Blair Under Pressure

Carrera said:

This is a clear reminder a so-called socialist politican has linked up with the most right wing administration ever seen across the Atalantic since the days of Hoover.

Sometimes I wonder if Fred is right about you. How about the most right wing administration since Ronald Reagan? George Bush Sr.?

Carrera said:

S
So, my bet is Blair will still win the election but there will be some damage inflicted on him regardless. If the Tories had opposed the Iraq war from the start (as the Daily Mail did), just maybe we'd be seeing a new government in power.

i think Blair will win and it sickens me. During the Iraq war hundreds of thousands of us protested in the street against it, it was the biggest mass demonstration ever seen in the UK. The government completely ignored it.

Demonstration doesnt work in the UK and i dont think it ever has on big national issues.

The government ignores its people and still rallies for our votes come election time.

They will be voted back into power.

I want to emigrate.

MountainPro said:

i think Blair will win and it sickens me...

...I want to emigrate.

As a shoegazing, grumpy, defeated American, I fully sympathize.

Regarding protest: you're right in that it rarely influences government behavior directly. Sometimes, depending on the issue and how it's carried out, it has the effect of generating a backlash in the general public; not good. At best, though, it's a great tool for internal mobilization--what is obstensibly about "sending a message," externally, often acts most directly to rouse and inspire the folks that are already in your camp.

Hang in there.

MountainPro said:

i think Blair will win and it sickens me. During the Iraq war hundreds of thousands of us protested in the street against it, it was the biggest mass demonstration ever seen in the UK. The government completely ignored it.

Demonstration doesnt work in the UK and i dont think it ever has on big national issues.

The government ignores its people and still rallies for our votes come election time.

They will be voted back into power.

I want to emigrate.

Well p off then. If you want mob rule and anarchy join a tribe in Africa Bwana, they wear grass skirts and yours will be a posh woollen one. I'll give you two days life at the most. Hehehehe.

FredC said:

Well p off then. If you want mob rule and anarchy join a tribe in Africa Bwana, they wear grass skirts and yours will be a posh woollen one. I'll give you two days life at the most. Hehehehe.

sounds like i'll fit right in then....i'll send you a post card of the local politicians head on a spear...

That's precisely what irritates me when Bush, for example, criticizes Vladimir Putin or China for ignoring democracy. What does Bush consider several million people were doing marching in the street against his oil war? The said march was a clear indication people didn't approve of the Iraq war and that, in my book, is democracy. In fact, I was taught democracy is a Greek world that means "sovereign rule of the people", not a so-called elected group of self-serving elitists.

MountainPro said:

i think Blair will win and it sickens me. During the Iraq war hundreds of thousands of us protested in the street against it, it was the biggest mass demonstration ever seen in the UK. The government completely ignored it.

Demonstration doesnt work in the UK and i dont think it ever has on big national issues.

The government ignores its people and still rallies for our votes come election time.

They will be voted back into power.

I want to emigrate.

Carrera said:

That's precisely what irritates me when Bush, for example, criticizes Vladimir Putin or China for ignoring democracy. What does Bush consider several million people were doing marching in the street against his oil war? The said march was a clear indication people didn't approve of the Iraq war and that, in my book, is democracy. In fact, I was taught democracy is a Greek world that means "sovereign rule of the people", not a so-called elected group of self-serving elitists.

Funny I often see our transatlantic friends expressing their displeasure at Bush...Don't see any Americans expressing such feeling towards their leaders…Well except for the French Fry….. Anyway, who cares what you think Porche?? You are entitled to be irritated all you want… You should have also been taught that you can’t vote in my country so….I say again…Why are you so [censored]?

I simply can't figure Blair out these days. He appeared on TV the other day, pictured with a group of school children trying to do French during their lesson. He seemed like such a nice guy but someone remarked that whenever you see Blair, he's always in some model hospital, taking abuse from the public in a staged interview or shaking hands with David Beckham.
Press him on fundamental issues such as Iraq, global warming or the NHS and he runs a mile, unless he has his script handy for a staged performance.
The truth is, I suspect, that Blair pushed the Iraq war all the way and was indeed prepared to bend the truth and manipulate information to get what he wanted. He lied in order to go to war against a people whose average wage was about 20 dollars a month. Such people, of course, played no part at all in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Blair basically cosied up to a right-wing, gun-tooting cowboy who's been dying to get his grubby paws on Middle Eastern oil reserves for the last 2 decades. Now Blair pretends he was dragged into this war, but had the war not ended in instability and increased terrorism, you can bet your bottom dollar Blair would be grinning from ear to ear, never shutting up about his Iraq policy. Now he wants people to forget it ever happened and push on with other issues.
Michael Howard also has a weird take on the issue since he's trying to capitalise on the anti-war sentiment, somehow trying to project the idea he's with the public over the issue of the anti-war feeling. But when pushed, he confesses he backed the war at the time.
I think that if Donald Duck was standing this election, then I'd vote for him instead.

Carrera said:

I simply can't figure Blair out these days. He appeared on TV the other day, pictured with a group of school children trying to do French during their lesson. He seemed like such a nice guy but someone remarked that whenever you see Blair, he's always in some model hospital, taking abuse from the public in a staged interview or shaking hands with David Beckham.
Press him on fundamental issues such as Iraq, global warming or the NHS and he runs a mile, unless he has his script handy for a staged performance.
The truth is, I suspect, that Blair pushed the Iraq war all the way and was indeed prepared to bend the truth and manipulate information to get what he wanted. He lied in order to go to war against a people whose average wage was about 20 dollars a month. Such people, of course, played no part at all in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Blair basically cosied up to a right-wing, gun-tooting cowboy who's been dying to get his grubby paws on Middle Eastern oil reserves for the last 2 decades. Now Blair pretends he was dragged into this war, but had the war not ended in instability and increased terrorism, you can bet your bottom dollar Blair would be grinning from ear to ear, never shutting up about his Iraq policy. Now he wants people to forget it ever happened and push on with other issues.
Michael Howard also has a weird take on the issue since he's trying to capitalise on the anti-war sentiment, somehow trying to project the idea he's with the public over the issue of the anti-war feeling. But when pushed, he confesses he backed the war at the time.
I think that if Donald Duck was standing this election, then I'd vote for him instead.

Donald Duck is an American citizen. I see you more as a follower of Screaming Lord Sutch and his Monster Raving Loony Party.

Carrera said:

I simply can't figure Blair out these days. He appeared on TV the other day, pictured with a group of school children trying to do French during their lesson. He seemed like such a nice guy but someone remarked that whenever you see Blair, he's always in some model hospital, taking abuse from the public in a staged interview or shaking hands with David Beckham.
Press him on fundamental issues such as Iraq, global warming or the NHS and he runs a mile, unless he has his script handy for a staged performance.
The truth is, I suspect, that Blair pushed the Iraq war all the way and was indeed prepared to bend the truth and manipulate information to get what he wanted. He lied in order to go to war against a people whose average wage was about 20 dollars a month. Such people, of course, played no part at all in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Blair basically cosied up to a right-wing, gun-tooting cowboy who's been dying to get his grubby paws on Middle Eastern oil reserves for the last 2 decades. Now Blair pretends he was dragged into this war, but had the war not ended in instability and increased terrorism, you can bet your bottom dollar Blair would be grinning from ear to ear, never shutting up about his Iraq policy. Now he wants people to forget it ever happened and push on with other issues.
Michael Howard also has a weird take on the issue since he's trying to capitalise on the anti-war sentiment, somehow trying to project the idea he's with the public over the issue of the anti-war feeling. But when pushed, he confesses he backed the war at the time.
I think that if Donald Duck was standing this election, then I'd vote for him instead.

I am delighted to see the war move toward centre stage, Cararra.
I think that Labour underestimate the effect that the war had on public opinion and public attitude to telling lies.

Howard though cannot be exonerated - he supported the war from day one.
The only party that can claim the moral high ground on the war is the liberal democrats.
But this election won't be won/lost on this single issue.

There was a statement made by a Spartan general around 400 BC by the name of Brasidas that I liked a lot. What he said, basically, was the Spartans tended to feel less irritated by dictators who simply confess their actions are motivated by bad intention. But what they couldn't stand was the individual who claimed his bad actions have been based on some kind of noble ideal. So, I figure the Spartans would have loathed George Bush above, say, Stalin since at least Stalin never claimed his purges were being carried out to forward human rights and democracy.
This is why so many people can't bear Junior. Personally I can't stand being lectured over human rights and democracy by politicians such as Bush who didn't give his electorate the right to hold a referendum on the issue and, as Muhammad Ali used to point out, sends black men and poor whites out to the frontlines of combat to protect upper class business interests.
You may feel free to take a dig at Blair, though, in my book. I don't like him either and welcome any criticism made against him from the other side of the pond. I never denied Blair is equally responsible for the whole Iraq issue and may even have pushed Bush in that direction.

zapper said:

Funny I often see our transatlantic friends expressing their displeasure at Bush...Don't see any Americans expressing such feeling towards their leaders…Well except for the French Fry….. Anyway, who cares what you think Porche?? You are entitled to be irritated all you want… You should have also been taught that you can’t vote in my country so….I say again…Why are you so [censored]?

Trouble is, there is no party that represents my views and these are roughly:
(1) To agree never to go to war unless this is done via the legal process and in line with pure national defence.
(2) To sign up to full respect of human rights at home and abroad.
(3) To hold a referendum over Europe and give people a free choice over such a fundamental issue.
(4) To place sensible limits on immigration and bring forward an international program to investigate poverty in Africa and instability in the Middle East.
(5) To take urgent action over the environment and pollution.
(6) Promote sports and increase sports facilities within the country.
There seems to be no party that has this agenda so who do you vote for?

limerickman said:

I am delighted to see the war move toward centre stage, Cararra.
I think that Labour underestimate the effect that the war had on public opinion and public attitude to telling lies.

Howard though cannot be exonerated - he supported the war from day one.
The only party that can claim the moral high ground on the war is the liberal democrats.
But this election won't be won/lost on this single issue.

Carrera said:

You may feel free to take a dig at Blair, though, in my book. I don't like him either and welcome any criticism made against him from the other side of the pond. I never denied Blair is equally responsible for the whole Iraq issue and may even have pushed Bush in that direction.

This is my issue...Most Americans could really care less what Blair does or does not do. He's your leader not ours...He seems on the surface to be a nice enough fellow but most of us could really give a boogers ass as to what he's up to..

Now your rock musicians poisoning our youth in the 60's now that was a different story...Hey wait a minute...that was me....I'm feeling old today..

Carrera said:

Trouble is, there is no party that represents my views and these are roughly:
(1) To agree never to go to war unless this is done via the legal process and in line with pure national defence.
(2) To sign up to full respect of human rights at home and abroad.
(3) To hold a referendum over Europe and give people a free choice over such a fundamental issue.
(4) To place sensible limits on immigration and bring forward an international program to investigate poverty in Africa and instability in the Middle East.
(5) To take urgent action over the environment and pollution.
(6) Promote sports and increase sports facilities within the country.
There seems to be no party that has this agenda so who do you vote for?

Here's your answer...Palau offers you the world's most beautiful tropical paradise. Famous for its diving, Palau rated as one of the world's best diving destinations by scuba aficionados. And why not...Palau has unspoiled reefs, caves, and walls with the most amazing array of marine life you can ever imagine.

Palau beckons to you with some of the world's most awesome natural wonders. Imagine the whitest beaches you will ever see, gardens of coral just beneath the clearest waters, lakes filled to the brim with "sting less" jellyfish. Forests, waterfalls and caves that have never been ravaged by man, and hundreds of islands of the purest beauty abound all along our pristine archipelago.

Experiences the wonders of Palau... the Rainbow's End.

Just saw a c-span exclusive w/ an "on the spot", walking interview w/ Reg Keys, the Independent who is running against Blair in his own district of Sedgefield (pop. 18.000) Keys son was killed in Iraq & Keys is of the opinioin that the war was illegal especially after the former british attorney general had stated such in a recently revealed report that he had written & the UN veiw on the war. Keys also points out that the Americans/British are leaving behind a trove of spent ammo made of depleted uranium that will be a plague on the Iraqi people for 1000's of years to come. Also interviewed was Chris Llloyd, the political writer for the Northern Echo Newspaper who pointed out that Labour is "smarting" from its decision to join Bush in his foreign endeavours. I, personally, would not like to see Howard win. Granted, I'm an American and don't know as much as you blokes do inre: british political situation. http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=PMQ&ShowVidNum=12&Rot_Cat_CD=PMQ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

Most voters seem to have written Michael Howard off it seems. Personally, I believe that it would be far greater mistake to vote Blair back in than to take a chance on Howard. I don't see the Conservatives as being the same party as they were under the latter days of Thatcher and John Major. I see Blair as being far more right-wing.
One example is Michael Portillo. He used to be a very right-wing, hard-nosed Tory but now he seems quite to the left of the Tory Party and usually appears on the BBC where he gets paid a mint for sitting in an armchair and chatting.
The difference I think between Howard and Blair is that Howard is kind of sinister (Adams family) like John Kerry whereas Blair is simply manipulative. Blair will throw out any pile of bogus statistics to fool the public and his whole party seems steeped in lies and deception.
To my mind, if U.K. voters vote for Blair, they're making a colossal mistake.

davidmc said:

Just saw a c-span exclusive w/ an "on the spot", walking interview w/ Reg Keys, the Independent who is running against Blair in his own district of Sedgefield (pop. 18.000) Keys son was killed in Iraq & Keys is of the opinioin that the war was illegal especially after the former british attorney general had stated such in a recently revealed report that he had written & the UN veiw on the war. Keys also points out that the Americans/British are leaving behind a trove of spent ammo made of depleted uranium that will be a plague on the Iraqi people for 1000's of years to come. Also interviewed was Chris Llloyd, the political writer for the Northern Echo Newspaper who pointed out that Labour is "smarting" from its decision to join Bush in his foreign endeavours. I, personally, would not like to see Howard win. Granted, I'm an American and don't know as much as you blokes do inre: british political situation. http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=PMQ&ShowVidNum=12&Rot_Cat_CD=PMQ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

"Once again, Americans doing their bit for Blair
Democratic strategists working behind scenes"

LONDON - They toil in relative obscurity, urged by their British minders to stay mostly out of sight and especially away from the voracious British press. Behind the scenes though, American political consultants are involved in virtually every aspect of the campaign of Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Labor Party, continuing a relationship that began with former President Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7739808/

Carrera said:

Most voters seem to have written Michael Howard off it seems. Personally, I believe that it would be far greater mistake to vote Blair back in than to take a chance on Howard. I don't see the Conservatives as being the same party as they were under the latter days of Thatcher and John Major. I see Blair as being far more right-wing.
One example is Michael Portillo. He used to be a very right-wing, hard-nosed Tory but now he seems quite to the left of the Tory Party and usually appears on the BBC where he gets paid a mint for sitting in an armchair and chatting.
The difference I think between Howard and Blair is that Howard is kind of sinister (Adams family) like John Kerry whereas Blair is simply manipulative. Blair will throw out any pile of bogus statistics to fool the public and his whole party seems steeped in lies and deception.
To my mind, if U.K. voters vote for Blair, they're making a colossal mistake.

You've backed the wrong side again. I've got £1000 on Labour to win. Would you like to back your Tories? I'll give you 50-1, minimum bet £100 with me. You're a welsher, challenged Beckham, ducked out. Come on yellow belly come out to play.

FredC said:

You've backed the wrong side again. I've got £1000 on Labour to win. Would you like to back your Tories? I'll give you 50-1, minimum bet £100 with me. You're a welsher, challenged Beckham, ducked out. Come on yellow belly come out to play.

Forgot to tell you, I was on another board and betting site. I stuck another £5000 on Labour to win earlier this evening. Where's your pathetic £100?
You're a eunuch.