Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

How to get rid of Blair

Page: (1)2

13:09 / 22.03.03

Just a quick question but does anyone know the procedure the labour party would have to go through to elect a new leader. I know it's a bit premature but I'd like to write to my M.P about it so when the war ends we can get rid of Blair, otherwise I think I'm going to have to emigrate!

15:03 / 22.03.03

it first would require either blair to step down, or for someone to propose a motion of no confidence, and for that motion to be carried.

the proposal of such, while possible, will probably not happen until at least after the war. no one would like to be leaderless during a war, however badly he may be doing.

18:34 / 22.03.03

I know the Labour Party constitution was knacked as a sign of gratitude towards mr. Blair for winning in 1997, but how possible would it be for his local constiuiency to not elected him as their MP next time?

That'd be kinda cool...

19:06 / 22.03.03

Just out of interest, who would you suggest takes over as leader of Labour?
Dont think it would make any difference to me at all: i think hes put me off the Labour party for life now. Unwise move to not only ignore public opinion, but in particular, opinions of students and teenagers.. We are the future voters, and hes lost a large proportion of us bacuase of the war. Bad move, mr Blair.
Long live Charles Kennedy- One day, redheads will rule the world! :0)

21:56 / 22.03.03

gordon brown is the obvious second in line, but that hardly ever works out.

i would make a good-odds-guess and go with everybody's favourite wee ginger gnome, robin cook.

give it tiime, and he will be in a good position to muscle in. perhaps not as PM, but labour leader.

10:03 / 23.03.03

not sure who I'd want to be leader, I don't know enough about the M.P's but I've still got faith in labour. I'm still waiting for the day when 'New' Labour is revealed as just a scheming plot to persuade would be tory voters otherwise, and old labour will jump out again redistribute the wealth and be kind to everyone. Perhaps I'm just an optimist.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:11 / 23.03.03

I think you're just an optimist, sorry to say.
A lot of people (myself included) were holding out for Blair's second term, cos, that, y'see, was when he was gonna wheel out the old Labour values.
The one time you want a politician to be sneaky and have ulterior motives, and the fucker really DOES believe all this Thatcherite bullshit.

Wanted, Wanted, Dolores Haze

12:47 / 23.03.03

In answer to your question, pin, it would be entirely possible for Blair's constituency not to elect him as their MP! As far as I know however it's never happened that the leader of the winning party hasn't been elected, as they're usually in (one of) the safest seats, and there's something quite drastically wrong with the party they represent if they aren't elected.

It would be interesting to see what would happen though...

17:11 / 23.03.03

Speaking as an American, I think Blair is very helpful.

18:44 / 23.03.03

okay, but why?

and how is that relevant?

19:46 / 23.03.03

"Why?"

Because he seems to support any U.S. action regardless of how it will effect his popularity.

"How is that relevant?"

For those of you who put U.S. matters ahead of your own country's, it may cause you to rethink trying to get rid of Blair.

20:44 / 23.03.03

"Because he seems to support any U.S. action regardless of how it will effect his popularity."

You mean he supports U.S. action regardless of anything whatsoever, other than being bum-chums with the worlds only superpower.

22:22 / 23.03.03

Well, yeah, that too.

00:34 / 24.03.03

As a bum-chum, I resent that.

01:47 / 24.03.03

I don't know. I don't share Denfeld's opinion that simply toeing the US line is a good in and of itself: in a complex world, principled opposition to overweening power is a good way of getting at the truth.

But it does seem to me that Blair has had very little to gain going into this war, and a lot to lose—which leads me to believe that he's acting on his convictions, rather than his survival instincts.

Bush's motivations are always going to be suspect, given his ties to the oil industry and his family history, but Blair, to me, has the air of a True Believer on this one. Which makes their Good Cop/Bad Cop dynamic so fascinating. Blair's defense of this action has been passionate and eloquent, and his focus has always been the moral obligation, as he sees it, of the Anglosphere and its allies towards the people of Iraq—rather than Bush's appeals to America's fears.

That is, Blair has argued that saddam must go because he has hurt his own people: Bush has argued that Saddam must go because he might hurt us. Taking the side of the weak against the strong, vs. covering one's own ass.

If I had to choose one, I know which argument I'd find more appealing. Frankly, I'd rather have Tony Blair for my president right now.

14:48 / 24.03.03

Ganesh- very sorry to offend u...
However i cant think of an insult strong enough to direct at those fucking wankers, i really cant.

14:54 / 24.03.03

those fucking wankers

Stunningly insightful analysis, GingerBop.

20:19 / 24.11.04

LONDON (Reuters) - Parliamentarians and celebrity campaigners have launched a bid to impeach Tony Blair for "gross misconduct" over his justification for the Iraq war.

It will be the first time such a campaign has been organised in 198 years, when Viscount Melville, the first lord of the admiralty, was acquitted. Herald

[Iain M.]Banks said the impeachment motion was “a chance for Parliament to begin righting the great wrong done to it, the country and the cause of international peace by the unjust and illegal war instigated by George Bush and supported by Tony Blair”. Scotsman

23:25 / 24.11.04

You can get rid of Tony Blair, possibly, but there is no possible way that you will be able to get rid of his influence on New Labour and turn the party into anything good. Don't even bother trying. It's impossible. Whatever happens, if you vote for Labour you will be voting for the neo-liberal, pro-corporate, pro-US position. If you vote for the Tories you will be voting for the neo-liberal, pro-corporate, pro-US position. If you vote for anyone else it won't matter.

So what now?

Emotionally, it helps if you abandon the idea that voting means anything... doesn't make things any more meaningful but you feel less guilty when they go to shit.

00:14 / 25.11.04

If you vote for anyone else it won't matter.

Oh good. We're already back to the twin joys of "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins" and "a vote for the third party is a waste of time, because they'll never get enough support to make a difference."

For fuck's sake. What a cop-out.

00:24 / 25.11.04

but Blair, to me, has the air of a True Believer on this one.

Yeah, that's one of the problems. He wont listen to anyone. When preparing the "45 minutes" document the intelligence community felt obligated to write a vindication of government proposals rather than actual intelligence. What does that say about the culture of yes-men Tony has generated in government? Tony has become a tyrant and his fanaticism does not sit well with me.

Blair's defense of this action has been passionate and eloquent, and his focus has always been the moral obligation

Well... his rhetoric, maybe. It's clear to me that Tony joining the "coalition of the willing" was more of a way for him to join the big kids gang and swagger about playing cowboys and Iraqis than a humanitarian effort. Certainly the war can no longer be justified on humanitarian grounds - there's just too many dead.

If I had to choose one, I know which argument I'd find more appealing. Frankly, I'd rather have Tony Blair for my president right now.

If I were an American I'd rather have a goldfish as president than Bush so I don't hear that as much of an endorsement.

You can get rid of Tony Blair, possibly, but there is no possible way that you will be able to get rid of his influence on New Labour and turn the party into anything good

Sadly, I have to agree with FM on this one. Labour will win the next election as they have the past two, they will not give up a winning strategy. I live in Scotland and I will be concentrating my political energies into the Greens and SSP, who thanks to PR have a small voice in local issues. Westminster just seems like such a lot of work for no return.

Emotionally, it helps if you abandon the idea that voting means anything... doesn't make things any more meaningful but you feel less guilty when they go to shit.

In some ways I see your point, but I can't give up yet. I can't help feeling that giving up to avoid grief is cowardly. It's hard not to give in to defeatism in the face of it all but I'm going to start small, see what happens.

solid~liquid onwards

16:55 / 25.11.04

Blair gone. That would be so great i'd have a big celebration, what i am worried about is the possibility of David Blunket taking his place in some nightmare future of Doom. But Blairs not gonna go till he feels like it, a million people on the streets wouldnt make him leave downing street

I'm scottish too and i'm a lover of PR, it means my vote actually wont get wasted on a smaller party. And neither is anyone elses (well not as much in most other countries).

22:52 / 25.11.04

No-one would vote for Blunkett - more people would vote for Prescott simply on the grounds that he's a sixty-year-old MP that's still willing to punch voters in the face.

22:54 / 25.11.04

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Prescott stands a chance either, but I think that even he would score against Blunkett

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:11 / 26.11.04

I'd vote for Prescott- I may disagree with him often, but I certainly trust him a lot more than I do Blair, and honesty is something I'm really starting to miss from the Labour Party.

However, taking the long-term view, I'll be voting LibDem next time- maybe they'll be a viable opposition in a couple of terms' time. And with the Tories in the state they're in, fun though it is to watch, they're failing miserably in making the government accountable for its actions- probably the most important job there is for the opposition.

unheimlich manoeuvre

08:42 / 26.11.04

Spatula Clarke
Oh good. We're already back to the twin joys of "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins" and "a vote for the third party is a waste of time, because they'll never get enough support to make a difference."

For fuck's sake. What a cop-out.

I, like Stoatie, will be voting for the Liberal Democrats next time for much the same reason. I also share fridgemagnet's concern that any vote is a wasted vote. When I have voted, for Labour, in the past, it has been because of domestic issues. Equal rights for minorities, support of the NHS, a minimum wage, some redistribution of wealth etc. Unfortunately regarding foreign policy my every vote feels wasted. Since the end of WWII the British Government has publicly or privately supported the USA. From Korea to Vietnam to Kuwait. Who out of these carefully vetted career politicians can I morally vote for? If we got rid of Blair, any replacement will chose the realpolitik of furthering British business interests.

Tryphena Absent

11:35 / 26.11.04

Labour will win the next election as they have the past two, they will not give up a winning strategy.

Well in that case I think we on barbelith should make a voting pact, a pact to vote for a party that isn't Labour (or Tory). I will not be voting for the Labour party, if I'm still registered in the same area as I am right now I'll be spoiling my vote... unless the Lib Dems stand. If I was in Scotland I'd be voting for the SSP because I am madly in love with Rosie Kane. Anyhow, who's joining me? Not in the love, in the pact.

13:24 / 26.11.04

I gave up on the Labour party ever redeeming itself a long time ago. My MP is Alistair Darling, I'd rather slit my throat than vote for that slimy motherfucker.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

21:47 / 27.11.04

I'm in the fucker's constituency. Well, I was. Still registered to vote there. See that town where he gets his results each year? It's a shithole, and he's done nothing good for it.

I met some of his cronies on the night parliment voted to go to war - they are vile, black hearted people, and one hight ranking member of the Segfield Labour party expressed a desire to bulldoze asylum seekers. I shit you not.

20:05 / 28.11.04

Emotionally, it helps if you abandon the idea that voting means anything... doesn't make things any more meaningful but you feel less guilty when they go to shit.

Emotionally, that might help some people; it tends to make me feel helpless and impotently angry - and, personally, I prefer a small chance to no chance at all. As coping mechanisms go, learned helplessness is something of a depressor...

I voted Labour last time, for the same reasons as Stoatie; this is perhaps why I feel so bitter and furious with a) Blair, and b) his party (for being too cowardly to oust him). Other than writing to one's MP, I guess the run-up to the election will afford at least some opportunity to tell canvassers exactly why one is abandoning an established voting habit.

20:30 / 28.11.04

But it does seem to me that Blair has had very little to gain going into this war, and a lot to lose—which leads me to believe that he's acting on his convictions, rather than his survival instincts.

Perhaps it reflects the fact that I deal with delusional convictions on a daily basis, but this actually worries me more: the fact that Blair is evidently such a True Believer that he'll cleave to a particular course of action in the face of any and all evidence or logic to the contrary - and he'll readily apply his considerable powers of persuasion to spinning the available facts to support his True Belief.

He pushed the 'moral' case for invading Iraq to a greater extent than did Bush, yes, but only belatedly and unconvincingly, as a supplementary reason (after his inflated claims that Saddam Hussain posed a direct threat to Us In The West were rightly ridiculed). At no point did he ever explain why invasion had to take place so soon, and why it was the only possible alternative.

And, as is repeatedly pointed out, he's rarely become as excited about 'moral' transgressions elsewhere, before Iraq or since. His selective 'moral' outrage lacks consistency.

All of which leads me to suspect Blair is either able to make himself believe something on grounds other than intelligence (in which case he's fatally inept at sifting the available evidence and asking the right questions), or he's capable of extrapolating from evidence, but cynically disregards it for reasons of his own. He's a fool or he's a liar. Either way, I think he's highly dangerous, and I don't want him in control of me or my country.

09:34 / 30.11.04

But it does seem to me that Blair has had very little to gain going into this war, and a lot to lose—which leads me to believe that he's acting on his convictions, rather than his survival instincts.

Disagree strongly on that one. Perhaps it's hard to be concious of in the same way on that side of the Atlantic Jack, but America exerts a huge amount of influence on this country and we've been the US's junior partner (read:flunky) since the end of WW2. The pro-US political consensus here that's so prevelant it's almost invisble - it's just the default for career minded politicos. To be frank - if Blair wasn't going to kow tow to American interests every step of the way, he would never have got to be Prime Minster.

14:50 / 30.11.04

Also, since the Falklands, it seems to have been pretty much recieved wisdom in Britain and the States that war plays well in the opinion polls - Labour were quite openly talking about the Feelgood factor they figured would result once Iraq was decimated, and it's appeared, post-Thatcher, that the thing to do once you've got the top job is let loose the troops on whoever's convenient, almost as a way of annointing your office. If nothing else, hopefully this mess in Iraq has cleared up that idea, at least for the meantime.

19:02 / 07.12.04

A bullet to the head would solve our problems so quickly and efficiently.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:28 / 07.12.04

Of course. Because there's nothing like a premature death to convince the "swing" voters who LIKE the guy, but may not actually TRUST him...

I joke. Or, rather, lie.

Page: (1)2