Let's celebrate Tony Blair's 10yrs in power!

[raphael123]

Well it was 10yrs yesterday.
What do we make of it?
I think the Iraq war, unfortunately, really undermines his 10yrs as leader, and if it wasn't for that, he would be leaving in much better fashion, and with much more respect intact.

It's important to remember who the opposition were, would you have preferred William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard over Tony Blair? I think that says it all. I don't think Cameron is any better to be honest with you, he just manipulates the media, and unfortunately people are falling for it.

Let's look at Tony Blairs 10yrs in power then. I think overall he should be quite proud of what he has achieved.

- Tories, who were in power for so long beforehand, have tried 3 times to kick Blair out of number 10, and they've failed. He has made Labour a serious party again.
- He has kept his pledge to provide massive funding for the NHS, and Schools.
- He has lead the government who have delivered 58 quarters of unbroken Economic growth and low inflation.
- Introduced, and continuously increased the minimum wage helping the underclass and working class community.
- Created millions of new jobs.
- The work he has done in Northern Ireland, which for so long no one has managed to bring peace there, he has succeeded. I hope it'll last after his exit.
- Though Iraq is a sore note, good work has been done in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, which seems to be forgotten now due to the Iraq invasion.
- He bought the Olympics to London
- Has played a lead role in persuading other nations to take international poverty and climate change more seriously.

And the list could be increased of course :p :

Obviously the large majority of the population detest him these days, which is unfortuantely, as I genuinely think he is a decent human being, and fights for what he believes in, which is better than Cameron, who will say whatever infront of whatever crowd, if that is what he thinks they want to hear. Tony Blair has dedicated the past 10yrs of his life working 27hrs a day, 7 days a week, for 10yrs - and for that he should be praised.

No politician can come out being loved, in the way they can enter the world of politics, but unfortunately for Blair, Iraq has ruined any chance of people remembering the goods, as now all people remember is Iraq.

I think we'll miss him, but maybe now is the time for a change :)

[Tomi]

- Has played a lead role in persuading other nations to take international poverty and climate change more seriously.

When and how did he do this?
Looking from outside GB Blair look's more like a guy who has no own will, like a somekind of messenger boy.

[raphael123]

When and how did he do this?
Looking from outside GB Blair look's more like a guy who has no own will, like a somekind of messenger boy.

Gleneagles :)

This is my exact point regarding politicians. Unfortunately, out of all the good points I mentioned, you picked up one point which you thought maybe we could take away from him. It's not a critizism of you, just a little observation.

We could also add to that list that under his leadership, Britain became one of the first in the world to fight for debt relief, action on Aids, and a fair trade deal for the poorest countries :up:

What makes you think he's a messenger boy? Because he stood by Bush and America after 9/11? I think they simply share the same beliefs in a democratic world, and liberty. I think Bush could have been much more dangerous without Blair.

[Tomi]

Gleneagles :)

This is my exact point regarding politicians. Unfortunately, out of all the good points I mentioned, you picked up one point which you thought maybe we could take away from him. It's not a critizism of you, just a little observation.

I took up this small not so very important issue because, of this minor political error a few 100.000 has died.

[raphael123]

I took up this small not so very important issue because, of this minor political error a few 100.000 has died.

Do you care to go into more detail please? :)

[Tomi]

Do you care to go into more detail please? :)

Not really, else than to those who's relatives has died or who's lives are in full chaos because of his politics, dont care much of what "he is supposed to have done for the climate" and so on.

[raphael123]

Not really, else than to those who's relatives has died or who's lives are in full chaos because of his politics, dont care much of what "he is supposed to have done for the climate" and so on.

Iraq? Yes, unfortunately that is what he shall be remembered for it seems doesn't it. It's a shame some people can't praise him for the good he's done, instead of only ever concentrating on his mistakes.

[CharlieJ]

- Tories, who were in power for so long beforehand, have tried 3 times to kick Blair out of number 10, and they've failed. He has made Labour a serious party again.

He's made Labour into the new Tory party.


- He has kept his pledge to provide massive funding for the NHS, and Schools.

And he's introduced loads of extra management and administration that completely negate that.


- Created millions of new jobs.

To replace the ones that have been lost overseas??????? MG Rover?????


- He bought the Olympics to London

Which wil be how much over budget by 2012?


- Has played a lead role in persuading other nations to take... ...climate change more seriously.

While using it as an excuse to fleece motorists in this country instead of doing anything concrete and constructive.


:mad:

[Tomi]

Iraq? Yes, unfortunately that is what he shall be remembered for it seems doesn't it. It's a shame some people can't praise him for the good he's done, instead of only ever concentrating on his mistakes.

Is it not strange, when a single people kills 10 peoples he is called a massmurderer, but when a politician is responsible of tousands of peoples lifes, some call it a misstake?

[raphael123]

He's made Labour into the new Tory party.



He widened Labour's appeal to the middle class.


And he's introduced loads of extra management and administration that completely negate that.


He's still increased spending as he said he would. But I agree, it hasn't been spent wisely :)


To replace the ones that have been lost overseas??????? MG Rover?????


You blame Mr Blair for MG Rovers moving abroad?


Which wil be how much over budget by 2012?


So you were against the Olympic bid? Weird how everyone is all for it, and then once we get it, people start having doubts. The East part of London is going to have so much improvements, and the facilities there will be just what the area needs. Have some pride!



While using it as an excuse to fleece motorists in this country instead of doing anything concrete and constructive.


If your referring to the road tax, it's not as bad as people were saying. They were simply too ignorant and lazy to read up about it. Though I'm not for it, sometimes you have to go through with an unpopular decision, because it's the right thing to do. Like your boss making you do something, because it has to be done. Have you come up with any better suggestions?

To be fair guy, I'm going to be fighting a losing battle trying to defend Blair.

But answer me this, would you have rathered William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, or Michael Howard as prime minister? Afterall, Tony Blair was leader of Labour when they won the elections in 97, in 01, and again in 05. Even after Iraq he was re-elected Prime Minister. With hindsight it's easy to know Iraq hasn't turned out as well as everyone would have hoped, unfortunately Mr Blair is human, and doesn't have the assistance of hindsight, just like the rest of us, otherwise some people may not have elected Tony Blair eh :)

[raphael123]

Is it not strange, when a single people kills 10 peoples he is called a massmurderer, but when a politician is responsible of tousands of peoples lifes, some call it a misstake?

Not really, he didn't kill them himself. You do know the current deaths in Iraq, like the recent bomb which killed 100 odd people in the market isn't bombs set up by the coalitian troops? It is the Iraqi's trying to cause upset and chaos in Iraq.

I'm not going to try and claim the war in Iraq has been a success. But would you have preferred Saddam had been left in power and Iraq under a dictatorship? Or is it your view that the war was right, but it should have been handled a lot better?

[BeansBeansBeans]

I'm no Blairite, but I think he has done a better job overall than Hague, IDS or Howard would have managed. Obviously, the Iraq war is a major source of resentment, but the Tories would have entered the war too.

[raphael123]

I'm no Blairite, but I think he has done a better job overall than Hague, IDS or Howard would have managed. Obviously, the Iraq war is a major source of resentment, but the Tories would have entered the war too.

Well said Beans :up:

[Tomi]

I'm not going to try and claim the war in Iraq has been a success. But would you have preferred Saddam had been left in power and Iraq under a dictatorship? Or is it your view that the war was right, but it should have been handled a lot better?

The war was against international law, so that makes it wrong, thats my point of view too.
Also I belive people had it much better and Iraq was a much safer place before the war, than what it is now. (im talking about a year or so before the war, not the time usa supported Hussein, at that time it was also a very danger place too.)

[BDunnell]

Let's look at Tony Blairs 10yrs in power then. I think overall he should be quite proud of what he has achieved.

I am emphatically not one of those people who thinks that 'the country has gone to the dogs' during Blair's time in office. I'm perfectly happy with my lot and don't feel hard done by as a result of anything the Labour governments have done, although I do not support Labour. However, let's go through that list with a finer toothcomb.


- Tories, who were in power for so long beforehand, have tried 3 times to kick Blair out of number 10, and they've failed. He has made Labour a serious party again.

True, but he may also have ruined its chances at the next election.

And there have only been two General Elections since Labour got in in 1997.



- He has kept his pledge to provide massive funding for the NHS, and Schools.

Yes, he has, but the money has been directed wrongly in spite of repeated warnings about this. There has also been an unhealthy reliance on PFI deals and damaging private sector involvement.


- He has lead the government who have delivered 58 quarters of unbroken Economic growth and low inflation..

I agree that, in general, the stewardship of the economy under Labour has been very good.


- Introduced, and continuously increased the minimum wage helping the underclass and working class community.

The minimum wage is indeed a fine achievement, and there have been some excellent Government-driven projects in the inner cities. However, all is far from perfect when it comes to Britain's underclass. Go to the deprived areas of many cities and you will still find big problems, though I am more confident about Labour's ability to deal with them than I am in relation to the Tories. Increased decentralisation would help, but Labour hasn't been very interested in that.


- Created millions of new jobs.

Again, the employment figures under Labour have been good.


- The work he has done in Northern Ireland, which for so long no one has managed to bring peace there, he has succeeded. I hope it'll last after his exit.

On this one, he built on the fine work done by the last John Major government, but again, it is a real achievement. What a shame the same principles haven't been applied to the 'fight against terrorism' in which we are now engaged.


- Though Iraq is a sore note, good work has been done in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, which seems to be forgotten now due to the Iraq invasion.

Good work was done in Kosovo. Sierra Leone is still tarnished in my eyes by the arms deal scandal that erupted in 1998. And there are such big problems in Afghanistan that I refuse to class it as a success as yet.


- He bought the Olympics to London

A fine example of the faults of New Labour. It was a great PR coup, and I'm sure the London Olympics will be terrific, but yet again the figures have been massaged in the interests of being friendly to the private sector. Those involved, including the Government, should have realised that the bids put in by the big contractors were unrealistically low and would surely lead to huge over-runs.


- Has played a lead role in persuading other nations to take international poverty and climate change more seriously.

There is some truth in this, but the UK is still way behind other European nations on both these scores.

You have also forgotten what I consider to be some of the best things Labour has done — giving gay people more rights, and abolishing Section 28. Small things, but they mean a lot. The Freedom of Information Act was another good thing, but now they want to water it down, which most certainly is not.

However, all this is tarnished by several things. New Labour has been obsessed with presentation — this was a factor in its favour early on, but it soon came to look tawdry. Linked to this, the way in which Blair held on to the utterly appalling Alistair Campbell for so long is a disgrace, especially after his role in naming Dr David Kelly became known. The obsession with being 'business-friendly' may have paid off in some ways, but private sector involvement in the public services has had many adverse effects which will take years to reverse, not that any other party would probably want to do so. Blair in particular has shown a complete contempt for Parliament, and this has filtered down through the ministerial ranks; announcements often get made in the media rather than the House of Commons, and Labour ministers who, when in opposition, used to jeer at Tories who refused to answer simple questions are now just as bad (if not worse) themselves. The recent halting of the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into BAE Systems' deals with Saudi Arabia has made a mockery of any early attempts to develop an ethical foreign policy, as if many previous examples hadn't proved this already. And then there is Iraq, and everything related to it. I could go on if I had the time.

As someone who was very excited about Labour coming to power in 1997 (the first time I was able to vote — a memorable occasion), I don't exactly feel let down, because my expectations even as an 18-year-old were realistic. However, I am deeply disappointed by Labour, and Blair personally.

With hindsight, the best thing about the 1997 election result was the utter hilarity of election night itself. As Ian Hislop said afterwards, "It was the best evening of television I've ever seen in my whole life."

[BDunnell]

I'm no Blairite, but I think he has done a better job overall than Hague, IDS or Howard would have managed. Obviously, the Iraq war is a major source of resentment, but the Tories would have entered the war too.

I agree with that. Everyone who says they're going to vote Tory on the grounds that they don't like Labour because of Iraq is really missing the point.

[BDunnell]

To replace the ones that have been lost overseas??????? MG Rover?????

Hardly anyone's fault but MG Rover's own, for, at the end of the day, making crap cars.

Would you have preferred the Government to have pumped in millions of pounds of state aid to keep it afloat? I wouldn't have.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Another thread created by raphael123 to cause arguments between labour and tory supporters.


Well done :rolleyes:

[BeansBeansBeans]

Another thread created by raphael123 to cause arguments between labour and tory supporters.


Well done :rolleyes:


Another utterly meaningless post from Jon, Jon Brow. Either join in the discussion or don't.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why so many threads on basically the same topic?

[raphael123]

Why so many threads on basically the same topic?

What's wrong with having a political discussion, rather than give suggestions of how to quit a job or what not? I enjoy reading about people's opinion on issues which I have an interest in. As Beans has said, you don't have to post your opinion on the matter, or even post, or even read it. So when you think about it...it only involves you... if you want to be involved.

So stay away if you don't like it :)

[allycat228]

Tony blair and the Labour party have wrecked the armed forces, even this week they have got rid of the jaguar we are more or less a laughing stock, but its what he has done to the NHS that really gets me, how waiting lists are better you ask any nurse about labour and see what they say, plus they conceded to the IRA so god knows what else he could do behind the british public's backs

[BDunnell]

...plus they conceded to the IRA so god knows what else he could do behind the british public's backs

Talking to Sinn Fein was unpalatable to many, and understandably so, but you can't really argue with the end result, nor the fact that SF represents a significant chunk of public opinion in Northern Ireland.

And, may I ask, which government was it that started talking to Sinn Fein? As I recall, it was a Conservative one, under John Major, so the basis of your point is unfounded.

[oily oaf]

With regard to the negotiations and subsequent peace agreement with the IRA, unpalatable though it may have appeared to some, it was the only pragmatic way forward. Was it Roosevelt who once remarked "Jaw jaw is better than war war"

As for Mr Blair I have always regarded him as a bit of a "curate's egg", good in parts.
As a lifelong Labour man I have been immensely disappointed with some of New Labour's policies.
I realised the writing was on the wall when Gordon Brown announced plans to give tax breaks to people with second homes. I can't imagine Kier Hardie going a bundle on that one Gordon old boy. Fortunately the hue and cry from the back benches was such that the plans were shelved.

Blair himself is the consummate politician and an absolutely brilliant orator whether on the hustings or at the ballot box.
I believe him to be a genuine enough bloke whose self belief and faith in his own decisions is unshakable.
His very longevity in office will be his legacy and just like Mrs Thatcher even his fiercest detractors will look back on the man and his years in office with misty-eyed nostalgia. IMHO of course.

[BDunnell]

I believe him to be a genuine enough bloke...

So, in spite of my dislike of many of the things his governments have done, as outlined above, do I. I don't think Blair is a bad person, or a nasty one, unlike (for instance) Michael Howard.

[oily oaf]

So, in spite of my dislike of many of the things his governments have done, as outlined above, do I. I don't think Blair is a bad person, or a nasty one, unlike (for instance) Michael Howard.

Yes indeed. I have long been of the opinion that there is something of the night about our Michael ;)

[jim mcglinchey]

[ plus they conceded to the IRA so god knows what else he could do behind the british public's backs[/QUOTE]

They didnt concede to the IRA. In return for the political recognition that Sinn Fein has finally been given, the IRA no longer exists, and in the the new climate they are unlikely to reform.

[cdn_grampa]

Iraq? Yes, unfortunately that is what he shall be remembered for it seems doesn't it. It's a shame some people can't praise him for the good he's done, instead of only ever concentrating on his mistakes.

Yeah - right - Jack the Ripper bought his mother some flowers.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

[CharlieJ]

He widened Labour's appeal to the middle class.
by ditching traditional labour values.



You blame Mr Blair for MG Rovers moving abroad?.
Blair never supported manufacturing industries in this country, while other european governments supported their manufacturing industries. No.. hang on.. he supported foreign companies coming into Britain with subsidies even though he wouldn't support British owned companies.



So you were against the Olympic bid? Weird how everyone is all for it, and then once we get it, people start having doubts. The East part of London is going to have so much improvements, and the facilities there will be just what the area needs. Have some pride!
I didn't say I was against the bid. I just questioned how much over budget it's going to be. I don't think London was the best place for it, and I'd have preferred it to be smewhere like Birmingham or Manchester. Pride... lots... for Britain in general, rather than London.



If your referring to the road tax, it's not as bad as people were saying. They were simply too ignorant and lazy to read up about it. Though I'm not for it, sometimes you have to go through with an unpopular decision, because it's the right thing to do. Like your boss making you do something, because it has to be done. Have you come up with any better suggestions?
I completely agree that something needs to be done, but Blair only talks about pricing people out of their cars, which will cause most hardship to those least able to afford it - he's done nothing to to encourage the provision of cheap, clean and reliable public transport as an alternative - the carrot would be much more useful than the stick. And while spouting about reducing carbon emissions (by taxing motorists and proposing charging them by the mile) he's encourging the expansion of air travel, which is one of the most rapidly increasing sources of carbon dioxide.



To be fair guy, I'm going to be fighting a losing battle trying to defend Blair.

But answer me this, would you have rathered William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, or Michael Howard as prime minister?
Douglas Adams said "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job"

I think that goes for all politicians. I vote on the basis of trying to figure out who will do the least damage. ;)

[raphael123]

by ditching traditional labour values.


Well yes he did. However instead of appealing to 3/10, he appealed to 6/10. Whats wrong with that? So though he may not have been so appealing to one group, he appealed more to another group. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There's no point trying to appeal to a certain crowd, if you know that they are never going to be enough to get you into power to do something. And it's not as if they have completely ignored those traditional supporters of Labour!



Blair never supported manufacturing industries in this country, while other european governments supported their manufacturing industries. No.. hang on.. he supported foreign companies coming into Britain with subsidies even though he wouldn't support British owned companies.


I'm sure it's not that simple. The government wouldn't choose foreign companies over British companies because they were foreign. There are obviously other factors, which you and I are both unaware of. To view this is a fact is quite ignorant.


I didn't say I was against the bid. I just questioned how much over budget it's going to be. I don't think London was the best place for it, and I'd have preferred it to be smewhere like Birmingham or Manchester. Pride... lots... for Britain in general, rather than London.


The problem with the Olympics are easily diagnosable by accountants - the previous quotes were not massages, they used present values, rather than the future values which will actually be spent. also, not everything was in the initial cost, there have beenimprovements to the bid, and new things have been added. also there are things like VAT, which was unexpected, and a 10% overrun account, so when you look at it objectively, it hasnt been much of a cost rise, and many of the things that have seen the costs rise are things like buildings and facilities which will be around long after 2012.

I'm not even in England, but even I can see it makes sense to have the Olympics in the Capital City! Are there many previous countries who have held the Olympics in smaller cities?


I completely agree that something needs to be done, but Blair only talks about pricing people out of their cars, which will cause most hardship to those least able to afford it - he's done nothing to to encourage the provision of cheap, clean and reliable public transport as an alternative - the carrot would be much more useful than the stick. And while spouting about reducing carbon emissions (by taxing motorists and proposing charging them by the mile) he's encourging the expansion of air travel, which is one of the most rapidly increasing sources of carbon dioxide.


I don't think he's encouraging expansion of air travel is he? Or do you think he's the man responsible for Heathrow expanision? He's the Prime Minister, but he's not a town planner or anything you realise?

I know that this tax would obviously hurt those who use the roads more, and I agree, I think that if such a system was in place, it would have to be a system, where even though we have to pay, it shouldn't put a working class person at a bigger disadvantage than the average middle class person. That is obviously going to be tricky though!

Out of interest, can you think of any other solution? It's easy to critizise something you don't like, if you can't think of a solution yourself.

It's easy to say 'improve public transport' - but with what funds? From what I've understood, all the money which people pay with this road tax, would be invested heavily into the public transport, making it a serious alternative to travelling by car (and paying the extra tax). However, there is no other way the government can raise that kind of cash. At the end of the day, whatever the Government come up with to solve the problem is going to be viewed negative, because it means some people are going to be disadvantaged. But that's the only way to do it unfortunately. Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices unfortunately. Plus, as things stand, big cities will be losing huge amounts of money due to the amount of time spent in congestion. Traffic jams are already costing the country £15bn a year in lost working hours alone! This is set to rise to £30bn in the near future. So it's not just about the environmental issues anymore, its affecting the economy, and people's quality of life, when you have to spend 1/10th of your day stuck in a car because of traffic.


Douglas Adams said "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job"

I think that goes for all politicians. I vote on the basis of trying to figure out who will do the least damage. ;)

You didn't answer my question :(
Would you have preferred Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and Michael Howard, rather than Tony Blair?

[raphael123]

I also wanted to add, though Labour under Blair may have changed their values slightly, to appeal to a wider range of people, they have stuck to somethings - i mean 10 years ago could you imagine; the repealing of section 28, allowing gay couples to adopt, an equalisation of the age of consent, allowing homosexuals to serve in the army and of course civil partnerships. they have also brought in the single equalities act, the race relations act, and by far the biggest gainers of the minimum wage are women, who comprise above 60% of those paid on it. Also disability rights are taken seriosuly, there is real funding for disabled fcilities, and for the first time, the government is looking at getting all those who were made unemployed my Thatcher off the incapacity benefit and into work. Let us not also many hospitals have been rebuilt, cancer deaths are down 12%, long term youth unemployment is down 79%, 800,000 children and 2,000,000 pensioners are out of poverty, free bus passes for the elderly, working families tax credits and the baby bonds, which give the working classes access to stock market liquid funds for the first time.

It's not been perfect, I don't think anyone expected it to be perfect, but its not as bad as some people try to make out, and certainly a better job than what the Tories could have done.

[Hazell B]

Blair himself is the consummate politician and an absolutely brilliant orator whether on the hustings or at the ballot box.


I'll second that, even as a lifelong Tory.

A few years ago I took part on a live question show he did (I was the Hunting question) and he really impressed me. However, the second Alistair (sp?) Campbell appeared in the room and muttered something in his ear, all eyes moved to Campbell, mine included. It's a shame, as I would have become a big Blair fan after that evening, but I ended up paying more attention to the man standing behind him occasionally muttering a statistic or two.

Blair without the whole package of other faces could have won me over, even though I disagree with much of his talk. That's magnetism of the highest order.

[raphael123]

The war was against international law, so that makes it wrong, thats my point of view too.
Also I belive people had it much better and Iraq was a much safer place before the war, than what it is now. (im talking about a year or so before the war, not the time usa supported Hussein, at that time it was also a very danger place too.)

I know people are against Iraq, and these days seem to think of Saddam with rosey tinted sun glasses, as if 'ahh, it wasn't that bad afterall', but I think a lot of people forget what kind of man he was. At the moment everyone realises what kind of create Mugabe is, but if he was removed, and there was lack of order in place, do you think the response would be the same 'ah, well at least there was some sort of order in place'?

The way the war has been carried out is obviously questionable. But something had to be done.

There should be no doubt about Saddams mentality. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he has launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population. Was he a danger to the world? I believe it is fair to assume he was!

Is the world a better place without Saddam? I think it is. Western publics would not have forgiven their political leaders if Saddam had been left in power and had then come to hold the world to ransom with horrific weapons.

And as has been pointed out, there have been 1000's of deaths in Iraq, but Tony Blair hasn't sent his troops out to kill. Once again, I think we are in a situation where we seem to forget who the bad guys are, and blame the people trying to do the right thing, and liberate Iraq, and fight terror.

[Hazell B]

So you were against the Olympic bid? Weird how everyone is all for it, and then once we get it, people start having doubts. The East part of London is going to have so much improvements, and the facilities there will be just what the area needs. Have some pride!



WTF? Thousands of people have been 100% against the bid from day one, myself included. How is that not having pride in the country, exactly?

The facilities (if they all materialise) will no doubt be lovely for the East of London, but bugger all use for everyone else. That's not me being ashamed of my country, that's just plain common sense. I'm proud enough to represent my country in the one thing myself and my partner are good enough to compete in (not at the Olympics though) and yet you seem to think anyone unhappy with the bid has no pride :mark:

Did you frequent the Millenium Dome, I wonder? If not, where's you pride?

[BDunnell]

Blair never supported manufacturing industries in this country, while other european governments supported their manufacturing industries. No.. hang on.. he supported foreign companies coming into Britain with subsidies even though he wouldn't support British owned companies.

So, would you have preferred it if Rover, which was a dying company for years and years, had been propped up by the government? Subsidies directed towards foreign companies coming to operate in the UK are a far more sensible bet in terms of creating new jobs in the long term and benefiting the economy than putting Rover on a life support machine just because it's British.

[BDunnell]

I didn't say I was against the bid. I just questioned how much over budget it's going to be. I don't think London was the best place for it, and I'd have preferred it to be smewhere like Birmingham or Manchester. Pride... lots... for Britain in general, rather than London.

But then we wouldn't have got the Olympics, because the IOC (an awful body, of course) would never have voted to stage them in Manchester and Birmingham. London was the UK's only chance of getting the Olympics, like it or not.

[BDunnell]

I also wanted to add, though Labour under Blair may have changed their values slightly, to appeal to a wider range of people, they have stuck to somethings - i mean 10 years ago could you imagine; the repealing of section 28, allowing gay couples to adopt, an equalisation of the age of consent, allowing homosexuals to serve in the army and of course civil partnerships. they have also brought in the single equalities act, the race relations act, and by far the biggest gainers of the minimum wage are women, who comprise above 60% of those paid on it. Also disability rights are taken seriosuly, there is real funding for disabled fcilities, and for the first time, the government is looking at getting all those who were made unemployed my Thatcher off the incapacity benefit and into work.

While I have serious reservations about the benefits system, I do agree with much of that. I would also add that they stuck to their guns and banned fox hunting, which may have been unpopular but was after all a manifesto commitment on the basis of which Labour was elected twice.


Let us not also many hospitals have been rebuilt, cancer deaths are down 12%, long term youth unemployment is down 79%, 800,000 children and 2,000,000 pensioners are out of poverty, free bus passes for the elderly, working families tax credits and the baby bonds, which give the working classes access to stock market liquid funds for the first time.

Now we're going into Labour press release territory, I'm afraid.


It's not been perfect, I don't think anyone expected it to be perfect, but its not as bad as some people try to make out, and certainly a better job than what the Tories could have done.

Again, I agree.

[Hazell B]

Now we're going into Labour press release territory, I'm afraid.



So you're saying it could be a conspiracy? :p :

[BDunnell]

The facilities (if they all materialise) will no doubt be lovely for the East of London, but bugger all use for everyone else.

They would be equally useless to a lot of people if they were in Manchester or Birmingham.


That's not me being ashamed of my country, that's just plain common sense. I'm proud enough to represent my country in the one thing myself and my partner are good enough to compete in (not at the Olympics though) and yet you seem to think anyone unhappy with the bid has no pride :mark:

Did you frequent the Millenium Dome, I wonder? If not, where's you pride?

Fair point, though I do like the idea of having the Olympics in the UK, and will certainly go if I'm still living here. This notion that you are automatically doing the country down if you question the idea of us staging the Olympics is really ridiculous — as if this one event is now somehow a focus of national pride that shouldn't be criticised or even scrutinised. Why should it, or anything else for that matter, be such a sacred cow?

[raphael123]

I am emphatically not one of those people who thinks that 'the country has gone to the dogs' during Blair's time in office. I'm perfectly happy with my lot and don't feel hard done by as a result of anything the Labour governments have done, although I do not support Labour. However, let's go through that list with a finer toothcomb.



Who do you support? Out of Hague, Smith and Howard, do you think Blair has done a better job than these people would have done?




True, but he may also have ruined its chances at the next election.


What specifically has he done which make you think that?


And there have only been two General Elections since Labour got in in 1997.


Yep, he's won 3 consecutive elections :)


Yes, he has, but the money has been directed wrongly in spite of repeated warnings about this. There has also been an unhealthy reliance on PFI deals and damaging private sector involvement.


I'm not in a position to comment too much on the NHS, but from people working within the NHS, the general consensus is that it could have been better spent. It's not all bad - cancer rates down 12%, many hospitals have been rebuilt and waiting lists are down. Aren't there more nurses and doctors now too than there was in 97? I think things got worse before they got better. Hopefully, things shall continue to improve.




I agree that, in general, the stewardship of the economy under Labour has been very good.


:up:


The minimum wage is indeed a fine achievement, and there have been some excellent Government-driven projects in the inner cities. However, all is far from perfect when it comes to Britain's underclass. Go to the deprived areas of many cities and you will still find big problems, though I am more confident about Labour's ability to deal with them than I am in relation to the Tories. Increased decentralisation would help, but Labour hasn't been very interested in that.


About decentralisation- it's one of those media words which means nothing but gets bandied about nonetheless.

Yes, it's impossible to expect a government to get everyone out of poverty. But they are definately tackling the problems. As I mentioned earlier they have brought in the single equalities act, the race relations act (ethnic minorities usually dominate the underclass), and by far the biggest gainers of the minimum wage are women, who comprise above 60% of those paid on it.

Inner city depravation is tackled by investment. Investment in schooling, housing, tyhe environment and community relations- the schooling investment is there and plain for all to see, and they pioneered the broken window argument, that appearances mean a lot and people who live in run down areas see no reason to preserve, so spend money on tidying up communities. Now I have been to places like Blackpool and Broighton, where inestment in youth services, community centres, youth centres etc. deliver a real change- i am told about the hell hole the whitehawk estate in brighton used to be, until LABOUR councils spent money on a community centre, a youth centre and schooling, as well as tidying rubbish, especially though recycling. No one can say Labour hasnt done anything on deprivation. And as you say, I think they put more emphasis on this than Tories would - afterall, no one in Tories has ever experienced it. The fact nearly all the front bench are etonians make me wonder how they could manage a country knowing and understanding the difficulties 95% of the population have.


Again, the employment figures under Labour have been good.
:up:


On this one, he built on the fine work done by the last John Major government, but again, it is a real achievement. What a shame the same principles haven't been applied to the 'fight against terrorism' in which we are now engaged.


I think Iraq was completely different, as I've said in an earlier post regarding the type of man Saddam was.


Good work was done in Kosovo. Sierra Leone is still tarnished in my eyes by the arms deal scandal that erupted in 1998. And there are such big problems in Afghanistan that I refuse to class it as a success as yet.


I think Afghanistan was a success- the renewed activity of the Taliban is a new thing, we well and truly crushed the Taliban when we went in. now yes there have been problems with local commanders, and poppy growth, but lets not cloud the overall picture that women are vastly better off- they no longer live under the worlds worst oppressive regime, they c\an teach and learn, people have smiles on their face because they can now liste to Bollywood music and watch Bollywood films- which were banned as "unislamic" before, they have a democracy up and running, with more women representation than Britain.

The afghan army is still being trained and is doing well, and hopefully in time they will be able to combat the warlords, and the Taliban, and defend thier country- it just takes time. those who call for withdrawl from Afghanistan are little more than opportunist who don't understand the situation on the ground, or the reality of what has changed.



A fine example of the faults of New Labour. It was a great PR coup, and I'm sure the London Olympics will be terrific, but yet again the figures have been massaged in the interests of being friendly to the private sector. Those involved, including the Government, should have realised that the bids put in by the big contractors were unrealistically low and would surely lead to huge over-runs.


I've replied to this point when I answered I think Charlie was his name :)


There is some truth in this, but the UK is still way behind other European nations on both these scores.


I agree. More should be done. What's your view on the road tax system floating about?


You have also forgotten what I consider to be some of the best things Labour has done — giving gay people more rights, and abolishing Section 28. Small things, but they mean a lot. The Freedom of Information Act was another good thing, but now they want to water it down, which most certainly is not.


:up:

To be continued...

[raphael123]

BDunnell


However, all this is tarnished by several things. New Labour has been obsessed with presentation — this was a factor in its favour early on, but it soon came to look tawdry. Linked to this, the way in which Blair held on to the utterly appalling Alistair Campbell for so long is a disgrace, especially after his role in naming Dr David Kelly became known. The obsession with being 'business-friendly' may have paid off in some ways, but private sector involvement in the public services has had many adverse effects which will take years to reverse, not that any other party would probably want to do so. Blair in particular has shown a complete contempt for Parliament, and this has filtered down through the ministerial ranks; announcements often get made in the media rather than the House of Commons, and Labour ministers who, when in opposition, used to jeer at Tories who refused to answer simple questions are now just as bad (if not worse) themselves. The recent halting of the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into BAE Systems' deals with Saudi Arabia has made a mockery of any early attempts to develop an ethical foreign policy, as if many previous examples hadn't proved this already. And then there is Iraq, and everything related to it. I could go on if I had the time.



I think we need to be careful about spin- I mean Governments need to communicate with the people, and parties need to put out their messages, look at the John McDonnell campaign, which has spent more time attacking Tony Blair, rather than the tories, and they have spent an equal amount of time attacking "New Labour spin" which I find humourous, because without spin they have gotten nowhere in the public consciousness, and more than that, the McDonnell campaign have a wonderul record of telling lies and bullying anyone who disagrees with them, treating them like crap and insulting them.

Can I say about Dr Kelly, there are too many civil servants and people of virtual civil service position who leak absolute crap about the Government and ministers, mainly based on thier own political views. The partiality of the foreign office is well known, and if you watch yes minister you will see it isnt new.

I think New Labour has had to go out of it's way to court business for a number of reasons. Firstly, they had destroyed our reputation amongst economists and business leaders through 15 years of anti business, and frankly anti success policies. In the Loony years of the 1980's, which Mr.McDonnell and his chums would like to recreate, we kept losing because no one who earned more than £10,000 would have been better off uder Labour- they wanted a system, whereby you would be better off unemployed than in work! Their Economic policies of the 80's drove business into the arms of thatcher, and we needed the trust of business in order to govern. The fact is that the argument for a pure socialist economy failed miserably, add the poeople of Britain rejected it outright. In order to compete with other countries and in order to stay as an economic power they needed to have strong business growth in order to sustain and strengthen the economy.

Tony Blair dosent have contempt for Parliament- it's just that people can see his voting record on theyworkforyou.com and because it is poor they think he is not doing his job- the reality is that Major and Thatcher were in the commons even less, and did not consult it when going to war with Iraq or Argentina. Neither did they ever bother to refom it and introduce a bit of democracy in the house of Lords. It isnt true to say that ministers announce policies in the media, they float the idea, but no policy is policy until it is put before the house, and actually I think it is a little bit more democratic if we actually got people's opinion about policy before they bring in a bill.

Labour are just as bad as Tories. Tories can never have a go at Labour about answering questions when they have Michael "for the 14th time did you threaten to overrule him?!" Howard. Yes Ministers will never want to answer embarrasing questions, but also, the nature of journalism and the way questions are asked has changed- the questions are now all soundbites, and designed to catch ministers out- so of course ministers need to explain thier case properly and there is no such thing as a yes o no answer- you can't make decisions like that.. If you mean PMQs, well it has never been about answering questions, it has always been pure theatre, and thats what makes it watchable.


As someone who was very excited about Labour coming to power in 1997 (the first time I was able to vote — a memorable occasion), I don't exactly feel let down, because my expectations even as an 18-year-old were realistic. However, I am deeply disappointed by Labour, and Blair personally.


As you say, it's unrealistic to think otherwise. Politicians are magicians.


Some good points though BDunnell :) :up:

[raphael123]

WTF? Thousands of people have been 100% against the bid from day one, myself included. How is that not having pride in the country, exactly?

The facilities (if they all materialise) will no doubt be lovely for the East of London, but bugger all use for everyone else. That's not me being ashamed of my country, that's just plain common sense. I'm proud enough to represent my country in the one thing myself and my partner are good enough to compete in (not at the Olympics though) and yet you seem to think anyone unhappy with the bid has no pride :mark:

Did you frequent the Millenium Dome, I wonder? If not, where's you pride?

I think BDunnell has sufficiently answered that.

I shouldn't have bought pride into it :)
Still, generally everone seems pretty keen to have the olympics, but as soon as you win the bid, people start doubting about how good an idea it was. It's the same everywhere that it ends up costing more than what is previously stated (as I've explained in this post already), so why are people acting surprised is beyond me. However if you were against it from Day 1, fair enough :)

[CharlieJ]

You didn't answer my question :(
Would you have preferred Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and Michael Howard, rather than Tony Blair?
Actually, having always voted Labour, after one term of Blair I decided that the lib-dems would be better.

[Hazell B]

They would be equally useless to a lot of people if they were in Manchester or Birmingham.


I know :s
I didn't say they should be anywhere in the UK :confused:

raphael, you haven't answered my question. Letting somebody else do it isn't the same thing. C'mon, you're always bleating on about other people not answering, so let us be enlightened by your view on what I asked. Did you enjoy the Dome? Where's your pride?

[BDunnell]

I think BDunnell has sufficiently answered that.

I shouldn't have bought pride into it :)
Still, generally everone seems pretty keen to have the olympics, but as soon as you win the bid, people start doubting about how good an idea it was. It's the same everywhere that it ends up costing more than what is previously stated (as I've explained in this post already), so why are people acting surprised is beyond me. However if you were against it from Day 1, fair enough :)

Hang on — I agreed with most of what Hazell said! I'm confused...

[BDunnell]

I know :s
I didn't say they should be anywhere in the UK :confused:

Fair enough, you didn't. It is something that other people do say, however.

I would like to add that I actually paid money to go to the Millennium Dome, when it was in its death throes. It was as crap as everyone (well, most people) said.

[Hazell B]

I enjoyed the Dome quite a bit.

Having said that, I didn't pay at the gate and was given wads of 'don't bother waiting in line' tickets to get me straight into all the bits. A media pass is a wonderful thing :p : Before going I'd thought it a pointless waste of cash, and still do to some extent, but it was squandered by the citizens as much as the people behind it IMO. I'd rather have another Dome than the Olympics.

[BDunnell]

I enjoyed the Dome quite a bit.

Having said that, I didn't pay at the gate and was given wads of 'don't bother waiting in line' tickets to get me straight into all the bits. A media pass is a wonderful thing :p : Before going I'd thought it a pointless waste of cash, and still do to some extent, but it was squandered by the citizens as much as the people behind it IMO. I'd rather have another Dome than the Olympics.

I'm afraid I'm in the opposing camp. I really did think the Dome was a load of nothing, but I reckon having the Olympics in the UK will be something special. However, I do see where you're coming from, as I said before.

[oily oaf]

Actually, having always voted Labour, after one term of Blair I decided that the lib-dems would be better.

Charlie. I too have toyed with the idea of abandoning my Labour Party roots and voting Lib Dem.
However I just can't bring myself to do it on the grounds that my dad would kill me.
He was a communist party member for many years and a firebrand trades union official for many more and I just don't fancy the prospect of turning up at the pearly gates only to see my old man standing next to St Peter with steam coming out of his ears and repeatedly smacking a rolled up copy of The Socialist Worker into those meaty mitts.
Just a little anecdote to illustrate my old dad's enthusiasm for his beloved socialism, In 1972 as a young student I went to watch him address an open air meeting of around 200 irate aircraft engineers who were threatening strike action over the Industrial Relations Act of that same year.
Midway through his speech he spotted me at the back of the throng, stopped in mid flow and asked me if I was a member of The Amalgamated Engineering Union, as it was then known.
Feeling the eyes of the multitude home in like lasers I tried my best to make my head disappear inside my shirt before shaking it ruefully.
"Right well clear off then" he advised.
I did. :D

Nope. It's the old Red Flag that'll be flying from Repsol Towers come election night.
I just can't take the chance you see :(

[CharlieJ]

Oily,

I myself was a staunch trades unionist. In 1984 I was instrumental in a particular strike that was rather overshadowed by the miners strike (can't go into any details - official secrets act). That was where my disillusionment started, as our union General Secretary very undemocratically sold us out and "settled" the strike without a members vote - he went on to take a high paid job in the CBI.

Strangely, my parents, though working class, always voted Conservative.

Keep that red flag flying ;)

[raphael123]

raphael, you haven't answered my question. Letting somebody else do it isn't the same thing. C'mon, you're always bleating on about other people not answering, so let us be enlightened by your view on what I asked. Did you enjoy the Dome? Where's your pride?

I have answered the question :dozey:

I have taken back what I said about having pride.
I don't live in England, but no, I never went to the dome. Considering the fact I've taken back my comment about Olympics should be about pride (which is partly true, but not 100&#37 ;) , I don't see how whether I went to the dome is relevant anymore. If I was in London I would have paid it a visit though for sure, but I wouldn't travel the 400miles required (from where I am) to spend a day in the dome - especially as it was sh!t according to most people lol.

So what question have I failed to answer? :confused:

BDunnell - I agreed with you concerning your approval of the Olympics :) I think it's a positive thing. I won't benefit from the facilities (unlikely anyway), but I'm not opposed to others making the most of it.

BDunnell, you didn't have anything to add to what I was quoting you on I take it? :) Surprising lol.

[raphael123]

BTW, what kind of income are you people who are considering voting for Lib Dems? Anyone who has done well enough in life to earn past the £50k mark will get heavily taxed, to help those people who fail to get a job, or haven't worked hard, until they realise it's too late.

However I do agree with a lot of what they say, but that puts me off. Redistribution of wealth is okay to a certain extent, but we don't want to go too extreme. I'm also worried about how seriously they would take the threat of terrorism, which is very high nowadays. The fact they support civil liberties, and have opposed the more authoritarian of Labour's anti-terror laws (e.g., detention without trial) worries me a tad.

[BDunnell]

BTW, what kind of income are you people who are considering voting for Lib Dems? Anyone who has done well enough in life to earn past the £50k mark will get heavily taxed, to help those people who fail to get a job, or haven't worked hard, until they realise it's too late.

However I do agree with a lot of what they say, but that puts me off. Redistribution of wealth is okay to a certain extent, but we don't want to go too extreme. I'm also worried about how seriously they would take the threat of terrorism, which is very high nowadays. The fact they support civil liberties, and have opposed the more authoritarian of Labour's anti-terror laws (e.g., detention without trial) worries me a tad.

I'm a Lib Dem voter, but I am not willing to disclose my income to you on a public forum. Suffice to say, it is not brilliant, but I would not mind being more heavily taxed if I started earning more, because this is what I would expect. I also base my voting choices on other factors, and expect that I will always do so even if I start earning more money.

I would feel no more or less safe under any party compared to another one, because I do not feel unsafe at the moment.

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, you didn't have anything to add to what I was quoting you on I take it? :) Surprising lol.

Now you are confusing me.

[raphael123]

I'm a Lib Dem voter, but I am not willing to disclose my income to you on a public forum. Suffice to say, it is not brilliant, but I would not mind being more heavily taxed if I started earning more, because this is what I would expect. I also base my voting choices on other factors, and expect that I will always do so even if I start earning more money.

I would feel no more or less safe under any party compared to another one, because I do not feel unsafe at the moment.

Yes other factors do play a role. As things stand, Libs Lab and Tories, though they differ on some aspects, there's nothing major which stands out on what they say, so my income, and their tax policies will definaetly have an influence, along other things.
Regarding your confusion, that was relating to the extensive post in which I replied to all your points on how Tony Blair wrecked their chances of winning the next election, about inner city poverty, the success, or lack of afghanistan, road tax system, how the government use spin, your views on the businesses, tony blairs apparent contempt for parliament etc. It's quite rare for you not to reply, I was surprised that's all. But there's no need to reply if you have nothing else to add to it :)

[raphael123]

Actually, having always voted Labour, after one term of Blair I decided that the lib-dems would be better.

How about the other points I tackled you on?

I don't want to keep on asking people to reply to my questions, but it seems people are quite happy to quote me, and counter my points, yet when I counter their points, some people just leave it at that. That's all well, but I would genuinely be interested in hearing a reply. I thought that was the point of using this message board.

[CharlieJ]

raphael,

Of course you're right about Blair making Labour's appeal wider - that's all about getting the power rather than genuine political principles. But those principles that he has demonstrated are generally much more Tory than traditional Labour.

As for supporting industry, other european governments provided support to maintain their industries, while Blair allowed not ony MG Rover to go, but also the British shipbuilding industry and others.

On the environment, it seems to be a government policy to allow or even encourage airport expansion. If it isn't, then Blair and his cronies could still put the brakes on it if they weren't just paying lip service to environmental issues. as for public transport, haven't we been told for years that extra road tax and extra fuel duty will be put towards improving public transport? It hasn't happened. Motorista have been milked to support other government spending. Without an improved public transport infrastructure in place, there will be no alternative for lots of people but to pay extortionate road pricing charges if (or, rather more likely, when) they're introduced. Surely Blair could use the Private Finance Initiatives he's so fond of to provide the services? I'd love to have decent public transport available so I could use my car less, but my 20 minute journey to work by car is about 50 by dirty, noisy, expensive, crowded bus (and foot).

[Hazell B]

I have answered the question :dozey:



You didn't answer when I asked if you'd been to the Dome. You keep moaning at others for not answering, then do the same thing yourself if it suits you. Anyway, answered now.

Nobody's going to tell you their income. It has NOTHING to do with you. I also note you didn't tell us what you earn ...... why not?

[raphael123]

You didn't answer when I asked if you'd been to the Dome. You keep moaning at others for not answering, then do the same thing yourself if it suits you. Anyway, answered now.

Nobody's going to tell you their income. It has NOTHING to do with you. I also note you didn't tell us what you earn ...... why not?

I didn't answer the question originally, because I took back the thing about pride, therefore it doesn't make a difference. If I'd stuck to what I said originally, and said people against the Olympic bid had no pride, and still failed to answer whether I'd been to the dome, you'd have a point. The fact I took back what I said about pride, meant whether I'd been to the dome had no relevance whatsoever.

And as you say, I replied after you asked me :)

Concerning wages, I wasn't asking for a specific wage. But it'd be interesting to know what tax bracket the people who support Lib Dems would be in. I don't think many people over e.g. £50k would vote Lib Dems.

[BDunnell]

Concerning wages, I wasn't asking for a specific wage. But it'd be interesting to know what tax bracket the people who support Lib Dems would be in. I don't think many people over e.g. £50k would vote Lib Dems.

Well, I don't earn £50k, but if I did I would still vote Lib Dem. There will be many Lib Dem voters who earn over that amount a year, because they have principles.

[raphael123]

Well, I don't earn £50k, but if I did I would still vote Lib Dem. There will be many Lib Dem voters who earn over that amount a year, because they have principles.

Umm, I doubt the majority of its voters are those who earn over 50k, but I'm sure they do exist :)

I think it's quite ignorant of someone to suggest those who earn over 50k, and don't vote Lib Dems have no principles.

[BDunnell]

Umm, I doubt the majority of its voters are those who earn over 50k, but I'm sure they do exist :)

I think it's quite ignorant of someone to suggest those who earn over 50k, and don't vote Lib Dems have no principles.

That wasn't what I was really saying — rather, that anyone who votes Lib Dem but then decides to stop doing so when their income reaches a certain level is unprincipled. People may decide not to vote for the Lib Dems or any other party for all sorts of reasons without being unprincipled, and no matter what their income is. But we had this argument before so there's no need to go over it again.

[raphael123]

That wasn't what I was really saying — rather, that anyone who votes Lib Dem but then decides to stop doing so when their income reaches a certain level is unprincipled. People may decide not to vote for the Lib Dems or any other party for all sorts of reasons without being unprincipled, and no matter what their income is. But we had this argument before so there's no need to go over it again.

That's a pretty arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

Some people may live their life differently to yours. That doesn't mean they have no principles.

[BrentJackson]

I think Blair's greatest legacy may just be beginning at Stormont. The troubles in Northern Ireland have been going on since 1966, and it seems like it may finally be over. That makes this guy real happy. I never thought I'd see the day when Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness become partners in governing Northern Ireland. :)

Iraq has certainly become a black mark, but overall he's done a good job over his decade in power. He deserves credit for that.

[BDunnell]

That's a pretty arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

Some people may live their life differently to yours. That doesn't mean they have no principles.

You're only saying that because I'm referring to you. I don't think I'm being arrogant or ignorant at all. Bit rich coming from you, if I may say so.

[Dave B]

Well, he's announced that he'll be leaving office on 27 June. Today's papers were already full of articles about his legacy, The Times pull-out keeping me quiet for a good few minutes. Expect a month of the same, along with the obligatory pointless challenge to Gordon Brown from some previously unheard-of back bencher.

Blair's speech today did grudgingly acknowledge that there have been failings, but overall I believe he's done a good job.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="BrentJackson"]I. That makes this guy real happy. I never thought I'd see the day when Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness become partners in governing Northern Ireland. :)

Amen to that.

[jim mcglinchey]

Old Jimmy "Peanuts " Carter put the boot into Blair today when he said that it was a tragedy for the world that Tony and the labour government should so fawningly and unquestioningly do whatever Dubya bid. Well, it doesnt make much difference now, 'spose.

[raphael123]

I think Gordon Brown will do a good job - I hope he's given the chance to lead our country. To be honest though, as long as we don't get Cameron, I think we'll be ok :)