Final Day Of Labour Conference - Autumn 2004
ANDREW MARR: So are you, as you have this operation, considering how long you're going to stay on as Prime Minister?
TONY BLAIR: Well, I've given some thought to this ... But if I am elected, I would serve a full third term. I do not want to serve a fourth term. I don't think the British people would want a Prime Minister to go on that long. But I think it's sensible to make plain my intention now.
--------------------------
The people doing the best job of preventing Blair fulfilling his pledge are his own party members and MPs. Fine. That's their issue.
The British public voted at the GE on the commitment of Blair to serve the full term. If he goes early the British public is entitled to demand and get a General Election. I hope that my fellow Tories are ready to raise the volume if Blair reneges or is forced to renege on his pre-election commitment. Are you with me on this?
14 comments:
Yes. Bring it on.
I am, but they will shout back 'John Major' at us. I can think of few things more likely to cheer than Lord Protector Gordon gaining the Crown (so to speak), fighting an election and losing. With a bit of luck he'll have an even shorter term than the luckless Lord Goderich, who lasted all of five months.
It is worth remembering that no one votes for a PM only an MP. It was arrogant and wrong for Blair to claim that he was voted in to serve a full term as Prime Minister. He was voted in as the MP for Sedgefield, if he stands down as PM nothing will have changed.
We could put pressure on Brown to stand down as a Scottish MP and gain a mandate fro England in light of the west Lothian question.
I would love to see him try to wriggle out of that one.
Nice in theory but it wont happen. Whoever takes over knows they have a real battle on their hands to convince the electorate they are different. An immediate election would almost certainly result in a large Tory victory and no Labour MP will want that.
Do the Czechs think you are a German?
There is more than one political purpose for trying to organise a clamour for an immediate election. If it succeeds, it looks like the Tories forced his hand and if it fails (but becomes a popular viewpoint) it will paint GB as intransigent, unwilling to listen etc which will have long term benefits.
Also, political momentum is with the Tories and in British politics that is very hard to reverse. GB may decide to call an early GE because a) that due to internal strife he needs his own mandate and b) he judges that Labour will only become less popular as his term progresses.
Oh and a v warm welcome to James Cleverly and Political Teenager for their first postings on this site. As for anonymong, I suppose the Nazi insinuation (baby-eater next?) is part of the induction process if I'm running a Tory website.
Since when have general elections been called simply because a new PM has been appointed in the UK?
It sounds as if you were born in the wrong place and the wrong time. Maybe you should have lived in Ulster.For much of its history only the Ulster Unionists won the elections. Or how about Rhodesia,after UDI the Rhodesian Front won the elections.
Anyway,the Swedes go to the polls soon.Should be an interesting result!
A lot of floating voters I know voted Labour because TB had promised to serve a full term. They didn't want Brown 15 months into the term. That's why it is reasonable to ask. You've been a bit tangential with the Ulster/Rhodesia stuff but yes, the Swedish elections should be interesting.
I think there must have been a lot of Labour voters that voted Labour last time because they thought TB wouldn't be serving a full term.
It was clear one way or another that he would be going.
I should add something tells me GB will not be the next leader of the Labour Party.
I don't think GB has done himself any favours with the Tom Watson episode. Rewind a few months and the factions within Labour opposing GB were smaller and less strident than I think they will be now. GB surely remains favourite though.
Hi, I know that this was posted ages ago but I have just discovered your blog (and will be adding it to my blogroll later today). But what I wanted to say was that I am completely with you here. A full term, by my definition - and probably many other people's definitions also, is the amount of time between 2 consecutive general elections. In our constitution this is not defined only by a number of years.
All contributions gratefully received however belatedly. I will be watching your blog with interest. I hope you continue your erudite postings.
Post a Comment