NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the two fella's on tv the other night...as I have watched for the last few years....am I the only one that has noticed that Blair actually makes mr. Bush's points better than he does ? :D
I actually found myself rooting for the guy when his party was up for elections in the UK...He's a class act..


we got the better part of the Ally deal with Blair...can we keep him ?

Please do keep him. We don't want him.

Blair's too soft.

And he's not from the south.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/208445786740b3dcc3e10b6.jpg

I was watching the two fella's on tv the other night...as I have watched for the last few years....am I the only one that has noticed that Blair actually makes mr. Bush's points better than he does ? :D
I actually found myself rooting for the guy when his party was up for elections in the UK...He's a class act..


we got the better part of the Ally deal with Blair...can we keep him ?

Please, please do. Then the UK can secede from the USA.

During the election he was terrible - basically "Don't vote Tory! Don't vote Tory!" and never really gave a good reason to vote Labour. And their recent local council election campaign was so apalling I could nearly (Not quite) vote Tory to spite him. So there.

It's not hard to do Bush's job better then Bush. Then again, Blair is what happens when the liberal elite whore themselves to political victory.

It's not hard to do Bush's job better then Bush. Then again, Blair is what happens when the liberal elite whore themselves to political victory.

Nah, if you really want someone to properly screw your country over, Thatcher's your woman.

Keep him, and let him run as many terms as he likes, please. We'd probably stick him in a box and fly him on EasyJet to Washington, if you wanted.

I think Tony Blair would make a great US president, he does seem somewhat out of his element here in Blighty.

During the election he was terrible - basically "Don't vote Tory! Don't vote Tory!" and never really gave a good reason to vote Labour.
There are plenty of reasons to vote Labour. The problem is that all of them are also reasons to prevent their leader coming to power.

Since even Blair's economic policies are to the left of the Democrats, I don't think you guys would actually like him.

Blair's too soft.

And he's not from the south.
All politicians are too soft. It's not as if they're personally going into battle.

Keep him! Please do! Take him away! Have him!

He does America's bidding anyway!

Perhaps then we can stop being the slag poodle state of the US!

Take the scumbag puppet!

Don't you DARE try and offload Dubya and his chums to us though! We'll dump him in the sink! I dare say we will! Let that be a warning to yer!

Keep him.

Let's call this a win-win situation.

We'd be happier on both sides of the pond.

Nah, if you really want someone to properly screw your country over, Thatcher's your woman.

Thatcher did what was nessecary, not what was nice. She arguably is the reason the UK economy is outperforming most of the rest of Europe.

Thatcher did what was nessecary, not what was nice.

You are so horribly wrong. My mother lost about 2 years of her education to Thatcher. That's not good. And it wasn't needed at all. All Thatcher did was make the rich exceptionally rich and everyone else poor.

[QUOTE]She arguably is the reason the UK economy is outperforming most of the rest of Europe.
Nothing to do with the UK's industry branching out more, then?

And if we had the mines back, we'd be doing much better.

Thatcher did what was nessecary, not what was nice. She arguably is the reason the UK economy is outperforming most of the rest of Europe.


Despite the murderous damage inflicted onto her economy by Major and Blair, and everything else that has happened in the last 15 years?
Bollocks, matey!
The reason why the UK is OK is King Arthur.
( He'll come again! )

It's not hard to do Bush's job better then Bush. Then again, Blair is what happens when the liberal elite whore themselves to political victory.
No, its what happens when a man pretends to be liberal elite to lead a liberal party and as soon as he gets the party becomes Thatcher reincarnated. You Americans want him, you can have him...

That seems fair. We'd get somebody better than Bush, and you'd likely get somebody better than Blair. It's a win-win situation.

That seems fair. We'd get somebody better than Bush, and you'd likely get somebody better than Blair. It's a win-win situation.
Nop, you'd get someone more articulate than Bush. Anyone who puts Opus Dei members in charge of equality for homosexuals or education, or retains "Two Shags" Prescott after so many scandals, or who has presided over so many of his own, is hardly better than Bush.... And we'd probably get Two Shags, Brown, or Cameron, so we lose too. Hurray?

Please, please do. Then the UK can secede from the USA.

During the election he was terrible - basically "Don't vote Tory! Don't vote Tory!" and never really gave a good reason to vote Labour. And their recent local council election campaign was so apalling I could nearly (Not quite) vote Tory to spite him. So there.

That's utter rubbish, all the tories were saying was Iraq this and Afgahnistan that because they couldn't actually criticize him with anything else. At least hes left wing, and can put up a good argument.

Nop, you'd get someone more articulate than Bush. Anyone who puts Opus Dei members in charge of equality for homosexuals or education, or retains "Two Shags" Prescott after so many scandals, or who has presided over so many of his own, is hardly better than Bush.... And we'd probably get Two Shags, Brown, or Cameron, so we lose too. Hurray?


Vote for Ming!

Nop, you'd get someone more articulate than Bush. Anyone who puts Opus Dei members in charge of equality for homosexuals or education, or retains "Two Shags" Prescott after so many scandals, or who has presided over so many of his own, is hardly better than Bush.... And we'd probably get Two Shags, Brown, or Cameron, so we lose too. Hurray?Oh, I'm not suggesting that Blair is a good choice either, if I were in the UK I wouldn't vote for him, but I am saying that an orangutan would be better than Dubya.

That's utter rubbish, all the tories were saying was Iraq this and Afgahnistan that because they couldn't actually criticize him with anything else. At least hes left wing, and can put up a good argument.
Blair? Leftwing? :eek: That's a new definition of left wing!
And adctally the Tories also criticised in fuck-ups in: Health, Education, the Military, and for that matter... most departments...

Blair? Leftwing? :eek: That's a new definition of left wing!
And adctally the Tories also criticised in fuck-ups in: Health, Education, the Military, and for that matter... most departments...

OK left leaning centrist, that's still far better then Bush.

Blair? Leftwing? :eek: That's a new definition of left wing!
And adctally the Tories also criticised in fuck-ups in: Health, Education, the Military, and for that matter... most departments...

*groan*
What is your definition of left wing?

*groan*
What is your definition of left wing?
How about for government, antiprivatisation (city academies, health privatisation, for example?); for civil liberties, against corporate liberties (various antiterror legislations, various scams and corrutions for big business' advatage?)

How about for government, antiprivatisation (city academies, health privatisation, for example?); for civil liberties, against corporate liberties (various antiterror legislations, various scams and corrutions for big business' advatage?)

*shrug*
That strikes me as more as a grabbag of goodies than as a political position.

*shrug*
That strikes me as more as a grabbag of goodies than as a political position.
Which, the earlier or the bracketed? The bracketed stuff is his actual actions...

Which, the earlier or the bracketed? The bracketed stuff is his actual actions...

I'd say both, in this case.

Like a quotemehappy.com commercial,
it has more style than position.

Half Libertarian,
half Communautarian,

And that goes without brackets
( and within brackets as well! )

"Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" and all.... freedom, equality, and brotherhood.

Can't Blair and Arnie fight it out, like real men, in a back alley?

"Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" and all.... freedom, equality, and brotherhood.


That applies equally
to Villepin
As to Mitterand.

Quinze-a?
Egalite!
Tu l'as volu!

( the aigus and graves don't work on this keyboard )

Blair's too soft.

And he's not from the south.
You'd rather like Chavez? He's not soft, and he's from the south.

I don't think that US citizens would vote for him when they find out which political party and agenda his Dad supported.

Nop, you'd get someone more articulate than Bush. Anyone who puts Opus Dei members in charge of equality for homosexuals or education, or retains "Two Shags" Prescott after so many scandals, or who has presided over so many of his own, is hardly better than Bush.... And we'd probably get Two Shags, Brown, or Cameron, so we lose too. Hurray?
Because of course Prescott's scandals means he can't do a decent job... Him and Brown are the two most important members of the cabinet at the moment - they seem to be the only ones who have a fucking clue as to what they should be doing.

Because of course Prescott's scandals means he can't do a decent job... Him and Brown are the two most important members of the cabinet at the moment - they seem to be the only ones who have a fucking clue as to what they should be doing.

Well then, they might start off by sacking John Reid, wot?

Well then, they might start off by sacking John Reid, wot?

He might make a good PM.

He might make a good PM.

*raised eyebrow*
I suppose that allowing foreign criminals to walk out of prisons and into mainstream Britain and straight into new offences are indeed obvious qualifications for becoming a PM.

Because of course Prescott's scandals means he can't do a decent job... Him and Brown are the two most important members of the cabinet at the moment - they seem to be the only ones who have a fucking clue as to what they should be doing.
Well let's see, Prezza doing a good job seems a contradiction in terms when he has no job (and was the one to organise a drought and then say we need more homes in this area); Brown, on the other hand, can run a Treasury... but can he run the country?

BogMarsh, it was Clarke not Reid who did that and its why Clarke walked. Don't blame the "hardman" of Labour for problems he inherited.

Well let's see, Prezza doing a good job seems a contradiction in terms when he has no job (and was the one to organise a drought and then say we need more homes in this area); Brown, on the other hand, can run a Treasury... but can he run the country?

BogMarsh, it was Clarke not Reid who did that and its why Clarke walked. Don't blame the "hardman" of Labour for problems he inherited.

Has he done a thing about those problems?
Or is it just that he hasn't got any offenses on his own sheet - yet?

*raised eyebrow*
I suppose that allowing foreign criminals to walk out of prisons and into mainstream Britain and straight into new offences are indeed obvious qualifications for becoming a PM.

That was Clarks mistake.

Has he done a thing about those problems?
Or is it just that he hasn't got any offenses on his own sheet - yet?
Actually... he is dealing with it, they're trying to get the criminals back under lock and key and aren't diong as badly as you might think. he gave himself 100 days and expects to be finished by the end of this, although he ahs been blasting the Home Office a lot recently...

Well let's see, Prezza doing a good job seems a contradiction in terms when he has no job (and was the one to organise a drought and then say we need more homes in this area); Brown, on the other hand, can run a Treasury... but can he run the country?

BogMarsh, it was Clarke not Reid who did that and its why Clarke walked. Don't blame the "hardman" of Labour for problems he inherited.

Please can we keep Blair until his government finally implodes and then send him to America?
At least that way we'll get a change of government, not the man who has done nothing but run the Treasury, and - after initial success - started to have his f***-ups come back to bite him on the arse.

So we can have Cameron not Brown? Cameron, that is, Blair Mark 2?

Can't Blair and Arnie fight it out, like real men, in a back alley?
Yes. Yes they can. In fact, we should just stick all of the possible presidential candidates in a ring and make them duke it out.

you're more than welcome to him. Gordon will be delighted.

So we can have Cameron not Brown? Cameron, that is, Blair Mark 2?

On current evidence (admittedly not much) he's better than Blair; besides Labour have been in power too long, they're getting the problem of arrogance and abuse of office because they see it as a right now. A term, maybe two of the Tories, then power can start changing hands fairly regularly again. Better all around that way.

On current evidence (admittedly not much) he's better than Blair; besides Labour have been in power too long, they're getting the problem of arrogance and abuse of office because they see it as a right now. A term, maybe two of the Tories, then power can start changing hands fairly regularly again. Better all around that way.

Cameron's policies are no different to Blair's though - pseudo-privatise schools, pseudo-privatise hospitals and claim that it's somehow different to what the other side wants to do.

I mean, the parties "merge in the centre ground" and expect us to follow them there?

Rant over.

On current evidence (admittedly not much) he's better than Blair; besides Labour have been in power too long, they're getting the problem of arrogance and abuse of office because they see it as a right now. A term, maybe two of the Tories, then power can start changing hands fairly regularly again. Better all around that way.

What?! Don't tell me you believe Cameron's bullshit about the Conservatives turning a new leaf with all that "Going Green" tripe.

The Cameron regime will be no better, if not worse than Blair's.

New Labour = New Conservatives

Different label, same can of soup.

What?! Don't tell me you believe Cameron's bullshit about the Conservatives turning a new leaf with all that "Going Green" tripe.

The Cameron regime will be no better, if not worse than Blair's.

New Labour = New Conservatives

Different label, same can of soup.

Maybe so, but at least to start with they won't be corrupted by power. Arguably Blair has been since the start (Ecclestone...) but it has certainly grown worse.

What?! Don't tell me you believe Cameron's bullshit about the Conservatives turning a new leaf with all that "Going Green" tripe.

The Cameron regime will be no better, if not worse than Blair's.

New Labour = New Conservatives

Different label, same can of soup.

Totally!!

Cameron is a fake green...all that crap about him cycling to work....while his work was driven to his office in a government car...what a plonker!

Feel free to take Blair. Thatcher and Cameron too. Be great to get rid of those loads of rubbish.

Bizarrely I suspect Cameron and Blair would probably be view as socialists over there when people saw their actual policies, rather than the personalities... not that Cameron really has either of those now I think about it.

Sure, why not?

Nah, if you really want someone to properly screw your country over, Thatcher's your woman.


You have such a revisionist view of history. Thatcher saved Britain from the terrible mess caused by socialist and neo-socialist policies.

Well if you think about it ..Blair would be a good Democratic candidate..they may even win a damm election ! :D

He may have to change his views on socialism just a wee bit...but he's not quite as bad as some already in the democratic party .

You can have him if I don't sh*t on his face first, which is unlikely.

You have such a revisionist view of history. Thatcher saved Britain from the terrible mess caused by socialist and neo-socialist policies.
I agree somewhat. The left was causing Britain many problems but it would have been better if Callaghan's successor was moderate, rather than a firebrand right-wing ideologue.

Blair is a sycophantic, feckless, gutless excuse for a Labour man. When Labour, under his questionable brand of leadership won, he made a hard shift to the right to match Clinton (A centrist Democrat) and stepped even further to the right when W became President (A neo-conservative twat).

You ought to call him "Tony the Tory." Labour my right arse cheek.

The best solution to this is force both Bush and Blair out now, before the damage these idiots did to their respective nations becomes permanent.

And heaven help you guys if the Tories win in the next national election because Cameron is wanker who will have Tories longing for Iain Duncan Smith, milquetoast personality and all, oh...wait a minute...Cameron appointed him to Social Justice, right? You might get IDS after all.

As for the US, it seems to much to ask for a Presidential candidate who might bring some sanity back to the process. Repubs here seem to favor men like Mitt Romney, John McCain and Bill Frist, none of those guys have a real spine. The Repubs would be better served with Chuck Hagel.

Dems are reluctantly exploring Hillary Clinton, but institutional Democrats are fecking cowards. Even this far out they are deathly afraid that Hillary might lose. So they futz about and look for any alternative. The grassroots of the Democratic Party would love to see Al Gore and Barack Obama run together.

So who will Democrats pick? Mark Warner (unlikely, the guy is a winner and Dems hate winners)? Evan Bayh (smart man, a little stiff)?

No...we don't need Blair...we have enough bullshit political drama without adding him to the mix.

Please, please do. Then the UK can secede from the USA.

During the election he was terrible - basically "Don't vote Tory! Don't vote Tory!" and never really gave a good reason to vote Labour. And their recent local council election campaign was so apalling I could nearly (Not quite) vote Tory to spite him. So there.

ugh that pissed me off, people voting in the council elections to send a message to parliament, we got stuck with retards again because of it :|

<snip>
And heaven help you guys if the Tories win in the next national election because Cameron is wanker who will have Tories longing for Iain Duncan Smith, milquetoast personality and all, oh...wait a minute...Cameron appointed him to Social Justice, right? You might get IDS after all.
<snip>

If the Tories win, we might, after six years of reckless spending (8 or 9 by then) finally have some control brought to public sector wastage. That's what we have the Tory party for, after all - to rein in the public sector.

If the Tories win, we might, after six years of reckless spending (8 or 9 by then) finally have some control brought to public sector wastage. That's what we have the Tory party for, after all - to rein in the public sector.

I still fail to see how Labour actually increased spending, since they happily carried on Thatcher's/Blair's "Privatise everything" policy. I mean, how much of a public sector do we have?

You have such a revisionist view of history. Thatcher saved Britain from the terrible mess caused by socialist and neo-socialist policies.

Yes, Britain was in a mess, and Thatcher 'cleaned it up'. Wonderful. Now what are we left with? An economy based on moving debt around and 'services', a Broken society and crap public services from 20 years of privatisation.

We'd have been better off with someone who would have fixed our economy without having to throw their right-wing ideology in as an added bonus.

Yes. Yes they can. In fact, we should just stick all of the possible presidential candidates in a ring and make them duke it out.

Actually, I'd just like to see a big bloke beat the shit out of Tony.

Yes. Yes they can. In fact, we should just stick all of the possible presidential candidates in a ring and make them duke it out.

Or make Soames/Prescott sumo.

I was watching the two fella's on tv the other night...as I have watched for the last few years....am I the only one that has noticed that Blair actually makes mr. Bush's points better than he does ? :D
I actually found myself rooting for the guy when his party was up for elections in the UK...He's a class act..


we got the better part of the Ally deal with Blair...can we keep him ?

Has to be born here to be president. So, no.

If the Tories win, we might, after six years of reckless spending (8 or 9 by then) finally have some control brought to public sector wastage. That's what we have the Tory party for, after all - to rein in the public sector.

I have often found that conservative parties harp on public sector wastage and then go forth and waste just as much as the liberal party did.

In some cases, the "liberals" do a better job of reigning in the wasteful spending than the conservatives. Case in point Bill Clinton versus George W Bush.

You are in for a rude surprise if you think Cameron will make a significant difference from Blair. That's the price you pay when you elect one party that doesn't have a ha'penny's worth of difference from the other.