In light of the fact that the country is a complete mess (crime, education, NHS, taxes ,illigal wars, cash for honours ,home office blunders etc etc etc)and our government is an international embarresment should Mr Blair go now or is he just kidding himself ...clinging on to his last little bit of power?
and God help us all when Brown steps in...say goodbye to your savings cos he will take it all! RIP democracy.
2007-02-02 02:28:22 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
in reply to mrjerk...my husband served in the first gulf war and I am well aware of the iraq issue...just because other people got it wrong also doesnt justify our involvement.
2007-02-02 02:59:53 · update #1
Yes he should, but this is a man who has no shame, morals, principles or integrity. He says one thing and does another and then blames the Conservatives for creating the mess in the first place which Nu Labour now have to clean up.
Besides the longer he stays the more opportunity he gives himself to get a job at the other worthless and useless organisation, the UN, or as the 1st President of the EU and it gives Cherie the chance to arrange more speech giving tours, where she can rob even more charities, as Cherie Booth - Wife of the longest ever serving British PM.
2007-02-02 03:42:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The country is a mess. The only thing New Labour got right is the economy and some argue that they were just in the right place at the right time. The whole world is booming so i'm not sure the economy would be worse with anyone else in power. Blair just wants to hang on as long as he can in the hope that the Cash/Honours thing blows over and he's not the first PM to leave no. 10 in handcuffs. He wanted to leave a legacy but all anyone will remember is Iraq. He cocked it right up didn't he.
2007-02-02 04:35:01 · answer #2 · answered by jezza 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The Labour get jointly gained the perfect election and with it the right to decide on at the same time as to call the subsequent election (something as a lot as 2009 i have self assurance). If people voted for Tony Blair yet dislike Gordon Brown, properly, it really is purely difficult. They voted for Labour, not for the finest Minister. If each body is purely aggravated with Labour customarily then their probabilities of having yet another election pronounced as any time quickly are narrow to none. Gordon Brown will decide on sufficient time to settle in as chief before any type of election is named; I estimate a minimum of a three hundred and sixty 5 days. except the authorities lose a vote of no self assurance contained in the close to destiny (which shouldn't take position via how) there'll be no election till 2008 on the earliest. it really is the way that authorities has continuously been dealt with; Margaret Thatcher resigned place of work in November 1990 and the subsequent prevalent Election grow to be not pronounced as till April 1992. throughout the time of that element John major served because the finest Minister purely as Gordon Brown (probable) will do.
2016-12-03 08:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Next time do your own research, he said he was stepping down last summer! And even more research would have told you England's economy is better than it has been in years! As for your illegal< not illigal, war claim, well then that should tell you Asia, Russia, Australia, The rest of Europe, along with the USA had it wrong also. Research also would have told you WMD's are considered, as biological, and chemical, which can be launched by rocket or dropped from an aircraft. Iraq did use these WMD's in the 1980's war with Iran, and then again after the 1991 war with us on his own people, killing an estimated 1.5 million!!Fact is we armed Iraq with these weapons in the early 80's after Iran had taken our American citizens hostage for 444 days.
2007-02-02 02:41:00 · answer #4 · answered by MRJERK715 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Tony Blair has completed his metamorphosis into Margaret Thatcher by refusing to step down. Nothing any of her ministers could say to her would convince her of the need to resign and Tony Blair is behaving in exactly the same way. It is not his decision whether or not to retire, it's the decision of his party and the British people and it's very clear what most of us think. Regardless of whether he is guilty re Cash for Honours the British publics' perception of Tony Blair is smashed to hell - he needs to go.
2007-02-02 03:15:59 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He should step down and then as 'theearl87' says put Boris Johnson in. I disagree with the media portrayal of Boris as a buffoon. I think that he is capable and possibly mad enough to take on the job and do well.
If Boris does not want to be PM, my other preference would be Jeremy Clarkson - Political correctness obliterated within minutes.
2007-02-02 03:47:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
its not a question of whether he should, he will do it, he will leave and its not necessarily a good thing if they're going to put gordon brown in his place. it should go to general election when blair steps down, if they dont do that it'd be better for the country to keep blair in til the next general election, cos although he's not done well with this country, brown will be far far worse.
blair, this time, is the lesser of two evils!!
2007-02-02 02:33:08 · answer #7 · answered by J9 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He should but he won't because he wants to break Mrs Thatchers record as serving prime minister.
2007-02-02 03:32:25 · answer #8 · answered by poshpaws 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The man has lost the plot, he has told so many lies that he now actually believes them (Brown will be ok, till the next election then we will have David).
2007-02-02 03:23:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The death toll in Iraq has reached 655000. Of course he should step down.
2007-02-02 02:33:17 · answer #10 · answered by mesun1408 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋