|
28 Jan 04 - 10:29 PM (#1103957) Subject: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,The P.M. See---I'm not such a big big liar, I'm just naturally stupid. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:24 AM (#1104097) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: John MacKenzie Not too stupid Tony, you managed to replace the Tory party...................with another Tory party. John |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:33 AM (#1104106) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Shanghaiceltic Maybe he can be used for medical experiments as there seem to be things he can do that lab rats cannot. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:42 AM (#1104111) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Linda Kelly and the point is what exactly? |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:47 AM (#1104116) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Shanghaiceltic Survive whatever the odds! |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:17 AM (#1104134) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Dave Hanson Who he. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:18 AM (#1104137) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Dave Hanson Is it im wot does prime minister impressions? eric |
|
29 Jan 04 - 02:14 PM (#1104486) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Schantieman Teflon Tone On Monday there was a real chance that we'd now be in the early stages of an election campaign. Amazingly he's managed to survive BOTH potential means of doing away with him. Y'know, I never thought I'd say this, but I wonder if a Conservative government would be better?!!!! 'course, Lib Dems'd sort 'em out. How about a minority government that needed the support of a significant number of non-party members to get anything passed. That might work. (Not sure it was too successful last time though!) S |
|
29 Jan 04 - 02:46 PM (#1104512) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Les in Chorlton The lowest unemlpoyment, highest employment, lowest interest rates, more money on education and health........ Y'know, I never thought I'd say this, but I wonder if a Conservative government would be better?!!!! How much of 79' 92' did you think about? Ponder just one thing - the number of 16 year olds who left school in that period and never found employment. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 03:01 PM (#1104518) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: John MacKenzie Why is it that when the BBC is blamed in the Hutton enquiry for getting their facts wrong on the Iraqui WMD thing, No10 expect, and get resignations from the BBC? Yet whenever a politician is caught out telling lies, or doing dodgy things, resigning is the last thing he thinks of. It is true what they say, there is no honour amongst thieves. John |
|
29 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM (#1104526) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: harvey andrews but I wonder if a Conservative government would be better?!!!! NO! But a Labour one might be. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 04:08 PM (#1104566) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,Ed I'm sorry Harvey, but if you want to get into semantic arguements about what 'Labour' means then you'll have to go back to the late 70's or early 80's with Foot, Scargill etc. Would you really prefer their type of politician to run the country? I certainly wouldn't. Whilst I have severe reservations about Blair, there's huge paucity in terms of alternatives. And that's the saddest, most worrying thing. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:28 PM (#1104627) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: McGrath of Harlow The Labour Party under John Smith was well on the way to getting elected when the poor bugger went and died on them, and in a fit of panic they elected Young Tony because he looked the most likely to appeal to Tory voters. It's true that at present, if you want a Tory government, this one in power at the present is a good bit better than the other bunch. However, after another crushing defeat they'll probably repackage themselves as the Progressive Party, and reposition themselves to the left of New Labour. Can anyone come up with any policies under this government which couldn't perfectly consistently have been adopted by a pre-Thatcherite Tory party? |
|
29 Jan 04 - 05:38 PM (#1104632) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton Much as I admire Harvey,with his uncompromising views, I reluctantly have to agree with Ed. This is a Capitalist political /economic system ,and as such,requires any govt,labour or conservative to carry out capitalist policies. We dont have any "freedom of choice", unless we have sufficient money to buy good education and health care. Things which should be our birthright. This is a fact of life today and will Im sure get even worse in the future. I see a future of the haves and have nots, two completely polarised sections of society....God help our grandchildren. We must stop pretending to ourselves that socialism will make a come-back,and cure all societys ills. People of today have been moulded by capitalism into a greedy, uncaring, materialistic bunch of yobs..Forget politics, dont vote, keep talking to the young folk,tell them what fools we were....politics stinks....Ake |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:11 PM (#1104661) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: DougR One might get the idea that the contributors to this thread do not like Tony Blair. Too bad. They found no wrong-doing and you should give the guy a break. Personally, I like him, and particularly his support of George W. Bush. DougR |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:17 PM (#1104667) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Ed. McGrath, Do you honestly think that the Labour Party under John Smith would have been much better, had he lived? If so, how? And who would pay for it? |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:27 PM (#1104677) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton Doug...You like TB because you are both conservatives,, Tony makes a "good" conservative...Sorry for the contradiction in terms. He keeps the Capitalist shitheap bouncing along quite nicely, while giving the impression of social change. I think you deserve one another ....Ake. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM (#1104678) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Walking Eagle You have the sympathy of a lot of us yanks here. But I have the feeling that Mr. Blair would have taken it on the chin (had the report been against him) like a man. Not so sure about Bushrove. IMHO. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:34 PM (#1104689) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,obnig hrobdog Perhaps we should look again at Marx. The present system has just destroyed English investigative journalism. Now "quis custodiet ipsos custodios?". And if we look at Parmalat, after all the others, are we ready yet to recognise the ultimate tendency of capitalism to lie to its own advantage? Even capitalist theory accepts that the greater capital drives out the lesser. Now it seems (if there ever was any doubt) that the greater capitalism drives out the truth. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 06:48 PM (#1104704) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton I understand your point of view,but im sure Doug and his gang will be rushing to remind you that "the truth" is one of the first casualties of totalitarianism. In my opinion ,all political manipulation is ultimately bad...Ake |
|
29 Jan 04 - 07:20 PM (#1104732) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton I understand your point of view,but im sure Doug and his gang will be rushing to remind you that "the truth" is one of the first casualties of totalitarianism. In my opinion ,all political manipulation is ultimately bad...Ake |
|
29 Jan 04 - 07:38 PM (#1104745) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: McGrath of Harlow Much better under John Smith? Who knows. I think it would have been better. John Smith appears to have been an honest man, who believed that Socialism is desirable and viable. Tony Blair honestly believes that it is neither of those things. For example, I doubt if John Smioth would have favoured policies aimed at putting students into massive debt rather than upping the tax on obscenely wealthy people. The Conservatve Party, Blair's natural home, had swung so far to the right when he entered politics, that it is easy to understand why a moderate Conservative like him felt obliged to enter another party. (Why didn't he defect to the SDP? I suspect he was scared of what Cherie would do to him - she's more of a tribal Labourite.) I think that to assume that the selfishness and materialism that underlay Thatcherism, and was nurtered by it, must continue to dominate Society permanently is needlessly pessimistic. I think there is every reason to hope that there will in time be a sharp reaction against it. Generations work like that. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 07:51 PM (#1104754) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton McGrath ...Your faith is touching, but not bourne out by events. Quasi Socialist regimes have been collapsing everywhere as people demand more materialist trash. Unfortunately "self" is now all that matters ....Ake |
|
29 Jan 04 - 07:59 PM (#1104760) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Tony is no socialist, Keir Hardy must be turning in his grave. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 08:05 PM (#1104768) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: McGrath of Harlow Unfortunately "self" is now all that matters That's today's "now". Things change as times change. Sooner or later there'll be a generation that finds precisely this sort of attitude the most disgusting thing about their disgusting parents. |
|
29 Jan 04 - 08:21 PM (#1104774) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: akenaton Aye McGrath....But I fear there will be a lot of trauma before your scenario comes to pass. The "haves" will fight the "have-nots" to the bitter end. In fact Im sure Capitalism will bring an end to civilisation as we understand it,,,Ake |
|
29 Jan 04 - 09:00 PM (#1104798) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST B Liar is it to me. |
|
30 Jan 04 - 04:25 AM (#1104964) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: harvey andrews There is a subtle difference between a "Socialist" party and a "Labour" party. Even with my love of words I'd find it difficult to describe, but it's the answer to those who always use the bogeyman Scargill as an anti-labour tool. Remember Hitler was a National Socialist, The Bush calls himself Christian, and Osama Bin Laden professes a belief in the Muslim religion. Extremeists never represent the true face of a belief whether it be religious or political. By the by I once did a fundraiser concert for the miners, and Scargill was in the front row. He was noisy, disruptive and paid no attention to the artists performing for him. Acolytes came and fawned in the middle of songs. It really was a gig at the court of King Arthur and a very enlightening experience of the adage "power corrupts...." |
|
30 Jan 04 - 04:26 PM (#1105433) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Gareth Well, lets see, what the Conservarives whould not have done ? Minimum Wage Devolution Trade Union rights. Improved Health and Safety Laws The Miners Industrial injury compensation scheme. Better access for the poor and social disadvantaged to enter higher education. Expanded higher education. A free National Health Service. Adopted the European Convention on Human Rights. Just a few. Like I've said before, Tony may not be perfect - but he's the best we've got. Gareth |
|
31 Jan 04 - 04:07 AM (#1105714) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Les in Chorlton I am a Socialist, but I feel like that joke about God who, after creating the Universe, is alive and well and working on a far less ambitous project. Ok I haven't invented a Universe but I think, like most people I see the inevitable shortcomings of capitalism. It seems obviuos that water, power, education, health and some other things should be owned by the public. This list could go further. In a world where we create more than we need, capitalism seems quite good at moving excess wealth about. In this process a few get lots and lots and the many get much less. but it does move wealth about. If we want more spent on health education and sustainable growth etc we have 2 routes, tax the rich, mostly their companies or take them over. People don't vote for either much. Revolutions have generally produced bad and undemocratic regimes. The second route is Socialism. The problem is it's very difficult to do and when it has been done the regimes established have been very bad economically and very bad for peoples human rights. I am a Socialst, but I have to say I don't hear anybody describing a sytem that might work or a way of getting there. I think this takes us back to Tony. The best of a poor choice? Yes. Honest? I think so but I have poor judgement. The row with the BBC has been tragic. But as for the press in general, Most of jounalsits write for the Mail, the Sun, the Star, the Sport, the Express, the Times etc. These are evil bad things that tell lies about most things most days. That is why we had to have Alistair Cambell and a good job in impossible circumstances he did |
|
31 Jan 04 - 04:08 AM (#1105715) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,Boab One sure thing has emerged from this thread; jOhn from hull has blown his cover! Or did somebody else write it for him?? |
|
31 Jan 04 - 05:40 AM (#1105740) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: John MacKenzie All Johns have moments of lucidity........John |
|
31 Jan 04 - 09:55 AM (#1105833) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Politics is neither "bad" or "good". It's an energy somewhat like money. It can be used to benefit humanity or to destroy it. Blair appointed Hutton. Hutton exonerated him. They blamed Gilligan's report on the BBC. Blair came out smelling like a rose. But maybe there's a different smell that will eventually come out of it. Gilligan wasn't all wrong. Frank |
|
31 Jan 04 - 10:31 AM (#1105858) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Ringer I don't think you armchair socialists have any idea of just how nauseatingly sanctimonious you sound to one who doesn't share your terminally dreary views. Socialism doesn't work, boys (has the history of the last century completely passed you by?). Where it was tried it put people in chains, ground them in poverty, and eventually failed. It is capitalism that has raised the poorest of you to an affluence undreamed of by your drudging ancestors. |
|
31 Jan 04 - 12:40 PM (#1105941) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: John MacKenzie I think you may have "sexed up" your last post Ringer......John |
|
31 Jan 04 - 01:04 PM (#1105961) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Peace Capitalism is the art of getting workers to screw other workers. Socialism is the reverse. |
|
31 Jan 04 - 01:16 PM (#1105971) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: McGrath of Harlow None of those things which you list, Gareth, are in any way inconsistent with "One-nation conservatism" - so long as they looked as if these might be popular measures and help them stay in power. And essentially, that's what we've got with Tony's administration, "One-nation Conservatism". If the only choice is between that and the vicious variety that Howard represents, it's pretty clear which is preferable. But the only reason that is, at present, the only choice, is because of a conspiracy, by both front benches, to deny us a more representative system of voting. Remember, this lot has never had a majority vote for them, any more than Thatcher ever did, even at the height of her power and "popularity". No party has had a majority of votes in our lifetime. The nearest was in 1951, when Labour (Old Labour) got 48.8 per cent - and lost the election to the Tories, with several hundred thousand fewer votes. |
|
31 Jan 04 - 02:12 PM (#1106011) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,GUEST: RichardP I have only just alighted on this thread. There is an enormous amount of recycling of personal assumptions in this thread and relatively little sign of careful and balanced thought. I will make two comments: John MacKenzie claimed that no politician resigns when he gets it wrong. Tell that to Peter Mandelson, Estelle Morris and many others in between. Anyone is entitled to be dissatisfied with a politician and complain if he/she doesn't resign - but you cannot honestly ignore the fact that quite a few (out of a group of only twenty in the cabinet at any time) are wrong, know it and resign. Obnig Hrobgog asks "now quis custodiet ipsos custodios?" in the thread. Well one thing is absolutely incontrivertible after Hutton - the Beeb management structure totally failed to fulfil that role internally. Even if Hutton was over-generous about the government, it was very revealing of an internal Beeb culture that could not be bothered to undertake an editorial responsibility. |
|
31 Jan 04 - 02:22 PM (#1106017) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: McGrath of Harlow There's resigning vecause you know you have done something wrong and accept responsibility, and "resigning", which is what you do when you know you are going to be sacked, and want to leave a door open for a possible return in time. The former is pretty rare - the latter is commonplace. |
|
31 Jan 04 - 04:34 PM (#1106092) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: John MacKenzie Peter Mandelson resigned after he'd been caught out for the second time, and so he had to go, he didn't want to go but he went. Estelle Morris resigned voluntarily, as she felt that she was not up to the job. I know which one is most likely to be back, and it's not Estelle. Mandy is still involved in Tony's cronies. John |
|
31 Jan 04 - 07:20 PM (#1106228) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: Gareth Actually I think Mandelson shout be the next Head of the BBC. Gareth |
|
01 Feb 04 - 07:38 AM (#1106458) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,Van |
|
01 Feb 04 - 07:44 AM (#1106460) Subject: RE: BS: Anthony Blair From: GUEST,Van Trembley fingers at the thought of Mandelson heading the Beeb. They'll probably appoint Andrew Neil when you think of the newspapers he's ruined. The problem with coming up with non Tory policies from the Bliar government is that they have been achieved largely while he was screaming and kicking against them. How he represents the Labour perty is a mystery known only to him and his god. |