(no subject)

[mrph]

Tony Blair appears to have accepted the inevitable and is expected to finally announce a timetable for his resignation within hours

I know that some of you will disagree, but I have to believe this is a good thing. Blair's been there too long, he's lost his credibility and he needs to go.

I don't want to see Labour disintegrate completely - it's not healthy for British democracy when one party is unelectable - but they have to face the future and start fixing the things that the Blair years have broken.

Personally, I reckon he'll be gone before the end of January. Perhaps sooner.

Comments

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Something that was unthinkable under the Tories in the 1980s or early 1990s.

Would it have been at least slightly different if Labour had been in power at the time? Probably. But there's also an element of plain and simple progress in there - politicians don't want to stray too far from the public mood.

The Tories in power in 2009 - not something I'm endorsing - would be quite different from the Tories of 1988. They can't backtrack. Many of their younger members wouldn't want to, anyway.

I'm not saying that Labour's always been a disaster - but once a government's been elected, there's a certain element of diminishing returns. They slump and spin, increasing paranoid about their future.

Labour in the last 2-4 years has been, on the whole, a waste of space.

I salute and celebrate the fact that they've finally introduced civil partnerships - but their foreign policy has supported a needless and dishonest war that killed an awful lot of people. They want ID cards. They want "on the spot" justice. Their talk on asylum is increasingly draconian, as is their 'control order' system and the way they've applied anti-terror laws.

I can't vote for that. I want to see an end to it, here and now.

Would the Conservatives be somehow better intentioned? Would Gordon Brown? Perhaps not.

But having said that, I think that kicking Blair out of office would send a loud and clear message that a large chunk of the electorate does not like or want this behaviour.

I may not have faith in Brown's or Cameron's good intentions. But they're not as obviously deluded as Blair, so I've got a lot more faith in their pragmatism and enlightened self-interest.

The government works for us. Now and then we have to remind them - and their colleagues - of that. With a P45, if necessary.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think the Tories in 2009 would be different - Labour has 'ratched things on' in terms of some issues.

But, you are right about ID cards etc - I actually read some comment about voting in the Tories because the objected to some right-wing New Labour policies! A bit extreme, perhaps, but I can see their point.

I finally gave up on Blair when he appointed Ruth Kelly in some position to do with equality, when she is a member of a far-right Catholic group - that was the last straw for me.....

Perhaps Brown will be different?

[jorune.livejournal.com]

By all accounts, Brown is worse than Blair in his autocratic moments. Tony was speaking from a background of Anglo-Catholicism 'Come on, let's be reasonable about this'. Gordon comes from a background of solid Presbyterianism 'You'll stay oot in tha rain because it's guid for ye and nae shoes neither!'

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but he is more intelligent than Blair, and possibly less likely to say nutty things about allowing schools to teach creationism and such stuff. One can imagine Gordon rolling his eyes and shaking his head on hearing of such nonsense. Brown is likely to have some very intelligent and capable people with him, such as Milliband and Balls, and not nutters like Kelly.