Talk about Newsnight


What do you make of it all?

  • Newsnight
  • 6 Sep 06, 01:11 PM

blair_203.jpgBlair’s future, rightly or wrongly, seems to be on everyone’s lips (at least everyone in the media) and today's resignations suggest that this could be crunch time for the Prime Minister. So, what do you make of it all? Is the government in meltdown as David Cameron suggests or is this a small earthquake in Chile?

And what should Tony Blair do next…?

Is Gordon Brown behind all this?

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 01:43 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Fiona wrote:

It's six to one and half a dozen to the other really!

  • 2.
  • At 01:44 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John Gallacher wrote:

When personalities overshadow policy and actions to such an extent as appears the case now it's time for a change.

  • 3.
  • At 01:45 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Richard wrote:

Go now Blair, your time is up.

And stop dreaming of leaving a nation wishing for more, you arrogant idiot.

We used to think you were ok, but you've turned out to be more arrogant and detached from reality than Maggie, leading a party of worse hypocrites than the tories ever were.

I say again, go now, and let's hope your 'government' swiftly follows.

  • 4.
  • At 01:46 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Anna wrote:

I don't care! When will people stop discussing this???? hopefully before he leaves..

  • 5.
  • At 01:46 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Julian Baldwin wrote:

The real issue is not when Blair will step down but how it will be managed. Surely we should focus on how continuity will be maintained for effective and unified government.

  • 6.
  • At 01:46 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paul wrote:

I'm thoroughly sick of hearing about the whole thing. Are we governed by the media or by the government? As long as the government is doing the job, should it matter whether he leave or not? If he goes and his replacement (who may or may not be Gordon Brown) isn't up to scratch, will the whole thing start again in six months? Has anybody suggested that the man who won Big Brothel should stand for PM next, or will that be suggested next week?

  • 7.
  • At 01:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • lewis aubry wrote:

may be toney will go but as long as the deputy pm stays out of the way it may work out ok for the uk

  • 8.
  • At 01:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Roger Greenwood wrote:

Let's not have ten full years of insincerity .. the UK has surely had enough. Fall on that sword speedily, Mr Blair!

  • 9.
  • At 01:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Martin wrote:

"the" Tony Blair should keep going until just before he calls the next election - when/if he does stand down, a proper leadership contest should take place - Brown should not get the job by default. That's my £0.02

  • 10.
  • At 01:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Laurence Hodge wrote:

With every passing day Tony Blair looks more and more like Nicolae Ceaucescu on his balcony when it dawned on him that the crowds below weren't cheering.

  • 11.
  • At 01:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Peter Henry wrote:

We as a country voted for labour to stay in power for the next four years, and most people voted labour because of the leader. I believe the PM should stay that is why I voted labour. I do not trust the likes of Gordon Brown.

Tony Blair should stay and not let back bench rebels push him.

At the moment all this is doing is adding to the Tories to use against Labour, lets give them nothing to use agains Labour.

If and when the PM decided to go then that his is choice, and let’s leave it to him and him alone

  • 12.
  • At 01:49 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mike wrote:

Simple: he should resign and turn himself in to the International War Crimes Tribunal for trial. He could then turn queen's/state's' evidence and rat out his buddy George, and we could all roast marshmallows at the bonfire.

Nothing much short of that would pique my interest.

  • 13.
  • At 01:49 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Shafique A Choudhary wrote:

Dear Sir,

Mr Blair is a honourable person- He may have lot of short commings but one should not forget he has done lot of good things for UK. Therefore I would suggest to everybody please calm down and let him find his own ways to handle this situation. Only advice I can give to him -if he could get rid of his spinners?

  • 14.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Gerry Harper wrote:

I am sick and tired of the BBC Martha Carney , Nick Robinson and Kirsty Wark and there incessant wittering on about Tony Blair and when he will resign.

These people are supposed to report the news and whats going on in the world not report gossip and tittle tattle.

I will refuse to watch any news on the BBC from now on until they start reporting news and not ok magazine style gossip!!!!!

Yours disgusted and dismayed.

  • 15.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Simon J George wrote:

When ministers start signing letters telling the PM to go there is already only one conclusion.

Of course he's a dead duck. The only movement thats is occuring in no. 10 is that which causes a corpse to twitch.

The only question is, who in the cabinet will step up to the mark and Tell Tony to his face to go. If no one then we could be in for a prolonged bout of zombie-ism in the goverment.

  • 16.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Edward Cowling wrote:

As a lifelong Labour party member I think he should go now. He's become more of a liability than a help to the party, and by leaving he could improve our vote at the next GLA elections.

  • 17.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alan Marsh wrote:

Tony Blair's greatest legacy would be to ensure that his successors are chosen by an election in which the whole electorate participates, not just members of the majority party in the House of Commons.

He has established like no other PM before him a presidential role for the PM, but without any tangible democratic legitimacy. He could change that with a simple Act of Parliament, setting a fixed term for the newly-elected PM, up to the maximum length of an incoming Parliament.

  • 18.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • andy whiteman wrote:

Time to go - if the leaked memo about his farewell tour (rock n roll fantasies perhaps) are true it's even more important that he is made to go - it's a bit frightening really.

Given this is the man who took us to war in Iraq based upon less than the truth, has refused to even acknowledge this and in the process has made this country more liable to terrorist attack any thought of going out in blaze of glory seems to be a little irrational to say the least.

Another year of farce will surely loose Labour and Gordon Brown the next election - are Blair and his supporters completely disconnected from what's going on in the real world?

It is time for "our beloved leader" to go before he is dumped.

  • 19.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Aleida Brinkman wrote:

Resign... simply resign...

England needs a face lift desperatly!

  • 20.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • june G wrote:

He should go he is a spent force. He once said he would not hang on Like margaret Thatcher did, but he is. Powerm seems to go to their heads once they get to number 10, maybe we should have a rule 3 times pm and no more.

  • 21.
  • At 01:51 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Nick Rugg wrote:

As I have just read this at work here in the Chilean capital I certainly hope that on this occasion David Cameron has got it right.

  • 22.
  • At 01:51 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Miriam Binder wrote:

Personally I would want Tony Blair impeached. He has done more harm to this country then many a PM I can think of in recent years, including MT.

Tony should go before he is forced out. Even with him leaving it is going to leave very little time for the Labour Party to begin to address the credibility he has done so much to undermine.

  • 23.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Sean Girling wrote:

Well, ordinarily I'd be happy for a little bit of upset to keep people on their toes. However, when there are only a couple of trumped up wannabe's to consider as competition, I'd say it was all a bit worrying. Blairs not exactly the greatest prime minister we've ever had, but by god he's not the worst, and in fact seems to be making some progress. Bring in a new leader, or party, and we'll have several years of bickering, and blame on the previous position holder. Quite frankly, I just wish they'd got on and do their jobs, instead of political power grabbing.

In fact, if I were honest, I'd rather have them all thrown out, and run things with my own experienced and or educated people that need not pamper to the public ever moronic cry. Of course, that's just my opinion.

  • 24.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paddy wrote:

I must be a government meltdown as I have scoured the net and there has been no mention of earthquakes in Chile let alone a small one.

  • 25.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Nick wrote:

My advice to Tony Blair comes from Shakespeare:
'Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.'

  • 26.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alex wrote:

If Blair is worried about his legacy, he should be worried about who replaces him. If you read Tom Bower's book on Brown, Brown seems to be a man mentally unstable, dominated by hate of those who might oppose him, a man incapable of getting to grips with detail or dealing with more than one issue at a time, and a man blinded to any failings he might have or might be responsible for.

If Brown is PM, his failings in office will be the Blair legacy.

  • 27.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • William E. Small wrote:

Whatever he chooses to do, let's hope he doesn't stubbornly hang on to a misguided course such as our own President Bush is doing.

  • 28.
  • At 01:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Neil wrote:

Blair has all the self-awareness of a mollusc. Anybody in any job from the Chairman down to (dare I say it – Michael Winner) the toilet cleaner knows that you should never let on when you are going to leave your job until the moment you hand in your resignation. If Blair had said nothing a couple of years ago then he would not be in the mess that he is today.

This situation is typical of the appalling judgment that Blair has shown throughout his premiership; Iraq, being George W. Bush’s poodle, the Lebanon crisis, not sacking Prescott when he needed to, need I go on?

  • 29.
  • At 01:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • MICK FENNER. wrote:

I think you have got it wright.
The media is takeing it out of all proportion Yes the BBC is very guilty and I am sure people are switching off because of this.
We are a democratic country and if any prime minister is the sole responsibility for the way it is run,there is something wrong.
He or she is the spokesperson only.
They on thier own should not make any decisions so whoever is there should make no difference.
Bye. Mick

  • 30.
  • At 01:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Nick Tallentire wrote:

After leading our country into an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, not to mention the debacle of Afghanistan and his (also) illegal support for Israel's assault on Lebanon, this pathetic self-indulgent little man has shamed the nation. We are despised abroad, and attacked at home. The sooner this moral cretin leaves the stage the better. I only hope that he's not replaced by John Reid. Heaven help us.

  • 31.
  • At 01:54 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Sam wrote:

Now that this has got so out of hand, he's got to lay out a date and timetable to hand over power to however gets the job. The only reason not to is pride, and that's irresponsible.

The cat's out of the bag about not serving the full term, and hoping speculation would go away hasn't worked. The World Cup is over, Big Brother is finished and the PM is back from his holiday. There are no more distractions to rely on.

Naming a date will neuter Blair, sure, but compared to the field day the press are having at the moment, he'll be able to at least get some policy coverage.

  • 32.
  • At 01:54 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • David Rose wrote:

Rather like Puck, Blair is making such a meal of going that we can't wait for him to be gone… The country needs to look forward but I fear we’re in for a year of “Didn’t he do well!” to combat the wisdom of the Bard: The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones..."

  • 33.
  • At 01:54 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Sean Brennan wrote:

To be honest I am not worried. I believe over the summer the newpapers had nothing else they thought worthy enough to harp on about.

He has made some mistakes but show me a Prime Minister who hasn't.

I would much rather if you dedicated your programme to something more worthwhile such as the "blind eye" or "rosy view" the rest of the world is taking over the situation in South Africa where crime and corruption is ranpant.

I would especially love to hear what the Secretary of State for Wales and N. Ireland has to say about that after his brave fight against Apartheid.

  • 34.
  • At 01:55 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tony Hepworth wrote:

This is all about politicians and their self interest. It has nothing to do with the best interests of Britain. Politicians, of all persuasions, should put country above personalities. TB should go now.

  • 35.
  • At 01:55 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Bernard Mellor wrote:

He should go now, without further ado. He has not had the support of the country, as a whole, for some time. He is definitely a lame duck prime minister, with faltering support in his own party.

  • 36.
  • At 01:55 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Pete wrote:

He ought to stay absolutely as long as possible. Without him, Labour (or even New Labour) is nothing.

  • 37.
  • At 01:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • David Every wrote:

I feel Tony Blair should announce he will be joining the Tory Party as that is really where he belongs.....

  • 38.
  • At 01:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alan Harkness wrote:

Like most politicians he doesn't know when to quit! Whatever happened to the graceful exit whilst at the pinnacle of ones career, rather than waiting to be toppled because the foundation has crumbled. He is teetering on dictatorship not democracy.

Mr Blair, you have done your job, it is time for you to move away and quickly and allow new blood to govern and move the country forward in a manner the British people would like.

  • 39.
  • At 01:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Nicky Hart wrote:

This is make or break for Labour. Blair is fatally wounded, morally and politically. The same goes for his closest allies. The disaster of Iraq and more recently the Lebanon, leaves noone in the Blaircamp fit to compete for the leadership. If they try, it will destroy the party's slim chance of winning the next election. Brown is the only credible alternative. If Blair has any loyalty at all to the party he has led, he will make certain of a smooth transition more or less immediately. Any close ally who thinks he can stay on or be replaced by an ideological lookalike is out of touch with reality.

  • 40.
  • At 01:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Colin Healey wrote:

How easily the commonest of british disease's spreads, give all you have got for the country, age rapidly in the process, and your reward for over a decade of loyalty is, no tolerance of any mistakes, stabbing in the back at every chance and dismiss without a thought or comment for all of the achievements. God knows what would have happened to the NHS, transport, education, economy, etc etc had the wretched tory years not been curtailed. We are very fortunate and should be thankful for a Prime Minister of such consistency and ability.

  • 41.
  • At 01:57 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Russell Vaughn wrote:

All I have to say if for Mr.Blair to hang in there. He is doing a wonderful job. Keep up the good.

  • 42.
  • At 01:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John Lewis wrote:

I think it is very discourteous of Labour MP's to keep pressing for the PM's resignation date. Having won 3 elections, I think the least they can do is to allow the PM to get on with his job and trust him to resign when he is good and ready to do so, as he will surely leave sufficient time for the transition, be it Gordon Brown or someone else. I say this as a Conservative but one who has a great admiration and respect for Tony Blair.

  • 43.
  • At 01:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Geraldine Courtney wrote:

He needs to go quickly and state his intention. This current situation is impossible. The Party is surely larger than the man-he seems out of touch with his own people, to say nothing of the rest of us! There's a touch of deja vu about all of this-the long knives a la Margaret Thatcher are being sharpened! Watch out Mr B!!

Geraldine Courtney

  • 44.
  • At 01:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • shiv kumar wrote:

if tony blair goes, it may be the first time in history that the media, the socialists and the capitalists have colluded to get rid of a prime minister...history will prove him right in the long run, especially over iraq, and though the labour party have changed the country for the better, one area will come to haunt them, and that is immigration, in particular the large increase in the muslim community with their islamic agenda, that be in no doubt..what is obvious is that the labour party will regret this and can look forward to many years of opposition...and they deserve it..

  • 45.
  • At 01:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Howard Samuels wrote:

Tony Blair was at the helm when elected and we the people should say when and if he goes not some mob from the backbenchers.

  • 46.
  • At 01:59 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Michael McNish wrote:

He'll be gone by Monday - unstoppable momentum now. Why has he not learned from Thatcher and others in history?
Time to sing "Abide with me" on Sontgs of Praise

Utter rubbish. All of it. People forget so easily, you would think politicians have a special mind wiping ray, that deletes all the good memories you have of them. Tony Blair has brought this country from a post-industrial nightmare of closing coal mines and a collapsing steel industry, into a modern fore-runner with stability and a prosperous economy.

You can point the finger at anyone you like for the reasons of this change, maybe Gordon Brown for his economic prowess, or the people of Britain for our hard work. But this does not change the fact that the current labour government has made this country a better place to live in. Yes there are problems, but if you were to sit and look at the problems compaired to the state of play when the tories were in power, you'd see we are significantly better off.

Maybe it is time for him to leave, but he has earned the right to choose when himself.

  • 48.
  • At 01:59 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paul Moody wrote:

The cat is out of the bag that he is going before the next election. If he sets a date, everything he does from the date of the announcement til his final goodbye can be called into question as lacking authority. However, allowing this growing crscendo of braying mules (you decide who they are) to continue is unprofessional and distracting. He needs to take a deep breath announce his departure date and then (with sensitivity and confidence) outline his remaining time in terms of:

1. Tasks and goals.
2. The succession.
3. The format of handover.

He needs to be realsitic and honest AND convince the British people who have lost so much faith and trust in him. It could be done in the format of a special address to the British people (somewhat presidential, I know but hey, he seems to enjoy that).

  • 49.
  • At 01:59 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • neil tritton wrote:

This is just so comical. Politicians are more amusing than most stand-up comedians. They just can't help themselves can they. They preach party party party but they realy mean me me me. The Tories imploded over Thatcher and now Labour over Blair. At last we have found a non-partisan policy - MPs must look after themselves above all else. However,if we knew that policians are over-ambitious and ruthless then I am really amazed that The Blair camp have not spoken to the Brown camp about the succession. Why have they not agreed the timetable with him so that when this current crisis blew up all in the Brown camp could say to press its all agreed so back off and we will tell you when we are ready to do so. Is it just human nature for leaders to surround themselves with Yes men who by definition don't tell the leader the truth about any situation till its too late? Why are politicians not pre-emptive why do they just react and try and spin a favourable gloss on each crisis. Back to Blair he is doomed, support is fading and Gordon's mates will ensure that continues. I reckon he is out by Christmas. By his silence Gordon looks devious and scheming. How funny would it be if the self-styled cleverest man on the planet was beaten in a leadership vote and never got the keys to Number 10 that he seems to think he has a divine right to. And can someone tell him to stop sucking in his bottom lip when he is talking!

  • 50.
  • At 02:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Shyam wrote:

Does it really matter? The PM of a country is but one individual in a large political/governmental apparatus.

Whatever happened to the collective responsibility of the cabinet of ministers?

I think we should be spending so much time and energy discussing speculations about Mr Blair only if we are convinced that he alone is responsible for all the good and the bad happening in this country.

  • 51.
  • At 02:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jeff Speck wrote:

Blair should be left to get on with what he does best - running the country. Why are these relative unknowns causing this distraction? What on earth do they think they are achieving by this? They should do us all a favour and shut the hell up. Don't they have anything better to do? Tony Blair should be allowed to set his own timetable for departure.

  • 52.
  • At 02:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Allan Johns wrote:

Whatever people say about him in the light of recent events, he has done a lot of good for the country and, as he says, there is more to do. But the time has now come to stand down.

It's very sad to see this leadership squabbling that can only serve to diminish his memory even more.

  • 53.
  • At 02:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • nick wrote:

i think it is long time since he was gone. One cannot fault him as a human being, though some of his policies make many of us cringe perhaps. someone described him as having a VILLA Mentality, like those in Nigeria, That is , once inside his fortress, with all his servants about him, in our case, public servants, he is reluctant to move.
I often wonder if the size of his mortgage has any bearing on all this, and the doubtless reduction in income when he departs for the backbenches. also, i suspect one thing that must rattel him, is the thought that after all the mental effort expended in making hs policies, to see someone like Gordon Brown, dismantle some of them. If there remains enmity between them still, might Gordon get back at Tony and change the course set whilst he was in power.

  • 54.
  • At 02:02 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • B Hillyer wrote:

I hope 'Manana' Blair goes pdq and takes porky Prescott with him.
Yesterday would'nt be too soon for me

  • 55.
  • At 02:02 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Karol Puleston wrote:

It's all a media game - the right wing newspapers just want him out so that the blessed Magrats record tenure is not threatened - Don't be naive enough to believe that if anyone else had been in power Tory or Labour - they would have been any more 'honest'- I am not even sure that an honest politician is an effective politician . Still I am looking forward to the press treating call me 'Dave' Cameron to the same sort of scrutiny....yeah right one day. It's all a game - sadly the GBP - suffer - the media are spinning - the politicians are spinning - where do we go for the truth? And as long as it's 'drinks all round' for the hacks and another triumph for media manipulation who cares!

  • 56.
  • At 02:03 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Charles Jackson wrote:

Tony Blair has done more to destroy the British way of life during his term of office than any other single mortal throughout history!.
As a lame duck PM I believe that he can bring no more harm to this country and should stay on to witness the final final destruction of his ill conceived half baked policies and the Labour Party.
Charles Jackson

  • 57.
  • At 02:03 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • ASSAN JALLOW wrote:


  • 58.
  • At 02:03 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jo Palosaari wrote:

Tony Blair has done a great deal for this country. Can't anyone remember what it was like before?
His only fault, and it's a big one, is that he's a very poor judge of character ... calling George Bush an intelligent man, for example! And taking us into a useless war that Bush was deperate to start. Hard to forgive, but don't let it take away from what Blair has achieved here at home. Let him finish his own job with the respect everyone else would wish to have in the last months of their own jobs.

  • 59.
  • At 02:03 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Brian Surtees wrote:

This administration is a triumph of form over substance - the emptyness will become more apparent after Tony Blair leaves. The time is ripe for a new leader of the Country as well as for Labour to be given direction based on integrity as well as popularist appeal.

  • 60.
  • At 02:04 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Peter Walker wrote:

Oh please enough Westminster Village naval gazing and phony excitement.
Blair's departure programme July 2007 with a new leader elected, Cabinet appointed and paraded and launched at the Labour Party conference 2007 was public knowledge last year.

If electing a new leader now will make any difference to Labour's lot in the May 2007 election results in May 2007 think again start thinking.

Mass hysteria among adults behaving like children isn't funny for us poor electors.


  • 61.
  • At 02:04 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paul Guinnessy wrote:

For the good of the labour party, and for the country, he has to go. Like President Bush, Tony Blair seems to be keen on the whole "taking responsbilty of your actions" mantra except when it comes to their own actions. The PM needs to learn there is a price taken for bad decisions, just like Winston Churchill did.

  • 62.
  • At 02:04 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Bill Gardner wrote:

You hit the nail right on the head.

seems to be on everyone’s lips (at least everyone in the media)

Bill Gardner.

  • 63.
  • At 02:05 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Manjit wrote:

How many people knew who Tom Watson and Khalid Mahmood were before today? It's hardly a Sir Geoffrey Howe moment is it? I think David Cameron comments are a little bit of a over-reaction, perhaps he should concentrate on becoming Blair Mark II?

  • 64.
  • At 02:06 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

I may be naive, but surely the Labour party and the government it forms are a company? So, as such, changing the figurehead is not going to have an enourmous influence on what happens, especially when the really unpupular decisions (e.g. iraq) seem to have the backing of all potential successors?

The whole party needs to resign!

  • 65.
  • At 02:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tony Boasman wrote:

Tony Blair may not be my idea of a Prime Minister (he is too much of a poodle for me), but what makes you think Brown or Cameron will be any differint?

Look! Everyone needs to understand that now is the time for you to go, Tony... along with your much mimiced idioms, your bogus squeaky clean morality and your control freakery. Or is it? Brown is 110% behind the New Labour programme of social welfare, true, but he remains a neoliberal in economics and what sign is there that he will ease off on Blair's fantasy of a security state, with all Muslims docile (or deported)? And will he will be Brown in name and position vis-a-vis Bush's anatomy? Well, he can't do be any worse. Can he?



  • 67.
  • At 02:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Curtis Schwartz wrote:

This is, as you say, just a small earthquake in Chile - all the media are getting excited about it because they are fatigued by all the other news that's been dragging on for so long especially Iraq.

  • 68.
  • At 02:08 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • christina speakman wrote:

why does he not go now and let the country move on. all this hassle cannot be good for the country.

  • 69.
  • At 02:08 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • shirley andrews wrote:

The rats are leaving the sinking ship.King rat is clinging on by the gritt of his teeth.He should do us all a favour and go down with the ship.The sooner this government is gone the better.

  • 70.
  • At 02:08 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • David Daly wrote:

The Prime Minister should hold firm. We do not want a well dressed bunch of sinister Browny Bennites in charge.

  • 71.
  • At 02:09 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • laura whelan wrote:

as an OLD labour supporter Blair is not my favourite pollie having said that he has lead the most vibrant and successful time for our country for many years. And this media frenzy led by his own party's all too familiar self destruct button should come as no surprise to anyone.

  • 72.
  • At 02:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jacquie Pedersen wrote:

I think he either has to go now or fix a definite date and allow a leadership election to take place. Having said he would go before the next election he created this situation and it will rumble on until the position is clear.

  • 73.
  • At 02:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Imran wrote:

I just can't understand what Tony Blair believes he can achieve in the next 12 months that any successor cannot, and yet it seems he is so certain of his belief he is willing to jeopardise the party's re-election chances.

New Labour is nothing if it's not about an unsentimental determination to remain in power, to be re-elected. This is the reason he and his colleagues gave for junking so many of the party's values and policies. And this is the reason why Blairite MPs - who stuck by him despite his reckless and bloody adventures abroad - are detaching themselves from him now.

  • 74.
  • At 02:11 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John Hannon wrote:

The resignations today means to me that these people are not `man` enough to follow their jobs through.
They may not like Tony Blair - so what?
I may not have liked the Captain of my ship, but I still did my job!!!
The Prime Minister is better off without these glory-seeking hyenas.
What the Prime Minister and New Labour have done for this country is above reproach - yes he has made mistakes, but show me any MP who is ultra clean, and I`ll show you a liar!
He will retire when there is someone with the same backbone as he to take his place.
And at this moment that seems a long way off.

  • 75.
  • At 02:11 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Shane Wexford wrote:

Talk about insincerity!

The pressure from within the party smacks of panic at the idea of Blair costing the party votes and seats.

As for 'Blair's future, rightly or wrongly, seems to be on everyone's lips (at least in the media)'. That is exactly the point - this is the media's 'hot topic' this week. This is journalism creating its own subject matter.

The idea that any alternative PM - Labour or otherwise - would not be so image and 'message' conscious is a nonsense. This is a reflection of the age that we live in.

Blair should keep quiet and not propel further dialogue on this departure date issue, and the rest of the Labour Party should get on with attending to local and national politicking, rather than internal party politicking.

As for the media, they should be asking what parliamentary work is is being done by the restless and the discontented.

  • 76.
  • At 02:11 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Richard wrote:

The point surely that ten years of Blair has been ten too many. The man has no personal integrity on anything, merely the latest idea that will please the "focus groups" or whatever they are called now. For ten years the government has drifted this way and that without any clearly defined purpose except to keep Blair in power and allow him and his cohorts to create havoc everywhere and create a country fewer and fewer native Brits want to live in. At the same time they have destroyed a Civil Service that used to be substantially free of political corruption. This is the Blair New Labour Project.

The really sad thing is no other party has had the guts to stand up and say loudly and clearly the whole Project is a sham.

The man is a disgrace and should go now, any longer is too long.

  • 77.
  • At 02:13 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • collins olemo wrote:

Tony Blair should step down now.Its crunch time for him.His foreign policies have failed in middle east,especially in Iraq,Iran ,Afghanistan and here in Afica , the dafur conflict in Sudan.He continues playing second fiddle to George Bush,he has been propagating American policies at hte expense of his dwindling poularity in the UK and here in kenya.labour party MPs must remove him now and give Gordon Brown the mantle otherwise the conservatives willform the next goverment as Blair takes his pension.time for damage control is now.

  • 78.
  • At 02:14 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Cllr Patrick Smith wrote:

Mr Blair has a catalogue of catastrophic decisions behind him that ought to now culminate in his now in his last `dog days'in Office!

The continuing daily loss of life in Iraq when civilian casaulties are now running at almost 100 each day with a total figure of almost 50,000, must ensure that someone else must take over and herald a measured withdrawal to end this mayhem!

The legacy that will now haunt Mr Blair will be `Iraq' `Iraq' `Iraq' and definitely not `Education,education,education'

The gap between rich and poor has grown inexorably under Mr Blair, with a tax system that penalises fixed income pensioners,widows and those living alone!

The whole notion of ID Cards is totally wrongheaded and would involve expenditure per capita of £83.

The worst inequity were those images of Mr Blair on holiday in Barbados when out troops were being asked the impossible in both Afghanistan and Iraq!

Time to to turn the page of history Mr Blair and resign!


  • 79.
  • At 02:14 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alban Thurston wrote:

Blair should settle in the USA, at once and for ever, to take up the permanent acting role which awaits him in "The Simpsons". Lionel Hutz, the show's ambulance-chasing attorney, is currently undergoing a breakdown, so there's a vacancy. Blair's already made one appearance, and Matt Groening is a huge anglophile. America is after all the spiritual home of all morally atrophied, self-deluded lawyers. So he & Cherie will feel perfectly at home. An actor & ingratiator all his life, with no fundamental beliefs except a love of power, celebrity and naked ambition, Blair'd also look great in yellow. Plus, isn't "Yo, Blair" a kind of a "Wayland Smithers" stooge to Dubya's "Mr Burns"? (The technology already exists for live actors to appear as cartoon images of themselves; witness "A Scanner Darkly" now on release). Digitised for eternity as a yellow cartoon character - that would be Blair's true legacy.

  • 80.
  • At 02:14 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Rashid wrote:

Blair should go sooner than later. Between Bush and Blair they have made this world a very dangerous and unpleasant place to live in. I only hope the next prime minister learns from Blairs blunders and changes his policies.

  • 81.
  • At 02:15 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • George Ross wrote:

In this country, the custom is for the leader of a political party to offer him/herself to the electorate, with the understanding that (s)he would be prime minister for the duration of an entire parliament. Leaders are, usually, challenged and replaced only in opposition, especially when they lose an election.
There are, of course, exceptions, such as Mrs. Thatcher enforced departure or Harold Wilson sudden and unexpected decision to resign.
What we see here is a plot like that which unseated the Iron Lady: the grandees of the party lost the trust in the prime minister. They feel that they no longer could support his policies, or they fear that his continued presence would lose them the next election.
Mr. Blair may be forced to resign. In this case, the honest scenario is for an open contest for the leadership of the party to take place, parliament to be dissolved and the new leader to go to the country to seek a fresh mandate.
Otherwise, we shall have a debacle like those caused by the succession of John Major, or Callaghan.

  • 82.
  • At 02:16 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • bob adams wrote:

utterly bored with it all-still at least G Brown as PM now will ensure that labour will not be re-elected next time round-just send for the IMF at the same time

  • 83.
  • At 02:18 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • john MORRIS wrote:

I have never written to you I often phone with my comments.I am nearly 60 and very concerned about the replacement for the Trident Weapons Systems,the replacement will then be with my grand-childrens children,the money spent each year on the Trident system is over £700million.What un-imaginable amount will be spent on the replacement in the future?Do we want future generations to remember us by a nuclear weapons system?As far as Tony Blair, well, if he decared that the U.K. would give up Nuclear weapons, before the next election,he would never be forgotten and join the immortals like Nelson Mandela.

  • 84.
  • At 02:19 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alan Benson wrote:

This story is probably as much spin as substance but given Blair’s’ undoubted lack of judgement in starting a civil war in Iraq, and his part in the genocide there, along with the total incompetence of the government in everything it tries to do he should go now.

  • 85.
  • At 02:19 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Crawford Batchelor wrote:

Tony please stay as the longer you are in number ten the less chance Gorden has of following you.or a labour cabinet after the next election

  • 86.
  • At 02:20 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Clive Russell wrote:

When your back's to the wall and you're trying to keep your ear to the ground and your nose to the grindstone but the party has you over a barrel and the media are playing you like a fiddle, there can be no doubt, .......

You're in a very difficult position.

  • 87.
  • At 02:20 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Annie Mc Cartney wrote:

He's going, and he's dithered so long about the timing it's just irritating. But there isn't a wafer between his policies and Brown's-they both supported the war...And we should all be very aware that David Cameron is a Blair clone, without the original convictions we all assumed Blair had.
Be very very afraid.

  • 88.
  • At 02:20 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • wrote:

He is ambushed , somebody is blaring.

  • 89.
  • At 02:22 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Howard wrote:

I know I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of any realistic perspective demonstrated by many of the contributors, nor by the media fascination with the topic ever since Blair made the (unwise) decision to announce that he would not serve out his 3rd term.
I have lived in this inner-city area for 35 years. I watched it devastated by the Tory policies of the 1980s. Since 1997, unemployment has dramatically reduced and people and families have got their hope back, crime is massively reduced, I go to school governors meetings where we talk about how we're going to spend additional £ (in the 80s and early 90s, we spent all our time talking about which teachers we'd be sacking next) etc etc.
This didn't happen by chance. It's due to Blair and the Labour Government. What I and my neighbours are looking for is for this improvement to continue. We don't want to go back.
Blair should continue as PM until next year and there should then be an election in the normal way. Meanwhile, Labour MPs (particularly Byers, Milburn and Friends of Gordon) should stop plotting and jostling for position and get on with the important tasks ahead.

  • 90.
  • At 02:22 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Craig Walker wrote:

I have voted for Tony Blair not my local MP on the last three elections. The MP's who are trying to remove the PM before the full term are ultimately doing themselves out of a job, without Tony Blair the Labour party will become the party of opposition and i believe for some time to come. Do the Labour party really believe that Tony Blair / New Labour supporters will vote for Gordon Brown? How out of touch are they???

They are making Cameron's Conservative Party a serious alternative and having been brought up in a union supporting working class family in Sheffield voting for the tories doesn't come naturally.

Cheers, Craig.

  • 91.
  • At 02:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • mark wrote:

Tony Blair is Labour gone wrong.

Nelson Mandela had him pegged when he called him a "US foreign minister".

Brown can see what needs to be done.

  • 92.
  • At 02:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alessandro Carraro wrote:

10 Years ! and how many Billions wasted, what has he got to be proud of?
I also would like him to go now

  • 93.
  • At 02:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Justin Williams wrote:

Irrespective of whether you like him or not, staying on till May will just simply highlight divisions in the party. This is a lose lose situation which ever way the main protagonists turn, there is such momentun now i will be amazed if he is still there beyond the early New Year.

Justin Williams

  • 94.
  • At 02:24 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Cllr Patrick Smith wrote:

I support that is time for Mr Blair to hoist his own petard, as the sight of him hanging out his dirty washing on that last Carribean summer holiday made me cringe and wince!

Mr Blair was able to use his stamp in moral integrity during the pre Iraq premieship but his tide went out immediately we knew the truth, about the duplicity,spin and massive loss of life for both soldiers and families and the thousands of Iraqui civilains.

Thank-you Mr Blair Goodnight!

There is no legacy to be had, only further ignominy as a result of Iraq!


  • 95.
  • At 02:25 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Fred Gibson wrote:

Blair should have went after the march against the war! Get Gordie in. If he makes a pigs ear of it, we can throw him out at the next election.

  • 96.
  • At 02:25 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Craig Walker wrote:

I have voted for Tony Blair not my local MP on the last three elections. The MP's who are trying to remove the PM before the full term are ultimately doing themselves out of a job, without Tony Blair the Labour party will become the party of opposition and i believe for some time to come. Do the Labour party really believe that Tony Blair / New Labour supporters will vote for Gordon Brown? How out of touch are they???

They are making Cameron's Conservative Party a serious alternative and having been brought up in a union supporting working class family in Sheffield voting for the tories doesn't come naturally.

Cheers, Craig.

  • 97.
  • At 02:26 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • maggie thomas wrote:

This man was arrogant enough to take a whole unwilling and protesting nation to war; like Bush he didn't listen and he didn't care. Let him go, and let him go quietly. He doesn't deserve the attention he is geting now..........

  • 98.
  • At 02:26 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Damian wrote:

Tony should have gone after the Iraq fiasco was revealed to be exactly that. As a lifelong Labour supporter, I certainly wouldn't dream of voting for the party again so long as he - or 'Blairism' - stick around.
Whilst I don't have any great expectations for a Brown premiership, I believe that the progressive social policies he has put in place give at least a glimmer of hope for the let's get on with it without further ado!

  • 99.
  • At 02:27 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • anne wrote:

Tony Blair should stay for as long as possible. He's had the courage to make tough choices and has paid the price for that but the Blair Britain is a far far better and brighter place than the Britain of pre May 1997. Brown should put his vanity aside, allow the orderly transision to take place and put a stop to further inelegant and corrosive speculation.
As for Newsnight wheeling out the likes of Claire Short last night for "incisive" comment on when Blair should leave? It was a display of lazy journalism, leading to a predictble outcome and an utter waste of my viewing time. I expect better from you Newsnight!

  • 100.
  • At 02:28 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Noel Cosgrove wrote:

Tony Blair lingering on in his current job shows the insecurity he may have regarding precisely what career does he pursue after he leaves office. Has anyone asked him what he plans on doing after resigning? Lecture tours? Memoirs? UN ambassador? Is that it?

What Tony Blair does is the affairs of Great Britain and Tony Blair. I do hope that if Tony Blair leaves office, that he takes Bush with him. [Right now, the Independents are focusing in making Bush, Cheney, and all of their ilk in Washington resign beofre the 2008 Elections because the USA has reached a point of instability.]

  • 102.
  • At 02:28 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Graham Thomas wrote:

Leave the man alone to get on with his job. I have a funny idea that he will know better than anyone when it is time to go. He hasn't done that badly...only yesterday we were told about a practical improvement in School dinners throughout the UK. I wonder if Cameron and co. would have achieved as much in nine years.

  • 103.
  • At 02:29 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Gillian Munrow wrote:

as a longstanding supporter of the Labour Party I sincerely hope that Tony Blair stands down immediately. Three things blot his leadership: Alastair Campbell ,George Bush's "special friendship" and Blair's own arrogance in thinking that he, and only he,is capable of governing this country. I doubt that there has been Cabinet policy making since 1997. Whatever positive steps have been taken in government, they have been overshadowed by the many disasters as a result of Blair's personal convictions. This country would be a safer place if he had concentrated on getting a fair deal for the Palistinians instead of blindly following Bush into a bloodbath that is unlikely to end in my lifetime.
I do not think that the Labour Party is capable of "pulling itself together" because I cannot see who would now be an effective leader. Blair has held on to such tight control of all aspects of government that a future leader will have a steep learning curve before he/she can be an effective leader/prime minister.

  • 104.
  • At 02:30 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Cecil Brown wrote:

Oh, so many things that the general public want to do.Maybe they should run for office.
Tony Blair is a great perason doing a job that none of his party would have the guts to to.Its a bit like the gunpowder plot. Fellow members cow towing to him while they hold a knife to his back.
Ok, noone is perfect even Winston Churchill was treated the same.
Tony Blair is as good as Winston,I hope he keeps going untill his time is up,even then, the public should be taking a vote on him going or staying.not the chosen traiters in his party.
I am a pensioner,and an exservicemane
so have the wisdom of how everthing goes on.
Cyril Brown

  • 105.
  • At 02:30 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • JOHN V BALL wrote:

Ten million people are said to be thinking of leaving the UK - or have already left. Does this not put the legacy of Blair in perspective?. Committing us to an illegal war that has lead to the deaths of thousands, arguably close to those caused by Saddam over a longer period Blair must go down as the worst PM in recent history and that says nothing of what he has done to the UK economy with his 'friend' Brown.
What a disaster.

  • 106.
  • At 02:32 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Joseph Wilson wrote:

I bet with hindsight that our glorious leader wishes he'd never mentioned retirement. Hey-ho. Tony Blair has done many good things for the country I'm sure, but they are all outweighed by lies and deceit (spin by any other name), unproven of course, over The Iraq War and that damn dossier. An honourable man, Dr David Kelly, and many British and American soldiers, and many innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives through those things. I believe Tony Blair should already have gone, impeached along with Mr Dubya. When he finallly takes the long walk, hopefully to obscurity, though that is highly unlikely, I just hope there is a fair election campaign and not an undeserved coronation for Gordon Brown, a man who has taxed this country by stealthful means till the pips are sqealing for mercy.

  • 107.
  • At 02:32 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Matt Dyer wrote:

I am getting slightly fed up with the whole, should he stay or should he go business.We all know that Tony Blair should probably have gone by now in order to have saved face over some recent errors of judgement.But then same could have been said for Margaret Thatcher,years ago.
The wider question should be, is there any body from any of the other political parties who could be doing a better job than he is? I am not sure?. It's also a shame that the media in general don't focus there attention on some of the good work which has been done over the past nine years.
At the moment I am personally more concerned about rising unemployment and the state of our Economy,and any solutions to these issues.
That said, Newsnights is still the best in depth news programme around,so keep up the good work.

  • 108.
  • At 02:34 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • michael byron-hehir wrote:

He has been the best Labour Prime Minister (if not Prime Minister) we have had and it's a real shame that some members of the Labour Party seem to be spending all their time calling for him to step down rather than focusing on their own jobs to maintain a strong and united Labour government. I hope he sticks with it and the only people that go are the disloyal and obviously incompetent whingers.

  • 109.
  • At 02:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Arnold Root wrote:

It's so boring.... In fact it's even boring saying it's boring. Sooner or later there will be a change of leader: most of us (who aren't journalists) have got plenty to get on with until there is, and well after that too.

  • 110.
  • At 02:40 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paul Bishton wrote:

This is the media circus at its best/worst. Its getting really tedious to hear you all demand a date again and again. I am sure that TB regretted ever saying publicly that he was going to go, because the media's desire for more information has been pathetically insatiable.

  • 111.
  • At 02:41 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Chaz wrote:

If he is a fraction of the statesman he, his chums and spin doctors say he is then he should go tomorrow.

He has been a total failure - an arrogant liar, untrustworthy, self-seeking and a neo-con acolyte - he must stand down.

Most people don't vote at a GE for the leader they vote for 1) the party & policies, and 2) against a despised party. I know people who voted Labour at the last election - to a man they voted against the Tories NOT for Blair!

Blair must go by Xmas to give the new leader any chance in the spring local elections - going afterwards is abberant and selfish.

He can always go on Blue Peter duetng with Chris Evans and sing a hymn after he leaves and before he flies to America to retire.


  • 112.
  • At 02:42 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Barbara Brown wrote:

He should go now while the going is good.

Better than his own people giving him a vote of no confidence and no one will take him serioulsy from now until the date he has given us.

That's if he doesn't change his mind again.

Please leave whilst you have some credibility.

  • 113.
  • At 02:43 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • David. wrote:

Posting 41 from Tony Cheetham.
Doesn't the name give it away! Someone in Downing Street with a sense of humour (if there is such a thing!).
Yes, Tony has been cheating 'em for the past ten years and getting away with it until now. New Labour has been an absolute disaster for too many reasons to list here.
It doesnt matter who succeeds him - it couldn't get any worse (except prescott of course!).
Ciao Tony

  • 114.
  • At 02:45 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Angus wrote:

How long before he pops out of Number Ten and tells us: "We are a grandmother"?

  • 115.
  • At 02:45 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mary B wrote:

Annie at 72 - you are right. Brown is tainted by his association with Blair, and Cameron is a Blair lookalike. But Bliar MUST GO NOW. He is a lame duck PM and cannot continue in office.

  • 116.
  • At 02:46 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Lesley Neenan wrote:

Tony who ?

  • 117.
  • At 02:46 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Dave Marshall wrote:

It is so ironic that Blair supporters now speak of the need for him to be able to leave with dignity. He has been sustained for years now by his attachment to his frightening god-given infallibility. So what price dignity? Tens of thousands of innocent lives? A world in worse chaos than we could ever have imagined? Sadly though, nothing will change, not with a different leader or government. The west is in a state of entropy.
Dave Marshall

  • 118.
  • At 02:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Rob wrote:

This is storm whipped up by MPs for MPs. The media has fallen over itself to report it at considerable length as they've been bereft of any domestic political issues for some time now.

Nobody I know is concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister will not serve out his term especially to the extent that they are clambering to know the exact date when he will go.

This is all about political manouevering within the labour party and nothing to do with governing the country which they are paid to do.

Quite frankly this is very boring with the ultimate end game of the country being run by an accountant with the all the charisma and charm of a wet rainy day in Scotland.

  • 119.
  • At 02:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Graeme Walker wrote:

I voted for TB in 1997, just about in 2005 (because his running mate was Gordon Brown) and would vote for Gordon in the next. Why? I remember Tory sleaze, cash for questions and I see it is still there. Which party has not listed all it loans? Being so shy one wonders if Lord Archer was one of the lenders.

On Tony Blair's problem. The UN will still have him as Sec. General so long as George W. is in the White House, so let him go now as PM and become Foreign Secretary and he can spend some time canvassing the French.

  • 120.
  • At 02:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • alex van marle wrote:

Go, please, just go.

  • 121.
  • At 02:57 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Bryan Le Grys wrote:

Blair should not have been elected in the first place. The country did not need him and his band of hypocrites then and it needs them even less now.

  • 122.
  • At 02:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • william harrison wrote:

Personally, and as an American not willing to perpetuate the lies of the past six years, I'd like to see acceptance-hungry, power enamoured Tony Blair get thrown-out for his complicity. Iraq comes to mind.
Just how long must we endure the lies, the deceit, the arrogance of people like him. He' thinks he's a smooth operator and many in the British citizenry have been fooled by it. Get rid of him and many here are wanting to get rid of the worst President we've ever had in history.

Aren't you all big enough to think the truth is due you.. or are you simple minded minions thinking they work for YOU?

  • 123.
  • At 03:02 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • sammyann wrote:

Tony Blair promised at the election he would stay a full term, on this promise he was elected. If he is forced to go and we get Brown it would be a sell out of that promise. Stabbing leaders does not fair well look what happened to the Conversatives after Maggie. Tony Blair should fulfill his promise and stay until 12mths before a possible election - after all it is not the general public calling for his resignation more the party and press.

  • 124.
  • At 03:06 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Cliff. W. wrote:

My understanding is that he was elected by the Labour Party in the belief that he was the best man for the job. The job was to be a leader, and that is what he has been. Generally, a GOOD leader.

The population are never going to be 100% supportive; a leader is never going to be 100% right; but if a leader has not deliberately forfeited his right to lead, then the leader must be allowed to lead.

God help Great Britain if a government, or it's leader, can become overturned every time a few people throw their rattle out of the pram.

The media...including the BBC...are guilty of hype rather than news reporting; all self generatiing nonsense designed to persuade people rather than inform them.

  • 125.
  • At 03:06 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • paul wrote:

It is frustrating that with so many issues the electorate are obliged to sit back and watch a miserable parade of mediocre politicians making poor decisions with regard to:
- the Middle East;
- the NHS;
- immigration;
- Europe;
- how to handle and hand over power
with dignity and integrity;

A true democracy would be wonderful indeed.

  • 126.
  • At 03:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • James van Bregt wrote:

Blair has become the Alastair Campbell of No. 10. He has become the story, making his message rather irrelevant, no?

  • 127.
  • At 03:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ken Lewis wrote:

Tony Blair has had his day,at last people are begining to see that he has always been an all talk and no action PM.The lies he tells have got to stop and he must GO NOW

  • 128.
  • At 03:13 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • J. Grossman wrote:

The hounds keep baying, hoping that their own selfish ambitions will be hidden by the smells and noise that they arouse

  • 129.
  • At 03:17 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Simon wrote:

The British way would be to announce he is stepping down with immediate effect, as soon even as Saturday, with the Cabinet choosing an interim replacement. It is very telling that his advisors choose Blue Peter, Songs Of Praise, and Chris Evan’s Radio Show for his farewell. But wouldn't the Labour Party Conference be the right place for him to choose: an all out Blair love in one last time, to celebrate his very real achievements?

  • 130.
  • At 03:24 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Eliza wrote:

It is time for the Tony AND Gordon Show to end.
I could never support Gordon as PM because his policies on crucial issues like
Foreign Policy,Health Service, Benefits etc seem to be the same as Blair,s,What is the difference between them.

  • 131.
  • At 03:26 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mae B. Haynes wrote:

I'm an American, thus do I tend to view the Prime Minister from a different perspective. However, my overwhelming advice all along would have been "actively disengage from George W. Bush". God knows, we're stuck with are not!

  • 132.
  • At 03:28 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Juliet wrote:

Have Labour MPs forgottten that they were democratically elected by the people, as was the Prime Minister, to govern and to lead on policies of importance such as social exclusion, poverty, education and the economy?

Please return to these and save political back-stabbing for the westminster bars.

Nice to see my last comment posted on here (NOT). Well, I've learned on BBC sites that censorship is at work vis-a-vis Muslims. But just in case you have a prick of conscience, the jist of my comment was... Blair or Brown, we'll still be the bad guys in town. After all, now Labour have lost the Muslim vote, there is nothing to lose from vilifying us.

  • 134.
  • At 03:35 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Richard Ash wrote:

There are British Servicemen dieing in the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan while labour MPs massage their egos and posture for personal power and position. They digust me.

  • 135.
  • At 03:35 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ron Allen wrote:

Do you remember who started all this crap, if Mr Blair had kept his mouth shut none of this would have happened.
Mind you another school of thought could see it as a chance to ensure that Mr.Brown would be damaged goods and so reduce his chance of an easy takeover.
Meanwhile soldiers arte being killed and the news is over shadowed by our so called leader.

  • 136.
  • At 03:37 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • J Westerman wrote:

Tony Blair should look after himself for a change. 10 years is too long to be assailed by scurrilous pinheads, disloyal party members and a largely politicised media.
It is fortunate that they have not been able to attack him personally or his family.
It cannot be denied that most people are better off following his stewardship. The small-minded can claim responsibility if they wish.
A previous generation of politicians left the Western economies dependant on oil. You would not think so if you were to listen to those who voted for the war in Iraq but subsequently had a lapse of memory.

  • 137.
  • At 03:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jill Starr wrote:

In my assessment, allowing anyone to hold the powerful title, 'Prime Minister,' for over two terms in office is ten years is morally outrageous

There should be new legislation passed in the U.K. placing aa statute of limitations on the PM post such as: No individual may hold the office of Prime Minister over two terms.

Allowing legally an individual such as Tony Blair to hold the title, Prime Minister, for over two terms is giving that individual way too much power in the U.K.. Even in American there is a statute of limitations on the President, and why?

Anyone legitimately holding the elected PM title for over 9 years in and of iteslf is as great a tragedy as it is a mistake, At this junction in time, Tony Blair probably is so powerful, he is able to control all of the U.K's political/civil and social/economic infrasture both on an international and national/domestic level.

It is time for Tony Blair to go! Forced retirement would probably do the U.K. a favor insofar as Blair goes.

Comparing and contrasting persons such as Slobodan Milosevic and Cuba's Castro, and, analysing the manner in which the aforementioned persons yeild their hegemonic over their own civil society surely manifests the reason for which BLair needs to go! 10 years is way too much time as Prime Minister don't you think? I await to hear others' responses to this dilemma.

  • 138.
  • At 03:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Helen Heenan wrote:

It's definitely time for Tony Blair to go, if only because he has created a situation where is can no longer be effective. But there are other good reasons why he should go.

1. He has consistently shown bad judgement, (Bush, Iraq, Lebanon, the "choice" agenda in public services)

2. He is a Tory, and does not have the best interests of the Labour Party at heart.

3. He has proved himself to be dishonourable, shallow, and vain.

I am not disparaging the many good things the Labour government has done, (minimum wage, investment in public services, Sure Start) and no way would I ever vote Tory. But Tony is a liability, and for the sake of the party, the people and the country, he should for once do the HONOURABLE thins, and go as soon as possible.

  • 139.
  • At 03:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John Hadfield wrote:

I think it would be very good for the Conservatives (and the Lib Dems) if Blair and the media can keep this nonsense up for another 18 months.

That way, it would be a totally disorganised rabble from Labour who would be presenting themselves at the next election.

Elections are decided by people voting against parties, so please keep it up, Tony !

  • 140.
  • At 03:52 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Brian Kelly wrote:

So Blair has named the date of departure, reported in "The Sun" a so called, NL mouthpiece! It begins May 31st 2007, he steps down 8 weeks later....following a much trumpeted orderly handover!
I've wanted him out since the deceit & lies leading to the Iraq admiration for this Statesman turned to hate almost overnight... never thought he would win the last election!! maybe it's true that the Conservatives were not the alternative at that time.. but they are forging ahead , helped it must be said, by the antics of this governments treatment of the electorate & Blair, who has been a good recruiting sergeant for the Tories!
BUT less we forget...MR Tony Blair's proved a wily old fox & he could upset NLs apple-cart (He hasn't personally & publicly announced this timetable yet,has he?)......albeit the ultra Blarites have turned on him like the shameful sycophants they are,now fearful of losing their electoral seats!!What must the wider world think of all these shenanigans!

  • 141.
  • At 04:05 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Benedict wrote:

Our labour is working class ... we want all the things that labour stood for.. life with
the tories wasn't a bad working class life but we wanted all they had ..done our way for more opportunity healthcare mastery and reward ... but the missionaries of the middle class..were misanthropic alienators of all our working classness.. mislead by the new in labour they have victimised everything we represent and tried to enslave us to their vindictive selfish communist moralities ...we are servants to the NHS and can't get the healthcare we want... we are victims of the police just for complaining about their mugger minded inconsideration... their management undermine our morale and repress our initiative work rate and enthusiasm... their ethics of deservance are way out... they fight to believe in themselves at the expense of us all... they don't even care about those we do instead they abuse and exploit them..they are the tories we use to hate only worse with the modernism of denial and image and the enjoyment of socio-economic alienation... we want kinnock back he was a morale raiser.. Blair is just a pervert for his own wicked amusement and doesn't represent any of our sort at all..they've made it worse for us ...they want servility and compliance..we want opportunity and power...their feelings are more valuable than our lives..and scarily they do anything in the name of goodness unreasonable! irrational!..we want caring labour in power not sophisticated fidel fearspread!! and we should be getting imams leadership training in oxford so they can compete with the malignants

  • 142.
  • At 04:05 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Joe Rigby, London wrote:

He could trying putting some of his time into EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION.

Maybe a supply teacher in Mis-guided middle eastern policy!

  • 143.
  • At 04:06 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • D C Wyatt wrote:

Blair has tasted power.
He likes it.
He won't go until he is compelled to do so, kicking and screaming all the way.
Cynical? Moi?

  • 144.
  • At 04:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Elio wrote:

Which community is closer to London among:

  • 145.
  • At 04:12 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Barry Johnson wrote:

Tony Blair has let himself, the Labour Party and the UK down. He should have stood down before the last General Election so the the quicker now the better.

  • 146.
  • At 04:12 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Denis wrote:

As a nation with an long standing history of helping others to sort out their problems it is only to be expected that Mr. Blair et al would have ventured forth once again into the fray that is Iraq to save our brethren there from themselves.
Here are a couple of numbers to put things in perspective.....
Total deaths in the Northern Ireland conflict 1969 to 1994 (civilian, paramilitary and military) - approx. 3300.
Total deaths in Iraq since commencment of military action just over three years ago - approx. 98,000.

This is an effective effort on behalf of the Coalition forces to free a lot of people (from life itself).

Visit the link below....

  • 147.
  • At 04:15 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Royston Morgan wrote:

Long hot summer. Political journalists looking for trouble and anxious to feed.What do they think will change when Blair goes? The big issue today is humanities' disastrous effect on this planet. The big question is how to get concerted political action Worldwide (Blair has been at least as good as anyone els on this)and to try to give our children and their chldren something to look forward to.

  • 148.
  • At 04:15 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • tushar sarkar wrote:


After presiding over the latest round of imperialist ventures, has history left it to Afgans, again, to suggest that time has come to retire, making Afganistan-Iraq-Lebanon the last British imperialist legacy?

I remain,
your most colonial subject.

  • 149.
  • At 04:18 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Barbara Lockwood wrote:

Tony Blair has disgrased and discredited his government and family
Please make him go an take John Prescott
with him.Barbara Norwich

Mr Blair got himself tied into George Bush and Iraq, a fatal mistake, the Yanks will drop him without a second thought if the need arises, he should go now, we should get the troops home and start behaving like we live in the 21st not the 18th century.

  • 151.
  • At 04:21 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Abdul Jaleel wrote:

The country is suffering from "Blair Fatigue Syndrome . All good guests leave the party a little earlier than expected or as the Americans say , like fish they begin to smell.

  • 152.
  • At 04:21 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Julian Corner wrote:

Nick wrote:
My advice to Tony Blair comes from Shakespeare:
'Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.'

I agree, Nick, and my advice comes from 'The Moody Blues':

"Go Now".

  • 153.
  • At 04:28 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Abdul Jaleel wrote:

Mr. Blair : Enough is enough.. Please go while we still remember the good you did to this countr.
No comment about your foreign policy . let the history judge you on that in due course.

  • 154.
  • At 04:28 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • mary lewis wrote:

I've been "armchairing" Go Go Go to the P.M.since the idea of a change of leadership was first mooted.Who am I to advise a man whom I trusted to run a country, despite the most horrific decisions he and others had to make; I believe in good faith, and is probably the most experienced person of the moment?
I would wish a very talented, probably honest individual to go before he was pushed.Tony Blair is not Margaret Thatcher, and I would not wish his relinquency of power to be, as hers, or for that matter Harold Wilson's who resigned after" being pushed"

  • 155.
  • At 04:33 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Roger HARRIS-DMALL wrote:

Blair's exit is long, lomg overdue. He should have gone after lying to The House about Iraq. The country has twigged that he's a habitual liar, that is, he's lost their trust, ever since then.

  • 156.
  • At 04:37 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A superior woman wrote:

Life under Blair phnah phnah is almost perfect...we've got so many beauty products and fashion now and all those credit cards make it so easy to look cool... no-one is excluded from learning IT and we've made a mint on the phones and typing...

but the best thing is all the men have to do what we like..most of us have five boyfriends each..and my mum looks after the kid while i go to work... going down the pub the lads don't dare to talk to us and we can really wind them up and get our own back...

im' gonna get a house out of my divorce ...and some of the girls are picking the older men specially for it... women's lib is great...those boys are so sad...

so i think cherie though not that attractive seems to have done a great job...we are the winners...

  • 157.
  • At 04:37 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Joe wrote:

All the people who are asking for Tony Blair to name the date need to remember he brought them to power in the first place.What they need to think about is what happened to the Conservative Party after they did the dirty on Mrs Thatcher and look were they are now.The people of this country are not stupid what they dont like is anyone being stabbed in the back.If the Labour supporters think Gorden Brown is the answer think again.

  • 158.
  • At 04:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Paul D wrote:

Go. It really is that simple.

  • 159.
  • At 04:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Hilda Meers wrote:

Tony, if he's still hanging on by his soiled fingertips, will get a huge message, 'Time to Go' on September 23rd. In Manchester, people will be pouring in by coach, train, whatever transport gets there - I'm from North-East Scotland, travelling overnight from Aberdeen - to the 'Labour Party' Coference.

Tony Blair should hang his head in shame. He has ruined this country. Is it any wonder that a greaqt many English/Welsh and scotts are emigrating! Jacqui

  • 161.
  • At 04:41 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • James Broome wrote:

Deja vu? Is this not what happened to Maggie? Will minor politicians never learn?
Perhaps of more interest should be: when will Bush go? Without him Blair would be totally in the wilderness.

  • 162.
  • At 04:45 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mr. John Head ~ Bournemouth police wrote:

Life's got so much better for me under Blair..people used to see me as an ugly mugger... but since i got recruited by the police i can do what i like to get my own back...we are the law now..not their sort..and they have to do what we tell them...

  • 163.
  • At 04:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Philip G wrote:

As Blair has his grasp on power loosened, Brown's chances weaken proportionally. I wouldn't count myself as a member of the Westminster intelligentsia, but neither am I stupid. This whole farce smells of Brownite mischief making. Well Gordon, if you want power that much, push off to some parish council where these kinds of childish/Machiavellian shenanigans (excuse tautology) might be ignored. As for me and, I hope, the rest of the electorate, we'd rather vote for the Monster Raving Loonies than have one foisted upon us.

  • 164.
  • At 04:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • P J Whyer wrote:

The treachery of some labour MPs seems to know no bounds. They will proably send Labour into the wilderness for the next ten years if they succeed in ousting Tony Blair

  • 165.
  • At 04:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ros wrote:

He began by seeming so in tune with the times, but by taking us into the war in Iraq against such huge and heartfelt opposition, he showed himself to be unbearably arrogant and catastrophically mistaken in his approach to global politics. His pro-American 'war on terror' rhetoric and goading of the Arab world has lost Labour many of its most loyal supporters. He's let us down most grievously and he should resign with whatever humility he can perhaps find hiding in a corner of his battle hardened heart.

  • 166.
  • At 04:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Daniel Martin wrote:

I'm just bored.

  • 167.
  • At 04:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Dr. Nice wrote:

I am a General Practitioner in the NHS.

The project of Blairism is not yet finished, though we are now paid what we deserve and i can advance my career using the hours and techniques that i wish, some of my patients have not yet learnt to respect me!

The essence of our support for Blair arises from our desire for professional respect, good behaviour and compliance when necessary...

... some patients still believe they can tell me what to do and treat me as though i was supposed to work for them! Outrageous!

When they finally see their omnipotent arrogance as a mental illness, as we do, then we will be free to do our work in peace and safety... we should not have to care for those people; they don't deserve it and we deserve better..

Dr. Nice

  • 168.
  • At 05:00 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ahmed Sidique fofana wrote:

I see Tony Blair as a mentor in my life.I admired him greately,especially his policies for Africa.Though yet to be fulfiled.I wish him well.

  • 169.
  • At 05:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • William wrote:

At times like these the US presidential "two terms max and out" system looks very good indeed.

  • 170.
  • At 05:06 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • jeff ettridge wrote:


  • 171.
  • At 05:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew Collingwood wrote:

Definitely time for him to go. He lost the respect of the majority of the country when he joined the illegal invasion of Iraq. His failure to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon was the final straw for a lot of people.

  • 172.
  • At 05:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Phil wrote:

Appears these idiots who are crying for Blair to go have hit the self destruct button for Labour. And why on earth are they calling for Brown as a successor, he will be a disaster as PM.

  • 173.
  • At 05:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Varvara Black wrote:

Been reading postings about what great things Princess Tony has achieved. Really! NHS/transport/education/economy.
Is that transport as in the most expensive train tickets in the world, lousy bus services and the worst roads in Western Europe? Then he's saddled us with PFI - which will cost us dear for decades. He was going to be whiter than white - remember? Corruption set in almost immediately. Bernie Ecclestone - donations and favours department - an endless list of various favors for dough. Additionally Princess T. is no more a labourite than Stalinist was a humanist. And then to boot, and quite appallingly when asked by Paxman who he would answer to, when it had become clear that Iraq/Hussein had no WMD (and who believed that a tin-pot third world country, bankrupted by 2 wars and led by a dictator had) he didn't miss a beat, but said: "I will have to answer 'my maker'". What a sickening cop out. We don't do God and state Princess.
Anyway, it matters not a jot whether any party would be any better. We're screwed whoever gets in and we know it - but Labour has to go and Princess T. should lead the way.
Megalomania sets in after about 8 years - it always does. Should be a new law limiting governments to 2 terms.
The Princess is a busted flush - politically and morally bankrupt - just like his ministers.

  • 174.
  • At 05:08 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • angie wrote:

I am so bored by all the 'will he, won't he, he should, he shouldn't'. For the record, having gone through a phase when my personal support for Mr. Blair dwindled, it was re-ignited after his foreign policy speech. He displayed insight, common sense and genuine political courage and commitment. I therefore think he should stay as long as he wants to and as long as he feels that he has something to contribute to the country. When he does go, perish the thought that Mr. Brown takes over.

  • 175.
  • At 05:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jeff Ettridge wrote:

Bush looks lonely
Blair looks sad
But really they're crazy
Quite raving mad
Once we were pretty
With fire in our eyes
But now we just sit
Pulling wings off the flies
Hey,gruesome twosome
Look what you've done
The games nearly over
But you haven't won
As they casually wash
The world down the drain
It's you and not them
That's feeling the pain
So please say goodbye
To the legacy of lies


  • 176.
  • At 05:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Simon J George wrote:

I suppose given the level of resignations so far, one should be fair and say at this stage it is only the mice that are leaving the sinking ship.

  • 177.
  • At 05:14 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Lord Gidds wrote:

Political journalists are just like the gutter press on a bad news day. Nothing exciting happening? Lets start our own media frenzy about a non-news story. Pathetic!

How about 'Cameron criticises globalisation', now a Tory being critical of his capitalist paymasters, surely groudbreaking news!!

  • 178.
  • At 05:17 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A Polish woman wrote:

My name is Wanda, i am from Poland.

Mr. Blair should spend more money on widening motorways.. but it is nice to have my friends round... my whole family are coming over for the winter... free mobility in Europe is a great deal for us and New Labour people seem like nice communists, if only we had him as a political leader in Gdansk our world would have been a better place.

  • 179.
  • At 05:22 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Alan Constable wrote:

It was a real mistake by Blair to announce that he would be going. He'a left the door open for all this speculation about when his departure will be. For goodness' sake go now and let's get back to normal.

  • 180.
  • At 05:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • roberrt m wood wrote:

blair is a gangster.. go yesterday. supporting the US is destroying our world

  • 181.
  • At 05:27 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jamie Adam wrote:

I suspect that Tony Blair's main motivation for hanging on is to try and ensure that he leaves with a favourable reputation rather than the fairly negative one he has now.

Even if he were able to whip some incredible rabbit out of his hat, it would be unlikely to offset the way the public perceives his international interventions in association with the US, and the increasing negative publicity generated by the uncertainty surrounding his departure.

Surely he should cut his losses and run. I'm quite sure he's got some lucrative work lined up for when he leaves, even if it's only speaking at Republican fund-raising dinners!

  • 182.
  • At 05:33 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • roger holland wrote:

Blair should step down. I think he has done about as much as he can. witch is very little unless you count the disastrous wars he has pushed us into

  • 183.
  • At 05:33 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Malcolm Gasper wrote:

Tony Blairshould resign tonight. I am a Tory voter but can only see the result of him staying on as tearing the country apart. He has lied to us over the Iraq war and has given some semblance of credibility to Bush and the Neo-cons over their Middle East policy.

Bring on Brown so that his Scottish Socialist principles can be positively exposed for what they really are, to squeeze the Engish middle classes until the pips sqeak!

He won the last election. So say he should have a standard term of about 48 months. He said he would provide for a transition - so make that 12 months for some kind of an internal selection process (there won't be a coronation will there?). That leaves 36 months - he has been in about 16 months - which leaves about 20 months to go - so can't we table all this till May 2008?

  • 185.
  • At 05:39 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • angela smith wrote:

I'm just wondering if Alistair Campbell is on holiday. It is so enjoyable to see the biter bit.

  • 186.
  • At 05:42 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mr Brown-Trouser wrote:

Who cares? MPs all spout the same drivel and haven’t got an original idea between them. They are paid by us, the tax-paying electorate, to get on with the job of governing the country and/or representing their constituents. Why can’t they just do their work without all this selfish infighting. The time for the media to get involved is when Blair eventually does stand down. Brown for PM? I’d rather vote Monster Raving Loony.

  • 187.
  • At 05:43 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Stuart Sutherland wrote:

He wants to control the time and manner of his departure like the control freak he is.

In a democracy very few, if any, politicians have that luxury. It is the electorate that determines a politicians departure, especially a Prime Minister. The only other way are events forcing a resignation or being stabbed in the back by your colleagues.

It becoming more likely that because of Tony Blair's futile attempts to control events, the latter is becoming more likely.

  • 188.
  • At 05:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tom wrote:

I think Labour are missing a trick here. I will be far less likely to vote Labour if Blair is hounded out earlier than next May.

Thanks for everything Mr. Blair. Bar Iraq I think you have been a brilliant and inspiring leader. I think a farewell tour would be fine.

Britain seems to build people up to knock them down, but much like Beckham, history will be favourable for Blair.

  • 189.
  • At 05:55 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • James Morris wrote:

The constant tittle tattle about this subject is not even news anymore, lets be honest, this will continue until the Prime Minister goes, wether it is this week, or next year.

A note to the man himself...Mr Blair, Why did you announce that you would Step down before the next election? You really have brought this on yourself, Go now or dont go now, just let us know what the plan is and stop the media circus surrounding this story. Personally im finding it very boring!

  • 190.
  • At 05:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Peter wrote:

Clearly he should do what is best for the country, not what's best for the party as all the MPs I hear on the radio rant about. That would require him to resign at the Labour Party conference and get a new (must be elected) leader in post by the new year. And let's hope it is not Brown or Prescot.

  • 191.
  • At 05:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tony Goodbody wrote:

Tony Blair was elected in 2005 with a mandate to govern for a full term. If the parliamentary Labour party has lost conmfidence in their leader, the honourable thing would be to elect a new leader and call a general election. It is not for Gordon Brown to just assume the role of leader while playing the part of the wizard of Oz pulling the handles from behind a curtain. He should have the guts to come out and call for a vote for a new leader.

I believe that the country will be so disenchanted with this self seeking lot that no amount of Gordon blowing his own trumpet about what a fantastic job he has done on the economy will save them. Unfortunately, this cynicism will be another blow for democracy in this personality dominated, media fanned triviality that British politics has become.

  • 192.
  • At 06:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • petyer watkins wrote:


  • 193.
  • At 06:12 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • sue smith wrote:

Tony will do absolutely ANYTHING to stop Gordon!
I bet he asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament and then calls an election!
Sue Smith. Coventry

  • 194.
  • At 06:12 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • bob barrett wrote:

I am just member of the Joe blow public and I cannot understand why you people are so transfixed on when Tony Blair is going to leave number 10. Your reporters are like old women with nothing better to do than to quote whatever comes in to their minds with no substance. You have gone from reporting news to reporting your own rumours, is that what we pay a licence fee for. I did not sign up to that nor did the rest of us millions who pay for those dopes you call correspondents who hang around like blue bottles ready to pounce on droppings from the faceless made up sources close to whoever you can magic up.

So much for the free press, free to make up this and that, all twaddle to fill time on air and try to make a name for them selves. You relay on backstabbers to get news, and when you cannot find any you make up a few in the hope that some may, like scum, come to the surface.

You should be entered into the TV soap awards and you would win the well-deserved prise for the worst one.

  • 195.
  • At 06:15 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • seb wrote:

God this is getting tedious... He should go now obviously. However one caveat, the nauseating prospect of a farewell tour with starry appearances on Blue Peter and Songs of Praise.. that sounds almost entertaining in a twisted sort of way....

  • 196.
  • At 06:16 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Sarah Redfern wrote:

No change of leader without a general election in a democracy!

  • 197.
  • At 06:17 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • sue smith wrote:

Tony will do absolutely ANYTHING to stop Gordon!
I bet he asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament and then calls an election!
Sue Smith. Coventry

  • 198.
  • At 06:17 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Bill Lees wrote:

The country re-elected a Labour government 15 months ago in spite of Tony Blair, not because of him. Though he is portrayed as being anxious about his "legacy", it has become apparent that the dominant elements of that legacy for which he is destined to be remembered are the disatrous foreign policy directions in which he has lead the country, prime among these being Iraq, but the general closeness to an imbecile of a right-wing American President of dubious electoral legitimacy - as demonstrated so graphically by Blair's supine position on Lebanon - has ensured that his credibility is in terminal decline and he *must* go now if the Labour Party is to regain a position of strength. I'm frankly bewildered at the notion put forward by spin-doctors that if he announces a timetable, his authority will be undermined - his authority is *already* undermined.

To add to the long list of commentators here, this "will he name a date or won't he" is getting so boring.

Six prima donnas quit. Fair enough, but who were they anyway?

I get the feeling it has been a slow news week... Is there nothing more to report about Steve Irwin???

  • 200.
  • At 06:22 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A labour hearted conservative wrote:

We aren't safe with Blair's leadership!

Blair's kind of peace is fighting the moralities that oppose him until he is better and free from the nightmares of paranormalism for him when his tribe of enemies has won his own deluded sense of moral high ground and can do what they like to take terrify victimise and enforce their will on others just like in their dreams…

..our kind of peace is the enjoyment of trusting business that is wanted creative and in demand...

..they would like to profit from being the enemy and try to find the excuse for the goodness of their enemism on anybody

Blair and his kind cannot except the worth and power of others our loyalties and majorities

from a free thinking working class labour hearted conservative..idle with the study of Blairite enemies

  • 201.
  • At 06:24 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • steve wrote:

Far better to go with dignity, head held high - than to be slung out ignominiously like Thatcher was.

  • 202.
  • At 06:32 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Colin Knight wrote:

As a labour voter, I’ve two words for Blair “GET OUT”.

He is guilty of mixing his messianic beliefs with politics, and the result of that always has been, and always will be death and destruction.

Labour is the Enron of politics. The trick Mr Blair, is to get out just before it all collapses! You do not want others getting in to look at the books too soon. Unfortunately for the country, Labour (new) are the most rotten, if not downright evil, government we have ever suffered. Power crazed, totalitarian leader, hanging on to it for as long as possible. Blair's legacy, despotism; symbolised by the desire for the holy grail of despots the ID card. Too late now to do anything good, Blair will be forever seen as the darkest episode for English freedoms, bought with so many lives down the centuries.

  • 204.
  • At 06:36 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Benedict TLC wrote:


Why bother with some deluded twit trying to believe in himself... the PM has said less in public than any of us have, in the localities we each know..

We can do without the "long good boy" for ever

All concerns should be dealt with departmentally or locally ...represented by a Lord and Budget for each Constituency argued in Parliament...

  • 205.
  • At 06:39 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Hassan Asmal wrote:

As with a large number of other issues Blair has not the widom for him to realise his time is up? By not going sooner he has done a great deal of damage to The Labour Party.

  • 206.
  • At 06:41 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Lin Thomas wrote:

Unfortunately , Tony Blair has become very much a "lame " Prime Minister . How can he command any respect abroad if members of his own government have ceased to back him ?With all the threats posed by terrorists , we need a PM with a steady hand on the tiller - Blair`s ship is sinking fast . It`s time for him to go

  • 207.
  • At 06:48 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Richard wrote:

I think there is a democratic principle here at stake, why should the 'westminster village' press and seventeen MPs be able to insist that the Prime Minister resign, when he was elected at a General Election 16 months ago, to serve for what Tony Blair stated would be a 'full term' (which usually means at least 4 years).

  • 208.
  • At 06:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Heather Hammond-Jones wrote:

Tony Blair should go NOW before he does further damage to his party and the Country

  • 209.
  • At 07:00 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Phil England wrote:

Was it George Galloway who said Blair and Brown are like two cheeks of the same arse? What we need is someone who is prepared put an end to this privitising, pro-war, pro-business, pro-US, pro-globalisation shambles and give voters back a real choice. And we need someone who is prepared to stand up to business and act to radically reduce carbon emissions in this country and not just talk about it!

  • 210.
  • At 07:01 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • zoe moran wrote:

'those who live by the sword die by the sword'
What short memories people have , the tactics employed by Blair and his cronies to gain leadership of the labour Party were nothing short of at least extremely dishonourable .
Life long Labour Party activists being ridiculed and humiliated ; Party democracy being destroyed .
Now Blair is having a taste of his own medicine , so no outbursts of shocked indignation or crocodile tears .
Blair is one of the most authroitarian PMs this country has ever known .

  • 211.
  • At 07:04 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mike Austen wrote:

Tony Blair is tainted. He has misled over Iraq and made a massive strategic error by allying himself too closely with Bush. Also, he has not been open about the loans for honours business. He should go now.

  • 212.
  • At 07:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Richard Marriott wrote:

It is a fascinating endgame politically, but extemely debilating to good government. Let's face it, Labour's third term in office has been a complete shambles so far. OK, many of the problems were caused by decisions taken in terms one and two, but the "government" is now caught like a rabbit in headlamps and cannot make the necessary decisions to sort out the mess it has created. What the country needs is a general election at the soonest opportunity - Labour, "New" or not is a busted flush

  • 213.
  • At 07:18 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • R Berrow wrote:

The has beens in the Labour party with their 18 years of opposition are jealous of aman who came up trumps with new labour ,it galls the old die hards to think that their grandiouse idiology can never be. When Blair goes! and he deserves the rest. The labour party will slump to opposition again especially if the uncharacteristic Gordon Brown tries his hand . No one wants a dullard at the helm. If he had been a better man ,he would have been Prime minister instead of Blair. At the most he will be second best. Let us hope there is another Blair somewhere in the party. R Berrow

  • 214.
  • At 07:19 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • M Sattar wrote:

When Blair failed to resist the demand of his early departure, he was finished then!
A man, who can lead his party to three consecutive election victories, has the right to lead his government till he enjoys the support from majority.
The majority of labour MPs are not calling his head yet, but he is trembling in front of the demand of his early departure, right from the begining-it is evident from the `12 months' timetable ultimately put up by Millband this week.
Whenever he succumbed to the pressure at the very first moment (the reason is probably known by him and Brown only), he lost the ground.
Now to try to linger it means more humiliation.
Why doesn't he walk away with his head high, when he has to go, as he agreed at the very first moment?

  • 215.
  • At 07:21 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tony wrote:

Iran was a very wrong journey for Blair, and Bush, well no comments, Blair would have become a gentleman without Bush

  • 216.
  • At 07:47 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Gil wrote:

Leave him where he is. The alternatives, i.e. Brown or Reid, are seriously scary.

  • 217.
  • At 07:50 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ivan Drake wrote:

Blair should not be allowed to disappear quite so easily. He should be made to stay and clear up the mess he has got this nation into. I am not too sure what precisely he has done for this country, his cronies seem to think he has worked wonders. I know what trouble he has caused though. He should be made to stay and clear it up

  • 218.
  • At 07:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Norman Bliss wrote:

OK..we all need to arouse ourselves and take a sniff at the caffeine machine....if you have been to some of the shitty places in the world like me need to realise that TB has done a half reasonable job with a pretty poor hand of cards. Get off his case...start reporting news..stop the TB witch hunt... and lets get a bit of journalistic integrity back.

  • 219.
  • At 07:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A J Tulloch wrote:

Tony Blair seems to be the only person who does not recognise that he is a now a busted flush - busted on what Churchill called "the heartless sands of Mespotamia".
Few people,even in his own party, seem to trust him any more.
He would do well to consider the advice of Cromwell
"It is not fit that you should sit here any longer
You shall now give place to better men"

Alistair Tulloch

  • 220.
  • At 07:58 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Tornqvist wrote:

Give the man a break!
It is all to easy to criticise the PM.
We are still some who remember waking up on the 2nd of May 1997, to smiling faces on the tube, on our way to work, finally being rid of years of inhumane Tory mismanagement.

Tony Blair might have chosen the wrong partners in foreign affairs; but he has also created a better Britain.

Going the right wing way of many continental countries, of which Denmark is a prime example with a liberal/conservative government effectively controlled by a party simmilar to the BNP, is not the way forward.

Labour has made mistakes, but it has also made The UK a better Nation.

Blair is a tory he came to be labour leader under false pretence to be labour .his father told him get in there tony the tories will never get in soyou go in and carry out their policies under the cloak of a labour p.m

  • 222.
  • At 08:09 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mark Kelly wrote:

Tony Blair committed personal political suicide when he informed the public of his intention not to stand for a fourth term. This was a pragmatic decision in order to secure an historic third consecutive victory for the Labour Party at the last election. At that time he already knew that as an individual he was a liability for the party because of his stance on Iraq but he wanted to head up the historic victory and so he compromised his political future to attain that result. Many electors who would not have voted Labour at the last election because of his leadership did so because he made his intentions clear. Unfortunately for him since the election events have overtaken him- He achieved his immediate goal at the expense of his legacy. In one respect however it was a political masterstroke as it was almost certainly done with an appreciation of the likely consequences for himself and the party. When he resigns and the party falls into disarray he will be able to distance himself from these events and Gordon Brown will be left holding the poisoned chalice. Game set and match to Blair!

  • 223.
  • At 08:27 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A Dev wrote:

The Governer of the 51st state will go when his boss say's so.

Most decent politicians would have fallen on their swords by now.

As an aside

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Excuse me, Author, thats the contributer, not you, you are the censor/mediator

  • 224.
  • At 08:32 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Gerard Flannery wrote:

Frankly the way the man has led this
Country into disaster after disaster,
all held together by the thick glue
of lies.Whoever takes over from him
is only going to govern for as long as the mandate allows.Blair has done
what one century of Tory attacks could'nt,that is he has destroyed the
Labour party forever.They will not gain power for a long long time.Brown
is too old for another 18/20 years of
opposition who isn't?

  • 225.
  • At 08:35 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Evonne O wrote:

Blair should go now as he has outstayed his welcome.

  • 226.
  • At 08:40 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Graham Grieve wrote:

Tony Blair's time is up. I resent his leadership of, and damage to, the Labour party, and I would welcome a new leader who has an understanding of the party's socialist origins. That would be a good new start for Labour, and the electorate can then be trusted to do the right thing without being deceived or patronised. I yearn for a good reason to renew my membership of the party, but I cannot do that with the present leader. He belongs to another party of the right . . . . you could call it New Labour.

  • 227.
  • At 08:42 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Gordon Peters wrote:

Falling on his sword is too good for him, given the number of people he has sent to their doom.

  • 228.
  • At 09:04 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • JPseudonym wrote:

Thank God that Tony Blair took us into Iraq. If he had not done so we would still be sleep walking into Sharia Law.

At least we now we have a chance of seeing what we are up against, although a great many people are still in a state of denial.

  • 229.
  • At 09:10 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • duncan mckay wrote:

I'm sorry I thought blair had been democratically elected and had 3 years left to serve with the mandate of the british people. No wait I forgot! What do the british people matter if the media don't someone! Who decides who rules our country? The electorate or the media? Also it would be nice if BBC could at least try to hide their hapiness at Blair's current troubles. I'm no blair fan but I thought the BBC was meant to be objective and none sensationalist. Look at all the loaded questions, the sensationalist reporting not just in the tabloids, or the broadsheets but in our 'objective' BBC. Look all this is important but it would be nice if the BBC tried to inject some perspective here; 7 people in a parlimentary party of hundreds is totally irrelevant; so people are gossiping so what. Its a valid story yes... would be nice if our 'unbiast' and 'objective' bbc reported both sides of it and at least tried to hide their dislike of tony blair. Come on your not tabloid TV your meant to be proffesional BALANCED reporters!!

The media all feature complaints about Blair, but its not the man that we are concerned with, it is the policies!

Creeping privatisation of Education and especially the NHS is intolerable.

When Blair linked up with Bush, that was the last straw. We went to war with Afganistan and Iraq. We supported Israel in their agression against the Lebanon and Gaza. and now we are letting America push us into acting against Iran.

Will Gordon Brown break the link with that idious Washington Administration? We don't know yet, but I really hope so.

  • 231.
  • At 09:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • C. Manzo wrote:

I have felt sorry for Tony Blair because I feel our President influenced him to get into the war in Iraq. When no weapons were found it left Tony hanging out there alone. It seems to me that it was the beginning of his fall.

  • 232.
  • At 09:31 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John Skilling wrote:

I think it is remarkable how short the memories of Labour back benchers are! Not too many years ago Labour were un-electable. It is only due to Kinnock and Blair that most of them have the luxury of polishing the government benches with their back-sides!

It is also significant that whenever there is anything remotely controversial around Brown is nowhere to be seen. This man lacks the moral courage to come out and openly challenge Blair for the job, preferring instead to have his lackeys perform death by a thousand cuts. And we're supposed to consider this coward as PM material? As a life-long Labour voter I can say I will never vote for a Labout party lead by Brown.

  • 233.
  • At 09:54 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jennifer Watts wrote:

Google Toolbar is not my best friend at the mo, nor is my server. However, to matters more important.
Are we, the public, pushed (with apologies) by the media, setting a precendent by which we get rid of our Prime Ministers and our leaders in govt.To myslef, it is too ridiculous to consider. On the majority, Tony Blair had been a good leader,better than the Conservatives, under M.T's last efforts. and better than the Labour Parties nearest elective, Gordon Brown, who we know nothing of his policies or his allegiance to his present leader. Are we to see Britain once more into a depressive party of quarrels and fear to face the unions as Harold Wilson did. I am no Conservative, nor Liberal advocate, and personally, except to be a poodle of the US,his motives have been, in parliamentary terms, quite honourable & stable. O.K. he has not taken us into the Common Market as he promised, but with that falling about like jugglers in a circus, has he been riht? I have my cousin, Dave Watts (ex Editor and Ecominics Editor)
of WHICH,& the Hulton Picture Library bought from the BBC, to listen to, but not always agree with.
Slight drop of names there, apolgies.Whatis Blair beingof accused of? He gave a time when hewill retire, butI imagine he ha some policies to complete before then? Whatever are we letting oursleves into, a Conservative government which will do its best to ruin our country. I want to come nack to the UK; but have little chance under a government that is pledged to the affluent in our nation. Blair, as quoted in another of your letters, would make an excellent Conservative. My parents, if alive would commi suicide on that remark. Kind regards, Jennifer W.

Tony Blair will go down in history as the liar who didn't know he was lying.
The next leader of this country has to be a liar that that knows he's lying.

Aunty Madge

  • 235.
  • At 11:07 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Dick wrote:

Something more important than this happened today. BAe sold off its share in Airbus to EADS..

This will have a much larger and longer term impact on the future of our economy than who ends up as leader of the Labour party.

Come on Tony, move on.

Can't you read the writing on the wall? The rats are jumping from the ship...

It's not like you'll leave with nothing. You'll get a big windfall from your book deal, an Earldom/a knighthood/a Barony, and the choice of a top job.

  • 237.
  • At 11:12 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Geoff Pearce wrote:

The whole point of the comments made on tonights' programme regarding Tony Blair just go to prove one thing, that all politiicians and those around them think of their own position and nothing else. We may have confidence in politicians of any party if they gave any indication of thinking about the people they apparently serve.

  • 238.
  • At 11:13 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Lorne Irving wrote:

I am now more interested in what the next leader of the Labour Government will be like and what they will stand for?

If it is going to be Gordon Brown what does he intend to do with the premiership?

If it is not, what exactly do the other candidates stand for ?

  • 239.
  • At 11:16 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Benedict Bust wrote:

Blair never did protect us from toryism instead he enhanced their vanity, beliefs, esteem, priviledge and risk to us all!!

  • 240.
  • At 11:21 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Sara Wilson wrote:

Time for Blair to go...and his departure is long overdue at that.

Before Labour came to power almost a decade ago I NEVER voted for any party but Labour. After the first 5 years of Blair's reign, I had decided never to vote Labour again.

Blair is a disgrace to both the Labour Party and the country, with the reasons being simply too numerous to list here.

  • 241.
  • At 11:25 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

i for one will always remember blair as a liar

the dossier

the early claim of clean moral politics

many people have wished tony blair gone since certain choices made in 2003

may '07 is four years and forty five minutes too late

anything positive happening in our country has been in spite of blair, not because of him

blair, remember the marches against the war...everyone who attended those marches you tried to suppress and intimidate, is celebrating now, but watching closely to see if john "george bush" reid is to become our new general

say no to john reid

the whole system of politics is a false choice, a sham, a joke

the whole communism, left / capitalism,right paradigm is a lie

  • 242.
  • At 11:26 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • John wrote:

It must surely be apparent that this is nothing to do with policy and politics but everything to do with ego. Gordon Brown has decided that his time has come and has subsequently decided to hijack the timetable irrespective of courtesies , protocol and tradition. This is in danger of turning the world`s oldest democracy into a farce. This is England , we don`t do things that way here and we shouldnt start now. Oh and by the way shouldn`t a good PM be an ace negotiator and somebody who understands how to muster good PR in support of his cause.That`s absolutely not what I`m looking at right now.

  • 243.
  • At 11:27 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mario Campanile wrote:

Tony Blair, in my view has the integrity and courage to make very difficult decisions. He was democratically elected last year despite the controvesy over the war in Iraq, and the electorate have put their trust in him as leader of the party. I just cant see why these unknown, navel gazing disenters in the labour party want him out. They are puting me off the labour party, and it will make me think twice about voting for them in the future by their reblious actions. Leave the man to do his job - I fully suppport Tony Blair.

The Blair-Brown Axis of Petulence is a direct consequence of party politics giving rise to "the wrong kind of MP". In 2005, I stood for Election in Newbury, in a bid to highlight this problem, under the banner "Spoil Party Games". Neither Blair nor Brown is altruistic and honorable. Worse, Blair despises Brown and will not rest until the latter's succession is destroyed. The awful truth is that none of this matters. Until we have a parliament of Independent representatives, chosen locally and answerable only to their constituents, the sickness will remain.

  • 245.
  • At 11:33 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Chris Coleman wrote:

What a shame Mr. Blair ever announced that he would not serve a fourth term. From that moment on we were guaranteed this feeding frenzy. I have no great liking for him, but I also sometimes wonder how anyone is supposed to lead the country with the press constantly sniping and picking off ministers one by one. What I am sure of is that I do not want Gordon Brown as PM. His only ministerial experience is as Chancellor, and in that office he has wrapped us all in red tape and massively complicated tax and benefit schemes which must cost more to administer than they provide to the public. Mind you, I don't want John Reid either (are there really no potential English candidates, by the way?). I think it's time for a change not of PM but of government. The Iraq debacle should have seen them off last election. I suspect history will eventually characterise the New Labour years as a time of major waste of money and ill thought out schemes.

  • 246.
  • At 11:33 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • alan slavin wrote:

We are told that one of the principal reasons that Blair has to go now is because he will harm the prospects of the Welsh & Scottish Labour MP's seeking re-election next May. It seems that UK politics are being dictated to by the whims of the Regional assemblies. I thought that one of their benefits was that these countries can begin to stand on their own feet. These issues should have no bearing on Blair's departure.

  • 247.
  • At 11:36 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • R KLINGER wrote:


  • 248.
  • At 11:38 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Fr Ray Lyons wrote:

I think it is a disgrace how a handful of junior Government Ministers/Aides have hijacked the news agenda and sought to effect a coupe for Gordon Brown.

With forty years of involved/watching political life I do not believe a group of such junior MPs would dare to make such a move without being sanctioned by someone much higher up the greasy pole, in this case Gordon Brown or his close associates.

Gordon has been a very good/lucky Chancellor, but I dread the thought of him as PM! If people think Tony Blair likes to control things, wait to see the freakery Gordon will bring to it! Within 6 weeks they will be calling for Tony's return.

  • 249.
  • At 11:42 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A Paterson wrote:

We have torn Iraq apart under the guise of looking for weapons of mass destruction - to enable a democratically elected government to be formed - what happened to democracy in this country when a handful of MPs and the media can determine as and when a Prime Minister should go.

Do reporters think if they say something often enough that it should automatically happen.

Did these MPS send their letter to the PM out of concern for the electorate or their pay cheques after the next election - you have to wonder!!!!.

  • 250.
  • At 11:53 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Brian Wilson wrote:

The Prime Minister should go as soon as possible. Tony Blair will not be remembered for very much - except for the generation of the New Labour project and an ability to win elections. The basis for any present economic prosperity was actually already there in the last days of the Major government. There is really no legacy - except the Iraq War and the de-valuing of the history and institutions of the country to pander to a media-dominated and celebrity-fixated society.

  • 251.
  • At 11:54 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Media Hoo-ha wrote:

In theory, it's still not too late for Blair to do what he should have done years ago and sack the pernicious, obstructive, unvisionary Brown - and finally, after some ugly upheaval, get the New Labour project moving in a more daringly reformist direction, allowing a number of young Blairite contenders to climb up the ranks in time to give a proper challenge to Cameron. In practise, he should make life easier for himself, step down at the party conference, and let his ungrateful, deluded party see just how unpopular Brown makes himself and them by the next general election (strangely the party's Blair-bashers are unable to see how their constant backstabbing and carping has contributed to the very slide in the government's popularity they're so upset about). After the inevitable Cameron victory, the Labour party would have years in the wilderness to contemplate their failure to appreciate Blair's achievements and thwarted aspirations. Let them stew in their foul juices! Blair's job is done.. his 'third way' legacy is assured, even if it will be his imitator Cameron, not his immediate successor, who consolidates it. Good Newsnight discussion, incidentally.

  • 252.
  • At 11:56 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Neil Smith wrote:

Why doesn' Blair move Gordon Brown to be Deputy PM right now? The transition would be smoother, faster and keep the party united. It would also move Prescott out of the way.

Blair has broken his word so often and is involved in so many sleazy deals (like his wife), it must be very difficult for GB to stand alongside him. That's prpbably why he's keeping out of the way.

  • 253.
  • At 11:59 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Former Supporter wrote:

Whatever happens, I believe that Mr Blair will be remembered as the great betrayer of the British people - the man who raised so many hopes in 97 that at last the weak and the poor and the disadvantaged and the elderly had a champion in No 10 and that society would be changed for the better. After nearly ten years of disillusionment in Mr Blair himself - the man who dragged us into wars that few could justify or believe in - and in the Labour Party itself, the poorer members of society not only seem to be worse off, but now have the added conviction that, in truth, nobody in Westminster actually gives a damn.

The growing impoverishment is in no small measure due to uncontrolled rises in Council Tax, energy and fuel bills and the remorseless layer upon layer of extra taxation dreamt up and imposed on us by Gordon Brown, the very man whose plunder of the nation's pension funds makes Robert Maxwell seem like a petty crook, and who has the audacity to believe he would be welcomed as an alternative Prime Minister.

Vote Labour again? You must be joking. Vote Tory? No thanks. Lib-Dem? Don't be silly. No, for the first time in my life I shall sit on my hands come election day, utterly convinced there is not a single politician worth voting for. That's what you have reduced me to, Mr Blair.

  • 254.
  • At 12:04 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Alison Oliphant wrote:

I can't forget that so many labour M.P's. voted for Blair and his government going to war, ensuring the death of thousands, and all on the strength of a blatant lie. I, and quite possibly millions of others throughout the world, want revenge for this murderous betrayal by a LABOUR party, so I am totally thrilled that Blair's going down and, I hope, taking all his toadies (including the other toothless poodle, Gordon Brown), with him at the next election. Let Blair hang on by his fingernails for as long as possible - the suspense is delicious.

  • 255.
  • At 12:15 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Mr Vision wrote:

Blair has mission but we the public have vision...

.. and we can see some really exciting futures for our country..

..can he work out how to get them done, no, they seek ways to maintain concentration on his priviledge...

...essential new leadership has been stifled by his message, and basic political work to re-establish justice has had its concentration diverted into a future of higher earnings for Blairites at the expense of those our labour movement really care about...

..his moral mission takes our eyes and minds off the world and onto him...maybe they have used some medium wave to make this happen??!

Just look how Donald Trump wakes the world back up to opportunity..that is what we need in our leadership!

  • 256.
  • At 12:24 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Julian Williams wrote:

Blair manipulated parliament into voting us into a unecessary war on grounds that turned out to be wrong. The honourable and right thing would have been for the PM to resign, failing that Labour should have changed their leader.

He is an egoist first and puts the country second. That such a self-serving disaster should have been allowed to continue for so long is reason to get rid of the Labour government for a very long time

  • 257.
  • At 12:29 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Dr Rob Tunbridge wrote:

I was one of the many who rejoiced in May 1997 when Blair and New Labour got elected.

But since then there has been nothing but betrayal by Blair.

Tobacco Sponsorship

Iraq and all the lies and deceit surrounding it

The Criminally wasted increased funding of the NHS

Betrayal of all Labours social values - The Rich have got Richer and the Poor, Poorer

More Sleaze than the Tories - Honours for Loans

Finally Lebanon


Go now. No more megalomania. No 10 years.

Your Legacy will be a disastrous one.

Dont prolong the Agony

  • 258.
  • At 12:41 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Paul Conroy wrote:

I can only imagine that Blairs greatest wish now is to avoid incarceration in Belmarsh for the role he has played in international terrorism.

  • 259.
  • At 12:45 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Tim Walker wrote:

Go now, Tony. Nuff said.

  • 260.
  • At 12:52 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • David Christy wrote:

Oh, what a circus! And I'm not referring to the West End revival of Evita...

It is about time that Tony Blair, and members of his government, remembered who put them there and why. The stench of power gone mad is almost unbearable, and the cause of much disillusion to members of the voting public.

Tony Blair should go as soon as possible, and when he does wake up to reality and make that decision,instead of deluding himself with dreams of a farewell victory parade around the country, a general election should be called so the voting public can have their say - for once!

Don't cry for us Tone and Cherie! We certainly won't be crying for you. But many will be crying for the shambles you'll leave this great country in for many a year to come. Nice one! And perhaps history will be kind...but maybe not.

  • 261.
  • At 12:52 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Man of the future wrote:

Blair?!: our future does not lie with him!! We can only trust the media...the media can collect all the visions of humanity and lead the way!

  • 262.
  • At 12:57 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • John in Stanmore wrote:

I posted earlier but just want to thank A Paterson in post 249 for reminding us all exactly how much turmoil the world has been put through recently in the name of democracy. I know Blair/Brown is not regime change - well not in the definitive sense - but there just has to be a better way for honourable people to conduct themselves in what is supposed to be a democratic leadership contest.

Aye - and there`s the rub. You`ll find more honour, pride , teamwork and genuine passion in your local parkside Under 14`s on a Saturday morning. Politics is just a gravy train and now and then a few people fall off. They`ll still be better off than the rest of us so dont spend any time crying for them.

As for Gordon Brown he SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE a shoe in for the job just because hes been hanging around forever.In Industry the lifer is usually the guy who messes up real bad once he acquires power.GB`s record should be thoroughly examined before he`s even considered as a contender. Thats how it works in the real world. Ah , but I forget. We`re talking about politics here , seperate rules apply.

Final point. Stop blaming the media , its not their fault. Would you tick off the audience at a play for being reduced to hysterics in the face of an absolute farce. Same thing `cept they dont just mock , they have the good grace to share the joke eloquently with the rest of us.

  • 263.
  • At 01:01 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Neil Wallace wrote:

I'm sick of hearing Blair apologists trying to imply that the question of who our Prime Minister is, is a matter only of interest to the over exercised tongues of the Westminister village. Having sold us a presidential candidate, whose 'cult of personality' style of leadership finally put pay to the idea of the PM being the first amounst equals, it is a bit rich to now suggest that the public actually view the government as one indivisable, egalitarian team and have no real interest in who holds the reigns of power. We do and we want Blaire to go for one specific reason. In spite of all the voices raised in opposition, he told us he knew best on the question of Iraq. He took a political gamble. Whether by accident or design it transpired he was wrong. There is nothing wrong with gambling; all great stateman do it, but if you lose the only honourable option is to pay up and retire from the table. Not to do so suggests an ugly arrogance and a smug contempt for his party, our parliament and the very notion of accountability.

  • 264.
  • At 01:07 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • shirley andrews Expat. wrote:

After reading the majority of the 249 responses to should B.Lair go.I recommend you read response N°175 by Jeff Ettridge Shame the PM is not getting the message.Tony put it this way "If you were a piece of merchandise in a Tesco super market;You are well past your sell buy date" With innocent blood on your hands.Who as started to believe what his spin doctors would like the whole country to believe........Face it Mr.B.Liar You cannot fool all of the people.You have become the court jester on the world stage,resign now and walk away with your tail between your legs.

  • 265.
  • At 02:28 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

well, i'm heartened that most of us are on the same page about you know who, but what are we going to do about the next man...JOHN REID...

...the next big thing in the disaster that is 'democracy'

this character won't even pretend to be nice, he'll just send us all into war/terror hell

it's already been arranged

  • 266.
  • At 05:16 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • DAVID wrote:

The Lost Leader
Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a riband to stick in his coat–
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote;
They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allowed:
How all our copper had gone for his service!
Rags–were they purple, his heart had been proud!
We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die!
We shall march prospering,–not thro’ his presence;
Songs may inspirit us,–not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done,–while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire:
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declined, one more foot-path untrod,
One more devils’-triumph and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!
Life’s night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,
Forced praise on our part–the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!
Best fight on well, for we taught him–strike gallantly,
Menace our heart ere we master his own;
Then let him receive the new knowledge and wait us,
Pardoned in heaven, the first by the throne!
– Robert Browning

Some MP once quoted this poem in the House of Commons in respect of a previous PM

  • 267.
  • At 07:29 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Tim Walker wrote:

I posted a clear and detailed message at almost midnight last night, yet the moderator chose not to add to message board... why was this I wonder? My remarks have been echoed by dozens of others here. I eventually had to post a second, much briefer message (see #259) which fails to say anything really. Incidentally, I am dismayed at the terrible standard of spelling by lots of the contributors to this site. On another point: I too raised an eyebrow when Ethical Man asked if a young lad felt 'pissed off' about something.

  • 268.
  • At 08:46 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Doreen Richards wrote:

My old Granny used to have a saying "God pays debts without money"
How right she was, remembering the dreadful episode with the B.B.C. when Alistair Campbell came screaching on our screens taking the Beeb to task for Honest Reporting I can now only smile at the confusion the Labour Government now find themselves in it serves them right, Iraq and the Hutton report has come back to haunt them
Doreen Richards

  • 269.
  • At 09:57 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • chris wrote:

268 - Yeah but if Gilligan had shown the same professionalism as Susan Watts maybe the beeb would be in a different position.

Seeing Campbell burst in on General Snowman's C4 News was some what spectacularly sickening.

By the way the lighting and filming seems to slipping a bit. I see no reason why it cant be of a much higher level !

  • 270.
  • At 10:16 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • bernard weir wrote:

The bookies have been quoting odds on Tony Blair winning the next election for yonks now and that makes sense to me. There is no doubt that he would mount a stronger challenge to Gordon Brown than any of the other contenders.

He did reluctantly say that he would not be fighting the next election but only on the condition that he was allowed to serve a full term. If his life is made impossible before then he might feel he is morally justified in resigning here and now and standing against Brown. He could do it. He is only marginally less popular than Brown but he does have so many advantages:- the party machine, the CIA machine, being Prime Miinister and he still has a lot of support in the country.
Brown doesn't have any policies of his own
His has always expressed 100% support for Blair so what can he do now? All he can say is that he will carry on with Blairs agenda.

But Blairs appearance is deteriorating badley. He just looks awful now. What the latest photos show is how bad his skin is becoming. He looks positively seedy. But there are new black and white photographs of him, studio produced, which draw out all the lines on his face and present him as self tortured and full of angst rather than indigestion. Yeah, if he was to cheer up a bit, avoid having his photo taken out of doors and make sure he's got plenty of make up on in the studio, he's a runner

  • 271.
  • At 10:18 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Paul D wrote:

We are informed - if it is true - that 'the exit strategy includes Mr Blair making appearances on Blue Peter, Songs of Praise and Chris Evans' radio show.' That pretty much says it all doesn't it? A serious political figure would be targeting Newsnight, Panorama and C4 News. Does this comedy of errors have to reduced to farce before the man sees the futility of trying to stay on?

  • 272.
  • At 10:25 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • stephane golfar wrote:

Go Mr Blair GO!! and hope that the World and History will forget you....
You and your two other acolytes, Bush and Howard should be dragged to La Haye for crimes against Humanity and GENOCIDE.
So GO please GO and don't make noise

  • 273.
  • At 12:29 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Ashraf wrote:

What should the Tony Blair do next?

He has been Bush's puppet for too long, blindly following him into illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with no justification for his actions.

I hope one day we will see him in the dock at the UN's International Court of Justice in The Hague for war crimes and taking our country into an ILLEGAL WAR.

The only WMD that will destroy our country is Tony Blair - he has to go NOW...

From a loyal Labour supporter.

  • 274.
  • At 12:49 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Nicholas Davies wrote:

Does the Labour Party truly believe that a change of leadership will ensure further electoral success? If Tony Blair's demise is the result of foreign policy have they forgotten the principle of collective cabinet responsibility. A change of leader is merely the application of sticking plaster covering a gaping wound.

  • 275.
  • At 01:07 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • David Butler wrote:

There is no point in a change of leader unless there are changes in policy. The most important change would be to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Day by day it becomes more obvious that they cannot do any good. So why waste more blood and treasure?

We need a new leader with the political courage to admit the obvious and act upon it. I am not convinced that Gordon Brown is the man.

  • 276.
  • At 03:33 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • kathryn bonds wrote:

Why is Tony Blair hanging on like the england football team after scoring a goal? He needs to go now before we have more own goals! The thought of Gordon Brown in charge of the country fills me with dread when you consider his track record on pensions. There needs to be a leadership election and quick.

  • 277.
  • At 06:04 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Michael Harris wrote:

This situation demonstrates two facts.
Firstly that New Labour is very very shallow and will be remembered as the Party that put appearance before governance.
Secondly that Mr Blair is utterly deluded and self centered. The Prime Minister who put public perception before public good.
Hanging on in these last desparate days is an attempt to conceal what the British people now know about the party and the man.

  • 278.
  • At 06:33 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Linda Tranter wrote:

Blair should have left the leadership directly after the illegal Iraq war. His toadying to Bush is nauseating and he shames the UK. I think he has degenerated into madness - look at the eyes.
'those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad'
I will never vote Labour again - the party are as bad for weakly tolerating his behaviour.

  • 279.
  • At 11:12 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • A Green wrote:

We as a country voted for labour to stay in power for the next four years, and most people voted labour because of the leader. I believe the PM should stay that is why I voted labour. I do not trust the likes of Gordon Brown.

Tony Blair should stay and not let back bench rebels push him.

Gorden Brown is no match for Tony Blair, he lacks just what makes a good leader and Prime Minster.

  • 280.
  • At 11:23 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Kathy wrote:

Well said Gerry Harper!! I'll take a leaf out of your book and stop watching BBC news programmes until they stop behaving like the Sun!!
Report the news, PLEASE!!

  • 281.
  • At 11:29 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Judge wrote:

b-liars next stop [along with bush+co,izreallymad leaders..] is the hague,
International Court of Justice for war crimes trials then a nice place called abu gharib
[lots of entertainment and activities] where they'll stay for life!.

Brown is as bad as b-liar...the tories are more labour then new labour!

  • 282.
  • At 11:33 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • John Day wrote:

We have been watching the "Tragedy of Tony Macbeth". He was seduced by the wicked witches of Washington and the war in Iraq was the fatal step. He is haunted by its ghost and everything he has done since has mired him more deeply.

Maybe at last Birnam has come to Dunsinane?

  • 283.
  • At 11:36 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • MrEddie wrote:

Yo!b-liar goooooooo nowww....
and take sleazebag buddies with you ......

Westminster Village is precisely that - a village; it has all the gossip and intrigue of a medieval palace, and of course, the courtiers to go with it.

However, this is a little more serious than regular speculation on who's up and who's down; the standing of the country is at stake. In the USA they cannot believe that we could be on the brink of removing the most Statesman like of Prime Ministers, since Lady Thatcher. For all his brilliance, Gordon Brown projects an image not a million miles away from those Premiers of the former USSR - a little harsh perhaps, but as with every stereotype, there are elements of truth to it.

Tony Blair is a fantastic politician. This does not mean he has been a fantastic Prime Minister - he hasn't. Unless of course, your criteria are huge increases in the scope, role, power and cost of Government - in which case, he has yet to be surpassed. Here lies the problem. Gordon Brown actually could increase further the tax take, and spend, as a proportion of the National Economy. After 12 years as part of the public head of Government, we have effectively NO idea about where GB stands on International Diplomacy - on various of the UN Treaties of the last decade (notably Israel). We do not know his view towards the Ministry of Defence (MOD) - is it under funded, or are we at the correct pitch for a World Power, slowly relinquishing it's status to the emerging Titans of India and China (and an increasingly Internationalised and revitalised Japan, and a slowly outward facing Germany - one could go on)

Our Drama unfolds, and we the British public watch on from the wings, reluctant to let go of a world figure, and yet quietly excited at the hoo ha - how long will this last, once Gordon is safely in place?

  • 285.
  • At 01:37 AM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • simon wrote:

I find the whole thing to be quite incredible. The fact I feel is that Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister of our country. And forcing media confrontations and party splits is only harming the public.
A lot of things done under the government of Tony Blair have been possitive and yet his whole tenure is marred by the war we entered. The war many believe we should not have entered. I agree this is correct. However it is not a wrong doing that Blair agreed to enter into the war on global terrorism. We as a country would be ignorant to sit back and think it didn't affect us.
I fear the labour party is making trouble for itself in forcing Tony's hand. And it will only end in pain for the public as we have seen with a man - with no obvious policy ideas of any substance or his own (cameron that is) and far too eager to gain any publicity opportunity - to become dangerously more of an alternative...No matter what people say the labour party must sort itself out soon one way or other or the tories will crawl back into power.

  • 286.
  • At 01:23 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • Raj wrote:

Just imagine how a leader would have been hailed 20 years back, if he had overseen what effectively is a decade of steady growth in economy, record employment rates, record home-ownership, hospitals which are accountable(where doctors are not a law unto themselves) and real social welfare. Instead there is a single point agenda to smear his whole premiership. His big disasters were of course Iraq and Immigration. But we need to look at the cheese rather than the holes in it.

  • 287.
  • At 06:03 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • Brian Kelly wrote:

Dour Gordon Browne ,smiling for the cameras for his latest speech & still pushing his Britishness? !...
He's a true Scotsman, & wannabee PM!, aligned with( mainly) a Scottish team of sycophantic like minded neo apparatchik's, these people should never not be the guardians of the UK...firstly demand they sort out "The West Lothian Question" foremost as a test of BRITISHNESS!
It would be a welcome change for the Electorate to have a government speaking ENGLISH , England style... & a Prime Minister of substance & guts...AKA ,Charles Clarke, if i was a Labour Voter!

But i'm a Tory... And very British..English Style!

  • 288.
  • At 04:01 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • Maureen Nash wrote:

Anyone who wants to see the extent of Tony Blair's achievements - particularly on education, education, education - should check out the spelling ability of a student on post no 36 in this thread.

  • 289.
  • At 09:50 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • D B Gallagher wrote:

Tony Blair's leadership of the Labour Party has been good for the country in more ways than it has been unsuccessful. No outstanding figure has emerged from any part of the political spectrum to challenge his leadership over the past decade. The British public recognised this by electing him on three occasions. In announcing that he would not run for a fourth term he did the decent, if unwise, thing. Do the decent thing for him and let him go with dignity.

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites