NationStates Jolt Archive

1,012 UK adults were asked whether they wanted Bliar to remain Prime Minister.

57% wanted him gone within a year
42% wanted his immediate resignation (up from 28% last November)
21% wanted him to stay on after the 2009 election (dumbasses)

(Yes, this doesn't add up to 100% because the 42% are included in the 57%)

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4869004.stm

So that's 4/5 of the electorate who want him to get bent, 2/5 of the electorate wanting him to clear his desk on Monday morning. :rolleyes:

Do you feel he has used up his political capital?

How many want Blair gone?
i sure as hell do.

Yeah, he should resign soon. Gordon Brown will do a much better job.

EDIT: Who wants to predict when someone will say "zOMG only 1012 people?? That's not teh UK, all statistics are li3s!!!1!"

I thought he was going to be gone by late spring by the latest. Stupid teflon man, that guy just won't call it a day, despite his saying he wants to. Bah!

I think you misinterpreted the stat though. Only 57% want him to get bent. 22% do not want him to resign within the year, nor stay on after the '09 election. Presumably that means they want him to serve his full term and then stand down. That doesn't sound too much like they hate him.

It's really bizarre though. What sort of person wants him to stay on not only for the next year, but for beyond the next three years?

It's really bizarre though. What sort of person wants him to stay on not only for the next year, but for beyond the next three years?A Blairite? There seem to be a fair few of them about.

Yeha but of these people how many are to the left?
How many are to the right
How many are just cranks?

zOMG only 1 012 people?? That's not teh UniKr0wnz, all statistics are li3s!!!1!one

Ouch, 31% see neither Blair nor Brown as being able to be a good PM.

*prays for Cameron to make a huge cock up before just before the next election*

Pope:D make him emperor:p

Ouch, 31% see neither Blair nor Brown as being able to be a good PM.

*prays for Cameron to make a huge cock up before just before the next election*
No, it just means we get Jack Straw. :eek:

*burns picture of Bliar while singing 'The Red Flag'*

I think you misinterpreted the stat though. Only 57% want him to get bent. 22% do not want him to resign within the year, nor stay on after the '09 election. Presumably that means they want him to serve his full term and then stand down. That doesn't sound too much like they hate him.
I agree it's not terribly clear. Some of that 22% may hate him, but recognise that an orderly transfer of power is impossible within a year. They may want a transfer of power closer to 2008, but well before the 2009 election so as not to end up with a messy leadership contest in an election year. Bliar is actually under increasing pressure from within his own party to announce a timetable for just that sort of handover, to give his successor time to campaign. Thus, no full final term.

Ok UK, if you want Blair gone why didn't you say so in the last elections?

Ok UK, if you want Blair gone why didn't you say so in the last elections?
We did. Shame we don't have Proportional Representation.

No, it just means we get Jack Straw. :eek:Sorry, but I take a firm stance against former NUS presidents becoming PMs. It's just wrong. So that puts Jack Straw and Charles Clarke out of the picture. Who's left? No one, Haha! (sorry, bad pun). But that leaves Ruth Kelly, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Tessa Jowell, Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Alistair Darling, and John Prescott. Just eww... to all of them... expect maybe Prescott. His tenure as Pm would certainly be... interesting.

Jack Straw is the only politician in that post, who could actually be marketed as a PM. The rest simply lack the charisma, credibility and gravitas. They just couldn't be sold to the public. Jack Straw or Gordon Brown could be.

Just eww... to all of them... expect maybe Prescott. His tenure as Pm would certainly be... interesting.
He could be the first ever politician to tell a FOX News interviewer to STFU live on air. :D

Sorry, but I take a firm stance against former NUS presidents becoming PMs. It's just wrong. So that puts Jack Straw and Charles Clarke out of the picture. Who's left? No one, Haha! (sorry, bad pun). But that leaves Ruth Kelly, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Tessa Jowell, Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Alistair Darling, and John Prescott. Just eww... to all of them... expect maybe Prescott. His tenure as Pm would certainly be... interesting.

I'd be right interested in seeing Tessa Jowell as PM.
She'd get and ditch another partner in her life whenever there is a scandal to be covered up, if you know what I mean...

He could be the first ever politician to tell a FOX News interviewer to STFU live on air.

Hehe - that would be well worth a Mass, as Henry IV of France said :p

I'd be right interested in seeing Tessa Jowell as PM.
She'd get and ditch another partner in her life whenever there is a scandal to be covered up, if you know what I mean...I, the Right Honourable Tessa Jowell, Prime Minster, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service, do take thee, generic husband number 12, to be my lawful wedded husband till scandal do we part.

Something along those lines?

I sure as hell want Blair gone. All he does is praise islam. He said he has a koran on his bedside table. He's a freak.

I, the Right Honourable Tessa Jowell, Prime Minster, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service, do take thee, generic husband number 12, to be my lawful wedded husband till scandal do we part.

Something along those lines?


Hmmmm.... hmmmm... I'm looking for a word...
*digs into dictionary*
*mutters* gotcha!
*adresses audience*

EXACTLY

1,012 UK adults were asked whether they wanted Bliar to remain Prime Minister.

57% wanted him gone within a year
42% wanted his immediate resignation (up from 28% last November)
21% wanted him to stay on after the 2009 election (dumbasses)

(Yes, this doesn't add up to 100% because the 42% are included in the 57%)

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4869004.stm

So that's 4/5 of the electorate who want him to get bent, 2/5 of the electorate wanting him to clear his desk on Monday morning. :rolleyes:

Do you feel he has used up his political capital?
Bliar.....intentional typo?

http://www.bettybowers.com/graphics/yellobrick.jpg

I sure as hell want Blair gone. All he does is praise islam. He said he has a koran on his bedside table. He's a freak.
All he does it praise Islam? What planet are you from? He's a Christian Fundamentalist. That's one of the reasons why I want him gone.

Bliar.....intentional typo?
Yes indeed.

He could be the first ever politician to tell a FOX News interviewer to STFU live on air. :D
No way, man, he'd knife the bastard!!

All he does it praise Islam? What planet are you from? He's a Christian Fundamentalist. That's one of the reasons why I want him gone.
Uhh, what? Why do you think this?

I don't really care about Blair. I mean, sure, he does annoy me sometimes but I don't particularly hate him.

Uhh, what? Why do you think this?
I assume he is referring to the fact that he is a Catholic who actually does the whole praying thing and "judged by God" stuff.

how is the PM of australia doing in the polls?

its as if there was a world-wide conspiracy to return to office those who got us into a stupid war in iraq. suddenly the jedi mind trick has worn off and we realize that we hate these guys.

I assume he is referring to the fact that he is a Catholic who actually does the whole praying thing and "judged by God" stuff.He's said he's prayed with George Bush. I only know a handful of Christians who really are religious. The rest don't go to Church and don't really pray. So, yes, Blair is a zealot by the standards I'm used to.

Whoever said he loves Islam is wrong. He makes frequent references to his religion (which I find grating).

And Charles Clarke had best not be the new PM. He needs a damn good kicking for his xenophobic policies.

He's said he's prayed with George Bush. I only know a handful of Christians who really are religious. The rest don't go to Church and don't really pray. So, yes, Blair is a zealot by the standards I'm used to.
Even by the standards of a secular society, I think that even with the praying and belief in the afterlife it's a stretch to label him as 'religious fundamentalist' rather than merely 'religious'.

He's said he's prayed with George Bush. I only know a handful of Christians who really are religious. The rest don't go to Church and don't really pray. So, yes, Blair is a zealot by the standards I'm used to.

Him being religious is not an issue, any Christian will pray when faced with a decision like that. Whether we are answered is a dfferent matter.

And we will be judged by God. That's pretty much a core belief, he said nothing I wouldn't say or a Hindu/Muslim/[Insert religion here] wouldn't say.

At least he's honest with it. Would you rather he listened to the voices in his head and you didn't even know? :p

He'll be gone as soon as all the troublesome legislation is done and there'll be a patch of popular stuff to finish him and start his successor off, that's for sure. When THAT is I'm unsure.

We did. Shame we don't have Proportional Representation.

I do hope you voted lib dem. I voted for blair because the most important thing at the moment, and for the forseeable future, is to keep the tories out. Blair may not be perfect but look at the alternative. It really frightens me that the might get in before I can affort to emmigrate.

1,012 UK adults were asked whether they wanted Bliar to remain Prime Minister.

Don't you guys have elections that elect a MP, then the Parliment elects the PM? Seems like the folks in Blair's district ought to be weighted a little more than some random fop in London. Assuming that his home district of Sedgefield isn't really London, anyway.

But my point is that elections are more complex than opinion polls -- and more binding.

Even by the standards of a secular society, I think that even with the praying and belief in the afterlife it's a stretch to label him as 'religious fundamentalist' rather than merely 'religious'.Okay, sure, fundamentalist is too strong a word. He sure isn't Pat Robertson. But he still a lot more religious than most people I know, and he certainly refers to his religion a little bit too frequently for the leader of a secular country

Poll result: Virtually entire UK wants Bliar gone

Interesting to note that the poll was only conducted in three out of the four countries that comprise the UK...

I do hope you voted lib dem. I voted for blair because the most important thing at the moment, and for the forseeable future, is to keep the tories out. Blair may not be perfect but look at the alternative. It really frightens me that the might get in before I can affort to emmigrate.
Actually I have voted both Liberal Democrat and Conservative in past elections. I would be prepared to vote for any party sooner than New Labour.

Interesting to note that the poll was only conducted in three out of the four countries that comprise the UK...
The UK is a country. It does not contain countries.

Interesting to note that the poll was only conducted in three out of the four countries that comprise the UK...What makes you say that. Are you infering that the poll producers are frauds?

The UK is a country. It does not contain countries.

Are you claiming that England, for example, is not a country?

The UK is a nation state, and one which is often termed a country, however, it is comprised of four countries.

EDIT: left out the 'r' in the word 'country'. Whoops.

What makes you say that.

The fact that it is true, and I thought it of sufficient interest to bring it the attention of others.

The UK is a country. It does not contain countries.

The United Kingdom is a State which contains a number of Nations. If you want to argue that visit a Glasgow pub and try it.

The fact that it is true, and I thought it of sufficient interest to bring it the attention of others.You don't seem very keen to give any source showing what you claim. ICM claim their surveys to fully represent all adults 18+ in the UK. So if they didn't interview one of either NI, Wales, Scotland or England, then they are clearly misleading us.

The United Kingdom is a State which contains a number of Nations. If you want to argue that visit a Glasgow pub and try it.
I don't care what some nationalist propping up a bar thinks. The UK is a country, recognised as such by numerous bodies including the EU and UN. Its constituent parts are not.

You don't seem very keen to give any source showing what you claim.

Proof? I would have thought that finding the evidence I was refering to was such an obvious task I didn't bother providing a link.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/blair_poll.pdf

Regions listed:

- South East
- Midlands
- North England
- Wales & South West
- Scotland

I don't care what some nationalist propping up a bar thinks.

Does the office of the First Lord of the Treasury count as 'some nationalist propping up a bar'?

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Does the office of the First Lord of the Treasury count as 'some nationalist propping up a bar'?

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp
Yeah. I know them and their ilk. Standing by the bar, sipping their sherry and port, harrumphing about how Iraq needs firm discipline like they did in India. :mad:

Proof? I would have thought that finding the evidence I was refering to was such an obvious task I didn't bother providing a link.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/blair_poll.pdf

Regions listed:

- South East
- Midlands
- North England
- Wales & South West
- ScotlandThank you. My bad. It was an assumption that the full details of the poll wouldn't be published. Most online versions of newspapers that I've read do not generally make the full details of the poll publically available, mainly because they are cut and paste from the pusblished article. You normally have to wait a month until the poll pops on on www.icmresearch.co.uk

Such as
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1265009,00.html
and
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2072894,00.html

Ok UK, if you want Blair gone why didn't you say so in the last elections?

Because we don't elect Blair? Only the people of Sedgefield can elect Blair.

Do you have any idea how immature you sound writing "bliar"?

Do you have any idea how immature you sound writing "bliar"?
Do you have any idea how little I care?

Because we don't elect Blair? Only the people of Sedgefield can elect Blair.
One of the pitfalls of a representative government, huh? I'd be pretty disappointed in a leader that shaped his policy decisions to fit an opinion poll. Come to think of it, that described our last President and I was pretty disappointed in his policy.

One of the pitfalls of a representative government, huh? I'd be pretty disappointed in a leader that shaped his policy decisions to fit an opinion poll. Come to think of it, that described our last President and I was pretty disappointed in his policy.
How do you mean? Everybody knows who leads which party, so for most people the fact that we don't directly elect him is a mere technicality.

People know that, effectively, if they vote for the Labour candidate they are voting for Blair.

How do you mean? Everybody knows who leads which party, so for most people the fact that we don't directly elect him is a mere technicality.

People know that, effectively, if they vote for the Labour candidate they are voting for Blair.
Would you prefer to have the government's policy set by public opinion? What I'm getting at is that a representative government is superior to a democracy because the policy is set by people that we elect to represent us. What kind of government would it be if every Monday it adopted a new position on X, Y, and Z because of the Sunday night polling that has taken place. We elect our representatives with certain expectations. If they fail to meet those expectations, we don't re-elect them. Right? That's a lot different than doing whatever the majority of participants in a public opinion poll think should be done.

Would you prefer to have the government's policy set by public opinion? What I'm getting at is that a representative government is superior to a democracy because the policy is set by people that we elect to represent us. What kind of government would it be if every Monday it adopted a new position on X, Y, and Z because of the Sunday night polling that has taken place. We elect our representatives with certain expectations. If they fail to meet those expectations, we don't re-elect them. Right? That's a lot different than doing whatever the majority of participants in a public opinion poll think should be done.


I know what you're getting at, but I wasn't the one who was advocating PR, and I wasn't advocating the government setting policy by public opinion. The government should set its policy by what it put in its manifesto, which is the manifesto it was elected to fulfil.

Would you prefer to have the government's policy set by public opinion?

Personally I would prefer it if the Labour party actually stood in my country - not that I would vote for them anyhow, but let us not forget that even just membership of the party was barred to all people resident in Northern Ireland until just 2002. There is something farcical when for the sake of a few election deposits the major parties refuse to stand in most constituencies in the 6 Counties.

Actually having a chance to not vote for the Labour party would be nice...