Blair, Hah! I got it first. Options

[PsychWardMike]

So the Bush's li'l lackey is gone in June. Your thoughts?

[Daria]

"Oh dear God, please don't let the Tories get in"

about sums it up. Oh, as well as
"NO, Gordon Brown, you are NOT PM. You are the Chancellor."

I don't want Labour in, I don't want the Conservatives, and if the Lib Dems come in, they would probably just be another John Major- i.e sit there for a few years not really doing anything.

Tony Blair did some good stuff. He also did some crap stuff, although admittedly less than Thatcher- he didn't try to reverse what she DID do, though. I also don't like his wife.

[Moosh]

What Becky said.

I think the next leader should be chosen by dance-off. But I always think that and it never happens.

[pgrmdave]

How does the prime minister get chosen?

*is completely unaware of how the entire british system of democracy works*

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

There's a giant hat (blower hat usually), and every British citizen's name is in it, written on a peice of paper. The Queen then takes a fishing rod with a small mouse tied on the end, the mouse is lowered into the hat where it randomly bites onto a piece of paper, the name of the person on that peice of paper is then Prime Minister. I personally have high hopes this year as I've been rubbing my peice of paper on various smelly cheese for the past few months.

Sometimes we vote too...


Anyway, blah blah blah - war in iraq - blah blah blah - cash for honours - blah blah blah - top-up fees... people easily forget the improvments made under this government, I'm not saying I'm a fan, and there have been some hugely unpopular decisions made, but lets not sell the bloke short.

Also, way to cut straight to the issue here Mike-o, Bush's lackey, forgetting he was an influential and eloquent leader in his own right? I can see you put a lot of thought into that post...

[Mata]

He's made some reasonable decisions, he's made an awfully large amount of bad decisions. Was he any better or worse than the average PM? Possibly slightly better. Did I ever trust the slimy smile he has? Not for a second.

I'm glad to see him go, and I'm nervous about the near-certainty of ten years of Conservative government under Blair2 - David Cameron. I think that the Lib Dems were daft to elect Ming Campbell given the current political trends. I see what they were going for, choosing a mature man to give the impression of experience, but he simply looks like he is going to be thinking more about a hip-replacement than leading the country. Shame.

[pgrmdave]

Also, way to cut straight to the issue here Mike-o, Bush's lackey, forgetting he was an influential and eloquent leader in his own right? I can see you put a lot of thought into that post...

In Mike's defense, we don't exactly get much information from the media about any of your domestic issues, so all that we have to go on is how he dealt with US foreign policy. From an American's perspective, it seemed that when Bush asked Blair to jump, Blair asked how high. Blair was seen mostly as a person who would support any American policy, and who didn't seem to hesitate to support Bush, even when many Americans didn't support him.

[Daria]

Here you go Dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

Although I quite like SPS's method of voting. It may be a bit fairer.

[Moosh]

Taking Mata's point about the probability of a long-term Conservative government next, I think it could be averted if Gordon Brown (or whoever gets the leadership if it's not him) immediately act to reverse some of Blair's more unpopular decisions, most importantly, pulling out of Iraq. Whether or not this will actually happen depends on Brown's willingness to defy the US, which may be optimistic.

Dave: the next Prime Minister will not be chosen by election, but by a vote of the members of the Labour Party, and it will almost certainly be Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor. This is because Blair is resigning half-way through his term. As the Prime Minister can call a general election whenever he wants to, within his 5 years of office, there will be calls from the opposition parties for this to happen, but this rarely happens.

[Witless]

Here you go Dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

Although I quite like SPS's method of voting. It may be a bit fairer.

I am afraid wikipedia is slightly mistaken. This is how we actually get things done in the UK.

UK election system

</spam>

[bryden42]

and the instant karma party wins. Yay!

[Felander]

Taking Mata's point about the probability of a long-term Conservative government next, I think it could be averted if Gordon Brown (or whoever gets the leadership if it's not him) immediately act to reverse some of Blair's more unpopular decisions, most importantly, pulling out of Iraq. Whether or not this will actually happen depends on Brown's willingness to defy the US, which may be optimistic.

Brown will never do that, and rightly so. This government made its bed, now it has to lie in it. Withdrawing British troops would undoubtedly destabilise the country and cause many hundreds, if not thousands, of Coalition casualties. We now have a responsibility to Iraq - we're there for the long-term methinks.

And if Brown were to reverse some of Blair's more unpopular decisions, what would that say about him? He'd be pandering to Labour's critics, appearing weak and stabbing the former PM in the back. The Tories would latch onto that and undermine Brown's leadership in its infancy.

It's a funny ol' game, this politics lark.