Blair's Day's Almost Up

[Gixer]

I'd say it's only a matter of day's before a vote of no confidence is given to Blair and he will be forced out of the leadership.

After the grilling he received by the opposition the other day it was interesting to witness how little support he was getting from his back bench if at all.

He has little support from the public especially over the Iraq War and is just looked upon as being "the poodle". Since he took the country to war without the full backing of his government or the electorate.

The Hutton enquiry findings being released soon will probably be the nail in the coffin if he is found to of mislead the public in anyway.

Without his spin doctors he really seems to be at a loss.

Interesting to see what happens with a new PM. Depending on public opinon and pressure we could see an early (though gradual) withdrawl of British forces in Iraq.

Because any new leader if he wished to remain in office, would be very carefull not to go against public opinion. Especially since the next elections are only a year away.


...-Gixer

[ra]

The UK may as well downsize its military by 50%.  No UK politician will ever dare to use military force unless the enemy files a formal declaration of war with the proper UN authorities.   Send the boys home, put the carriers in dry dock.

ra

[beet1e]

Based on the information I thought he had from the intelligence services, I thought his handling of the Iraq situation was good.

Other than that, this Labour government - just like the last one (1974-79) - has been an unmitigated disaster.

The assurances of no new taxes were worth about as much as the movements of Bush's lips when he became president in 1988. This is a government which believes that the way to run a country is by central control and regulation, paid for out of taxation revenues. When they say they're going to improve public services (like the health service) all it means is that they're going to throw money at it. They're not in the least concerned at the service coming off the back end; they're simply too preoccupied shovelling money into the front end.

Our "free" National Health Service controls hospitals with a total of only 185,000 beds. And yet the NHS employs 270,000 managers. No sooner had Gordon Brown (Blair's chancellor) raised employee's NI (similar to US FICA) from 10% to 11%, when the announcement came that yet another 4,900 managers were to be hired. Thus, much of the money collected by Labour's new taxes is eaten up by bureaucracy and administration charges. Instead of hospitals being run by the people who know about hospitals (Doctors, for example) they are now run by Whitehall bureaucrats.

Even if Blair goes, Labour is still odds on to win the next election, which may be next year. But I suspect that part way into that third term, Labour will be facing an economic breakdown of its own making. At that time, it might be possible to force a vote of no confidence in the government, as happened to the last Labour government. But then there will be years of work repairing the legacy of this disastrous government.

Some of you guys may not realise it, but John Prescott (aka the Fat Controller) was the instigator of the 1966 Seamen's Union strike - the most damaging strike Britain had ever known since the Genral strike of 1926. That guy is now Tony Blair's deputy Prime Minister!!

New Labour? Old Labour dressed up. A leopard never changes its spots.

[-tronski-]

I'd be surprised if they dumped the PM before the election....but then he's such a dead weight right now I'd be surprised if Labour could win with him...

 Tronsky

[Dowding]

The only thing Blair has ever had going for him is that the alternative is non-existant. The Tories are party of also-rans desperately trying to convince us to forget how crappy the NHS was under them, or how they sold off the railways into a situation that was actually worse than British Rail. The Liberal Democrats want to increase taxation so they're out.

My father is probably going to vote British Nationalist Party out of desperation.

[Sparks]

Nail on the head there Dowding. The strange thing is (and I am completely serious) my mother and father are doing the exact same thing - last election they voted BNP basically as a protest.

Sparks

[Dowding]

I won't vote for the BNP on principal, but looking around where I live I can see why people do. I can see them gaining more prominence in the near future.

It's a sad testament of the times when more people vote for some fat bint on some trashy Pop Idol program, than vote for the people who decide where our money goes or how the country behaves overseas. Something has gone awry in the last 50 years. Perhaps we need another world war to remind people what exactly freedom means.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by -tronski-
I'd be surprised if they dumped the PM before the election....but then he's such a dead weight right now I'd be surprised if Labour could win with him...

When Blair came to power in 1997, he won with a majority of 171 seats in the House of Commons. (There are about 650 seats in the HOC) In 2001 the result was much the same - a majority of 164. For the Tories to win, they need a massive swing in the voting intentions of the electorate; the kind of swing that is almost unprecedented. That's why Labour is on course to win next time.

Actually, I agree with Dowding. The tories under John Major were also an unmitigated disaster, who allowed themselves to be consumed by the obsession with the Maastricht Treaty, and converting to the new European currency at any cost. They became unelectable. I certainly haven't voted for them since 1992. After Major they had a couple of lacklustre leaders. Now there's Michael Howard, who is more on the ball.

But however crappy the NHS was under the tories, it's even crappier under Labour, with hospital waiting lists having become longer, not shorter, and with patients having to be sent overseas to countries like France and Spain for urgent operations because the NHS cannot cope. (It's worth noting that whereas the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe, France and Spain don't have and don't need an NHS equivalent) Labour's spending on public services is up by 50% - but are we any better off? No. Longer hospital waiting lists, an ever deteriorating rail service, and no new road building in 2001. Labour is full of schemes - new ways to spend the taxpayers' money, but that never works because those schemes require administration, and the money gets soaked up in consultation fees, adminstration charges and other bureaucracy. The Lib Dems want a new top rate of tax of 50%, but we have seen what happens when government is allowed to spend our money for us, instead of letting the people decide how their own money should be spent.

And yet Labour has, historically, been dead against anyone paying for their own private health care. They say that it's "not fair" that the wealthy can get better treatment than those less well off. I take the view that I'm entitled to spend my own money as I choose, and if I decide to invest in private health care then that's a choice I should be entitled to make. Besides, by going private, I am relieving the much beleaguered  NHS.

[Dowding]

But however crappy the NHS was under the tories, it's even crappier under Labour, with hospital waiting lists having become longer, not shorter...

You're wrong there actually. They have reduced - there was announcement about it last week. And if we're going to talk about NHS deficiencies, shall we talk about what it was like under two decades of Tory governership? It could hardly have gotten worse. Besides, rich people generally don't use the NHS, so why should the Conservatives be concerned with it?

As for the railways, it was the Tories who privatised it into this mess we have today. It was badly thought out and the less said about the execution the better. Besides, rich people generally don't travel by train so why should the Conservatives be concerned with it?

You really think people will vote for Michael Howard? He's one of Maggie's mob. A snivelling, slimy, archetypal politico forever blighted by his portrayal on 'Spitting Image'. His policies are short term vote winners; it's the same old Tory line about better public services with less money. Bollocks.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Dowding
You're wrong there actually. They have reduced - there was announcement about it last week. And if we're going to talk about NHS deficiencies, shall we talk about what it was like under two decades of Tory governership? It could hardly have gotten worse.  

But it did get worse, with hospital waiting lists getting longer not shorter, and for the first two years Labour was able to blame the tories. After the credibility for that excuse ran dry, they had to think of something else. When all else failed, Blair glibly announced that "if you want a functioning health service, you're going to have to expect to pay for it". Erm... Hello? Is there anyone in there? We've BEEN paying for it, FFS. If the waiting lists are shorter, do you mean shorter than they were last year, or shorter than when Labour came to power?

The tories admitted they screwed up on the railways, but

Besides, rich people generally don't travel by train

thousands of people commute into London daily to get to their share dealing jobs in the City. Few would contemplate making the journey by road.  Admittedly, the decline took place in tory years. The price of a weekly season into London from where I live doubled between 1987-1994, and the service worsened.

Howard on Spitting Image? That show finished yonks ago. The public memory is short. There will be millions of voters at the next election who won't even remember it. Who was it said "a week is a long time in politics".

[GRUNHERZ]

You need Maggie!!!!!

[Ripsnort]

Maggie, or we could loan you Janet Reno!

[Dowding]

You need Maggie for entirely different reasons, you sick bastard.

[GRUNHERZ]

Wow look at those personal insults...

[Dowding]

I was joking, you idiot.