Since the 2005 general election in Great Britain, Tony Blair has had continual calls to resign (more and more from his own party). Since his decreased majority in 2005, he has lost a few bills in parliament (before 2005 he had never lost one), as more and more of his MPs rebel against him. Many in his own party believe he has become a liability and want him to leave, for example he has taken much of the blame for the massive victory for the opposition party (the Conservatives) in the 2006 local elections (the Conservatives won about 40% of the vote and Labour 26%, and Labour actually came third). Today, 30 of his own MPs (who were elected because of him) have issued a letter asking for him to leave:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../05/ublair.xml

Should Tony Blair leave now? What effect would this have on George Bush?

I think Blair's mistake was making his "Granita deal" with Gordon Brown in the first place. He shouldn't have stated that he wouldn't run again... what did it accomplish besides making himself a lame-duck and sparking off all of this speculation? By my way of thinking, the Labour party rebels need to get a grip - Blair led them to a landslide victory only last year - he's the PM, and by all rights he should be the leader in the next election as well.

Leaders should lead for as long as they can or want to, but when they step down, they should go suddenly and unannounced - and not look back, not linger on in the House of Commons like Heath did. You wouldn't have seen Harold Wilson or Margaret Thatcher say they were going to step down before the next election - they either stepped down on their own when they felt like it (Wilson) or the rebels in their party forced them out (Thatcher)... but once they were out, they left the House to make way for the next leader.

By saying he wasn't going to run again, Blair has made himself a marked man in his own party, and in the end the rebels will probably force him out and put Brown in, but I don't think the results will be any different for Labour than it was for the Conservatives going from Thatcher to Major - he'll probably win again with a much-reduced majority in 2009, but end up an ineffectual leader until he loses in the election after that.

I think Blair should end all the speculation and say he's not going to leave at all - that he'll lead the Labour party again in the next election. Put up or shut up. If any of his cabinet has a problem with this, they should feel free to resign. Maybe it's too late for that and he'll be forced out anyway, but even so I figure it's better to go out with a bang than a whimper.

I agree that Blair was wrong to say he would stand down before the next election, everyone wants to know when. I think the reason he did it was because he thought more people would vote for him if they thought he wasn't going to stay in office for long (he may have thought Brits were tired of him). Nevertheless, he was wrong to say it. I don't think 2005 was a landslide: Labour was only 3% ahead of the conservatives, but you're right, it was his third victory, and most MPs are in the Commons because he put them there.

I think it unlikely that it will be a Thatcher, Major situation for Labour. It's all different now, e.g. when John Major won, the polls were still good for the Tories, and they'd recently "won" a great local election. It was still Kneil Kinnock who fought the 1992 election, he'd already lost 1987 and wasn't greatly popular. Now, David Cameron (Tory leader) is very popular, did well at the last local election and the last poll gave him a 9% lead (Con 40%, Lab 31% e.t.c.), and is beating Brown is polls. Cameron is very similar to how Blair was before 1997, and I think people miss that era.

You're right about PM's exits. At the moment the media are saying Blair is trying to leave a mark on the country so he isn't forgotten. What better way than leaving with a bang?

You are very well informed about UK politics. Does it get much coverage over there?

UK politics gets fair amount of coverage here - there's still a pretty substantial "commonwealth connection" felt here, but I follow it pretty closely myself - can't get by without my BBC World *L*. My grandmother was a war bride, so I've got a lot of family connections there as well. Plus, I figure we can't truly understand our own Westminster system without knowing the original - I like the parallels between the two.

I classified 2005 as a "landslide" for Labour simply because of the seat distribution - 356 to 198 for the Tories... that's a pretty wide difference by anyone's standard, don't you think?

As far as Cameron goes, you don't think he comes across as a "lightweight"? Following the Conservative leadership race last year from here, it seemed to me that Cameron only got the leadership because he gave a good speech at the party conference. I don't know... every time I see him, all I think is that he'll blow away in a stiff breeze. I was kind of hoping for Ken Clarke - I know he has baggage, but you can't dispute the fact he has weight. I have to figure even Fox would have been a better pick than Cameron, though.

I can't say I'm excited by the prospect of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister either, though. I do like John Reid - I think he would make a great hard-nosed PM, but I figure Brown is probably already too far entrenched to beat out for the Labour leadership once Blair goes.

You're right that Blair is probably going to try to "make his mark" before he goes... but with all the speculation and his front bench maneuvering for their spots under the next leader, I can't see how he's going to get much done. Put yourself in Brown's shoes... if you see yourself as the next PM, why expend the effort to help Blair's legacy - why not stall and wait and pass the initiatives under your own reign? Nothing is going to get done until Blair either steps down or steps up and says he isn't going to go. I figure if he's the Prime Minister, he ought to start acting like it.

Overall Labour's majority was 66, and I do agree it was a strong victory. Interestingly the reason for the difference between seats and percentage is first past the post, but because that is "corrected" every ten years, at the next election it will be fairer (thus giving the Tories more chance).

I agree about Cameron, he does come across as a lightweight: well only compared to others (he would still be strong member of a cabinet). I respect Ken Clarke very much, but I thought that if he won, then the Conservatives would be split over Europe again, and we'd be left without a credible opposition, and Labour could steam role ahead (again). That speech did brilliantly for Cameron (by the way, I've actually met Cameron, but only long enough to get his autograph and shake his hand). I think David Davis was the best of the candidates to become Prime Minister, but that Cameron is more likely to be elected.

Although Cameron isn't exactly a heavy weight, he is currently winning over many Brits. Although, that could easily change, under new leadership. Have you seen some of the clashes between Cameron and Blair? Cameron came off well. For example his first time in parliament, he beat Blair back, and his great attack on the Chancellor "Analogue Chancellor in a digital world," was that of a heavy weight.

At the moment I want David Cameron to win one term, because Britain does need change, and the Tories have some great men to serve under him.

I dislike John Reid. It's probably true that he is no more communist anymore than you or I, but still, I fear that if he is no longer communist, he could be very socialist. I don't trust him greatly (the cannabis that was found in his house). I think the Home Office could destroy him before he has the chance to stand, and will Britons elect a Roman Catholic PM?

To me, Cameron appears to be all style and no substance - all flash and no dash. I agree he's a formidable Commons debater - but he may find it's a lot harder there on the other side of the House.

It's interesting what you said about Clarke and the European issue... it's difficult to grasp British public opinion on the EU from this side of the ocean (*L* My great-aunt in Bristol and I have had a few debates on this... she's deadset against Europe - you should have seen her face when she had to exchange her expired British passport for a European one... but then again, she's so conservative she refuses to fly anything but British Airways - don't even try getting her on Virgin) - I kind of figure it's inevitable the UK is going to have closer relations with Europe - what's the alternative?

I couldn't figure out what the big attraction was for Davis during the Tory leadership race... to me it seemed like he was pretty much a non-entity - no charisma, no personality - he was just "there".

Your impression of the Tory front bench is also pretty interesting... it kind of struck me as being somewhat thin. I like Theresa May and Liam Fox... but George Osborne??? Do you really want a Chancellor that can't shave yet? *L* And can you really picture Hague as Foreign Secretary? I just don't see the depth there.

I don't think Reid is as socialist as he's made out to be... sure, he may be to the left of Blair, but he knows he can't get elected by being another Michael Foot either. Besides, I figure being Prime Minister is more about an individual's personality than any specific policy stands - specifics are more for Cabinet ministers.... what you remember more about Prime Ministers is the depth of their personalities - how they handle adversity, etc. And say what you will about Reid, he's definitely got a personality. I like his line about his former Communist membership: "I used to believe in Santa Claus, too". As for all the rest... does it really make a difference in today's world? I can see it affecting his chances if this were 1959, but is it really all that big a deal today?

That is perfectly so, but when Tony Blair was leader of HM's Official Opposition, one had their doubts as to how well he would perform on the other side of the house. I believe it is undeniable that Cameron is a great orator.

Personally, I found David Davis an affable man, but inevitably he lacked charisma. David Davis made many poor speeches, and lacklustre debates, but the actual content gained him support, and he finds interesting and important interpretations in situations. Furthermore, he wasn't just another Oxbridge politician from a good background.

As for the Tory's shadow cabinet, altho' it is largely untried in office, there are persons with great personalities and abilities. Tus far you have mentioned Theresa May (my personal favourite), but, I am a great fan of William Hague and you cannot deny he is a man of great abilities. Others who make it a good team: Liam Fox, David Davis, Caroline Spelmen, and Alan Duncan. Altho' Duncan can appear eccentric sometimes, he does perform well in interviews.

Whereas, I believe Labour's cabinet is very thin. The majority make many mistakes and are not good at their jobs. Margaret Beckett drove the farming community into the ground, and was rewarded with the foreign office. Ruth Kelly could not control her own department, and ended up demoted, and Hewitt is dreadful: "the NHS's best year yet," that was insulting. John Prescott stumbles along in office despite his bullying tactics, many blunders and his blatant hypocrisy. Need I continue?

I am still shocked that you say Reid has personality, I would describe him as boring. What one could attribute as personality, is simply his crude behaviour in public.

Well, I agree with you that Labour's front bench is starting to get a little frayed - but that's almost to be expected after almost 10 years in power. Admittedly, Blair's last cabinet shuffle left me with a lot of question marks... I agree that Beckett as Foreign Secretary seems like a bad move - I thought Straw was doing a good job there, Beckett just seems like she's out of her league. I figured moving her there was a sign that Blair wanted to handle foreign policy more directly from No. 10 - taking a firmer hand on foreign affairs always seems to be the last refuge of leaders in trouble at home.

As for Reid, I was impressed by his performance as Defence Secretary, and by his handling of the terrorist cell as Home Secretary, which I've got to figure has to be the hardest job in the cabinet - but he seems to be excelling at it. He just strike me as this gruff, take no foolishness from anyone bulldog, which appeals to the Churchillian in me *L*... not that I think Reid is another Churchill... but then again, who is?

It's probably academic anyway - Brown has been the heir apparent for so long that it's pretty much obligatory that Labour gives him his shot. To me, Straw is the Foreign Secretary from central casting. I don't know Des Browne all that well, but he seems to be doing a credible job at Defence. You're right that Prescott has out-lived his political usefulness and is pretty much a liability... probably Reid will take his spot. I could see some of the second-tier cabinet like Peter Hain (Home?) or Hilary Benn (Chancellor?) or Alan Johnson (Health) moving up as well... so all-in-all, it seems to me like Labour still has a solid core of talent, and even if it is a little timeworn, it'll still probably be enough to see them through 2009, especially with Labour's seat lead.

As far as the Conservative front bench goes, aside from a few stars like Theresa May, I can't say I'm as familiar with them as you are (Government naturally gets more overseas attention), but wasn't Hague ousted as leader because "he didn't play well with others"? Or am I getting him confused with Iain Duncan Smith? (Lately it's been hard to keep track of Conservative leaders as they go by )

The Tories do seem to change their leaders like most people change their socks. IDS was evicted because he was not a team player and was very outspoken. William Hague was a popular and affable man, he resigned from office because he failed to make much improvement upon the 1997 defeat. Many believe, as I do, that if in 2001 he was in Labour he would have excelled in office, but the public were still not ready to go back to the Tories, especially because Labour's first term was a good one.

Altho' I agree that the cabinet is tired because of Labour's long stretch in office, the Tories were in office for 18 years, and even around the end they still had a good cabinet: Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo, William Hague and others.

Alas, we shan't agree on Reid, but this is because there is no solid reason for my dislike towards him, but like you it is the way I perceive him. Currently, he hasn't done badly in his job, but David Blunkett (in my opinion) was a better minister. I cannot agree with your assesment on Hilary Benn or Alan Johnson. Many believe Benn may succeed Brown, this is possible, but I do not think he has much talent.

I still think the Tories will ultimately win in 2009/2010 (or whenever an election is held, the sooner it is held the more likely). This is because, people are visibly tired of Labour. Labour is loosing direction, and if Brown succeeds, I do not think he will win an election. Brown is consistently beaten by Blair in polls, even when Blair's rating falls. Furthermore in most polls the Tories percentage goes up if Brown is considered leader. For the first time since 1997 (or even 1992) the Tories have been giving themselves a new identity, and they are a stronger opposition with more vigour. With Cameron since his election in December, the Tories have enjoyed the best polls, and have been consistently above Labour: in August it was the worst result for Labour in 19 years with Con 40% and Lab 31%; and I think in September with Labour visibly fighting, this will improve further.

As for their seat difference, Labour shouldn't have been able to win so many more seats with only a 2% lead, this evidently shows how the electoral bias played in their favour (do Canadians spell with or without the u?), and thus only with the boundary changes (which I have heard will give the Tories 10 new safe seats, and take away 10 Labour seats, and the other positove changes are Tory leaning) did they manage to win such a significant lead in seats. Furthermore, Labour won 35% (lower than most polls) in 2005, I think at the moment they are loosing voters and won't be able to increase this. The Tories however are winning around 39% in the polls (sometimes 40%which they are steadily working towards), and in 2005 they won 33% (higher than most polls). We could say an immediate election would give the Tories a 7% increase and Labour could fall by 1 or 2% which would give the Tories a great swing. These factors point towards a Tory government.

People want change even now, but the Tories hadn't been contenders for government until now.