Is anyone else wishing that Tony Blair would stop dragging things out and go?
By snowflake5
@snowflake5 (1579)
United States
January 30, 2007 5:50pm CST
This "transition" we are seeing in Britain is interminable. No one knows exactly when Blair will go as he seems keen to hang on as long as possible (the Guardian described him as in denial about leaving).
Meanwhile, there is a power vacuum. Civil servants are sitting on things as they are not sure if the new prime minister wants to go ahead with Blair's policies. There is no firm hand at the top, Blair is weak and Gordon Brown's hands are tied till he gets confirmed as Labour leader.
Is anyone else sick of this? Let's be done with it and have a new Prime Minister. There's nothing more Blair can do and his search for "legacy" is futile. Lets' try out the new prime minister and see what he's made of. At least someone will be in charge again.
2 responses
@trouble4u2avoid (2915)
• United States
31 Jan 07
I am a little confused, is he waiting for his term to finish? or is that a decision he makes on his own?
@snowflake5 (1579)
• United States
31 Jan 07
We don't have fixed terms in the UK, the ruling party has the option to call a general election at any time up to five years later after the last election.
Also, ours is not a presidential system, it's a parliamentary democracy. Blair was not personally elected as prime minister. It's the Labour party that was elected as ruling party, by dint of having the most MP's and Blair was elected leader only by the Labour party members.
Shortly before the last election, Blair announced that he would step down sometime after the election. Some believe this is the only reason Labour won the election - people were voting assuming that Blair was going and that Labour would replace him with a less war-mongering leader.
Unfortunately he didn't want to go. So last October the Labour party gave him an ultimatum, he had to go by Sept 2007, but he could choose the exact date, so that it didn't feel as though he was being pushed. And he's been hanging on grimly even though power is flowing away from him.
Some think he wants to stay till May to achieve his 10 years as PM. Others think he's waiting for some good story on which to depart - but because he's so weak, the news is all bad as no one is in control of the government.
We have experienced something like this before - in 1990, Mrs Thatcher was making mistake after mistake and after 11 years of being PM, she was clearly burnt out - but she didn't want to go. But the Tory party, who were in power at the time, were ruthless and forced her out within a couple of days, and she left Downing Street in tears. I think Labour didn't want to humiliate Blair in the same way - but being too soft has it's pitfalls too.
@AskAlly (3625)
• Canada
31 Jan 07
I'm not British, but I do watch the news. This sentiment seems to relfect the feeling of the general populace.
@snowflake5 (1579)
• United States
31 Jan 07
We're sick of it. It's not doing anyone any good. I don't understand why he can't see it. I guess he just doesn't want to let go.
I think the Labour party are a bit soft really, in letting him decide for himself exactly when to go. If it was the Tories, he'd have been gone months ago (see how ruthlessly the Tories removed Thatcher)
