Tony Blair - leader of the english speaking world

[wellard]

Originally posted by Donut: You're quite right about the Tories, they are split into several factions and are simply unelectable. 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!

Though like most foreigners I like Blair a lot, this reform of the House of Lords will go down in history as his greatest wasted chance. Instead of smashing the inbred tool of elitism, church and feudal power, he came up with the most pathetic half arsed compromise I have ever heard.


PS how about a swap with *honest* John Howard.....please!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: 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.

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. [/QUOTE]The Westminster system is in both Australia AND Britain. I am familiar with the concepts. We elect an MP for our area as well. It all works very well IN THEORY. In reality millions vote for an individual leader when they vote for the party. Most voters don't even know their local representative. Even if they do, they are more familiar with the leaders personality, style, history and policies than the local rep.

If you know your local member well, then they're a bloody good campaigner.

In reality, you have no way of ascertaining whether Labour would have won without Blair. Blair was the face of the Labour party. You cannot with any accuracy go back in history, remove an ingredient and suggest the same result would have occured. It's totally unscientific to suggect an alternate reality. All we have is what we know now. Labour won with Blair as leader. If you voted Labour, you knew who was directing the ship.

In any case, the last election Blair won a bigger majority. That time he was not an unknown quantity, but a tried and tested leader of Britain. If anything he has an even bigger mandate than before.

The mandate the Labour party has is with Blair as leader. If he goes, Labour has no mandate, pure and simple. Same as if they suddenly replace MPs of a particular area. A re-election occurs.

I firmly believe anytime a government changes it's leadership under the Westminster system, a general election should be immediately held. Otherwise calling Westminster nations "representative democracies" is a farce. They should be called "Oligarchies".

In any case, Britain has the totally undemocratic aristocratic upper house. "Unelected and unrepresentative swill" is What the aforementioned Paul Keating of Australia would have called the house of Lords. (Given what that he called our Senate "unrepresentative swill")

I seriously don't see how believers in democracy can tolerate a HOUSE OF LORDS in 2003AD.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Donut: the Conservatives are falling over themselves to go further to the right.

That's not very conservative of them. A 'Conservative' should keep the status quo. [/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 [/QUOTE]But they're not 'Conservative'. They're "Tory", which is 'conservative' by description right? Or am I wrong?

[Skunk]

The Westminster system is in both Australia AND Britain. I am familiar with the concepts. We elect an MP for our area as well. It all works very well IN THEORY. In reality millions vote for an individual leader when they vote for the party. Most voters don't even know their local representative. Even if they do, they are more familiar with the leaders personality, style, history and policies than the local rep. If you know your local member well, then they're a bloody good campaigner.

You've contradicted yourself. If it is about personality rather parties, you ought to know the name of your local member!

One thing I know for sure as an ex-party member in the UK is that people rarely know the name of their own representative - just his/her political colours. The system in the UK may well be similar to the Austrailian one - but the application is clearly different. I would challenge you to find anyone in the UK who believes in the concept of socialism, but votes for the right-wing because their leader has a more charming personality - or indeed find a right winger that will vote for Blair because his personality is better than William Hague.

People in the UK generally vote for what serves their personal interests - the elections there are not akin to a Miss World Contest (Dam! now an image of John Prescott in a bathing suit has just appeared in mind mind... ***ughhhhh****).

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: The Westminster system is in both Australia AND Britain. I am familiar with the concepts. We elect an MP for our area as well. It all works very well IN THEORY. In reality millions vote for an individual leader when they vote for the party. Most voters don't even know their local representative. Even if they do, they are more familiar with the leaders personality, style, history and policies than the local rep. If you know your local member well, then they're a bloody good campaigner.

You've contradicted yourself. If it is about personality rather parties, you ought to know the name of your local member!

One thing I know for sure as an ex-party member in the UK is that people rarely know the name of their own representative - just his/her political colours. The system in the UK may well be similar to the Austrailian one - but the application is clearly different. I would challenge you to find anyone in the UK who believes in the concept of socialism, but votes for the right-wing because their leader has a more charming personality - or indeed find a right winger that will vote for Blair because his personality is better than William Hague.

People in the UK generally vote for what serves their personal interests - the elections there are not akin to a Miss World Contest (Dam! now an image of John Prescott in a bathing suit has just appeared in mind mind... ***ughhhhh****). [/QUOTE]I most certainly did not contradict myself. It's about the personality of the leader, not personalities per se. The party is after all the sum of its many personalities. The leaders personality is what people associate with the party. UNLESS they have a strong and visable local member who's campaigned his/her butt off (which does happen)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: I would challenge you to find anyone in the UK who believes in the concept of socialism, but votes for the right-wing because their leader has a more charming personality - or indeed find a right winger that will vote for Blair because his personality is better than William Hague.

A politically minded person is not necessarily the "swinging voter" influenced by such things. Mr or Mrs Average who hasn't the time or inclination to fully investigate the myriad levels of political theory will make a decision based on more human and emotional levels.

Like quality of life, jobs, society, whether they can trust the leader, whether they feel comfortable giving him power, whether their own life is improving. Homeowners in Austrlia generally fare better under Liberal (the current govt.) for example. The arts have traditionally flourished under Labor. A self seeker will vote accordingly.

[ 08-05-2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: But they're not 'Conservative'. They're "Tory", which is 'conservative' by description right? Or am I wrong?

Being a Conservative merely means that you are a member of the Conservative Party, you may or may not also be a conservative.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Skunk: [You've contradicted yourself. If it is about personality rather parties, you ought to know the name of your local member! People in the UK generally vote for what serves their personal interests - the elections there are not akin to a Miss World Contest (Dam! now an image of John Prescott in a bathing suit has just appeared in mind mind... ***ughhhhh****).

Just maybe, you have contradicted youreself skunk and do the people of britain a disservice. Like your image of Prescott attests, people do see past a slick smile and tanned prettyboy looks. While I have no doubt that these attributes may help and probably would not hinder, enough people can see through to the real person.

Maybe Donut can give us his opinion on how well (?) the "unrepresentive swill" that is the house of lords is going with these changes and are any more due?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Skunk: If it is about personality rather parties, you ought to know the name of your local member!

I would say it is actually about both, and yes I do know my local member. If it is a good person a candidate and will do what is in the best interest of the riding than parties be damned. When all the parties suck you have no choice but to look at the person. If you can get an honest representative for the riding than great.

There are those I know that are loyal to the parties and always vote for the member of that party no matter if the devil himself is running. These people are fools(no offence), then there are the people who look at the representative, or party platform and make an informed decision. One thing is the leadership is never about popularity to the people but about who has the most representatives from his party elected. The leader of a party doesn't even have to win a seat, someone else can give up their seat for the leader of the party (Which is annoying if you were voting for that person for who he was).

[ 08-07-2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by wellard: Maybe Donut can give us his opinion on how well (?) the "unrepresentive swill" that is the house of lords is going with these changes and are any more due?

LOL - the House of Lords is much changed over the past few years. Most of the Hereditary Lords have gone. 666 were removed in 1999 leaving only 92. There are also 26 Lords Spiritual, Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England.

The next stage will be to take away all sitting and voting rights of the Hereditary Peers although they could still be nominated by one of the parties. 60% of the Lords will be nominated by parties in proportion to the number of votes received in an election. In addition 120 members will be 'cross benchers' i.e not affiliated to any party.

I think the role of the Lords is often misunderstood. They cannot initiate legislation, they cannot amend or delay any finance bills and can only refuse to pass Government Legislation three times for any bill. They are a revising house.

The House of Lords is suited to being a revising chamber for several
reasons:

(i) Composition. One of the perceived strengths of the House lies in
the wide range of experience of its members. For any given policy
area there are members who can bring practical understanding to
the debate, either having worked in the given area itself or having a
long history of working on policy in the area. Ministers need to win
the argument to win the vote as Whips have few sanctions to
impose on troops who are un-elected and are not young career
politicians with ambitions in the party. The fact that members of the
Lords do not have constituency duties means they have the time
and are in the position to look at the more technical parts of
legislation.

(ii) Debate style. Debates in the Lords are less confrontational and
party political than those in the Commons. In the Commons the
minister in charge of a bill is closely identified with the policy behind
it, challenges are seen as politically motivated. In the Lords debate
tends to focus on the merits of particular points and ministers
cannot rely on uncritical support from their own party. This style
makes it easier for ministers to concede points and accept
amendments without appearing to 'lose’.

(iii) Timetable. Convention is that the Lords observe certain intervals in
between each stage of a bill’s consideration. Amendments in the
Lords can also be made at Third Reading. These two factors mean
the timetable in the Lords is much more leisurely than that in the
Commons. Ministers have time to respond to points raised at an
early stage in the Lords’ consideration of a Bill by tabling a
Government amendment before the Bill leaves the Lords. If the Bill
has come from the Commons then amendments arising from points
made in the Commons will often be made on arrival in the Lords.

[ 08-07-2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]