Tony Blair - leaves 27th June

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,986
Location
South East, UK
The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June.

(ETA 2007! ;) )
 
Has he achieved his legacy checklist? Blue Peter and Songs of Praise wasn't it?
 
Hmmmm, the guy who had it all. Age, charisma, youth, votes and then blew it all away because he so stubbornly followed the little unintelligent man in the White House. I NEVER understood why a clever and intelligent man like Blair could be so blatantly ignorant.. Sad story.
 
He also failed miserably to capitalise on the London property boom, selling 1 Richmond Crescent (N1) for GBP 615,000 in 1997 and then having to pony up GBP 3,500,000 for 29 Connaught Square (W2) in 2004.
 
I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!)
 
Darat said:
The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June.

(ETA 2007! ;) )
Click to expand...

Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...
 
Darat said:
I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!)
Click to expand...

Too early to assess his legacy - if anything comes of the loans for honours thing he could be remembered for reasons he will not like at all.

Oh and you really shouldn't talk about Gordon like that!
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...
Click to expand...
The Bank of England raised interest rates. Mortgage misery for millions! Hear the clang of factory gates shutting down for the last time! See exporters crippled by the strength of the pound!
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...
Click to expand...

Oh central bank interest rate up, inflation still on the up... nah of course not.
 
Just been reading Ming Campbell's comment about the vicar's speech and noticed he wasn't pleased that Blair said Great Britain was the greatest nation. Now I'm not one for jingoism or overt nationalism but I would expect a PM of this country to at least tell everyone that Great Britain is the greatest nation?
 
Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that.

However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2%

1997 General Election votes

Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats
Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats
Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats

2001 General Election votes

Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats
Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats
Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats

And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading:

Labour's percentage of votes - at 36% (down by 5% from 2001) - is the lowest any winning party has ever achieved.

More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour - but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England.

There was an overall turnout of 61% - up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so. More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%).

Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%.

Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast

The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast

The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast.

Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system.
"The British first-past-the-post electoral system has reduced the general election to a travesty of democracy. How can any government back by one in four or five electors conceivably claim any sort of valid democratic mandate?"

David Lipsey, 'Make Votes Count'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that.

However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2%

1997 General Election votes

Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats
Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats
Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats

2001 General Election votes

Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats
Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats
Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats

And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading:
Click to expand...
I have argued extensively against the "first-past-the-post" type of democracy previously.

Blair was, however, constantly reelected, even if only by a simple majority.
 
Darat said:
Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system.
Click to expand...

If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people.

FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately.


And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches?
 
brodski said:
If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people.

FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately.


And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches?
Click to expand...

I think, when the percentage of people actually voting drops as low as it has done, that should be of more concern than the actual system - mind you to be honest I don't know what the turnout trend has been, I know we've had some low ones - but very low historically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom