The Tony Blair thread

[Gav]

Ok, your chance to bash Bush's poodle.

What do you think of the man? Is he the spiritual successor to Thatcher - despite being of Labour persuasion? As I am a Brit' I am curious about other peoples attitudes to my *ahem* leader...

Notes (aka a quick guide to the UK politics scene):

• Use of the term Labour should be used loosely.
• UKIP are a bunch of xenophobic a*holes. I only mention them as it presents an opportunity to vent some spleen.
• The tories are the remnants of the old aristo ruling class. Boris Johnson aside (the lovable buffoon) they are not worth the effort of typing this sentence. Currently they have a vampire as leader.
• The Lib Dems are a nice bunch. They wear nice jumpers and say nice things. They probably eat nice food. Altogether too wholesome.
• The Scottish Nat's. Don't confuse with extreme nationalism. Left wing (although only recently moved to the left) social democraits. Possbily Scotlands leaders in waiting - now that Tony has pissed off the entire Scottish electorate.
• The Greens. Like the Lib Dems with an agenda. I hate the greens.
• I don't know enough about wales to pass comment.

[duel mom]

I understand that Blair can choose the timing of his running for re-election but that it has to be before fall of 2006. This is a big advantage for a candidate and it means not holding off doing unpopular things until after elections such as in the U.S.

When will Blair begin his campaign and do you think he will win.

[Gav]

I think it's touch and go for Blair being able to lead his part to victory. If he does win - remember we vote for Party [and strictly we vote for local MP's] not leader - it'll be because of the unpalatable option of having the Tories in. With a bit of luck the Tories will become even more marginalised and allow the the Lib Dems to become party number 2.

[Gav]

And before I forget there is a rumour of a spring election.

[jeff]

What's this business about Gordon Brown? Is he cranky because Blair promised to step down and give him the office? I keep reading about him being in a snit, but it's like coming into a movie after the first hour - I don't know what his grievance is about.

Blair reminds me of Clinton - he enraged the left wing of his own party and triangulated the Conservatives out of their position, who are further weakened by UKIP (Kilroy Silk does have excellent suits, though). Is UKIP really as bad as that? I thought the UK fascist organization was the BNP - or is UKIP their middle-class equivalent.

Michael Howard is a vampire? Why? (and what blood type?) What became of Iain Duncan Smith.

Oh, I do love UK politician names: Selwyn Gummer, IDS, Robert Kilroy-Silk....

[Robert (2)]

What's this business about Gordon Brown?

When Kinnock (leader until 92) stepped down John Smith became leader, the assumption being that Brown was likely to be next. However, despite numerous attempts to shake their left wing image (the expulsion of an internal group called 'militant' under Kinnock, and a reduction in Union voting power under Smith) people were still talking at the time as if Labour was unelectable. The radical solution is to put someone in charge who 'breaks the mold', and the obvious candidate was Tony Blair. To give you an idea of how minor Blair was he got only 2 hours of television time in the 1992 election (that's less than Gerald Kaufman, who was seen as a votes liability). But, and this is important, he was incredibly right wing by Labour standards (and at the time came across as a real piece of slime when interviewed - due credit they did a good makeover job when he became leader).

None of this should have mattered because in 1997 Major would have lost and John Smith would have won a land-slide and Gordon Brown would naturally have inherited at some point. But, Smith had a heart attack before the election. So against all the odds they had to elect a second leader. Now the party panicked and a small cadre of people started putting Tony Blairs name forward. The problem with this was that Brown had essentially protected and mentored Blair and there is believed to have been an unspoken agreement that Blair would back Brown for the leadership should the situation arise. Now, of course, that meant Blair would back Brown against somebody else, it had never even been considered that Blair might actually be a candidate.

Obviously Brown was furious. The two of them met for lunch (I think the restaurant was called Granitas, but I may have spelt that wrong, Gav?) and the deal that was supposedly struck was this: Brown would not stand and would back Blair (against Prescott and Becket, I think) for the good of the party, and in return Brown would be given unprecedented levels of power as Chancellor, and at some point (some Brown supporters claim 4 years) Blair would step down and Brown would become primeminister.

If that was the deal (and it is a reasonable supposition) then Blair backtracked. Not only has he constantly tried to encroach on areas that fall within Brown's remit (even leading to some quite childish spats over whether Blair is allowed to see the budget before Brown gives it) but of course he has not stood down, and though he recently suggested he would stand down in about 3 to 4 years he also appears to be grooming an alternative successor (Alan Milburn).

That anyway is the gist of the story so far.

Robert

Is UKIP really as bad as that?

No not really, they are just the xenephobic right of the conservative party (though I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one of them). All told they would probably look quite liberal compared to some of your republicans.

Michael Howard is a vampire? Why?

His family are from Transylvania (serious) and it fits his rather gaunt image and reputation when he was home secretary.

[jeff]

Robert - thanks for a very helpful and informative post. Now I get the Brown vs. Blair dispute. Could Brown be elected on his own or is that just his fantasy?

Also: is Britain going to drop out of the EU? Are they going to move to the Euro? (two different questions to guess about: I imagine no to both: stay in EU, but keep the pound)

cheers, Jeff

[Inquartata]

But what of the Very Silly Party?

[Gav]

In my opinion Blair has run out of steam. There is growing disquiet in the Labour party about him. He seems to be doing a "Maggie". He'll probably will have to be pushed instead of leaving quietly. I can't see Alan Milburn as leader - he's too faceless. Brown is popular with the voters and consequently I have him down as favourite to replace Blair. I would be more inclined to vote Labour if he was to become leader. despite my moaning that we in the UK vote in parties not leaders; whoever the leader is affects the style of the governement. Brown has the characteristics of a good scottish leader: more socialist then his boss, able to make tough decisions [and stick to them], has a voice outside of focus groups etc etc. As things stand I cannot bring myself to vote Labour. I coudn't vote Tory ... So at the moment my UK parliament vote is going to be either for Lib' Dem' or Scot' Nat'. It was a sad sad day when John Smith died. Probably the countries best leader that we never had.

As for the Tories. It says a LOT about them that they don't appear to be able to deal with the UKIP nutters and that Dracula is the best of the bunch. They would get lots more votes if they were to have Boris the Buffoon as leader.

As for the EU. I think the most likely scenario is that we remain part the EU but retain the pound. In all honesty I can't understand "our" attachment to the pound. To me all of this flag waving "the pound is great" fervour whipped up by the tabloid press is harmful to the UK's long term future. If we remain outside the Euro zone then I think it likely that, at some point in the future, we would be forced to join in a much weaker position than we are now. From a Scottish perspective, there is a lot of attraction in joining Europe as it's attitudes seem to more closely resemble our own (unlike our nearest neighbour). I don't think that anyone could seriously suggest that we leave europe altogether - apart from UKIP, who seem to be disentegrating as I type this.

[Louweasel]

Could Brown be elected on his own or is that just his fantasy?

Remember - we do not vote for Blair or Brown per se, unless they are the candidate for our constituency. For example, if you live in the constituency of Sedgefield, County Durham (north east) Blair is the local candidate.

The party members vote in their leader, and currently it is Blair - Brown would have to be voted in by labour party members. Nothing to do with the general public or members of other parties. Then, you vote for your local candidate of whichever party, bearing in mind what they personally will do for your area but also what their party will do for the country as a whole. The party who wins in the most constituencies comes to power. Whoever their leader is, is politely asked to be prime minister, by the Queen.

The concept of country-wide voting for one man is alien to us...

[Louweasel]

But what of the Very Silly Party?

Do you mean the Monster Raving Loony Party?

(It really exists. At least it used to?)

[Insipiens]

Excellent. The Brits hijack the Americans' politics sub-forum with their own thread and talk about all sorts of arcane stuff and disagree even more than the Americans!! I am going to enjoy this.

[Gav]

It was their idea (well Jeff's) ...

[Louweasel]

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone. I have just written down the sum total of my knowledge of politics.

[jeff]

Remember - we do not vote for Blair or Brown per se, unless they are the candidate for our constituency. For example, if you live in the constituency of Sedgefield, County Durham (north east) Blair is the local candidate. ...(snip!)... The party members vote in their leader, and currently it is Blair - Brown would have to be voted in by labour party members. (snip!)

Right, sorry - what I meant was if Brown really was a credible candidate for the top spot within Labour .

The concept of country-wide voting for one man is alien to us...

Some would say we're working on that concept over on this side of the pond, too!

cheers, Jeff

[jeff]

It was their idea (well Jeff's) ...

Well, it is nice to have a change, doncha think?

[Insipiens]

Aagh. What happened to my rant?! I thought I submitted it and I don't have the energy to do it all over again , so in summary:

Some people cannot believe why anybody ever believe a word Blair said.
Most of the Labour cabinet have not exactly shown themselves brilliantly competent although Gordon Brown is considered by some to have done so.
They had very favourable media coverage for most of the first term.

[Gav]

But what of the Very Silly Party?

Yeah, they still exist although they are much reduced since Lord Such died. I'm not sure that the armericans will get this but despite the name and manifesto they are a very serious party- at least they represent a real political option to those suffering from apathy. For a democratic process to be democratic, as many people as possible need to take part. If very few people vote then how can you say that you have a mandate? Anyway, I'm getting off track... the point is. Instead of spoiling your ballot or not voting then why not vote for the loony party? That's the idea.

[Insipiens]

One of the first policies advocated by Screaming Lord Such as head of the monster raving looney party was the abolition of licensing laws which prevented pubs from opening 24 hours (this would be back in the 60s).

The Labour party introduced a bill including such a provision just recently.

[Gav]

read about themhere