±«Óãtv

No surprise that Blair and Brown are at war with each other over this but the picture you have painted here and in your News Broadcast Nick, is one of the Labour Party as a whole at War with it's self. Perhaps this is self evident but they are behaving disgracefully. Were this over ideological differences it would be completely understandable. That it is over personalities shows the labour party behaving like a bunch of school children and not a politcial party fit to govern.

One of the reasons people complain about your reporting, Nick, is that you seem to report political news in a sneering and cruel tone, and seem to take particular delight in the misfortune of Tony Blair.

But how much of all the claims and counterclaims are accurate, and how much is paranoia? To what extent are these two men actually orchestrating events, and how much is reaction or opportunism?

Machiaveli or Major?

Either way it reflects badly on them both. We now have Blair staying in power for the sake of both mens' future reputations and personal pride. This has long since stopped having anything to do with what's right for the Labour party or the UK as a whole.

"Politics at it's rawest" - whoever said democracy was all about 'the people'?

Is Gordon Brown the worlds biggest imbecile? His lust for power is so abhorent it's untrue. I don't particularly like Tony Blair, but he was voted into power by the British electorate, so he should be naming his own departure date in his own time. If Gordon Brown isn't happy with that then he should launch a leadership bid rather than sending his pawns out to create a coup. Truly disgusting behaviour, the country and the electorate comes first, not his own ambitions.

The Prime Minister's arrogance is amazing. He and his government have done little of real substance for this country and at an immense waste of money provided by the taxpayers.

He looks to be waiting for an international or US based lucrative work opportunity. What will be his next appointment - and importantly when does the postion become vacant?

Another soon to be ex politician heading for the gravy train no doubt.

I found your report very interesting at 6o'clock! I want to hear all the notes you've got in your notebook! I think it would be a very good and quite informative read! p.s loved the purple tie!

Nick

Because Tony Blair has tried to implement Tory policies he has squandered what could have been Labour's best chance to show the world that a country could be run in a better way than the Thatcherite 'survival of the craftiest' mentality.

He once said that making policy decisions was difficult. If he had been a true Socialist and followed socialist ideals he would have had no difficulty and the electorate could have been the final arbiter. As it is, those of us who are traditional Labour voters have no one to vote for, thanks to Tony Blair.

In his normal overdramatic way, today he said that it's the public who count, yet he ignored us when more than one million marched against his intention to attack Iraq.

His supporters call upon his critics to let him go with dignity, he has no dignity, he lost it when he turned a blind eye to the dignity of the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been slaughtered in Iraq.

Gordon Brown is not much better because even according to himself he has supported Blair throughout. If he’d had the guts to resign like Robin Cook, he would be PM by now.

Blair has surrounded himself by insufferable toadies and none of them are fit to hold office. The big question is not has Blair been finished off, but has Blair finally finished off the Labour Party?

The ridiculous thing about all this is that we all know that Blair is a goner. The ONLY reason he is now hanging on is so that(having given up on passing Thatcher record) he now wants to have it on record that at least he clocked up a whole ten years in the job.

So the governance of the country is thrown into turmoil just so Tony can have a ten year star against his name! If he had any concern at all for his party he would simply announce his resignation prior to the Party conference and let them get ahead with appointing a replacement..

If overcoming difficulties like this requires an extraordinary amount of political will then, with respect, politics is in a very bad way, as is the media for its similar inability to let go of salacious reporting. Bad action by politicians fuels a Pavlovian response from the media, and the wheel of misery takes another spin. Drug addicts and pushers are seen for what they are. Why, then, are politicians and media allowed to get away with bad habits?

You’re an intelligent, informed, and capable writer, Nick, but your presentation of affairs could take a different focus and reveal or, perhaps, encourage a different and better path. If nothing else, it would help wean you off the low hanging fruit and draw out something with more perception and foresight than the banal and populist material you keep pushing out. Also, it would put action to the words you uttered during your lecture on politics and the media.

If I was uncharitable, Parliament and the ±«Óãtv are just well known and funded rehab centres for people who are too mad, bad, or dangerous to get a real job. I know that’s a bit unkind but I can’t see much difference between the good and bad at the top or bottom of society. Who knows, maybe, public meetings, legalising drugs, and blogging are the future, and the jam will spread a wider in the future as the relevance of Parliament and mass media declines.

C’mon, people. At least try to create some added value.

Trouble is, our Tone knows only too well that, just as he was lampooned by many as the best Tory PM we ever had, Gordo' will certainly make a very much worse New Labour PM than Cameron ever would.

Gordon Brown should not be Prime Minister.
90% of all parliamentary business in Scotland is now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive,Brown like all Westminster scots is not a member.
If he has no mandate to govern in Scotland why should he be given it for England.
England needs an English Prime Minister.

Saying he will not be party leader is not the same as saying that he will not be Prime Minister. We are not closer to this and the business of government will now take seond place for another year with a protracted leadership contest, that will be worse than that of the Tories as it is for the Premiership of the country!

Having seen Blair speak today, I was very impressed with the way he actually appeared to be speaking what he believed and thought. He was frank and honest about the total chaos in British politics for the last week and I think his apology was sincere.
I am not usually in support of Blair but his statement was strong, off the cuff and very convincing.

The more I think about Brown taking over from Blair the more I worry - we may not now but in years to come we will miss Tony Blair and his charasmatic, dignified approach to politics.

Nothing much delivered today (Thursday) beyond a nice story for the primary school children and a miserable attempt to control inevitability. Tony Blair must surely realise his time is up. He has said he's going, now he just needs to go with some dignity. The obsession with 'legacy' is foolish. The more he tries to control collective memory, the more he will be viewed as high-handed and narcissistic.

I remember Blair doing a radio interview as Shadow ±«Óãtv Secretary. He came across as fresh, without pretension and thoughtful. He would do well want to recapture some of that early spirit of altruistic public service. Nothing will define him as much as the manner of his parting.

wake up and smell the coffee nick.99%
of the country could not care less about this story!
in the world outside westminister,gas has risen by 80% in 3 years,electricity by 60%,our kids cant afford a house,even if they get a job.
your editors lack of judgement on this issue is appalling.you spend 20 out of thirty minutes on this story,and travel 30 miles to basildon to speak to the people.how about speaking to the public in scotland or wales of god forbid northern ireland.this is nothing more than an "in crowd" frenzy.

Blood is in the water; he'll be gone by next Friday.

If TB had been honest from the start, perhaps it would never have come to this. But TB, as history shows, has been shown to be a liar and a hypocrite. However, it has taken a damaging split in the party for these last few days to have taken place. This split would probably not have taken place if there was honour with TBs word.

Who'd believe him now. (Power is a very difficult thing to let go)

The party will pull through, and will need time for the new leader whoever he is, to settle in. The PM now is significantly weakened, and there is no real way back. As heseltine said today, once your authority has gone, then it is time to go.

LEGACY? not with blue peter..on the contrary.. he has had no time left to recover and although ten years in office, how will he be remembered

He has had it all over the last ten years, and his legacy is cast in IRAQ, as EDEN was with SUEZ and NIXON with WATERGATE.

I really believe the habit of dissecting every word uttered by a politician has become a game for political commentators and journalists. Whether someone says "'I support totally" or "support every decision" is of little consequence except to those mischieve makers of the fourth estate. This whole issue has been a great con by the media. Here we have a medai created scenario with two policians, both with ambition, trying to reconcile a change in leadership - but the media sees everything differently. Oh for the pundits and journalists to get it so wrong - except they walk away from the matter and don't even say sorry for mess they create. Can we please allow politicians the space to do what they need to do - or are we to watch the media destroying democracy as they lust for power. I cannot vote for journalists, but think we should be able to do so and remove some of them. Now that would be democratic.

The ±«Óãtv ±«Óãtv Page reports that Gordon Brown gives TB his backing. Can I just remind everybody what he said - 'that this cannot and should not be about private arrangements but what is in the best interests of our party, and most of all the best interests of our country - and I will support him in doing exactly that'. Let me translate. 'This isn't about you Tony, and hanging on for the UN job, it's about me. Unfortunately, until Joe Public fully appreciates what you up to, I've got to pretend to back you. But I'm watching, and waiting, and as soon as there is an opportunity I'll sink you quicker than you can say Cliff Richard's time share'.

If I was Brown, I'd want to emphasise the new generation when he takes power. A full reshuffle, and a change of direction.

The only problem is that Blair may find a new career elsewhere, but many of his friends within the Labour Party won't. Brown does not seem to be a man of compromise to me.

The irony is that if the Conservatives are strong, Labour will probably hold together to try to win the election. If the Conservatives are weak, like the Conservatives got used to Labour being, then Labour may destroy themselves.

Nick, give it a rest. The ±«Óãtv has had a field-day (week) on this story and has poured petrol on the fire. Just let them get on with running the country. Start writing about real politics - issues which affect the way we live - policies that will affect the choices we have.
I hope you put this up to show this viewpoint.

Nick

When Blair goes, however soon it may be, do you believe that Gordon Brown will hold an election to get a fresh mandate?

Government will now be paralysed for up to 12 months because Tony Blair will not name the day. Any policy Blair decides upon, can now be blocked by the Brown camp. Ambitious MP's now know that any loyalty they show to Blair cannot be rewarded; Brown on the other hand has a very good chance of becoming PM, and therefore the potential to bestow huge political rewards on his supporters.
Weak or stifled leadership can only harm the government, this in turn will harm the country.
Blair and Brown may be staring into a precipice, but it is Britain that will suffer until the farce is concluded.

Gordon Brown will never be Prime Minister: he is unelectable by the majority of voters in the UK. If the Labour Party hands over to him, they will guarantee a loss at the next General Election.

Nick -

More than once today you've identified TB's wife as a key opponent of the "stable and orderly" transfer of the office of PM to GB. This afternoon we had TB appealing (sort of) to his party not to treat the public as if they were mere spectators in the matter of the identity of the PM. Does longing to know just what the relevance of Mrs B's view or the matter might be make me a voyeur?

This issue has been grumbling along, but took its first really nasty turn over the last few days. So much so, neither TB or GB seemed to expect it. Perhaps it's sobered them up, and made them remember the project that got them started together. Maybe...just maybe...they'll work together again to make it happen. It's always been their loyalists fighting rather than them, and this could be the catalyst for a real change.

The question is, has it gone too far for that?

Nick

What a shambles! The prospect of Gordon Brown taking the helm is no comfort whatsoever. What leadership qualities has he displayed in recent weeks - non whatsoever.

I do not support the Labour Party but with no end in sight to the Blair / Brown squabbling surely there must be a white knight somewhere in the Ministerial ranks who can bring back some semblance of pride and purpose to the Party.

There are several things I believe Blair should do: He should regard those members of his party who are followers of Brown's agenda as traitors & have them tried for treason. Brown is denying funds to the military & brave UK servicemen have to fight using out-dated weapons. Brown, the great pacifist wishes Blair to be seen as an agressor. Brown is sacrificing the military to fulfill his ambitions.

Fascinating and entertaining it certainly all is, but how deeply disagreeable at the same time that our country's leaders are behaving in this way!
As was commented on Newsnight yesterday, the PM is now "toast" - and those of us who regard him as the chief architect of a disastrous Middle East policy and responsible for taking the nation to war unnecessarily (think of all those bereaved families and damaged young men) can't wait for his departure. It should be in disgrace, not in the laughable triumphalist final tour No 10 contemplates. (A perfect example of shallow New Labour thinking, that was.)
But the thought of Brown as successor is no comfort. He is equally guilty - he might have prevented the idiocy of the war if he had been brave enough to put his foot down and failing that his conscience should have led him to resign like Cooke. And Brown is just as duplicitous as Blair: look at his monstrous behaviour over inheritance tax this Spring - Brown has shown himself to be fundamentally lacking in straightforwardness in fiscal matters time and again. Why ever should we trust him with even greater responsibilities?

But what will Brown bring to the table?

For the average bloke on the street I doubt it will make any difference at all.

It's all rather tiresome to follow. The reality is that labour has lost the path they fought so hard for - the champion of the average woring man.

If the amount of energy consumed by this facade were rather put toward the issues facing our country today, we could shine!

I can't understand the obsession with this topic. Its been analysed ad nauseum and their is NOTHING new to say. You (and other media pundits) must have better, more important things to with your time than continually harp on this story. BTW Is this what my TV license fee is paying for ? I am sure there are more socially useful jobs you and your fellow colleagues could do.

Nick,

We've known for years that the relationship between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister has been acrimonious.

My question now is that, given that the PM had clearly signalled his departure some time ago (the timing of which therefore becomes somewhat irrelevant), wouldn't it be true to say that the person who could really suffer in this is Mr Brown?

After all, if (and as time goes on, I think it might become a much bigger 'if') Mr Brown does seem at best duplicitous in Mr Blair being pushed, wouldn't any subsequent call for party loyalty to the PM have a very hollow and exposed ring??

Might it now not be the case that what we are actually witnessing is not the end of TB, but also the end of GB as well?

If that were the case, who would be your 'dark horse' to watch over the coming days/weeks/months?

What would also be the fallout if Mr Blair in a fit of temper/bravery/wisdom/folly decided to remove Mr Brown from the Chancellorship (which, I would assume a PM can do, for no matter how long or short a period of time)?

I'm left today feeling a little sorry for the PM (I'm amazed to say). I'm also left looking at Mr Brown with at best concern and at worst total distrust.

What this is actually showing, is that Labour is on the way out. How do you expect a Government to 'Govern' over us if it can not 'Govern' itself?

What this country needs is unity, whether it be political unity or social unity. Having a Government which is split between the Prime Minister and the rest of the party is not the way to go about it. Although Tony Blair, in his own way, is a very succesfull Prime Minister, his days are severely numbered. But that doesn’t mean Brown should take up the burden. Neither of them are really suited to govern this country in a forward direction, although no other parties quite get there either.

A brand new approach is needed if Labour wishes to survive. It's time to bring in someone fresh, someone who knows where we're headed and most importantly, how we as a country are going to get there.

You did frown a lot when you did the piece outside Number Ten. I didn't like that. Frown a bit less. You'll get less headaches.

It is incredible to see the Labour party sabotage themselves in such a way, and even more so to see Gordon Brown, and his supporters, blinded by ambition and greed, to the detriment of the whole nation. The Tories are only now starting to recover from the coup inflicted to Margaret Thatcher, and their silence over this, at least in public, is no small indication of how much they could greatly benefit from this shamble, especially if they keep quiet.

The Labour party is currently in great danger of discrediting itself (perhaps it is already too late) and whatever people's convictions, it is rather distressing to see one of the world's leading governments, which is all too keen on telling others how to behave, caught up in such a pathetic power struggle.

Though I disgust Tony Blair's foreign policies regarding the Middle East and the way he has become a Bush's poodle, I still cannot find any other face in the Labour Party who would match him in terms of leading internal and other foreign affairs. This is also the case for Gordon Brown. I have never found Gordon sufficiently convincing and persuasive in his leadership, and even worse in statesmanship.

Any hope that a new talent would be able to emerge within a year till Tony fomally resign? That is too doubtful.

So, the ultimate scenario will likely be the takeover of power by the Conservatives. That would entail many uncertainties for the Britain in the years to come.

Though I disgust Tony Blair's foreign policies regarding the Middle East and the way he has become a Bush's poodle, I still cannot find any other face in the Labour Party who would match him in terms of leading internal and other foreign affairs. This is also the case for Gordon Brown. I have never found Gordon sufficiently convincing and persuasive in his leadership, and even worse in statesmanship.

Any hope that a new talent would be able to emerge within a year till Tony fomally resign? That is too doubtful.

So, the ultimate scenario will likely be the takeover of power by the Conservatives. That would entail many uncertainties for the Britain in the years to come.

The Parliament in England should not be governed by either of the Two non resident North Britons !

Tony Blair has made it clear he will step down in the next twelve months and the only way Brown can display any degree of statesmanship is to shut up and let him get on with it.

Perhaps Tony Blair is using his own exit to give the British public a leaving gift, by undermining Brown's distasteful grab for power he could be doing the nation a very great favour indeed.

Let's all hope Mr Blair succeeds.

TB should take leave of office - this county needs more than anything, at this time, in fact since the start of the new millennium, a leader with vision. I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the ideal man but he has been holding on to his vision for over ten years and i hope he gets the opportunity...while Tony seems interested in only one thing and that is make up the ten years as PM. Where is the future of Britain heading if that is the extent of TB’s ambitions? Great if Gordon has tried to oust TB by use of underhand tactics – I do believe the governing of our country is at stake. Good drama is better than ineffective, uncreative management.

George Bush's spokesman Tony Snow is reported as saying that George and Tony have much more work to work to do - Blair should definitely go now, enough damage has already been done.

I think tony blair should stay on foreverrrrrrrrr. He is the most intelligent PM this country has ever had.

Of course the above is a bit tongue in cheek! but seriously cant we have more on policies especially the one on intervention with families. Considering what is happening in todays society that is the most fundamentally important step of all and G Brown will continue Blairs policies. Because they cut from the same cloth - sensible labour people.

Hi Nick
I think it is slightly ironic that Blair should want to call for an immediate ceasefire in his party, but in the Lebanon conflict he wanted a sustainable one. Surely he should be consistent in his wishes. Although I can see how in this case he might just see a conflict of interest.
Nevertheless, it seems to have united Labour MPs in saying how great the economy is going, despite the fact that the Growth cycle has been fiddled, the CPI has little relevance to real inflation, debt is through the roof, house price inflation means the young have virtually no hope of getting a house, those with houses are so sensitive to interest rate rises that a 1% rise in interest rates would put repossesions into orbit, there is a widening gap between rich and poor and there is a million migrants to keep wages low. Still I am sure someone like Stephen Pound will turn up on television and tell me to "Move Forward" or "Draw a line" etc etc

If Tony Blair wishes to do one last service for his country then in his resignation speach he should call a general election.

Let the public decide if we want to continue with this government. I suspect that they will decide no. The ironic thing is that many of the MPs calling for Blair to lose his job will be the ones who lose theirs.

TB has been the best leader of this country for generations. The silent majority recognise this and will return Labour to the wilderness years at the next election, as sure as there is a sun in the sky.

Nick, why aren't you and the ±«Óãtv increasing the pressure on Brown to come out and state his credentials as a future Prime Minister? This man is primed to take over the Premiership of this country, and yet until yesterday we hadn't heard from him since June! What is his vision and what are his beliefs? I want to hear it from Brown himself, and if he refuses to comment, make issue of it! Let the public know that brown is refusing interviews or consultations, and force him to stop being so spineless. This man has got away with too much for too long. Its almost as if he's getting a free ride on the back of the ±«Óãtv. Come on Nick, you have a responsibility to get us some answers!

Nick. A lot of people with axes to grind have come together to oust Tony Blair, helped along by the hyped up media frenzy to keep the story rolling. You, yourself, state "If you think it's all over, thing again". Like a bad marriage, Gordon and Tony have worked out a way to keep their differences away from the spotlight. The media, however, are determined to bring the differences to the forefront. Why? Like the worst tabloids, the political editors are guilty of exploiting any situation to get a "good" story" and to keep it going as long as possible. The confusion and panic you are creating is harming the country more than the in-fighting. Whoever wins or loses the next election is irrelevant to all of you commentators, you will simply turn on the next lot.

Nick,
What has been shown recently, more than the Prime Minister, is the Labour parliamentary party clinging to power for their own sakes. Career politicians will find it hard to match their income and social status in the job market.
Democracy has been blown out of the window because of mismanagement of overlarge ministerial departments which has meant that there is no control or evidence of best practice. We are dictated to from top to bottom by people who have little understanding of what needs to be done. Foot and mouth would not have been the disaster it was if commonsense and experience had been listened to. There was a report buried in the Defra vaults following the previous outbreak which if someone had actually found it and read it, the panic that lead to such calamitous decisions being made could have been avoided.
And that is but one calamity that has occurred under the stewardship of this government.

Amongst all this talk of Blair and Brown there is a worrying undercurrent among the comments posted that a Scot should not govern Britain. So given that Scots make up a large proportion of the amred forces, and always have, does that mean the comentators are saying it is ok for Scots to serve and die for Queen and country but not to take part in the running of the country?

These are intersting times, and if previous posters feel the majority of the public does not care who is their PM, then that is a sad reflection on the public. Besides this is a politics blog!

Some brief points if I may:

1) There are implications for Iraq as although Brown did support Blair, he is not as politically and emotionally tied and so could withdraw troops or even redraw our plans there.

2) I find the reaction to having a Scot as PM quite amusing. Bordering on xenophobia. Although there is the Scottish Paliament, if any serious person thinks this holds any power - or is allowed to - should take a closer look. Indeed there is nothing stopping an Englishman being the First Minister of Scotland, so I do not see whythere should be exceptions for the PM. (We already have anti-Catholicism, which as the UK's largest Christian denomination, is curious.) There are Scottish seats in the Parliament (as well as Welsh and Northern Irish) and there cannot be bars to who is the PM, which has greater responsibilities than simply English affairs. Besides, with the high numbers of Scottish MPs representing the UK, there is a greater likelihood of a Scottish MP (esp from Labour). We cannot help it if we are one of the most successful races in the world! ;o)

3) Traditionally, the man who pulls the knife, does not become PM. Heseltine being a prime example.

4) It'll be interesting to watch Alan Johnston over the coming months. Watch his profile slowly rise. Some newspaper articles from October and some higher profile speeches should set the ball rolling.

5) Humphrey Appleby described Brown's statement succinctly: you need to be fully behind someone in order to stab them in the back!

I'm no great fan of Brown's but the irony is that it was mainly his relatively successful stewardship of the economy that got Blair and Labour their third term. It was just enough to successfully counteract the impact of Blair's total failure on Iraq. Tony's credibility was shot to pieces by 2005 and Brown saved him. 2005, unlike 1997 and 2001, was not his victory. If he was still in the real world, as opposed to surrounded by placemen and sycophants in the No. 10 bunker, he'd have understood this and would be exiting more gracefully.

I want to challenge the now too often repeated assertion that everyone seems to be accepting as absolute truth: that the voting public rejects parties who acrimoniously ditch their leader and/or are at war with themselves.

The opposite can actually be asserted. When the Tories acrimoniously ditched Thatcher they remained in power for a further six and a half years. Had they kept Thatcher they would have lost the 1992 election, without doubt. It had to be done.

Instead the voters got a change (John Major - very unlikely and utterly unpredicted winner of an election following the 'dethroning' of unpopular leader) and remained in power for a (genuinely!) full further term. Yes, they then imploded, but the point is the party stayed in office for ages (relatively speaking).

If the same thing applied to the current situation, if Labour were to get another 6 and a half years after this bloodletting, they'd have won office for 17 years - a pretty good record (certainly for Labour)! That would be an achievement. You cannot buck the inevitable electoral cycles.

The real absolute, that even causes electoral cycles in the first place, is that electorates are motivated by 'it's time to change' perceptions; but importantly they see a change of prime minister as being like a change of government. The electorate perceived the handover from Thatcher to Major as an actual change of government. Thus they were not prompted into a knee-jerk 'time to change' response in 1992.

This is what is meant by 'renewing the leadership' - it's essential and, yes, involves acrimony: that's politics - 'twas ever thus. The electorate knows what politicians are like: they don't expect loyalty and brotherhood and peace. As long as the opposite of this isn't a constant condition, the electorate copes. Short-term conflict is inevitable and organic and cleansing in politics. It makes it more interesting and even fun. The pound isn't collapasing and there isn't chaos in the streets of the U.K.

It could be said, then, that this is why the transition to Brown needs to be perceived as a change of government for Labour to stay in power. 'More of the same' leads to the old knee-jerk 'time for a change' response in the electorate. Gordon has to be genuinely different, I would say.

The party should get on with the renewal as soon as possible: it's not a moment of madness - only control freaks would say that. It's normal. I'm quite enjoying watching it all happen. The people who are suggesting that 'the electorate will take their revenge' are simply those who want real politicians to avoid reality.

Dour Gordon Browne ,smiling for the cameras for his latest speech & still pushing his Britishness !
He's a true Scotsman, & wannabee PM!, aligned with( mainly) a Scottish team of sycophantic like minded neo apparatchik's, these people should never not be the guardians of the UK...firstly we must demand they sort out "The West Lothian Question" foremost as a test of BRITISHNESS!
It would be a welcome change for the Electorate to have a government speaking ENGLISH , England style... & a Prime Minister of substance & guts...AKA ,Charles Clarke .....now, if i was a Labour Voter!

There are THREE Scots holding the most important cabinet posts in the government; Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid.

Now there is a strange situation...a Scot representing a Scottish constituancy where the law is different and the policing different to the rest of the UK telling the English and Welsh legal profession and the police department what they should and should not be doing.
Sooner or later the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going yo wake up and demand a solution to the West Lothian Question and also demand a ±«Óãtv Secretary who is a true representative of the bulk of the UK

Tony Blair recognises that it would be wrong of the Government to treat the public as bystanders in discussing something as important as who is going to lead the country. If he attaches such value to the opinion of the British people, why does he refuse to hear the voice of the overwhelming majority that are in favour of an end to the adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Bush-inspired fiascos?