Tony Blair will step down on the 27th of June. Sounds like he indulged in a very Blair-ish schmaltz fest up there in Sedgefield. I'm surprised he didn't break into a 'spontaneous' rendition of "My Way". Ah well, he's off to lament his legacy, which will forever be The Stupid Pointless War and the culture of spin which now dominates our political landscape like never before. I take some small measure of satisfaction from the fact that this most thoroughly vainglorious of men will not live to see history bestow any form of enduring favour upon him. And he knows it, which is why he's signed up to all this "Global Ambassador" bullshit for a couple of years before getting himself on the lecture circuit gravy train. What a total cunt the man is. Good riddance. Mind you, not that excited by a Gordy and "Dave", either. We're in for some decidely mediocre political times, I fear.
Hmmm with the likelihood of Brown taking over doesn't really excite anyone apart from himself. Brown will be worse me thinks.
I think you're being too harsh on him. Were it not for the stupid pointless war, Blair's legacy would be far better. Yes, obviously this IS an important part of his legacy, but its hardly the only thing.
He has done well with the N.Ireland issue. But when it came to Education and Health care, he hardly improved them after spending so much money on them. Loads of money wasted.
Yes, I deal with NHS as well. Blech. But that being said, he has steered England relatively well for the past decade, and education, especially at the poorer levels, is a really difficult problem to fix. I think he's managed Europe correctly (from England's perspective) for the most part. He's no Pitt the Younger but he's hardly a bumbling fool.
He aint the worst prime minister we've had thats for sure, from our prospective he did well on Europe issue. as for the eduction issue, the education system is one of the worst in europe (certainly the working class education system)
Would it? What's he achieved? The only truly historic thing his government did was to give the Bank of England operational independence - and that was a Brown initiative. This government had an opportunity and a mandate to do genuinely revolutionary things: all they've actually done is spend the proceeds of globalised economic good fortune on tarting up a public service infrastructure that, for all the billions lavished upon it, is no better now than it was in 1997. They've missed their targets on employment, on poverty (crucially, on child poverty, which they first revised downwards then dumped entirely) and on social mobility. And we didn't even get the normal ying to that ostensibly conservative yang. At least when the Tories come in and screw the poor, the disadvantaged and the urban northerner then we get some liberal economics and lax taxation thrown in to sweeten the pill. Blair's lot did all the "true-blue fuck-you" stuff AND stifled enterprise, imposed rising taxation across the board and ruined the pensions system. Like you conservatives miss Bill Clinton? Yeah, in that sense we might.
Can someone explain to me why in England the PM steps down before his term is complete. What's the rationale?
I'd have killed for a president who did ******** all for 8 years instead of Bush. Someone coming in to change England may well have done far worse. England doesn't need any major fixes, so complaining he didn't provide any is an unfounded criticism.
His own party would have booted him out had he failed to step down. The public and his party is mostly disenchanted. As it is I believe he's the longest serving Labour PM ever.
It makes me laugh that this particular PM is already being referred to in those terms. Woohoo! Go Tony - not as bad as Callaghan, Goderich or Glenville!
That probably somes it up about the Prime Ministers we've had in the past, but in my life time I only remember Major and Blair.
Ummm ... except Blair himself set that benchmark. He and his party were elected precisely because they convinced the people that lots and lots of things needed changing for the better after 18 years of increasingly moribund Tory rule - and he was right. That's why he got the historic mandate we awarded him and that's why his total, abject mediocrity ever since is such a particularly damnable form of failure. Being less of a catastrophe than Bush is hardly a useful yardstick.
It is convention for the leader of the largest party in Parliament to be asked to form a government by the King or Queen of the day. That's why leadership elections are such a big deal in UK politics. If you get the top job in your party and then your lot get the largest number of parliamentary seats at the next election, the keys to Number 10 are yours.
Bill Clinton was a good president. Not great but he didn't reall need to do much so he didn't have much of a chance at the great category. He was our generation's Calvin Coolidge. As for presidents, this conservative would prefer Al Gore over any of the GOP candidates in the race right now.
They were elected because the Tories were bungling ordinary problems. Blair convinced people he'd make great changes, like every single candidate does. Then he proceeded to bungle things less than his predecessors. While true, given that you feel the 15 years before Blair were worse, I'm not sure what you wanted for him. Honestly, how many better PMs has England had this century?
Well no, they were elected because the stench of decay emanating from the Tories was becoming overpowering. Precisely – a mediocrity, a failure and a betrayal of his own high-minded ideals. To live up to the rhetoric. Like John Smith would have done if he hadn’t died. I don’t think you properly comprehend what happened in 1997 – or why it happened. Suffice it to say that this wasn’t some routine changing of the guard. Asquith, George, Baldwin, Churchill, Attlee, Wilson ... In fact of the PM’s that served long enough or significantly enough to count one way or the other, only Thatcher and Eden were worse.