[Closed] Gordon's on his way then

So what did Tony Blair, personally gain from the war in Iraq? Has he got a garden full of barrels of oil, was it just for a laugh? Why did he risk his position, His easiest decision was to do nothing.

It was a mistake, everyone admits it was a mistake? but we can't see what would have happened if we'd done nowt.

What if Hitler had been simarly dispatched in '38?

the torrys were too afraid to be seen as anti-patriotic to go against the war

evidence or not the lib dems had the balls to say it was wrong labour/torry went in gung ho

a massiver factor in the tiorrys downfall was the sleaze allegations
was it 5 cabinet ministers outed as having affairs
at least one mp found aut erotic aspixiated to death
all the while major was banging currie!
and the Tory slogan of the time
Back to Basics

Personally i feel what we need now, is a facist dicator.
someone with absoloute power who will be corrupted absoloutly.
a bad idea perhaps.... unless.....

[img] [/img]

"Honest politics" GB - pah!

So what did Tony Blair, personally gain from the war in Iraq? Has he got a garden full of barrels of oil, was it just for a laugh? Why did he risk his position, His easiest decision was to do nothing.

No, he thought he was right, thats fine - however he - and the cabinet - deliberately manipulated the evidence and legal assessment to both parliament and the public to sway their opinion and secure support for what they thought was the right option, that was the crime, if they had made the case based on the facts then there would be no issue, its the lies that were the sin!

It was a mistake, everyone admits it was a mistake? but we can't see what would have happened if we'd done nowt.

Oh, we hear that word a lot from politicians recently, don't we - it wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate campaign to make the evidence support the conclusion, rather than the other way round!

trouble is we do have an economist rnning the country

Why do people often describe him as being an economist; am I missing something? From what I've read, he has a first class degree and a PhD in History (thesis not on the history of economics, either).

I suspect Stephen Fry has much better things to do with his time

Anyone listening to GB?

Caroline Flint going too - excellent! 🙂

so aracer, like I said, tell me what have NuLab done that compares to that list because you haven't come up with jack shot :-

Thatcher's war against the working class
Tony's war on terror.

Hardly comparable. For Tonys war on terror, I give you the completely avoidable Falklands fiasco.

Thatcher and Major's sell off of the family silver
Do I really need to answer that one? Can you not think of a single thing Gordon's done which might be compared to that? Tell you what I'll give you a clue - gold.

So for GB selling off gold the Tory's privatised Rail, Telecoms, Gas, Water...............................Again, hardly comparable

Continued and cultivated civil war in the UK (Ulster)
Failing to end civil war in the UK, despite claims otherwise

I'm sorry but you're talking complete bum gravy. In no way is there an ongoing civil war in Ireland. The Good Friday agreement is light years away from Tory thinking on Ulster and no way would the Tories have entered into dialogue with the ROI.

A second recession
They seem to be busy making up for not having had one before.

So you admit, just one recession, again, hardly comparable.

Thank you aracer for confirming my original claims..

trailmonkey - Member

....... I give you the completely unavoidable Falklands fiasco.

I assume you mean avoidable? There was a peace plan on the table which might have worked and blockade wasn't given a chance either - to say nothing off......................

However no matter how you view the Falklands war it didn't cost the lives of many tens of thousands of civilians and totally **** up a country

GB no mention of UK debt thanks to his bailing out banks - he's got to go!

I assume you mean avoidable?

Yes I did, post edited 😳

However no matter how you view the Falklands war it didn't cost the lives of many tens of thousands of civilians and totally **** up a country

I'm not trying to excuse NuLabs illegal war, far from it. However, it hardly puts them into the same bracket as the previous Tory administration.

However, predicting the end of the Labour party is rather wishful thinking by some.

[i]No one[/i] can predict the end of the Labour Party, politics just isn't like that. But it is imo, reasonable to suggest that it is a possibility.

Not because of what has happened this week, but because of the historically unique situation in which the Labour Party might find itself in may 2010.

General election defeats are always traumatic events for either of the two main parties. They are particularly traumatic if it happens to the governing party. And the demoralised party invariably goes into a period of soul searching and revaluation of it's polices. Which is of course amongst other requirements, absolutely vital for the fight back.

However, I think the Labour Party might be too deeply ****ed to do launch any sort of effective fight back. Firstly there is the not so small problem of the fact that it's financially bankrupt.

Then there is the fact that it's membership has haemorrhaged. It now has less than half the membership which it had when it first came to power. And to massively compound the problem, those who have left have overwhelmingly been activists. Those who have been bothered to stay, have tended to be direct debit, Guardian armchair activists. Never ever, underestimate the importance of the activists in winning elections.

Next will be the complete inability to do the vital 'soul searching'. The Labour Party no longer has any democratic structures whatsoever. It was the stated aim of Tony Blair after his Clause 4 victory, to change the party's structures. Time and again he said that party structures had to be changed, and he proceeded to purge the Labour Party of all it's democratic structures. Debate and dissent is no longer tolerated, and Party Conferences and the NEC are meaningless sideshows. The party is very clearly, strictly controlled with an iron stalinist-like grip by a ruling clique of control freaks.

Then there's the question of it's moral and creditability bankruptcy. From 1979 until 1997 the Parliamentary Labour Party attacked every single Tory privatisation programme. Not one, did they support, mounting vigorous challenges of Tory economic polices. However once elected, they decided that the Tories hadn't in fact privatised enough, and embarked on their own neo-liberal programmes of internal markets and competitive tendering, in areas which the Tories hadn't even dreamed of. On [i]what possible basis[/i] will a Labour opposition oppose the Tories 2010-2015 ?

Finally, there is the sheer scale of the possible Labour Party defeat in 2010. I hear rumours that Labour support in local elections yesterday might have been below 20%. There is a [i]real[/i] possibility that come next May, Labour will witness a complete meltdown of it's support. Possibly, it's worst showing since it first entered parliament - maybe less than 100 MPs ?

As the Labour Party descends into a likely civil war, I think it's very reasonable to expect that some Labour MPs will defect to the Tories and LibDems - that is what tends to happen in these situations.

Then of course there's the wild card of the pack - the unions. The unions if they so wish, can deliver the fatal blow to the Labour Party. If the unions decide that the Labour Party can't/isn't worth saving, then they can pull the plug on it. They might feel it's time to start a new party, rather than wait years for another Labour government only to watch it waste another 3 terms in power as it does the Tories job for them. And believe you me that's the direction which things are moving at the moment, as the unions start to sever their links with Labour and see the growing futility of handing them over their money. Any new party backed by the unions and wider Labour Movement campaign groups, will be extremely broad based imo. And I would expect a lot of existing Labour MPs to join without hesitation. I think it is reasonably fair to say that No2EU was some trade unionists testing the water in this respect.

Of course it might not happen like that all. But I think that there's a real possibility that it might. Certainly Labour's financial, membership, and credibility crises, are very real and of historic proportions - I don't think that is really debatable. And suspect Labour's meltdown in May 2010, will probably prove to be very real too.

TandemJeremy - Member

However no matter how you view the Falklands war it didn't cost the lives of many tens of thousands of civilians and totally **** up a country

Still Oil Related though?

tyger - Member

GB no mention of UK debt thanks to his bailing out banks - he's got to go!

Let the banks collapse, we'll certainly have something to worry about, it'll make the debt we have from bailing the banks out a minor thing

paulosoxo - how so?

Definatly oil related. All to do with the UK claim on the oil under the Antarctic. Its the basis on which the UK claims a slice of the Antarctic

Ernie has hit the nail on the head i think.The unions are the rock for which the party is built.The way New Labour have tried to break up Royal mail will mean that they will have very little support from the CWU.
I would also think that direct funding in exchange for policy will be a thing of the past after the General election,especially off the back of "cash for questions" and the recent expenses row.
Labour have never had much of a membership compared to the Tories and without the money from the unions i think it will be difficult for the party to remain financially viable.

GB no mention of UK debt thanks to his bailing out banks - he's got to go!

Hmm right OK, so he should have let the banks go bust - Great idea, oh...hang on, ah yes, that's what caused the Great Depression of the 1920's and 30's!! (look it up if you don't know about this). If you've spoken to people who lived in cities in this country during the Great Depression, you'd know what we're going thru now is absolutely chicken **** in comparison.

So hes still PM

infact hes looking a lot firmer and more resolute than in a while

I think a few labour MPs were bouyed by the fact that the torries didnt get that many votes in the euros (up 1%) despite the labour collapse (down 7%), it seems many people still dont want to vote torry!

the economy appears, for the moment to be doing better, spring bounce in house sales, exports up, pound up on the euro

how come hes still here a lot of people were saying hed be history by now at the start of this thread, any of you care to comment?

That wasn't one of the greatest ever predictions I suppose 🙄

He still looks pretty rickety mind you, but I don't suppose Cameron is too sorry that he's still there.

I think a few labour MPs were bouyed by the fact that the torries didnt get that many votes in the euros (up 1%) despite the labour collapse (down 7%), it seems many people still dont want to vote torry!

well done for replying aracer!

They're fools if they think their vote going down by more than the Conservative vote went up is a sign that people don't want to vote Tory.

never underesrimate the plebs dislike of the oily toff brigade!

That wasn't one of the greatest ever predictions

Well I predict that Gordon Brown will [u]definitely[/u] resign within the next 13 months. Probably in 12 months time. He [i]will[/i] be history - very soon.

The only thing which can save the Labour Party is a change of policies. Just a change of leader will most definitely [i]not[/i] save them. The most that it might achieve, is a temporary bleep for a few weeks in the opinion polls.

It's worrying and mildly depressing when the public can only argue over who is the worst party, rather than who will be the best in future.

Personally I'll vote for the people who have policies that stand up for my beliefs and try to help me, rather than who did what best last time round. I suspect that'll be Tories though, despite a few parts of their plans that I dont like.

I'm curious, GG, what sort of policies do you think will help them at the moment? My impression right now is that they're doomed in the way the Torys were in '96/'97, and there's pretty much nothing that can be done to save them (however good their policies might be, the public are simply fed up with them). I could of course be totally wrong - it has been known - and genuinely interested in your take on this.

I tend to agree that a change of leader won't save them (though it's not totally impossible IMHO, given other things going in their favour, such as a definite improvement in the economy). Should still help their electoral prospects a bit though - if I was a Labour MP in one of the Tory's 100-150th target seats I'd be dead keen on a change of leadership (personally I'm no more keen on a Tory landslide than I ever have been on a Labour landslide - too big a majority is bad for democracy IMHO).

The only thing which can save the Labour Party is a change of policies.

I think you credit the British electorate with more thought than they are prepared to expend. They will vote on the charisma of the party leader or on the financial success of the administration, although there are signs that things may be improving, it may be too little too late.

Not looking too good for Broon then 🙁

charisma always was broons achileas heel

it seems pretty obvious that no labour mp wants to take up leadership when the likelihood of them getting an andoran style drubbing is so high right now

I think a lot of people dont trust cameron though and as for the idea of putting osborne in charge of the economy, it seems pretty obvious that he got his job coz he was a mate of daves at oxbridge rather than his sharp financial mind

I do think cameron showed himself to be a very poor leader when he tried to align himself with eastern european far right groups before the euro election, absolutely disgraceful, no matter how bad he disagreed with the lisbon treaty there are things you dont do
especially for it to be wasted anyway when the allies he thought would do well ended up getting nil poits!

No, really, it is 'a change of policies' which the British people want. The problem is that most people don't realise that. That's why the public keep saying that they want a new leader.

That's why when Brown took over from Blair, Labour's fortunes in the polls shot up - Brown could have very likely won a general election had he gone to the polls soon after becoming leader. Support for Labour soon dropped when it became clear that nothing had changed.

The same thing happened with John Major. Before he took over, the Tories faced certain defeat in a GE, he changed that. But by the next GE, people had realised that he was no different, so they gave Labour a landslide victory.

The public keeps saying they want a different leader, but they are never satisfied - because the policies remain the same. Next election the Tories will win [i]not[/i] because they have different policies (no one knows what the Tories policies are - not even the Tories) but because they are lead by a different person. Of course people won't be satisfied with the next Tory government - because who is Prime Minister is not the issue. It's about policies. It's just most people don't realise that.

did u see blears bleating out her apologies to the prime minister, trying to make out she didnt do anything on purpose and really regrets causing him so much grief

i think brown has done well out of these resignations, cleared some obviously dead wood from teh cabinet

and caroline flint; when asked by fellow labour MPs if she had read the Lisbon treaty she couldnt answer and she was supposed to be Europe Minister, obviously it was just coz gordon hates women that she was forced out

im pretty sure there are a lot of other cabinet ministers who should be tested on their competenence for their posts

>im pretty sure there are a lot of other cabinet ministers who should be tested on their competenence for their posts

Including Gordo 🙂

im pretty sure there are a lot of other cabinet ministers who should be tested on their competenence for their posts

Too slow 🙁

My earlier presumption that Gordon would be out on his ear come Monday was predicated on the Cabinet and the PLP having at least 1 reasonably sized testicle amongst the lot of them.

They've rather damned themselves.

great line in Bagehot (The Economist) this week:
[i]Lord Mandelson could easily have destroyed his erstwhile foe [Brown]. Yet to a refined palate, the one-off rush of bringing down an old adversary might seem a crass and unsatisfying triumph. How much more gratifying to hold his fate in your hands every day—and he knowing you own it? It is a turn of events that, before he became prime minister, Mr Brown cannot have anticipated in his worst, wildest dreams.[/i]

Aye, its funny to see Brown is now the bitch of Mandy.

Im just waiting for Steve Bell to do a cartoon of Mandleson cupping Gordon's balls. 🙂

[img] [/img]

[url=

for work unless surrounded by germans. in which case you may get funny looks.[/url]