(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

[kest]

It is interesting to me how Brits discuss parties and issues, even when nominally discussion individuals, whereas USians discuss individuals even when nominally discussing parties and issues.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I wonder if it's built into the system and the way it handles mid-term leadership challenges? I've already seen comments elsewhere on LJ talking about how people need to remember that they didn't vote for Blair - they voted for Labour.

I think to some degree it's also historical. You get a two-term limit on Presidents. We get Maggie and Tony, two successful leaders who didn't want to leave office.

I think the debate here clearly shows you one thing - we're still talking about Maggie and the Conservative government of the 80s.

There's been no mention of John Major or the fact that the Conservatives stayed in office until '97 - it's all about Mrs Thatcher and whether history's about to repeat itself, with a successful leader who stays too long, leaving a divided/tainted party and no credible successor when they finally go...