I admire Tony Blair

[London Irish]

without that centre-right opportunist in charge, the Labour Party would now be a sentimental and antiquated working class irrelevance

Well, that's certainly what Blair, Mandelson and the Project types want you to believe, so congratulations for swallowing their propaganda, quaint to hear that there still a few people around gullible enough to do so.

The reality is, if John Smith had lived, the Tories would also have been hammered too and he might have kept some kind of lid on the real New labour garbage such as the creeping privatisation of PFI and the other spiviness such as accepting bungs from Bernie Ecclestone and the host of other pandering to Daily Mail readers who will never vote Labour however much you grovel towards them.

Smith might have tried to play a similar go-between role between Bush and the Europeans as Blair has done, but he would never have hyped up the Iraqi threat in the shameless lying manner of Blair and would never have supported a war without a UN Security Council vote.

By the way, congrats to Jonogulls for his initial post, I sense a bit of devil's advocacy there, but it is important to remember that however bad New Labour is, the Tories would be ten times worse.

One acheivement of this government is that we genuinely now have a right to be represented by a trade union if you vote in your workplace for one - that's a great step forward for ordinary working people.

That has had a big impact in the industry I work in. For example, the Argus has moved from being only a handful of union members to being predominantly unionised, all because of Blair's trade union legislation. Although obviously it wasn't really his, it was just a policy he couldn't water down without a huge row within the Labour Party.

 

[Hunting 784561]

Well, that's certainly what Blair, Mandelson and the Project types want you to believe, so congratulations for swallowing their propaganda, quaint to hear that there still a few people around gullible enough to do so.

The reality is without Blair & Mandelson, you would have gone the same way as Scargill and the NUM. You'd still just about be there, but would be largely irrelevant.

I'm not convinced that Smith would have been nearly as succesful as Blair, because Smith didnt have the same middle-england appeal that Blair has.

You have to appeal way beyond your small core of hard-left extremists LI, to win-over the great british electorate.

Elections are always won from the centre, and you need middle-england onside to win and retain power in this country.

 

[Biscuit]

Tony Blair is a fantastic PM. He made a MASSIVE screw up over Iraq, but other than that this country is slowing getting over the damage the torys did to it.

Have one on me tony!

P.S I am worried about the lack of opposition! Someone needs to keep labour in check. They Tory's? No way, the Lib Dems, you are joking.

This country doesn't have a decent opposition which is very dangerous.

 

[itszamora]

Tony Blair is a fantastic PM. He made a MASSIVE screw up over Iraq, but other than that this country is slowing getting over the damage the torys did to it.

Have one on me tony!

Unfortunately that screw-up is killing thousands of Iraqis and other nationalities all the while we stay there. As PM he abused his power by lying about the reasons for war and going against what was clearly the will of the people - and after all he is elected as the people's representative so is basically just taking the piss out of democracy.

Also the foxhunting ban - I'm not pro or anti and personally I do not hunt, but some people do; so WHAT FING RIGHT does this government (or any) have to decide what people can and can't do in their spare time? it's also ridiculous that so much parliamentary time was spent on this pathetic piece of legislation when there are real matters out there (such as passing the Law Commission's Draft Criminal Code which would update the antiquated legislation upon which much of this country's law is still based on almost 150 years later) which are not even considered for debate.

I also do not contend that doubling student debt is a positive step for the country.

Having said all that, I do hate to think what the Tories would have done in the last seven years had they been in power.

 

[bigc]

yeah but the student debt thing...universities were screaming for the top up fees idea. they were really struggling for funding

 

[itszamora]

yeah but the student debt thing...universities were screaming for the top up fees idea. they were really struggling for funding

But is it right to expect students to foot the bill? Consider the fact that in the current system, it's likely that I will be about £10,000 in debt in three years' time when (all being well) I graduate. Under Tony's new proposals, doing a 3-year course would put me in roughly £19,000 of debt instead. This is going to put a lot of people off going to university, especially when the goverment says it wants 50% of school leavers to go to uni.

Remember also that society needs graduates - where would we be without doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientists, journalists etc? Also graduates also already pay for their education through taxation - on average they earn more (deservedly so for working on a degree) and so put more back into society through income tax. Therefore the new system effectively means graduates will be paying twice for their education (well, we already are but the new system means we will pay more).

Blair and co. all got free higher education but obviously the students of today are not considered worthy of that. And don't believe what you hear about unis being poor, Exeter here is MINTED. They are in the process of redeveloping accommodation at a cost of £20m, have just built a new campus in Cornwall in partnership with Plymouth at £50m and have invested about £2.5m in new sports facilities over the summer. 'Screaming for cash' my a*se

 

[Biscuit]

Right Sam, let me take this one at a time.

Unfortunately that screw-up is killing thousands of Iraqis and other nationalities all the while we stay there. As PM he abused his power by lying about the reasons for war and going against what was clearly the will of the people - and after all he is elected as the people's representative so is basically just taking the piss out of democracy.

He didn't lie. He was misinformed, which is a huge difference. Don't get me wrong, going to war was a bad thing which has cost his party dear, but removing Suddam from power isn't a bad thing. I honestly think, he made the decision he did for the good of the country.

Also the foxhunting ban - I'm not pro or anti and personally I do not hunt, but some people do; so WHAT FING RIGHT does this government (or any) have to decide what people can and can't do in their spare time? it's also ridiculous that so much parliamentary time was spent on this pathetic piece of legislation when there are real matters out there (such as passing the Law Commission's Draft Criminal Code which would update the antiquated legislation upon which much of this country's law is still based on almost 150 years later) which are not even considered for debate.

He is the Prime Minister as elected by Great Britain. That gives him the right. He has stood up and done something which ANY other government would have been to scared to do. Anyother political party would have left well alone, scared of loosing such a large percentage of support. Tony did what is right. He stopped a sick, perverted 'sport' and I use the word sport in the loosest sence. It isn't a sport, its just a sick hobby.

The reason the Law Comminssion's Draft Criminal Code hasn't been updated is because, frankly if it aint broke dont fix it. It is working! And quite frankly he has better things to do.

I also do not contend that doubling student debt is a positive step for the country.

If you want it. Pay for it.

If you want anything thats the way it is. Everyone is against raising taxes, but, if you don't where are you going to get the money from?

Tuition fees arn't great, but I don't think the government implimented them for a laugh? they are needed untill a better option comes avaliable. Uni's do need funding!

 

[Biscuit]

yeah but the student debt thing...universities were screaming for the top up fees idea. they were really struggling for funding

But is it right to expect students to foot the bill?

hmm..

So, it's the students that wants it... so its the students that pay for it! Why should everyone else have to pay for YOU to go to uni?

If you want it, pay for it.

 

[bigc]

yeah. its the more fair way of doing it.

i'm intending to go to uni..so i'll be in debt. but why should people who arent gonna ever go to uni subsidise me?

none of the opposition parties have a better policy. the tories have something to do with loans...but the figures mean you end up paying more.lib dems can promise what they like...they wont form a government in the next election

 

[itszamora]

He is the Prime Minister as elected by Great Britain. That gives him the right. He has stood up and done something which ANY other government would have been to scared to do. Anyother political party would have left well alone, scared of loosing such a large percentage of support. Tony did what is right. He stopped a sick, perverted 'sport' and I use the word sport in the loosest sence. It isn't a sport, its just a sick hobby.

It is your opinion that it is a sick perverted sport. I happen to agree with you there but that is not the point I am trying to make. Equally, the vast majority of people (again including myself) consider sadomasochism and the like sick and perverted. But does that mean people should be prevented from doing these things if that's what they want to do? When did a fox have the same rights as a person anyway? If people want to do this, let them do it as it's not harming anyone else.

Besides its incredibly obvious that a ban will not be respected in the countryside anyway and will be impossible to police. Would you rather have police running around trying to round up fox hunters or drug dealers, murderers and rapists?

Why should everyone else have to pay for YOU to go to uni?

Beacause everyone else benefits from me having a degree. I earn more money and therefore put more back into society through progressive taxation. On top of that the skills I have developed in the course of studying for my degree will be put to use to help society - in my case by hopefully telling them what is happening in the world, in my dad's by giving them medical treatment etc. Degrees do not only benefit the person who has them - we would be up a creek without a paddle without graduates so perhaps society should fund their learning as they are vital to everybody's general wellbeing!

 

[Biscuit]

It is your opinion that it is a sick perverted sport. I happen to agree with you there but that is not the point I am trying to make. Equally, the vast majority of people (again including myself) consider sadomasochism and the like sick and perverted. But does that mean people should be prevented from doing these things if that's what they want to do? When did a fox have the same rights as a person anyway? If people want to do this, let them do it as it's not harming anyone else.

Besides its incredibly obvious that a ban will not be respected in the countryside anyway and will be impossible to police. Would you rather have police running around trying to round up fox hunters or drug dealers, murderers and rapists?

Obviously I'd rather police caught murderers rapists and the such. But its the principle of tells people they can no longer go round tortuing animals in todays world.

Sadomasochism, now Im no expert, but surly this is between two/a group of people, and no third/other party is going to a) b killed or b) be scared for its life.

Animals have rights. They can't enforce them, dont mean we cant.

Originally posted by samparish
Beacause everyone else benefits from me having a degree. I earn more money and therefore put more back into society through progressive taxation. On top of that the skills I have developed in the course of studying for my degree will be put to use to help society - in my case by hopefully telling them what is happening in the world, in my dad's by giving them medical treatment etc. Degrees do not only benefit the person who has them - we would be up a creek without a paddle without graduates so perhaps society should fund their learning as they are vital to everybody's general wellbeing!

Sure, okay being a docter is useful to society... what what about f***ing media studies? Why should the public have to pay for you to get smart/earn lots? If you think you can help society in the long run thats absolutly fantastic. All i'm saying is, its you who'll reap financial rewards, sure you pay tax on what you earn.. but that dont mean that the general public will gets its money back.

If you want the chance to get a good job with a degree. You have to pay for it. No such thing as a free lunch.

 

[itszamora]

Obviously I'd rather police caught murderers rapists and the such. But its the principle of tells people they can no longer go round tortuing animals in todays world.

Animals have rights. They can't enforce them, dont mean we cant.

So you are basically saying here that animal rights are of greater importance to that of some people who want to do something they find enjoyable? Don't get me wrong i am not pro-hunt but I just feel time and money could have been spent so much better than a bill that will be impossible to enforce.

Also, say hunting does stop in an area. It's logical to conclude that the fox population will increase. Foxes are carnivores and in all likelihood will kill more of farmers' animals etc. = less income for farmers and a rise in food prices such as chicken etc. Now is it right to put the rights of the fox ahead of a) the animals the fox kills or b) the farmer who will lose out financially as a result of such a ban?

Sure, okay being a docter is useful to society... what what about f***ing media studies? Why should the public have to pay for you to get smart/earn lots? If you think you can help society in the long run thats absolutly fantastic. All i'm saying is, its you who'll reap financial rewards, sure you pay tax on what you earn.. but that dont mean that the general public will gets its money back.

If you want the chance to get a good job with a degree. You have to pay for it. No such thing as a free lunch.

You have a point regarding certain degree courses, I accept that. But I think the general public MORE than gets its money back (well of course it does at present as it doesn't even pay for higher education) due to the fact that we have free healthcare and free education to A level. Now these two things (and the media which influences everyone to a greater or lesser degree) affect every single person in this country and mean every person benefits from these people having degrees.

Literally every single one of the general public benefits from graduates so what is so wrong with contributing towards their education?

 

[Biscuit]

So you are basically saying here that animal rights are of greater importance to that of some people who want to do something they find enjoyable? Don't get me wrong i am not pro-hunt but I just feel time and money could have been spent so much better than a bill that will be impossible to enforce.

Also, say hunting does stop in an area. It's logical to conclude that the fox population will increase. Foxes are carnivores and in all likelihood will kill more of farmers' animals etc. = less income for farmers and a rise in food prices such as chicken etc. Now is it right to put the rights of the fox ahead of a) the animals the fox kills or b) the farmer who will lose out financially as a result of such a ban?

There are human ways of killing an animal. Chasing it with a pack of dogs and tearing it limb by limb probably isnt the best way of doing it. Actually its the worst. f***ing sick.

Originally posted by samparish
You have a point regarding certain degree courses, I accept that. But I think the general public MORE than gets its money back (well of course it does at present as it doesn't even pay for higher education) due to the fact that we have free healthcare and free education to A level. Now these two things (and the media which influences everyone to a greater or lesser degree) affect every single person in this country and mean every person benefits from these people having degrees.

Literally every single one of the general public benefits from graduates so what is so wrong with contributing towards their education?

I believe the general public already does contribute towards higher education. Tuition fee's means that the student it paying more than it use to, but by no way is the student paying the whole amount.

This is a really interesting argument which could go on for ages. But frankly were going round in circles. I understand your point of view, but don't share it. A good discussion none the less.

P.S I still admire Tony Blair!

 

[trueblue]

Like a few others above, I am all for doctors, nurses, teachers and others whose work contributes to society as a whole being at least part-funded by society as a whole. The boundaries would be difficult to draw, but I think the likes of scientists and engineers should come into that category too when their work has a practical benefit for everyone. That's why we should all pay, even if we don't go to uni ourselves.

Once you get to the likes of social science courses though, it is much harder to make a case. If it's really so important to have a degree to work, for instance, in journalism, maybe the industry itself should do more to stump up the costs. (I'm a journalist myself, before you start slating me).

 

[Seagull's Return]

Beacause everyone else benefits from me having a degree.

Thanks, I enjoyed that! Great line, with wonderful deadpan delivery - cheered up a very dull Sunday for me.

 

[London Irish]

The reality is without Blair & Mandelson, you would have gone the same way as Scargill and the NUM. You'd still just about be there, but would be largely irrelevant.

I'm not convinced that Smith would have been nearly as succesful as Blair, because Smith didnt have the same middle-england appeal that Blair has.

You have to appeal way beyond your small core of hard-left extremists LI, to win-over the great british electorate.

Elections are always won from the centre, and you need middle-england onside to win and retain power in this country.

I think John Smith knew that "Smart" Mart You have a goldfish-memory of what his politics really were.

But given what you said, it's amazing Ken Livingstone ever wins an election, isn't it? In fact, he never loses them, does he? - 25 years of smashing Tories despite being labelled a far left activist and expelled by Blair. What's your big theory for that "Smart" Mart?

 

[Biscuit]

Do YOU admire Tony Blair London Irish?

 

[Hunting 784561]

I think John Smith knew that "Smart" Mart You have a goldfish-memory of what his politics really were.

But given what you said, it's amazing Ken Livingstone ever wins an election, isn't it? In fact, he never loses them, does he? - 25 years of smashing Tories despite being labelled a far left activist and expelled by Blair. What's your big theory for that "Smart" Mart?

Winning local politics in London doesnt count nationally numb nuts. Keep up.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

LI - you really must learn to stop being so bloody condescending and bloody pompous to people who do not agree with you old boy. LI - patronising, Moi ?, never.

 

[perseus]

Credit for turning round Labour lies truly with Mandleson - he changed the image of the party and made them electable.

I think the credit for the lies should go to the liar, ie. both Mandleson and Blair are accomplished liars. I never believed them in the first place but there is no telling the credibility of the British press.

Who is going to be the next target for their lies, violence, smear campaigns?