Blair and Chirac out; Brown and Sarkozy in - predictions?

[jeff]

Changing of the guard in :London and Paris - now what?

[fencerbill]

The British will continue to speak English, so they claim, and the French will continue to speak French.

[sionnach]

It's rumoured that Gordon Brown, Blair's replacement, will adopt a noticeably less favourable stance with Bush, should ensure an instant boost in his popularity upon assuming power.

[jeff]

That seems likely (and also that Brown will put more of the economy in the public sector... watch the tax rates!) to be partially offset by Sarkozy, who will be anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush, but far more pro-USA than his predecessor.

[sionnach]

Yeah, I guess predicting a European leader to be anti-Bush is fairly redundant at this stage as everyone this side of the Atlantic loathes him. I agree that Sarko will be more pro USA, he's a pragmatist and #1 on the agenda is tackling the unemployment rate, he'll definitely be courting US trade.

[Gav]

It looks to me that you are all pretty ignorant of UK politics - and that is hardly surprising considering your locations! Brown is just as much of a "New Labour" person as Blair. And was responsible for some of the policies Blair enacted. To say that he is more likely to take some services back into public ownership is pretty far of the mark - and extremely unlikely. There are some cases where this would be a very good idea but i cannot see it happen. Brown will be reliant on the SE England vote and they will not go for it.

To be an effective leader Brown needs to be himself and not even bother trying to outdo Blair. I don't think he or his advisers are savvy enough to grasp that. Not only that but the UK is fed up with reforms and constant changes to services and we are now reaching the point where people would like to see a period of stability.

The media hysteria in the UK has reached such point that some people are saying that he cannot be PM becuase, get this, He is Scottish. However, my friends from across the pond need to realise that what the media is probably telling you is probably very far from what us ordinary brits want.

It remains to be seen if a Brown PMship will in fact lead to any significant changs. My money would go in the No box.

Will Brown be any more anti-Bush. I think that answer to that will be yes (certainly in public). That is the mood of the country and it would be an easy step for Brown to take to demonstrate that he is wholly different from Blair.

Not only that but surely Bush's influence is on the wane? isn't Congress now balanced against him? I may be showing my own parochial ignorance of US politics but aren't we are approaching the end of Bush's final term and surely everyone is looking to whoever will succeed in him in the next round of US elections.

[sionnach]

Originally Posted by Gav

It looks to me that you are all pretty ignorant of UK politics - and that is hardly surprising considering your locations!

I'm hardly that far away!

Originally Posted by Gav

Brown is just as much of a "New Labour" person as Blair. And was responsible for some of the policies Blair enacted. To say that he is more likely to take some services back into public ownership is pretty far of the mark - and extremely unlikely. There are some cases where this would be a very good idea but i cannot see it happen. Brown will be reliant on the SE England vote and they will not go for it.

I agree, he has been one of the most powerful chancellor of the exchequers in recent times and I can't see economic policy changing too much when he becomes PM.

Originally Posted by Gav

The media hysteria in the UK has reached such point that some people are saying that he cannot be PM becuase, get this, He is Scottish. However, my friends from across the pond need to realise that what the media is probably telling you is probably very far from what us ordinary brits want.

Yes, it's a bit ridiculous and just looks like a ploy by tabloids to squeeze some sort of lively story out of a dull changeover between two similar people. However I'll bet there are more than a few people moaning about stereotypical tight-fisted scots and all those stealth taxes he brought in

Originally Posted by Gav

It remains to be seen if a Brown PMship will in fact lead to any significant changs. My money would go in the No box.

Me too, he's already been so influential in current policy that I can't see much changing. He has to introduce some sort of significant change though if he wants his premiership to survive the next election given how terribly Labour did in the recent local elections.

A lot of people are clamouring for a general election to avoid having a PM that was "snuck in the back door" but I don't know if it's a case of a vocal minority against a silent majority.

[jeff]

Gav, I'm not as ignorant of UK politics as you think, location or not (perhaps I'll toss that line back at you if you comment on the US, eh?). I even know about when Brown stated how he loved listening to the Arctic Monkeys but couldn't name any of their songs...

My point wasn't that he was going to renationalize any industries, but that he would continue to grow the public sector portion of the GDP - such as the number of jobs in governmental agencies - and raise the tax burden by so doing. As Chancellor he was the architect of the Blair period's economic policy, but even discounting Iraq, there was a lot more to Blair's policies: Ireland, self-government in Scotland and Wales, and politically, the remaking of Labour into New Labour by repudiation of its left wing, Also, Gordon's personality is quite different from the flashy and articulate (and some say spinmeister) Tony. That should be quite a contrast. For Iraq itself, that was consistent with Blair's policy of liberal intervention as shown with Afghanistan and putting a stop to Milosevic. That it came a cropper with Iraq means that this kind of interventionism is kaput for years to come

On the political side: The business where the PM can step down and hand #10 over to successor looks very weird from this side of the pond. Not unprecedented in UK, but something that Cameron and the Tories will pound on as an undemocratic change in government. That Labour took a thumping in Scotland in the recent elections can't look good when the incoming PM is Scottish.

Yes, Gav - we're already well into the political season here that will run up to the next elections. Unfortunately, our election cycle runs very long, and we have to put up with the posturing and attacks (and little of substance) for quite a long time.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by jeff

Changing of the guard in :London and Paris - now what?

I know next to nothing about the people who are coming and going. The bits and pieces reported in the US newspapers -- even solid ones like the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal -- are barely sufficient to give basic surface knowledge of their policies, politics and plans. I have no idea whether they'd be effective, to what extent they reflect their countries' polities, and (most importantly of all) what it means to my country's interests.

I understand that the UK is governed by the Labor party. In the US, Labor with a capital L = the Mafia, inefficiency, corruption, socialism and dead weight. But Tony Blair is reported as being akin to our Republicans, so perhaps Labor means something different over there. But I'd hazard a guess that the next P.M. will continue doing whatever it is the Labor party does.

I understand that France has a President as well as a Prime Minister. The new President is supposed to be less of a Socialist, and more of a realist about how to get France back on track. But his Prime Minister is still M. Villepin, who doesn't seem to share that perspective. So I don't know how much the new guy will be able to accomplish. And anyway, any reform will have to be done despite entrenched French cultural aversions to anything that might make them a stronger economy. I think they might just have to fall into a pit of their own making before they get their act together.

But, as all I know is what little I glean from the papers, I discount my understanding significantly, and heartily welcome enlightenment from those who know what they're talking about.

[Gav]

I understand that the UK is governed by the Labor party. In the US, Labor with a capital L = the Mafia, inefficiency, corruption, socialism and dead weight. But Tony Blair is reported as being akin to our Republicans, so perhaps Labor means something different over there. But I'd hazard a guess that the next P.M. will continue doing whatever it is the Labor party does.

Interesting.

It's New Labour by the way. I imagine the likes of Nye Beavan would be insulted to find out that people thought of New Labour as Labour (aka 'Old' Labour). Labour championed and implemented several policies which were significant and important moments of UK history - not least the nationalisation of the railways and the NHS (probably the most significant of all).

And thus the Labour party are completely different from the mafia.

The next PM will do what the Previous PM has done and what the PM before that and so on. Though the face changes nothing much has changed. The last truly radical PM was probably Margaret Thatcher - a woman almost universally despised where I come from.

But not in the South East of England.

[Gav]

Gav, I'm not as ignorant of UK politics as you think, location or not (perhaps I'll toss that line back at you if you comment on the US, eh?).

Shrug.

You may be better informed than the average person on this board. And feel free to toss the line back if you feel it appropriate. If I learn something new then I am willing to admit it.

but that he would continue to grow the public sector portion of the GDP

Remains to be seen.

There is a sea change in UK politics going on. Particularly here in Scotland. We live, as they say, in interesting tiomes.

As an aside...

People are starting to realise that there are things worth paying for and, at the same time, that short-termism is a bad idea. Whether we will see significant change in the near term ... I doubt it.

On the political side: The business where the PM can step down and hand #10 over to successor looks very weird from this side of the pond. Not unprecedented in UK, but something that Cameron and the Tories will pound on as an undemocratic change in government. That Labour took a thumping in Scotland in the recent elections can't look good when the incoming PM is Scottish.

Cameron et al would have a real cheek to insist upon this and they even know it. They are consistently being ripped up when they attempt to assert this.

As for whether people really care if the PM is Scottish... again I doubt it. The problem is more probably with jingoistic press who see a possible increase in their profits. They may create the problem that doesn't exist.

Labour's thumping has no bearing on the incoming PM being scottish - my point is that this is an artificial thing created in certain right-wing sections of the media.

I applaud Blair for what he has done - and what the tabloids continue to do - which is to make the ordinary Scot realise that westminster is as relevent to his wishes as the parliement of Tonga.

[jeff]

Now that we can proceed without the assumption of ignorance...

Agree that his being Scottish is a red herring, and the poor election results more about Labour's political standing than being personally about Gordon. Disagree that he'll reverse the economic policies he promoted as Chancellor - perhaps less accepted than previously up North, in which case he'll meet with resistance. Agree that the Conservative attempts to label as undemocratic are transparently political in nature rather than being actual concern for the democratic process. As I mentioned before, there's precedent for transition to a new PM without holding an election for it. As you say, interesting times.

What, nobody to opine about Sarko?.

[Gav]

What, nobody to opine about Sarko?

Sarko remains a virtual unknown outside of France. Until he becomes better known I think everyone will be sitting on the fence. I suspect that, as France is (politically) balanced on a knife edge, he will in the short term appear to be paralysed. His fight will be as uphill as Margaret Thatcher's. Whether he succeeds or not... well again no one will really know till we... ummm... know.

And also I think the jury is out on whether France actually wants his reforms.

I'll see if I can find a link to a Times editorial. The headline goes something like "How can the French get everything so wrong and yet get everything so right." All of the sneering that goes on outside of France ignores the basic fact that France is actually quite a great place. My french friends (i have a few) are some of the nicest chilled out people I know. Their work-life balance and quality is fantastic.
And yet at the same time I would not like to be young and born in (say) Paris... your chances of employment are poor. I would also not like to be an immigrant to France, again your prospects are poor.

But I also believe there is a cyclical nature to these things. France used to be a major powerhouse economy in Europe - not even that long ago. They will rebound at some point.

[Inquartata]

Certainly large demographic segments of France seem to want his ( economic ) reforms. The young working demographic specifically, and the over-60 demographic which remembers a France before socialism---their "greatest generation", in a phrase. Why else vote for him, unless you're just a misogynist?

The real question in my mind is: Will he in fact be able to advance any of them, given the multiparty system? Will he have to make so many concessions to minority parties in order to form a government ( so to speak ) that he is effectively shackled by them? If not, he may not be able to do much more than pay lip service to the idea of "closer ties to America".

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Gav

I applaud Blair for what he has done - and what the tabloids continue to do - which is to make the ordinary Scot realise that westminster is as relevent to his wishes as the parliement of Tonga.

Hasn't Scottish devolution- a parliamentary act passed by a Blair government in Westminster, been a significant fact in making westminister less relevant to the lives (wishes don't come into it) of Scots?

Is it also not the case that before that act, the Scots consistently voted for a Labour government but for years received a conservative one? For instance making westminster (and the poll tax for instance) unpleasantly relevant.

I think that Blair might well be proud of his legacy in terms of making westminster less relevant to the lives (if not wishes) of Scots.

I think the broader point you make (that westminister does not represent our wishes) would be felt by many south of the border.

[pigeonmeister]

I think another facinating issue to watch is Brown's potential relationship with his chancellor. With Brown a noted control freak who dominated the management of our economy for a decade, who would want to accept this role?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Hasn't Scottish devolution- a parliamentary act passed by a Blair government in Westminster, been a significant fact in making westminister less relevant to the lives (wishes don't come into it) of Scots?

There have been several opportunities for Unionists to find a way to make devolution work. To demonstrate how devolution could be better for the union - but they haven't. Blair's government implemented it but he is not going to be remembered for it. The policy was actually John Smith's anyway. And really PM I know you are smarter than this - we both know that the real power is still maintained in Westminster. A SE biased media (including the BBC) has consistently got its coverage of devolution wrong and that hasn't helpded the unionist cause either.

Is it also not the case that before that act, the Scots consistently voted for a Labour government but for years received a conservative one? For instance making westminster (and the poll tax for instance) unpleasantly relevant.

This is true but I would argue that the labour we eventually got was not the one we were actually voting for. I don't actually see what you are getting at. if you are implying something to do with Proportional Representation - I am not getting it.

I would continue to argue that Labour is not New Labour.

I think that Blair might well be proud of his legacy in terms of making westminster less relevant to the lives (if not wishes) of Scots.

I think the broader point you make (that westminister does not represent our wishes) would be felt by many south of the border.

In that case they should not vote for Labour, or the Tories for that matter, and attempt to get another party in. Even if that means you wind up with the Lib Dems. At least the Lib Dems stand for electoral reform... if for not much else (though their policy on federalism is a point that many unionists miss).

I also think that Brown is singularly failing to recapture any interest in Scotland - but then he possibly doesn't have to. He can still be voted in if manages to reclaim the Westminster core electorate in the South East.

[pigeonmeister]

In terms of big decisions such as declining the Euro or going to war in Iraq of course. But is the war anymore popular in Birmingham than Edinburgh? If your point is that whatever Scots want is not represented in Westminster, my response is a) the Scottish parliament is very far from the powerless forum you describe. b) you consistent point that really only SE England's opinion is represented makes your argument unrestricted to just the Scots- but to most of England who do not have a local forum of equivalence to the SP c) TUITION fees- do you think most of England want these and yet Scots don't have to pay them because of their SP.

I'm saying that for years you got a govt that did not reprsent you and a govt you voted for that gave you more (and we can argue about the degree) representation. You should, in theory, dislike Blair less than much of England.

The leadership and policies no- but you don't vote for the leadership, you vote for the mp and there are plenty of Labour mps. If you do vote for just a party- you vote for its manifesto which you are free to characterise as you like but it is published before you vote for them. And if you credit John Smith (as many do) for 1997 victory then what does that make him?

You cannot win a general election by just winning the SE, I don't see why you keep making this assumption.

At the last election there were 22.3 million registered voters in the South East region and 21.9 million in the North West area. But despite having 400,000 less voters, the North West is represented by 337 MPs nearly 10% more than 308 MPs that represent the South East corner. To put it another way the average constituency size in the North West was 65,000 compared with 72,000 in the South East.

As you know I am not from the SE, nor have I ever lived there. But if you moan about their influence look at their representation then see above. If you look at their contribution then may I remind you that London, the South-east and East Anglia in 2004/05 generated a budget surplus of £30bn, while the rest of the UK ran a deficit of £58bn. Per head Londoners made a net fiscal contribution per head of £1,740, while the net transfers to Scotland was £2,120 per head, to the North-East of England £2,590 per person, to Wales £2,870 and Northern Ireland £3,720.

[Gav]

You cannot win a general election by just winning the SE, I don't see why you keep making this assumption.

At the last election there were 22.3 million registered voters in the South East region and 21.9 million in the North West area. But despite having 400,000 less voters, the North West is represented by 337 MPs nearly 10% more than 308 MPs that represent the South East corner. To put it another way the average constituency size in the North West was 65,000 compared with 72,000 in the South East.

As you know I am not from the SE, nor have I ever lived there. But if you moan about their influence look at their representation then see above. If you look at their contribution then may I remind you that London, the South-east and East Anglia in 2004/05 generated a budget surplus of £30bn, while the rest of the UK ran a deficit of £58bn. Per head Londoners made a net fiscal contribution per head of £1,740, while the net transfers to Scotland was £2,120 per head, to the North-East of England £2,590 per person, to Wales £2,870 and Northern Ireland £3,720.

The largest single voting bloc is in the SE. Win that and you are heading in the right direction. After that you just need to win enough - just enough - to gain the right number of seats.

No - you cannot win with the SE alone - i never said that.

And as for your comments about economics. If people's attitudes about devolution, or even independence, were purely about economics then we might not be having this discussion. If Scotland is such a burden on England - then cut it free.

However that is not the case.

Because of the way you structured you post it is difficult for me to answer you in the right order.

I never said that the devolved parliament was completely powerless - just that you and I recognise that the big political power still resides in Westminster.

As for b) - don't twist my words to mean something that they don't. Whether you like it or not the media in the UK is completely biased towards the SE - in particular towards London.

As for C) Perhaps the electorate in England should have been more involved in that. There is an argument that these fees will eventually make Scotland's universities 3rd rate (if they aren't already). And then will it matter? In addition some people are unhappy that there are students coming from the South "taking our free tuition". Not me. It remains to be seen what the long term effects of tuition fees are. I was lucky - I got to have a grant.

In addition I am fully in favour of devolved parliaments, with the correct powers, throughout the UK. Or perhaps you chose to ignore my point re' the Lib Dems Federal constitution? Do you think that I, sitting here in Edinburgh ,would be upset if the English got a different parliament? Or if the regions got their own devolved bodies? Don't be absurd.

There was a botched attempt for that in the North East - but it was voted down (and the vote seemed to have been structured just so that would happen). Personally I think that was a serious opportunity lost to the North East.

[sreckiki]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

(...) But his Prime Minister is still M. Villepin, who doesn't seem to share that perspective. (...)

Where did you read that Villepin was still Prime Minister? Of course Sarko has a new PM, Francois Fillon (the guy who tried to reform the retirement system). ?(OK, maybe at the time of your post, we did not have a PM yet but Sarko was not officialy president neither so that's why Villepin was still PM).

It looks like our new president wants to be a more active president. By the past, the president was just giving direction and the PM was actually doing the job (... and was getting fired if something was going wrong). Now, Sarko is more like a PM-President and Fillon a sub-PM. We'll see.

But you're right, Sarko looks far less social(ist) than was Chirac. Regarding the situation in France today, I don't know if it is bad or wrong. Again, wait and see.