I admire Tony Blair

[perseus]

Who are they going to pick on next?

First it is fox hunting, next angling? keeping pet fish? giant blue insects? little furry rodents in cages? horses jumping over giant hedges?

 

[jonogulls]

All this rubbish about the rights of the people. You can take it to the other extreme as well.

If the government didn't interfere in our lives what about the rights of paedophiles to rape children? What about the rights of murderers to shoot someone in the head? What about the rights of drug dealers to sell drugs? What about the rights of people who like to neglect animals and leave them for dead? What about the rights of the person who broke my car window last night?

See?

 

[London Irish]

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

Is that the best you can do with Livingstone? Elections involving 8 million people don't count for anything?

If Livingstone's victory didn't count for anything, why did Blair rather humiliatingly have to let him back into the Labour Party, then? I apologise in advance if these questions are a bit too complicated for you, ironically-named Mart.

 

[London Irish]

Do YOU admire Tony Blair London Irish?

No, he's a stunningly overrated politician the Labour Party never needed as we would have won easily without him.

He did lie over Iraq, in that he deliberately hyped up the intelligence information with the intent of persuading Parliament and the British people that the threat was far greater than it was. He didn't deceive himself, he's too bright a guy for this to be anything else than conscious. This to me is lying, although we could have a semantic debate about whether it was "misleading", or "being economical or selective with the facts" or whatever other euphamism you care to select. He didn't have the guts to put his true position, that the US policy was regime change and his view is that the British have to stick with the US to ameliorate the worst of US foreign policy. That would have been an honest viewpoint to put - he chose to lie.

Teflon Tone is still there because the British people still remember how horrific the Tories are and are still convinced that the Lib Dems are unprincipled all-things-to-all-men non-entities.

The Labour Party itself hasn't moved to get rid of Blair because that would risk internal party civil war and electoral defeat, and anyway he's probably going anyway in a 2-3 years time of his own accord so it's not worth the short-term pain.

 

[Half Time Pies]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Im afraid though that this is another example of the Labour Goverments approach to politics - lets get as many youngsters in to Higher Education so as on the surface it looks good and we can fudge the unemployment figures!

The reality is that many of the people who are getting places now at University do not deserve of have the ability to be there. These kids are being told that if they go to University with there E in general studies they will end up with a better job, this is simply not the case - all they end up with is a massive dept.

The top achievers will more than pay back there depts to society through the increased taxes they will pay and the jobs they will provide as the employers of the future, why should they have to pay to obtain a degree especially as its value has now been watered down?!

 

[Half Time Pies]

I can never admire anybody who I can't trust, so after the Iraq War how anyone can admire Tony Blair is beyond me?!

 

[Hunting 784561]

Is that the best you can do with Livingstone? Elections involving 8 million people don't count for anything?

If Livingstone's victory didn't count for anything, why did Blair rather humiliatingly have to let him back into the Labour Party, then? I apologise in advance if these questions are a bit too complicated for you, ironically-named Mart.

You really are an annoying arrogant little wanker.

Let me explain very slowly ...

Greater London : 8 million

United Kingdom : 56 million

What happens in London doesnt reflect the views of the country as a whole.

Geddit ?

 

[Yorkie]

Did anyone really trust Blair before the Iraq war?

The press quite happily talk about 'spin' when it is just another name for propaganda?

 

[Sorrel]

He didn't have the guts to put his true position, that the US policy was regime change and his view is that the British have to stick with the US to ameliorate the worst of US foreign policy. That would have been an honest viewpoint to put - he chose to lie.

I agree exactly with the above assessment, which makes me believe he wanted to act in what he thought would be the best interests of the country. It would have been impossible for him to talk about the USA in those terms without breaking all the benefits his position brought.

In addition, his speeches prior to 2003 did feature a clear desire to change the situation in Iraq. If he hadn't made those thoughts clear I wouldn't be in any way impressed with his apparent sudden change to the American view on Iraq in 2003. But I don't think it was a sudden change of position: I think he did consider the action worth it to change Iraq before the USA decided to go off on one. I think he thought the prospect of a democratic Iraq worth the cost of the war, ignoring any potential WMD.

I think he was right, and that (especially) what the British have done in southern Iraq has improved the lives of many people. To me, he put the principle of doing something he thought would benefit the world above the (often) petty criticism of those who want the world to be run by a UN comittee. It's easy to list numbers of those who have died, and therefore say he was wrong, but I inaction would have let the status quo continue for another ten years - which IMO would have been worse.

 

[3gulls]

Yes, I know it's a shocking conclusion but I really believe it. I think Blair (and Labour in general) has done a fantastic job in these 2 terms. After years of a Tory regime that would struggle to organise a prayer meeting in the Vatical Blair has come in and done a great job.

Domestic Issues - minimum wage, Northern Ireland peace treaty, huge investment in the NHS, massively reduced class sizes, the most buoyant economy in the world. Improvements in public transport, massive reduction in unemployment, I could go on.

Foreign Policy - OK, the war on Iraq is an ahem..slight blemish on the record book (I was against the war because of the lies about WMD but if Blair had said that we were simply going in to get rid of the despot that was Saddam I would have supported it). But all this rubbish about him being Bush's poodle is wrong because Blair really does believe that he was right in going to war. Whatever our own views on the matter, Blair has chosen a path that he belives is fundamentally right and who am I to argue against the millions of Iraqis set free? It's a pity the Americans are trying their best to f*** it up by applying a hard line approach towards anyone who looks at them in a funny way.

We may have lost trust in Blair but without doubt this country is 10 times better than when Labour came into power. The Tories are a bunch of ageing right wing loonies who have to move ever more to the right because of Labour's success. It does make me laugh to hear Howard talk about reducing immigration when it was our fair and just immigration policy that saved his life. All of the Tory policies are crap. Trust me if they got their way we would see a massively ageing population (you may not like to admit it but it is immigration that is stopping a falling natural increase - difference between birth and death rates). There would be privatised healthcare, education etc meaning that the poorest in society wouldn't have a chance. You would have idiots like Michael Howard and Nicholas Soames in power as well as twats like Liam Fox and David Davis.

I'll be voting for the first time in the next election and I'll be striking a big cross in the Labour box. I may even decide to become a member of the Labour Party.........

 

[bigc]

what a pathetic response to the thread.

your arguments must be illformed and illogical if you resort to a little smiley

other people, whether I agree with their opinions or not, have put their points across in a good and cohesive manner...

unlike yourself

 

[Brixtaan]

The country still feels fresh,vibrant,wealthy,charitable,powerful and above all attractive to foreigners in my opinion.Tony and Labour are responsible for that.
He got rid of a bad man and will hopefully reap the benefits of buying Iraq's oil off them,whilst servicing their industry(instead of the French).
You cannot blame Tony for the mess in Iraq.how would he have known the terrorists would take cause such havoc?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Quite - how was he to know a plan might have been useful for after winning the war.

 

[3gulls]

what a pathetic response to the thread.

your arguments must be illformed and illogical if you resort to a little smiley

other people, whether I agree with their opinions or not, have put their points across in a good and cohesive manner...

unlike yourself

The smiley says it all. Anyone who admires Blair wants shooting! I'd rather have my hand cut off than put an x next to a Labour candidate's name. Fight prejudice - fight the ban!

 

[Terrace Dandy]

The country still feels charitable,and above all attractive to foreigners in my opinion.Tony and Labour are responsible for that

Asylum seekers are the most foreigners who come here, and yes, you are right, labour are f***ing responsible for that.

BLAIR OUT!!

 

[Meade's Ball]

Asylum seekers are the most foreigners who come here, and yes, you are right, labour are f***ing responsible for that.

BLAIR OUT!!

You arsehole.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I hate Blair too.
Gordon Brown is the one making the economic decisions which tend to be of a mildly socialist nature. Blair has given us nothing other than well chewed soundbytes.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Asylum seekers are the most foreigners who come here

What the f*** are you on about you buffoon?

 

[m20gull]

Is that the best you can do with Livingstone? Elections involving 8 million people don't count for anything?

If Livingstone's victory didn't count for anything, why did Blair rather humiliatingly have to let him back into the Labour Party, then? I apologise in advance if these questions are a bit too complicated for you, ironically-named Mart.

Of course they count for nothing, as they only affect peripheral parts of life. Local elections are about local issues, Ken would always win in London because in the short term he makes the majority of people's lives better in his little fiefdom. People are prepared to be more radical in local, European or by-elections because they don't seem so important.

Blair humiliatingly let him back in because it was more humiliating to have him outside beating the official candidate. It's called pragmatism and is one of Tony's strongest attributes.

 

[m20gull]

No, he's a stunningly overrated politician the Labour Party never needed as we would have won easily without him.

He did lie over Iraq, in that he deliberately hyped up the intelligence information with the intent of persuading Parliament and the British people that the threat was far greater than it was. He didn't deceive himself, he's too bright a guy for this to be anything else than conscious. This to me is lying, although we could have a semantic debate about whether it was "misleading", or "being economical or selective with the facts" or whatever other euphamism you care to select. He didn't have the guts to put his true position, that the US policy was regime change and his view is that the British have to stick with the US to ameliorate the worst of US foreign policy. That would have been an honest viewpoint to put - he chose to lie.

Teflon Tone is still there because the British people still remember how horrific the Tories are and are still convinced that the Lib Dems are unprincipled all-things-to-all-men non-entities.

The Labour Party itself hasn't moved to get rid of Blair because that would risk internal party civil war and electoral defeat, and anyway he's probably going anyway in a 2-3 years time of his own accord so it's not worth the short-term pain.

Not sure they would have won easily as I'm not at all convinced by the canonisation of John Smith; they would probably have won because Major was a liability. Tories are currently unelectable with their populist approach, muddle-headedness and elderly image. Rest of your comments I second, but on Iraq that was nothing new - Blair's always been like it.