Advanced search

Who else thimks Tony Blair should stand down NOW

(10 Posts)
Cam Sun 08-May-05 11:00:48

Apart from me that is?
(And lots of his MP's and all the people in England who voted against the Labour govt - more than voted for it)

SenoraPostrophe Sun 08-May-05 11:06:10


don't think he will though.

and there is a possibility that we get someone worse. Does anyone know the proportion of blairite labour MPs now in parliament?

Cam Sun 08-May-05 11:15:31

The Labour party didn't get a mandate in England, the Tories alone got more votes than Labour - its only because of Scotland and Wales (who are devolved anyway) that Labour got in.

I think Tony doesn't have a viable power base in the House

SenoraPostrophe Sun 08-May-05 11:17:58

But a similar lack of mandate applied to Thatcher's 3rd term didn't it? (or was it second - history hazy). And when she did stand down we got John Major.

Cam Sun 08-May-05 11:32:36

Possibly, senora, I don't remember in that much detail.
I'm not talking for party political reasons, but I believe that Tony Blair must go

Didn't a lot of people vote Labour because they thought he would go and they'd get GB?

(I'm no more a fan of GB than TB BTW)

MarsLady Sun 08-May-05 11:36:05


Tinker Sun 08-May-05 11:36:32

I don't think anyone expected him to go instantly though. Thatcher certainly didn't have a mandate.

Janh Sun 08-May-05 11:58:52

Oooh, I have just been looking at old elections stats - had completely forgotten the impact of the SDP in the mid 80s elections, before tactical voting was even thought of. SDP and Labour combined still had a smaller percentage of the vote than the Tories but I wonder how many seats were lost to the left by the split vote?

1979: C 43.9%, 339 seats; L 36.9%, 269 seats; Lib 13.8%, 11 seats (turnout 76%)

1983: C 46.0%, 362 seats; L 26.7%, 148 seats; SDP 12%, 3 seats; Lib 14.3%, 10 seats (turnout 72.7%)

1987: C 46.2%, 358 seats; L 29.5%, 155 seats; SDP 10.2%, 3 seats; Lib 13.6%, 7 seats (turnout 75.3%)

1992: C 45.5%, 319 seats; L 33.9%, 195 seats; LD 19.2%, 10 seats (turnout 77.7%)

1997: C 33.7%, 165 seats; L 43.5%, 328 seats; LD 18%, 34 seats (turnout 71.5%)

2001: C 35.2%, 165 seats; L 41.4%, 323 seats; LD 19.4%, 40 seats (turnout 59.1%)

2005: C 32.3%, 197 seats; L 35.2%, 356 seats; LD 22%, 62 seats (turnout 61.3%)

Cam, there have always been more votes against the Govt than for it (since 1979 at least, I didn't look back any further) and the ones who can't be bothered shouldn't be reckoned in.

(from electiondemon )

Janh Sun 08-May-05 12:01:09

And TB stated quite clearly in the last couple of weeks that he intended to stay for most of the next Parliament - so nobody who was paying attention would be expecting GB to pop up as PM in a couple of months.

Janh Sun 08-May-05 18:51:53

Excellent piece by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer today:

<<He has said to confidants: 'I have not just gone through four weeks of hell to bugger off in a few months' time.'

"His allies say that by declaring he would serve a full term, it gave him a mandate to do just that. Blair will dispute the headline that it was Brown wot won it. He will ask whether Blair also has something to do with the fact that Labour is now embarking on an unprecedented third stretch in power.">>

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: