Interesting Comments from Blair

[Pangloss]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407893/

 

In an interview with the Times of London, he describes British coverage of the Bush victory as “unbelievable.”

 

“In a way some people are in a state of denial,” said Blair. “The election has happened. America has spoken. The rest of the world should listen.”

 

He added however, “It is important that America listens to the rest of the world too.”

 

I think that sums it up nicely.

[bloodhound]

Bush's win will definitely hurt blair politically. Labour backbenchers especially despise Bush.

[Douglas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407893/

I think that sums it up nicely.

Yes, It *does* sum it up nicely.

 

I'm a little concerned about the U.K. 2005 elections though.

 

Notice the stock market lately? Hopefully, the European markets will boom.

Might help the E.U.s take a different view of Bush.

[bloodhound]

its only cos the dollar is so low on Euro. its hurting European exporters.

[Ophiolite]

I'm a little concerned about the U.K. 2005 elections though.

Labour will win with a greatly reduced majority. The Labour party will then kick Blair into touch within ten months.

[Pangloss]

Ophiolite: Just to make sure I understand, are you basically suggesting that Blair might win the election, but Labour win the majority of seats, and then replace Blair via parliamentary methods?

 

(Or is my understanding of how that works completely off?)

[Ophiolite]

Remember that we do not vote for our Prime Minister. The voters in Blair's parliamentary constituency are the only ones who can vote for or against him.

So, yes, I am suggesting that the Labour Party will certainly win the next election. The Tories have lost credibility with too large a proportion of the population to be re-elected, the Liberal Democrats have not yet gained enough credibility.

However, many labour MP's will lose their seats. The primary reason for this will, probably rightly, be seen as Blair (and not just because of Iraq). There will be a leadership challenge and Blair will be replaced.

So I think your understanding is sound. The title Prime Minister is meant to imply 'first among equals'. We have a government by cabinet. Some of the more thoughtful objections to Blair are based as much upon his methods as his actions. He has pursued a more 'presidential' style leadership than any prime minister I can think of.

I am not saying a Presidential approach is wrong, but it wrong for the UK with its present constitution. You have separation of powers to control excesses by any particualr branch. Blair has circumvented such controls here to the point that some MP's wish to impeach him - a process that hasn't been invoked for a couple of centuries.

You may have gathered I am no fan of Blair. My opinion of him from an early stage was 'smarmy git.' [i'm not sure how well that translates to American - brown-nosing asshole, perhaps.]

Bush utterly appals me in so many ways I have lost count, but I will say this for him. He has firm beliefs and he acts on those beliefs. Not so with our Tony.

Sorry, that was more than you asked, but you triggered a sensitive spot.

 

Edit: It wouldn't be correct, I think, to say that he would be replaced by Parliamentary methods, since Parliament would play no part in the act. The Labour Party would, by whatever their current method is, hold a leadershiip election. If Blair lost, the winner would replace him as Prime Minister, subject of course to the assent of that gracious lady, Her Majesty the Queen.

[Pangloss]

Quite interesting, thanks.