Time for Blair to Go

**Rob** · 09-11-2005, 22:12

Has he lost his grip on new labour.

There can be no doubt that the no vote on the 90 days terrorism issue is a major blow to his credibility (continue to discuss that in http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=37922) - he'd effectively hung his hat on that. But then there is education, health, you name it, it's not working anymore.

Time for a newie at the helm? But would Gordon Brown, the successor in waiting be any better - personally speaking, I suspect that would be out of the frying pan, into the fire, especially on taxation.

**Russ B** · 09-11-2005, 22:15

I'd rather Blair than Brown any day. There's something about that guy which makes me very uneasy.

NEONKNIGHT · 09-11-2005, 22:21

I think he should stay, for the time-being anyway. Gordon Brown ? Next PM? Most definately.

What I'd like to know is what John Prescott has achieved ? I can't think of a single thing. Should be the case of John Prescott going really!

hairy_mick · 09-11-2005, 22:23

blair has made a lot of changes and he is not liked by some of his own old labour party members they think we can go back to the old days when the unions ran the country no thanks and i used to be a union member ive even been on loads of marches liverpool GCHQ to name but a few,but he has been a reformer nobody likes change but it has to be done. The tories would love to get rid of him as prime minister as they have no chance getting in while hes around.

fireman328 · 09-11-2005, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'd rather Blair than Brown any day. There's something about that guy which makes me very uneasy.

I agree, but who else is there ? We don't want a return to the looney left and I can't see anyone else. Thank God Blunketts gone at last, but he could return like the Vicar of Bray to haunt us.

09-11-2005, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

There can be no doubt that the no vote on the 90 days terrorism issue is a major blow to his credibility.

Says the Tories.

A vote on a bill is NOT a vote of confidence. No matter how much the PM threw himself into it.

I find this 'call to resign' type of stuff so tedious. It doesn't actually get anything done in the way of government, or in the way of encouraging debate on the issue. It's just party politics getting in the way of the day-to-day running of the country.

Is it any wonder it's in such a mess when the government spends more so much time having to deal with this cr*p. Between the opposition and the media they do their damnest to ensure any government in power fails as much as possible - or at least , is seen to fail as much as possible.
That's just plain self-destructive and goes to show that few, if any, politicians or journalists actually consider the 'greater good'.

There'll be a long line of 'em leading up to the firing squads, come the revolution. (Closely followed by lawyers, spin doctors...)

**Stuart C** · 09-11-2005, 22:30

I personally think Blair should go (mainly because of all the lies he has told about various subjects). However, I also think that any change such as that should trigger an election.

**Rob** · 09-11-2005, 22:34

Once upon a time the party whips would have ensured that different factions in parties would have toed the party line. The party line is what the leader says it is, at least what he says it is publicly (behind the scenes they can have the disagreements, party conferences, etc to decide that line). If the whips can't get the factions in line, then there is no ablity to govern under a leader.

Blair may well have been a reformer. Certainly he started positively, but after many years in government what are his real achievements? Is the UK really in better shape? Recent climb downs on issues such a civil service pensions indicate Blair's government is not really in charge.

His personal support, however well intentioned, for Mandleson and Blunkett also indicates his personal judgment is flawed.

09-11-2005, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

Once upon a time the party whips would have ensured that different factions in parties would have toed the party line. The party line is what the leader says it is, at least what he says it is publicly (behind the scenes they can have the disagreements, party conferences, etc to decide that line). If the whips can't get the factions in line, then there is no ablity to govern under a leader.

I think it's MUCH better that the MP's can vote with their conscience (assuming they have one) than that they be 'forced' to follow the party line. In the past the whip system has led to all sorts of abominations being enacted. This time, we have seen an abomination fail to get enacted. I think that means things are working better than they have in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

Blair may well have been a reformer. Certainly he started positively, but after many years in government what are his real achievements? Is the UK really in better shape? Recent climb downs on issues such a civil service pensions indicate Blair's government is not really in charge.

The UK political climate is as variable as it's actual climate, and equally inclement. It follows the vagaries of the day and the whims of people with private agendas. Until THAT changes, any government, of any persuasion will be faced with the same situation. While an opposition opposes for the sake of opposition, or allows party-political point scoring to come before the welfare of the country then it'll always a mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

His personal support, however well intentioned, for Mandleson and Blunkett also indicates his personal judgment is flawed.

Probably - but then I am assuming he's human and capable of errors of judgment. When it comes to judging people, no-one - no matter what their role in society - can be expected to get it right all the time - or even any time, in some cases. Blunkett appears in many respect to be beyond reproach - then up pops one scandal after another - is he really that stupid, gullibe or corrupt? As for Mandy - slimeballs like him just sleaze through life, somehow, and people let them get away with all sorts. There's people like that, and we're equally susceptible to their wiles when we meet them in our own lives.

jrhnewark · 09-11-2005, 22:59

There's a good majority (2/3) that don't want Labour at all so far - I'm with them. Absolutely useless government - in almost every way.

09-11-2005, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I personally think Blair should go (mainly because of all the lies he has told about various subjects). However, I also think that any change such as that should trigger an election.

Whats is Bush going to do when he has no poodle. Blair the poodle should have gone when it was shown that he made false statements about the war. I just want to see the lot of them out of Power. Labour are still the party that must "squeeze them till the pips squeak then squeeze them some more" So they can spend money on spin doctors and silly adverts about salt. Just look at the mad crazy statements and silly taxes 2 jags wants to bring in, Taxing your view from your house

.That's the sort of crazy policies the raving monster loony party would have put up at election time.

Brown is a smiling assassin in my eyes and is just waiting for some real power.

Then he can waste even more of our money.

And has for sleeze well i think they are now as bad if not worse than the conservatives.

Labour now remind me of the Conservatives just before they went. A party who thinks they can get away with murder and think that they will be there for ever.

Biggest problem is who the hell should replace them, The other 2 parties are no better and one of them i would never ever vote for as long as i have a certain thing somewhere

, I just cannot trust them with the defence of this country.There stance on the war summed it up for me completely. . Roll over and give in jumps to mind .

Which means at the end of the day i will have to give my vote to the most stupid candidate i can find Knowing full well they will never get in power.

Damien · 09-11-2005, 23:18

He made it clear that the last election that he would stay as PM for the whole term. He won the election. Also this was not the public that was not with him, it was the commons.

He should stay, I like the idea that he stuck with it even when it was looking like a loser.

Shaun · 09-11-2005, 23:31

I feel really sad that these people are our elected representatives and they think they know better than us!!! Every poll i've looked at has said most people support 90 days yet those elected representatives voted against it!?!

09-11-2005, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

I feel really sad that these people are our elected representatives and they think they know better than us!!! Every poll i've looked at has said most people support 90 days yet those elected representatives voted against it!?!

I wanted the 90 days. But lets be truthfull they just look at us as the great unwashed only to be spoken too at election time and then from a distance.

jrhnewark · 09-11-2005, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

I feel really sad that these people are our elected representatives and they think they know better than us!!! Every poll i've looked at has said most people support 90 days yet those elected representatives voted against it!?!

Eh? Most people think it's beyond, do they not?

Anyone with some nice statistics on what the public (e.g. not polls conducted by nutters) really think?