NationStates Jolt Archive

Across the world (including parts of America) people are still asking themselves why Bush was elected, and a great many people in Britain are very confused as to why Blair was.

Whether you like Bush or not he IS an accurate representation of the majority of Americans. His policies on “Guns, God and Gays” are in line with the American people. Sure, in secular Europe we can’t understand this, but it’s not that Bush is an exceptional President it’s that America is an exceptional nation. Sure, a lot of you Americans will rant about this not being the case. You are the minority. The average American is a Christian who believes in small government, gun ownership and is firmly against gay union. Most Americans (around 80%) are Christians and 44% of Americans are creationist. Bush may be more religious than a lot of Americans with his “prayer sessions” before every Cabinet meeting but he is hardly extreme by American standards. That is why when America looks at Bush; they see a different man to the rest of us. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Bush’s policies very much but I accept he has a democratic mandate and his policies accurately express the will of the American People.

Anyway. Blair is also a religious, god-fearing man. That’s one reason why he DOES NOT accurately represent the British people. Most British people are not practising Christians: the majority are agnostic/atheist or Christians by birth/in name only. That Blair’s government “does God” is the thing that people should be worried about, not that Bush’s administration does. Blair was pro-war and is very much at the forefront of the war against terrorism. Most British people were not in favour of the war in Iraq, yes we supported our boys when they got there, but we didn’t want them to be sent there (Something in the realm of 60% of people were against the war). We accept terrorism is evil, but not all of us believe in war as a solution. Blair is also pro-European. This does not accurately represent the British people, as countless polls have shown (left wing, right wing and centrist). Blair was almost a right wing as Thatcher. Most British people are political centre, or left of centre (subject to the evidence of polls, again.) Blair is also anti-fox hunting. 56% of the British people are not. See where this is going?

Why have I posted all this? I am sick and tired of people judging you by your leader’s beliefs. I understand that it must be frustrating for American’s to be judged by Bush’s standards, but evidence suggests the majority of you have a lot in common with him. Barely any Limey has much in common with Blair. That’s probably why Blair is more popular in America than the UK: He actually has quite a lot in common with the average American. ;) So please, before you congratulate a Brit for supporting the war effort in Iraq or criticise an American for electing George Bush…at least remember Bush is a pretty understandable choice while Blair is definitely not.

Evidence taken from:

UK Census 2000-5
The Gallup Poll
The Right Nation
The Spectator Time Magazine The Economist The Guardian

51 (-53, depending on where you look) percent DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MANDATE. The climate in the US is obviously very touchy in regard to veracity, dignity, honor, and many other things that little chimp-f*ck and his demonic denizens have managed to rail on the cleaver over the past few years. I do so appreciate that now i have to erect a second and even third fence in heart, mind, and yard so things don't get any more embroiled and vitriolic than they already are ... to fisticuffs and the dismemberment of a beautiful charter attempt.

But i think i understand what you're trying to say, and i appreciate that.

Good post. Its hard for me to accept that Bush does represent a large portion of the American population. But I do accept it because I know that the American people may be a little sluggish at times, but they will eventually begin to accept the correct ideas. (I'm not saying that my ideas are correct)

As for Blair, you are kind of on your own with that one. Maybe you are misjudging the British people.

I hope no one gets all agitated and accuses you of America bashing. That will ruin a well started thread quick.

This is complete rubbish, you claim to be using accurate information to justify your bizzare argument but actually its full of misquotations, your own misinformed opinions, and just downright lies.

The quote is that Blair "doesn't do God", not that he "does God". Quite a difference. While he is a religious man he keeps his faith personal. Bush and Blair have very different attitudes to religion and its role in everyday politics.

Saying "Blair is almost as right-wing as Thatcher" is just such a non-argument. Please try to justify this ludicrous statement.

So you're believeing the Countryside Alliance's polls that 56% of people support foxhunting?? Funny how no other opinion polls indicate this. Infact all the others show a healthy support for banning it, even in rural areas.

I'm not a devout Blairite, but your portrayal is wholly inaccurate.

This is complete rubbish, you claim to be using accurate information to justify your bizzare argument but actually its full of misquotations, your own misinformed opinions, and just downright lies.

The quote is that Blair "doesn't do God", not that he "does God". Quite a difference. While he is a religious man he keeps his faith personal. Bush and Blair have very different attitudes to religion and its role in everyday politics.

Saying "Blair is almost as right-wing as Thatcher" is just such a non-argument. Please try to justify this ludicrous statement.

So you're believeing the Countryside Alliance's polls that 56% of people support foxhunting?? Funny how no other opinion polls indicate this. Infact all the others show a healthy support for banning it, even in rural areas.

I'm not a devout Blairite, but your portrayal is wholly inaccurate.


Alastair Cambell's quote, yep, but I was tailoring it to fit the argument. Blair doesn't keep his faith personal, otherwise he wouldn't be proposing new Spiritual Allowances in relation to taxation. Blair is almost as right-wing as Thatcher, check the political compass (very credible). There is no left wing party since triangulation.

Other opinion polls indicate this (The Guardian was my original source), but there's no healthy support for banning fox hunting. There's not much healthy support for preserving it either. Any fools knows it degenerated into a class war.

Good post. Its hard for me to accept that Bush does represent a large portion of the American population. But I do accept it because I know that the American people may be a little sluggish at times, but they will eventually begin to accept the correct ideas. (I'm not saying that my ideas are correct)

As for Blair, you are kind of on your own with that one. Maybe you are misjudging the British people.

I hope no one gets all agitated and accuses you of America bashing. That will ruin a well started thread quick.

I'm not on my own. Most British people didn't vote for Blair in the last election. Plus, I think I judge my own people quite accurately.

Bush got re-elected because overall, Americans hate Gay people more than they hate lying morons.

Alastair Cambell's quote, yep, but I was tailoring it to fit the argument.

A Bullshit to English translation reads:

I lied intentionally to misrepresent the person I was talking about.

btw, does anyone have the most recent edition of Time, just that it has a Blair quotation along the lines of "I dislike the religious chest beating culture in American politics."

Blair doesn't keep his faith personal, otherwise he wouldn't be proposing new Spiritual Allowances in relation to taxation. Blair is almost as right-wing as Thatcher, check the political compass (very credible).

Sorry, no he isn't. Even though I cannot stand Blair or the bitch queen Thatcher, they are not similar. Thatcher was far more socially authoritarian and economically moneterist than Blair.

There is no left wing party since triangulation.

*giggles*

Other opinion polls indicate this (The Guardian was my original source), but there's no healthy support for banning fox hunting. There's not much healthy support for preserving it either. Any fools knows it degenerated into a class war.

Since the Guardian is online you can provide a link (typing the headline into the search box usually works a treat)

Well Blair would say that...but at the same time he is a devout catholic and it's BOUND to come into his judgement. Remember, he is the king of spin.
No, sorry, Blair really is not that far off from Thatcher. www.politicalcompass

There is no left wing party of any stature or significance.

Well Blair would say that...but at the same time he is a devout catholic and it's BOUND to come into his judgement. Remember, he is the king of spin.
No, sorry, Blair really is not that far off from Thatcher. www.politicalcompass

There is no left wing party of any stature or significance.
Blair is not (yet) a Catholic. His wife is.

i'm not confused as to why Blair got elected.

Well Blair would say that...but at the same time he is a devout catholic

No he isn't. If he was

1) He wouldn't have been able to be Prime Minister in the first place (actually, the jury's still out on this one)
2) The church wouldn't have objected to him recieving Communion recently.

His wife is Catholic, his children were bought up Catholic, he sympathises with Catholicism. But he is not a Catholic, never mind a devout one.

and it's BOUND to come into his judgement.

Why?

and

Provide it doesn't drastically effect a majority of the population, how is this a problem?

Remember, he is the king of spin.

Non sequitur?

No, sorry, Blair really is not that far off from Thatcher. www.politicalcompass

How?

And I mean compare policies, attitudes etc, not post a link to a site that gives a vague position on a chart.

There is no left wing party of any stature or significance.

Irrelevent.

Why isnt there an "i dont like either" option. Because i dont.

BuSh is FAR too right wing for me.

Blair is just taxing the middle classes.

In the UK, taxes have risen 37% in the last 7 yrs. Pention pots are now worth 1/4 of that they would have been before labours rade on them. Council tax has risen 100% in some regions.

Labour might liik right wing but they arent.

Bugh isnt right wing as the UK know it, he's to the right of Atilla the Hun.

In the Uk there is no longer a viable opposition so i fear Blagh (no spelling mistake) will get in again *sigh*

Blair is not (yet) a Catholic. His wife is.

Blair is a catholic, but for political reasons (he can't officially be Prime Minister if he is a Catholic) he is not confirmed.

Blair is a catholic, but for political reasons (he can't officially be Prime Minister if he is a Catholic) he is not confirmed.
...or baptised.

Which (drum roll please) means he's not a Catholic.

How much do you know about Catholicism?

No he isn't. If he was

1) He wouldn't have been able to be Prime Minister in the first place (actually, the jury's still out on this one)
2) The church wouldn't have objected to him recieving Communion recently.

His wife is Catholic, his children were bought up Catholic, he sympathises with Catholicism. But he is not a Catholic, never mind a devout one.



Why?

and

Provide it doesn't drastically effect a majority of the population, how is this a problem?



Non sequitur?



How?

And I mean compare policies, attitudes etc, not post a link to a site that gives a vague position on a chart.



Irrelevent.

Policies:

Top up Fees, ID Cards, the War in Iraq: Very right wing. They followed the Tory economic guidelines throughout Blair's first government. Surely as an A-level politics student you are aware that Blair's party has triangulated. This is because they were not successful as a left-wing working man's party. ;)

I don't believe that in a secular democracy (don't try the Monarchy church bullshit, the monarch is immaterial when discussing real politics) an elected leader should draw upon his religious morals to guide him. Church and state should be separate.

Policies:

Top up Fees, ID Cards, the War in Iraq: Very right wing. They followed the Tory economic guidelines throughout Blair's first government. Surely as an A-level politics student you are aware that Blair's party has triangulated. This is because they were not successful as a left-wing working man's party. ;)

Ahem, I finished my Politics A-Level 2 years ago :)

Anyway.

Yes Top up fees, ID cards are Toryesque, but one swallow does not a summer make, I am not denying that Labour has moved right. But Thatcher and Blair are very different.

The Tories in the 80s were far more monetarist, and yes Blair has followed the economic guidlines of Thatcher. But that is like saying Atlee and Churchill (or any Conservative PM during the post war consensus) are similar.

I don't believe that in a secular democracy (don't try the Monarchy church bullshit, the monarch is immaterial when discussing real politics) an elected leader should draw upon his religious morals to guide him. Church and state should be separate.

And how do you stop a religious person drawing upon the very thing they get their moral outlook from? Cold economic principle?

<snip>
In the UK, taxes have risen 37% in the last 7 yrs.
<snip>

If they'd done that, we wouldn't be talking about elections; we'd be talking about how to deal with the rioting.

In the UK, taxes in 1997 were 35.5% of GDP and in 2003, 35.7%.

Ahem, I finished my Politics A-Level 2 years ago :)

Anyway.

Yes Top up fees, ID cards are Toryesque, but one swallow does not a summer make, I am not denying that Labour has moved right. But Thatcher and Blair are very different.

The Tories in the 80s were far more monetarist, and yes Blair has followed the economic guidlines of Thatcher. But that is like saying Atlee and Churchill (or any Conservative PM during the post war consensus) are similar.



And how do you stop a religious person drawing upon the very thing they get their moral outlook from? Cold economic principle?

Nope. COld unbiased common sense for the benefit of the people, by the people. Blair does not stand for that. You can't deny that he has constantly flown in the face of his own MPs, the opposition and the people to get his own way...

Top Up Fees, for example.
ID Cards.
The War in Iraq.
Fox hunting (statistical evidence from many sources suggests)
Foundation Hospitals.

None of these had/have the approval of the majority of people in the UK. None of these have benefitted the UK in any shape or form, directly or indirectly.

Blair is Thatcher in sheep's clothing according to many on the left and the right. That is why he is so successful, because he can spin himself to garner support from either side.

I teach politics AS/A2, as I think I've informed you before. ;)

If they'd done that, we wouldn't be talking about elections; we'd be talking about how to deal with the rioting.

Bollocks! the UK people dont riot!

And if taxes havent risen why do the figures releases on thursday show a 2.5% rise in average earnings over the 2002-2003 but the average take home wage is £1 a week less?

Stealth taxes my friend. if someone took £52 from you you'd be pissed yes? But if you dont see it, what do you do? Not to the mention pentions raid.

try reading Friday's Daily Mail. they list all the stats in the articles on page 4, i beleive. read that then come back and say taxes havent risen.

Bollocks! the UK people dont riot!

And if taxes havent risen why do the figures releases on thursday show a 2.5% rise in average earnings over the 2002-2003 but the average take home wage is £1 a week less?

Stealth taxes my friend. if someone took £52 from you you'd be pissed yes? But if you dont see it, what do you do? Not to the mention pentions raid.

try reading Friday's Daily Mail. they list all the stats in the articles on page 4, i beleive. read that then come back and say taxes havent risen.

Who said that they haven't risen? The point was that they haven't risen by the riot-inducing percentage indicated. (And "UK people don't riot"? So I dreamed the poll tax riots? Weird.)

But this probably shouldn't degenerate into a barely related argument about taxes... I don't want to have to insist that taxes are fine (except when government is virtually unaccountable).

...Oh! Damn! I forgot to insult the Daily Mail and everyone who reads it.

Who said that they haven't risen? The point was that they haven't risen by the riot-inducing percentage indicated. (And "UK people don't riot"? So I dreamed the poll tax riots? Weird.)

But this probably shouldn't degenerate into a barely related argument about taxes... I don't want to have to insist that taxes are fine (except when government is virtually unaccountable).

Stealth taxes are a reality, sadly. The Daily Mail is a horrible paper, try reading the Telegraph, Guardian or even the Independent! Anyway that's advise for UK people.

Though taxes have gone right up, they're not at riot-causing levels yet. Plus, they are almost entirely targetted at the middle classes and the middle classes aren't in a state to riot. Life isn't -that- bad for them yet. But no, not at riot raising levels YET.

Nope. COld unbiased common sense for the benefit of the people, by the people. Blair does not stand for that. You can't deny that he has constantly flown in the face of his own MPs, the opposition and the people to get his own way...

Top Up Fees, for example.
ID Cards.
The War in Iraq.
Fox hunting (statistical evidence from many sources suggests)
Foundation Hospitals.

One can have cold unbiased (which is impossible btw) common sense (which is usually neighter common or sense) and try and do things for the benefit of the people and still act the way Blair has acted. The two points do not equate. unless all the representatives and the electorate are also have cold unbiased common sense..

Interestingly, Thatcher thought she stood for cold unbiased common sense.

None of these had/have the approval of the majority of people in the UK. None of these have benefitted the UK in any shape or form, directly or indirectly.

I agree. Unfortunately the Cabinet doesn't, and they are the ones with the power. They think they are acting in the best interests of the (majority of the) people, and it seems quite presummptious on your part to think you are the only one who knows what is best.

Blair is Thatcher in sheep's clothing according to many on the left and the right. That is why he is so successful, because he can spin himself to garner support from either side.

Who?

If there is one thing I have learned from Politics Alevel is that you cannot use "according to many" (or the various permutations) justifiably ;)

Again you have made a leap of reason. Him having good spin doctors who allow him to get support from all sides is not the logical follow on from him being a "Thatcher in sheep's clothing."

I teach politics AS/A2, as I think I've informed you before. ;)

I don't think you have. Meh, but you have now :)

One can have cold unbiased (which is impossible btw) common sense (which is usually neighter common or sense) and try and do things for the benefit of the people and still act the way Blair has acted. The two points do not equate. unless all the representatives and the electorate are also have cold unbiased common sense..

Interestingly, Thatcher thought she stood for cold unbiased common sense.



I agree. Unfortunately the Cabinet doesn't, and they are the ones with the power. They think they are acting in the best interests of the (majority of the) people, and it seems quite presummptious on your part to think you are the only one who knows what is best.



Who?

If there is one thing I have learned from Politics Alevel is that you cannot use "according to many" (or the various permutations) justifiably ;)

Again you have made a leap of reason. Him having good spin doctors who allow him to get support from all sides is not the logical follow on from him being a "Thatcher in sheep's clothing."



I don't think you have. Meh, but you have now :)

The point of this thread was he is not an accurate representation of a secular, liberal centre-left democracy. Plus, Thatcher was probably about as reasonable as Blair. She just had anarcho-syndicalism (Trade Unions) to contend with. I hated Thatcher, but she's no worse nor better than Blair. I don't know what is best, but the unrepresentative and impotent (you'd know it's pretty meak an institute from politics A2) Cabinet certainly doesn't either.

Bush is a conservative monster who won the election by avoiding all the things that really mattered in a government during his speeches.
He never oneced mentioned the war on iraq by himself, he never said that it might have been an intelligent slip. Because there are far more important things than wars going on, how about gay rights, abortion, and those are what won him the election, (that and the fact that america is sinking into a new depression).

Blair however is a relitivly good guy in comparison. his olicies towards the middle east are helping to create a new peace treaty i do not see how u cannot appreciate what he is doing.

Blair however is a relitivly good guy in comparison. his olicies towards the middle east are helping to create a new peace treaty i do not see how u cannot appreciate what he is doing.

He lied about WMD in Iraq. His domestic policies are quite something else and his work in the Middle East is pure hypocrisy when you line it up next to his anti-semitism and his support for the war in Iraq.

Bollocks! the UK people dont riot!
Of course. The Poll Tax riots were simply over-exuberant tourists eager to get a closer view of Nelson's Column.
And if taxes havent risen why do the figures releases on thursday show a 2.5% rise in average earnings over the 2002-2003 but the average take home wage is £1 a week less?

Stealth taxes my friend. if someone took £52 from you you'd be pissed yes? But if you dont see it, what do you do? Not to the mention pentions raid.

try reading Friday's Daily Mail. they list all the stats in the articles on page 4, i beleive. read that then come back and say taxes havent risen.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer to trust the ONS's definitive (and widely used) time series on UK taxation over figures cooked up by some random tabloid journalist. Especially one working for about the most right-wing newspaper in the UK. The ONS figures will include so-called 'stealth' taxes.

Also, I haven't researched it myself, but I understand that the statistics that the Mail is quoting are a rogue result, not supported by other income series.

Your second and third paragraphs are non-sequitors BTW. You can hardly claim Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions as stealth taxes, and they are the only taxes that affect take-home pay.

You claimed that most of the population was atheist agnostic and not catholic. Well then you need sum updated info: Christians: 84%, islam: 3%, and others 13%

...Oh! Damn! I forgot to insult the Daily Mail and everyone who reads it

Oh yes, i forgot that when reading a middle class paper like the Daily Mail, their statistics are totally made up.

I couldnt really give a crap about the UK any more, i emigrated, but i buy the friday paper for the film revues so read it all.

I pitty you poor delusional people back there. Another Winter of Discontent is only around the corner for you. Another labour term and you'll have one.

If only there was a viable opposition party.

You claimed that most of the population was atheist agnostic and not catholic. Well then you need sum updated info: Christians: 84%, islam: 3%, and others 13%

It's called Christianity by name. People who are elderly, people who are middle aged etc. who do not practise Christianity will, by tradition, call themselves 'Christian' anyway. It's a cultural thing.

The information I used (from The Right Nation) pointed out there are statistically more practising Muslims in the UK than Christians.

Even if your statistic were accurate, Blair (as a Catholic) doesn't represent the majority and neither do his right-wing policies.

The point of this thread was he is not an accurate representation of a secular, liberal centre-left democracy.

Britain has not been centre-left since '79. Leftists have to come to terms with this, no matter who has the majority, in the ways that rightists had to accept that the country was centre-left during the middle of the 20th Century.

And how is not an accurate represtation of a secular (which, to stop side tracking, I'll agree the political system is de facto) democracy? Secularism doesn't call for only agnostics or atheists to be elected, but that religious principles of an individual, or party, do not become enshrined in law.

Trying to claim that Blair's religious affiliation threatens our secular system only serves to distract us from the actual threat that (I think) Labour presents to the country. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any serious Labour policy that has, or will if enacted, erode the secularism.

Plus, Thatcher was probably about as reasonable as Blair. She just had anarcho-syndicalism (Trade Unions)[/quote]

I take exception to this. Anarcho-syndicalist were not a serious faction in the TUs in the 80s (if they existed at all), there was traditionally great friction between the syndicalists and the established TUs with the syndicalist seeing the TUs as selling out the common man. The trilateralism of the post war consensus directly conflicts with syndicalist beliefs as was a sign to the that the state had co-opted the Unions and corrupted them to maintain control. However this attitude already existed before the consensus, the best examples I can think of are the actions of the CWC of 'Red Clydeside' during and right after WWI.

to contend with. I hated Thatcher, but she's no worse nor better than Blair. I don't know what is best, but the unrepresentative and impotent (you'd know it's pretty meak an institute from politics A2) Cabinet certainly doesn't either.

Cabinets power depends entirely on the PM, it was meak when Thatcher was PM and is fairly weak under Blair, but that is because they are strong PMs. Under a PM like Major (say) cabinet is stronger.

But this is evading my point. My point was that the executive sees what it is doing as best for the people. Even if people like you and I disagree.

Of course. The Poll Tax riots were simply over-exuberant tourists eager to get a closer view of Nelson's Column.

Of course not! When people are suposed to pay equally for services the local concil provide equally, of course the people riot!

I mean the upper class get their streats cleaned more often, their bins emptied more often, their parks taken better care of, their roundabouts have more plants than other roundabouts dont they?

Not to mention that the rich pay 40% tax. No that isnt enough is it! they should pay for your bins to be emptied, your streets to be cleaned, your parks to be looked after.

Yes, heaven for fend the people paying equally for an equil local service. :rolleyes: Why not charge the rich more for shopping? put a 30% VAT charge on them? why not charge them more for driving? Surely they should pay twice the car tax, even if they do only have a Ka. And the petrol. well theit duty should be doubled too! they should provide proof of income before they can buy it at the standard rate! Bloody rich people!

Stealth taxes however, bring it on! its only the middle classes who save for their future who'll be hit after all.

Well, yes, they ("the rich") should. Unless their fortunes were amassed and material wealth earned by their own inate magical powers with no help from anybody else.

It's called Christianity by name. People who are elderly, people who are middle aged etc. who do not practise Christianity will, by tradition, call themselves 'Christian' anyway. It's a cultural thing.

It's like the old joke:

A child is filling in an application form and get stuck so asks "Mummy, what religion am I?"
"Just put down Church of England"
"What's that?"
"It doesn't matter, just put it down."

The information I used (from The Right Nation) pointed out there are statistically more practising Muslims in the UK than Christians.

I doubt that, but nevermind. It's really irrelevent.

Even if your statistic were accurate, Blair (as a Catholic) doesn't represent the majority and neither do his right-wing policies.

For the nth time. Blair isn't Catholic. He has not been baptised into the faith, or confirmed (both major initiation sacrements in the Catholic faith). Nor has he ever recieved Communion as a Catholic.

Anyway, Only allowing the PM to be of the faith that the national majority hold, unjustly discriminates against a huge minority. We may as bring back the law that disallows Catholics from positions of influence, but expand it to include all people with a religion.

And as a politics teacher you should no that no government ever represents the majority since:
a) We have nothing approaching 100% electoral turnout.
b) The FPTP guarentees that a majority is not nessasery to win a majority of the seats of the Commons.

try reading Friday's Daily Mail. they list all the stats in the articles on page 4, i beleive. read that then come back and say taxes havent risen.

Is it not a bit late to say that considering the time you posted that at ;)

Of course not! When people are suposed to pay equally for services the local concil provide equally, of course the people riot!

I mean the upper class get their streats cleaned more often, their bins emptied more often, their parks taken better care of, their roundabouts have more plants than other roundabouts dont they?

Not to mention that the rich pay 40% tax. No that isnt enough is it! they should pay for your bins to be emptied, your streets to be cleaned, your parks to be looked after.

Yes, heaven for fend the people paying equally for an equil local service. :rolleyes: Why not charge the rich more for shopping? put a 30% VAT charge on them? why not charge them more for driving? Surely they should pay twice the car tax, even if they do only have a Ka. And the petrol. well theit duty should be doubled too! they should provide proof of income before they can buy it at the standard rate! Bloody rich people!

Stealth taxes however, bring it on! its only the middle classes who save for their future who'll be hit after all.
Not sure why you're going off on one here, mate. I don't remember saying anything about whether UK taxation was fair or not.

When you said:

Bollocks! the UK people dont riot!
I inferred that you were saying the Poll Tax rioters came from outside the UK. Are you now implying that the poorer classes in the UK are not 'UK people'? :confused:

Yes, heaven for fend the people paying equally for an equil local service. :rolleyes: Why not charge the rich more for shopping? put a 30% VAT charge on them? why not charge them more for driving? Surely they should pay twice the car tax, even if they do only have a Ka. And the petrol. well theit duty should be doubled too! they should provide proof of income before they can buy it at the standard rate! Bloody rich people!

Stealth taxes however, bring it on! its only the middle classes who save for their future who'll be hit after all.

I would Have to agree with you, i don't see what people were so upset about. I was only 4 at the time so don't remember it but the Poll tax seems to be a far more fare way to tax people then the council tax. if any one out there would like to illeviate me of my confussion on the matter, please feel free :confused:

It's like the old joke:

A child is filling in an application form and get stuck so asks "Mummy, what religion am I?"
"Just put down Church of England"
"What's that?"
"It doesn't matter, just put it down."



I doubt that, but nevermind. It's really irrelevent.



For the nth time. Blair isn't Catholic. He has not been baptised into the faith, or confirmed (both major initiation sacrements in the Catholic faith). Nor has he ever recieved Communion as a Catholic.

Anyway, Only allowing the PM to be of the faith that the national majority hold, unjustly discriminates against a huge minority. We may as bring back the law that disallows Catholics from positions of influence, but expand it to include all people with a religion.

And as a politics teacher you should no that no government ever represents the majority since:
a) We have nothing approaching 100% electoral turnout.
b) The FPTP guarentees that a majority is not nessasery to win a majority of the seats of the Commons.

Blair has not confirmed his Catholicism for political reasons. He hasn't received Communion, but he attends a catholic church. I'm talking from a sociological point of view, I know that you can come to government scraping 40% of the Vote. FPTP guarentees that there is a certain inherent biased.

THIS IS irrelevant, immaterial...this thread is about Blair. Not the party, and not the political system. It's about how closely he as a person represents the British people.

Blair has not confirmed his Catholicism for political reasons. He hasn't received Communion, but he attends a catholic church. I'm talking from a sociological point of view, I know that you can come to government scraping 40% of the Vote. FPTP guarentees that there is a certain inherent biased.

THIS IS irrelevant, immaterial...this thread is about Blair. Not the party, and not the political system. It's about how closely he as a person represents the British people.

He Dosen't represent the British people, but it is impossible to reprsent every one, i am and avid Conservative and hate the ground that blair walks on, but i will accept the fact the what he dose is (in his oppinion) in the best intrests of the country, just as Maggie did.

P.S

Some one mentioned the fact that a Cabinet is weak due to the Strength of the P.M, It Is Not the strength of the P.M personaly, it is the strength of the majority they weild. Lets just see how 'strong' blair is when his mayority is that of majors!

Blair has not confirmed his Catholicism for political reasons. He hasn't received Communion, but he attends a catholic church.

I used to go to a Catholic church on a regular basis. Even though I have been an agnostic since age 14. Does that make me Catholic? For all we know, he could be pussywhipped by Cherie into going. Which has about as much evidence going for it as your Blair is secretly a Catholic theory

It is interesting that you accuse Blair of being an extraordinary spinner, then practically with the same breath you think him going to church is an entirely genuine expression of his faith. Why do you think that such a person would be so duplicitous in all parts of his life except for this part?

I'm talking from a sociological point of view, I know that you can come to government scraping 40% of the Vote. FPTP guarentees that there is a certain inherent biased.

Not even, I think Labour's share of the vote was in the region of the low 30s last time.

THIS IS irrelevant, immaterial...this thread is about Blair. Not the party, and not the political system. It's about how closely he as a person represents the British people.

So a PM should conform with the largest homogenous sector of society?

Some one mentioned the fact that a Cabinet is weak due to the Strength of the P.M, It Is Not the strength of the P.M personaly, it is the strength of the majority they weild. Lets just see how 'strong' blair is when his mayority is that of majors!

Well the strength of the PM derives from the size of the majority they have. But still, a lot of it depends on personality. Even witha fairly good majority Major was still not a particuarly strong PM.

Well, yes, they ("the rich") should. Unless their fortunes were amassed and material wealth earned by their own inate magical powers with no help from anybody else.

Alan Sugar (of Amstrad) was a Barnados boy. He's hardly tax free is he?

What about parents who work their entire life, have very little to leave their children except a house which has risen in value (based on my grandparents house) 20,000%

That would mean we'd have to sell it (or my parents would). is that fair that a house that was taxes on purchace, taxed on it's mortgage should be taxed on it's resale value if it's not going to be sold?

I would Have to agree with you, i don't see what people were so upset about. I was only 4 at the time so don't remember it but the Poll tax seems to be a far more fare way to tax people then the council tax. if any one out there would like to illeviate me of my confussion on the matter, please feel free

My point is, bring in a fair, well explained tax and the working class people revolt. Like it's a right not to pay tax. Bring in stealth taxes against the middle classes and nada.

And we arent a race known for revolution/riots either in recent times. (well, unless the right to kill inocent animals in a blood thursty manner is questioned, but the ruling classes never did take things lieing down).

Actually it is true. People all over Europe wonder why Bush was re-elected... Guess what? We agree with him. Our country is alot further to the right than Europe (Probably one reason why we're a super-power and you're not)

Well Blair would say that...but at the same time he is a devout catholic and it's BOUND to come into his judgement. Remember, he is the king of spin.
No, sorry, Blair really is not that far off from Thatcher. www.politicalcompass

There is no left wing party of any stature or significance.

LOL I can't believe we're trying to have a grown-up debate here and you're using The Political Compass as evidence that Blair is right-wing. You think he answered the questions himself do you? Of course he didn't, some University Professor, or maybe even a student, did. Please use YOUR OWN evidence that Blair is as right-wing as Thatcher, i.e in policy terms.

[QUOTE=Biggleses]Policies:

Top up Fees, ID Cards, the War in Iraq: Very right wing. They followed the Tory economic guidelines throughout Blair's first government. Surely as an A-level politics student you are aware that Blair's party has triangulated. This is because they were not successful as a left-wing working man's party. ;)
[QUOTE]


Introduction of a minimum wage, increased workers and trade union rights, highest level of investment in public services ever, recruitment of 10s of thousands of doctors, nurses, police, devolution to Scotland and Wales, virtual eradication of long-term unemployment, radical reform of the House of Lords, why do you ignore all this?

The top up fees are necessary. Labour is the only party committed to getting 50% of young people into higher education (how incredibly right-wing, not). At the moment the main beneficiaries of the university system are overwhelmingly the middle-classes. All those who want to maintain the status quo are against the redistribution of opportunity, THAT'S right-wing for you.

ID cards were only following recommendations by the security services, but will probably be dropped.

War in Iraq; so are all wars right-wing? Or only the wars you are against? Although Iraq is a mess and was obviously not well thought through, a fight against a fascist dictator is usually a left-wing cause.

Again i find myself sitting on the fence.


Ouch.
Barbed Wire.

Ok, seriously though, I honestly don't think that blair represents the majority of the UK or acts in what the majority of the UK sees as their best interests. He acts within what HE beleives HE sees as their best interests, which yes, is extremely presumptuous. I do not beleive that he allows his religious beleifs, if he truly has any to impact on political decisions he makes, unless that is he can turn his religious beleifs to political gain. I personally think that this is something blair might have used in order to garner closer ties to President Bush, Lord knows, if I was in his position I'd probably do the same kind of thing.

I will agree with Bigleses to the extent that the labour of today is considerably more right wing than the labour of the past. This however, does not mean that it is not still, a left wing party. This is a change that blair and most of his cabinet have introduced forcibly with the whole new labour enterprise, but, hey you know that already.

When it comes to asking myself why do I think blair is currently the Primeminister, I have to be honest and say that the main reason for it is NO strong oppostition. In the last election, I voted conservative, I didn't like voting conservative, William Hague was a wet fish, so was Ian Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy isn't much better. As it stood during the last election, I ended up voting conservative because my parents paid for a considerable portion (well pretty much all) of my university education, which I was just beginning. As an honest citizen, not one who moves to university and then says they get no aid from their parents so they don't have to pay university fees, it felt like the right thing to do. So, eitherway, we lost, and I wish I could say I was suprised.

I get the distinct feeling that labour for all its faults is the only party in the UK with a really "dynamic" leader - that has any real leadership quality, grossly misguided as I might think of it.

Blairs policies on universal higher education and promises on improving health care may have bore little fruit, but at that point in time, I think he was the only political leader people can and would really, even despite his past, beleive had a chance of bringing those ideas to fruition.

I don't think blair is the primeminister because he was a great primeminister in his last term. I beleive he is primeminister because of the complete lack of apparent charisma in parliament. Arguably the same could be said for the last US election, but to me, when you have extremes like Bush and Kerry, I'd rather take the safer option than the openly religious nut, but then again, I'm not american.

You claimed that most of the population was atheist agnostic and not catholic. Well then you need sum updated info: Christians: 84%, islam: 3%, and others 13%

LOL, where on Earth did you come up with this?

Policies:

Top up Fees, ID Cards, the War in Iraq: Very right wing.
Actually, ID cards are a left-wing policy. That might explain why right-wing America doesn't have them, while the more left-leaning nations of Europe do.

I prefer neither of these politicians.

They both do not represent anyone, or any idea they were elected for, they both only strive for power and their own glory, no matter how much the cost (either in money (least desirerable), or human life (replaceable)).

They are only in it for the power, not for serving their nation! All their decisions are based on remaining in power, not on what is best for the nation they are supposed to rule. They do this by supporting the ideas of people or factions that can support them with the largest cash flow towards them.

Both have no idea about what is really going on in their countries, except for what is told to them by their surrounding people, who are also very narrow minded and aimed for power.

Anyone or anything that does not fit within their plans or vision is simply ignored or pushed under the table, never to be brought up again. They only change this behavior when it is bulldozed to them with enough power so they cannot ignore it without bringing their own power in jeopardy.

try reading Friday's Daily Mail. they list all the stats in the articles on page 4, i beleive. read that then come back and say taxes havent risen.
The Daily Mail is not a credible source! I've seen you reference it more than once on this forum.

Oh yes, i forgot that when reading a middle class paper like the Daily Mail, their statistics are totally made up.


The Daily Mail is lower, lower, lower class.

The Daily Mail is lower, lower, lower class.

Its paper that doesn't have much class, I agree, but in socio-economic terms its readership is mainly middle-class.

Never forget the Daily 'Hate' Mail actually supported Mosley and his fascists in the 1930s...its owner Lord Beaverbrook was a Nazi sympathiser. Not that I'm saying all Daily Mail readers today are Nazis - of course they're not! But its clear to see the Mail's unpleasantly right-wing history.....

I prefer neither of these politicians.

They both do not represent anyone, or any idea they were elected for, they both only strive for power and their own glory, no matter how much the cost (either in money (least desirerable), or human life (replaceable)).



I'm not so sure about in the US, but in the UK I think you'll find politicians could make a hell of a lot more money if they were in another career, so I wouldn't be so absolutely cynical. Its true, if you do (eventually) get to be a politician with a high profile then you do get considerable power, but at the same time you have to go through so much sh*t to get there, with people constantly attacking your character, its an extremely stressful job. Being a politician in the UK is very hard work, so I truly believe the majority of them are in for some greater cause (yes I'm admitting it, even Tory politicians!).

Except Kilroy of course he's a scummer.

I dont know enough about Blair and his politics to be the judge, but I do know America( as I am an American, this makes sense)

The fact is most Americans arent completly behind Bush or against him. If you look at the voting demographic for the election you will see that the highly vocal anti Bush areas were notoriously liberal, like California. I hate that dang states policies( I lived there for a time so I have a right to), and am terrified of thought that California has such a large piece of the voter pie.
However, places in the US that had less white collar soft skinned equality nazis around and more common sense folk won out in the 2004 election. Now I dont agree with everything about Bush-his pandering to illegals irks me and I aint crazy about the war( But I am in Iraq now, doing my duty), but I was scared to death that Kerry would win. Most Americans prefer a safe evil like Bush that is in your face.

So, what... the American public are smart enough to vote for someone they feel fairly represents them, but us Brits are too stupid to?

We're really screwed over here in England. We don't have a real economically right wing, socially left wing party. Howard's a xenophobic loon, Blair's taxes and bureaucracy are madenning, and that's it. The Lib Dems are thieves, and everyone else is racist. Except the Monster Raving Looney Party, but I don't think they have a representative standing where I live.

Thank God I'm moving to the US, where I can vote for the Libertarians...

The clever thing about Bush (not words that are usually seen together) is that he has managed to persuade many Americans (not all; let's not forget just how close the last two elections have been) that he represents their cultural interests. i.e He has created an image of himself as a bit of a redneck, in favour of the death penalty, deeply religious, etc. This appeals to many of the people in the central states of the US, who despise the liberal East&Coasts (as an earlier poster demonstrated) where everyone seems snobby and don't seem to have very much in common with them at all. The fact is that Bush comes from a wealthy family and is well-educated (supposedly), but he has the cunning ability to hide this and instead present himself as a common man of the people.

Therefore, Bush persuades people to vote for their perceived cultural interests (conservative Republicanism) rather than for their class interest (a party dedicated to addressing their economic concerns). How else can it be that so many of the working class are voting for a President that deliver tax cuts for the richest 1% of the nation, slashes social spending, and oversees an economy that is running up a debt of millions every day while unemployment skyrockets?

In this way, Bush is nothing less than a genius! His conservative, Christian, traditional family-values, etc appeal inspires people to vote AGAINST their economic interests. Of course, politics in the US has never really been class-based, so he can't take all the credit. But still he's doing it very effectively.

The thing is that less and less of the working-class in the US are actually bothering to vote. Turnout amongst the poorest of the poor is abysmall, and its understandable when neither of the major parties has anything to offer them. It will be a brave Democratic party that decides to move to the Left and campaign for their support rather than try to play the same game as Bu$h.

I think the original poster is seriously misjudging the British people. I see qoutes of graphs and polls. those are basically useless in determining what a populace wants. As noted in the last American election. The percieved notion that Kerry would probably win. Alas when it came down to it. Kerry lost by a few million votes. When I lived in the UK i knew a number of people that were Christian. I dont believe for one minute that Christians are not a majority in the UK.

Therefore, Bush persuades people to vote for their perceived cultural interests (conservative Republicanism) rather than for their class interest (a party dedicated to addressing their economic concerns). How else can it be that so many of the working class are voting for a President that deliver tax cuts for the richest 1% of the nation, slashes social spending, and oversees an economy that is running up a debt of millions every day while unemployment skyrocketss?

In this way, Bush is nothing less than a genius! His conservative, Christian, traditional family-values, etc appeal inspires people to vote AGAINST their economic interests. Of course, politics in the US has never really been class-based, so he can't take all the credit. But still he's doing it very effectively.

The thing is that less and less of the working-class in the US are actually bothering to vote. Turnout amongst the poorest of the poor is abysmall, and its understandable when neither of the major parties has anything to offer them. It will be a brave Democratic party that decides to move to the Left and campaign for their support rather than try to play the same game as Bu$h.

I am going to have to agree in part to this. It's true Americans tend not to vote for their economy. Europeans tend to have a keener eye towards the bank account while we Americans tend to care more for moral or civil issues. Look at the trend in voting over the last century. We went from a period of hard core Conservative (Regan, Bush 1) to very liberal (Clinton) back to Conservative (Bush 2) American tend to vote with their ideals. Right now, Moral decline and patriotism is bigger then other movements, hence Bush was seen in better light then Kerry. Bush is aggressive towards his policies of marriage, anti-terrorism and religion, Kerry was seen as waffeling the issues, pro gay, pro abortion ect.

I think that Biggleses has a point, Blair is by no means an accurate representative of British attitudes.

The clever thing about Bush (not words that are usually seen together) is that he has managed to persuade many Americans (not all; let's not forget just how close the last two elections have been) that he represents their cultural interests. i.e He has created an image of himself as a bit of a redneck, in favour of the death penalty, deeply religious, etc. This appeals to many of the people in the central states of the US, who despise the liberal East&Coasts (as an earlier poster demonstrated) where everyone seems snobby and don't seem to have very much in common with them at all. The fact is that Bush comes from a wealthy family and is well-educated (supposedly), but he has the cunning ability to hide this and instead present himself as a common man of the people.

Therefore, Bush persuades people to vote for their perceived cultural interests (conservative Republicanism) rather than for their class interest (a party dedicated to addressing their economic concerns). How else can it be that so many of the working class are voting for a President that deliver tax cuts for the richest 1% of the nation, slashes social spending, and oversees an economy that is running up a debt of millions every day while unemployment skyrockets?

In this way, Bush is nothing less than a genius! His conservative, Christian, traditional family-values, etc appeal inspires people to vote AGAINST their economic interests. Of course, politics in the US has never really been class-based, so he can't take all the credit. But still he's doing it very effectively.

The thing is that less and less of the working-class in the US are actually bothering to vote. Turnout amongst the poorest of the poor is abysmall, and its understandable when neither of the major parties has anything to offer them. It will be a brave Democratic party that decides to move to the Left and campaign for their support rather than try to play the same game as Bu$h.

This entire line of reasoning sounds like it was ripped straight out of "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.

Unfortunately, neither he nor you have accepted the possibility that Bush might actually be acting in the best interests of ALL of the people in the country.

This entire line of reasoning sounds like it was ripped straight out of "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.

Unfortunately, neither he nor you have accepted the possibility that Bush might actually be acting in the best interests of ALL of the people in the country.

Never heard of it. I'm speaking from a British perspective, looking at your country from the outside. I've also studied US politics as part of my degree.

And I'm sorry, but the idea that,what, nearly 300 million people can all share the same interests is preposterous. You have your rich, your poor, your Left-wing, your Right-wing....

The simple point I was trying to make is that it is remarkable how an extremely wealthy and priveleged person can identify himself with the working-class as closely as Bush does, just because of cultural/"moral" issues.

The criticism is that while Bush may be satisfying them on these issues, in economic terms his policies are only helping big business and a tiny percentange of the super-rich population. Yet few of those working-class voters who supported him seem to notice this, or maybe they don't care. I don't know.

Never heard of it. I'm speaking from a British perspective, looking at your country from the outside. I've also studied US politics as part of my degree.

And I'm sorry, but the idea that,what, nearly 300 million people can all share the same interests is preposterous. You have your rich, your poor, your Left-wing, your Right-wing....

The simple point I was trying to make is that it is remarkable how an extremely wealthy and priveleged person can identify himself with the working-class as closely as Bush does, just because of cultural/"moral" issues.

The criticism is that while Bush may be satisfying them on these issues, in economic terms his policies are only helping big business and a tiny percentange of the super-rich population. Yet few of those working-class voters who supported him seem to notice this, or maybe they don't care. I don't know.

Well, that's the same argument as What's the Matter With Kansas? I read the whole book... it basically states that USians are voting against their own economic good.

However, I myself would probably fall into the poverty level... through some wise financial choices I have managed to eak together enough money for the things I value (broadband Internet, fast computers, stocks & bonds.)

Despite the fact that I fall well under the middle clas in the american economic structure, I support President Bush. But you're right, it's not JUST because of his economic policies. I think the U.S. economy is screwed no matter what President is in office.

I think that Biggleses has a point, Blair is by no means an accurate representative of British attitudes.
¬.¬

hmm