Will Tony Blair change his mind?

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is an interesting opinion (http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/bruce_anderson/article2328773.ece) piece for those of us interested in the struggle for power in Britain.

Gordon Brown seems to be fading from his position as heir apparent. I don't know any of my British friends who think he can win the next general election - and several are Labour voters. David Milliband seems to think no-one can win the next election for New Labour, and that the sensible thing to do would be to stay quiet until Brown gets humiliated by the electorate and he can step in as the new New Labourite in opposition.

Yet the columnist posits another possibility - that Blair regrets his decision and might be persuaded to stay on. There has been no popular acclaim for Brown and he's looking wounded - might the PM change his mind? If he did, could he win the next election? - despite his record, he is still a formidable campaigner, and the Tories really ought to be 20 points ahead given his woes.

Bruce Anderson: Gordon Brown's fortunes are ebbing away

Milburn and Clarke speak for many Labour MPs who are afraid that he will not click with the voters
Published: 05 March 2007

The Labour Party leadership race is a bullfight without a matador. The Brown bull is charging around the ring becoming angrier and angrier, as well he might, because every few minutes a banderillero rushes in, flings a dart at him and then runs away, too fast to be gored and eviscerated. We can be certain of one thing. If a challenger does appear, it will be a cracking contest. No bull has ever been so taunted and maddened.

Political parties which lose confidence in their leader or his heir presumptive have a difficulty. They cannot keep their worries to themselves. The confessional rapidly turns into a recording studio and the electorate listens in. Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have been hoping to raise doubts about Gordon Brown without supplying the Tories with too much quotable material (Mr Clarke had already done that). But neither man is designed to be a tightrope walker. They can only celebrate their good fortune. Gordon Brown is not yet in charge of the safety net.

Disregard the talk of new visions for 2020. Trying to work out what Messrs Clarke and Milburn mean by policies is like trying to carry water in a sieve. But none of this is about policy. It is about personality: Gordon Brown's personality. Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn are speaking for a lot of Labour MPs who are afraid that Mr Brown will not click with the voters. He will clunk with them, and they will clunk back.

It is still probable that Gordon Brown will become PM. But one fear ought to be gnawing at his vitals. Where are his troops? Why have the airwaves not been inundated by Brownites, contemptuously dismissing the carpers while urging their fellow MPs to line the route for the coronation? Although David Miliband may be some way off commanding a majority of Labour MPs, he has the enthusiasts. The 50th Milibandite hopping for a chance to sign up to his campaign is far more motivated than the 50th Brownite muttering that he supposes it has to be Gordon. Last September's Brownite coup has turned into this March's collapsed soufflé.

David Miliband must feel flattered, and alarmed. Two months ago, I am told, he regarded a leadership bid as an amusing dream, which would instantly become a nightmare if he tried to turn it into reality. That was then, long before the recent polls. Although Mr Miliband is not at all arrogant, it cannot be easy to retain your humility when so many colleagues are pressing you to have a crack at the premiership.

Immediately after the Tory leadership contest in 1990, Douglas Hurd mused he had never really thought he could win. But a number of people whom he respected had urged him to stand. He decided that if he did not have a go, he would regret it later. If Mr Miliband did run, he would do a lot better than Douglas Hurd did. Then again, Gordon Brown would not emulate John Major's effortless generosity towards defeated rivals.

So what are they making of all this, next door in Number 10? At present, Tony Blair seems more interested in adding new American billionaires to his Rolodex. On one point, we can be certain. Amid all the talk of legacies and saving the planet, Mr Blair has one goal at the forefront of his plans. He is determined that after leaving Downing Street, he will make more money than any previous prime minister.

So he will, just as long as Scotland Yard does not inconvenience him. Then again, let us assume the PM does avoid serious embarrassment at the hands of Commander Yates. Tony Blair is young. There are reports that he regrets committing himself to leaving office. It cannot be long before some Labour MP goes public to beg him to reconsider.

One Labour backbencher made an interesting comment last week. He asked me what would have happened if Bill Clinton had been able to run again in 2000. I said that he would have won. If Al Gore came that close, Clinton would surely have done better. "Precisely,'' came the reply. "But we don't have term limits. So why are we swapping Clinton for Gore?''

I doubt if there is a way back for Mr Blair. The Labour MPs who regard him as an alien implant - GM Labour - are far more numerous than the ones who respect his election- winning record. But everything is unstable; everyone is uneasy. Outside the inner Brownite tribe, there seems to be little confidence. Where there is no way forward, the way back has its attractions.

It is hard to know what Gordon Brown could do to make himself an attraction. There is a Budget in two weeks' time. There is no money to spend. No doubt the Chancellor will be up to his usual game of re-announcing spending increases which he has announced several times already. These days, however, everyone is aware of the tricks. The commentators will rush to the small print to deconstruct the Budget, exposing the double and treble counting, the quadruple and quintuple announcing - plus, no doubt, the new stealth tax increases which Mr Brown somehow forgets to mention in his speech.

Yet the Budget will go less badly for him than the Scottish elections. Labour will suffer, and it will be impossible for Gordon Brown to disassociate himself from the defeat. Many English voters will conclude that if his fellow Scots do not believe in him, why should they?

Even so, there is still no matador in sight. But it is worth remembering that the bull never survives the bullfight.

[English assassin]

If we overlook the fact that its Bruce Anderson and therefore automatically suspect.

Its clear, I think, that Brown as PM will deliver no better a result for labour at the polls than Blair. (I have to say I disagree that Blair is a particularly formidable campaigner, Clinton he ain't) In which case it must be credible that Blair will ask himself, well, why go? Especially as "the legacy" is non existent.

The only answer I can see is that we REALLY want Blair to go. The fact that we don't want the alternatives does not detract from the fact that we want Blair out. After all, no one was gagging to have John Major as PM in 1990, but we got him, and he went on to win a tricky election against a newly confident labour party.

Which was of course a huge disaster for the party.

That said Brown vs Cameron might not even be funny. Cameron is, after all, the Tory Blair (the second Tory Blair, to be accurate. I described Cameron as Blair Mk 2 to a friend of mine who is an old communist, and he remarked bitterly, yes, well its all right for you, at least you EXPECT to have a Tory as the leader of your party.)

Seriously, my wife says she would never vote for Brown because he is so grumpy. (Women, eh. :inquisitive: 50% of the electorate too. ) She thinks Cameron is phoney but still prefers him.

I'm telling you, I think Posh is back.

[Scurvy]

Its becoming a bit of a hopeless situation for labour, Blair is hugely unpopular, and his own party won't let him stay on too much longer, even if he wanted too,

Brown is too much associated with Blair, and does'nt really come over all that well to a media-fed electorate, that said, i think he would be an improvement over Blair... It might be that he is not as good as Blair at poll-winning, but the knowledge that Blair is leaving might raise labour's support overall anyway...

Cameron is very similar to Blair, but its worth waiting until he actually announces some "substance" and policies before making that judgment, it may well be that he is more Tory than he makes out, and is attempting to take the centre ground in an attempt gain votes from the lib-dems and labour, through temporarily moderating his views...

I honestly think an in=party election for pm would be a disaster for labour, Brown would win, but the party would potentially fall apart.... no other Labour politician has the power, experience, or support to beat him, but could damage the apry image by trying...

If i was Conservative, i'd be wanting Blair to stay on for as long as possible, because as long as he is around they are loosing popularity...

:2thumbsup:

[InsaneApache]

So, if Gordy did the Jade Goody 'workout' he'd be a shoe in? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[IrishArmenian]

Will Tony Blair finally realise his strangle hold on the UK is slipping away and his time is at an end, therefore releasing the whole of Britain from the American Lap Dog status?

















































































Sadly, no.

[ShadeHonestus]

How long does a British farewell tour take anyways?

[lars573]

As long as he wants. Or until the Labour party caucus tosses him out. Which is what happened to "the iron lady" about 20 years ago. There are no hard and fast rules about this sort of thing. Particularly in the mother country. Where everything functions on tradition.


But I must ask. How does the official selection of a new party leader function in Britain? Will the labours conviene a leadership convention and make a big show of electing a new leader?


An opinion piece on the exit of Blair.
Tony Blair’s curious finale

SILVER DONALD CAMERON



PITY TONY BLAIR. These days, even when he tries to do something positive, it turns out badly.

For example, Blair instituted a website where citizens could contact his office directly. This shows the British PM as a populist, groovy and contemporary.

But then, having commissioned the Stern Report, which warned Sternly about global warming, Blair proposed a road tax to ease congestion and cut vehicle emissions by discouraging automobile use. The tax would reflect the number of kilometres people drove. Every vehicle’s movements would be tracked by satellite, and every owner would receive a bill at the end of the month. The tax might be as much as C$2 per kilometre for rush-hour driving.

BOOM! Irate motorists overwhelmed the PM’s website with 1.8 million e-mails. As my British friend Peter Bonsey wrote to me: "The objections to this scheme are so compelling that this dreadful government will almost certainly press ahead."

Cost aside, what were the objections?

Civil liberties and privacy, to start with. Britain already has a vast number of closed-circuit TV cameras spying on its citizens, and the government proposes to institute a national identity card. The idea that the government would also track every single movement of every single car is simply Orwellian.

Second, a tax-based scheme is immoral, because it would completely stop the poor from driving long before it forces the wealthy to cut back. Third, Britons see the new tax as a straightforward revenue grab — and because the government gets the money, the tax motivates the government not to reduce fuel use but to increase it.

There’s a better way to reduce fuel use, Bonsey says, and we’ll get to that. But I had just seen the Stephen Frears film The Queen, featuring Michael Sheen’s bright and sure-handed portrayal of the young Tony Blair. The movie reminded me that Blair has been a truly remarkable public figure.

A peacemaker in Ireland, the creator of the Welsh and Scottish assemblies, promoter of the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act, Blair has also eliminated the ban on gays in the armed forces and achieved legal recognition of gay partnerships. He has presided over a decade of British life as the first Labour prime minister ever to achieve three successive majority governments.

But now, as he approaches retirement, Blair’s legacy is deeply stained by a cash-for-honours scandal and by his eager support for the Americans in Iraq. Blair has also imposed stringent anti-terrorism laws that, together with his identity card and road tax proposals, place him in the unlovely posture of a Big Brother, prying endlessly into the private lives of British citizens.

The objectives of the road tax, Bonsey says, could be met much more simply and elegantly by using "a smart carbon card. The idea here is that every citizen who is of an age to be allowed a driving licence, and whether or not they hold one, is given a road fuel allowance each year. When you go to the petrol pump, you insert your card, which confirms you have some ration left, and then you buy and pay for the fuel in the usual way."

In effect, this is fuel rationing. If you want to drive a gas-guzzler, you may — but you won’t be able to drive it very far unless you buy carbon credits from someone else who isn’t using them. The scheme sets an absolute limit on fuel use for the country as a whole but allows the market to decide who uses the fuel. Those who conserve — by using public transit, for instance — will profit by selling their credits. Wastrels will pay heavily.

The government isn’t allowed anywhere near the scheme, Bonsey notes, so it will be seen as being honest.

"The government sets what it regards as the limit the environment can take and that amount cannot be exceeded because the permits don’t exist."

Other fuel uses — air travel, home heating and the like — could ultimately be handled the same way. Over time, governments could steadily cut fuel use and emissions just by reducing the total number of carbon credits they issue every year.

So I repeat what I said about pay-as-you-drive insurance. Honourable gentlemen and ladies in all our governments, including the Labour government of the United Kingdom, why don’t you stop postulating vast schemes to deal with climate change and devote a little attention to the pursuit of what’s possible?

Like pay-as-you-drive insurance, a smart carbon card could significantly mitigate the environmental damage we’re doing. Like PAYD, it doesn’t involve ideology and it doesn’t create unbearable hardships or windfall profits for governments or corporations. It rewards responsible behaviour and penalizes anti-social practices. And it can be done with the stroke of a pen.

What are we waiting for?

http://www.herald.ns.ca/NovaScotian/562599.html

[rory_20_uk]

Brown is known for a penchant for taxing everything and making the taxes as byzantine as possible. Loads of credits, discounts and forms.

He thinks and acts like a Civil Service Manderin, and is as electable. Who wants his mate in the Treasury screwing even more money out of everyone whilst he sits in number 10.

Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.

If we were Labour he'd be one reason I'd finally vote as although I am not thrilled with the prospects the Tories offer ANYTHING is better than him. At least the Tories will reduce the tax burden (I hope)

~:smoking:

[BDC]

Possibly I'm bieng harsh. The campaigns proper havn't started. Possibly there are many policies he'd instigate.

I don't think we need more of those. Maybe a consolidation parliament where the slightly more bizarre legislation is removed, and the other bits improved to the point it all works fairly well.

Then we can have another round of random changes without much thinking.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I hear Al Gore is looking for steady employment.....

[BDC]

I hear Al Gore is looking for steady employment.....
He'd be good.

No more good relations with America!

[ShadeHonestus]

He'd be good.

No more good relations with America!

Yeah, sugar daddies get old...

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think we need more of those. Maybe a consolidation parliament where the slightly more bizarre legislation is removed, and the other bits improved to the point it all works fairly well.

Then we can have another round of random changes without much thinking.

There should be a commission tasked with sorting out much of the crap in parliment (such as archaic laws).

I agree that action = good without thought to possible knock on effects. It seems that whoever "thinks" of policy forgets that the system's dynamic will react to the action - and the net result is not always for the better.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

On the Al Gore thingy. I know that the president of the US has to be a US citizen and not a naturalized one but is there any similar impediment in the UK to a foreigner becoming an MP and thus PM?

Back OT.

Somehow I wouldn't have spit my cornflakes out if I'd heard this morning that Blair would go on and on.....it's only the memory of what happed to Maggie that prompted this in the first instance.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On the Al Gore thingy. I know that the president of the US has to be a US citizen and not a naturalized one but is there any similar impediment in the UK to a foreigner becoming an MP and thus PM?

I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.

As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.

Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.

EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.

[Fisherking]

....... and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.



What? This is not a joke is it!:dizzy2: :wall:

[InsaneApache]

The Act of Settlement says that the Monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic. It seems that the PM can be one though. Tony is often to be found on bended knee, fumbling with his beads and muttering under his breath......and that's just in cabinet meetings! :laugh4:

[ShadeHonestus]

The Act of Settlement says that the Monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic. It seems that the PM can be one though. Tony is often to be found on bended knee, fumbling with his beads and muttering under his breath......and that's just in cabinet meetings! :laugh4:

Is that a homosexual reference?

[InsaneApache]

Is that a homosexual reference?

:inquisitive:

I didn't post it as one. Onanism does spring to mind though, now you mention it. :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.

As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.

Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.

EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.

Isn't Blair a catholic? :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Isn't Blair a catholic? :inquisitive:

No. His wife is and his children are being brought up in the faith, but he has not converted as yet.

[InsaneApache]

He also attends mass but can't partake of the sacrament, if that's the right word for it in the Roman Catholic church.

*Brought up an Anglican Catholic*

[econ21]

But I must ask. How does the official selection of a new party leader function in Britain? Will the labours conviene a leadership convention and make a big show of electing a new leader?


It varies by party. With Labour, I think candidates need 50 signatures from MPs and then the names are put to an "electoral college" - ie there is balloting among MPs, party members and Trade Unions, where each of the three parts get a share of a total vote (30:30:40 AFAIK). I may be wrong though. I would imagine the ballot would be synchronised with a party congress, so the new leader can be inaugurated to the acclaim of the party faithful.

[BDC]

It varies by party. With Labour, I think candidates need 50 signatures from MPs and then the names are put to an "electoral college" - ie there is balloting among MPs, party members and Trade Unions, where each of the three parts get a share of a total vote (30:30:40 AFAIK). I may be wrong though. I would imagine the ballot would be synchronised with a party congress, so the new leader can be inaugurated to the acclaim of the party faithful.
So basically the public will have no say on who will rule them, especially now Blair has crushed the power of Parliament. Go Britain!

[econ21]

So basically the public will have no say on who will rule them, especially now Blair has crushed the power of Parliament. Go Britain!

Oh phooey - the public vote in governments every 4-5 years, not whenever the "first among equals" steps down. I am not convinced directly electing a President is a better system, unless your family name is Bush or Clinton.

But then again, why don't we put the succession to a public vote - Big Brother style? Chantelle for teh win.

[caravel]

and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.
Satanist candidates are fine, just not catholics... :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Oh phooey - the public vote in governments every 4-5 years, not whenever the "first among equals" steps down. I am not convinced directly electing a President is a better system, unless your family name is Bush or Clinton.

But then again, why don't we put the succession to a public vote - Big Brother style? Chantelle for teh win.

Nope. Sorry you're wrong, Every fool knows that Jade Goody would walk it......woman of the people an' all that. :sweatdrop:

[econ21]

Every fool knows that Jade Goody would walk it......woman of the people an' all that. :sweatdrop:

Yep, and a bit later, the public mood would shift and she would be publicly crucified. Oh, wait, that's what's already happened with Tony Blair...

[lars573]

I don't think so. Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, but at a time when it was a Dominion, so that might not be a good example. A naturalised person may stand for election as an MP, so they ought to be able to then become PM.

As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.

Those more learned than I may be able to confirm or otherwise.

EDIT: On further research, there is no constitutional barrier to a catholic becoming prime minister - merely some awkwardness over the State functions of such a PM advising HM Queen on Anglican Bishops.
Canada is still a dominion. But it doesn't mean the same thing as back then. Now it means that we, the Auzzie's, Kiwi's, Jamacans, etc. Get a say as to wether Charlie gets the throne or not.



It varies by party. With Labour, I think candidates need 50 signatures from MPs and then the names are put to an "electoral college" - ie there is balloting among MPs, party members and Trade Unions, where each of the three parts get a share of a total vote (30:30:40 AFAIK). I may be wrong though. I would imagine the ballot would be synchronised with a party congress, so the new leader can be inaugurated to the acclaim of the party faithful.
Sounds familiar. Minus trade unions getting a vote. For us all party members get an equal vote.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As far as I know, the only current restrictions are that a hereditary peer must relinquish his title (to be able to stand for the Commons) and the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic.

Just to pluck this out for a moment, Hereditary Peers.

Consider, the traditional far to the commons is based on the "one man one vote" principle. Hereditary, and other peers, have the right to sit in the Lords and therefore cannot partake of elections of sit in the Commons.

Here's the thing, if I lost my seat in the Lords in the reforms I should be able to keep my family title but still vote in elections and sit in the Commons, otherwise you're denying me my human rights.

[econ21]

Sounds familiar. Minus trade unions getting a vote. For us all party members get an equal vote.

I think the Liberal Democrats and recently the Conservatives have one member one vote (although with the Tories, only the two candidates with the most MP votes are put on the ballot paper).

With the Labour Party, there was a fear that the party members might push the party too far to the left (perhaps not unlike the Conservative party members electing a mediocre right wing stiff - Ian Duncan-Holmes - as their leader at the first opportunity). Plus the affiliated trade unions still bankroll the party to some degree and of course created it about a 100 years ago. Trade unions are now required to ballot their members, so this will involve more of the public than just covering individual party members.

BTW: I was wrong about the 30:30:40 split - it's now a third each.

[lars573]

It seems here that most parties use a two round election. And the leadership convention is a 2-3 day event. Not sure how cadidates are chosen.