Have the members of the labour party and the British citizens suddenly woken up from their slumber to realize that this man(Tony Blair) is a stooge of Bush and a tongue in cheek lair?Why not allow him to serve out the term he was voted for?
2006-09-14 02:48:59 · 13 answers · asked by Dengilly 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Couldn't agree more, if he goes too soon the voting public will have forgotten the damage he has done by the next election and may well vote for labour again.
2006-09-14 02:52:38 · answer #1 · answered by RRM 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tony Blair apparently made a deal with Gordon Brown long before Labour came to power, I think possibly while they were still at uni together. That if TB got to be PM, he would hand the job over to GB after x-number of years. It's not just Blair who is a Bush [US] stooge - it has been thus since the end of WW2. UK or the 51st State is according to the late Nikita Krushchev an American aircraft carrier. UK is a US military base also a dumping ground for US goods and a conduit for US goods into the EU which can be quickly screwed together on site here in UK for which we get peanuts.
2006-09-15 19:59:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because UK politics doesn't work like that. He was never voted in as PM by the electorate.
He was voted in by his constituency to be their MP. That will not change when he steps down as PM.
The Labour Party was voted in to Govt by the results of the general election. That will not change when he steps down as PM.
He is stepping down from the position of PM, something which he has as leader of the Labour party - and it is up to the Labour party who their leader is, not the electorate as a whole.
As for why the hurry...
I think people want an end to the uncertainty and, also, want to know when to start their leadership campaigns. At the moment, nobody knows when Blair is going, other than that it's in the 'next 12 months'. However, given he said he would 'serve a full third term', why should we believe him this time round?
2006-09-14 03:01:34 · answer #3 · answered by Morgy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This guy makes a competent share of his funds from after dinner speeches. What are his speeches approximately ? The Ethics of conflict ?? WMDs and the thank you to outline Them ? He could have socio-pathic embedded features because of the fact he thinks some prayers together with his Catholic Church units the checklist immediately. The Church could have a gadget for refusing club - what extra useful recruitment for the church in the event that they barred warmongers including Blair. I for one am under no circumstances jealous of his riches or every physique else's riches. i might rather have no funds and sleep at evening than have his wealth and be consistently observing my lower back for the sensible danger of an assassins bullet. i do no longer wish this upon him yet i'm no longer that naive I dont see it as on the time table of Muslim Fundamentalists. Blair is the main despicable top minister - Labour chief and Labour member in background. If he and Thatcher have been drowning in a river i might dive in and save Thatcher - and that i became a staunch Labour activist member.
2016-11-07 07:38:40 · answer #4 · answered by overbay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I knew something like this would happen when he got elected in '97. I'm just amazed that he ducked and dived so long without some of the sh*t sticking beforehand! Back to the question, because we want him to go before he does any more damage to the freedoms the British public gave their lives to protect 60 odd years ago.
2006-09-14 07:47:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The voting public don't vote for Prime Ministers, the party elects them and can get rid of them. It is unprecedented for sitting Prime Ministers to state a future leaving date. As soon as they do that, their power diminishes, also, in the eyes of the world, they become, "lame ducks". I am confused by your question, why do you want a PM to stay on, when you don't rate him? Regardless of his relationship with the US President, it is the damage his Government has done over a number of years that is the real problem.
2006-09-15 10:14:51 · answer #6 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No need to tell us when, only asap please.
He is a danger to Britain and the sooner he goes the better.
The longer he is at NO. 10 the more havoc he will cause.
We are wising up to his actions now, and can only hope that the damage he has caused can be undone.
2006-09-14 02:58:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So we can have the party sooner. Plus, if he stayed til the end of term, then he would probably go in for another election. Stuff retiring.
2006-09-14 02:57:20 · answer #8 · answered by gr_bateman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simply because when he won the last election, he stated that he wouldnt stay around for the next one.
You can't desert the leadership on the eve of a general election, so he has to get his skates on if he's going to be true to his word.
We're just trying to hold him to *one* of his promises...
2006-09-14 03:00:23 · answer #9 · answered by Shazbot 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you think Gordon Brown isn't a stooge?
2006-09-14 02:50:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋