Planetarion Forums

Ste · 8 May 2005, 12:24

Labour MPs call on Blair to quit

He's been the most successful 'Labour' leader in history.
But should he step down and when?
Will he feel the toll in the local elections next year?
Is there another candidate to take over other than Brown?

We had this discussion on election night in my house, we decided that Labour would get a lot of stick from political analysts, the opposition and the public, if they changed the PM who was voted in before the next election. So it was doubtful. However, we thought they'd probably call an election early, 2008 maybe, and have a leadership contest just before that.
This has also been suggested in the link at the top.

Also, Blunkett back in the cabinet... Howard stepping down...
What are peoples thoughts on this?

Personally, I have a severe dislike for Blunkett, but can see why Blair likes him so much.
And I think someone like Letwin could be good as leader of the tories but he's ruled himself out.
The main runners are Davis, Rifkind, Fox, Cameron and Osborne (who have been likened to Blair and Brown). I think they need someone youngish to stand a chance.

Vaio · 8 May 2005, 12:54

yes

At best, Blair showed bad judgement over Iraq, worst case is that he arranged for figures and statistics to be deliberately manipulated.

Not good for a PM.

~Vaio~

midge5 · 8 May 2005, 12:56

I don't think Blair should step down personally. Assuming the French accept the EU constitution though he may have to when Britain more than likely rejects it next year. I am not particularly happy about Blunkett coming back either as I never liked him.

As for the Tories, it was no surprise to me that Howard stood down and I think it is better now than in 2 years or so which wouldn't leave the new leader a great deal of time in charge before the elction. It would also have brought the infighting which is bound to happen in the election nearer to any election which would hurt their chances.

I am glad Letwin has ruled himself out as I think he would be a terrible leader and is probably way too posh to appeal to enough people to ever be elected. Someone younger would be nice, would also help them if he could stay on for 2 elections running if they lose in 4 years (assuming the country doesn't hate him) but with the state of the party now it would be a shame if someone half competant took over and then got decapitated by his own party ruining any potential future leader.

Personally I would pick Rifkind though he is getting on a bit now or Cameron

Phil^ · 8 May 2005, 13:06

yes.

Cannon_Fodder · 8 May 2005, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

yes.

but not just yet.

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 13:30

I don't think Blair should stand down. I think if he was to run for a fourth term, barring any extreme unforseen events I believe he would win. I think he may have a larger majority than this election. the main reason Labour has lost a lot of votes is mainly due to the Iraq War. Unless the 'Blair lied about going to war' argument can be sustained for another four years I think a lot of people who voted against Labour to show their unhappiness about the war will come running back. I also think any gains that the Lib Dems made in this election will be lost due to people going back to Labour, unless they get their act together.

lokken · 8 May 2005, 13:31

depends if there's a risk of lefty socialists getting in.

If there is, probably not, as much as people dislike Blair.

vampire_lestat · 8 May 2005, 13:42

I would like to see brown running things, I think he might be able to win more labour support before the next election, and he would be good for the party.

The tories should have Boris running things, purely because he's a total legend, and young people would vote for a party run by him.

1-X · 8 May 2005, 14:03

It's a bit of an assumption that Brown wants to be PM, and wants it now.

There is so much crap looming on the horizon that it would be smart for him to stay where he is and let someone else take the flak for unpopular decisions.

Deffeh · 8 May 2005, 14:12

I think no, not yet.

There are some bad economic times ahead, and things are going to get worse before they get better for Labour. If they are to get in for a 4th and possibly even a 5th term, they need to blame a significant portion of the current unpopular policies on Blair. This is something even Tony Blair accepts and expects, if he has the Labour Party's best intrests at heart.

If you let Brown take over right away, he'd be a lame duck prime minister. With the way the First past the post system works out, time in opposition is inevitable. For Brown, the timing of his probable leadership couldnt have been worse. If the labour party had been in opposition at the time of his taking over, he could have instantly gained some popularity by taking the Labour party back left slightly, which is where the majority of Labour voters want them to be, and are dissapointed they arent. Mid-Parliament, this is impossible.

Wait for things to get worse, ditch Blair, blame the shit on him, appoint Brown, capatalise on the feel good factor.

Phang · 8 May 2005, 14:32

i think two years would be about right before he goes.

re: blunkett - he's an exceptionally able politician and manager, and certainly should be in cabinet. however, his self-evident authoritarian tendencies mean he probably wasnt best suited to the home office. this i think is a good placing.

Ste · 8 May 2005, 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I don't think Blair should stand down. I think if he was to run for a fourth term, barring any extreme unforseen events I believe he would win. I think he may have a larger majority than this election. the main reason Labour has lost a lot of votes is mainly due to the Iraq War. Unless the 'Blair lied about going to war' argument can be sustained for another four years I think a lot of people who voted against Labour to show their unhappiness about the war will come running back. I also think any gains that the Lib Dems made in this election will be lost due to people going back to Labour, unless they get their act together.

As the Lib Dems have got more people in Parliament they have more influence. This will lead to more recognition and less people thinking "wasted vote". They also made massive gains in a lot of Labour seats to make them a valid opposition in those constituencies. I think this will lead to a greater push at the next election, with better advertising of their policies they will look for even more gains. I can see them reaching 100 seats perhaps.

I really don't think Labour will win a fourth term with Blair in charge. If anything, if the Tories get a decent leader, I would predict a landslide win for the Tories. The country doesn't like the same leader in charge for a long time. In 97, a lot of tories voted Labour not because they necessarily disagreed with what the tories were saying, but because they felt the country needed a change. In 92 if Major hadn't come in then the tories would never have won.

Blair isn't even that popular within his own party. My parents were hardcore Labour voters until 2001, good friends with local MPs, helped with campaigns etc, now they hate the whole New Labour ideology. Tuition fees, foundation hospitals, ID cards, war in Iraq - all very unpopular with traditional labour supporters. Iraq tipped the balance against him but the other issues are there too and will come into force in this parliament. Add to that the liklihood of another American led war and I really can't see Labour winning the next election without a change in leader. And even with one they might have trouble.

The conservatives were never going to win this election - they knew that, that's why their policies were not very realistic. With a competent leader for the next 3/4/5 years they will certainly fancy their chances at the next election and will be likely to do well.

LHC · 8 May 2005, 15:01

I just don't like blind people.

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

As the Lib Dems have got more people in Parliament they have more influence. This will lead to more recognition and less people thinking "wasted vote". They also made massive gains in a lot of Labour seats to make them a valid opposition in those constituencies.

But a large reason for those Lib Dem gains was due to the Iraq War. these protest votes will swing back to Labour, especially if the tories look like they could become a legitimate threat to Labour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I think this will lead to a greater push at the next election, with better advertising of their policies they will look for even more gains. I can see them reaching 100 seats perhaps.

they will advertise better, but I can't see them making substantial gains, especially with the possibility of Iraq being off the agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I really don't think Labour will win a fourth term with Blair in charge.

What about with Gorden Brown in charge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

If anything, if the Tories get a decent leader, I would predict a landslide win for the Tories. The country doesn't like the same leader in charge for a long time. In 97, a lot of tories voted Labour not because they necessarily disagreed with what the tories were saying, but because they felt the country needed a change. In 92 if Major hadn't come in then the tories would never have won.

they would need some genuine policies though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Blair isn't even that popular within his own party. My parents were hardcore Labour voters until 2001, good friends with local MPs, helped with campaigns etc, now they hate the whole New Labour ideology. Tuition fees, foundation hospitals, ID cards, war in Iraq - all very unpopular with traditional labour supporters. Iraq tipped the balance against him but the other issues are there too and will come into force in this parliament. Add to that the liklihood of another American led war and I really can't see Labour winning the next election without a change in leader. And even with one they might have trouble.

the thing is, people seem to care more about the Iraq War than any of those domestic policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

The conservatives were never going to win this election - they knew that, that's why their policies were not very realistic. With a competent leader for the next 3/4/5 years they will certainly fancy their chances at the next election and will be likely to do well.

they did well at this election considering where they came from, but I can't see them winning the next election.

zakoff · 8 May 2005, 15:26

Blair shouldn't step down. He has just been voted in as the Prime Minister, it would be undemocratic to step down and make someone else Prime Minister in my opinion.

Brown should take over just before the next election. He will quite probably win, depending on who takes over the Tory party and circumstances between now and then. There could be Economic problems or a collapse of the house prices etc which could have a profound effect on the next election.

Ste, i don't think people are fooled by the 'wasted vote' thing. That is why Lib Dem got an extra 11 seats and a larger proportion of the vote than ever before. There just isn't the body of support for Lib Dem. Next year will obviously give Lib dem another boost, because four more years means four more years worth of students being able to vote, a body of people that are strongly infavour of lib dem.

There are a few things that will effect the next four years though. The Eu constitution, Id cards and about 5other things that weren't in their manifesto (i forget what they are!). So Labour could easily mess up. Tories are not going anywhere really. I really can't see them winning the next election either, unless they get some charismatic leader to take them there, which i don't think they can get! Maybe if they shake of the whole Margaret Thatcher thing, they may win, but i don't think they can. So lib dem will definately win the next election!

Proteus · 8 May 2005, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakoff

Blair shouldn't step down. He has just been voted in as the Prime Minister

He has? I must have missed that.

Imagine that. All this fuss about electing MPs and there's an election for Prime Minister that I completely fail to notice. I should really pay more attention.

zakoff · 8 May 2005, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

He has? I must have missed that.

Imagine that. All this fuss about electing MPs and there's an election for Prime Minister that I completely fail to notice. I should really pay more attention.

not but you vote for a mp from a party who's leader is going to be the prime minister and the leader of the country.

Most people either vote for the person they want to run the country or the party they want to run the country, they don't base their vote on the person who they want as an mp.

If Blair were to stand down, it basically means you have voted to get him and Labour to run the country and ended up with Brown, who undoubtabely would change a lot. The Cabinet, some of the policies and would be a different person.

Leaders should only be allowed to step down if when they call an election, or there should be an election if they stand down.

BesigedB · 8 May 2005, 15:56

I was going to put a comedy post about Boris Johnson here unti I remembered you couldn't use the img tags for great justice.

Since I can not do that, I shall state that IMO Michael Howard looks like a twit resigning straight after a loss just like his predecessors. He could have waited until after these reforms, made the announcement then, and looked like a strong leader passing the reigns rather standing down in a hissy fit.

Regarding Labour, I expect it will be Brown but I would like to see somebody not in Blair's inner circle in order to actually see a change of direction. I don't see a Tony 2 figure doing particularly well in the next election.

Phang · 8 May 2005, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by BesigedB

Regarding Labour, I expect it will be Brown but I would like to see somebody not in Blair's inner circle in order to actually see a change of direction. I don't see a Tony 2 figure doing particularly well in the next election.

what

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakoff

Ste, i don't think people are fooled by the 'wasted vote' thing. That is why Lib Dem got an extra 11 seats and a larger proportion of the vote than ever before. There just isn't the body of support for Lib Dem. Next year will obviously give Lib dem another boost, because four more years means four more years worth of students being able to vote, a body of people that are strongly infavour of lib dem.

You're forgetting four more years of students becoming employees with needs and desires differnet to most students. there is also the question of how many students that support the Lib Dems actually vote. If the tories seem to be doing well then the Lib Dems will suffer accordingly.

Deffeh · 8 May 2005, 16:19

Anyone predicting the demise of the Lib dems is sorely mistaken. They're the only party without any questions about who should lead them. Charles Kennedy did well in the campaign because voters appreciated his honesty. (Anyone who disagrees with me - name one other politician who when asked by Jeremy Paxman "So your party would give criminals like Hindley and ian huntley the vote?" has the baws to say "yes". You might not agree with the policy, i certainly dont, but you have to admire the nature of the response)

I think if the Liberal Democrats had gained just 5 seats in this election, it would have been a success. The main problem they had in this election is that they HELD most of the marginal seats that they usually contest. This election not only did they gain 11 seats, but as well as the marginals they lost to the Tories this time round, there is now a large number of seats where they have got themselves into a position to challenge either Labour, or the Conservatives.

The iraq issue was big, tuition fees was a big issue - both of which thoroughly boosted the Lib Dem vote, thats true. But i think the stagnation in British Politics was an even bigger issue - people are fed up with two party politics, and the Lib Dems offered a genuine alternative

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Anyone predicting the demise of the Lib dems is sorely mistaken. They're the only party without any questions about who should lead them.

Can anyone say alcoholic? In all fairnuss he seems like a nice guy, but could you honestly see him runnig the country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Charles Kennedy did well in the campaign because voters appreciated his honesty. (Anyone who disagrees with me - name one other politician who when asked by Jeremy Paxman "So your party would give criminals like Hindley and ian huntley the vote?" has the baws to say "yes". You might not agree with the policy, i certainly dont, but you have to admire the nature of the response)

You do, but unfortunatly honesty doesn't win elections. When Labour drop Blair they will try to drop the Spin tag that follows the party about at the moment.

Deffeh · 8 May 2005, 17:09

Alcoholism hasnt stopped several leaders of important countries. Look across the Atlantic just now. That and he isnt a "continual" alcoholic, he's cutting down his beer and fags now he's got a kid. And anyway, so ****, the man likes a drink? Poor bastards from Scotland for god sake, i can give you my word that theres nothing else to do up here.

What does whether hes a nice guy or not have to do with whether he could run the country or not? He has realistic, implementable, and fundable policies, and its about whether he gets the chance to implement them or not.

Honesty may not win elections, but apparently 5% more of the British electorate appreciated it this time round. Honesty is a vote winner when every day you put up with Howard lying about public spending cuts, Blair lying about Iraq, tory MP in Dorset (south?) Photoshopping a picture of him with Anne Widdecombe, Blunkett lying about his nannys visa. Honesty seems like a breath of fresh air to me.

midge5 · 8 May 2005, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

This election not only did they gain 11 seats, but as well as the marginals they lost to the Tories this time round, there is now a large number of seats where they have got themselves into a position to challenge either Labour, or the Conservatives.

They had themselves in a position to challenge a lot of Tory seats this time and set about that decapitation strategy. In nearly every case it failed miserably with the Tories increasing their majority despite a lot of effort put in by the Lib Dems ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...dlosses_ld.stm ). Even in this election they lost more seats to the Tories than they gained, most by a decent margin. With a more competant leader and some better publicity/feel about the Tories I would imagine the situation will only become harder for the Lib Dems.

Deffeh · 8 May 2005, 17:47

Alot of this was because the Liberal Democrats have become somewhat of a haven for those who find themselves on the Left of New Labour - therefore, a Conservative voter would probably be more likely to swing to Labour (discounting tribalism) than they would to the Liberal democrats. Use the BBC's electoral map and zoom about the country (especially scotland, and the north east). Constituencies where the Lib dems didnt have a hope, theres suddenly more of a "point" in voting for them. If everyone voted entirely according to who they agreed with most, youd find the Liberals would poll much more than the already impressive 23%.

I voted in Stirling, for example. The lib dems are now sitting on 20.7% of the vote (The tories 25.1%, Labour 36%). Labour lost 7% points, the Tories gained merely 1%, and the lib dems gained 9.2%

In 2005, Stirling was as low a priority for the Liberal Democrats as any youll find. Believe me - no mail from the candidates - it took till May the 2nd till they even put up things on the lamposts - which were smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Previously, they were 4th behind the SNP for god sake - on the BBC website they were listed under "other". Now they have a building block to win Stirling in 2 elections time - a feasible prospect - its a Student city, and being as this is Scotland, we have consciences, and therefore dont vote Tory, so its not as if they're a problem.

The only thing that can knock the Lib Dem charge on the head is a Labour push to the Left.

Phil^ · 8 May 2005, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

When Labour drop Blair they will try to drop the Spin tag that follows the party about at the moment.

I think they'll need to drop a lot more then just blair to rid themselves of that.
Pretty much everything to go along with the 'new labour' project will also have to disappear imo also.

Vaio · 8 May 2005, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Can anyone say alcoholic? In all fairnuss he seems like a nice guy, but could you honestly see him runnig the country?

Forget the alcoholism, THE GUY IS A GINGER !

YOU CAN'T HAVE A GINGER PM. IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY LAW !

If not, it should be law.

~Vaio~

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Alcoholism hasnt stopped several leaders of important countries. Look across the Atlantic just now.

Oh yes, what a shining example of gret leadership that ****wit is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

That and he isnt a "continual" alcoholic, he's cutting down his beer and fags now he's got a kid. And anyway, so ****, the man likes a drink? Poor bastards from Scotland for god sake, i can give you my word that theres nothing else to do up here.

It's more of the press continually bringing it up, rather than makig him unable to do the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

What does whether hes a nice guy or not have to do with whether he could run the country or not? He has realistic, implementable, and fundable policies, and its about whether he gets the chance to implement them or not.

Personally, I think he is a nice guy. I just don't believe he would make a good leader. Whether the Lib Dems policies are implimentable in total is a totally different issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Honesty may not win elections, but apparently 5% more of the British electorate appreciated it this time round. Honesty is a vote winner when every day you put up with Howard lying about public spending cuts, Blair lying about Iraq, tory MP in Dorset (south?) Photoshopping a picture of him with Anne Widdecombe, Blunkett lying about his nannys visa. Honesty seems like a breath of fresh air to me.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see more honesty in politics but to say that people voted Lib Dems because the other parties are full of liars is a bit much. Yes, Blair lying over Iraq was a big issue but I believe it was more of the fact that a lot of people didn't want the war and that it went ahead regardless. there is also the feeling of the UK being a poodle to the US and we all kno how much hostility the mention of that countr brings.

*donkie* · 8 May 2005, 18:55

Lets not forget that the voting system screws the Liberal Democrats over at every single oppertunity, though the number of local councillers for the Lib Dems has been rising since the eighties. Yes, the Lib Dems did get alot more support from protest votes, and probably a few more votes because they ran a (mostly) positive campaign versus the nagative attempts of Blair and Howard. And lets face it, any party that can say "Yes, we're going to raise taxes and make it harder for young professionals to get on the property ladder" and still have an increase of votes of 6.6% must be doing something right.

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Alot of this was because the Liberal Democrats have become somewhat of a haven for those who find themselves on the Left of New Labour - therefore, a Conservative voter would probably be more likely to swing to Labour (discounting tribalism) than they would to the Liberal democrats.

that is debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Use the BBC's electoral map and zoom about the country (especially scotland, and the north east). Constituencies where the Lib dems didnt have a hope, theres suddenly more of a "point" in voting for them. If everyone voted entirely according to who they agreed with most, youd find the Liberals would poll much more than the already impressive 23%.

And the tories would be in power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

The only thing that can knock the Lib Dem charge on the head is a Labour push to the Left.

Do you seriously think the Lib Dems could form a government? If so, when?

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by *donkie*

Lets not forget that the voting system screws the Liberal Democrats over at every single oppertunity, though the number of local councillers for the Lib Dems has been rising since the eighties. Yes, the Lib Dems did get alot more support from protest votes, and probably a few more votes because they ran a (mostly) positive campaign versus the nagative attempts of Blair and Howard. And lets face it, any party that can say "Yes, we're going to raise taxes and make it harder for young professionals to get on the property ladder" and still have an increase of votes of 6.6% must be doing something right.

Pissed off hippies who pposed the war and students who don't really care about those types of things and who wll probablu change their vote once they leave uni as they will also not care about topup fees anymore.

MrL_JaKiri · 8 May 2005, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by BesigedB

Regarding Labour, I expect it will be Brown but I would like to see somebody not in Blair's inner circle in order to actually see a change of direction.

You think Brown's a Blairite? Hahahaha.

Boogster · 8 May 2005, 19:54

Well, he's more a Blairite than Tony Benn ever will be.

The Liberal Democrats profited solely from the mishandling of Iraq and the disillusionment of lefties.

MrL_JaKiri · 8 May 2005, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogster

Well, he's more a Blairite than Tony Benn ever will be.

Well done for this informed and relevent comment!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogster

The Liberal Democrats profited solely from the mishandling of Iraq and the disillusionment of lefties.

Labour's poor performance in general has caused some shift. Look at local councils, especially in the north east; traditional labour councils have been seeing some dramatic gains for the Lib Dems.

Lets look at Durham. 10,000 off the majority, giving Labour a mere 3,000 majority in something which has to be regarded as historically one of the safest labour seats in the country. Part of that will be Iraq related. Part will be Steinberg stepping down. But a part will be a gradual rise in discontent with the current party; the Durham Miners' Gala, for example, is traditional Labour faire, and is shown by the representatives of the Trade Unions and the Labour Movement. It's traditional for the head of the Labour party to be in attendace. Tony Blair, despite going to school in Durham itself, is the first ever Labour leader to not attend. He's even stopped replying to the invitation.

Your statement is pretty truistic though. "People are leaving Labour because they don't like Labour any more".

pyirt · 8 May 2005, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniborp

but not just yet.

Ste · 8 May 2005, 20:54

I don't think anyone in their right mind really thinks the Lib Dems will win the next election.

The way the constituencies are split up, even if Labour and the tories both got 37% of the vote, Labour would still have a massive majority.
On average a tory constituency has a 6000 more voters than a Labour one.
So even if the Lib Dems polled quite a lot more then the Conservatives still wouldn't have got in.
If Lib Dems had won 30 more seats (most probably off Labour) then Labour would still have a majority of 36. It would have taken a MASSIVE shift to the Lib Dems/Conservatives to even get a hung parliament.

And anyway, those scaremongering about a Tory win at the next election - If they propose decent policies that you agree with, surely you would vote for them?
It isn't a choice between Labour and Conservative. Those parties would love it to be of course.
Lib dems aren't just an anti war party, they're also pro-europe, anti tuition fees (a big issue among students and parents), pro-taxation etc. Honesty goes a long way and now they're an actual alternative in many constituencies people will take more notice.
It wasn't just an anti-Iraq vote.

And like I said earlier: "Tuition fees, foundation hospitals, ID cards, war in Iraq - all very unpopular with traditional labour supporters. Iraq tipped the balance against him but the other issues are there too and will come into force in this parliament. Add to that the liklihood of another American led war and I really can't see Labour winning the next election without a change in leader."

With Brown in charge they almost wipe the slate clean as Blair will take the flack rather than the whole party.

And I have to roll my eyes at anyone grasping at the alcoholic straw.

MrL_JaKiri · 8 May 2005, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

And I have to roll my eyes at anyone grasping at the alcoholic straw.

But I don't want to have to sit up to drink

All Systems Go · 8 May 2005, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

The way the constituencies are split up, even if Labour and the tories both got 37% of the vote, Labour would still have a massive majority.
On average a tory constituency has a 6000 more voters than a Labour one.
So even if the Lib Dems polled quite a lot more then the Conservatives still wouldn't have got in.
If Lib Dems had won 30 more seats (most probably off Labour) then Labour would still have a majority of 36. It would have taken a MASSIVE shift to the Lib Dems/Conservatives to even get a hung parliament.

Do you support proportional representation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

And anyway, those scaremongering about a Tory win at the next election - If they propose decent policies that you agree with, surely you would vote for them?

they won't, so I won't, simple as...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

they're also pro-europe,

Now there's a vote winner if ever I saw one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

pro-taxation

there's another one...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Add to that the liklihood of another American led war and I really can't see Labour winning the next election without a change in leader."

Where are the US gonig next then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

And I have to roll my eyes at anyone grasping at the alcoholic straw.

It happens Lowest Common Denominator rules...

Ste · 8 May 2005, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Do you support proportional representation?

I don't think it's as simple as that. If we had PR then we'd lose the representation for local issues in parliament.
I'd support a redrawing of constitutional boundaries for a start.
But anyway, what I support has nothing to do with it. I was pointing out that the tories wouldn't have got in because of the Lib Dems unless there was a MASSIVE shift.

Quote:

they won't, so I won't, simple as...

I bet some people were saying that about Labour in the 80's and are voting for them now.
So what if they have a radical change of direction?

Quote:

Now there's a vote winner if ever I saw one.

there's another one...

But it is popular with a lot of people.

Quote:

Where are the US gonig next then?

Are you saying you can't see the Americans wanting to invade another country in the next 4 years?

Quote:

It happens Lowest Common Denominator rules...

Blair is a Liar and Howard eats babies.

Vaio · 8 May 2005, 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Where are the US going next then?

Wherever they damn well like

~Vaio~

Demon Dave · 8 May 2005, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Blair is a Liar and Howard eats babies.

it's true you know, just look at those eyes :eek:

Boogster · 9 May 2005, 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Well done for this informed and relevent comment!

Look. Blair and Brown worked together closely when formulating the ideals and policies of New Labour. I wouldn't call Brown 'Blairite' either, but the two have certainly not always been mortal enemies.

Yahwe · 9 May 2005, 03:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogster

Look. Blair and Brown worked together closely when formulating the ideals and policies of New Labour. I wouldn't call Brown 'Blairite' either, but the two have certainly not always been mortal enemies.

ahhhhhh

and so, very quietly it begins.
one mortal stumbles upon the truth.

zakoff · 9 May 2005, 04:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Can anyone say alcoholic? In all fairnuss he seems like a nice guy, but could you honestly see him runnig the country?

i couldnt' see Margaret Thatcher running the country. but heh.

Yahwe · 9 May 2005, 04:57

she drank whisky too

zakoff · 9 May 2005, 04:58

she is also very ugly....

Yahwe · 9 May 2005, 05:08

somerville girls are

zakoff · 9 May 2005, 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I don't think anyone in their right mind really thinks the Lib Dems will win the next election.

i do

All Systems Go · 9 May 2005, 10:18

Right, first off my previous post I didn't realise I was no longer quoting Deffeh. I just assumed it was because this post was a pro-Lib Dem post. But anyway, back to business...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I was pointing out that the tories wouldn't have got in because of the Lib Dems unless there was a MASSIVE shift.

Obviously, Labour had a massive majority and the tories didn't really have any workable policies. If people had thought that the tories were a genuine threat to the Labour government then a lot of angry Labour voters would have swallowed it down and voted Labour instead of a protest vote for the Lib Dems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

I bet some people were saying that about Labour in the 80's and are voting for them now.
So what if they have a radical change of direction?

I think it would need to be a radical swing to the left. Seeing as the tories have been the right wing party of this country for a couple of hundred years at least I would think it would be highly unlikely that they would do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

But it is popular with a lot of people.

I would imagine that in the current climate pro-Europe and pro-tax would be more unpopular than popular. In fact, I would imagine that people wold choose not to vote for the Lib Dems soley because of their pro-Europe stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Are you saying you can't see the Americans wanting to invade another country in the next 4 years?

I wouldn't rule it out but I think it's unlikely that they will invade anywhere if they are still tied up in Iraq. Where would they go? they won't go to Iran or N. Korea because they could actually fight back and there aren't a great number of countries which could/would be painted as a threat to our security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Blair is a Liar and Howard eats babies.

But Kennedy actually did have a drink problem and the tabloids, who treat the Lib Dems with a hell of a lot of disrespect anyway will make it an issue as well as continuing their childish potshots.

Marilyn Manson · 9 May 2005, 11:46

No. Blair should not step down immediately. He should wait until he loses the EU referendum vote, and then step down. Blair called it, he should deal with it, and if he (as I suspect he will) loses it, fall on his sword. There was a chance that the whole thing could have been abandoned if the French voted against, but that looks increasingly unlikely now. Frank Dobson and friends should shut up for the mo.

So I'd say the very latest he will be still PM is the back end of 2006. And rightly so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

He's been the most successful 'Labour' leader in history.

Harold Wilson was the most electorally successful Labour leader before Blair. Most people think of Wilson as a bit of a twat nowadays. Winning elections does not a positive historical legacy automatically make. (The opposite is also true; Churchill was abominable at elections and only won one of them during the time he was leader.) Blair will be judged by history almost solely on his performance in government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

Is there another candidate to take over other than Brown?

Baring the resurection of Kier Hardie, no.