Tony Blair will stand down on 27 June

UK Premier (proper title: Prime Minister) Tony Blair is expected to announce his resignation today following 10 years in office. The timetable appears to be as follows (Guardian article):


Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor (Finance Minister), is the clear candidate for the job and should be in post on July 2nd following a party-internal election. Alisdair Darling is likely to be the next Chancellor.

History may judge Blair differently than current public opinion does, although Blair is certainly a controversial figure, not least due to the UK involvment in Iraq.

Blair will appear at the G8 and EU conferences in Germany before the end of his tenure, a trip to the US is also likely.

Expect confirmation around 1pm CEST today.

For balance to the Guardian piece: Daily Mail article

Premier???

Writing for an international audience, Mr Picky. *tsk*

Excuse for a hefty quaff this evening when the bastard goes. Not that Brown has much else to offer; a tad less smarmy.

It's about time!


Who says he will get it? I hope he won't. He looks miserable to begin with.

My money is on John Reid.

Do you ever read the news? John Reid will not be standing. Gordon Brown will be the next PM. I can't wait for Blair to go, but he really should have been forced to resign over Iraq.

Shame, he's been a good PM.

John Reid has even stepped down from the Home Office post - he's a real Blairite who would not serve under Brown and will go when Blair does.

Brown carries on in the John Smith tradition, now that was the best PM the UK never had.
Plus Brown is a lot less dour than you'd think, but whether I'll actually vote for him remains to be seen.
BBC Q&A

Troll!

He was a good PM but it was definitely past his time. He probably should have stepped down after the last election but he certainly did a good job

Last couple of months were a roller coaster ride for me , looks like I missed that, but, but ...
since when you started believing what politicians say?


May be so, but only up to the elections me thinks.


Not only that, but also tried for it too.

Scathing attack there STB! Still fact is he has been a good PM, so he told lies over Iraq, get over it!

Reid's departure also solves another problem - namely, that Reid is another Scot.
Now with a likely Brown Cabinet looking a wee bit less er tartan, it helps Brown. Yes, the best person for the job should get the job and all that, unfortunately them English don't like Scottish rule.

So with Brown being a Scot, the probable Chancellor Darling being a Scot, a Scottish Home Secretary would have been tricky. Wouldn't be surprised if Jack Straw pops up, possibly for the Home Office post.

As for the deputy post, some candidates are turning to interesting measures.

John Reid is a nasty shitbag and he has long known his tiime was up the minute that twunt Blair goes.

If bLIAR is going to stand down, I wonder if he would be gratious enough to do it off a very high cliff?

It isn't only Iraq; it's the selling-off of our schools and hospitals to private companies (something that will cost the taxpayers an absolute fortune when the companies call in their debts in 20 years' time), the erosion of civil liberties (crowned by the achingly expensive and utterly pointless ID-card system), completely ignoring the environment until Cameron forced him to do something about it, and generally failing to change a great deal in a decade. I don't see Britain as a nicer, better place to live in now than it was ten years ago. The economy has been very stable, but that has nothing to do with Blair.

Hmm, perhaps you should tell the grieving parents of dead soldiers to do the same. It's not much in politics that gets me wound up and emotional but Blair leading the country to war on entirely false pretences is simply inexcusable and can't be simply washed off. Once the fallout of this insane war is over then we can 'get over it' but this will take years.

To be fair, and as already discussed in other threads Blair did get lucky a few times in 10 years.
Peace in Northern Ireland - a good thing.
Freeing the bank of England from the government - a good thing.
The freedom of information act - a good thing (although Blair and his mates now realise that they don't like it because they tell lies, which are regularly exposed by the FoI).

But is this worth the huge tax burden Gordon has given the country, the NHS on it's knees wasting billions in extra admin while firing nurses and closing hospitals, local services collapsing, unsafe and dirty cities, rising violent crime, an unjust war that will provide Islamic extremists with a ripe recruiting patter for years, if not a recruiting and training ground, armed forces stretched to bust, poorly constructed 'new' schools and hospitals financed by debt from which huge corporations make fat profits but the public get no benefit, similarly public transport that doesn't work, a judiciary that can be forced to stop criminal investigations into rich and powerful companies when it suits the politicians, a House of Lords with low credibility after Blair selling the seats to his rich friends like it were a theatre, and of course a public weary of spin and deceit with no faith in politics? What did I forget?

Never thought I'd agree with MonksTown in a thread about politics, but Blair has been a hopeless PM, Brown will be no better and the sooner they're all out the better.

And who should take the place ? Does the UK have an aternative to Labour ? Personally I don't see One otherwise Blair would have been out on his arse a long time ago.

Erm, that was Brown's first act as Chancellor after only 4 days in office and a very good thing it was too.
Brown did the talks with the BofE before Labour had even won the election.
So saying Blair "got lucky" there isn't strictly accurate.

What is it about British politicians that we have such dead beat choices. That new foreign minister, has she ever been to a dentist in her life – I can’t bear to look when she comes on the TV. And do you remember that guy Foot.

In terms of borgeois politics you find it hard to put a fag paper between the parties tbh.

Long term history will judge him differently for sure. He's been a strong leader when Islamic nut jobs have been rocking the boat all over the world.

Could be IW. Plenty of people like Churchill now even though he was a c***.

One could argue they have been rocking the boat a bit more than usual 'cos Sir. Blair has acted like an aggressive prick.

I think at the end of the day he will be well-remembered because of NI. Nice to see them really pushing it home in the final days of Bliars term...gotta love the amazing PR machine he created, that's another legacy...

Which is all very unfair, because John Major did the hard work on NI.

Ok, Brown got lucky...


Let's speculate how much his policies have done to either calm the Islamic world and help spread understanding and tolerance, or inflame it, alienate further sections of it, and drive more people from the moderate centre to the violent extremes. Doesn't it strike you as oxymoronic the whole idea of 'fighting a war against terror'? It's a bit like fighting a war against misery. The more you fight the more misery will be created.

MonksTown in agreement with HellesAngel shocker!

Sorry for butting in here, but what you're saying is that Islamic terrorism came into being after May 1997? [sigh]

Blair on way to Sedgefield.
For those of you who don't know where Sedgefield is, Sedgefield.gov.uk, it is between Bishop Auckland, Darlington, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham and includes Spennymoor amongst other places.
Hopefully he got a nice cheese stottie on the plane.

JW 'inflame it, alienate further sections of it, and drive more people from the moderate centre to the violent extremes.'

that's quite clearly NOT claiming that...

History hates appeasers.

I agree with MT that this war on Terror and lunatic war in Iraq has done nothing to increase peace and security.

Interesting article hear <link> "In "1984," the state remained perpetually at war against a vague and ever- changing enemy. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices."

Er, no. Only that Blair, through his mis-management and incompetence, has done his bit to strengthen the cause of those who recruit for Islamic terrorists and rather than make Britain safer he's increased the danger.

This is curious. I wonder what policies Blair adopted which drove previously emotionally and psychologically balanced individuals to suicidal terrorism?

EDIT: I can see where this is headed... OK... As everyone apparently has a crystal ball around here, what exactly should he have done differently in order to not strengthen the "cause" of Islamic terrorists? Don't tell me Iraq because these people existed before the war and have attacked countries and killed nationals who did not participate in the 2003 invasion.

You've not been paying attention. He's a wrecker. Everything he and his incompetent followers have tried to 'reform' has ended up broken. The NHS (look for the post dated Friday 27th April), the Criminal Justice system, the House of Lords (which I'm no fan of, but it was a compromise which sort of worked for nearly 100 years). The list is endless. Can't work out if he is merely incompetent or if he has a psychological flaw which makes him break things, but the effect has been the same. Not to mention his authoritarianism and attack on civil liberties. And Iraq, of course.


This may be apocryphal but it's disturbingly plausible:


Quotes from the comments section of this article.

@wheel
I would love to know where you copied and pasted that stuff from!?

EDIT: Whoops! I was about to mention The Guardian or Independent, but I didn't want to seem overconfident. Lo and behold...

That's true cause the time line goes.

Afgan Invasion --> Iraq Invasion --> USS Cole Attacks --> 9/11 Attacks --> Taliban comes into power in Aganistan --> Truck bomb attack on World Trade Center in NY --> Bombing of US Embassys in Africa

Hmm, no wait, that's not right some how...

Well strictly speaking, as the comments are from an anonymous member of the public, you're wrong.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with the bit about being a stooge for the US but I left it in because I knew it'd play well. And lo...

But the psychological part nails him totally, better than any professional commentator I've seen.

A key date would be around 1980 when the USA began supporting Islamic freedom fighter/ insurgents / terroists (delete as approriate)
in Afghanistan in the latest round of struggle between the West and (then Stalnist) Russia for the imperialst control of the region.

Love the comment: " the individual pathology of a public schoolboy who for reasons of personal history has an unnatural need for approval - from any 'audience' (from his days as wannabee rockstar to his estuarine TV blokishness) and from any figure of authority, the bigger the better - British establishment, President of America, Pope, God."

He wants to please people? Isn't that what most mainstream politicians do except if they're extremists?

Praying at night is indicative of "arrested psychological development"? I'm an atheist myself but this is simply ridiculous - I hope you don't agree with this?

Blair is a cnut, fook Iraq, fook the NHS but allowing smoking to be banned FFS!!!

CNUT!!!

Of course the invasion of Iraq didn't trigger Islamic terrorism, but it undoubtedly aggravated it. Blair was warned that this would happen by his own security services.

@ JW

It's the kneeling by the side of the bed part that's revealing, since most people only do that as children. Praying in itself isn't the issue here.

As for trying to please: well lots of people do that, but with Blair it's pathological. I wonder whether the wrecking isn't a hidden reaction to his external sycophancy.

Most people in politics want to gain support for their position sure. but that is not what the comment is about, its about his inner psycology.
Its an allegation that he is stunted, not grown up. Just like a puppy that roles on the floor and wants to be stroked.
The guy has ISSUES.

What I don't understand is why he got a free pass after 7/7, saying 'the rules of the game have changed'. Actually the rules changed on 9/11. If he'd set the security services to work on Islamist terrorism immediately instead of waiting for four years the terrorists may not have been able to organise. Too little, too late.

Friday, November 10th, 1997.

The "poodle", who was best buddies with Bill Clinton while W at the time probably wouldn't have been able to find Iraq on a map, in action...

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1070.asp


How subservient.

subservient in the way that George Bush senior was to Maggie. I will never forget that just before the first Gulf war, poor George did not know what to do. Thatcher flew to America and within 20 mins of the meeting finishing, George gave Saddam a date to leave Kuwait or face the consequences.

BLIAR has finally quit.

yipppeeee!

Brown will likely be PM booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

He'll be sorely missed.