Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
or is it the end? My money is on David Milliband so there............
Who do these people think they are? When Blair was elected to serve a term in office in a general election, did they take that to mean "prime minister... but only for as long as we say?"
under the British system, Blair is not elected as Prime Minister. technically, the Labour party have been elected to govern the country and he just happens to be their leader. for now.
of course, in reality...
Oh, well technically... SHUT THE FUCK UP.
but in practice people cast their votes largely to select the prime minister, do you not think?
but that isn't how the system legally works and i get the feeling that a lot of those involved in it don't see it that way either.
why was Blair even voted IN?
wankers the thousands of them.
the realistic alternative was Michael Howard?
that there's no-one else. i don't want Ming leading the country, i don't want that disingenuous ponce Cameron leading the country, but I hate Blair more than either of them. Any government which can reply to a perfectly reasonable letter from the Muslim community about the effect our vast international foreign policy cock-up has had on the world with the enormous arrogance John Reid did needs throwing out entirely. Some attempt should have been made at dialogue. I'm not having some ludicrous fat sell-out wanker (yet another one of those politicians who used to be Communist but binned it) telling millions of us what's right and what's not. *explodes*
that they've got ruth kelly in to do 'the dialogue', but how will anything she says have any force when we have idiots like reid dismissing the Muslim community out of hand from the top? ghhhhhhh.
also, ruth kelly to tackle religious extremism? bit rich isn't it?
but it's not a job they've specifically allocated to ruth kelly as her only portfolio, it's just part of her task as minister for local gov and communities. funny how things turn out.
and i don't think the letter was reasonable. it was written by people who consider it desirable to concede to the terrorists demands and nobody in the labour party should consider that desirable etc.
but that should be saved for another time
how is the signing and leaking of a letter such as this beneficial to the party in any way, and after doing this, why do they believe they should remain in the party?
Blair was elected to lead for a term so they should either back him for the term, or fuck off quietly for the benefit of the party they supposedly care so much about
Well, you see the thing is - like people on the far right, people on the far left DON'T think. Which is why they've just gone and as good as handed the Tories a fighting chance at the next election today.
Jolly good show, eh wot?
it'll be at least 3 years until the next election, maybe even 4. the longer they have with Brown in charge, the longer they have to bury this whole mess and removing Blair now stops him from dropping the party (from their point of view) in any deeper shit.
yeah but brown will be in charge ergo they will lose
Yeah, you're totally right - better now than later. That said, it would be preferable - for the good of the party - to not sabotage the Dear Leader in public ways like this, since doing so has a precedent for leading to... what was it? Three consecutive election defeats?
even with the infighting that removed thatcher, the tories did still win in '92, and there's ample believe that if it wasn't for Black Wednesdays they probably would've done a lot better in the following election as well...
blair was elected only in the capacity as the MP for.. er.. wherever he represents. durham?
the party was.
if they feel he is being detrimental to the party, they have to try and remove him.
to govern the country.
elected as leader of the labour party
but that isn't what you said.
Labour were elected to lead for a term with Blair at the helm, so these people, who are unpaid junior members of the party, should have either continued to support him for the good of the party, or voiced their concerns in private before continuing in their position or not.
To publically and vocally resign only damages the party as a whole, a party they apparantly have nothing against.
I feel he may be waiting for a suitable opposition within the party to Gordon Brown, so that Brown isn't elected by default - that won't inspire any kind of debate within the party about it's future course, and would lead to a large section of the party potentially not being behind the man in charge.
The mouthy juniors should consider the long-term position of the party when they're rocking the boat like they have.
"I was going to fire him anyway". Sums Blair up perfectly.
i agree with Stealthy that this move does seem ludicrously self-destructive. what makes me cry on a daily basis is that the alternative IS the tories, and that there is no party that represents the social, political and economic interests of our left-leaning, young demographic. not even the lib dems. BAH.
"no party that represents the social, political and economic interests of our left-leaning, young demographic."
cos there aren't enough of us. that's democracy
this is why we have to introduce mandatory euthanasia at the age of 55.
look at the political background of, say, someone like charles clarke. communist firebrand at university and about as far left as they get. only too happy to launch broadsides at the government when he's been cut adrift. but the public perception of him while he was in office as home secretary was that he was a weak ninny with his over-large ears lodged in blair's rectum.
if more student politicians stood up for their visions, rather than for their careers (like clarke shamelessly did), and formed a coalition with a proper manifesto and strong agreement between the main players, there's no telling what could happen. we have all these mini-societies like the Stop the War coalition and the anti-racist people - why don't they all amalgamate and form some kind of politically viable left-wing behemoth? they wouldn't win an election instantly, but they'd make a noise.
ah, there i go again with my idealistic rambling.
cos stop the war are a bunch of nasty bastards with absolutely horrible ideas?
is that the nastier ideas tend to get filtered out - the more parties there are in a coalition, the less room there is for the silly extremist element to have any influence. obviously, some people wouldn't be happy with that as it would mean at least some degree of compromise to strongly-held beliefs... but what those people need to realise is that they need to join together, just to get blair and other snotbags out of government.
i know this sounds like the complete opposite of what i was saying about putting political vision before political career, but you have to think in terms of the vision itself - which is getting labour out of government, replacing the three-party (effectively two-party) system we have now and introducing a fourth party into it with policies appropriate to the views of this demographic. agh, i'm in out of my depth now. someone get me out.
i would say that there are enough of us to at least foment discontent and take the vote away from the major parties.
It's just we're not taking them anywhere. What was the last election turn-out? 30%?
were people in our demographic?
it's a shame. it's totally legitimate not to vote as a protest against the system... but in my view, if you have to make a choice between gonorrhea and syphilis, you have to make a choice... because syphilis is a bit worse than gonorrhea.
i think milliband is probably a future PM but Cameron will be PM first
if people don't vote, it is put down to 'apathy'.
It would be better to distinguish between people who don't vote because they are not interested or are too dumb to fill the form in and those who want to say 'none of the above' to the list of wanky candidates and parties with whom they are presented. I'd like my non-vote to register and be counted.