Who wants to follow the U.S.A.?

Question

All this in party bickering and flouting deposition of Tony Blair who ran for election and then half way through his party wants to get rid of him. As someone who voted for him I am a bit annoyed that the knives are out. Isn't this undemocratic? Then I lookto America who did things better back in the 1940s Truman was it ? Congress restricted the right of the President to serve two terms only after a four term Presential reign. Who agrees that the law should be changed?

Answer 1

I think what preserves democracy, or one of the things that does, is the society's ability to consistently place men and women in power who are both most able to lead their people but also most able to represent their interests, needs and beliefs. Those things change. It is in human nature to consolidate and grow power once it is bestowed. Even the most honorable of men begin to either abuse their power or to substantiate the continuance of that power by stating their good work is not yet complete (in the case of Blair perhaps?).

I think the two-term rule is useful and has rarely prematurely truncated the tenure of a nation's leader. What may be considered in parliamentary democracies is discontinuation, where the two-term leader steps down for at least one term before being eligible to run again. Remember, the will of the people prevails over the whim of the leadership, theoretically.

Unfortunately for Americans, Blair wasn't born in the U.S., he'd win in a landslide over here, at least one term, we'd likely welcome him with open arms.

Answer 2

Do you want a President for the UK? If not that seems to be the way some people are interpreting this. I for one do not want a Presidency and at that point the argument for a two term restriction starts to fall apart because the Prime Minister does not have the same power of veto that a President has.

Our electoral system differs in many ways to that of the States - both in terms of the processes used to elect a leader, the duration of a Prime Ministerial or Presidential term and so on. We do not elect the Prime Minister, we elect local Parliamentarians and the majority party in Parliament in turn sees its leader become Prime Minister. In the States they directly elect their President.

Here the Labour Party defined the blueprints for electing leaders - the Conservative Party dabbled for the first time in one member one vote and the resultant Howard did not stay their leader for long before the principle of OMOV was dropped.

Blair was elected by Labour following John Smith's death to become leader of the party. He in many ways has brought the current speculation upon himself after stating in an interview that he did not intend to lead the party into the next General Election or to be Prime Minister for a fourth term. Just as Labour had undermined Michael Howard's position as leader of the Tories whilst they decided how to elect his successor, Blair's position as leader and as PM has been undermined by his signalling that at some point he will step down. It's not about knives being out, its about the party wanting to know its direction; how, where and when a new Leader will come in.

The problems are not just about a leader continuing indefinitely - its about a party retaining a fresh perspective and clear objectives and avoiding becoming complacent or stale the longer they are in power. In the States the President will often find that the Senate or Congress (or both) are controlled by a majority for his opposition - in other words a Democrat President, a Republican Congress etc. As the PM here enjoys a majority in the Commons the dynamics are so different that the change you suggest would not have the impact I think you are looking for.

Answer 3

I just think a lot of people are still angry about the whole Iraq thing, and the fact that Mr Blair has not really answered to anyone on this or several other unpopular decisions. He really is a double-edged sword in my opinion - one minute he's making perfect sense and the next he's marching off to war. I think the Law needs a few adjustments, but if the people don't see a better alternative then why force a good politician out?

Answer 4

I believe that Tony Blair has done a thourougly bad job of leading this country. The fact that his own party wants him out indicates that they don't think much of his performance either.
Surely it is a manifesto that is vored for in this country, this manifesto is worked out by the party not just the leadership.

Answer 5

Remember Waco.

Answer 6

Tiimmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehh!

Answer 7

it prevents a dictatorship - two terms - sounds democratic - lets follow the us - only two terms - limit for a president

Answer 8

He said he was going opening Pandora's box, I don,t think his decisions on Iraq were too clever.

Answer 9

Not me, id rather stay put in **** licking mediocre Great Britain thanks.x

Answer 10

Durrrh - let me remove my brain first