Tony Blair to Step Down
 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bla...390471099.html
Well that's one down. Maybe now Britain can field some real leadership and stop this whole EU nonsese, eh?

I can't see that happening under Brown, frankly, no matter what the houses look like.

Please explain.

Tony Blair has led one of the most corrupt and ineffectual British governments for a decade now; what else is to explain? We probably won't get a great leader next time around, but anyone else would probably be an improvement, as long as they aren't mentally ill. More than the average politician that is.

As for "this EU nonsense", I'm assuming Brady would rather see less European integration. Perhaps so would I, considering the direction that the EU is currently taking; as a concept it is admirable, and comparable as an idea to the United States of America. In practice it tends to be about bringing every country in Europe down to the economic level of the lowest common denominator, and that's not even the only drawback. Just one of the major ones.

Well the problem that differentiates a federation under the EU and a federation under the US is that the US was formed as a collective of states into a single-nation, while the EU is attempting to combine nation-states.

Now if the EU simply involved free trade and free labor then the weakest member states would be able to bridge the gap by virtue of their comparative advantage (cheap labor). As it stands, though, those who have an interest in the EU are attempting to turn it into something resembling our own Federal government, which is a terrible idea.

There is also the loss of sovereignty which presents another significant problem when trying to collectivise nation-states.

I love how they can change the politician without allowing another election. Sure they're in the same party, but that doesn't make their goals on what they claim they'll improve for the people (and rarely actually do) the same. God bless English democracy :rolleyes:

Actually, the British voters vote for a party, not for their candidate. While one might have the impression that it's actually the other way round, it doesn't help the fact that it's totally legal to change the prime minister as long as the successor is member of the same party.

I'm aware of that Musharraf that was my point. If they really cared about the community shouldn't there be another party election now? It would put each party on equal footing, rather then this voting afraid of change I swear has been going on in the past to win voters.

Why? I don't think that people should vote for candidates. It's their party that offers principles, programs and perspectives. This is a very important difference. I assume that a lot of people voted for Blair back then because they thought he was a fresh, new politician and because they wanted a cut after the "boring" Major era, but instead of voting for the candidate, the voters should compare the two main parties (Conservatives and Labour), not the candidates.

This is a party election we're talking about. Since Blair is resigning as Labour leader, the Labour Party is electing a new one. Since Labour forms the Government, the new leader become Prime Minister. And, since the current Parliament's term doesn't expire for another three years, there's no need to hold a new general election unless Labour wants to or if the Government loses the confidence of the House.

Since the incoming Brown Government will retain the confidence of the House, it doesn't need a new general election anymore than John Major needed one in 1990 or Shinzo Abe needed one last year.

As opposed to trying to hold onto our former glory by riding on the coattails of the USA?

Brown will command more unity behind him instead of relying on David Cameron and the Tory vote to pass Bills through the Commons.

Tony Blair was literally ousted last year before the Labour Conference he was literally so close to there and then being pushed by his fellow MP's and this set in motion the dreaded 'departure date' saga. He couldn't get Bills through parliment, many resigned, many called for his head but did he go? NO!

Yet because the guy was so selfish and unwillinging to go when the party clearly did not want him they will probably a) lose in the next election b) it will be a hung parliment requiring a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to get a majority. The Tories will be hard to beat with already 42% of the local constitiuent vote this year with Labour on a poor 27% only 1% up from last year.

Brown himself though is as charasmatic as kissing a Baboon's arse and in the eyes of many at Westminster a 'control freak' who is totally unworkable with. The guy somewhat totally dodges and forgets any mention of his doing in the current Pensions Shortfall Scandal in which he lost Billions leaving many of the elderly with nothing.

Labour are stuck with Brown. David Miliband was obviously 10 times a better choice yet because of the sense of invetibaility and because Tony did not reveal when he was going to go it had to be Gordon Brown. If he had revealed the date earlier events could have been set in motion to get Miliband in this way swaying the Brownites would have been much easier that Brown was not the right candidtate to beat the Tories.

Miliband simply could not of stood against Brown at this time it would have broken the party in half because now with only 2 years left he hasn't got time to establish himself as a premier and the Brownites would have been much harder to sway, even among them though some admit that Gordon can't do it. Face it if Gordon does lose to Cameron his political career is over and I would fully expect Miliband to take over as the Labor leader after the election.

I seriously have no idea who I will be voting for but Cameron and Brown both look like Thatcher and Blair.

I hope you understand that was not an election it was simply the most shoddy and undemocratic ushering in through the back door while you sit down and shutup type appointment. Nobody faced Brown only 1 left winger for the hell of it stood against him just so as to create an illusion there was a 'contest'.

David Milliband would've made an absolutely appalling Prime Minister. He's far too young, fair too inexperienced and has as much substance as a wet tissue.

While I'm no supporter of New Labour (I'm actually a Conservative), I'd much rather have Gordon Brown as leader of the country than Tony Blair or David Cameron. Gordon Brown seems to actually have principles and policies whereas Cameron is a career politician, lacking in both substance and true Conservative ideals, and as such has no right to hold office. Furthermore, he's shown a complete inability to make the most of the cash for honours scandal and New Labour going back on its promise to hold a Referrendum regarding this re-designed EU Constitution. In regards to the latter, I'm hoping it's because of the imminent change in leadership and he fully intends to push Gordon Brown into giving us a referrendum. However, Cameron has still shown absolute shoddiness when dealing with New Labours recent cock ups since he took over as Leader of the Opposition.

Hey, yami? I'm a (lower-case) conservative myself in the United States, and I'm always curious as to whether Cameron's poll numbers within his constituency are legitimate. Do Conservatives hate or love the guy?

The Tories originally loved the guy, seeing him as the pretty face to power much like Tony Blair was for the Labour Party. However, I feel that the gloss of his reign is starting to wear off. The Conservatives have been having in-party trouble over Cameron's stance on Grammar Schools, but I believe he's come up with some policies that's gained approval from a lot of people in the party (not too sure as I've been on holiday so not kept up with the news). Overall, I'd say about 60% of the Conservatives love him, while the rest see him as being wet and too left wing for their liking.