Blair: Announcing retirement plans a mistake

Tony Blair has admitted that it may have been a mistake to announce that he would stand down before the next general election.

In 2004, the prime minister said he would serve "a full third term" but would then retire, in a bid to end speculation about an alleged agreement to hand over power to the chancellor Gordon Brown.

Speaking to Australia's ABC Radio last night, Mr Blair admitted that rather than put an end to speculation surrounding his premiership, his announcement two year's ago only added to it.

Asked if it was a "strategic mistake" to announce he planned to quit, the PM replied: "I think what happened when you get into your third term and you are coming up to your tenth year is that it really doesn't matter what you say, you are going to get people saying it should be time for a change

http://news.viewlondon.co.uk/Blair_Announcing_retirement_plans_a_mistake_17078582.html

he should have retired the day before he made those plans with B***.

it kinda reminds me of the too-lazy-to-vote
bums in the US Senate

For a start, a lot of the Parliamentary Labout Party (the MPs) remain very loyal to Blair, despite Iraq. And the parliamentary calculations are rather complicated at the moment.

Look at it this way. Imagine that the Republican party in Congress was split three ways - one third still very loyal to Bush, one third implacably opposed to Bush, and a middle third that could move either way depending on the issue. Even given the Repub majority, you'd think Bush would find it hard to get anything done. Not so, because the Democratic party is actively backing parts of his legislative agenda, which they see as indistinguishable from theirs - infuriating but emasculating the rebels.

So Blair has a hard-core faction of about 50 rebel MPs, and more who might swing that way. In consequence, he's relying on Conservative support to push through key parts of his agenda. Despite recent successes, the rebels are finding it hard to score a fatal hit that could spark a confidence vote.

if there is such a thing as
a party 'no confidence' vote, how would it be enforced?,
in government

A "no confidence" vote is a parliamentary vote that says that HM government has lost the support of the Commons. That would spark a real crisis, but is extremely unlikely to happen - even the rebels would back the government, because they want Labour in power, but Blair gone.

The other option is a leadership challenge. The problem with a leadership challenge is that it forces potential rivals to show their hands, uncertain of success. So the most likely option is a so-called "stalking horse". A backbench MP of no great importance launches a leadership bid to see how far they get. They don't expect to win, they just want to see how successful such a bid can be. The secret ballot allows a mini-referendum on the leadership within the PLP - if enough people back the bid, it will hearten potential leadership challengers and may even precipitate Blair's resignation.

A "stalking horse" is the most likely option if Blair doesn't resign or call a leadership contest himself - which he can do, John Major did it in the 1990s. But that means a potential "horse" has to put their whole political career on the line.

challenge?

Could the PM be dismissed seperately, by parliment?

Separate from 'party affairs',
can parliment declare the priemirship to 'vacant'.

Same, for lesser ministers

then the opposition would schedule a vote of no confidence in the government - and would be sure to win it, with their own votes and the votes of the majority of the PM's party who had just voted against him. That would mean a complete re-election of all of the House of Commons members, so, no, parliament can't force the PM (or any individual minister, who are all appointed solely by the PM, except for, in Labour's case, the Deputy Leader of the party - but he could be given a purely ceremonial government position if Blair wanted to sideline him) to be replaced without a general election.

In practice, ministers do resign when what they've done becomes too embarrassing to the PM or their party (there have been at least 5 high profile resignations during Blair's government, by 3 ministers (2 were brought back into government after a bit, and then had to resign again for different reasons)). It's rather like the US Congress - the majority party can get away with a certain amount, but there comes a point where they have to replace the leaders if they've done something too outrageous, because they'll suffer at the next elections. The judgement of where the point is varies with how big the majority is, and how brazen they feel.

that's wehre you should go next.

If their own country refuses to try them.

I want to see him tried here under ICC rules, as 7 British soldiers were recently. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for him. At least they had it in them to look their victims in the eye when they did what they did