Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Tony Blair Go Now?  
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1966 times:

One minister and four government aides are among 17 normally loyal Labour MPs who have written to Tony Blair urging him to quit. Personally I couldn't care less. Margaret Thatcher was eventually pushed. Is Blair going the same way?

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1962 times:

Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter):
One minister and four government aides are among 17 normally loyal Labour MPs who have written to Tony Blair urging him to quit. Personally I couldn't care less. Margaret Thatcher was eventually pushed. Is Blair going the same way?

I want this guy away from the politics. Please don't think that I don't know a single thing about this guy.

 talktothehand 


User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1962 times:

Oh I don't mind, Blair or a Scotsman? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.


One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1960 times:

Blair needs to go, and while I disagree with a scottish constituency MP having control in the UK (since we cant vote on their laws), I would rather have Brown over Prescott.

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Blair needs to go, and while I disagree with a scottish constituency MP having control in the UK (since we cant vote on their laws), I would rather have Brown over Prescott.

UK laws are no problem. It's them voting on English affairs that is.

And I'm quite sure that Gordon Brown would be thrilled to have it presented as a choice between him and Prescott. Prescott won't stand.

There's no desperate requirement for Blair to stand down now. These people calling for him to go are those that never liked him in the first place. He'll go sometime next year I would think.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1928 times:

In the grand scheme of things, what would really be accomplished by him going now, versus next year or early 2008? Not much. Unless Cameron screws up royally, I think it's likely that the Tories will win back power at the next general election, so why step down and give Brown the job when he's only going to be in it for 18 months?

User currently offlineRammstein From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1918 times:

After www.byebyeberlusconi.de, it's time to open www.byebyeblair.com  Smile

User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1908 times:

I personally think he should go in his own time, rather than being bullied into it by a few MP's and the press, if he did that, the press will gain some high ground, and will begin to think of themselves as the voice of the public.
A quick exit would be disastrous, the new leader needs time to settle in and learn the ropes, if he's got the aid of the prime minister, this will be easier for all of us, and it also means no radical sudden changes.
He has said he will go before the next general election, and he will do that, I don't know why we are so obsessed with him leaving.

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 2):
Oh I don't mind, Blair or a Scotsman? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Tony Blair is Scottish.

Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter):
One minister and four government aides are among 17 normally loyal Labour MPs who have written to Tony Blair urging him to quit.

And there were 45 people who signed a letter, giving their full support to him.

Wrightbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Apparently he has announced he will give up the leadership before next year's party conference

User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 7):
Tony Blair is Scottish.

Well he may have been born there but bah, he lived in Durham, or was it Newcastle?



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineBAxMAN From St. Helena, joined May 2004, 671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

I would imagine that Tony Blair, on a personal level, desperately wants to reach his 10 year anniversary as British PM on 1st May 2007. This would be quite a milestone if/when he achieves it. I bet he would also like to out-reign Margaret Thatcher, but realises this is an unrealistic situation if he intends to leave power of his own accord rather than being publicly evicted by members of the cabinet.

I am frequently a bit bemused by people who, somewhat vitriolically, demand that demon incarnate Blair leaves. Are they so politically naive that they think Blair's replacement - whether it be Gord Brown, Prezza, Comrade John Reid or Davey Boy Cameron - will herald a new era? That 'new era' will last all of 12 months until real life makes a mockery of opposition made pledges. Then, we'll have more of the 'same old same old' that we've had for, oooh, about 50 years.

That said, the Tories should exile Cameron to St Helena or The Falklands if he loses the next election. It's being handed to him on a nice, shiny silver platter.



I need to get laid
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24947 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Get rid of him. Get rid of that traitor Brown too...


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

A lot of this rhetoric around this bugs me.

I agree with Labour MP Tony Wright, that this is self indulgence writ large by many MP's, it's not as if he's not going to resign, he's made that clear (to his cost), it's not as if Labour losing next time is certain, this is not John Major's post 1993 period, nor Jim Challaghan's post winter 1978/9 either.

Funny how recently elected Labour MP's are the ones really pushing now, no experience of in fighting helping to cause a long period in opposition, like Major, like Labour in the early 80's.

Beyond MP's, the media shrieking about having to have a general election immediately, should Brown succed Blair.
What? Like Thatcher to Major, Wilson to Challaghan, Macmillian to Douglas-Home, Eden to Mamillian, Chamberlin to Churchill, Baldwin to Chamberlin.
That's the last 70 years, with no general elections with the above transistions, since they were in mid term, only Churchill's ascent was in extreme circumstances, though arguably Eden going after Suez was after a single, major crisis.

Blair did win last year, didn't he?
That's another one they moan about-his numbers of votes was not proportionate to the seats gained, in England Labour polled less-think on GKirk and Co, that's influence, Scotland independant within the EU would never have that, if they could leave Wales off the map, they won't give a shit about you.
And those poorer Eastern European nations, recently joined, will be well before Scotland in the queue for handouts, to replace the English ones.

In 1951, Labour got more votes, the Tories won with more seats, Major polled a record number of votes in 1992, but had just a 21 seat majority, compared to Thatcher's landslides.


User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Does anyone really care?  silly 

No matter who is elected, they all turn out the same - they make promises, then break em  Sad



Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
Funny how recently elected Labour MP's are the ones really pushing now, no experience of in fighting helping to cause a long period in opposition, like Major, like Labour in the early 80's.

But you have to appreciate that Blair has never been particularly popular with Labour MP's or membership. He undoubtedly pulled the party to the right and (as was bleedin' obvious to all but the more lunatic leftwingers) became electable as a result. These people supported Blair because he delivered power, not because they either believed in him or supported him.

Equally, for about 7 years, Blair was entirely bulletproof, and won that third election. Having perhaps foolishly said he wouldn't seek a fourth term, he became fair game, and those same people that never particularly liked him saw their chance.

I'm not sure Gordon Brown is going to be any better for Labour. Being Scottish, and sitting for a Scottish constituency is going to be a handicap with an English electorate that sees a Scottish Parliament, no English equivalent, and the UK government dominated by Scots. It won't be explicit, but no-one should doubt that there is irritation. Every time the government puts forward some initiative affecting only England, the Tories will be quick to point out that it won't affect the Prime Minister. And that's the problem with the imbalanced constitution as it is now.

Even if none of the above happens, Brown isn't going to be the panacea for all ills. At the moment he has the advantage of not being the Prime Minister. The best people are always those not in charge.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
Beyond MP's, the media shrieking about having to have a general election immediately, should Brown succed Blair.
What? Like Thatcher to Major, Wilson to Challaghan, Macmillian to Douglas-Home, Eden to Mamillian, Chamberlin to Churchill, Baldwin to Chamberlin.

This is true. But it won't affect those calls, and those demands were made also on each and every occasion listed above.

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 13):
No matter who is elected, they all turn out the same - they make promises, then break em

Actually, Labour have broken rather few promises. They've been quite careful about that. There does need to be some recognition that governing is difficult. Labour's overall record hasn't been too bad, and the country is still doing rather well. As GDB point out, this isn't the dying days of a government like Major's was.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 11):
Get rid of him. Get rid of that traitor Brown too...

Charles Kennedy for PM!

Signed GKirk.



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

My views on this are, look at the opposition.

Tony ain't great but when compared to the Ming and Campbell he comes out on top. Campbells a hypocrit, Ming Campbell spends most of his time asleep. At least Tony makes an effort to win us. If we still had the alchy in charge of the Libdems i'd vote for him all the way. Not that I can vote, but he was great.


But Gordon Brown ain't so bad, but I still think Tony's better.


He should stay until we get a better proposition


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 4):
There's no desperate requirement for Blair to stand down now.

did he, or did he NOT, promise Brown to step aside after a certain period, which now is past ?

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 11):
Get rid of that traitor Brown too...

WHY a "traitor" ?

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 11):
Get rid of him

Why really ? just because of his "link-up" with GWB, or why ?


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 17):
did he, or did he NOT, promise Brown to step aside after a certain period, which now is past ?

Lots of speculation, little information. Only the two of them know what was said. Besides, it quite frankly has sod all to do with what they might or might not have agreed between them, this is for the position of Prime Minister, not who goes next on the pool table. It isn't in the gift of either of them.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 17):
just because of his "link-up" with GWB, or why ?

As in any nation, foreign affairs are rarely the reason for the fall of a leader. Undoubtedly, Blair has been harmed by Iraq, but ultimately, it's doemstic politics that is the main matter.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 18):
it's doemstic politics that is the main matter.

ok so far. But am I completely out of track to assume that his performance overall is between good and excellent ? and the second question, does anybody think that Brown will be a better PrimeMinister than TonyBlair ?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

I think Iraq is the exception to the rule here, on foreign policy.
Except perhaps for Suez in 1956, you have not had such a large number opposed to a war, but Suez was over quickly with little (British ) loss of life.

Partly due to the public persona of the US President, which, like it or not, for most in the UK, either/or attracts ridicule, scorn, incredulity ('HE's in charge?') or even fear.

The missing WMD's, the quite insane levels HM Government went to sell this idea, the vindictivness afterwards (I saw Alistair Campbell's unscheduled, eye-popping, barging into the Channel 4 news programme in June 2003, then once seated and miked up, his incredible rant).

Anyone who has seem the superb political satire, 'The Thick Of It', the 'Malcolm Tucker' press officer character, so brilliantly played by Peter Capaldi, will not only recognise Campbell, but know his excesses, rages, almost Basil Fawlty like mania, might just be under playing the real Campbell.

So why didn't Labour lose last year?
The Tory opposition had been as much for the Iraq war as Blair, unlikely as it would have been, had they opposed it in 2003, they'd have won.
Generally good economy or not.
Charles Kennedy did, but his is a quite small party, anyway, his own performance was a factor in them just doing OK, but not the breakthrough they expected.
Kennedy admitting his alcoholism in January, quite frankly, only surprised many in that he had gone on so long.

The rising death toll, the lack of progress, and whilst it's certainly no excuse, nor can we say Islamic terrorism-home grown at that, would not have hit us anyway, Iraq looms large in this too.

Considering how the long years of Northern Ireland, more conventional if unexpected wars like the Falklands, enjoyed majority public support-or at least in N.I.'s case, acceptance, it is significant how Iraq, maybe soon Afghanistan, has impacted on a voting population, whose armed forces only had the year 1968, since WW2, not on operations somewhere.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I think Iraq is the exception to the rule here, on foreign policy.
Except perhaps for Suez in 1956, you have not had such a large number opposed to a war, but Suez was over quickly with little (British ) loss of life.

Partly due to the public persona of the US President, which, like it or not, for most in the UK, either/or attracts ridicule, scorn, incredulity ('HE's in charge?') or even fear.

-
so that, to say it again, whenever a majority of British people do NOT exactly adore President Bush and are not particularily enthusiastic about the boy-friendship between Tony Blair and GWB, a majority of Brits find the performance of Tony Blair rather good. Correct ?
-
ok. and how many people really and seriously expect Mr Brown to be a better PrimeMinister of the U.K. ?


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 19):
But am I completely out of track to assume that his performance overall is between good and excellent ?

Well, any assessment invariably depends on a person's political viewpoint. It's virtually impossible to be genuinely objective about that. The economy is always the most important political issue, and it has remained in pretty good shape (even excellent shape compared to the rest of Europe) throughout his tenure, but there have been problems elsewhere. Whether they are any worse, or in any greater number than would afflict any government is hard to say, but even if Blair's overall Premiership is regarded as a good one, it doesn't ultimately change Enoch Powell's truism that all political careers end in failure.



Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I think Iraq is the exception to the rule here, on foreign policy.

No, I would disagree with that. The most vitriolic voices on Iraq have always been those who were bitterly opposed to it in the first place - indeed many of those voices who would be bitterly opposed to virtually any war.

Blair undoubtedly suffered a loss of credibility on the matter, but it should not be forgotten that divisive as the subject was, a majority of people in this country were in favour of invasion at the time. Nevertheless, there always was a solid 30% or so bitterly opposed to any action there, and with the failure to find WMD's those voices have got louder.

But Iraq wasn't a major political issue at the last election. Given a stable economy, that was the one opportunity for a major foreign affairs issue to actually be a big point at an election. As you rightly say, of the major parties, only the Lib Dems were steadfast in their opposition, and had Iraw been an electoral issue they absolutely undoubtedly, certainly would have benefitted. And what happened? The Lib Dems had a pretty terrible election, demonstrating beyond question that Iraq was far from being uppermost in the minds of the electorate.

That this should be the case at a time when the country was generally relatively happy with the government's domestic performance is an even stronger piece of evidence: There was ultimately one stick with which to beat the government, and it just didn't do them much harm at all. It was the pro-war Tories who benefitted, and no-one else.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
it is significant how Iraq, maybe soon Afghanistan, has impacted on a voting population

I'm sorry that just not the case. If you read the various analyses of psephologists and opinion-pollsters the very issue that had them crawling over the results was the very lack of any Iraq-factor.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineAzza40 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

I think i read before that he said he shall resign on 31st May, 2007

Aaron  swirl 



Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Well, the support for the invasion was marginal, and opposition was well beyond the usual suspects, of course, once the fighting started, support rallied, and stayed that way until it became clear that the aftermath was going to be a disaster.
Compare support for Iraq, with for the UK military, the far more risky Falklands war, with the worst period of Northern Ireland in the early 70's, with Afghanistan in 2001.

I just cannot remember relatives of dead servicemen taking 1000's of votes in Blair's own seat at the general election, or of any PM, in any other conflict.
Symbolic? Yes, but the whole thing has destroyed trust in Blair, right across the board.
Enboldened his long term opponents too.
Iraq is not a big doorstep issue, but trust is, and when you ask more about the source of distrust?
It feeds in with the (non) performance of the Home Office, immigration etc.
'He can send troops to Iraq but cannot (add as applicable).

I know many life long, staunch, moderate, Labour voters who since Iraq detest Blair, who were supportive generally of previous military actions, who are not against being US allies even.
They are keen to cite Harold Wilson resisting strong US pressure to send, even if only for political reasons, British troops to Vietnam.

It's not a collapse the government issue, rather a weeping sore.
Blair was rightly feted for his good judgement and vigour on foreign policy, though hard not to improve on Major, until Iraq.
Sending servicemen to maybe die is the most important decison a PM can make.
Blair was, is, a believer on Iraq, but if enough people really do think he is doing the bidding of a foreign power-even an ally like the US, whether this is true or not matters little, they will think him unfit to be PM.


25 Wrighbrothers : But the support for Labour will continue to drop until Tong has gone, and the troops have left Iraq, the problem is, that even if Blair leaves, the f
26 Humberside : Another Parlimentary Private Secretary has now resigned. Thats the 7th one to go today, as well as the Junior Defence Minister
27 9VSPO : What gets me is that all these people wouldn't even be in their jobs if it wasn't for Tony Blair. If they hadn't resigned then they should be sacked.
28 Banco : They signed the letter calling for Blair to go. The only thing that surprises me is that Blair hadn't sacked them before they got a chance to resign.
29 Post contains images 9VSPO : But these people are saying that they are hearing basic labour suporters on the ground saying they want Blair to go and that's why they are doing thi
30 Post contains images Banco : Or, in other words, they don't even have the guts to say it's their own viewpoint.
31 GDB : Of course, Brown is not coming out of all this looking too good either. Like his non apprearence during crisis all too often. He is the runaway favour
32 ME AVN FAN : Whoooo is Alan Johnson ?
33 Post contains images 9VSPO : If I were Blair I'd just sack all the whingers. God forbid we ever get that looney Cameron in Number 10. That's the time to really worry.
34 Post contains images 9VSPO : If I were Blair I'd just sack all the whingers. God forbid we ever get that looney Cameron in Number 10. That's the time to really worry.
35 Cosec59 : Looks like the "whingers" have effectively sacked Tony the phoney. And you've based that comment on what?
36 GDB : Cameron? He'll be Tory Blair rather than Tony Blair. Which might be needed for them, look how Maggie's favourites Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard fared
37 Post contains images 9VSPO : He's in India isn't he? And instead of meeting the real people on the street over there he's canvassing millionaire businessmen for funds for the Tor
38 Post contains links Cedars747 : What about www.byebyeaznar.com Alex!!!
39 ME AVN FAN : but isn't that history ?
40 Post contains images Cedars747 : Yes ,but he belong to the same collection Alex!!!
41 ME AVN FAN : ok, true, but I would NOT go back to Anthony Eden and thelike
42 Post contains images Cosec59 :
43 Post contains links Cedars747 : Than let's go over to www.byebyebush.com "the only one missing in this collection" Alex!!!
44 Humberside : Education Secretary and 'Hull West and Hessle' MP. He's come through the ranks of government very quickly in the past few years
45 Par13del : No intention to make light of the situation but a couple questions: 1. Blair just recently won re-election by the people right? 2. Those now calling f
46 RichardPrice : Yes, a little over a year ago. They want him removed as party leader and thus prime minister. The likely successors all got voted in in the last elec
47 Banco : It does now, I believe. It became an official position in about 1910, I think, when it was merged with First Lord of the Treasury - though de facto t
48 Post contains images BigOrange : Blair should have resigned after he was found to be lying about WMD's, along with his puppeteer Bush. Not that Gordo is any improvement. Bring back Ma
49 Par13del : Thanks for the reply RichardPrice. Regarding my 3rd point, would the party have won the election if Tony Blair was not the leader? His successor may h
50 Post contains images 9VSPO :
51 RichardPrice : No, the PM traditionally holds the office of First Lord of the Treasury or another ministerial cabinet position and retains the salary of that positi
52 Banco : Ah, that's the one I was thinking of. Yes, I see what you're getting at there. It's quite true that no limits or otherwise of power have ever been de
53 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : If I understand more or less correctly then the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" is the FINANCE MINISTER ? and if so, WHAT exactly is the "First Lord of
54 RichardPrice : Head of the commission that oversees the Treasury office. The only thing, apart from the First Lord of the Treasury position, that gives him any powe
55 ME AVN FAN : sorry for sounding stupid, but is the "Treasury office" identical with the Finance Ministry or is there a difference ? and most of the British people
56 Post contains images Banco : It does seem a bit silly when you write it out, doesn't it? The point that people from virtually any other country find almost impossible to understa
57 Post contains images Banco : The best way to describe this is with one of those "lies to children" that aren't exactly true, but offer a good explanation. The Finance Ministry is
58 Post contains images RichardPrice : Yes, and thats also the strengths of our system - in how many other countries do you get a modern court considering the verdict of a judge from the 1
59 ME AVN FAN : - of course, as usual in parliamentary democracies. But my thought rather was that the British people accepts the PrimeMinister as THE national polit
60 RichardPrice : Once our representative is elected, we dont have any say. The Prime Minister isnt selected until the majority verdict is in in the election. The only
61 Banco : As Lord Hailsham once put it, it's an "elective dictatorship".
62 Cedars747 : Now,it's too late;He should have gone LAST CHRISTMAS Alex!!!
63 ME AVN FAN : Well, that is similar in many countries. In Switzerland for instance, there is an "eternal coalition" of 4 parties, and the 7 ministers of equal rank
64 Banco : That's the one thing we don't have. Coalitions are extremely rare, the last one being during the Second World War. Minority governments, such as Labo
65 Cornish : It also means we don't have a situation where some small parties have a disproportionate level of power relatvie to their support in the country. One
66 Banco : A lot of it is what you are used to. Germany had a change of government without an election in 1980 (I think) when the 3rd party switched sides. Now,
67 Post contains images 9VSPO : What do you think about Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke describing Gordon Brown as a control freak with psychological issues?
68 BA787 : I actually think he isn't far off. I would rather have Tony than either Brown, Ming or Cameron. Brown. Clarke says all I need to Ming: Does bugger al
69 Post contains images Cosec59 : I think Mr Clarke is saying Mr Brown has the qualities to be an A.net screener
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Tony Blair Quit? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 11:43:57 by GKirk
Tony W Blair posted Sun Sep 17 2006 12:17:04 by Braybuddy
Question About Tony Blair posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:40:42 by Wobbles
Should Tony Blair Quit? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 11:43:57 by GKirk
Tony W Blair posted Sun Sep 17 2006 12:17:04 by Braybuddy
Question About Tony Blair posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:40:42 by Wobbles
Tony Blair Not Get A Motorcade? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 16:31:27 by RJpieces
Tony Blair Not Get A Motorcade? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 16:31:27 by RJpieces
What Should You Be Doing Now? posted Mon May 1 2006 04:58:06 by Newark777
What Should You Be Doing Now? posted Mon May 1 2006 04:58:06 by Newark777
Can Tony Blair Change His Mind? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 00:13:19 by Alberchico
Can Tony Blair Change His Mind? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 00:13:19 by Alberchico
Is This The End Of Tony Blair posted Fri Dec 16 2005 20:33:07 by Cosec59
Is This The End Of Tony Blair posted Fri Dec 16 2005 20:33:07 by Cosec59
Blair's Son Now Intern In Washington DC posted Sun Jun 26 2005 14:58:26 by MD11Engineer
The U Go Now Game posted Fri May 27 2005 20:52:49 by Erikwilliam
Blair's Son Now Intern In Washington DC posted Sun Jun 26 2005 14:58:26 by MD11Engineer
The U Go Now Game posted Fri May 27 2005 20:52:49 by Erikwilliam
John Major Or Tony Blair? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 11:43:45 by Gkirk
John Major Or Tony Blair? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 11:43:45 by Gkirk