You might lkike to know the odds (from Billy Hill’s) on Blairs likely departure point:
2006 11/8
2004 or 2005 3/1
2007 10/3
2008 5/1
2009 9/1
2010 Or Beyond 16/1
they seem pretty sure that a full third term isn’t on the cards.
Also here’s the runners and riders for the labour leader at the election. (exchange odds):
Tony Blair 0.24/1
Gordon Brown 4.3/1
Alan Milburn 35/1
Jack Straw 64/1
Geoffery Hoon 79/1
John Reid 79/1
Robin Cook 84/1
Peter Hain 94/1
Patricia Hewitt 119/1
Charles Clarke 279/1
And for next labour leader (billy hills again):
Gordon Brown 1/3
Alan Milburn 9/2
Jack Straw 14/1
Charles Clarke 20/1
David Blunkett 20/1
Peter Hain 20/1
John Reid 25/1
Patricia Hewitt 25/1
David Milliband 33/1
Robin Cook 33/1
A Johnson 40/1
John Prescott 40/1
Geoff Hoon 50/1
Paul Boateng 50/1
Ruth Kelly 66/1
There is some interesting comment on this by Nick Cohen in todays Observer (link) which calls into question the current conventional wisdom that the electoral system means that Tories would have to beat Labour by several percentage points to gain a majority.
I like that! If just once the LibDems held that kind of power, they’d be sure to force the government to go ahead with that long-promised PR referendum!
And I’m pretty sure that’s going to have to happen in the UK, before PR can become a hot issue here in the U.S. Problem is, most Americans don’t even know what PR is, and explaining takes more words than you can fit on a bumper sticker. When New Zealand switched to PR, the American media pretty much ignored it. But if the UK does so, they’ll have to cover it – which means explaining it.
I wonder if the Tories would see Proportional Representation as being in their medium-term benefit? I expect it would significantly help them in Scotland and Wales (let’s face it, it could hardly hurt).
However, I’m against PR because it removes the personal accountability of the local MP. I might live with a replacement of the House of Lords with a House elected by PR.
Rather than hijack this thread, I’ll start another.
Only if done on a straight party-list basis, as in Israel and Ireland (and Russia, before too long). It’s my understanding that proposals being considered to elect the House of Commons by PR would use a multi-member-district system. Five boroughs, each returning one member, would be merged into one borough returning a five-member delegation – and at least one of them almost certainly would be somebody of your own party, whom you could feel comfortable approaching with your problems.
I read that article (it’s alaways good to know what songs the devil is singing after all).
You have to remeber that Nick cohen is probably the only person in Britain who hates Blair more than I do, and one of the few writers to really spear the bastard - see his book “pretty straight guys” for all you really need to know about the worst governement since the Marquis of Bute.
Needless to say I hope that he is right - and I do have a feeling that he just might be.
I’m not sure I agree with this - I think the management of the imminent housing market collapse and ever-so-slightly less imminent pensions crisis will be the next term’s decisive features (barring any enormous world events, of course). While the Europe argument is made prominent by a large and vocal minority, most people don’t much care, IMO (and as evidenced by MEP election turnouts). The connection seen between it and what happens in our day-to-day lives is too weak to be much of an influence in actual election results. It’s taken on a bit more prominence because of the relatively benign state of the domestic economy of late, but I believe the two above factors (combined with the point at which Gordon Brown is going to have to reign in his recent spending spree) are going to be much more of an issue in the slightly longer term.
Hey now, be fair - it is possible to oppose the constitution without being anti-Europe. I don’t think it’s worth endorsing, but I positively shout at the screen when I see wallies in Barbour come on Question Time saying things like “we’re doing perfectly well outside Europe.”* And to be fair (again), Oliver Letwin, the Tory to which this remark was addressed, thought it plentifully stupid as well. To reject the constitution is not (necessarily) to reject Europe outright, and is certainly not to do so for such stupid and nebulous reasons as “British Values”, or whatever cobblers the UKIP is peddling today.
As to the OP, then. I think Blair’s good for his word and won’t try for a fourth term, and I don’t think he’ll be able to serve out the full third term. I’m sure he’ll win the third term, but in the run-up to the next election I would be very annoyed if he doesn’t resign to allow his successor to run the campaign. The idea of one leader winning an election then immediately handing off to someone else strikes me as dishonest, and I’d be surprised if this is what they try. I therefore reckon we’ve got three years of Blair after this election. I’m unsure who will follow, but I believe his ideological heirs will have some trouble - I think the direction Blair has pulled the party in is not its natural one, and he’s sustained it by force of charisma and personal conviction. Brown represents enough of a return to old-style Labour values to take the leadership comfortably, although I don’t know if he’s got it in him to win more than one term at most.
Incidentally, The Economist this week floats the idea that the problem of incumbency for Labour could lead to a decline in tactical voting (i.e. Lib Dem voters choosing Labour to deny the Tories seats), giving an electoral scenario in which the Tories and Labour both lose seats to the Lib Dems, but the Tories make a net gain through seats won from Labour. Even if tactical voting completely ceases, however, they still predict a Labour majority of about 60 or so.
*This remark was swiftly followed by another, younger fool, demanding to know if the Tories were going to take us in to a “United States of Europe”, and if not, whether they were going to take the “only other alternative”, and join the United States of America. Letwin wasn’t given time to answer, but the sheer despair in his eyes at the stupidity was heartwarming. Of course, David Davis then buggers it all up by positively bounding towards UKIP heartland in recent days, but then that’s the Tories at the moment for you; any policy you want espoused, shall be.
Indeed, but his points, especially with regard to tactical voting seem intuitively correct to me. Hell, if it wasn’t for the fact that I live in a Lib/Lab marginal, I’d give serious thought to voting Tory (my decision would probably rest on the merits of the actual Labour candidate - if they hadn’t personally offended me, I’d settle for voting Lib Dem). Many of the people who were once motivated to vote ‘anyone but Tory’ are now at best not bothered. Many of them would rather kick Tony Blair than worry about avoiding a Tory government. A perception that Labour can’t lose will only increase this, as well as the ‘probably would vote Labour, but can’t actually be bothered’ contingent.
Assuming Labour has the largest number of MPs, Tories second and Libdems third (and with the usual odds and sods making up the number), but with the Libdems able to offer either Lab or Con a majority - which way would they jump?
Surely It wouldn’t be in their interests to force another election as they would be throwing away the possibility of real influence.
I find a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition impossible to conceive. By any rational reading of the British party lines, the Lib Dems have, for some years, been to the left of Labour, I really can’t see where the common ground would come.
OTOH, it’s easy to see a Labour/Lib Dem alliance not getting off the ground either, the Lib Dems would feel entitled to demand a lot, would Blair be willing to concede it?
I feel that the most likely outcome in this scenario would be a minority Labour government with no official coalition partners, but able to rely on the support of the Libs and also the SNP and Plaid for the majority of the legislation they would want to bring. Of course, if that were the case, the chance of it lasting a full electoral term would be very slim.
I think it depends upon how much the Tories offer them. Remember that the PM is not necessarily the leader of the largest party, but the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons. Perhaps it might be a LibDem/Tory alliance with Charles Kennedy as PM if he can tempt some Labour MPs to defect? The power of the PM’s patronage is considerable. Consider a government where Kennedy is the PM, the Secretaries of State are Tory, and the Ministers are a mixture.
IIRC in Germany a few years back the price the leader of the third party demanded was Foreign Secretary - unlimited trips abroad, worldwide exposure, etc. Until, of course a real crisis arose and he could not rise to the occasion.
PR has worked well in Northern Ireland - it really benefits people who want to give their first preference vote to a minority party, but who don’t want their vote to be wasted. Funny thing, when it was introduced here I thought that it was probably a trial run before introducing it throughout the UK, but we’ve had PR for years now, and it has been very sucessful in getting minority candidates elected [like Alliance and the Women’s Coalition]. This is probably why Blairco. is still reluctant to use this system in the rest if the UK - it would definitely benefit smaller parties like the LibDems - and take seats away from Labour in the process.
If just once the LibDems held that kind of power, they’d be sure to force the government to go ahead with that long-promised PR referendum!
If you mean Joschka Fischer, he did rise to the occasion. See “Pax Europa,” by Paul Hockenos, in The Nation, July 19/26, 2004.