Should blair run again??

[republican]

I think he should he was a well and find leader for England and stood for what he believed.

 

[Izzy23]

Absolutely. He stuck with the US when everyone else tucked their tails between their legs. He is a credit to any nation. Go Brits. Great topic, Republican.

 

[ShadowAspect]

The war in Iraq is America's war. We should have stayed out of it. But Blair is mad for power and he wants to make his mark on history... for this reason he is also trying to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal europe.

Blair has never done what's best for Britian, only whats best for Blair. He should do the decent thing and stand down... or take his own life. Either would be fine with me.

 

[Iosias]

Tony Blair will run again as he made clear yesterday.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

No.

His policies are a shaunder to democratic socialism.

 

[kurabrhm]

The war in Iraq is America's war. We should have stayed out of it. But Blair is mad for power and he wants to make his mark on history... for this reason he is also trying to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal europe.

Blair has never done what's best for Britian, only whats best for Blair. He should do the decent thing and stand down... or take his own life. Either would be fine with me.

I think Blair is very passionate about politics. He's keen to project the image of the international statesman who can do no wrong. He has admitted that he wants to continue into a third term as UK PM but I, like Andrew Marr of the BBC, sincerely doubt whether Blair can actually last the whole of the 3rd term.
I suspect, Blair will hand over his position to someone he likes in the party. Brown is one of his favorites for sure. Whether the people agree with Blair's favorites is an entirely different matter!
There's also his heart problem. I'm not entirely convinced that his heart problem has completely gone away even after the very recent operation. Its a nagging problem and it will remain like a dark cloud over Blair's third term, if he gets it, just like the Iraqi crisis. One thing is clear though. In the next general elections there should be no room whatsoever for voter apathy. If by some incredible problem(s) voter apathy does occur in the coming general elections then we might as well say goodbye to British democracy forever and sign up to America asking them to make us their 51st state.

 

[Dale]

ShadowAspect in post #3:
<< Blair has never done what's best for Britian, only whats best for Blair. He should do the decent thing and stand down... or take his own life. Either would be fine with me. >>

Apparently you are not a Blair fan. Who would you like to see as Prime Minister?

Apparently you are not a fan of the EU either. The EU seems to be going forward, with referendums in some countries, but not in others. They've had trouble getting acceptance in Denmark and Ireland. When the EU loses, the government just holds another referendum later and the voters are cajoled into voting Yes by some combination of threats and promises.

 

[mindlight]

As a Tory I find myself in the strange position of liking our present primeminister and especially for his foreign policy decisions. Since the Tories do not yet seem ready for power and the Lib Dems are Britains worst nightmare and would sabotage most of the truly beneficial reforms of the last 20 years he seems the best option for now.

I hope he can last the course as I for one definitely want to purchase a copy of his memoirs when he writes them.

 

[ShadowAspect]

mindlight,

Who do you think should lead the Tories?

My own opinion is that they should never got rid of William Haig. I don't care if he was short and bald... I think he was a smashing bloke.

 

[Viola_Strange]

Okay, I have no idea when the next elections for your prime minister are held, but I can say this, the answer hinges on who wins the US election.

Kerry wins: Go ahead, let him run.

Bush wins: Boot him the hell out of office.

Tony Blair has one objective: Keep the "special relationship" between the US and UK solid. He sees himself as Churchill. He was socialist back in the 90s only because Clinton leant in that direction. He flip-flopped once Bush swore in.

Tony Blair is a fairly decent leader. He just falls too easily into the role of America's ***** poodle. And he always will. If you don't mind being led around like a dog by whatever US president we have, keep Tony Blair. But be sure you agree with the guy holding the leash.

If however you would like to restore the good name of the British Empire (hmm, not really sure how good it is), find somebody else. Somebody with a bloody backbone.

 

[ShadowAspect]

As much as I dislike Blair, I don't really go with the Bush's poodle theory. I don't think it's quite as simple as that.
I do think that once he sided with bush, he kind of got dragged into this war at Bush's pace. And he didn't have the guts to then say, 'hey, slow down there'. But what politician ever would? That would be viewd as a 'U-turn' in Britian, or 'flip-flopping' in US termanology.

...but here's what I don't get. We know that for a number of years, neo-cons and their ilk have been loading the military and the inteligence services with people who have pet theories and offer an alternative view to all conventional wisdom about how to fight this kind of war. (by this I mean the invasion of Iraq).
But we haven't been doing the same in Britian... so when Blair asks the military if the war in Iraq is a good idea, they would have said "NO F-IN WAY!". No wonder he aged 15 years in 6 months and developed a heart condition. He would have known exactly what we are getting into in Iraq.
So he either has loads of backbone for getting us into a war we cannot win and hoping the Americans take all the shame of a loss, or a complete lack of backbone for letting the situation get this far.

My own personal opinion? Blair is only looking out for himself again. He thought that this war would drag on for so long that he wold probably be out of office by the time it ended anyway, so if it ended badly, he would't be there to take the blame.

I think that this takes a large degree of backbone, but apart from that, the man is scum.

 

[mindlight]

mindlight,

Who do you think should lead the Tories?

My own opinion is that they should never got rid of William Haig. I don't care if he was short and bald... I think he was a smashing bloke.

Michael Howard is a good Tory leader and the right leader for this moment for the party. I think he will make large inroads into the Labour party majority at the next election and that the balance after the next election will be more favourable towards the Tories. I hope the Tories keep him after the election for a while also because he is a good leader of the party. Eventually however a successor is needed to actually win the next election and I do not know who that person could be

What the Tories lack and the reason why I think they are not going to win right now is in a word faith. Blair is a man of faith as is Brown and I believe a leader has to be that. He has a vision for Britain that is informed by faith and which is in part a response to it. Michael Howard on a secular level is the best leader the Tories could have right now but he does not have the x factor that only the spiritual dimension can provide. This is not something that can be crafted by spin doctors its what should lead people into politics in the first place. The desire to make a difference for all the right reasons and ultimately with sense of calling. Churchill had it, Thatcher had it and Blair has it.

I believe the Howard speech was a masterpiece and his policies are mostly right. He is right about cutting taxes when he can , about cutting waste and being sensible about immigration. In the long term I think these policies are a part of a winning agenda. He is also right to demonstrate how Labour have raised all sorts of other taxes apart from income tax since coming to power.
Labour taxed the health out of the most successful private pension schemes in Europe and left them struggling. Labour have driven many small businesses in certain sectors to the wall with red tape and higher taxes. Higher taxes e.g. inheritance tax reduce incentive.

I think the Tories are wrong headed about Europe but I understand that in some sense they cannot be otherwise. The Lib Dems are completely wrong about Europe (being far too positive about arrangements that do not work) and Labour has got it just about right. I think we should be at the heart of Europe fighting our battles and that Europe is close to coming round to a more flexible realistic anglo saxon model particularly with the expansion of recent years into Eastern Europe and the relative success of Britain versus the mainland. CAP and an overly expensive European welfare system should all be under threat.

For all his centralisation and socialistic instincts Brown has not been an altogether bad Chancellor and the growth of the British economy on his watch has been good. Also renewed investment in public services was necessary in 1997 and that agenda takes time to work through. But the issue with public services is now moving towards 'has our tax money been well spent' - 'what can we do to reform the system' and I cannot see a labour administration tackling those kinds of issues without serious divisions within their party. In the next parliament I do not believe that their majority will be as big and they become even more ineffective at pushing through real reforms in the public sector as a result.

So the tide is with the Tories in the long run but for various reasons their time is just not yet.

 

[mindlight]

Okay, I have no idea when the next elections for your prime minister are held, but I can say this, the answer hinges on who wins the US election.

Kerry wins: Go ahead, let him run.

Bush wins: Boot him the hell out of office.

Tony Blair has one objective: Keep the "special relationship" between the US and UK solid. He sees himself as Churchill. He was socialist back in the 90s only because Clinton leant in that direction. He flip-flopped once Bush swore in.

Tony Blair is a fairly decent leader. He just falls too easily into the role of America's ***** poodle. And he always will. If you don't mind being led around like a dog by whatever US president we have, keep Tony Blair. But be sure you agree with the guy holding the leash.

If however you would like to restore the good name of the British Empire (hmm, not really sure how good it is), find somebody else. Somebody with a bloody backbone.

You really do not understand why Britain supported the USA in Iraq do you. Blair acted out of conviction and in the best interests of our nation. I am not of his political party but on that matter I support him 100%

These poodle comments make me sick they are so deeply ignorant of my nations politics and the instincts of its people. Americans would do better to respect the fact that they have a worthy ally in the British at a time when most of their other so called friends have deserted them. Attacking the British PM for supporting a policy that was both right and courageous is just plain ignorant in my view.

Just in case you missed the last 50 years of our history we no longer have an empire. But we are the fourth largest economy in the world and the only nation apart from the USA that appears both able and willing to project military power for the good of this world. We did so independently of the Americans in Sierra Leone for instance. And every time you open your mouth to criticise us just remember that you do so with our language and from a land which we created and which still owes a considerable debt to our cultural, scientific, missionary and commercial input over the centuries of its existence not to mentionthe 40% plus of Americans who probably came from the british isles in the first place.

 

[BobbieDog]

Blair is irrevocably damaged by what he did in taking us to war in Iraq.
There is no way back for him.
Kerry-Brown would be a good transatlantic alliance.
Two incredibly intelligent and globalistic people.
I feel a new dawn.

 

[ade32]

I think he should he was a well and find leader for England and stood for what he believed.

Funny, because in the US as the leader of a center-left party, he would be called a 'liberal'..... His and his party's policies are much more akin to the Democratic party in the US.