The Leader of the House of Commons and ex-Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has resigned in protest at Tony Blair's policy on Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857637.stm
matt (or any other Brits here), can you tell us how important that really is? The "Leader of the House of Commons" (current???) makes this sound pretty damn serious.
It’s the next biggest outside of the “Big Three” (Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer). Under Blair, it assumed extra significance because the Leader of the House of Commons is responsible for the passing of legislation through the House on it’s way to becoming law. The Leader of the House is a key instrument in making policies happen in the manner and within the timescales envisaged by the Prime Minister and his core people. Now, given the extent to which Blair’s New Labour seek to control the public and political perception of everything they do, the store they place in being “on-message” and on using their massive parliamentary majority not as a safety blanket but as a bludgeon, the post of Leader of the House goes to a key member of the PM team. Margaret Beckett (now Home Secretary) has been Leader of the House. Cook was, as the article mentions, Foreign Secretary. It’s a big hitter’s job.
There is mounting talk of a left-wing revolt against Blair, yes. The pretext will be the second House of Commons vote on military action that Blair has promised. If that either does not transpire or Blair is hit with a rebellion larger than last month's 122 Labour MP "Nay"'s, then the left of the party could launch a leadership challenge, yes. It won't succeed, of course, but the very fact that it takes place would obviously have serious ramifications for his political future. His only option now is to get the war started, done with and won as quickly as possible. The UK public always swings behind the troops when the fit hits the shan so he will get some measure of respite in the public eye with which to manouvre himself into a better position within the party. He needs this war won so he can get on with winning the peace. His future credibility and political career hinges on a successful rehabilitation of the Iraqi nation after this desperately unpopular war. The next national election will take place in 2005.
Wow! Lucky for Blair the Tories have been such a mess and he has a huge majority. But still, I expect some serious fireworks and a very close vote. The first casualty of this war may be the truth, but it looks like the second will be Mr. Blair.
Matt, can he be replaced from within? Is there a mechanism by which a majority of Labour MPs can elect a new PM? How did Major replace Thatcher?
I think it would be through the leadership challenge that Matt mentioned. If someone on the left of the party (Cooke, Claire Short?) challenged him then there would be an election for leader. I'm pretty sure that the Parliamentary Labour Party would be the only voters, not the general membership, so the odds are that he would still survive winning I'd guess 60% or better of the vote. IIRC someone on the right of the Tory party challenged Thatcher and lost but she took so much damage that Major was then able to enter the race and take over as a compromise candidate. I'm curious to see if other Cabinet members or ministers are following suit. I know a number of them had threatened to do so over this issue.
What's-her-name, the minister for foreign aid has already threatened to walk if we go in sans UN mandate. Cook has just provided here with a bunch of cover to do so.
Shuffling around within the ministries between successive "governments" by the same party and PM is commonplace in Britain. Robin Cook was by most accounts, well respected during his four-year tenure as FM. Not that I expect my fellow parochial to understand that. But try to keep you mouth shut if you have no idea what you're talking about. The Euros already think we're all dumber than a box of rocks.
Cook was "reshuffled" following some heat from the press (and his decidedly ticked-off wife) about an affair he had. I'm not sure how the Labour party would go about ousting Blair. He came to power in 1993 following the death of John Smith and I can't remember exactly how the process of electing him worked now. But the people with a say are the Parliamentary party, the National Executive (a bit of a Politburo), the Unions (who have a traditional affiliation with Labour and, as such, a say in matters such as these) and the rank and file. Thatcher was dethroned courtesy of Micheal Heseltine. He mounted a challenge which garnered sufficient support amongst the Tories (a third of the party? Can't remember - even further back now) to go ahead to the stage where a leadership election was mandated under the party constitution. Others, including Major, threw their hat in to the ring.
Cook's affair was exposed years before he was sacked. People who don't like Blair will be taking shots at him now. It's not a big deal. ----- "Tony Blair did not want the festering row over the euro to blow apart his Cabinet, so he ruthlessly terminated Robin Cook's career as Foreign Secretary and surrounded himself with loyalists for the battle to come" "He could either quit government completely and become a backbencher with few natural allies, or he could grit his teeth and accept. For a man who enjoys the trappings of power, it was a difficult choice. Wounded, he decided to agree to Blair's ultimatum. 'It's not the right decision,' said one of his close political confidantes. 'He should have resigned and fought from the back benches. Now he's like a gagged man, in the Government but in a pointless position.' " -- http://www.observer.co.uk/2001review/story/0,1590,617634,00.html
Ah, the affair-affair. My apoligies. I withdraw my statements regarding your parochialism. Although, methinks Mr. Cook now has a new base of "natural allies."
That is correct. She was unable to get a maority in the 1st round of voiting and she decided she had had enough and quit. Major became the candidate of the rank and file and won easily.
I hear all this talk about whether Tony ought to resign or whether he ought to call a General Election etc etc. It may be all very well getting one's knickers in a twist over this situation regarding Iraq, and yes I am one of those who have entangled the underwear over his misjudged support of Dubya 'they had cards, they played them, and now its time to..er see what that card is...err..shuffle' Bush - however, at the very least one ought to take into account the potential replacements. To those that think a Party change should be in order - a vehement no. The New Labour Party may get on one's tits occasionally (ok maybe a little more than that), but the next bet is the Tories, who are so beset with in-fighting (and have been for some time) that people must question their ability to govern properly, though this hasn't stopped them getting elected before . For those who might recommend internal change, I have one question. Who replaces Blair? He might be lavishly attracted to the art of spin but in all seriousness, can anyone (I imagine I'm talking to my fellow country-men on this one, Matt in particular, I know how you love our Tony) think of another member of the higher echelons of the Labour Party, that could do a decent job, or at least acceptable? Like it or loathe it, there's no-one capable of doing what he does, to the extent that he does it. He's highly educated, incredibly intelligent and very articulate, with an ability to do far more of what his position requires than most (if not all) of his colleagues. Normally I'm not a card carrying member of the Tony Blair fan club, but all the questions about his future, mixed with the fact that compared to that tit on the other side of the Atlantic, Blair is actually a leader one can be proud of, to a degree, even if one disagrees with his policies.
The reshuffle was two years ago and unrelated to anything occuring now. His decision to go was a sufficiently weighty matter for Downing Street to leak the possibility of his going before the weekend and begin briefing against him and instigating shows of solidarity (Gordon Brown's hastily arranged appearance on Frost on Sunday, for instance) to counteract mutterings of a shift in the internal power balance of Blair's cabinet and, by extension, party. Will Cook's decision topple Blair? Nope. Not even close. But buying into the carefully-spun (in advance) notion that it has no significance for the immediate future of party-political discourse in this country, or indeed for the room for manouvre remaining for Blair is desperately unintelligent. As to the alternatives, well, it depends on what flavour of politician you prefer. Me, I'm a Lib Dem in any case, so Charles Kennedy would do just fine - imagine if we had Menzies Campbell fronting our efforts at the UN now, rather than that shitwit dullard, Jack Straw. But I digress - internal to the party, I would have Mo Mowlam over any of the current cabinet. Failing that, Margaret Beckett is a competent politician, John Reid would not indulge the New Labour machine to quite the craven extent that President Tony does and were Gordon Brown mature enough not to let his infantile little tussle with Blair hamstring his work as a genuinely competent administrator, then he would be an obvious candidate.
Sorry, didn't even mention the Lib Dems. The 'nice' party. For me, still a bit of a joke party that wants to appeal to as many people as possible, but in the end just ends up looking desperate and false. And I'm sure Menzies Campbell could do a good job in place of Jack Straw, unfortunately I don't think jovial Charles Kennedy currently has the credentials required, though does seem to be a decent chap. Internally - Margaret Beckett, err no. She hasn't got the presence all good charismatic leaders ought to have. I don't know enough about John Reid to berate his chances. And as for Brown, don't make me laugh. As you say, any man that can be so damn enrobed in tussling with Blair cannot be seriously considered as replacement material. Sure there are members of the party that could do the job, but it's not just about simply being able to go through the motions. I still stand by my inital comment, that there is no-one around that could do the job better, or even as well as Blair does.
Well, you missed out Mo Mowlam, who is head and shoulders above anyone else in the Labour party as a politician, an administrator and a common-sense "doer". The rest is just personal preference. The cliche about the Lib Dems as desperate is too blase to merit much thought, especially in this, the age of Ian Duncan Smith and his Tory party. Brown IS seen as a credible alternative to Blair - if Blair was to fall under a bus tonight, you'd have Gordon Brown shuffling up the steps of Number 10 faster than his secretary could order a wreath for the funeral. Bear in mind that most of the Blair/Brown thing is the work of Blair himself - what better way to nullify strong and credible opposition than to engage them in an endless and essentially futile power game. As I said, more fool Brown for going in for it, but the fact that he is Blair's main rival and, should anything go awry, heir apparent almost by default, is clear for all too see - Tony himself affirms it with his actions toward Brown.
Oh I'm not debating who would take over if Blair were 'to fall under a bus tomorrow', more who would take over from him and do the job to the degree of ability that he does on several levels. I agree Mo Mowlam is (was) a truly wonderful and intelligent politician but now no longer around, so we're left with the other prospects. As for the Blair/Brown thing, sure it was manufactured, but if Brown comes out looking bad, then it's a bit girly to feel sorry for onesself after your opposition 'wins' the tussle, especially given the nature of the political beast. Sorry if I offended your Liberal Democrat sensibilities, with my blase statement. They do, to a non-supporter (after all I'm the sort of person they are meant to be targetting with their policies and ideas) seem desperate and ever eager to jump on any given bandwagon to try and achieve the popular vote. Trying to compare them to the Tories to make them seem a good option is not exactly the way to go. My local Communist party has more chance of winning the next General Election than the Tories.
Mmmm, strawberries and cream. Facinating stuff you two. We should have you on as the official "Interpreters of British (English?) Politics for Yanks." If I may ask a question... What exactly happened to Mo Mowlam? The last I saw her she was very effectively knocking heads in Ireland. And then she sort of dissapeared -- at least as far as the U.S. press was concerned.
This is what happened regarding Mo and Northern Ireland. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/472075.stm And what's happened to Peter? Well what hasn't? Why anyone thought he'd do anything approaching a decent job in one of the most consistently troubled parts of the world, is a bit beyond me really.
Should we care this Brit is stepping down, with others following? I'm new to politics, so bear with me. Now this guy is throwing in the towel, embarassed by his administration enough to leave, with others supposedly to follow. Seriously, what does this mean for Blair and of course, more importantly, us. When we're getting new gas prices and new workers for our fast food industries following Saddam's leave, will we see an anti-American political sentiment in the future?