Does anyone really believe that next week will be Blair's last as Prime Minister?

IS Tony Blair Going To resign? Should He Resign After Dr Kelly's Suicide?

Interesting though that everyone in the media is talking up next Tuesday/Wednesday specifically as Blair's judgement day, which makes good copy but is clearly ever so slightly sensationalist.

i'm not sure what purpose there would be in Blair resigning tho. i would've thought it's Hoon who is more at risk anyway.

It's quite a sad state isn't it? If the Tories were like this they'd have been out immediately

He and indeed the rest of the Labour Party though won't want to make it look like he's been forced by anyone as this looks weak.

I don't think he'll go, but I think it'll be his Westland.

How will he go? I think he's got too much dignity to be pushed, so he'll jump. I think he'll do it after just enough time to make Brown not the heir he currently is. I think he'll be bloody minded about it and be adamant about stopping Gordy getting the job. The problem for him has been that there's no-one who's not brown to succeed, as he'd been so Presidential himself; ultimately though, leadership is often circumstantial; Major wasn't considered a contender for when he got the job until very close in. The person who'll take over from Blair probably doesn't realise that they will do this at all at the current time.

Alun Michaels....

Scary thing is, the last polls I saw before I left the UK (pre-Hutton, though) were showing that even though people had completely lost faith in Blair and the Labour gvmnt in general, they still trusted him a lot more than the alternatives. Britain does have a tendency for "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" so I suspect Blair will be staying.

'May (fifth month of the year), even'?

Mind you, as we heard on Newsnight last night, sometimes he can't even stick to what he's said from one minute to the other.

He's claimed that had nothing to do with him, that it was other departments. In fact, during Hutton he basically implied he had nothing to do with anything ever. As did Hoon and Campbell.

Robin Cook is held back purely by appearance; he is by far the most qualified figure there, along with G. Brown. He has shown a good deal of gravitas and conviction, c.f. Iraq, and his attempts to reform Parliament (while Leader of the House, and he didn't receive Blair's backing). It's a shame really that Cook and Brown apparently have a long-standing political antipathy, going back to Scottish politics in the 70s!

I think they'd have to become an MP, but there's no reason why they'd need to be in the first instance. What would really mitigate against Ken is that he's not a national politician, plying his trade in Westminster.

Maybe a few years down the line, regional leaders with good track records will come to be considered for national office, but i suspect a lot more constiutional reform will be needed first.

There is no way Blair would prefer a leftie to a centrist (that's why he invented New Labour - to get all the leftists out of the way)

But I still think that anyone who was a proper left-winger in the 80's/ early 90's hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being PM.

Tories (5 new answers, 42 total)
The Democratic Primary 2004 Thread (80 new answers, 358 total, 80 unread)
Bush to world: "Ignore all that Iraq stuff, we're off to Mars!" (16 new answers, 81 total, 16 unread)
Who in this bitch pays tuition fees? (153 new answers)
Does anyone really believe that next week will be Blair's last as Prime Minister? (62 new answers)

ILE is dead politikal today, isn't it?

Ed - you assume that the Labour Party will have a say; I think that the LP has been so demoralised over the 10 year period of Blair that some cursory election will sate them; in truth, we're back in a pre 1981 situation where the PLP makes the choice.

As an outside-of-Londoner, Livingstone is tainted for me b/c he's a pure London politician through and through. Livingstone as PM = Britain as even more of a city-state plus er, all that other stuff in 'zone 7' than it is now.

But bringing up Livingstone does raise the question: is there anyone else on the Left - within Parliament, or the Labour Party itself - who is as popular or substantial a figure as he is now in 2003? Seems unlikely. Robin Cook is moderate left perhaps, but is he that popular with many people? Clare Short seems to have become a figure of fun [i.e. handling her opposition to the Iraq war in a far less effective way than Cook], although her speaking out against the Sun and its tawdry wares is to be applauded.
Ex-ministers like Michael Meacher and Chris Smith are quite likeable, and more on a left-wing wavelength than a New Labour one. Yet they are hardly leadership material [even leadership of the Labour left!]; and isn't Smith retiring from Parliament come next election?

Back to Gordon Brown: at the helm, he would be able to play on *what is a very successful record* as Chancellor. 6 and a half years of steady growth, low inflation and falling unemployment, with some very progressive measures at times. He is putting much-needed investment in to the public services [keep an eye on the Tories' attempts to run down any actual improvements which may be appearing...].
I think everyone [bar tabloid-influenced right wing ideologues, shouting about paying tax] could at least agree he's done a good job. He even pleases some of the eurosceptics, by at least appearing very unenthusiastic about the Euro.

There is less known about whether he would make a break with other aspects of Blair's New Labour [the economic policy - the greatest success - is really his own]... c.f. the Straw-Blunkett succession of bone-headed, knee-jerk reaction at the Home Office, where we need a Roy Jenkins. And nannying idiocy from the likes of Tessa Jowell, who seem unable to form a coherent vision for the media and TV. Remember the absurd attacks on "Brass Eye", from ministers who had never even seen the 'offending' programme?
Where would GB stand on foreign affairs? Hopefully he would install a competent Defence Secretary [though Hoon will surely be out next week]. Does anyone recall Hoon's roasting by John Humphrys around the time of the UN/Iraq debate? It said it all about what a non-entity and Blair-puppet he is.
Brown kept as out-of-sight as possible during Iraq; only voicing support when he absolutely had to. The policy was clearly Blair's... yet, how different could Brown actually be towards America? One would hope at least subtly different, and willing to push for changes in US tone and policy - c.f. the environment, fair trade. Blair has managed none of this, for all his vaunted 'special relationship'. The people of Britain want to be a close ally of the US and do not want wholesale 'anti-Americanism', but I believe they would actually appreciate a PM who would stand up to George W. Bush a bit more vigorously on certain issues at least.

Brown's personal style would definitely appeal a lot more to traditional Labour supporters, but also many unaffiliated liberals and LDs who have been turned off by Blair's slick, smiling facade. Surely his record and perhaps some work on projection would be able to keep much of Blair's Middle England support. It shouldn't be neglected that Labour does need to get out its natural support, considering the drops in turnout and interest which make each new Govt. seem less valid. People always forget that in 1997 there was an 11% drop in turnout from 1992 - around the same as in 2001 from 1997. In 2001, New Labour actually polled less votes than Kinnock's Labour in 1992. the Tories are now so depleted [from IIRC 14.7 million to about 8.5 million votes, from 1992-01] that it would take a massive political sea-change for them to get back in. Trying to enthuse the electorate with a more idealistic platform could in theory score a landslide against the Tories' *current* [could build back up again with tabloid press support...] low voter base. Howard is achieving no better polling for his Party than the hapless IDS did... once the scrutiny increases, he will be under pressure. Next week, I actually feel that there's almost more pressure on him than Blair: he has to make *some impact*. All the worse scenarios for Blair have been outlined, and he'll likely survive.

I can see Michael Howard's Tories being thrashed by a Brown Labour by as large a margin in the North - if not greater - than Hague was in 2001. Howard is a walking reminder of all the 1979-97 Governments stood for, and this will energise the NW, NE and Yorks., which were so strongly hit by those Governments. Remember that by far the most successful piece of political advertising in the 2001 campaign was the Hague-with-Thatcher-hair poster. That drew many chuckles, and did strike a chord in the Sunderland area, as far as I gathered. It would be far less possible to say that Brown was as close to Thatcher as Blair is, as he is instinctively a 'Labour man'. And the good thing is that his record in Govt. refutes any Tory claims of 'Labour incompetence', c.f. the 80s. He would be a more formidable canididate for PM than Neil Kinnock by leagues.

As for Hoon's replacement, Byers or an outside chance that Lord Robertson could do it from the Lords having newly returned from being head of NATO. Blairs pretty keen on ministers from the Lords.

Ed: But who is that 'real lefty' going to be, d' you think? Cook is the most senior and respected who could be called anything like left (moderate left I'd say he was), but there's the old 'he looks like a garden gnome' business. The importance of appearance in politics is notable; it did for Billy Hague to some extent...

Also worth remembering that many on the left have left the party - those left could well be more right, IYSWIM. However, against this, I wouldn't mind betting that as many from the 'I joiuned in 1995 cos Blair seemed nice' have left too (ie, committed left wing leaving in disgust matched by weak affiliated right of centre switcher leaving).

Finally - the key here is to 'feel' left and act centre right - Brown country. many of the left in the LP and indeed the party are against Blair because he 'feels' like a Tory. He doesn't 'get' the party at all, and seems to actively dislike it. Unlike Brown, who is much more instictive; he's the archetypal cut in half and it's say 'Labour' kind of guy. He's also got the 'not loony' tag which means he's surely more electable.

Ultimately then, LP_ members are sick of the faustian pact of triangulation, but conversely, terrified of being out of power. brown suits them down to the ground. Ultimately, it's a case of 'I know very well that Brown isn't the people's tribune he's sometimes made out to be, but all the same he's not Blair and he will indulge my ideological fantasy that there is a parliamentary road to socialism.'

Does anyone actually note any promising - or even notable - younger MPs on the Labour benches. There surely must be more 'talent' there than on the Tory benches, considering the sheer amount of them who entered in 1997 & 2001. A few too many loyalist Blairites I sense...

brown's best bet here is to reclaim the legacy of John Smith as an ecumenical party man - not factional. One noticeable thing that happened after Blair was elected leader was the return of the Bunker mentality at the leader's office, and the return of the bunker staffers of Kinnock. Smith's style was different and much lauded and loved. Sadly, Gordy's not got the interpersonal skills to reallt match Smith I reckon, and equally sadly, he can't go into the tea room to practice them as he's both too busy and it'd also be a direct attack on Blair.

As a result, it'll come down to timing - if Blair goes sooner, the better Gordy's chances, as MPs will want competance and ability; the further down the line we go, the more MPs will with the arrogance of newbies see GB as 'standing in their way' and have had little interaction with him as he'll not have been Gordon the fron bench spokesman in opposition but Gordon the distant treasurer.

Added to this is the fact that Brown is a block on promotion for many; there's no room for more middle-to-high flyers to move, as there's a log jam at the top of the tree in the 3 big state offices. Andrew Rawnsley's been urging Blair sack Brown to free up this jam for some time; I can see a desperate (and emboldened by that desperation) Blair doing that. Sadly in my view as a Brownie.

Yeah, a reclaiming of Smith's broad church, laid-back style would be a good thing for the LP, and even possibly get those such as I back in the fold! The LP needs at least to stand for more, and have greater *solid* support than Blair's NLP does at the moment.

So - ultimately - do they have enough of friendship left for Blair to do the dirty? Or at least enough of one for Blair not be able to do that I do it for the country schtick.

And there's no one else really, unless someone rises to prominence bigstyle over the next couple of years. Although people are always talking up David Miliband and Hilary Benn and people like that as future leaders, but future = 15 odd years away in this case.

I don't really believe Brown is to the left of Blair though.

did no one else think this was about football, somehow?

sorry i'll go away, you're having a v good discussion, carry on :)

Folkestone
Liverpool

He's also claimed to be a Swansea fan in the past.

Only Gordy is a propah fan.

Patricia Hewitt is in fact highly intelligent and far more capable than most of her cabinet colleagues, but possibly without the necessary charisma.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/14/mandelson-memoirs-blair-brown-mad-bad

i think maybe mandy is right to shit on brown now rather than later. it'll hopefully help keep his dauphin ed balls away from the top spot.

Hateful bunch of self-obsessed cocks.

dauphin-ed balls

shit, beaten to that one

there is no one to match Gordon for someone who articulates high principles while practising the lowest skulduggery.

Have you seen the tv adverts with Mandy for the serialisation? I initially thought they must be cgi somehow, but they actually appear to be real.

Bald men, comb etc.