The Blair out thread

[Agathon]

Well, Tony Blair seems to be well on the defensive after today's events at the UN. A large majority of his own people are against his policy on Iraq and tomorrow he faces what may well be the largest public demonstration in British history (1/2 million plus) in London, as well as an estimate of 25,000 demonstrators waiting to ambush him in Glasgow. If there were a public vote of no confidence in Blair's leadership today, it seems quite clear to me that he would lose badly. Another reason his leadership is so precarious is that the Labour party faces no credible challenge from either the Lib Dems or the Tories (who are really a joke party now), so that getting rid of him would be not be the kiss of death to Labour's chances in the next election.

So the question for all you Brits and non-Brits (I'm a Brit: I have dual citizenship of NZ and the UK) is, do you think there is a realistic prospect Blair being dumped by his own party, because he has become such an absolute liability as far as public opinion goes? After all, lots of other Labour MPs must be dying for the chance to be PM and this seems like their big chance to get ahead.

Secondly, who would you rather have?

[Note: the answer "Neil Kinnock" to question (2) is prohibited.]


For my part I think he should go, but I have no idea who to replace him with (perhaps this is an argument for keeping him).

[DinoDoc]

Secondly, who would you rather have?

The Tories.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Secondly, who would you rather have?

The Tories.

Realistic answers only, please.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Realistic answers only, please.

What would be the difference? Blair is only a more appealing version of the Iron Lady Brits seem to play act at hating.

[Seneca]

An interesting question.

I don't think there would be anything inconsistent about withdrawing support from the US because of a failure to gain a UN resolution. After all, he has stated publicly that he would only go to war unilaterally in the event of a 'capricious' veto. He may look silly backing down now, but he's looked silly before and survived, and it is after all what most people want him to do.

Ignoring a UN resolution, when he has publicly stated he won't (except for the 'capricious veto' scenario), would however be a disaster, and would lose him the last shred of support he has amongst the British left, amongst those who hoped against hope there might be some sort of cunning plan involved in his otherwise mystifying support for Bush.

[Agathon]

Withdrawing support from the US would be disastrous for Blair in his relationship with that country. I'd wager that a Britain that backed out with Blair would be in a worse position diplomatically than one that backed out without him, since his history would count against him in addition.

I think he's gone too far with the British people to save himself. When a leader is publicly ridiculed by the regular supporters of his own party (did you see him being called "the MP for Texas North" on the Beeb?) there is something seriously wrong. Anyway, how could he back out now without looking thoroughly venal?

[Seneca]

Easy - just say that he thinks we should do it, but the UN disagrees so we can't. He'd restore at least some cachet by appearing to take international law seriously.

[Seneca]

And I think it would even more of a diplomatic disaster for Bush - if he can't even keep the UK as an ally, then he truly will be seen as the worst diplomat since Genghis Khan. Which is a huge bargaining chip for Blair.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Seneca
..., then he truly will be seen as the worst diplomat since Genghis Khan.

I got a real kick out of that.

Oh, and cheers to Ming for officially sanctioning this thread.

[Worthingtons]

The Tories should come back, and Impose a ban on elections for another 100 hundred years to stop Labour coming back in my lifetime.

[Seneca]

strange person

[Seneca]

As regards Blair's domestic position, I'd say it's far from irredeemible - his personal ratings even now are some way off the depths of Thatcher's in 81/82, and the party ratings only look bad by comparison with the last ten years - by historical standards they're almost inconceivable at this stage in a second term.

Plus the sheer hatred that Thatcher engendered doesn't yet exist, although the whole war thing may not rule it out in coming months.

It's not beyond Blair's wit to engineer a nifty escape from this scenario.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ya'll should bring back Thatcher...

[Lancer]

Blair is a leader. Politicos who study the polls and act accordingly are mere followers in leadership positions. GB is blessed with a leader, but the people want a follower. That says more about the people than the leader.

Blair and Bush will prosecute this war, and history will judge them as it will, but they don't seem to care, because they BELIEVE in what they do.

Leadership!

[Seneca]

Leadership comes from the UN - if they ignore its resolutions they are naughty rebels.