Post your Comment here

Back to Home Page

Hello, and welcome to this blog.

My blog is designed to gather support to “Keep Tony Blair As PM”.

Now, I haven’t asked him if he wants to stay, and that may seem remiss of me. But, even if he does not want to continue in post, I hope that comments here will help to balance the picture of public opinion in today’s online world.  Of course, I realise that satisfied people don’t rush onto the internet to declare their satisfaction!

Still, we should inform those who should know of the need for consideration of the public in such momentous events as the change of a Prime Minister mid-term.

I am just an ordinary UK voter who is not happy with the present goings-on at the top of our government where our Prime Minister seems to be in the middle of an unceremonious dumping by his party.

Yes, it is true that he himself said, when he was elected for the third time, less than sixteen months ago, that he would not “go on and on” in post. He said he would strive to ensure that “an orderly transition of the leadership” would take place. But he also said that he would serve a “full term”.

The election was in May of 2005. This is hardly a full term. Yet, our Prime Minister has been forced to commit to leaving his post within 12 months from now, September 2006.

If the situation rested there, with his concession to one year, I would not have started this blog. But, there seems to be a drip-drip campaign to weaken the PM further so that he is forced to declare a date well within a year, perhaps in a matter of weeks.

It is true that Prime Ministers are infamous for “clinging to power”. Nonetheless, Mr Blair should be allowed to resign when it suits him, and not the Labour Party or other prospective leadership candidates.

By participating in this blog we will raise the awareness of his own party and the rest of his government that the situation is not good enough for us, the voters.

We voted in a government led by a popular and successful Prime Minister in the full expectation of his leading the country for a full term, or at least something approaching it. Half of a term – or two and a half years after May 2005 would have taken us to November of 2007.

I am expressing no opinion as to who should take over from Mr Blair when he leaves office; I might do later as the time approaches. For the moment I just want THIS PM to stay.

This blog has been compiled simply because I have become convinced that the other choice – not to change the leadership at all – is not being offered to the electorate. And I have yet to hear any political commentator ask Mr Blair if he would continue in post if public opinion were shown to be behind that option. Why?

Recent YouGov polls show that Mr Blair’s popularity has not declined, contrary to how it is sometimes portrayed in the British press. The popularity of other leadership contenders and opposition leaders has varied over the last few weeks, but the Prime Minister’s popularity has actually risen in the last few days and is presently above the level of the strongest contender for his crown.

We, the people, should be made aware of this, if our instincts don’t already inform us. We should not have the wool pulled over our eyes any more.

To non-British nationals there must be puzzlement as to why the Labour Party is not begging Tony Blair to stay on until 2009 / 2010! After all he is the reason they have been returned to power for this historic third term. Moreover he is recognised as a well- respected world leader and statesman; this is important.

The reason he is in this position are complex, but although I am an outsider, I’ll try my best to explain them as I understand it.

A dozen or more years ago when John Smith, the then Labour leader died suddenly, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made an agreement, it is said, as regards their party’s leadership. Mr Blair was seen as the front-runner at that time, but he agreed with Gordon Brown that if Blair was allowed an uncontested run at the leadership, and their party was then able to come to power, Blair would hand over the premiership at some stage to Brown.

The wisdom of that kind of arrangement is questionable. However, I can imagine it happening between friends who shared the same dream of bringing the old Trades Union-dominated Labour Party into the modern age. Blair was subsequently made the leader and won the next election in 1997 on a landslide. Brown has held the most senior government post below the Prime Minister of Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) since then. He is considered to have been a most sucessful Chancellor and is the longest serving in that post in modern times. He has also been patient, waiting it would seem for his chance to take over the top job.

Now, whether it is his by right or just by expectation is not being argued here.

What is clearly the case is that the British people are expected to be in on the agreement. They may not be so willing to be used in this way.

British political parties in power are permitted to swop and change their sitting Prime Minister at will. It doesn’t happen often, usually only when there is a weak PM, or if illness intervenes, or a scandal causes a vote of no confidence to be called. The confidence vote would normally be called by the opposition in Parliament and would then result in an immediate general election.

But the change-over planned at the present time is at a time when Tony Blair is still popular. Granted his popularity has dipped to an extent because of Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has dipped much less than might normally be expected mid-term, even without an unpopular war, especially in a party’s third term where the novelty would be expected to be wearing a bit thin. Labour should never forget that they were re-elected in the main because of the popularity right across the electorate of Tony Blair himself.

Blog Review


23 Responses to “Post your Comment here”

  1. Logos Says:

    Here here! The Labour party are shooting themselves painfully in the foot, the electorate will not respect them for this, and as the old saying goes, ‘you don’t what you’ve got till it’s gone’.

  2. alan birkett Says:

    I have already e-mailed downing street begging tony not to go he is a fine man honest,reliable,down to earth we are very lucky to have had him for P.M. for 10 years
    I will miss him ,he could and should change his mind and stay for another two terms .He is still young let the electorate decide ,ther is no one better.Tony stay please.

  3. Elizabeth Says:

    Well, being younger than the voting age, I may be considered not to know anything at all about politics in general; but I take a very strong interest in it (even though living in Northern Ireland may not be a terribly conducive environment to airing my views) I’ll keep it short-just what exactly have Tony Blair and co given to our country, the UK in the decade that Labour have been in power? I conclude, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. As far as I can see, Blair has absolutely no belief in his supposed convictions, but gets by with wooly-minded politics, the end result being that no-one is very sure what his policies and views are. He has destroyed the National Health Service, continually increased taxes but has wasted citizens’ money, has ruined the education system, in England as well as in Northern Ireland; yet is still hanging on to the Labour leadership-to me this makes no sense…is it the trappings of power? Thoughtful speeches on climate change, a new ‘multi-ethnic’ Britain, and on ‘change’ are all very well, but HE HAS DONE NOTHING! It seems as if he is attempting to do everything that he is able to do to define the future whilst he still can, in order to leave office with some form of dignity still intact and to leave behind this ‘positive legacy’ that he wants to create. In my opinion, the saying is becoming true-‘As Blair holds on, the worse it gets for Labour’

  4. tony jarrett Says:

    Lloyd George wasn’t my fave politician, but I think the money he raised into the “Lloyd George” fund was principally intended to promote his candidates and political career, not to treat his lady friends. His treachery to Asquith fissured the old Liberal Party which retained most of the access to funds I think.

    As Michael White pointed out on TV yesterday (approx) this is a “Loans to fund political parties for honours” allegation, not a “cash for peerages” one.

    Anyone who thinks we should abandon political parties might consider how corrupt systems where individuals are totally untrammelled by an established political system can be. Try the Phillipines whose ruling politicians are drawn from the ranks of celebrities as I understand it. Jade Goody for PM, anyone?

  5. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

    I was being a little “tongue in cheek” about Lloyd George and his womanising tendencies. However, I think you will find that it was understood, perhaps wrongly, that Lloyd George kept the money for his personal use. That was how things were in those days. At least we seem, hopefully, to have moved on since then!

    I missed MW yesterday. What was he on?

    Well, I suppose the semantics are interesting. If it’s just a technical issue about the “loans”, rather than on the principle (long-standing) of cash for peerages, the case should be dropped, and the party allowed to fix its own technicalities. But as you know I don’t think the inquiry should ever have been started in the first place.

    And of course, most people, and certainly Cif-ers don’t understand the minutiae of this kind of accusation. The mud might well stick for ALL time for ALL payments for honours to this PM and government as if they were the only ones who have ever dealt this card. It’s very wrong that they alone are likely to carry the can for ALL PREVIOUS governments.

    Yes, Tony. Absolutely agree on your last point.

  6. Antibush Says:

    Bush goes ballistic about other countries being evil and dangerous, because they have weapons of mass destruction. But, he insists on building up even a more deadly supply of nuclear arms right here in the US. What do you think? How does that work in a democracy again? How does being more threatening make us more likeable?Isn’t the country with
    the most weapons the biggest threat to the rest of the world? When one country is the biggest threat to the rest of the world, isn’t that likely to be the most hated country?
    What happened to us, people? When did we become such lemmings?
    We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!

  7. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

    Yes, I understand that it is difficult being the world’s only superpower. But although America gets a lot of stick for being the world’s “policeman”, I’d rather it was the USA than any of the other possible candidates holding this questionable “honour”.

    The nuclear option is safer in the USA’s hands than in the hands of many others who possess or wish to possess nuclear with their vitriolic and historic hatred of others, don’t you think? For 60 years it’s been a successful deterrent.

    And I think the anti-USA thing is overblown. At least the US is a democratic country, and you’ve just shown that recently by giving Bush a bloody nose. However, it’s noticeable that even the Democrats are being more conciliatory towards him at the moment; perhaps because he still has ultimate power, and so they have no choice but to work with him. But whether they supported the Iraq policy or not, they are recognising the real complexities, which you and I can only guess at (or ignore, if we prefer). I think the world is noticing the Democratic party’s input now with some thanks. Most of us are ambivalent about whether Bush has it right, regardless of what his original motives were or whether he used some pretext for invasion. But at least there are other minds in the debate equation now. And the debate has certainly taken off in several key areas -terrorism / nuclear proliferation / North Korea / Iran. The noises off at the moment as I write are softer than they have been. So SOMETHING is working – hopefully diplomacy.

    I think too many of us are willing to confer upon leaders who have the difficult job of governing a great country like the USA (or even the UK) evil or dictatorial intent. This is, in my opinion, wrong. Bush is not evil because he took the momentous decision to invade Iraq, despite the daily insurgency killings. The “unintended consequences” should strengthen the world’s determination to tackle fundamentalism and all its causes and effects.

    Some of the friends you think you have lost will be back. Some of the others you don’t want as friends anyway – but they’ll still be ambitious to emigrate to your country, strangely.

    Land of the free, home of the brave. You are. Don’t let them make you forget it.

  8. Theodore Monteith ( Come from Woodford Green) Says:

    Hey! I think that Tony Blair is the best English PM. Admit it. It is only because of Bush’s problems & the Iraq war which is making the public think differently.

    I bet you that Tony Blair would still be PM till 2017+ if not for this. He needs to do sonething in a year or so to change the public eye.

    Tony Blair should probably step out in 2008. But come back in 2011. Do you understand what I mean. He needs a rest probably. He is too stressed out.

    I like th way how he smiles, talk, attitde, kindness, rules & polices. But if he ends up being there till 2009 and gets re-elected I will have a party lol, beleive me.

    Labour was the district group for The London Borough Of Redbridge from 2001 -2005. Then from 2005 – 2009 I have shitty, Conservatives. lol


    But if Tony Blair is stepping down, he can be PM agin init lol!! YAY

  9. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

    Hi Mr Monteith!

    Thanks for your comment. I absolutely agree.

    Tony Blair is in a class of his own! After him they threw away the mould – and Cameron or Miliband (or Brown) don’t get anywhere near. Blair is brilliant – and he keeps getting better.

    Unfortunately he doesn’t have a year – probably only until May, after the local and Welsh and Scottish elections. Otherwise, if he tries to hang on, the rebels will be gunning for him again. Absolutely dreadful, in my humble opinion.

    Now if we could get a grassroots campaign going to KEEP HIM – well, maybe things would be different. But there would need to be THOUSANDS of people signing up. They could start by signing up here. You can get the word out if you can, but you’ll probably find most people don’t really give a damn.

    A friendly newspaper would be something. Don’t even know if The Sun’s with him any more.

    I’d love to come up with a way of getting him to stay. Unfortunately the parliamentary Labour party holds all the cards here.

    Yes, he could always come back in the future, since he’s young enough. But I think he’ll go off, start enjoying life and his family, and get some big international job – say in international climate awareness or something similarly useful. Then he wouldn’t want to return to the abuse he’s been getting here in the party, and from the press and not to mention that stupid police inquiry!

    And as you say he needs a rest. The poor guy must be shattered. And now Peter Mandelson’s been criticising him over NORTHERN IRELAND! Can you BELIEVE it – after all the work he’s done there?

  10. morganusvitus Says:

    The site looks great ! Thanks for all your help ( past, present and future !)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s