Who we need in UK is someone like this...
Posted on 09/07/2006 4:22:48 AM PDT by Jack2006
Tony Blair will announce later he will be stepping down as prime minister within the next 12 months, Downing Street has confirmed.
He will make a statement on his future between 1400 BST and 1500 BST.
He is not expected to give a precise date but Commons leader Jack Straw has indicated the prime minister plans to stand down in May.
It follows 48 hours of bitter feuding and a string of resignations over Mr Blair's refusal to name an exit date.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "The prime minister is very well aware of what the public must be thinking and will reflect that."
He said Mr Blair would not be giving a running commentary" on dates but was "very comfortable with what [environment secretary] David Miliband set out on Tuesday and will also reflect that".
Downing Street has rejected suggestions a deal had been struck to hand over power on 4 May, three days after Mr Blair notches up 10 years in power and the day after local elections.
But Mr Straw said earlier voters would expect Mr Blair to stay "to the halfway point of a normal four-year parliament", which would be May - thought to be a signal to supporters of Chancellor Gordon Brown calling for an earlier exit.
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair is thought likely put a precise date on his departure "some time in the New Year".
According to this timetable, Mr Blair would then resign as Labour leader in early May, with a new prime minister in place by early June.
But our correspondent stressed this was a provisional timetable and could change.
Mr Blair has been under pressure to quit earlier than May in order to get a new leader in place before elections in England, Scotland and Wales, which are expected to be disastrous for Labour.
'Acrimonious meeting'
Mr Brown - the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair - is also thought to be unhappy at the prospect of taking over at the end of a Parliamentary session.
The two men were reported to have to have had an "acrimonious meeting" over the issue on Wednesday morning.
It was followed by a day of open warfare between supporters of the chancellor and Mr Blair over when the prime minister should quit.
But with Mr Brown carrying out engagements in Scotland on Thursday, Cabinet ministers moved to calm speculation about Mr Blair's future.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Straw said he believed the prime minister had provided "sufficient certainty for the party to settle down, to draw back from this abyss" at the end of an "unsatisfactory" few days.
'Certainty'
Mr Blair had "made it clear - or it has been made clear on his behalf - this forthcoming conference, in three weeks' time, will be his last annual conference", he said.
"There has to be another leader in place by next year's annual conference.
"Our procedures take some time, because we're a democratic party," he said.
"There has to be some certainty about who the leader is before the summer break next summer, not afterwards, and people can then work backwards from there.
"I think that is satisfactory. I think it's what the party accepts."
Junior defence minister Tom Watson and seven government aides - or Parliamentary Private Secretaries - quit on Wednesday after urging Mr Blair to stand down.
Mr Blair branded Mr Watson, the most senior person to leave, "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for signing the letter.
Allies of the chancellor denied the eight resignations were part of a plot by the Brown camp.
I hope he makes it that long, but the way things seem to be going over there, he may not last.
This is a huge mistake. Blair has been a good friend to the US. It bad for the Brits and the US. It will only encourage the RATS to impeach President Bush, IF they take the House and Senate.
I agree with every word you say
Agreed
Here here agreed on all points
:o)
Agreed Bush has it Blair not
Who we need in UK is someone like this...
Well, I will defer to your judgment of Mr. Blair.
Unfortunately, what I've seen of the Tories lately is quite disappointing (is there such a thing as "TINOs" ?). I can't say they look much better than Labour, let alone the LibDems. Too bad they've forgotten the Thatcher mantra.
I see your point and don't fundamentally disagree. The Tory Party really lost the plot toward the end of the Thatcher regime; too many self-serving MP's had crept in, more interested in looking after themselves than in what the country needed. Most of our party's wounds were self-inflicted.
But Labour in power have gotten away with murder. Levels of National Insurance taxation are crippling, educational system has been FUBAR'ed by the Left politicos, immigration run amok, and street crime is Labour's biggest 'growth industry.'
But a lot of Americans seem unaware of Blair's domestic policy, and/or give him a pass because he has been a reasonably solid ally of the USA.
No, I'd say the only thing I'd agree with Blair on was WoT, I have been hearing horror stories about the domestic side of things on his watch. I was never a fan of Blair until after 9/11/2001. As I said, it's just unfortunate that the Tories couldn't provide enough leadership on the issue of foreign policy, and seemed to just take the opposite (and wrong-headed) stance to Blair.
Too much of it smacks of the problem the U.S. Republican Party had leading up to WW2, taking an isolationist position (some of which was a genuine stance, some of it simply because it was opposite to what Franklin Roosevelt publicly stood for). If the GOP had managed to elect a President in 1940 and sweep in like-minded majorities, it could've had horrific consequences. Fortunately, more realistic GOP politicians like Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan dropped the isolationist stance when he saw the writing on the wall, and the bulk of the party followed suit.
Ironically, it is the party of FDR today that has taken the paleo-Republican position on engagement, a terrifying prospect were they ever to regain power.
Actually, if Wendell Wilkie had won in 1940 he would have approched the war like FDR did. Wilkie was not IIRC an isolationist at all.
From what I understood of Willkie, he was initially thought of as an isolationist, and later claimed to be a non-interventionist. Prior to the '40 election, he charged FDR with being a "warmonger." Eventually, he came around to embrace most of FDR's positions (before he died, he left the Republican Party to found the NY Liberal Party, which was created to supplant the Communist-infested NY American Labor Party). Interesting that despite his relatively youthful age when he ran (48), he would not have lived to see the end of the Presidential term, and his running mate, Sen. Charles McNary, both died in 1944 (McNary in February, Willkie, just 3 weeks before the November elections). It surely would've been a politically tumultous year, as Speaker Sam Rayburn would've become President with a vacancy in both offices (and I have no idea whom the Democrats would've put up in '44, as FDR probably would not have been physically up to mounting a rematch campaign).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie
I am continually amazed by your knowledge of political trivia, even trivia that goes back a long way. You are the best on the net at that, bar none, and I get around. Kudos. Few may appreciate what you do in that regard, as to your contribution, but I do, FWIW.
Gonna miss you, Tony.
"Few may appreciate what you do in that regard, as to your contribution, but I do, FWIW."
I do to, but DJ already knows that. And I'm also pretty good with electoral history, if I may say so myself.
"It surely would've been a politically tumultous year, as Speaker Sam Rayburn would've become President with a vacancy in both offices"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.