We're all Cromwells these days!

You're quite right about the Tories, they are split into several factions and are simply unelectable.

Of course there's always Gordon Brown. What Brown should have done was to come to an arrangement with Blair that Blair would stand down as Prime Minister after four years and allow Brown to take over.

What's that, there was such an agreement, and Tony Blair reneged on it - well that's not very honest is it?


I don't mind though. Seven years ago Tony stated quite clearly in the Labour Manifesto that we will have a referendum on Proportional Representation.

I'm still waiting Tony - you lying toerag!

*cough*Charles Kennedy*cough* ;)

[quote]Originally posted by Skunk:

Quote:

But, whether Tony Blair will survive to be the next PM is another matter altogether. If he does manage to fight off a leadership challenge, he will weaken his party's majority in the next parliament.

I think that's the flaw with the Westminster system. The Labour Party has no mandate without Blair. People voted for the Party with him as leader.

I know millions were angry when Paul Keating made a leadership challenge against Bob Hawke - then Prime Minister and leader of the Australian Labor Party (no 'u'). Keating won and became our Prime Minister yet was not elected by the Australian people as such.

I personally found him an arrogant bastard and was glad to see him turfed out on his arse by the Australian public.

Our system doesn't work like that Moiraine. Two right wing candidates serve to split the right wing wote.

Some may say however that we have the right wing guy in at the moment, the Conservatives are falling over themselves to go further to the right.

I know I've done this before but......

Tony Blair MP is an anagram of I'm Tory Plan B!

Even the Demi-gorgon Thatcher said about Blair - 'Don't worry about Tony - he's one of us'

That's not very conservative of them. A 'Conservative' should keep the status quo.

Not at all. Although the cult of leadership has become far more important, essentially we vote for our own MP. We don't have a President here! The Labour party voted Blair to be it's leader and can vote him out if they want to. They will take the opinion of the electorate into account if they do so. That's how Thatcher went.

That's not very conservative of them. A 'Conservative' should keep the status quo. </font>[/QUOTE]No - I think that's a 'conservative'. ;) A Conservative can't do anything without power - and Blair has taken there traditional role just right of centre. So they want some 'clear blue water' between them

It's never been that personality driven in British politics. People tend to vote for the party - rather than the leader. When Blair was elected, he was the new leader - and an unknown quantity not only to the general public but also to the rank and file party members.

To assume that a significant number of people would not have voted for labour if another figure was at its head would be an incorrect assertion.

In any event, changes in leadership normally occur before the election not after. Even in the case of Margaret Thatcher, when she lost her leadership challenge to John Major during her term of office, a new general election was immediately called.

Whatever flaws there are in the 'Westminster System', this isn't one of them.

Not so, Thatcher was defeated in 1990 and won the election in 1992. Otherwise I agree, as long as the leader isn't a complete lose (Michael Foot) then people vote for the party rather than the leader. It's the party that elects the Prime Minister.

You mean that Major won the election in 1992 (typo I guess)?

Thanks for setting me straight there (although, given the way that the english system works the 18 months separating the two events does seem like 'immediately' when looking back on the events after a delay of 13 years.

I think I'm getting old - Policeman began to look 'too young' years ago, and now my perceptions of the passage of time is beginning to blur....