I asked a question earlier today about whether the Labour Party Conference could sack Blair (more answers please as I am not sure any yet understand party procedures well). The emerging consensus appears to be that it should be able to but can't, even though Party members would like to. But if any Party fails to represent its members why do they pay quite high membership fees to belong?
If they Party vanished surely its MPs and leaders would have to do something: at a General Election few voters would support a Party with no members.
2006-08-30 06:57:56 · 6 answers · asked by Philosophical Fred 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Listen, if the party wanted to sack Blair, they could do it at the snap of a finger. Look what happened to Thatcher - speaks for itself, doesn't it
2006-08-30 07:00:53 · answer #1 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do Tory voters belong to the Tory party? Its their own choice. I would like to see Dave the hood removed and a real Tory in his place we may then have a fight for no10. A vote of no confidence in Blair from both the conference and his MP's would see him gone. Trouble is Brown will be worse. You can't win.
2006-08-30 10:18:40 · answer #2 · answered by deadly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The majority of those members who are left are Blairites and joined prior to, or just after he became leader.
The party machine have made a fatal mistake of putting all their eggs in one basket by depending on support from big business which could evaporate overnight.
They have lost their rank and file stalwarts and could also lose Trade Union financial support. This could well leave them in the position of the former Liberal party, a spent force in the wilderness of politics, and the leaders have brought it on themselves.
2006-08-30 11:40:46 · answer #3 · answered by Renewable 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I completely understand your frustration. I'm a liberal here in the states, the Democrats here tick me off nearly as much as the Republicans because they won't stand up for themselves.
Though it's kind of like Will Rogers said "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat"
2006-08-30 07:02:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Britain knows better then to change horses in mid stream when involved in a war, especially changing to an individual who may placate enemies fo the state. They did it in the past and the consequences were disasterous. Never forget Chamberlin the destruction and loss of life because of his decisions.
2006-08-30 07:04:23 · answer #5 · answered by PDK 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because its better than belonging to the conservative party
2006-08-30 07:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋