It’s like the husband handing the business over to the wife, or the wife handing the business over the the husband.
They both think in much the same way, and they both can’t run a public restroom with more than two customers, let alone a country. Still I don’t much have faith in any politicians. Anywhere, of any political persuasion.
After all they beg and whine for you to vote for them at election time, so they get the job they want. Simple as that. They don’t give a monkey’s uncle about you, dude.
It doesn’t really matter which lot get in either. For the average person in the street, it makes not one iota of difference.
James Traub, the Washington Post columnist, thinks that Americans will miss Tony Blair deeply. He quite rightly points out that Blair has utterly outlived his welcome at home, and still remains the apple of the eye. Well of course, the American eye can listen to his bullshit, and then go back home, forget it. He’s just that nice man with the silly grin from across the pond. After all, Americans have their own man with a silly grin too.
Traub compares Blair to LBJ, who he labels as a great and gifted leader brought low by a ruinous war. Iraq is certainly turning out be a ruinous, probably unnecessary war, which seems to be going the same way as Vietnam. However, there are vast differences. Both might have been in politics some years – Blair comes up to his 25th year as an MP next year, having first been elected in 1983, but he only had 14 years behind him when he became Prime Minister, unlike LBJ, who had racked up a long career in Congress and then the Senate.
LBJ’s presidency saw the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965, Voting Rights Act, which helped to put the final nails in the coffin of segregation, particularly in the South, although, it was at the expense of his own party. He was also instrumental in bringing in the Medicaid and Medicare Amendments to the Social Security Act. I can’t think of any such monumental achievements by Blair – just more of the the same old same old tinkering.
It has been pointed out that Blair came in to the Premiership in a blaze of hope and glory and excitement back in 1997, and to a large extent that is certainly true. Even I was so pleased to see the ousting of the Tory party after 18 young years, especially under Thatcher. I should have known better of course, and let my cynicism of politicians keep my feet firmly on the floor. None of them every make much difference these days, and in fact it’s difficult to tell the difference between the Tories in the 90’s and the Labour Party now. When Labour gained power in 1997, they basically went ahead and kept, or continued with the policies they had inherited from the Tories, and condemned so wholeheartedly when in Opposition.
Of course, it’s quite a good plan really. Hold the reins until the public get sick of you, but not quite sick enough of you not to elect you for another term, whilst the opposition is still in disarray. Then in mid-term relinquish the leadership of the party. It’s all quite legal. For those who don’t understand British politics, at a general eleection you don’t vote for the Prime Minister, but for your local MP (akin to a congressman in the US). The party that returns the most MPs usually gets to form the next government. That party choses it’s own leader, and it’s that leader that becomes the Prime Minister. So as the Prime Minister isn’t directly elected, the leader can step down, or indeed, be fired by the party if they wish, and another take their place, without having another General Election. British Law dictates that a General Election shall be held at least every five years, but the government can call for one at any time. For example there were two in 1970.
Anyway, things won’t really change a jot under Brown. Experience tells me that.
Latest Comments