NationStates Jolt Archive

Well? Is he a twat?

Well? Is he a twat?

In short. YES!

Like all career politicians who've reached the top, he's an incredibly intelligent, extremely charming man. The journalist who said he has "the knack of unforced reasonableness; he talks, with attractive intimacy, as if delivering a fireside chat by the light of burning manifestoes" was spot on.

I think there is more depth to him than you can see at second glance, notably because of his personal relationship with religion, which is always the sign of a profound, interesting mind.

That's for the man. As far as his policies go, well, he's centre-right, so that's fine by me.

I like Blair a lot, if only because Mugabe hates him so much.

But he's a liar.

He did know about the doctors' surgeries waiting time target problems last autumn at the very least, despite feigning ignorance the other night on Question Time.

He also lied about university top-up fees. He said at the last election that Labour would not introduce them in the coming Parliament and had legislated to prevent them being implemented. And then he, erm, introduced them. But it's okay, because they are part of an entirely new funding system, so the original pledge didn't count any more.

And then there's Iraq - he conveniently did not tell MPs about doubts surrounding the legality of the war. He's not a president, he's a prime minister - his job is not to make decisions for the whole of Parliament, and then tell them later. Parliament should make the actual decisions. He didn't out-and-out lie about Iraq, but he was not honest.

EDIT: My point being that, while I think Labour haven't done a totally rubbish job of governing the country, you cannot trust them to do what they say they will do.

He also lied about university top-up fees. He said at the last election that Labour would not introduce them in the coming Parliament and had legislated to prevent them being implemented. And then he, erm, introduced them. But it's okay, because they are part of an entirely new funding system, so the original pledge didn't count any more.



The funny thing is, he hasn't lied about this. What he (or rather the manifesto) said was they weren't going to introduce top-up fees this parliament, and they haven't. However they will be introduced in the coming parliament. Its a spin, granted, but not a lie.

He is a liar.

He is arrogant.

He is delusional.

I won't be voting for him.

I first noticed Blair a decade or so ago on television and the word 'smarmy' leapt immediately to mind, swiftly pursued by the word 'weasel'. My opinion hasn't changed much since then, unfortunately.

I think there is more depth to him than you can see at second glance, notably because of his personal relationship with religion, which is always the sign of a profound, interesting mind.

:D

The funny thing is, he hasn't lied about this. What he (or rather the manifesto) said was they weren't going to introduce top-up fees this parliament, and they haven't. However they will be introduced in the coming parliament. Its a spin, granted, but not a lie.
It's a spun lie, I think you'll find. The system has been set up already, although they won't be paying their fees until October.

I don't like him, but for a different reason. He's an overindulgant socialist, doing more to strenghten the welfare state than getting rid of the damn mess. Unfortunatly, the Tory opposition is only slightly more right than the Labor party, and even they aren't really united.

The funny thing is, he hasn't lied about this. What he (or rather the manifesto) said was they weren't going to introduce top-up fees this parliament, and they haven't. However they will be introduced in the coming parliament. Its a spin, granted, but not a lie.

It's a deliberate attempt to mislead. He used weasel words and lawyer language to try and justify what he said. But the intent to mislead was clear. And that makes him a liar in my book.

It's a spun lie, I think you'll find. The system has been set up already, although they won't be paying their fees until October.
Not exactly, its the next group of students that should be effected (or at least it was supposed to have been, originally) so those students starting Uni in September were meant to be the first effected. But spun or not, they did tell the truth (on a technicality).

I don't like him, but for a different reason. He's an overindulgant socialist, doing more to strenghten the welfare state than getting rid of the damn mess. Unfortunatly, the Tory opposition is only slightly more right than the Labor party, and even they aren't really united.


That's hardly a reason to dislike Blair specifically. This is Europe. We like welfare states.

Let's face it, no politician has ever been trustworthy. Until they start doing the job for free and for the love of their country. Tony is just the same as any career politician, and it doesn't matter if its him or power or someone else. It won't have any true bearing on any of our lives.
However, I do think that John Presscott is a particularly worthless waste of space and should lose some weight :D :D

In short. YES!

Well he has the face of a twat.

The Oxford English dictionary should be amended to include the following definition:

Blair
1. A prick of twatish appearance.
2. A servile, two faced (both faces of "twatish" appearance), and lying bastard.
3. New Labor.

I hate the man, personally. But I also dislike the other two. We really have got a crap choice of parties.

There is no getting away from it. He read the intel, and he said that Saddam was a threat to the world's national security when it was only a threat to people living a mere kilometre or two away from the Iraqi border. That is a lie. There is no escaping this fact.

I think he should have been ejected from the Prime Ministership along with George Bush and sent to a desert island togther naked.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/blairlie.jpg

Not exactly, its the next group of students that should be effected (or at least it was supposed to have been, originally) so those students starting Uni in September were meant to be the first effected. But spun or not, they did tell the truth (on a technicality).
2 points:

1. The law was introduced in the recently-expired Parliament (and the system is already being put together, therefore it is already being implemented).

2. It does affect those students who are taking A Levels. The many students who wanted to take a gap year before starting have all had their applications for deferred entry turned down, because all those accepted on a course in 2004/5 will not have to pay top-up fees. They will now have to pay to apply again next year, and then they will have to pay top-up fees as well. Not to mention that they will be disrupting whatever it is they want to do in their gap year with the hassle of applying, and the uncertainty of what waits for them when they return home.

Don't try and convince me it wasn't a lie due to a technicality. It was a lie, full stop.

But he's a liar.

He did know about the doctors' surgeries waiting time target problems last autumn at the very least, despite feigning ignorance the other night on Question Time.



I dont think thats true realy. most peoploe agree it shows how incredibly out of touch he is, i wouldnt realy say it was a lie.

2 points:
Don't try and convince me it wasn't a lie due to a technicality. It was a lie, full stop.
I'd put it more as a failed promise, it all depends on what he was intending when he actually made the first statement.

www.gbjab.com

^view it. hilarious. probably even funnier if you're british^

I'd put it more as a failed promise, it all depends on what he was intending when he actually made the first statement.


Like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a failed promise?

I dont think thats true realy. most peoploe agree it shows how incredibly out of touch he is, i wouldnt realy say it was a lie.
Well, I have heard that this problem was brought to his attention in October, so quite how he forgot all about it I don't know...

I'd put it more as a failed promise, it all depends on what he was intending when he actually made the first statement.
Thousands of students voted for him partly on the basis of the promise. He made the promise, and whether or not he meant it the way he said it, he shouldn't have broken that promise. Breaking such a big promise of your manifesto is a cardinal sin in British politics.

I hate the man, personally. But I also dislike the other two. We really have got a crap choice of parties.

There is no getting away from it. He read the intel, and he said that Saddam was a threat to the world's national security when it was only a threat to people living a mere kilometre or two away from the Iraqi border. That is a lie. There is no escaping this fact.

I think he should have been ejected from the Prime Ministership along with George Bush and sent to a desert island togther naked.

Make sure they take John Howard along with them.

www.gbjab.com

^view it. hilarious. probably even funnier if you're british^

that is absolutely stunning. I have forwarded it to about 200 students at UCL.

Well? Is he a twat?
I guess being a "twat" is bad right?
I think Tony Blair is just a pawn of George jr. Not a great leader by a long shot but he has done some good things I guess for his people.
I do not think he can take the pressure of the office too well, you should elect a new guy.

I dont think thats true realy. most peoploe agree it shows how incredibly out of touch he is, i wouldnt realy say it was a lie.

In 2001 his manifesto stated

"We will not introduce tutition fees and have legislated to prevent them"

In the next term he...introduced tutition fees

At best that is grossly hypocritical. At worse that is lying.

That's hardly a reason to dislike Blair specifically. This is Europe. We like welfare states.
Well, dump them all. Chirac, Schroeder, Zapotero, Barroso, and all of the European leaders (except maybe a few centrists) must be dumped.

that is absolutely stunning. I have forwarded it to about 200 students at UCL.
*bows*