• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Blair to go?


British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Jan 28, 2005
Reaction score
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Political Leaning
The majority of the British electorate said before the election "We want Labour in power, but with it's wings clipped, Labour has become too arrogant, Iraq must never happen again."

The political pundits said clipping Labours wings was an impossibility because of Britian's system of voting.

Strange things happen in politics because this is what the electorate acheived.

Blair now has to "deal" his way through government, Blair isn't a "deal" sort of person. Political pundits and the bookies are wondering if he will last 2 years, let alone 4 or 5 years.

Given the wide spread Liberal propaganda against the Iraq war, it is amazing he even got re-elected. Just as with President Bush, there must have been a lot of people who privately supported Blairs actions.
Again the American election system and the British election system is different.

For lots of British voters it's Labour (socialist) vs Conservatives. It's been that way since WW1.

The Liberal Democrats are a quite a young party, that is gaining more and more seats every election, albeit slowly. The older generation still doesn't take the liberal democrats seriously - they have only known Labour vs conservative. The younger generation can only do so much.

Like I said the majority of the people wanted a Labour government despite the unhappiness over Iraq, for the following reasons.

1. No one (except the conservatives) wanted to wake up to a conservative government. Even the liberals would have prefered Blair to stay in power than the conservatives. Frankly the conservatives would have ruined the UK, and the cons would have still went to war with Iraq.

For example, in seats where it was labour vs conservative, liberals shifted their vote to Labour to stop the cons winning. Tactical voting.

2. The economy is pretty good, although reports in the last few days has stated the British economy is becoming stagnent. Labour has improved the country domestically in the past 8 years.

Concerning the popular vote:
Labour = -6%
Cons = +0.5%
Liberals = + 4%
Others = +1.5%

In Lib Dem vs Labour seats, political pundits were amazed to see on average a 9% swing from Labour to the Lib Dems. That's pretty god damned big in British politcs. A seat in Manchester had a 26% swing from Labour to Liberals!

Liberals didn't do so well in Lib Dem vs Conservative seat, I guess it's hard to convince right-wing people to go left. Lib Dems however only lost one seat in this battle, but they probably should have done better.

To say that Labour is in power because of some people supported the Iraq was is ludicrous - at best.
It appears the noose is around Blair's neck so to speak. Everyone in Britain is asking when he is goin to resign. He is in effect a lame duck Prime Minister.
This is from AOL news. Everyone knows I'm against the Iraq war, but I say this unbiasly on my grave. Iraq damaged Blair bad.


Monday 9 May 2005 8:22pm

Labour MPs have engaged in a fierce war of words over Prime Minister Tony Blair's future in Downing Street.

Some backbenchers ignored appeals from Cabinet ministers to rally around Mr Blair, issuing new calls for him to quit No 10 sooner rather than later, but one colleague, former welfare reform minister Frank Field, hit back - branding their behaviour "unforgivable" and "treacherous".

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw became the latest Cabinet minister to come to the Prime Minister's aid, insisting that Mr Blair was a "genius" who had been the Labour Party's "salvation".

Mr Blair's position has been called into question by several MPs since last Thursday's General Election, when Labour won an historic third successive term in power but saw its majority cut from 161 to a projected 66.

Mr Blair - who was finalising the post-election reshuffle of the ministerial ranks - will seek to shore up his position on Wednesday when, in an appearance before the Parliamentary Labour Party at Westminster, he is expected to underline his commitment to serving a full third term and call for tighter party discipline.

But the chorus calling for him to step down continued to swell.

John Austin, the Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead, said that if Mr Blair sought to hang on to his position, he might face a leadership challenge.

Asked whether he was prepared to stand as a "stalking horse" candidate - demonstrating the extent of concern within the party and putting real pressure on Mr Blair to go - Mr Austin said that if he was asked to fulfil that role by his colleagues, he would.

Ian Davidson, the Glasgow South West MP, said: "We have won three terms of a Labour Government - we have got to be immensely grateful to Tony for that - but we have got to look forward, not back."

Asked how long Mr Blair should stay on, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It seems to me 18 months to two years is a reasonable time."
Top Bottom