News & Politics - Blair endorses Brown as Britain's next leader

Lexis · 05-01-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Tony Blair endorsed long-standing finance minister Gordon Brown as Britain's next leader on Tuesday and said he would announce next week when he was stepping aside as prime minister.

Ten years after the landslide election win that swept Labor to power, Blair said now was the time for a new team to run Britain and Brown would make a "great prime minister."

"Within the next few weeks I won't be the prime minister of this country," Blair told a Labor Party rally in Scotland, where his party is set for a drubbing in elections on Thursday.

"In all probability a Scot will become prime minister of this country and that's someone who built one of the strongest economies in the world and who I've always said would make a great prime minister."

Blair, Britain's second-longest serving leader in a century, was forced to say last year he would quit after bitter in-fighting between his backers and a Brown camp impatient for power after a decade in the prime minister's shadow.

Many in Blair's party never forgave him for sending British troops to
Iraq in 2003 despite public opposition, and his refusal to call for a ceasefire in the Lebanon war last year was regarded as a catalyst for the revolt.

Anger over Iraq and disillusionment with Labor whittled its huge 1997 majority of 179 down to 66 in 2005 and the opposition Conservatives lead comfortably in opinion polls.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/wl_nm/britain_blair_dc'

I'm quite looking forward to the change in leadership. I'm throughly disillusioned with Blair and am hopeful that Brown will do a good job. He wrote an article about how Bobby Kennedy inspired him in last week's New Statesman and as you can probably guess from my sig, I find the idea of him being PM exciting.

It will be interesting to see how he deals with President Bush. I did read Sec. Rice doesn't like him much as he's a little brusque.

elisheva · 05-01-2007, 01:57 PM

Interesting news...I don't know enough about Brown to know what I think yet though. Must do more research

Was Brown against the war in Iraq or am I getting that wrong?

**- bad romance -** · 05-03-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Blair told a Labor Party rally in Scotland, where his party is set for a drubbing in elections on Thursday.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

According to yesterday's paper it was neck and neck between SNP and Labour. If the SNP get in I will shoot myself in the head.

This day can't pass quickly enough, I just want to get up tomorrow and know already!

I think Blair waiting till a day or two before the election to make this announcement was a clever tactical move, it may sway those thinking of voting SNP as part of an anti-Blair/Iraq agenda back to Labour. At least I hope it does, the Sun's slogan today was "vote Labour today or wake up tomorrow in a living nightmare", my nerves are at breaking point!

Lexis · 05-04-2007, 09:31 AM

Brown isn't exactly a major cheerleader for the war but he hasn't broken party ranks and gone against it. I'd characterize his support as lukewarm.

And Catrina...it wasn't a complete disaster but it did...suck a little. I don't want to lose Scotland!

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 03:23 PM

I'm definitely not surprised he's endorsed Brown... that's kind of been set up for a while now, hasn't it? lol. I don't know an awful lot about Brown, but from what I've heard, I think it will be a good change. I know he's stood up to Blair in the past and disagreed with some decisions made in the war, even though he's never spoken out about it to a great degree. I think that's what Britain... and the rest of the world... needs right now.

**sunnykerr** · 05-05-2007, 12:19 PM

Now obviously I don't know as much about Blair (or Brown) or any English/British politicians as the people who actually live there. But, aside from the remarkable disaster that is his association with Bush, I was under the impression that Blair wasn't that bad of a prime minister. Controversial, obviously. And I certainly wouldn't want to minimize what it is to invite the Republican Party of the USA to tell you how to run your country...

But I thought he had done much to invest in education and health. Which, I mean this may be my own bias speaking, but I think that's good.

Anyway, regarding Scottish separatism... I saw a report on that one the news last night. Sounds a bit like the separatist movement here in Quebec. Lots of high-falluting ideals of independence and whatnot, but very little actual economic plans for sustaining those dreams. It's one thing to say we want to be masters in our own house, as it were, but if we can't afford to run things... I really don't see it going anywhere. Besides, this is the age of globalization, not of boxing ourselves in because we live in a set territory.

Lexis · 05-05-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Now obviously I don't know as much about Blair (or Brown) or any English/British politicians as the people who actually live there. But, aside from the remarkable disaster that is his association with Bush, I was under the impression that Blair wasn't that bad of a prime minister.

No, you're totally right IMO. I do think he has done good things for health/education but I think the central problem is this nation had such high hopes for him and Iraq has tainted it.

You know, I was born under Thatcher and one of my earliest memories is watching protesters throw tomatoes at pictures of her face. This country was so ready for change and Blair was like the emblem of that - he was young, ambitious and had big plans. And all was chugging along nicely. 9/11 happened, I was so proud of Blair's response, "shoulder to shoulder" and all that.

And then we came to Iraq and I think a lot of people became worried. Four years on...its more that worry, its anger and disappointment. I think Iraq is going to be his legacy.

Quote:

Anyway, regarding Scottish separatism... I saw a report on that one the news last night. Sounds a bit like the separatist movement here in Quebec. Lots of high-falluting ideals of independence and whatnot, but very little actual economic plans for sustaining those dreams. It's one thing to say we want to be masters in our own house, as it were, but if we can't afford to run things... I really don't see it going anywhere. Besides, this is the age of globalization, not of boxing ourselves in because we live in a set territory.

I think the SNP are thinking they'll get money from North Sea oil...I'm not sure how well that's gonna work.

welshgirlyUK · 05-10-2007, 02:38 AM

No your right, putting Iraq aside i personally believe he's been a brilliant leader. The economy is fantastic, the NHS was in a complete mess under conservatives ten years ago and now its so much better and our education system is now classified as arguably the best in the world, with more teenagers staying on to do A Levels. He'a also brought up the minimum wage and it will be increased again soon. And not to mention how far the crisis with Northern Ireland has come along under his power.

People are right now, understandably, concerned with Iraq but i think once he's no longer leader, like many before him, he'll be remembered as a good prime minister.

I do like Brown but he does such an incredible job with our economy i'm a little concerned that with him taking over as prime minister, with someone else in charge of his department will it do so well? And like Lexis said, i'm looking forward to see how he deals with Bush. I'm hoping he'll listen to the public more and break away from him and build up stronger bridges with Europe.

**sum1** · 05-12-2007, 03:16 PM

Blair was Britain's best prime minister in a long time. And over Iraq he showed he was pepared to put his political career on the line for something he believed in. For that he should get more respect, not less. Far too few politicians are prepared to really put their careers on the line for what they believe in.

The idea of replacing Blair with Brown is crazy. Why anybody would ever want to replace anybody with Brown I don't know, let alone replace Blair with him.

As for the SNP winning Scotland, good, maybe Scotland can finally get its long overdue independence.

welshgirlyUK · 05-13-2007, 11:22 AM

Its not really that the country wanted to replace Blair, he wanted to step down after serving the country 10 years and the labour party for more than that. Brown is his second hand man so responsibility of the country falls on him when Blairs not here, so it just by default went to him i guess.

Besides that can change, if someone within Labour Party decides they want to run for leader before June 27th. I wanted John Reid too, i was sad he decided to retire too with Tony.

As much as at times i whine that i want Wales to be independant i think for the good of the country, and even Wales, England and Scotland as individual countries, breaking up would be terrible and would be to the detriment of us all.

mandine · 05-13-2007, 01:36 PM

I'm not surpirsed Blair has endorsed Brown as the next leader, it'll never be proven but it's been said, 10 years ago before Blair became PM he made an agreement with Brown, that he would stay as PM for two terms and then step down and allow Brown to take over. Of course Blair has endlessly denied this..

As for Brown being PM...I don't know at first I was pro-Brown but there is no difference between him and Cameron (apart from their views on the EU). And I've always thought Brown was more Atlantacist than Blair, which, well...sucks.

welshgirlyUK · 05-14-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - The two potential challengers to Gordon Brown for the Labour Party leadership decided on Monday to join forces in a bid to ensure there is a contest to succeed Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Left-wing Labour MP Michael Meacher agreed to stand aside in favour of fellow leftist John McDonnell after both struggled to get the 45 nominations necessary to make it on to the ballot.

"I welcome Michael's friendly decision. We are now working together to appeal to all Labour MPs to ensure an election takes place to enable every Labour Party member to participate in deciding the future of our party," McDonnell said.

"This is an issue of democracy," he told a news conference.

McDonnell said that by pooling Meacher's support, he had enough pledges of support from Labour MPs to meet the 45-name quota although it remains to be seen if all those who promised their backing agree to formally nominate him.

Nominations opened on Monday and close on Thursday at 12:30 p.m.

So far, Chancellor Brown is the only contender guaranteed of a place in the race, which was triggered by Blair's announcement last week that he would resign on June 27. If no other candidate gets on the ballot paper, he will be crowned leader.

Brown, 56, who has been waiting in the wings to succeed Blair for years, is already well into his stride as the race's hot favourite, appearing more at ease and comfortable with himself now that Blair is finally stepping aside.

While saying he would welcome a contest, Brown has portrayed his potential opponents as representatives of the old Labour policies of tax-and-spend that proved its downfall in the 1980s.

He has also unveiled a number of policies including plans for new environmentally-friendly homes.

McDonnell said there was a huge appetite in the country for a leadership contest and suggested he could beat Brown.

"If we get on the ballot paper, you'd be shocked at the depth of support among Labour Party members and affiliated unions," he said. "There is a mood for change."

Brown, however, has received the endorsement of Blair, his cabinet and Labour's big-guns.

"The more people get to see of Gordon the more they will respect him," Environment Minister David Miliband, who himself had been tipped as a potential leadership candidate, told journalists on Monday.

"I think they will like his politics and the way he leads. I think they will like and respect him more. I think it's an opportunity... a big chance and people will come to appreciate (his) vision and values," he added.

There are six potential candidates for deputy leader and that race looks like a close contest.

Once the list of candidates is finalised, there will be 10 hustings across Britain. Results of the ballot will be announced at a Labour conference in Manchester on June 24, three days before Blair has said he will resign.

Source

elisheva · 06-24-2007, 09:48 AM

This was in my newspaper yesterday and I thought it was really excellent. I was especially fascinated by the way he repeated themes that were really important to his Kosovo-related speeches (I did a project on Britain's Kosovo policy this past semester). It's pretty long, but I think it's worth a read:

Quote:

What I have learned in 10 years as PM
British prime minister advises Britons on the value of being participants, not spectators, in world affairs

TONY BLAIR
The Economist

Saturday, June 23, 2007
Ten years ago, if you had told me I would spend a significant part of my premiership on foreign policy, I would have been surprised, a little shocked and probably, politically, somewhat alarmed. Even today, we all run for office concentrating on domestic issues.\

"Foreign" policy rarely wins votes, and can easily lose them. Yet nowadays the reality is increasingly that we are obliged as leaders to think, work and act internationally.

Over 10 years, I have watched this grow. (If you had told me a decade ago that I would be tackling terrorism, I would have readily understood, but thought you meant Irish Republican terrorism.) The line between "foreign" and "domestic" policy is being blurred. Climate change is a big issue in developed nations' politics today. It can be beaten only by global action.

What happens today in Pakistan matters on the streets of Britain. Mass migration can only partially be managed by individual nations' internal policies. Economies are shaped by forces of globalization.

On top of this, the world order is changing. The political power of China is emerging as its economic power grows. India will be formidable. Japan is putting its past behind it. Russia is becoming more assertive by the day.

In this age, foreign policy is not an interesting distraction from the hard slog of domestic reform. It is the element that describes a nation's face to the world at large, forms the perceptions of others to it and, in part, its perception of itself.

We all talk of interdependence being the defining characteristic of the modern world. But often we fail to see the fundamental implications of such a statement.

It means we have a clear self-interest as a nation in what happens the world over. And because mass media and communication convey powerful images in an instant across the globe, it dictates that struggles are fought as much through propaganda, ideas and values as through conventional means, military or diplomatic.

My reflections, based on this analysis, are these:

1. Be a player, not a spectator

Over the past 10 years, Britain has been in the thick of it. There is no international debate of importance in which we are not as fully engaged as we can be.

We have attempted to construct the broadest possible agenda that is capable of unifying the international community and is, overtly, values-based. That is why action on poverty in Africa, a good outcome to the world trade talks and agreement on climate change all matter beyond the obvious importance of each individual issue.

They are indicative of an attitude, of responsibility to others, an acceptance that international politics should not be simply a game of interests but also of beliefs, things we stand for and fight for.

It is also why we should be prepared to intervene, if necessary militarily, to prevent genocide, oppression, the deep injustice too often inflicted on the vulnerable. Britain, in the past decade, has intervened four times: in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. In each case, regimes of appalling brutality were removed.

Last week, I visited the people of Sierra Leone, still struggling, but at least able to contemplate a better future. But as important is the next-door state of Liberia, now properly democratic. It might never have been so had Sierra Leone fallen into the hands of gangsters. Similarly, as a result of Kosovo, the Balkans changed. Countries there can think of a future in the European Union.

So when we come to Darfur, do we really believe that if we do not act to change this situation, the violence will stop at the borders of Sudan? In the early 1990s we could not summon the will to act in Bosnia. It took 250,000 lives lost before we realized we had no option.

2. Transatlantic co-operation is still vital

I have real concern that on both sides of the Atlantic there is, in certain quarters, an indifference, even a hostility, to an alliance that is every bit as fundamental to our future as it has been to our past. By this I don't just mean the rampant anti- Americanism on parts of the left. In a sense, that is relatively easy to counter.

It is more a drifting away, occasionally a resurgent isolationism that crosses right and left. In Britain now there are parts of the media and politics that are both Euroskeptic and wanting "an independent foreign policy" from America. Quite where Britain is supposed to get its alliances from bewilders me.

There is talk of Britain having a new strategic relationship with China and India bypassing our traditional European and American links. Get real. Of course we will have our own relationship with both countries. But we are infinitely more influential with them if we have two strong alliances behind us.

In Europe we wonder: Is it worth it to continue such reliance on America? We would be better asking whether the political leaders in America still see Europe as their first port of call.

For all our differences, we should be very clear. Europe and America share the same values. We should stick together. That requires a strong trans-atlantic alliance. It also means a strong, effective and capable EU.

A weak Europe is a poor ally. That is why we need closer co-operation among the nations of the EU and effective European institutions. In a world in which China and India will each have a population three times that of the EU, anything else is completely out of date.

3. Be very clear about global terrorism

I fear the world, and especially a large part of Western opinion, has become dangerously misguided about this threat. If there was any mistake made in the aftermath of Sept. 11, it was not to realize that the roots of this terrorism were deep and pervasive.

Removing the Taliban from government seemed relatively easy. Removing their ideology is so much harder. It has been growing for over a generation. It is based on genuine belief, the believers being people determined to outlast us, to be indefatigable when we are weary: to be strong-willed and single-minded when we have so many other things to preoccupy us (and when the comforts of our Western lives seem so untouchable by the activities of what are naturally seen as a few fanatics).

People make much of the fact that in each area of conflict, the extremists take a different shape. They point to the historical absurdity of, for example, Iranian elements linking up to the Taliban. Above all, they say, their weapons, numbers and support are puny compared with ours.

This misses the central point. Revolutionary communism took many forms. It chose unlikely bedfellows. But we still spent decades confronting it.

This new terrorism has an ideology. It is based on an utter perversion of the proper faith of Islam. But it plays to a sense of victimhood and grievance in the Muslim world.

Many disagree with its methods. But too many share some of its sentiments. Its worldview is completely reactionary. But its understanding of terrorism and its power in an era of globalization is arrestingly sophisticated and strategic.

It means that it can go into any situation where peace is fragile or conflict possible. It can, by the simple use of terror, break the peace and provoke the conflict. It has worked out that in an age of mass media, instantly relayed around the world, impact counts: and nothing makes more impact than the carnage of the innocent. It has learned that as states respond to terror so they can, unwittingly, feed it.

In the Middle East right now, it stops progress in Iraq. It defies the attempts at peace between Israel and Palestine. It is making Lebanese democracy teeter on the brink. That is significant in itself. But far more significant is the way in which the terrorists have successfully warped our sense of what is happening and why. They have made us blame ourselves.

We can debate and redebate the rights or wrongs of removing Saddam. But the reality is that if you took Al-Qa'ida (in Iraq before Saddam's fall) out of the conflict in or around Baghdad, without the car bombs aimed at civilians and the destruction of monuments like the Samarra Shrine, it would be possible to calm the situation. Events in Anbar province, where slowly but surely Sunni opinion is turning on Al-Qa'ida, show it. And down in Basra, what is poisoning the city is the violence and criminality of Jaish-al Mahdi and other groups - supported, financed and armed by elements of the Iranian regime. Remove Al-Qa'ida, remove the malign Iranian activity, and the situation would be changed, even transformed.

The truth is that the conflict in Iraq has mutated into something directly fuelled by the same elements that confront us everywhere. Yet a large, probably the larger, part of Western opinion would prefer us to withdraw. That is the extraordinary dulling of our senses that the terrorism has achieved.

In the Palestinian question who gets the blame for lack of progress? The West. In Lebanon - a crisis deliberately provoked by, again, the same forces - who is held responsible? Israel.

In the past few weeks alone we have seen terrorist bombs in Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, India, and arrests in Saudi Arabia. Not a single major European nation is immune. In Africa, Sudan, Somalia, even in places like Nigeria where Muslims and Christians live together, terrorism is active.

There is no alternative to fighting this menace wherever it rears its head. There are no demands that are remotely negotiable. It has to be beaten. Period.

4. We must stand up for our values

We will not succeed simply by military or security means. It is a political challenge. Terrorism recruits adherents on the basis of an appeal to human emotion. It can be countered only by a better, more profound, well-articulated counter-appeal.

But this won't happen unless we stand up for our own values, are proud of them and advocate them with conviction.

There is nothing more ridiculous than the attempt to portray "democracy" or "freedom" as somehow "Western" concepts which, mistakenly, we try to apply to nations or peoples to whom they are alien. There may well be governments to whom they are alien. But not peoples. Whoever voted to get rid of democracy? Or preferred secret police to freedom of speech?

These values are universal. We should attack the ideology of the extremists with confidence: their reactionary view of the state; their refusal to let people prosper in peace; their utterly regressive views on women. We should condemn not just their barbaric methods of terrorism, but in particular attack their presumed sense of grievance against the West.

We need to support and help mobilize moderate and true Islam in doing so. There is nothing more absurd than the idea that removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Saddam and his sons in Iraq, and replacing their regimes with the chance to vote, supervised by the UN, is somehow an assault on Muslims.

We should point out that those killing Muslims by terror are actually other Muslims and that doing so is completely contrary to the teachings of the Quran.

But, and it is a mighty but, such an approach counts only if it is applied vigorously and in a manner that is even-handed. Here is where I have always felt that the normal politics of left and right are a hindrance. The trouble is that the right is correct on the need to stand firm militarily and in support of freedom; and the left is correct on the need for justice.

Over to you

That is a very short synopsis of what I have learned. I don't presume to call it advice to my successor. I have been reasonably fortunate rarely to receive public "advice" from my predecessors.

The job is difficult enough as it is, and, knowing that, I have nothing but support to offer my successor.

Tony Blair steps down as British prime minister on Wednesday.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007

Lexis · 06-24-2007, 12:07 PM

I share a lot of the sentiments but to be honest, I'm glad he's on his way. I'm just tired of the constant spin and the patronizing air of "trust me, I know what I'm doing" when people call him on what the hell is going on in Iraq.

elisheva · 06-24-2007, 12:33 PM

Well, after 10 years, it's certainly time for a new leader.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Blair endorses Brown as Britain's next leader