The Beginning of the End?

[TheQuiet1]

How much longer can Tony hold on for?! Will Gordo be forced to prise the Premiership out of Tony's cold dead fingers?! What will Tony say in his press conference later on today???

My guess is absolutely the same vague BS that he's been pouring out ever since he first announced to us all that he was leaving all those months ago, but the news reporters seem to think differently so is he going to announce a leaving date or is it just a slow news day?

Bye bye baby!

Seriously though, I do think Tone wasn't a bad PM...just not a particularly good either and now IS the time for him to go.

 

[U2democrat]

So, what happens if/when he resigns? Is there another election? Is someone appointed PM?

 

[AEON]

History will treat Blair well. It is the general population and UK press that will look like pawns and fools once World War III is fully underway.

 

[vaz02]

I dont want Gordon Brown for PM, he whinges too much.
Good chancellor bad PM.

 

[TheQuiet1]

So, what happens if/when he resigns? Is there another election? Is someone appointed PM?

How I understand it, and I could be totally wrong, the Labour Party will elect a new leader (almost 100% certain to be Gordon Brown) and he'll become PM. I don't think that there's any legal obligation for a general election to be held.

And AEON, you have to remember that the British public will look at Blair's Premiership not just in terms of his foreign policy -there are all sorts of issues on the home front that many people feel Blair has failed to address (or as has often been the case, just made a heck of a lot worse). He's consistently failed to deliver on his elaborate election promises (the phrase 'All mouth and no trousers' springs to mind), brought more sleaze to British politics than even the Tories managed (the Tories were satisfied with merely snorting cocaine, bulking up the thickness of The News of the World with kinky sex scandals, cash for questions in the House of Commons, perjury etc...) and frankly I don't think would still be in power if the Tories did their job properly and were an effective opposition.

To be fair though if you look at most of the British Prime Ministers who history has regarded as having a good foreign policy most of them were disastrous on issues at home, Churchill probably being the best example.

 

[TheQuiet1]

I dont want Gordon Brown for PM, he whinges too much.

You know out of all of the prominent Cabinet Ministers I think I've heard Gordon Brown speak all of about five times. Whereas all the others like Straw and Prescott never seem to shut up. Seems strange to think we'll have a new PM who we've heard so little from.

 

[vaz02]

To be honest gordon cant sell himself for shit , he's dull and boring and has no chance of charming public opinion.

This seems sad and strange after what prescot has been through but i would like him as a PM because he has fight in him and has a lot to say for himself.

Jack straw would be my 2nd option , was disappointed when he was removed as foreign sec.

I be able to vote next time the labour battle bus rolls into town and it seems i wont be voting labour as it stands.

 

[TheQuiet1]

Jack Straw would have been a fantastic PM. Prezza would have been interesting...

 

[Irvine511]

it's interesting ... i find it hard to comment on TB because i know that most people living outside of the UK are only exposed to maybe 35% of the Prime Minister's job -- foreign policy. i get a bit upset when people judge an American president on foreign policy only, and fail to grasp complex domestic politics as one of many reasons why someone who might behave badly outside the country remains somewhat popular inside the country.

i will remember TB as one of the most eloquent and skilled politicians i have ever heard, perhaps second only to Bill Clinton. i've watched "question time" on CSPAN and while all the issues are generally abstract for me, i can greatly appreciate how robust and vigorously argued those sessions are, and how skilled a PM must be to continually rise to his feet and verbally spar with his opponents.

as an outsider, i would say that Blair made Britian seem cool, progressive, and shift the country's image of, say, villages and bicycles and tea and distinct regional accents into one of vibrant cosmopolitanism with Europe's most dynamic city, London, beating at it's heart.

i suppose i am most disheartened that a close alignment with the United States seems now to be tantamount to political death for a British (of all places) PM, at least when it comes to foreign policy. association with Bush destroys your credibility. no surprise there.

but perhaps this is a good thing. the Iraq War would have been impossible without Blair's support, and the Iraq War would have gained some sort of credibility had Bush and Blair apologized for the total lack of any WMDs, something that neither have done. my guess is that he thought he'd be a moderating influence, but i think it became increasingly apparent that that wouldn't work. it was stupid -- accomodating Bush only lends him legitimacy (and i'd be lying if i hadn't seen Tony Blair on MTV in the US talking about the war and laying out his reasons to support the invasion in terms far, far more eloquent than Bush, and that this made me strongly reconsider my original opposition to the war). sadly, Bush and his ilk see compromise as weakness to be taken advantage of, and it will take another president before another foreign PM will seek such a close relationship with any American administration.

 

[The Disciple]

History will look upon Blair favorably, I agree on that.

 

[Greenlight]

as an outsider, i would say that Blair made Britian seem cool, progressive, and shift the country's image of, say, villages and bicycles and tea and distinct regional accents into one of vibrant cosmopolitanism with Europe's most dynamic city, London, beating at it's heart.

It's interesting how other nationalities perceive each other, I suppose largely influenced by the media, films etc. I think most Brits would say that the tea and bicycles image is very outdated and to us represents a Britain of the 1940s or 50s at the latest. Blair might be associated to others with the "Cool Britannia" image but this was already in existence to some degree prior to his election -think of the Brit Pop explosion in the early 1990s and prior to that London was also considered cool in the 1960s with the advent of the Beatles, Stones, mini skirts, Carnaby Street etc.

Yes Blair will be judged by many both here and abroad primarily on his foreign policy and the war in Iraq which is a shame as it overlooks some of his domestic achievements, notably his role in bringing about the peace treaty in Northern Ireland. He's failed abysmally in other areas such as the NHS but I think he's been OK overall. I'm less confident about Gordon Brown. He's been a very good chancellor but I don't think he would hack it as a PM. Still there seem to be a few other contenders now so I don't think it's clearcut that Brown will win the leadership contest.

TheQuiet1 - no there's no requirement for a general election. The leadership will be decided by Labour MPs, labour party members and certain Trade Union members.

 

[vaz02]

I know what irvine means , maggy was hardly fresh nor was john major.

 

[Axver]

This really is quite irrelevant to the general topic, but oh well.

i will remember TB as one of the most eloquent and skilled politicians i have ever heard, perhaps second only to Bill Clinton.

You really need to hear David Lange, New Zealand's Prime Minister from 1984 to 1989. Out of all of the politicians I've ever heard speak, I would have to say Lange is the best (and by a considerable margin). He was a very eloquent, skilled orator and had an excellent debating manner. His speech that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" is simply fantastic (and inspired an entirely juvenile response from the US in the form of the suspension of the ANZUS Treaty). Maybe you and a few others here would appreciate it (as a politics nerd myself, I certainly enjoy it anyway): text and audio.

/off-topic

 

[Irvine511]

I know what irvine means , maggy was hardly fresh nor was john major.

yes, this is what i'm talking about. it's more that the Blair era was modern and cosmopolitan compared to Thatcher.

 

[yolland]

I tend to share Irvine's from-across-the-pond impression of what it was that did Blair in--i.e. his Iraq policy, with his failure to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon being the last straw. I'm not sure I agree that "the Iraq War would have been impossible without Blair's support" (not from the Bush Administration's perspective, anyhow), and I'm also unsure about the extent to which Blair personally saw himself as aiming to "accommodate," but I do share the perception that Iraq was what really crippled him, even if there are plenty who feel happy to see him go on domestic grounds alone. I'm doubtful this will in and of itself affect US strategy much, though hopefully the next Administration will duly note that "You're either with us or against us" is not an advisable foreign policy motto.

On the other hand Brown seems to me to to have dismally misplayed almost every PR card possible during this whole standoff, and it's hard at this point to imagine it adding up to good news for Labour if he becomes the next PM. I don't really know enough to speculate much about what the other alternatives might be; I've seen Johnson and Reid's names floated in several articles now, but I don't know much about either of them. Looking further ahead, I don't know much about Cameron either.

How likely do you UK posters think it is that whoever replaces Blair will make rapid and drastic changes in his Middle East policy? Do you think the divisions within Labour are significantly more deep-seated than this? How much work will the Conservatives have to do to turn this to their advantage?

Ironic that Blair is in Israel right now trying to coax Olmert and Abbas back to the negotiations table...too little too late though I guess, and with Olmert in turtle mode and Hamas having long since written Blair off, not highly likely to lead much of anywhere beyond the cosmetic.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Third Way Politics and it's lasting results - that is what this thread is all about. One thing seems to pop up about Cameron's Conservatives shifting their policies to match Blair would be an example I have heard.

 

[Greenlight]

.

How likely do you UK posters think it is that whoever replaces Blair will make rapid and drastic changes in his Middle East policy? Do you think the divisions within Labour are significantly more deep-seated than this? How much work will the Conservatives have to do to turn this to their advantage?

.

At the moment the main contenders for the leadership are all Blairites so while there might be some cooling of the relationship with Bush, I don't think there would be a significant shift away from the current foreign policy if one of them were to win.

However Blair's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon does seem to have been the last straw for many Labour MPS, many of whom are anti the Blair/Bush relationship. There are a couple of possible contenders who resigned from the front bench over the war in Iraq who may gain a lot of backbench support, in which case obviously the dynamics will shift.
The next few months should prove interesting and unless Blair can hold things together before he departs I think divisions will open up which obviously Cameron will capitalise on.

Cameron himself so far seems to be sitting on the fence. The Conservatives have traditonally been more closely allied to the Republicans and they did support the war in Iraq but apart from a half hearted call for an earlier ceasefire in Lebanon he's been keeping stum. Time will tell!

 

[vaz02]

Funny thing is the tories seem to have the same foreign policy as blair lol.

Lib dems however seem radical, opposite to labour in everyway possible.


So many people of late have jumped on the band wagon of anti blair foegin policy especially with his close relationship with bush over Iraq.

 

[financeguy]

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.

Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

 

[vaz02]

People say andrew johnson has his feet under the labour table.

Anyone but gordon