Blair.....

Here's a question for all you Brits...why is Blair still hanging on by a thread? Why doesn't the sane part of Labour get together with the Lib Dems and start a new government?

Do we have to wait until 2005?

If about 80 Labour MPs made it clear they'd vote against Blair, there could be a vote of no confidence against Blair, which would force an election (by voting with thte Lib Dems AND the Tories).

But they'd be risking their own seats; and would piss off many of the Labour party members in their constituency, who they need (a) to work on the reelection campaign, and (b) to allow them to stand as the Labour candidate (candidates for a party are selected by the party members for that constituency; I don't know what would happen if there was an unexpected election - the local party members might be able to get rid of an MP if they wanted to).

So you need 80 MPs (about 1/5th of them) who disagree with Blair, and who think the majority of their local party members disagree with Blair, and who think they'd still get elected, if they deposed their own leader (and some people would never vote for someone who did that). It's easier for them to wait and see what happens.

A no confidence vote would be a gift for the tories. It would save them from their own self-destructive tendencies.

And I think that's why it's unlikely that you'll see a no confidence vote.

My prediction (or my hope): Kerry wins. Blair and Kerry work together to turn the ME into a group of nations which could become EU members (ie, democracies, wealthy middle classes, etc) if they wanted to. Tory party disappears. Lib Dem and Labour become the oppositional parties in UK gov't. The Green party evolves as a legitimate third party in British politics.

Bush must be blackmailing him somehow. For Blair to support Bush and the war to
the extent that he has is political suicide, and surely he must know that.

Bush controls the oil industry, and oil is the fuel for economic development, and the European economy will go down the tank and fascists will get elected all over Europe if the US gets totatl control of Iraq.

So, yeah, the US and their fascist corporate cronies everywere are blackmailing the whole world. It isn't just Blair.

England is probably in better shape oilwise than mainland Europe,
yet it is Blair who is carrying excrement for Bush every day, even as
this threatens to bring him and his party down.
France and Germany would seem even more beholden to us for oil, but
they have not caved in.

There are things more imporatnt to Europe than making a stand against Bush, and that's making sure corporations loyal to Bush don't control their economic development.

Or is the difference between traditional Labour and contemporary Lib Dem still too large for that to be conceivable?

I would be interested in learning from people in the know whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour that IYO have better ideas about domestic policy.

'traditional' Labour has a lot of loyalty to its roots. The Lib Dems were formed from the Liberals (very old party - used to be the Whigs in the 18th and 19th century, and one of the 2 'parties of government' until the 1920s), and the Social Democratic Party - which was formed by some centralist Labour members in the early 80s. So some of the left of Labour may still consider the Lib Dems as deserters.

Personally I prefer the Lib Dems to traditional Labour - but if I was in a constituency where it was a choice between Labour and the Tories, I'd be quite happy voting for an 'old' Labour candidate. Comparing Lib Dem to 'official' Labour domestic policy, the Lib Dems want to introduce a top rate of income tax of 50% for earnings above £100,000, and spend it on health; they want a local income tax to replace the banded property tax used now; and tend more towards social freedom, and better environmental policies.

...that Labour has mostly jettisoned it's socialist heritage under the leadership of Tony Blair. If I were a member of Labour I would long for the likes of a Tony Benn to replace the current leadership.