BS: Blair to stand down??

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 04 - 08:47 PM

"You seem slowly, very slowly, to grasp the procedure to remove a Labour Party leader..."

Couldn't you spell it out, Gareth? It seems remarkably complicated. Almost as if it was designed to stop members being able to do it, even if they for some strange reason might think that it was in the interest of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 20 May 04 - 07:53 PM

Yeah, I'm sorry too, Gareth

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Gareth
Date: 20 May 04 - 07:34 PM

"I think perhaps Gareth is either a little bit lysdexic, or he has personation on the brain (or maybe that should be 'of the brain').

Nuf said !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 04 - 05:00 PM

Gareth ..Sorry about the silly personal stuff.   It wasn't meant to be malicious.   Im afraid this forum tends to turn many of us into would be "smart arses".
Im sure your sincere in your support of the less than worthy New Labour Project,but I cant share your enthusiasm.
As George Galloway would say,"I admire your indefatigability"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST,Noddy
Date: 20 May 04 - 09:13 AM

There appears to be some sort of divine synergy involving Tony Blair and Eddie Whatnoll.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 04 - 09:05 AM

Neither am I, Jim! And, as far as I know, I am not Jim McCallan either, though I do seem to be "Jim McClean," as Gareth would not be mistaken.

Contrary to Gareth's implication, I don't think I've ever suggested he was dyslexic. I do think he may have some problems, but I'm not sure that they would be explained by dyslexia.

What question am I dodging, Gareth? If this is a reference to your claim, repeated yet again in this thread, that I am seeking a parliamentary seat, I have denied it repeatedly just as I have repeatedly pointed out that you have no shred of evidence to support it. I realise however that you will go on repeating it, and much other nonsense, because you have boasted you will. After all, lack of evidence never cramped your style. (If you think I've dodged another question, let me know and I'll deal with it.)

This determination to repeat your lies in the face of all logic, and your general behaviour - for instance calling me an arsehole (spelling corrected) in a thread I would not have posted in or even opened but for someone alerting me - puts you in a weak position to question my mentality. You are perhaps incapable of appreciating this point, but I am happy for others to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McLean
Date: 20 May 04 - 04:47 AM

I don't know who Jim McCallan is but I do know he's not me!
Jim McLean

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Gareth
Date: 20 May 04 - 04:35 AM

Your still dodging the Question Fionn.

I think it sums up your mentality.

Read the post again - Tribune lifted the contents of a letter that was published in the Gaurdian.

Still if you want to consider yourself A/ Stalked abd B/ Victimised then that is your perogative.

You seem slowly, very slowly, to grasp the procedure to remove a Labour Party leader - Nothing to do with the Houses of Parliament.


Amd for once you are corect ( A very rare occasion in your case) I have been diagnosed as suffering from mild dylexia. So what !

-----------

I see Ake has backed down on his attempts to act as a serious comentator - which was the point made in my first post. It is always a pleasure Ake - to deflate pomposity and illusions of grandure.

-----------

No opinions of your own Jim - No wonder you either resort to insults, or cut and paste.

Ot does original though give you problems ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 19 May 04 - 09:29 PM

Indeed, and likewise, Peter K

I think perhaps Gareth is either a little bit lysdexic, or he has personation on the brain (or maybe that should be 'of the brain').

I don't know what he is complaining about..., he had my phone number for long enough..... He could have rang me!!!

Jim (who is in the phone-book)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 May 04 - 09:04 PM

Hi Jim McCallan. Pleased to meet my alter ego! Thanks for doing the introduction, Ake.

"Jim McClean" (masquerading as Peter K)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 19 May 04 - 07:12 PM

Gareth must be onto his 15th valium by now....

Jim (AKA Jim)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 04 - 07:07 PM

Fionn...Jim McClean    AKA    Jim McCallan!!!
Now thats been worrying me a lot more than Tony's problems.
How sad i am ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 May 04 - 06:18 AM

Thanks McGrath. I will consider this option.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 04 - 06:14 AM

"Not sure what the options are though...

The relevant election at this time would be the June European Elections, when voting for the Green Party is also an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 May 04 - 02:11 AM

Huge Jampton, Montezuma's Revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:33 PM

I noticed that Gareth didn't provide a clickable link to his contact information, and indicated that someone else might 'do the honours', as it were.

I should be happy to help him in this regard: Gareth's New Look Website

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:22 PM

It is always good to see things clarified.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:18 PM

Extremely sound analysis in the Asia Times, Jim. But the Scotsman article (your earlier link) was over-egging its argument. Take for instance the claim that Labour leaders in opposition must stand for election every year. Not so. But of course they may be challenged. (Blair was never challenged while leader of the opposition.)

The point that a special conference has never been called was misleading too, because the present arrangements have not been in place that long. They were applied for the first time when Blair was elected, and before Iraq there was never any question of a challenge to Blair, with or without a special conference.

The fact that the NEC contains many Blairites is neither here nor there. Once Blair is seen as an electoral liability, loyalties will be re-assigned in an instant. (Healey and Puttnam were both loyal Blairites until their recent comments quoted in the Asia Times.) But the whole issue of a special conference is a red herring in the present case. If the June elections are a disaster for Labour, or current negotiations with the main unions end in tears, the annual conference in September is perfectly placed to decide the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:42 PM

In a sense, he can stand up or down for all I care.

I made my vow at the time of us going to war that I never will vote labour while he is in office.

Not sure what the options are though... I'd go Lib Dem and round here and they are the stronger oposition to the Tories BUT both Pip and I mailed our Lib/Dem MP, Norman Lamb over concerns over PEL issues and didn't get a response and, also didn't see him on the "early day motion list" either - so he can go to hell too...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:28 PM

Blair's political obit: I supported Bush

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:21 PM

Unseating a Labour premier is no easy task

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:16 PM

I'm not sure if you're referring to something I said, McG, but conference would vote on whether to endorse a leadership challenge, not on a no-confidence motion. I don't think Blair would stick around for such a scenario to be played out. He knows that if the unions pushed Brown forward, Brown would easily get the PLP support needed. Under rule it would have to go to conference, and again Blair would have no reason to hope for enough support from that quarter.

Gareth: are you having an identity crisis, old chum? It's just that I noticed you typed out your name/pseudonym in triplicate on your last post.

Now, see if you can follow this, Gareth. Nearly 4,500,000 people voted in Labour's last leadership election. Labour Party membership at that time (July 1994) was less than 300,000. Can you begin to see just the slightest possibility that not all those who voted were party members?

Sounds like you got yourself a bit confused with that stuff about the Guardian, as the Guardian doesn't publish unsigned op-ed pieces. The rest of what you directed at me seemed more like fevered ravings than coherent argument - consistent with your gratuitous reference to "Jim McClean" in an earlier post. Have another go at it when you've calmed down, and I'll be happy to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 04 - 08:18 PM

Defeat in a vote of confidence would mean a General Election (which makes it a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas), Gareth, but it wouldn't remove Blair as Party Leader going into the Election. Unless he chose to resign.

And what can Labour Party members who aren't MPs do in any case? It was suggested up the thread that in theory a card vote of no confidence could take place at the Party Conference - but that would never be allowed to be put to Conference these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 May 04 - 07:47 PM

Nope, I don't think it is, Shlio. But it is not the membership that will make the running so much as the parliamentary Labour Party and perhaps - we'll know within the next few days - the unions.

A bad result in the euro elections on June 10 would create panic in the PLP. It would still take a statistical miracle for Labour to lose the next general election, but that would be of no comfort to the 100-odd Labour MPs who could lose their seats and lucrative incomes. They would have no trouble finding some device by which to register their wish to change horses, and they would be able to act in sufficient numbers that each could feel fairly safe. All of those who were against the war, most of those who abstained and more than a few of those who supported it, are now feeling thoroughly let down, if not deceived.

Meanwhile the big four unions are demanding a strong voice in the drafting of Labour's manifesto for a third term. If Blair accommodates this demand, it would be something of a u-turn, further undermining what little authority he now retains. If he rejects it, the unions will ensure that he gets an even tougher ride at conference than he will already be expecting.

It is certainly harder to depose a Labour than a Tory prime minister, but it can be done. And quite apart from the merits of the case, the nature of UK politics these days is that once there is the prospect of a lynching, people will not be satisfied till they've seen it through. In large part that's down to the irresponsible so-called free press with which we are blessed, but it is a fact, nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: kendall
Date: 18 May 04 - 07:34 PM

Swap Bush for Blair? Hmmmm, well, at least Blair can speak proper English, and can put whole sentences together.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Gareth
Date: 18 May 04 - 07:22 PM

Kevin - Vote agin him - Votes of no confidence. The same tactics that were being advocated pre the Liberation of Iraq.

Ooops isn't it interesting how those who decry the Labour Party wish to run its internal affairs.

Fionn - Don't try and rewrite your personal histroy - If the standard of your posting is any indication you may well be short of editors willing to commision articles from yourself.

It is worth pointing out that Tribune lifted a letter of mine that was published in the Gaurdian some time ago as an an "Op-Ed" article, though without a byeline, or acknoledgement - Is that how you claim to be a "crusading journalist" 'cos I make no such claims myself.

Don't flatter yourself, you are not being stalked, but you are such a pompus and dishonest individual I feel that it is my duty to hammer at your inacuracies and puncture your self esteem.

As my address, telephone E-Mail is regulally published on the 'Cat, and on the internet in suitable threads. I will leave it to others to point out where, but you might not like the result.

I find it very intersting that you claim Labour MP's, affiliated organizations etc are not members of the Labour Party.

As you obviously have not been involved for some time you will be not be aware of any internal discussions on that subject.

Oh by the way next rtime I have a need to dig through back copies of "Tribune" I will keep an eye out for your name and style.

And quote where appropriate.

Now try and make a positive contribution - If you can.

Gareth

Gareth

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 18 May 04 - 04:52 PM

Too much to hope for

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:52 AM

So, Gareth, how can members of the Labour Party get rid of Tony Blair if they, however misguidedly, think that someone else could do the job better, and that there are millions of fellow citizens who would are very much less likely to vote Labour while Blair is the party's leader?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 May 04 - 10:39 AM

I thought I'd made it clear to Gareth that writing for publication ceased to be my line of work many years ago. And I don't think I ever claimed to be a contributor to Red Pepper, so I hope he hasn't been telling anyone otherwise. I may well have said I was on the board of Red Pepper and, as it happens, I did have a bylined article in the magazine as recently as last month or the month before. Gareth is obviously not stalking me closely enough.

I can't remember the last time I contributed anything to Tribune - May last year probably, but no doubt he will correct me if that is wrong by a week or two. If Gareth PMs me his name and address, I'll try to dig out some articles and let him have copies. It will also give me a chance to see if the rest of him is as big as his mouth.

In his last post Gareth says I said Blair was elected by the members of the Labour Party. Another puerile little fib on Gareth's part, as anyone can see by looking back up the thread. He would never apologise of course, but I fear he will never earn respect while he clings to such stupidities in the face of all logic.

So that not even Gareth need be confused, I will spell it out even more plainly than last time. One third of the total votes cast for Blair in 1994 were determined by 269 MPs and 62 MEPs. Another third were determined by about 250,000 members of the Labour Party. The remaining third were determined by about 4.1 million members of trade unions etc, an overwhelming majority of whom were NOT members of the Labour Party (and were not required to be). If there is still some aspect of this that Gareth can't get his head around, he's welcome to PM me so that we don't need to bore other participants with his learning difficulties.

In one of his posts above, Gareth referred to a "Jim McClean" as my alter ego. If anyone could throw any light on what that is about, I'd be grateful. (Pointless asking Gareth as I think he sometimes confuses even himself.) There is a fellow Mudcatter called Jim McLean with whom I have no connection as far as I know, but with whom I'd be delighted to be associated, as I much appreciate his posts - not least his recent references to Alex Campbell.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: el ted
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:55 AM

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" - Frank Zappa.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:43 AM

Even if Blair steps down, where does that leave Great Britian, but with Gordon Brown, as well as the rest of those bastards. If it were a clean sweep I'd be more positive about the whole thing, but all these guys are doing are getting together and jockeying for new positions in the same old government..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 18 May 04 - 09:37 AM

Metchosin,
          So what happened at Frankfurt airport?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 May 04 - 09:30 PM

allegidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 May 04 - 09:28 PM

Tony [The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blare, [Ex rough sleeper, Sunderland supporter etc]], is a big load of shit.

[And his wife looks like Zippy off Rainbow as well, [I bet she's got wrinkly tits as well]. [and hairy legs as well, probly]

They should give prime minster to jOhn Prescott.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Gareth
Date: 17 May 04 - 07:24 PM

Nice try Fionn - As you say, despite your long and pompus post, Blair was elected by the members of the Labour Party. Not by the press, not by "self confessed" crusading journalists as you claimed to be.

But keep trying - perhaps one day you might find the Parliament seat you have been trying to gain for many years. (Notice the attempt to ingratiate himself with any Gorden Brown supporters that may be reading the Mudcat)

BTW Again I ask you - What as a journalist have you published ??
'Tribune' and 'Red Pepper' do not acknowlage you as a contributor.

Ah! Ake you admit that you have not any first hand knowledge, and as usual with your self and others resort to personal attacks. Funny, isn't that what you and others of your like accuse me off ???????

If I take a trip on a spaceship it will be to try and discover what reality you hail from.

To sumarise, Akenon startd this thread to try and demonstrate how hep and informed he was.

Sorry Ake it fell to peices in your hand - You resort to trying to claim an aquaintance with an actor.

Ye Gods - What a Nutcase you are.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 04 - 04:50 PM

Well done Gareth..George Robertson,Brain Wilson and John Smith all attended the small school at Dunoon while I was there,but my informant might be one Doctor Who,James Kent Smith,AKA Sylveser McCoy, who was in my class for three years.
By the way, if you were considering any more inter-galactic travel, he might be the man to give you directions home....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 May 04 - 11:47 PM

"....the Members of the Labour Party elected him." Poor Gareth. I don't think he always sets out to deceive, but for the benefit of non-UK watchers who may be interested, as well as for Gareth himself, it might help if I spell out the process by which Blair was elected and by which his successor will be elected some time soon (if the succession is not to be a walkover for Brown).

The electorate is divided into three electoral colleges, each of which has one third of the total votes. One college comprises members of the parliamentary Labour Party (MPs etc), and members of the European PLP; another comprises all paid up members of the Labour Party, and the third comprises members of organisations affiliated to the Labour Party (the Co-op Party, Poale Zion, etc, etc, but overwhelmingly the trade unions) who have indicated their support for the Labour Party and that they do not support rival political parties.

From all this, it follows that the vote of a humble member counts for very little against the vote of an MP - although the difference is narrowing, now that party membership has gone into freefall. Those eligible to participate in the affiliates' college amount to several millions, but they can hardly complain at getting a paltry 33.3 per cent of the vote between them. Overwhelmingly they are not party members, and where they are, they will be eligible to vote in the members' college anyway, and thus have two votes.

By this flawed and convoluted process Blair got (from memory) about 57 per cent of the vote in 1994, and more than 50 per cent within each of the three colleges.

When Labour is in opposition, anyone can stand against the leader in any year, provided that his/her nomination is supported by at least 20 per cent of the PLP (or 12.5 per cent if through death, resignation, etc, there is no sitting incumbent). When Labour is in government, and the leader is also prime minister, he/she can be challenged only if this is supported by a simple majority of delegates at annual conference (on a card vote).

Well before the next annual conference (which this year is the last week in September) Blair will realise that when it comes to the crunch, conference will not support him. He will accordingly bow out with what grace he can. Gordon Brown will then be nominated, and no-one who has any remaining parliamentary aspirations will stand against him. (He can count on close to 100 per cent support from the affiliates' college, and will easily pick up enough votes in the PLP and members' colleges to secure a comprehensive win.)

Of course, whether Brown will be better than Blair remains to be seen. My guess is that he will be, not least because he will have much less difficulty in distancing the UK, at least a little bit, from US foreign policy. But also his most recent budgets have included redistributive elements. He was to the fore in supporting the millenium write-off of third-world debt, pushing to increase the UK's overseas aid nearer the level it has committed to achieve, and urging other wealthy countries to do the same. With Gordon Brown at the helm, John Smith's vision of a modernised Labour Party fully committed to social justice may yet be achieved.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Blackcatter
Date: 16 May 04 - 11:40 PM

Hey - the Reform Party just endorsed Nader, so that'll solve everything.

I sure wish the European Greens would get the U.S. ones off their asses.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 04 - 07:39 PM

Blackcatter...You dont get rid of him that easy,with his ability to rig elections and dodge the bullets, you might have to get used to him.
Unless you can try some of the old hocus pokus...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Blackcatter
Date: 16 May 04 - 07:20 PM

We'll trade you Bush for Blair . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Gareth
Date: 16 May 04 - 07:13 PM

Ah ! So you admit your first post was based on the third hand reports by bar flys.

Or are you claiming drinking status with Lord Robertson.

Grow up - or people might confuse you with that arese hole Fionn or his alter ego Jim McClean.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 04 - 03:02 PM

Gareth...Thanks for your post,It certainly made me smile..
You should use intentional humour more often.
Anyway you should not presume that because I live in the wilderness,I dont have friends who prop up the bars of Westminster.
The Dunoon Grammer School mafia,as I suppose you know, is well embedded in the upper echelons of the Labour Party,and even NATO.
So you better watch your step,or you might end up like your friend Tony ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 May 04 - 03:02 AM

We have a German friend whose father's dour advice to him, when he was younger was, "Trust nothing, not even your own ass." He discovered, much to his dismay, what his father meant in the Frankfurt airport one day, upon returning on a flight from holidaying in Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 May 04 - 02:45 AM

Ebbie, I think these people's lives are so consumed and bound up by deceit it's tantamount to 'normality' for them! They would find being told a truth very suspicious indeed - kinda "It's true, therefore it must be a lie". Very confusing :0)

Personally, I only ever 100% trust me (and the lovely Mrs. Johnny of course!) LOL!

Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:50 AM

Have you ever wondered about the home life of professional liars? Who do you trust?!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:44 AM

Blair was a lawyer, as is his wife (my my, there's a surprise - another job requiring a smooth tongue and the ability to make a lie sound like the truth!), so they won't go short of a crust when he's out, you've never seen a poor lawyer.

He's not the President Ebbie, he's the Prime Minister - it's a very different thing (although B-Liar seems to behave in a Presidential way).

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: JennyO
Date: 15 May 04 - 11:20 PM

He is referring to Little Johnnie Howard, our prime miniscule in Oz. He was a strong supporter of Bush in the Iraq war, much to many people's disgust. See this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Deckman
Date: 15 May 04 - 10:35 PM

Amergin ... your words confuse me. Could you please explain what you mean. Thanks, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 May 04 - 09:45 PM

ditto

Subject: RE: BS: Blair to stand down??
From: Amergin
Date: 15 May 04 - 09:42 PM

You forget John Coward in Oz, Bob...He's a very strong supporter of Shrub...I hope he gets the boot as well..