Archive of old topics pre-October 2007. PM a mod to get one reopened
  •  

Will Paul Dacre Resign if Blair stays until June

Yes
No votes
0%
No
1
8%
Littlejohn for PM
5
38%
The Mail says vote for the BNP
7
54%
#16347
Downing St denies Blair will announce resignation next week
Downing Street has denied reports that Tony Blair might announce his resignation before next week's elections on May 3.

Reports last night suggested the Prime Minister could announce his resignation as Labour leader before the local elections next week.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said the reports were "wrong".

With no Blair to bait, then it must be Brown next, calls for resignation, no manadate to govern, General Election that sort of thing.
By JohnD
Membership Days Membership Days
#16364
Once Blair resigns, you can bet that The Fail will call for an election. Their journosaurs will claim that nobody voted for Brown/New Nu Labour leader in a general election, so there should be one NOW. What they will not tell readers is that James Callaghan took office in '76 after Wilson's resignation and went to the polls as late as '79. Nor will they remind conservative Fail fans that dimwit Major was in power for eighteen months before the election of '92. Stupid g*ts.
By jonboy
Membership Days Membership Days
#16375
I imagine they will claim they played a part in Blair's resignation, and stick the knife into him once more for good luck after he leaves. I would imagine whoever the sucessor is (I would say probably brown), will get a negative story very soon after.

These people cannot be pleased. Nothing short of a 2nd coming of a Thatcher-Churchill return to the 1950s would make them happy, with all darkies and teenagers banished.
By Nick h
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16376
JohnD wrote:Once Blair resigns, you can bet that The Fail will call for an election. Their journosaurs will claim that nobody voted for Brown/New Nu Labour leader in a general election, so there should be one NOW. What they will not tell readers is that James Callaghan took office in '76 after Wilson's resignation and went to the polls as late as '79. Nor will they remind conservative Fail fans that dimwit Major was in power for eighteen months before the election of '92. Stupid g*ts.
Was Churchill (during WW2)? I thought that there was a coalition government who gave him the job without a general election, I'm pretty sure that the same applied to Eden and Douglas-Hulme (not the coalition bit). Though regarding the later two, I might go along with the DM.
By JohnD
Membership Days Membership Days
#16377
You're right of course, Nick H. The skull-faced Douglas-Hume replaced a sick Macmillan as PM in 1963. I imagine that Churchill became PM as a result of a decision made by that coalition government you mentioned. 1940, wasn't it?As for Eden, didn't he help out the Tories when Churchill threw a sickie in '55? FACT: The first leader of the Conservative party to be actually elected by Tory MPs was Edward Heath as recently as '65. Bet The Fail won't tell you that.

Perhaps elections should have come far sooner for Sunny Jim Callaghan and Adrian Mole-Major. If he went to the polls in '78, it has been said Callaghan might have won. Had Mole-Major went before the country in '90, well, would it be cruel to say he may have lost?
By Rob
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16390
well churchill took over after neville chamberlain resigned. the mail are all to happy to claim he was the best PM ever but i see him as a wartime leader rather than a PM, he was a fantastic wartime leader but you never remember any great speaches about healthcare or transport do you, plus if he was that good, how come he lost a lnadslide election to labour in 1946?
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16398
Spot on Rob. During the war (omigod I'm sounding like Littledick now doing one of his 'hilarious' pisstakes), the home front was pretty much run by Labour politicos (Attlee, Bevan, Bevin, Beveridge etc), while the foreign office, media and armed forces were run by Conservatives, such as Eden, Beaverbrook etc. Probably because those Tories were better at smooth-talking to the USA, had a better relationship with the military high command and so on. But the generally good running of home affairs convinced many people that labour were not all 5th-column Bolshies, but actually quite competent.

Problem was, war is a catalyst for change. Britain in 1945 was radically different to Britain in 1939. And contrary to popular belief, the entire population did not spend those 6-ish years cowering in a tube station singing 'We'll meet again', cheering the Queen Mum, or shagging American squaddies. Life went on, prices rose and availability of goods became short. Come the end of the war, many people had a radically different worldview to what they had in 1939. Peace, stability and regrowth were the main things people wanted (especially returning military folk). Labour campaigned on a strong ticket of rebuilding, health and security for all, and the Tories, campaigning on a ticket of mostly 'LOOK, it's WINSTON BLOODY CHURCHILL!!!' couldn't really compete.

Aside from the fact that he had copious military experience, and had spotted the danger of letting the Nazis re-arm Germany (well done, 10 points), Churchill was a pretty useless peacetime politician. He was a great orator, sure, but so is George Galloway. He flipped between parties, had a tendancy to stomp off in a sulk if he didn't get his way, and had a reputation for ill-thought-out grandiose plans. Above all he was obsessed with securing his 'place in history'.

Remind you of anyone?

In war, especially when Britain was threatened gravely with invasion, occupation and possible annihalation, you do need a strong leader who is prepared to let some of the niceties of democracy go hang. However you sure as hell don't need them in peacetime. He and the Tories campaigned on a ticket of 'Yah boo, we won the war'. Attlee and Labour offered positive new ideas. And after 6 years of war, most people were heartily sick of the idea of glorification of war. Thus the landslide.
By Paul
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16437
Never mind keep sticking the boot in regardless.

Dame Cherie? Nonsense, says Downing Street

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... =1770&ct=5


After all - there is nothing like a dame, nothing, nothing nothing etc.

- Drew, Castle Douglas, Dumfries & Galloway, Scotland.

Of course she'll become a 'Dame'; after all, it's 'er yuman right!

- Dr. Stephen Fox, Sydney Australia

You have just put me off my Sunday breakfast. There will be riots in the streets if she is given any honour. The Downing Street staff would be better employed carrying out an inventory of the furnishings and fittings at No 10 and Chequers before she leaves.

- Bill, London, UK

The ever dependable Bob Roberts, well done.

Let's hope that Cherie Blair does indeed become a Dame in recognition for her sterling work as a barrister and assorted charity crusades.

- Bob Roberts, Worcester, UK
By Rob
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16449
did anyone see the bit on the bbc site. basically it was an interview with gordon brown, although the genral thrust of the interview was about the local elections next week, journos being journos the topic slid off to party leadership.
Tory leader David Cameron has repeated his call for an early election if Mr Brown becomes prime minister this summer. But the chancellor rejected the idea, saying many before him had arrived there mid-term

"I didn't hear Mr Cameron or the Conservatives calling for a general election the minute that John Major took over in 1990.

He said David Lloyd George, Henry Asquith and Winston Churchill had not faced such calls either.

"I think you've got to put this in its proper historical perspective, that the British people elect a House of Commons, and out of the House of Commons the leadership is chosen."

i don't think mail readers know wht perspective means lol

here's the article in full

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6604817.stm
By Antigherkin
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16459
jonboy wrote:I'm confused about Bob Roberts- I've seen him comment on other posts, and he seems a bit liberal to me? I'm unsure if he's the only quasi-left-wing Mail reader? Or a piss take? Or is he being sarcastic?
He's one of us, posts on the main blog quite a lot. Some comments he gets through are taking the piss, others are sensible liberal type things, some I think he just posts to get the other posters' backs up. He does seem to get a lot through though.
By mattomac
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#16467
Rob wrote:did anyone see the bit on the bbc site. basically it was an interview with gordon brown, although the genral thrust of the interview was about the local elections next week, journos being journos the topic slid off to party leadership.
Tory leader David Cameron has repeated his call for an early election if Mr Brown becomes prime minister this summer. But the chancellor rejected the idea, saying many before him had arrived there mid-term

"I didn't hear Mr Cameron or the Conservatives calling for a general election the minute that John Major took over in 1990.

He said David Lloyd George, Henry Asquith and Winston Churchill had not faced such calls either.

"I think you've got to put this in its proper historical perspective, that the British people elect a House of Commons, and out of the House of Commons the leadership is chosen."

i don't think mail readers know wht perspective means lol

here's the article in full

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6604817.stm
Exactly.

If we were to take Cameron and Mail readers viewpoints, we should run elections at every cabient reshuffle.
The Today Programme

Sadly, I didn't hear this (apologies for the sourc[…]

Momentum

Nobs. https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1174[…]

Janet Street-Porter

This is just really....weird. She's taken one lit[…]

The Sun

Funny how forecasts & reports from the Irish C[…]