Should Tony Blair step down

[The PIT]

Okay since hardly anyone in the UK believes the guy anymore should he step down as PM.

[ayoub_ibrahim]

do you believe politicians actually tell you the whole truth?

[The PIT]

Well theres only Brown sadly he doing a good job at the treasury.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by cking4

And I'm assuming that this doesn't mean you're going to punt for the Tories either... Maggie's
a bit too old to come back now anyway (and not in the best of health these days, either, from
what I've heard).

And we don't want Maggie back. We still haven't recovered from the mess she made.

[Admiral]

Yes, he should step down or get impeached if you have such a procedure and enough proof to initiate one.
Same thing goes for Bush.
If I expect this to happen, no. I do however expect the electorate to sanction them in the next elections.

They're both getting away with murder under cover of the terrorist phobia. Took them a while to find something to replace the iron curtain communist one with, but the new phobia has too much open hypocrisy and superficiality about it.

[Ozbreeze]

please excuse me for being a little behind on the news, things have been so hectic lately, but i was just wondering what he did that should require him to step down?

[The PIT]

Started to believe in his own spin. He lied and lied mislead Parliament but it looks like Hoon taking the can for that.
Basically he's lost the plot.

[paulcs]

Originally posted by cking4
Who would take his place, if he did? Have you got the equivalent of a "vice president" in your
elected leader structure...? Are you intent on keeping Labour in, but just seeing Tony off?

The UK has a parlimentary system. They do not require a vice president, as they do not have a president. I believe it works like this: Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, is head of government and the leader of his party. If the Prime Minister steps down, the ruling party or a coalition of ruling parties selects a new Prime Minister. I believe the queen rubber stamps the selection, as the PM is her first minister.

The United States does not have a head of government. George W. Bush is the United States' head of state. Queen Elizabeth, the living embodiment of the nation, is the United Kingdom's head of state. Of course, she has an heir who takes her place if she abdicates or dies or is abducted by aliens.

At least I think that's the way it works.

Paul

[paulcs]

Originally posted by Admiral
Yes, he should step down or get impeached if you have such a procedure and enough proof to initiate one.
Same thing goes for Bush.

It is not illegal to lie about policy in the US, unless the person lying is under oath. One is impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Lying about policy is not a crime.

Paul

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by paulcs
It is not illegal to lie about policy in the US, unless the person lying is under oath. One is impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Lying about policy is not a crime.

Paul

If lying about policy is not a crime, is lying about cigars placed in inappropriate orifices?

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by ayoub_ibrahim
do you believe politicians actually tell you the whole truth?

do you believe politicians actually tell you the truth at all? They tell you what they think you ought to hear.

Some quotations:

The greatest art of a politician is to render vice serviceable to the cause of virtue.
Comment (c. 1728), in Joseph Spence Observations, Anecdotes, and Characters (1820, ed. J. M. Osborn, 1966) Anecdote 8

a politician is an arse upon
which everyone has sat except a man.

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
If lying about policy is not a crime, is lying about cigars placed in inappropriate orifices?

Clinton was under oath

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

Making matters worse for Clinton, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee announced it would consider a resolution calling for a formal impeachment inquiry, the first step in the long process toward possible removal of Clinton from office. The super-charged partisan political atmosphere in Washington, combined with lingering anger over the President's deceit, and the allegations contained in the Starr report, all lent the necessary momentum. Thus the process moved forward and Clinton became only the third U.S. President to be seriously faced with the threat of impeachment. On October 8, the House of Representatives voted 258-176 to authorize an open-ended impeachment inquiry, with 31 Democrats joining the Republicans in voting for the investigation. The House Judiciary Committee, consisting of 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats, then began televised hearings.

Witnesses appearing before the committee included Ken Starr himself, who accused Clinton of repeatedly engaging in conduct under oath that was deliberately deceptive in order to hide his affair with Lewinsky. The Democrats, in defense of Clinton, produced an array of scholars asserting that the charges against Clinton did not rise to the level of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" mentioned, but not specifically defined, in the U.S. Constitution as grounds for impeachment, and therefore did not warrant removal of the President from office. The President's own lawyers described Clinton's conduct as "morally reprehensible" but not impeachable.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde also sent 81 written questions to the President asking Clinton to "admit or deny" various statements of fact contained in the Starr report. On November 27, the President responded in writing to the questions and forcefully denied having lied under oath. The President's responses to the 81 questions would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (81 Questions/Responses)

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee drafted a total of four articles of impeachment based on 60,000 pages of evidence provided by Ken Starr. The evidence included sworn testimony, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements, affidavits, along with video and audio tapes, all concerning Clinton's attempts to conceal his extramarital affair with Lewinsky during the Paula Jones lawsuit and subsequent criminal investigation by Starr's office.

On Friday, December 11, the Judiciary Committee voted mainly along party lines to approve the first three articles of impeachment, accusing Clinton of committing perjury before Starr's grand jury and in the Jones case, and with obstruction of justice in the Jones case. Only one Republican on the committee sided with Democrats by casting a no vote on Article 2 charging Clinton with perjury in the Jones case.

On Saturday, the fourth article was approved, accusing Clinton of making false statements in his answers to the 81 written questions. The four articles were then forwarded to the full House of Representatives for consideration. Republicans controlled the House with 228 members compared to 206 Democrats and one Independent who normally sided with the Democrats.

Impeaching Bush would be a lot harder to do since he could blame other people for the Lack of WMD etc in Iraq and what not. Also won't happen since the Congress and House of Representatives are controlled by his party.

[Brian Ellis]

Oh! so it's OK for politicians to lie like hell to the public in major televised speeches, including within the Houses of Parliament, Congress, etc. to justify their personal ends (including, in some cases, their finances), just so long as they are not under oath?

Actually, in the case of the US President, he is under oath: The Oath, as stated in Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The words "faithfully execute" imply that publicly lying on a matter of public interest could be considered as anti-constitutional.

The situation is less clear in the UK, in that MPs swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to the Queen. As the UK population are subjects and not citizens, the legal situation of an MP, including Cabinet Ministers, deliberately lying would be less clear-cut. However, it is traditional that when they are found out (surprisingly frequently) in some form of misdemeanour, they "resign" from high office, with a letter to the PM requesting him to relieve them of his office. All very gentlemanly! In the case of the PM, he seeks an audience with the Queen and requests she finds a new PM. If the case is serious, an ordinary MP will apply for stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, at the behest of the Chief Whip, as he cannot resign from the House of Commons. This post is a purely honorary one, with no work involved, under the Crown. As it is forbidden for an MP to hold office under the Crown, he is then formally relieved of his membership in Parliament and a by-election must be held. Quaint!!

[GT98]

As for lying...well like I said Bush cannot be held directly for his actions, since he was taking recommendations from his cabinet etc. I.E. Pass the buck if he needs too

If the President of the United States doesn't tell the public about a problem due to some sort of national security problem or what not (due to the greater of the good or whatnot) is that the same as lying? Its very difficult to nail down someone legally for lying unless they are directly told they are under oath at the time. Goes back to those little white lies thing

But anyway Politicians suck anyway....

[Gurm]

Sometimes, to quote Jack, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

- Gurm