr Cook's advice on Iraq, he would be the most disloyal ally in the history of the special relationship. To follow the Spanish example, without even the mitigating circumstance of the Madrid bombs, would be a permanent stain on British honour. Even if Mr Bush were to lose in November, the betrayal would poison relations with a Democrat in the White House, too.

Be careful for what you wish for, because often times, many never consider all the affects of such a wish being granted.




seekerof

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by Seekerof]

Keep an eye open for June 26,2004

On St. Patrick�s Day George W. Bush announced he would attend the European Union Summit on June 26,2004. This announcement came at the longstanding White House Tradition of hosting Irelands Leader on St. Paddy�s Day. The recent attacks in Madrid, have called this meeting to my attention.

Seekerof, ever notice that these 'friendly warnings' always take the form of thinly veiled threats? Like the time Bush warned Scotland against voting for independence as it would affect NATO? That one pissed me off no end, who gives a # if he thinks we should be independent or not?

It always seems with this 'special relationship' that the U.S is allowed to piss us off as often as they like, but if we do something they don't like then they go in a permanent huff. It's our country, it's our decision what we do, and if the U.S doesn't like it then tough # frankly.

Kegs, this was no "veiled threat".
The UK and its people can and will do whats best for its country, correct?
I merely presented another UK article, and it was obviously giving a UK view, not an American view.
I'm not British, but don't you think all sides of an issue should be presented, no matter the take or slant?



seekerof

"To follow the Spanish example, without even the mitigating circumstance of the Madrid bombs, would be a permanent stain on British honour."

Funny, I thought following the USA down a rabbit hole of military adventurism in support of Corporate Imperialism was already the stain to end all stains, no?

LOL. British honour ????

We already lost that when our poodle Prime Minister rolled over for your President.

We lost honour with our commitment to the UN.We lost honour with our allies in the EU.We lost honour when our leaders took us into a war that 70% disagreed with.

Be careful what we wish for ??

Anythings better than what we have now !!

And believe me Seekerof the Daily Telegraph is not representative of British public opinion.They advocate the UK leaving the EU and joining NAFTA.If the Telegraph dictated policy we would become the 51st state.

And another thing.I'm British.I don't care if my Prime Minister is Scottish,English,Irish,or Welsh as long as he doesn't bend over at the White House everytime the President produces the Vaseline.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by John bull 1]

Seekerof, I know it was a British paper. Adding on to what John Bull said there are a lot of British papers that promote a pro U.S message and run down Europe, some at the bequest of their U.S owners, and for the good of the U.S. interests in the U.K and Europe.

And believe me Seekerof the Daily Telegraph is not representative of British public opinion

I can understand that John.
And since I am not British or like, I respect that.
But you are British...does your opinion reflect the UK, as a whole?
Whats the difference between you and the Telegraph, besides what you have mentioned? I again only presented another view. Was that wrong to do so?
Objectively, what are polling numbers saying on Blair being removed and the UK pulling out of Iraq?



seekerof

Is the Telegraph a Ruppert Murdoch owned rag?

I've alwas seen a near polar diff. between what I read in the Guardian online vs. the Telegraph.

And I don't think British Honor is as lost as American: your country is making plans to correct your mistake while half of mine is trying to extend the mistake out 4 more years!! We lost ours in the 2000 election theft.

No it was owned by Conrad Black until the big scandel over corruption.The base group is Hollinger which also owns The Jerusalem Post.

Very Right wing very pro-US and very pro-Israeli.Also pro-Monarchy,pro-foxhunting and anti-Europe.

The kind of newspaper that would dedicate an editorial to the unfortunate shortage of good domestic staff in stately homes.