I admire Tony Blair

[Half Time Pies]

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?

Oh come on...Blair knew exactly what would happen in Iraq. The reason a man like Sadam came to power and ruled in the way he did was because the country is inherently unstable. Would Iraq be any better now that Sadam has gone if our troops wre to withdraw now? No, it would probally descend into Civil War and out of the other side would come another dictator equally as bad.

The fact is the war was never about producing democracy in Iraq or WMD or Human Rights Issues or Terrorism, if it was then why have the UK and America promoted Pakistan (a Military dictatatorship with a terrible Human Rights record that has harboured Bin Laden himself AND actually has WMD) to a close freind and allie?

Bush and Blair would happily have someone in power in Iraq equally as bad as Sadam if they were sure they could keep the country together and were sympathetic to what the US and the UK are trying to achieve. Its called Power Politics.

As for the economy the Labour government inherited a economy that was already in a strong position, and on the up. In addition much of the strength of the pound is due to the fact that we are not in the Euro (which as a fledgling currency is struggling somewhat), this is something else that is most definately not down to Blair and Brown.

Lets not forget also that much of our improved standard of living is due to borrowed money, the labour government has managed to encourage borrowing to an unprecedented level, something that many of us may seriously pay for as Interest rates continue to rise.

 

[Chicken Run]

David Davis will be the next Conservative Prime Minister

 

[Chicken Run]

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



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.

!

Well tally ho old boy, why dont you ask the puppet wether he voted in the final commons vote!

 

[syrup head]

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.........

I am heartened by your contribution and suddenly I have confidence in the youngsters of today. I really thought that you were all taken in by the Tory Press with their growing hysteria as a General Election looms. You've seen through that lot, haven't you?

 

[syrup head]

David Davis will be the next Conservative Prime Minister

How come? Has he got the secret of living beyond 110 years old?
Has he really got the wisdom to revive a defunct political party, because by the time he were to be PM the Conservatives would have been dead and forgotton for twenty years?

 

[Brixtaan]

Oh come on...Blair knew exactly what would happen in Iraq. The reason a man like Sadam came to power and ruled in the way he did was because the country is inherently unstable. Would Iraq be any better now that Sadam has gone if our troops wre to withdraw now? No, it would probally descend into Civil War and out of the other side would come another dictator equally as bad.

The fact is the war was never about producing democracy in Iraq or WMD or Human Rights Issues or Terrorism, if it was then why have the UK and America promoted Pakistan (a Military dictatatorship with a terrible Human Rights record that has harboured Bin Laden himself AND actually has WMD) to a close freind and allie?

Bush and Blair would happily have someone in power in Iraq equally as bad as Sadam if they were sure they could keep the country together and were sympathetic to what the US and the UK are trying to achieve. Its called Power Politics.

As for the economy the Labour government inherited a economy that was already in a strong position, and on the up. In addition much of the strength of the pound is due to the fact that we are not in the Euro (which as a fledgling currency is struggling somewhat), this is something else that is most definately not down to Blair and Brown.

Lets not forget also that much of our improved standard of living is due to borrowed money, the labour government has managed to encourage borrowing to an unprecedented level, something that many of us may seriously pay for as Interest rates continue to rise.

How could he have known that every Tom,Dick and Ahmed armed with a kalashnikov and a grudge against the Western world would descend on Iraq wanting a fight?
Tony went to war for 3 reasons:
1)He thought,as i did, that the Iraqi's would shower the tanks with flowers as the troops threw cans of Coke,Beckham t-shirts and jaffa cakes back,making friends for life and leaving Tony free to embark on a global mission to right the worlds wrongs,with the aid of his big stick,America.
2)Got rid of the French, Russian and Chinese contractors all circling,breaking UN rules and giving Saddam a lifeline.A perfectly legitimate reason in itself.
3) For a number of reasons beyond Tony's control(economic and historical),he had to stick by Americas side on this one.


How you can compare Pakistan and Iraq is hilarious.Completely different governing systems in operation.And as for human rights laws being broken,WMD and harbouring Bin Laden,you could easily be referring to the USA,GB and any number of other nations

 

[Half Time Pies]

How could he have known that every Tom,Dick and Ahmed armed with a kalashnikov and a grudge against the Western world would descend on Iraq wanting a fight?
Tony went to war for 3 reasons:
1)He thought,as i did, that the Iraqi's would shower the tanks with flowers as the troops threw cans of Coke,Beckham t-shirts and jaffa cakes back,making friends for life and leaving Tony free to embark on a global mission to right the worlds wrongs,with the aid of his big stick,America.
2)Got rid of the French, Russian and Chinese contractors all circling,breaking UN rules and giving Saddam a lifeline.A perfectly legitimate reason in itself.
3) For a number of reasons beyond Tony's control(economic and historical),he had to stick by Americas side on this one.


How you can compare Pakistan and Iraq is hilarious.Completely different governing systems in operation.And as for human rights laws being broken,WMD and harbouring Bin Laden,you could easily be referring to the USA,GB and any number of other nations

Exactly! you could be refering to a number of other nations - that is my point! Is it fair that we impose nuclear aparthied on nations that we deem to be irresponsible whilst allowing ourself to maintain and develop our own capabilities? Let us not forget that the only country that up to now has actually used WMD are the US themselves.

Why is the Comparison between Saddams Iraq and Pakistan Laughable? Both were dictatorships, both came to power in a military coup and until they helped the coalition in Afganistan, Pakistans development of its nuclear arsenal was also subject to International Condemnation. How can the coaliton shout about democracy and have a military dictator as thier right hand man?!

Of course it is not so long ago that the US and Britain actively provided Saddam with expertise and equiptment to develop its own capabilities because at the time Saddam served a purpose.

As for the Chinese, French and Russians breaking the UN Sanctions, it has long been known that the Sanctions only served to Strengthen the Position of Saddam, that the only people who really suffered were the Iraqi people who could atribute their suffering directly to and therefore develop their anger towards the west.

Its a shame that Blair does not go out of his way to take such a hard line against Israels regular disregard for UN rules. But i suppose if he cant because of 'economical and historical reasons' then that makes it alright?!

Oh and one of the main gripes of many Muslims has been the US's continued military prescence in Saudi that their religion refuses them to accept. Did Blair really not consider that ploughing a few more thousand troops into the middle east might piss a few people off?!

Perhaps he felt that they might abandon their Religious views in exchange for some Jaffa Cakes!

 

[London Irish]

Ken would always win in London because in the short term he makes the majority of people's lives better in his little fiefdom.

One of the most important cities in the world is a little, local fiefdom? This is London we're talking about, not some no-mark district council

Come on, m20gull, you can do better than that. I don't expect anything sensible from Childish-Insult Mart, but surely you must recognise that Livingstone has proved there is an electorally successful Labour Party alternative to the Project types of New Labour, a populist left strategy that has succeeded spectacularly whether he has been fighting Thatcher 20 years ago or Blairite stooges in recent years. My guy is as pragmatic as your guy Blair I think you'll find, that's why he beat you - he built his alliances with the City, he built alliances with other progressive groups and parties, he has a record of making unpopular decisions but has always convinced the electorate he was right though his communication skills and hiring smart managers.

Blairites really have to come up with better answers why Livingstone is successful - I know it's scary for you thinking that Labour can win without Blair, but your glorious leader is not going to be around for too much longer so you'll have to learn to live without him.

Now convince me that Alan Milburn can win elections anywhere else than some piss-pot hole in Newcastle

 

[London Irish]

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.

We'll never know, will we? The weapons inspectors never were given the chance to discover there was no WMD or Iraqi threat to the west. We'll never know how Saddam's contained, broken regime would have degenerated with his ageing, and what chances this would have given to internal opposition groups either within or without Iraq to seize their chance.

What we do know is that 14,000 people are dead thanks to the Bush/Blair war and that number is rising every time you turn on the news.

Bush's weakness and desire to avoid a bloodbath before the US elections means al-Sadr has been left with his power intact, which he will use come the elections to boost the kind of Islamic radicalism that we entered into an alliance with Saddam in Reagan-Thatcher days to defeat. So we have a ceasefire with the Shias, the Sunnis remain ungovernable and now of course Iraq has become the United Nations of world terrorism with every kind of Islamist radical pouring into the country and able to slaughter indiscriminately because there is no basic law and order possible.

But it could be worse HOW EXACTLY?

 

[Sorrel]

Bush's weakness and desire to avoid a bloodbath before the US elections means al-Sadr has been left with his power intact, which he will use come the elections to boost the kind of Islamic radicalism that we entered into an alliance with Saddam in Reagan-Thatcher days to defeat. So we have a ceasefire with the Shias, the Sunnis remain ungovernable and now of course Iraq has become the United Nations of world terrorism with every kind of Islamist radical pouring into the country and able to slaughter indiscriminately because there is no basic law and order possible.

The above is a criticism of American desire to avoid casualties. I'm sure if America used the military strength it has to sort out the problem you would equally criticise the massive loss of life that would result. From this, I can't see what the USA could do from this point forward that would gain your acceptence. They make peace - they're weak; they attack - they're killers.

While I've no desire to be part of a neo-con world agenda, I believe their goal (or at least their partial goal) of a democratic Iraq would be good for the region. Just because many Islamist radicals have their own plans doesn't mean I should consider their plan for Islamic revolution preferable instead.

As for Ken, I would have voted for him instead of any Labour Party candidate, as he tends to get things done rather than just talk about them. That, to me, is why he is so popular.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Ah gimme a break - you even talk like a Tory drone.

Wealth creators? I've got news for you pal, everybody who does a hard day's work in this country is a wealth creator, not just your precious little bunch of businessmen who you want to pay less tax in order to fund our health and education services.

And please, be my guest, keep spewing out the anti-Europe tirades - it will boost that UKIP vote no end - your pal Kenneth Clarke I'm sure would love that. It's precisely what is stopping the Tory fools getting back into power. It allows socialists like me to be totally relaxed in attacking Blair from the left because THERE IS NO DANGER WHATSOEVER of the Tories ever getting their act together to challenge the centre-left in this country.

LI - whilst I rarely agree with your political views I do appreciate your normally well argued posts. What the f*** happened in this thread ? You seem to have lowered yourself to the name calling this type of thread tends to decend to.

The original poster mentioned Labour successes in class sizes and the NHS.

I suggest you ask a state school teacher - my wife left due to the idiotic amount of paperwork, red tape and targets set by Labour. Her class size never dropped below 32 and she was getting less and less contact time with the kids each year. She now works in the private sector for less money but actually gets to teach. One of her collegues still in state education has 38 in her class this year - low class sizes , my arse !

NHS - loads of money spent, f*** all progress ! Certainly when I've used the local hospitals ( a fair few times I might add ) I can see no difference since 1997. Still dirty, poorly managed and understaffed. The targets are a joke - go to out paitents and you get weighed so that they hit their target of you being seen within a certain time limit.

That said, until the country changes from the mess of a political system it has now to concensus politics there'll be no real improvement from any colour government. Politicians are generally spoilt brats who are in it for their own egos - that describes B.Liar quite well really. !!!

 

[jonogulls]

LI I thought Livingstone was the brains behind the privatisation of the tube?

I could be, and probably am, wrong but is this not the case? Would that not suggest he is not so left wing as you argue?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Livingstone is in favour of raising funds for the tube by some sort of bond issue. I believe his proposal would leave the underground in public ownership.
The governmet propose a privatisation similar to that of British Rail.

 

[London Irish]

LI I thought Livingstone was the brains behind the privatisation of the tube?

I could be, and probably am, wrong but is this not the case? Would that not suggest he is not so left wing as you argue?

No! He actually tried everything to stop it, massive political lobbying, even threats of court action. But Brown and Prescott bulldozed it through and Ken is left to pick up the pieces. He could have fought it through the courts but he knows from bitter experience of Fair's Fare policy 20 years ago under Thatcher that judges are not on the side of the ordinary Londoner.

Voroshilov is correct, Ken wanted to keep the tube out of the hand of the rapacious private sector by going to the bond markets to borrow the money. Ken meticulously produced figures to show how this would be a better deal for the London taxpayer. The rapacious shareholders of these cowboy PFI companies wanted a bigger slice of your cash than the interest payments the City wants.

But New Labour were blinded by ideology - PFI and Public-Private Partnerships was their big idea so Londoners had to suffer.

This is a classic example of how New Labour have misled the country where saner, more pragmatic voices like Ken's would have done a better job.

 

[Biscuit]

Well tally ho old boy, why dont you ask the puppet wether he voted in the final commons vote!

good point chicken run.

I must say this has been one of the best threads on this board for a very long time.

But I stand by what I said. I admire Tony Blair, he has done a hell of a lot for this country and wether war was right or wrong, the country will certainly miss him when he stands down.

 

[London Irish]

LI - whilst I rarely agree with your political views I do appreciate your normally well argued posts. What the f*** happened in this thread ? You seem to have lowered yourself to the name calling this type of thread tends to decend to.

Fair enough, my response to Larus was a bit flip - I do see red in every sense of thw word when I see company directors referred to as "wealth creators" and not their workforce. It's a classic example of how Tory language underplays the contribution of the ordinary worker to British economic success.

OK then, Larus deserves a contribution that raises the level of debate about the future of the Tory Party. Here is a brilliant article published in the Sunday Times this week which explains methodically why the Tories haven't got a prayer of power until 2012/4. It's written by Michael Portillo, who has learned these lessons the hard way If you have the time, please read it, it is the last word written on the Tories' plight.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1302311,00.html

Westdene, you make some very good points about how Blair has not fixed the two decades of underinvestment in education and NHS by the Tories (although some progress has been made on class sizes). That's why critics of New Labour want more investment and less pissing around with stealth privatisation like PFI. But private education is part of the problem, not the solution to this crisis. As long as the private education sector is growing, no government, Tory or New Labour, will have the political will to sort out education, because the elites that make policy in this country will still be sending their kids to the posh schools while leaving your's and my kids to take their chances in the state sector. This road will inevitably lead to the catastrophic two-tier educational experience of America - that's the future of education the Tories offer you. Blair is doing something to stop that, but just nowhere near enough.

 

[3gulls]

Fair enough my response to Larus was a bit flip - I do see red in every sense of thw word when I see company directors referred to as "wealth creators" and not their workforce. It's a classic example of how Tory language underplays the contribution of the ordinary worker to British economic success.

OK then, Larus deserves a contribution that raises the level of debate about the future of the Tory Party. Here is a brilliant article published in the Sunday Times this week which explains methodically why the Tories haven't got a prayer of power until 2012/4. It's written by Michael Portillo, who has learned these lessons the hard way If you have the time, please read it, it is the last word written on the Tories' plight.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1302311,00.html

Westdene, you make some very good points about how Blair has not fixed the two decades of underinvestment in education and NHS by the Tories (although some progress has been made on class sizes). That's why critics of New Labour want more investment and less pissing around with stealth privatisation like PFI. But private education is part of the problem, not the solution to this crisis. As long as the private education sector is growing, no government, Tory or New Labour, will have the political will to sort out education, because the elites that make policy in this country will still be sending their kids to the posh schools while leaving your's and my kids to take their chances in the state sector. This road will inevitably lead to the catastrophic two-tier educational experience of America - that's the future of education the Tories offer you. Blair is doing something to stop that, but just nowhere near enough.

Portillo is just a bitter old queen. He should join the Lib-Dems of whatever they are called this week!

 

[Sorrel]

Here is a brilliant article published in the Sunday Times this week which explains methodically why the Tories haven't got a prayer of power until 2012/4. It's written by Michael Portillo, who has learned these lessons the hard way If you have the time, please read it, it is the last word written on the Tories' plight.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1302311,00.html

That was a good article. I really don't think the Conservatives have a prayer for many years, and maybe never again in their present form.

Where would you put yourself on the political scale LI? (Assuming, as in the article, -100 for hard left, and +100 for hard right). I think I'd go for +1 myself.

 

[jonogulls]

I'd put LI about +45.

His far right views do tend to annoy me to be honest.

 

[Sorrel]

I'd put LI about +45.

His far right views do tend to annoy me to be honest.

At least, I hope that's what you mean.