Tony Blair

Tony Blair has resigned and I am a little confused by some of the reaction.

LONDON (Reuters) - Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as Britain's prime
minister on Wednesday after years of waiting and promised sweeping changes
in style and policy to restore trust in a government damaged by the Iraq
war.

I am defiantly not an expert on the UK politics but I have always thought that the Labour Party is in similar temperament as the US Democrat Party and the above tends to some what confirm this. That is why it was such a surprise to many, when Tony Blair supported the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It also makes sense that their grass roots would be come increasingly disenchanted with the Labour Party.

This is the part where I start getting confused:

Blair, whose 10-year rule began with high promises but ended with his
popularity badly dented by the 2003 Iraq war, stepped aside to give the
Labour Party a better chance of winning a fourth consecutive term in the
next election, due in 2010.

The Labour Party believes that the war is the the item that is losing them support so they want to back away from that and focus more on social issues.

Britons wanted change in the state-run health service and schools and more affordable housing, Brown said. They also wanted changes to build trust in government and to "protect and extend the British way of life."

This is the part where I start getting confused, because they are the party responsible for the current state-run health services and economic policies. To me, they are essentially saying they want to fix what they messed up with more of the same.

The Labour Party has been lagging in most recent polls to the resurgent
opposition Conservatives. But Brown received a boost on Wednesday from an
opinion poll that put Labour just one percentage point behind the
Conservatives.

So is this a case of the voters are getting tired of the Labour Party and want any change, no matter what the change may be. Only time will tell.