|
03 Jan 05 - 02:23 PM (#1370208) Subject: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: GUEST With a groundswell of opinion attacking Blair for not returning early from his hols because of the Tsunami disaster, are the brits looking for a President rather than a PM? My point is that in times of bereavement etc succour should be given under our system by the Royal Family.Surely the reason for their existence is to be seen with"their people", visiting hospitals, bereaved, Queen's message to the nation etc. Blair has ministers and Civil Servants quite able to cope at home, and with modern communications there was no reason at all for him to return to an office to make his decisions.His leadrship can be exercised anywhere. Therefore, is the call for him to come home to represent the people and their feelings really the death knell of the Royal Family? Are they now proven redundant in the psyche of the British people? |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:31 PM (#1370214) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: Geoff the Duck RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? How about TWAT!! The whole point of people's digust with him is that a major crisis takes precedence over a politician's holidays. They must be SEEN to be doing something positive, not just getting pissed at the taxpayer's expense. The Royal Family are what they are WHEREVER in the World they might be. It isn't THEIR job to do the organising. That is supposed to be why we are forced to pay for a Government. Yours sincerely, Geoff. |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:43 PM (#1370219) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: wysiwyg Two jobs-- Succour, Royals Organize/Manage Aid, Gummint IMO YMMV ~S~ |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:45 PM (#1370222) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: GUEST Geoff, the people are looking for a figurehead, that's the Royal family's job. Blair could organise as easily from Egypt as at home.He isn't lazing about at Balmoral. Get the slugs out of there and get them doing what they're supposed to do, shaking hands and offering platitudes. Blair can make decisions anywhere. |
|
03 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM (#1370249) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: John MacKenzie If I wanted to be re-elected sometime in the next 3 months I'd be boot licking like mad. The real question is 'Tony Blair Onanist or Self Abuser'? Giok |
|
03 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM (#1370354) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: Linda Kelly I think the level of contribution made by the British public and the very small amount of time that it took to organise the money flow shows that this country ticks without politicians and their platitudes. The decision to stay on holiday is disrespectful on his part, but he isn't needed to make important decisions or judgements, since we have a mechanism in place for that to happen. In someones it has been a useful and humbling exercise for politicians to realise that we can get on with things very well indeed and we can also judge better than they, the right level of response to a crisis. |
|
03 Jan 05 - 06:38 PM (#1370438) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: McGrath of Harlow It came across as disrespectful. It's not that he'd have done anything organisationally. If the Queen had died, you know he'd have come winging back. Or even if it had been some senior colleague. I suppose, if you were trying to spin it in his favour, you'd say that he stayed put because coming back would have been a way of poaching the headlines and being a sort of compassion vulture. I suspect the truth is he may have decided that it would look like that, and it might backfire. It's rather a pity he was on holiday in Egypt rather than somewhere further afield, such as Sri Lanka. I don't mean I wish he'd been one of the victims, but I think it would have been a good way of fixing his attention on the scale of what needs to be done, and the massive effort that is going to be needed. |
|
03 Jan 05 - 06:56 PM (#1370449) Subject: RE: BS: Blair; Pres or PM? From: GUEST So, my question still is what's the use of the Royal family if this doesn't involve them in more than a few mumbled prayers? |