Blair Witch (Hunt) Project.

garinda · 07-09-2006, 15:12

We all know he is going to stand down before the next election, but should Tony Blair hang on as Prime Minister?

With a sizeable majority of his cabinet wanting him out, as well as a growing number of back benchers, is he begining to look like an even more desperate man?

He apparently wants to reach his ten year anniversary as PM next May, after giving up on the idea that he could hold on as long as Maggie's eleven years as Premier.

No matter what you think of his politics, history will remember him him as the PM who swept into power with the largest majority for hundreds of years.

It all seems a bit sad, a bit like when a sporting great refuses to retire and you see them beaten by an unworthy opponent.

Time to go Tone.

WillowTheWhisp · 07-09-2006, 15:15

He wants to go out on a wave of euphoria. How long would he have to wait for that?

garinda · 07-09-2006, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

He wants to go out on a wave of euphoria. How long would he have to wait for that?

I think he may have missed the boat for that one...by eight or nine years.

chav1 · 07-09-2006, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

No matter what you think of his politics, history will remember him him as the PM who swept into power with the largest majority for hundreds of years.

well ime one of the saps that voted him in unfortunatly but before the election his politics sounded good and what he prommised also sounded good.

unfortunatly straight after he won he went back on his word ille be glad to see him go

that is of course if he dosnt sack and replace everyone that wants him out so that he can stay in power longer

garinda · 07-09-2006, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

well ime one of the saps that voted him

I thought I recognised you.

Were you the one pressed up behind Peter Mandleson at the South Bank on election night, arms waving, singing 'Things Can Only Get Better'?

Gayle · 07-09-2006, 15:40

As it happens, I didn't vote for him when he first came in (although technically neither did you Chav).

Anyway, that aside, I know what you mean. I didn't vote at all that year because I didn't respect John Major or trust Tony Blair. My views on Blair have actually changed over the years and I tend to think he's done an ok job of it.

I've pulled this off Labour's website

• Britain now has the lowest inflation for thirty years and the lowest mortgage rates for forty years - saving homeowners an average of £3,700 a year compared to the Tory years. We have the longest period of sustained growth for 200 years.
• The number of people in work is at a record level, up by over 2 million since 1997.
• Over 1.5 million working people are better off thanks to the National Minimum Wage.
• Hospital waiting lists in England are at their lowest since 1987.
• In the NHS there are 19,300 more doctors and over 77,500 more nurses working with modern equipment, giving faster access to more people, all free at the point of need.
• Standards are up across the board including the best ever primary school results. More teachers are in our schools than at any point in last 20 years - 28,500 more than in 1997.
• Police numbers are at record levels - up over 12,500 since 1997, and are assisted by over 4,000 new Community Support Officers.

People who believe in the Labour party will read this with interest, people who are opposed to the Labour party will think it's all spin and lies.

The fact is that people have got bored of Blair, bored of his holidays and of his style, they got cross because he took us to war (despite the fact that it was the whole of parliament that took us to war - including the Conservatives and that Cameron did vote for the war), essentially he's had his day.

But, they have not necessarily failed. We always believe that the grass is greener on the other side and that the party in control is failing when in fact, that's never usually the case but that we look back on history with rose tinted spectacles.

morgan_brotherz · 07-09-2006, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

We all know he is going to stand down before the next election, but should Tony Blair hang on as Prime Minister?

With a sizeable majority of his cabinet wanting him out, as well as a growing number of back benchers, is he begining to look like an even more desperate man?

He apparently wants to reach his ten year anniversary as PM next May, after giving up on the idea that he could hold on as long as Maggie's eleven years as Premier.

No matter what you think of his politics, history will remember him him as the PM who swept into power with the largest majority for hundreds of years.

It all seems a bit sad, a bit like when a sporting great refuses to retire and you see them beaten by an unworthy opponent.

Time to go Tone.

Tut. Time for some Cons to take over

morgan_brotherz · 07-09-2006, 15:49

*Duplicate* Appologies.

andrewb · 07-09-2006, 16:35

Hes done good as a whole for his country. He took Labour in the right direction and carried Britain onwards rather than U-turning much of what was achived in the previous 20years.

Labour will forever be a much stronger party because of the direction which Blair took them, (well ok it wasn't all Blair but its generaly accepted that he kept everything going) because he realised the country didn't want socialism or to bow down to the Unions.

I think he has had his time. He should leave within the next few months (and I predict he proberbly will at this rate). If he dosn't, and he waits until May next year I think the Labour party will suffer badly just like the Conservatives did with Thatcher.

morgan_brotherz · 07-09-2006, 16:51

I admit, I like Blair. Well, I agree on his desicion to go to war. I think he's done a whole lotta good for this country too.

morgan_brotherz · 07-09-2006, 16:52

Duplicate AGAIN

garinda · 07-09-2006, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgan_brotherz

Tut. Time for some Cons to take over

No matter what I think about Blair hanging on to power, I would never go that far.

garinda · 07-09-2006, 16:58

The only sad thing about New Labour getting in was that in 1997 Paul Daniels said in the press he would leave the country in disgust if the Conservatives didn't remain in power.

We are still waiting Paul.

jambutty · 07-09-2006, 17:28

Should Tony Blair GO?

Unequivocally YES! Before he can do more damage to this country. OK! So he may have done a bit of good in some areas but overall he has not been good for the country. The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. The NHS is in a mess as is education, police, fire service, public transport etc.

But he won’t unless he is pushed. So Labourites start pushing.

If TB is allowed to choose when he steps down he will do so on such a date that, in spite of his declaration to do otherwise, will give his successor the least possible chance of winning the next election. What I would dub the ‘Spoiled Brat Syndrome’. When Labour lose the next election, as they surely will, President TB can always turn round and say it wasn’t his doing.

Can I point out Gayle that the Tories nor Labour for that matter didn’t actually vote to go to war but agreed AFTER THE EVENT that it was the right thing to do? Well some of them did.

lettie · 07-09-2006, 17:46

[quote=Gayle• In the NHS there are 19,300 more doctors and over 77,500 more nurses working with modern equipment, giving faster access to more people, all free at the point of need.
quote]

I do think that there is a certain amount of manipulation of these figures. According to the NMC's register (nursing and midwifery council), this figure does not exist.

Having studied the NMC's register I can tell you that in March 1996 there were 645,011 registered nurses, midwives and health visitors in the UK.

In March 2005 (the latest available figure) there were 672,897 registered nurses, midwives and public health nurses on the register.

This means that we have had an actual increase of 27,886 registered practitioners.

Of those, somewhere between 16-17,000 actually practice abroad, Aus, NZ, Hong Kong, USA etc.... so in real terms we have had an increase in registrations of 10-11,000.

Bear in mind that many of these practitioners will work part time, many more registrants do not practice at all due to inability to get a job. If you have no practical experience as a qualified nurse or midwife then you become ineligable to re-register.

Everyone who works within the NHS knows that these figures have been manipulated beyond all truth. The paltry increase in nursing staff is undermined by the vast increase in immigrants, many of whom need healthcare. The ageing population means that we need to provide more nursing care as does the increasing birthrate.

The NMC register shows that the majority of our practitioners are in the 40-50 age group with a very small percentage being under 25. This may be because newly qualified (younger) staff are struggling to get jobs and therefore end up leaving the profession. This is going to have serious effects on future healthcare as these older, more experienced professionals will all be retiring within a few years of each other and there will be nobody to replace them. For those of us who work within the nursing professions......... we are already seeing this happen..