Andrew Rawnsley (London Observer): The plotters have lost the plot

[Jack Rabbit]

From the London Observer (Sunday supplement of the Guardian)
Dated Sunday July 20

The plotters have lost the plot
The Labour factions conspiring to remove Tony Blair as Prime Minister have not thought through the consequences
By Andrew Rawnsley

I bumped into a Labour backbencher who idolises the Chancellor as much as he despises the Prime Minister. After some inconsequential gossiping, the MP suddenly ejaculated: 'Gordon has got a year.'
What did he mean by that? He meant that Gordon Brown has 12 months to supplant Tony Blair.
Shortly afterwards, I crossed paths with two more Labour MPs of a similar disposition who used almost exactly the same words to express the same sentiment. Gordon has got a year.
Those who desire to topple Tony Blair often say that they want to take the Labour Party back to its roots. By plotting his downfall, they do just that, by taking Labour back to its rich history of back-stabbing . . . .
The first faction that wants to assassinate Mr Blair can be called the Loathers. A sizable clutch of Labour MPs and activists have always reviled Tony Blair. They never wanted him to be their leader to begin with and every day since they have fantasised about ridding themselves of what they regard as a cuckoo in the Labour nest . . . .
The Loathers are not sufficiently numerous to do it alone. The danger for Mr Blair is that they link arms with the Disillusioned, a group which intersects with the Dispossessed, the sacked Ministers and the never preferred who fester with a toxic mix of personal and ideological resentment on the backbenches. Among them are many people who used to be broadly supportive of the leader - or at least tolerated him so long as he appeared unbeatable.

Read more.

[dfong63]

1. consequences cut both ways

The Labour factions conspiring to remove Tony Blair as Prime Minister have not thought through the consequences

but what will be the consequences of NOT removing the now-notorious liar and blowhard?

[Jack Rabbit]

2. True, however . . .

There are also consequences -- and not good ones -- to going about it in a thoughtless, reckless manner. Do those who wish to oust Blair know what they want in his place? They really shouldn't move until that have that little detail worked out.

A couple of years ago, if someone had asked if it would be a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power, most of us would have said "yes". In the "careful what you wish for" department, it has been done. It has been done in a way that will result in more trouble than removing him is worth.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. Fox news British Edition

The destruction of the BBC.

[DFLforever]

3. This recent incident with David Kelly should shake things up

They can either replace Blair soon with someone such as Gordon Brown or have the Labour government itself replaced in the next election.

[Capt_Nemo]

4. Without the immunity that comes with the job

Blair can be prosecuted for war crimes.
That is all that I care. Blair in the cell cage he truely deserves.
I couldn't care less if britain goes Tory.
Hell, that's the perfect pretext to kick them out of the EU!

[Capt_Nemo]

5. The Guardian's editorial board has to make up its mind

Instead it sits on a fence, having The Observer pulling the Blairite
line and The Guardian standing by "traditional" Labour.

They did this on the war in Iraq, and are comming back to it again.

Like the wider Labour support base The Guardian has now a stark choice
before it:
Either they are with the liars and warmongers, or they are with the
true values of Labour.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Perhaps they have made their decision

It may very well be ther position to present differing points of view. The Guaradian is a newspaper, not a propaganda rag. It is in the business of providing the public information and a range of opinion. They are doing that.

If you want the other kind of news, turn on the tube in America and get a gander at our BBC (Bush Broadcasting Company). It's on all channels.

[Capt_Nemo]

8. Well, if the left gives itself the luxury of playing fair

while the right mounts a massive propaganda onslaught (and I believe
that Blair and "New Labour" are on their side), than we might as well
give up the war...

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Response

If there's somebody on the Guardian staff who believes Iain Duncan Smith should replace Blair, then I've missed it.

The Guardian is offering a range of opinion, not a full range of opinion. Rawnsley's piece is written for a audience of Labourites. Within that range, debate about Blair's future and the future of the Labour Party is a great concern.

Frankly, I agree: Blair should go. He should be forced from his post as Prime Minister and bound over to face an international tribunal for war crimes in Iraq. However, I also believe that the mechanics of Blair's ouster need to be carefully planned. To that end, Rawnsley's concerns are well taken.

[T_i_B]

11. This is a very Blairite piece

although I don't have any problem if the Observer wants to such Tony Blair's cock. I will just buy the Independent instead! :evilgrin:

Rawnsley's piece is giving the classic Blaritis argument, that Blair is giving the Labour party massive power and that power must be grabbed at any cost. It is also made by an insider who concentrates on insider business such as the supposed Blair/Brown feud and does not pay much attention to what is going on outside Westminster.

However, Rawnsley falls into the classic trap of evading the discussion of policy whenever possible, preferring to give the old support Blair or it's the tories claptrap instead. If he looked outside the Westminster clique he would see that those of us who are disillusioned with Blair have very real problems with the policies of Blair and the very real problem of "new" labour refusing to listen to the people of Britain. For that Rawnsley and his ike do not seem to have any solutions whatsoever.

If "new" labour is to stop the rot then the Blairites are going to have to face up to some very uncomfortable realities.

[T_i_B]

6. The plotters are right on the money

If Blair does not go then there is no long term future for the Labour movement. Plus the WMD row has discredited Blair.

Rawnsley tries to point to Blair's elctoral record like all good Blairite stooges do, but the fact that Blair is in the shit cannot be avoided and that the only thing that keeps Blair up there is the pathetic state of the tories.

Of course those who wish to replace Blair should think hard about who to replace him with, but Blair has abused his position on an enormous scale and it is better for the sake of the Labour party that Blair goes.