The "Will Tony Blair last?" thread

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:06

I reckon he's toast if the resolution doesn't pass and since it looks today like it won't that means I reckon he's toast.

Always hated the guy, especially because he pretends to support my football team.

Shi Huangdi · March 10, 2003, 17:16

Blair will stay, and by 2006 Iraq won't be an issue anymore.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:19

I tend to be in agreement with this guy that the source of the protest is in a large part a failure of democratic accountability rather than mere peace protesting. In this way it is connected to the other protests that have occurred over the past few years (none of which I have attended)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...910881,00.html

Anyway, kudos will go to the person who can tell me where the "doomed" quote comes from.

Barley · March 10, 2003, 17:20

Yes I wouldnt want to be in his shoes. Should of held his cards tighter to his chest and listened to those that ellected him. I can understand he's trying to do the right thing but its just Iraq aint got no WMD (well we are yet to see the evidence).

There is a way out and its the way I hope he takes. No 2nd resolution, no British backing for a US led coalition (of them alone) strike.

We'll see what the Red Neck Bush does then, does he want to go slaughter the Iraq's on his own (well guess he'll do the same as any other school bully).

I hope Tony finds a suitable apt climb down.

Arrian · March 10, 2003, 17:22

It depends on whether or not his party is willing to disown him. If labor is willing to toss him out and go with new leadership, yeah, he could well be toast.

But what do I know? I'm just an American.

-Arrian

Shi Huangdi · March 10, 2003, 17:24

An amendment proposed in Parliament demanding more time be given failed recently.

Switch · March 10, 2003, 17:25

From what I've heard (on Canadian news, so it has come credability), a lot of the British are hating Blair right now. I would think he will lose the next election, though perhaps have some sort of position in the parliament.

Unless he goes Mike Harris on us and, against all odds, wins the election

Or, go Dubaya on us and win the election despite what simple addition would tell us

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:26

Because the Tories supported it. A vote of confidence in the Government's handling of its own policy also passed, again because the Tories supported it. There was a huge rebellion among Labour backbenchers which was apparently only the tip of the iceberg: most were waiting to see what happened at the UN.

Unfortunately for Blair the Tories won't be able to help him in his own caucus, which is where a leadership vote would take place.

Shi Huangdi · March 10, 2003, 17:29

Blair also a won a majority of Labour MP votes as well though.

Dauphin · March 10, 2003, 17:29

Blair won't be thrown out by his party, and he won't lose the next election.

Imran Siddiqui · March 10, 2003, 17:30

Who else is there?

Therefore Blair stays on. He wins by default.

The Viceroy · March 10, 2003, 17:31

Where is the alternative ?????

British politicians (when it comes to it) only care about one thing, re-election !!! It is no suprise that the politicians in rock-solid labour seats (seats that were even when Michael Foot was leader) feel they can say and do as they wish. But the bulk of the Labour party will be looking to the next election. There is no opposition, no credible alternative ..

Regardless what Anti-War protestors say, there's is not the majority opinion, and even if there were who would they realistically vote for ???

Tony Blair is certainly in for a torrid time, but unless the war really goes belly-up, he will sail through the occational storm to victory in the next election, because its like a football match where the opposition fail to turn up.

On a personal note, if the Labout party ever got Rid of Tony Blair, they would turn me, a life long Labour supporter to the Conservatives, and that is saying something. I could not vote for a party that refuses to help our allies in their time of need.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Blair also a won a majority of Labour MP votes as well though.

Because many of the critics held their peace until the UN vote. Things have gotten a lot worse since then.

Anyway, here's my idea of a protest from my own countrymen when John Howard visited this week:

Quote:

Greenpeace made one of the most visible anti-war statements of Mr Howard's visit, putting an Uncle Sam hat on top of the giant Gollum statue at the Embassy Theatre and dangling a puppet of Mr Howard from his fingers.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Regardless what Anti-War protestors say, there's is not the majority opinion

Looked at a poll lately?

Dis · March 10, 2003, 17:38

I'm not sure what you mean by toast.

He is an elected official. He will finish his term out. I doubt he will get re-elected if he can run again though. Same with Bush.

Sandman · March 10, 2003, 17:40

If he doesn't get the second UN resolution, then I think that he will resign, or be removed from office.

If it's simply vetoed, then he might be able hang on.

SlowwHand · March 10, 2003, 17:41

Once Hussein is spanked and put away, the whiners will act like they were on board the train the whole time.
The little roaches.

Dis · March 10, 2003, 17:42

The Viceroy · March 10, 2003, 17:42

Agathon,

Ive seen no poll indicating a majority of people against action against Saddam ! (Unless you read the Mirror).

Ive seen polls swing too and throw .. heck, one poll even said 68% of people supported getting rid of Saddam by force .. and I don't believe that either.

I think there are a huge multitude of feelings, stretching from NO WAR EVER to REMOVE HIM NOW ! .. To try to suggest that a few polls of a few thousand people represents a majority is simply incorrect.

No one opinion on this has the majority backing, NO WAR EVER just as much as REMOVE HIM NOW ..

At the end of the day, such is the spread of feeling, you could phrase any question and get any result you fancy.. thank God our government takes no notice of daft polls

The Viceroy · March 10, 2003, 17:44

Blair will NEVER resign !!! Not unless a war went very very baddly.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:47

Dissident: He's an elected member of parliament and he can't be thrown out of his seat in the House until the next election (unless he does something really evil like trying to rape the Queen: and who in their right mind would do that).

However, Prime Minister is not an elected office in its own right like the US Presidency is. The British Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons. Party leadership is determined by the sitting members of the party. So if the majority of sitting members decide they don't like the leader and want to replace him, he's toast.

However, what usually happens is that they tell him he's out and give him the opportunity to resign and save face. New Zealand uses the same system and there have been two Prime Ministers dumped out of office in the last 15 years - Thatcher was also dumped like this.

If you already knew this, I apologise. But I don't understand your comment if that is the case.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Agathon,

Ive seen no poll indicating a majority of people against action against Saddam ! (Unless you read the Mirror).

The constant polling we get here from so called pro-war sources like CNN have about 66% against a war without UN backing; and that is the low end. I've seen it up to 85%. Opinion against a war for whatever reason has been going up too, but I don't think it is over 50%.

In Spain it is even worse, although I don't know how their system works and if Aznar can be dumped.

Dis · March 10, 2003, 17:52

thanks. I wasn't sure of the details of the political system over there.

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Once Hussein is spanked and put away, the whiners will act like they were on board the train the whole time.
The little roaches.

So, how's Afghanistan doing? Whipped them warlords yet?

CerberusIV · March 11, 2003, 06:42

If there is a quick and successful war Tony Blair is safe. If it seems there is a high economic or human cost to the UK then he is in trouble. I suspect he will get away with it this time.

The ones who should really worry are the French politicians who will be blamed for taking down the UN if they veto a majority vote as the consequences of that would hurt France for a long time, both inside and outside europe.

Incidentally I noticed on TV this morning that the first contract for rebuilding work in Iraq after the war has been awarded to a US company (possibly one **** Cheney used to be involved with). I am only surprised this hasn't been agreed sooner. Dubya had better throw Tony a few crumbs like this kind of contract for British companies to ease the situation.

Edit: yes Apolyton won't allow Cheney's first name

Ramo · March 11, 2003, 07:12

Blair'll go down just like Maggie and her poll taxes did.

The Viceroy · March 11, 2003, 08:25

Agathon,

Sorry, don't do CNN ..

The BBC do regular polls, in fact, as I was writing the last comment, they had a poll at 53% 47% against war ..

I was not trying to say there was a majority for it, not at all, I was trying to say that there is such a broad spread of feeling, that there really is no majority for or against action.

The devil is in the detail .. what KIND of action, and the question can affect the poll.

Even so, I maintain, Tony Blair is under no threat.. the only people calling for his job, are the people who always wanted him out.

If things go dreadfully wrong, and he waivers, then certainly, that would put him in difficulty, but I simply do not see it happening.

When the pictures of British and American troops come in, liberating Iraqi towns and cities, and the people welcoming them with open arms .. this whole "Stop the War" stuff will die a death.. and Tony Blair will appear a hero.. and talk of him losing the leadership or being challenged will appear ammusing.

Solly · March 11, 2003, 08:28

Exactly.

And who exactly is going to take over, Clare Short?

Dauphin · March 11, 2003, 08:29

The MPs who are showing most discontent are the fring cabinet ministers and/or their aides.

Who cares about Clare Short, Margaret Becket or Robin Cook.

I was in the same A-level economics class as Clare Short's nephew. He got so much stick given the class was almost entirely full of conservatives. Although the Tories lost power in a landslide election a month before our last class. So he had revenge.

Spiffor · March 11, 2003, 11:11

I wonder why the Brits here are minimizing the threat on Blair so much. I agree Blair has a good chance of remaining in power, if he gets the support of the conservatives, but party politics from the tories, or a full fledged rebellion from the parts of the Labour he didn't locked yet, might end up ousting him.

Blair must act with caution, and this caution is motivated by the looming political crisis. Otherwise, Blair wouldn't try to push back the vote of the 2nd resolution, to get a majority in the UN.

I've read today the war would be supported by 75% of the population if it gets UN approval, but only 15% support if the UN didn't agree with it. That's a huge gap, and Blair should try to avoid such an opposition at all costs. Otherwise, the PMs (conservatives included) might think they'd have everything to win by ousting him.

Parties would have no trouble finding a new leader. Bush jr. showed us a party can pretend to have a great Statesman with about any ~~cretin~~ person, and that a population can be led to believe it.