And how would that help us? You want Michael Howard to get in as a result of Labour having a bitter leadership contest just before an election?
I don't much like Tony, but I detest the conservatives. For all his faults, Mr Tony has given us devolution, the Human Rights Act, good reforms for workers rights, including maternal benefits, the best economic period for 100 years (low inflation and unemployment) and has made phenomenal strides in equal rights for queer folk. Before you wish Blair out consider the realistic alternative - a true blue Thatcherite with Something of the Night about him.
...and he's been using exactly that tactic to push through a sequence of flawed policies like that one, by turning each of them into a vote of confidence in his leadership and scaring his critics with the thought that they might let Howard in.
That's bad government. Especially as, so far, he's not learned from it - he's still imposing things from on high.
On balance... I'd rather take the chance of Howard getting in, as I don't think the odds are in favour of a Conservative government just yet.
It's getting to the point where Blair is viewed as a bad thing for his own party's popularity, though - if the leadership contest isn't a complete mangled mess, they might actually be better off (and regain some voter confidence) without him.
Labour is sinking into the same sort of mess that characterised the last days of the tories. Everyone's convinced that Hoon's only still around because he'll be needed as a scapegoat to save Tony from Hutton. Very few people trust the government's honesty any more. Too many of the cabinet seem terrified of the tabloids (take a bow, Mr Blunkett).
Something needs to change all that - or we will have Howard and his pals in power, within a year or two. And a change of leadership might just do it...
I agree that his constant use of brinkmanship is rather troubling. I guess where we differ is that I really, really, really, would not risk any chance of Howard getting in. I think you are wrong about what the mass of the population think - I recently saw a report on channel 4 that thought that Blair was far more trustworthy than Howard, and remember that the majority of the public supported the Iraq war. This is not a crisis time for Blair or Labour - this is simply back to 'normal service' as far as politics is concerned (at this stage of the electoral cycle, the leader has *always* been considered an electoral disadvantage). This is the way it always was up to 1997. In the last days of the tories the party leader was losing votes, not winning them, and the encomy was in a mess.
I really, really don't want the party of Anne Widdecombe and Norman Tebbit back under any circumstances. It really isn't worth the risk. Those who say there is no difference between the political parties have worryingly short memories.
For all his faults, Mr Tony has given us devolution, But when do we get devoloution for England so that we don't have unwanted policies imposed on us by the votes of devolved scottish MPs?
Don't be surprised if Nick Brown gets a very prominent ministerial job in the near future... whether its under Blair or Gordon Brown is another matter of course...
For me it would somehow have been wrong for Blair to fall over tuition fees after all the far more serious wrongs with which he has been involved... well actually, one in particular... the one for which the Hutton report is acting as highly effective smoke-screen.
I wouldn't so much if the vote hadn't been decided by bloody Scottish MPs voting about things that won't bloody affect their own constituents, and which have fundamentally nothing to do with them.
English MPs aren't allowed (rightly) to vote on issues which only affect Scotland. Bloody pro-Celt discrimination.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 12:13 pm (UTC)How do I forge another four?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 12:44 pm (UTC)I don't much like Tony, but I detest the conservatives. For all his faults, Mr Tony has given us devolution, the Human Rights Act, good reforms for workers rights, including maternal benefits, the best economic period for 100 years (low inflation and unemployment) and has made phenomenal strides in equal rights for queer folk. Before you wish Blair out consider the realistic alternative - a true blue Thatcherite with Something of the Night about him.
Better the devil you know, surely.....
Better the devil...
Date: 2004-01-27 12:59 pm (UTC)That's bad government. Especially as, so far, he's not learned from it - he's still imposing things from on high.
On balance... I'd rather take the chance of Howard getting in, as I don't think the odds are in favour of a Conservative government just yet.
It's getting to the point where Blair is viewed as a bad thing for his own party's popularity, though - if the leadership contest isn't a complete mangled mess, they might actually be better off (and regain some voter confidence) without him.
Labour is sinking into the same sort of mess that characterised the last days of the tories. Everyone's convinced that Hoon's only still around because he'll be needed as a scapegoat to save Tony from Hutton. Very few people trust the government's honesty any more. Too many of the cabinet seem terrified of the tabloids (take a bow, Mr Blunkett).
Something needs to change all that - or we will have Howard and his pals in power, within a year or two. And a change of leadership might just do it...
Re: Better the devil...
Date: 2004-01-27 01:29 pm (UTC)I really, really don't want the party of Anne Widdecombe and Norman Tebbit back under any circumstances. It really isn't worth the risk. Those who say there is no difference between the political parties have worryingly short memories.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 08:04 am (UTC)But when do we get devoloution for England so that we don't have unwanted policies imposed on us by the votes of devolved scottish MPs?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 12:52 pm (UTC)For me it would somehow have been wrong for Blair to fall over tuition fees after all the far more serious wrongs with which he has been involved... well actually, one in particular... the one for which the Hutton report is acting as highly effective smoke-screen.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 01:31 pm (UTC)My prediction....
Blair gets in next election, retires, Gordy Brown takes over, Nick Brown gets senior post.
So it goes...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 01:34 am (UTC)English MPs aren't allowed (rightly) to vote on issues which only affect Scotland. Bloody pro-Celt discrimination.