NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't begin to explain how much I despise the Blair government. Despite the handful of goods things that he has introduced (such as the tax credit scheme), they are completely outweighed by the all the issues in which I think his government has acted atrociously.

Here's a quick list I got from just remembered off the top of my head (I did research the numbers from elsewhere... I'm not htat obsessed)

Human rights issues:
Aims to enforce compulsory ID cards
Introduced detention without charge
Has supported regimes which frequently engage in the practice of toture.
Has used evidence obtained from said torture to push War on Terror agenda
Has never condemed Guantánamo, but has gone as far to say it is an 'anomaly' that must be 'dealt with'
Passed a law to allow evidence obtained by torture to be used in court. This law was struck down by the Law Lords as being unconstitutional in December 2005.

Corruption issues: Loans for peerages
Electoral fraud commited by six party members in 2004
Has halted a major criminal investigation into high level corruption at BAE Systems
Huge increases in ministerial allowances (the maxiumum one could claim when the government came to power, excluding travel, was £77,000. MPs can how claim up to £163,000, excluding travel that is.)
The proposed £40,000 increase in MP salaries. This is on top of £17,000 increase in salaries they have obtained over the last 10 years.
Labour MP, McDonnell, has accused the government of selling block votes to companies in the Corporation of London (a peculiar administrative district in London).
Has repeatedly brought back friends into government how have been forced to resign again and again due to breaching the ministerial code of conduct.

Poli-tics (pol-ee-tics)

Poly, meaning many.
Tics, meaning bloodsucking organisms.

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.



Aims to enforce compulsory ID cards
On what level? I support voter ID cards.



Introduced detention without charge
In war that is fine.


Has supported regimes which frequently engage in the practice of toture.
Which regimes? Your past ones have done this to.


Has used evidence obtained from said torture to push War on Terror agenda
There is nothing with fighting terrorists.

Has never condemed Guantánamo, but has gone as far to say it is an 'anomaly' that must be 'dealt with'
Guantánamo

Not this shit again. :rolleyes: Gitmo is fine and its none of your damn business anyway.

And Chamberlain was the best before Churchill. :rolleyes:

And Chamberlain was the best before Churchill. :rolleyes:


Nice comeback...............:rolleyes:

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.

Why's that? Because he happily followed the yanks on some damn fool crusade?

Tony Blair has one redeeming feature: One day, he'll die.

Why's that? Because he happily followed the yanks on some damn fool crusade?

Tony Blair has one redeeming feature: One day, he'll die.

Geez...

here goes the crusade/war debacle... er, debate again.

I'm going to leave now.

Nice comeback...............:rolleyes:

Please at least tell me you understand it...

Tony Blair has one redeeming feature: One day, he'll die.
LOL! :D

Good stuff!!!

Also reneging on his promise to have a full and open debate regarding Trident.

1 - You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.

2 - On what level? I support voter ID cards.

3 - In war that is fine.

4 - Which regimes? Your past ones have done this to.

5 - There is nothing with fighting terrorists.

6 - Not this shit again. :rolleyes: Gitmo is fine and its none of your damn business anyway.

1 - Let me guess....you class yourself as a 'Conservative'. I find it deliciously ironic that you think Blair, a Socialist party leader, is 'better' than say Maggie Thatcher.

2 - Vote ID cards. Not needed in this country. We already use the electoral register. The ID cards that Blair (aka Smiler) wants are ones that will allow government to track your whereabouts. Now I don't know about you but I do not think its the business of government to know where I am, have been or do as long as i don't break the laws of the country.

3 - War? What war? Is there a war? Oh! The War on Terror....right...and Parliament voted for this engagement when exactly? No the problem with this is that there is no due process.

4 - Yes. This is correct. And why it needs rectifying.

5 - Ok I don't quite understand but will make the assumption that you mean that anything goes when fighting terrorists. You do not understand asymmetric warfare.

6 - Gitmo - actually yes there is. We are allies. Also you have/had UK citizens in detention there. So yes. It is our business. And no. Gitmo is not 'fine'.

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.Not this shit again. :rolleyes: Gitmo is fine and its none of your damn business anyway.Blair is not fine, but it's none of your damn business anyway.On what level? I support voter ID cards.The government is unconcerned about the current lack of security in its new passports. The new biometric passports means it is possible to steal someone's identity by standing next to them with a tiny scanner hidden in a pocket. For long list of the problems with ID cards check this webpage http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/whyNot.phpIn war that is fine.This country is not at war.Which regimes? Your past ones have done this to.Uzbekistan to name one regime. This isn't a comparison to past governments, but a judgement of the current government on its own 'merits'.There is nothing with fighting terrorists.In my mind it is. To sink to the level of your oppenent means that they have changed you, and in the long run they have won. Regardless of whether you actually militarily defeat. Rolling back the frontiers of the state is very hard thing to do.

the economy's doing better than it would under the tories.
and at least real wages for the poor are static now, rather than falling to below 1970s levels as with the tories before blair (the rich-poor divide may be growing but this is now because the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are, rather than the tory method of actually making the poor worse off)

can't agree with everything this government has done, but they're still better than the tories and that's just about good enough for me

The UK is a democracy and Blair was elected (again) by the people. So you are complaining about the choice of the UK electorate. If this is part of a campaign to prevent Labour being voted into power again next time around then fine, if not it is either just sour grapes or an attack on the UK population as a whole.


If you don't like Blair as your leader you are free to do what I did when he was elected the first time - leave.

UnHoly Smite: You want to see what your government and mine support?

The site below describes the way in which Mr Avazov's body was found when it was returned from prison. It also links to a page that shows pictures of Mr Avazov's body. The pictures are graphic and not for the weak of heart. Is this what you truly believe in? Can you really support a regime that boils people to death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafar_Avazov

You forgot the ban on hunting with dogs.

can't agree with everything this government has done, but they're still better than the tories and that's just about good enough for me

The curse of the "lesser evil"...seems one can't escape it no matter where you are. :(

If this is part of a campaign to prevent Labour being voted into power again next time around then fine, if not it is either just sour grapes or an attack on the UK population as a whole.

The whole of the UK population? Hardly. Only 21.6% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm) of the electorate.

You forgot the ban on hunting with dogs.
I haven't...

The curse of the "lesser evil"...seems one can't escape it no matter where you are. :(

It's not like there is a third party or anything. Though I suppose they still haven't been forgiven for WWI.

The proposed £40,000 increase in MP salaries. This is on top of £17,000 increase in salaries they have obtained over the last 10 years.
This isn't a government thing - both Labour and Conservative MPs were part of the group that wrote to the Senior Salaries Review Board asking for the raise.

I can't tell you how much I dislike this govement, and the Balirites in particualar. Thne main body of the Labour party I'm fine with, but this new head of it, Blair, jowell, Milburn and so on, who seen determined to betray there partys priniples and ideals, that seem to be attempting to 'out-tory the tories'. I have no pacence with. Labour are my natural party but in the last 13 years they have moved from there ideals to a post-thatcherite modal of stupidity.

There assults of civil libertys (Indefinate detention, ID cards, trial without dury), padnering to tabloids (Do we need to list these), attempts to udnermine the NHS (Foundation hospitals, targets, competion between hospitals (Possibly there most stupid idea), coninuing privatistion, Achadermy Schools, protections of grammer shcools....

The red flag ahs never been whiter

All the bad things that Blair has done or is planning to do are things that either the Tories agreed to do as well, or things that they wanted to do i the past but are now somewhat against it because it's Tony Blair's ides - I'm referring to ID cards here.

As for the corruption and sleaze issues, back in 1997 one of the main issues in the Conservatives defeat was corruption and sleaze. I think we'd be lucky to find any party that isn't somewhat corrupt.

Huge increases in ministerial allowances (the maxiumum one could claim when the government came to power, excluding travel, was £77,000. MPs can how claim up to £163,000, excluding travel that is.)
The proposed £40,000 increase in MP salaries. This is on top of £17,000 increase in salaries they have obtained over the last 10 years.
[/list]



the economy's doing better than it would under the tories.
and at least real wages for the poor are static now, rather than falling to below 1970s levels as with the tories before blair (the rich-poor divide may be growing but this is now because the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are, rather than the tory method of actually making the poor worse off)

can't agree with everything this government has done, but they're still better than the tories and that's just about good enough for me


On a more personal level, in the last 5 years I have received £158 raise, and because I have no children and my partner works, we get no tax credit or any other kind of state benefits.

I think Tony is really great and trustworthy. I think we should all do exactly as he tells us without engaging our critical faculties in any way shape or form, while loving his cheerful happy smile. Oh, and that nice clever Mr Bush as well - I don't understand politics much but it seems like he's got Mr Blairs' and our countrys' best interests at heart. After all - I think those horrible brainwashed people who say Mr Blair is trying to create a police state by stealth in the UK, and Mr Bush trying to remould the world into a christian fundamentalist consumer society and secure his own countrys' position in perpetuity, should shut up, go home and watch some nice current affairs shows on the BBC with a nice cup of tea. That will put them right.
:fluffle: - (Bush & Blair. Aaah!)

I think Tony is really great and trustworthy. I think we should all do exactly as he tells us without engaging our critical faculties in any way shape or form, while loving his cheerful happy smile. Oh, and that nice clever Mr Bush as well - I don't understand politics much but it seems like he's got Mr Blairs' and our countrys' best interests at heart. After all - I think those horrible brainwashed people who say Mr Blair is trying to create a police state by stealth in the UK, and Mr Bush trying to remould the world into a christian fundamentalist consumer society and secure his own countrys' position in perpetuity, should shut up, go home and watch some nice current affairs shows on the BBC with a nice cup of tea. That will put them right.
:fluffle: - (Bush & Blair. Aaah!)

:D
Very good :)

This isn't a government thing - both Labour and Conservative MPs were part of the group that wrote to the Senior Salaries Review Board asking for the raise.Well considering that the members of the SSRB are appointed by the Prime Minister it is entirely possible that he might appoint those whom he felt were sympathetic to his views. The SSRB seems to have a predisposition to granting salary and allowance increases for MPs. It has increases salaries and maximum allowances from 43k and 77k respectivly to 60k and 163k since the government has come to power. That's an 85% over 9 years as it stands. With this proposed increase the total of salaries and allowances for MPS will have been raised 120% over the last 9 years. That's an approximate 10% increase year on year. It seems as if the SSRB doesn't give a shit about how much money it is willing to shell out from the government purse.

the economy's doing better than it would under the tories.
and at least real wages for the poor are static now, rather than falling to below 1970s levels as with the tories before blair (the rich-poor divide may be growing but this is now because the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are, rather than the tory method of actually making the poor worse off)

can't agree with everything this government has done, but they're still better than the tories and that's just about good enough for me


Yeah I bloody agree.

.... I think we'd be lucky to find any party that isn't somewhat corrupt.

Does that mean you stop looking?

You should change the title to

"Just how bad is government?"

and you'll find the answer.

Blair may be better than a tory government, but he's a pathetic failure as PM.

Just have to pray Mcdonnell gets elected.

Blair may be better than a tory government, but he's a pathetic failure as PM.

Just have to pray Mcdonnell gets elected.

Who?

Hope Brown gets in soon!

You think Blair is bad? at least you dont live in the United States... You condemn Blair for not condemning Guantonamo Bay, we run the damn place. So I sympathize; well I sympathize so long as you promise to buy me a pint while I kick your ass complaining about idiots in office.

You think Blair is bad? at least you dont live in the United States... You condemn Blair for not condemning Guantonamo Bay, we run the damn place. So I sympathize; well I sympathize so long as you promise to buy me a pint while I kick your ass complaining about idiots in office.

Thats a point, thank god we don't have Bush.

Thats a point, thank god we don't have Bush.

Indeed, thank science. (Blair still sucks.)

Aims to enforce compulsory ID cards
Agreed.

Introduced detention without charge
Unsure about this one.

Has supported regimes which frequently engage in the practice of toture.
Who doesn't? Sometimes you have to cooperate with those you don't like.

Has used evidence obtained from said torture to push War on Terror agenda
Well they can't use evidence obtained from torture in court. But they can use it in their investigations, and it would be silly for the authorities to ignore it just because of how it was gained.

Has never condemed Guantánamo, but has gone as far to say it is an 'anomaly' that must be 'dealt with'
Guantánamo
I don't really see how it's in our interests. It would be better if we just refused to join in America's wars and then we wouldn't need to worry about this sort of crap. Guantanamo shouldn't be our problem.

Loans for peerages
Electoral fraud commited by six party members in 2004
Agreed

Has halted a major criminal investigation into high level corruption at BAE Systems
Would you rather hundreds or even thousands of people lose their jobs? All that would happen is the jobs would go to France, who wouldn't have any problem with playing dirty. I'd sooner see the people of this country in decent jobs rather than giving a few liberal politicans the comfort of knowing they're taking the moral high ground.

Huge increases in ministerial allowances (the maxiumum one could claim when the government came to power, excluding travel, was £77,000. MPs can how claim up to £163,000, excluding travel that is.)

The proposed £40,000 increase in MP salaries. This is on top of £17,000 increase in salaries they have obtained over the last 10 years.

Labour MP, McDonnell, has accused the government of selling block votes to companies in the Corporation of London (a peculiar administrative district in London).

Has repeatedly brought back friends into government how have been forced to resign again and again due to breaching the ministerial code of conduct.
Agreed on all.


So overall, I agree with you that Blair's a **** and I'd like a better government. But I do disagree with some things, mainly the ones that put principles before pragmatism.

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.


Where do you come from? If you came from Britain you would not state that Blair was the best Prime Minister since Churchill. Even Thatcher, despite her obvious flaws (crushing mining communities), was a better PM than Thatcher. And what about Atlee? He brought in the NHS...surely that is better than any of Blair's "reforms".

However, I do agree that we should have ID Cards.

People forget the problems of the past so easily, it's why we get nostalgic so easily.

Britain is better now than it was in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s and before that we don't have long to go before that before we get to the days of rationing.

Blair has done a difficult job imperfectly but he's done it far better than the conservatives could have.

UnHoly Smite: You want to see what your government and mine support?

And, we supported Stalin with a smiling FDR at Yalta.

It is true the complaints about Blair do not even reach the hate for Bush. People in teh U.S. that have never even heard of Blair hate Bush. Also i bet if you went anywhere in the world someone there hates Bush.

People forget the problems of the past so easily, it's why we get nostalgic so easily.

Britain is better now than it was in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s and before that we don't have long to go before that before we get to the days of rationing.

Blair has done a difficult job imperfectly but he's done it far better than the conservatives could have.

*applauds*

blair's social policies may be a bit off, and he may be too much like a tory for many people's liking, but he's still not (quite) a tory

However, I do agree that we should have ID Cards.
Um. Why?

I think you're the first person I've heard say that. I've heard a few say "Oh, they're not that bad", but none saying they're a good idea.

I can't tell you how much I dislike this govement, and the Balirites in particualar. Thne main body of the Labour party I'm fine with, but this new head of it, Blair, jowell, Milburn and so on, who seen determined to betray there partys priniples and ideals, that seem to be attempting to 'out-tory the tories'. I have no pacence with. Labour are my natural party but in the last 13 years they have moved from there ideals to a post-thatcherite modal of stupidity.

There assults of civil libertys (Indefinate detention, ID cards, trial without dury), padnering to tabloids (Do we need to list these), attempts to udnermine the NHS (Foundation hospitals, targets, competion between hospitals (Possibly there most stupid idea), coninuing privatistion, Achadermy Schools, protections of grammer shcools....

The red flag ahs never been whiter

Speaking of schools - I think your post just gave me eye-rot...

I dont think I've seen a good politician in any country in a long long long time. Maybe Thatcher, she made hard decisions unlike the current run of pussies we have had.

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.
I apologise to all NSers in advance (except UnHoly Smite) for such crass and n00bish behaviour, but:

You-> :) :mp5: <-The entire UK population

Again, my apologies.

Speaking of schools - I think your post just gave me eye-rot...

Read sig...

feck off

I dont think I've seen a good politician in any country in a long long long time. Maybe Thatcher, she made hard decisions unlike the current run of pussies we have had.
Evil woman, although Blair's no better.

I dont think I've seen a good politician in any country in a long long long time. Maybe Thatcher, she made hard decisions unlike the current run of pussies we have had.

That's the thing isn't it... I can't stand Maggie Thatcher but at least she had balls. Whilst I disagree with a lot of things she stood for she was a great leader and I've got a lot of respect for her in that aspect.

I can't stand Blair. If there was any point I'd probably vote Lib Dems were it not for the fact that the tories practically own the constituency I live in.

It's like Cameron said, before he went of to Sudan or whatever to pose with a bunch of orphans, Blair is more interested in headlines than policies..

Trilby63;12090194']That's the thing isn't it... I can't stand Maggie Thatcher but at least she had balls. Whilst I disagree with a lot of things she stood for she was a great leader and I've got a lot of respect for her in that aspect.

I'm sorry but I can't agrere with you on that> Thatcher ruined this coutnry adn casued Blair to be what he was.

Poli-tics (pol-ee-tics)

Poly, meaning many.
Tics, meaning bloodsucking organisms.

sigged.

I'm sorry but I can't agrere with you on that> Thatcher ruined this coutnry adn casued Blair to be what he was.

how?
the fact is like any leader there is the good and the bad.

I dont think I've seen a good politician in any country in a long long long time. Maybe Thatcher, she made hard decisions unlike the current run of pussies we have had.

If you mean she supported Pinochet, Mugabe and the apartheid regime in South Africa, yes she did make some hard decisions.
However, I think that's the kind of decision-making we're all better off without.

The real worry about the unpopularity of the present government is it might make people vote Conservative again.

I just like this from the NEW STATESMAN (left-wing magazine) in the UK had to say about maggy.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200605220016

I just like this from the NEW STATESMAN (left-wing magazine) in the UK had to say about maggy.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200605220016

'scourge of trade unions and, more generally, of the liberal left'

Yes, she was.

'scourge of trade unions and, more generally, of the liberal left'

Yes, she was.

so you just read the bit at the top?




5 Margaret Thatcher - British Conservative prime minister, 1979-90
Ice-cream chemist who became Iron Lady; still dominates British politics years after leaving office

When Margaret Thatcher was asked what she had changed about British politics, she answered, with uncharacteristic immodesty, "Everything" - and it was true. She changed the atmosphere of the pre-emptive cringe that successive ministries of both parties and industrial management had exhibited towards the trade unions ever since the Second World War. She changed the sense of embarrassment that Britons felt towards the concepts of productivity and profit. She changed our reliance on manufacturing industry just in time, inaugurating the services and information technology revolutions. She changed the post-Suez attitude of appeasement and post-imperial guilt. She changed British politics so fundamentally that the Labour Party had to drop socialism and change its name and objectives in order to get elected.

Along with her friend and ideological soulmate Ronald Reagan, Thatcher changed the failing policy of détente with communism into the confrontational one that eventually brought down the Berlin Wall in 1989. She changed the ownership structure of vast industries, exchanging the nebulous concept of "national" ownership for the more efficient, purer (and ultimately fairer) one of shareholder ownership. She changed the way we financed the European Union budget. Meanwhile, she fundamentally changed for the worse the career paths of Jim Callaghan, General Galtieri, Michael Foot, Arthur Scargill, Neil Kinnock and the IRA activist Bobby Sands.

Those things that she did not change for the better she would have, if she hadn't been knifed by an overambitious cabal of cowards, fools, traitors and - worst of all - Europhiles, who split the Tory party and left it feuding for half a generation, until the advent of Michael Howard in 2003. The 1992 election victory was largely down to her legacy rather than the non-leadership of her absurd successor, John Major.

By encouraging George Bush Sr not to "wobble" during the first Gulf war, she set the international scene that has allowed Tony Blair to finish off the campaign against Saddam Hussein that she started in 1990, further strengthening the "special relationship" with the United States that both she and Blair so fervently believe in.

Margaret Thatcher told it like it was, in a way that so few politicians seem able to do nowadays. When she came to power in 1979 Britain was in a terrible state, with huge areas of our nationalised industries collapsing, a government in craven retreat from the trade unions and the country teetering on the brink of relegation from the second division of world powers. She recognised that only extreme shock tactics and a searing honesty of the type seldom seen in politics could shake the British people out of their torpor.

She was always true to her word. When she said the lady wasn't for turning, she wasn't. When she said the Falklands must be liberated come what may, they were. When she said that people would be allowed to buy their own council houses, they were, too. When she told European politicians that she wanted a rebate on the billions Britain overpaid the Community, she held out until she got one.

There's a downside to all this refreshing candour. The kind of permanent revolution she offered did not suit everyone, and eventually she was overthrown. But she went down fighting for her principles; no one was in any doubt about what she stood for and what she believed in. You might not have agreed with her, but you can't deny that hers was an honesty of the kind hardly ever heard from today's so-called leaders. That, I suspect, rather than her free-market ideology, is why New Statesman readers have finally acknowledged her heroism in this unexpected, if welcome, way.
Andrew Roberts

The real worry about the unpopularity of the present government is it might make people vote Conservative again.
i.e. something identical to New Labour.

how?
the fact is like any leader there is the good and the bad.

Ohhh lets see, poll tax, Falklands war, privatisation of the rail, and the post, she took our milk away from our schools(bitch), she was tory, we had sooooooo many stikes under her, becuase of her bullying of the unions, including post office, dustbin men(and that was not nice) coal miners.


She did in fact fuck up the country.

so you just read the bit at the top?

Err... that's how the New Statesman described her.
The other bit, as you can see, is the one sided opinion of one Tory boy.

Unsure about this one.It would appear that so are the police. They appear to know how to arrest and detain people without charge (and sometimes charge them later on), but, as far as I know, the CPS has never prosecuted anyone (sucessfully or not) under the Terrorism Act 2000.Who doesn't? Sometimes you have to cooperate with those you don't like.So you believe it is right to prop up regimes that engage in torture if it supports your own interests? Tony Blair doesn't. I believe one of the reasons given later on for invading Iraq and Afghanistan was human rights abuses...Well they can't use evidence obtained from torture in court. But they can use it in their investigations, and it would be silly for the authorities to ignore it just because of how it was gained.You'd think that the reason that evidence obtained by torture is not allowed to be used in courts would also apply to other areas - in that the evidence is completely unreliable and misleading. And also, using the evidence is as good as condoning torture. It shows that the state is greatful for another state torturing people.


I don't really see how it's in our interests. It would be better if we just refused to join in America's wars and then we wouldn't need to worry about this sort of crap. Guantanamo shouldn't be our problem.

Would you rather hundreds or even thousands of people lose their jobs? All that would happen is the jobs would go to France, who wouldn't have any problem with playing dirty. I'd sooner see the people of this country in decent jobs rather than giving a few liberal politicans the comfort of knowing they're taking the moral high ground.[/quote]So you believe that the BAE execs should be above the law? And why is Saudi Arabia so bothered if these executives are found guilty of corruption? What skeletons do they have to hide? It's like underfunding the education system for decades and then blaming the teachers they can't do anything about it because they have a responsibility towards the children. If the execs at BAE are guilty of corruption then they shoudl bear the full brunt of an investigation and be held responsible for any contract losses due to the investigation process.

Besides, life isn't a race to bottom. We shouldn't compromise our principles just because others are, otherwise you might as well not claim to hold yourself to that principle.
So overall, I agree with you that Blair's a **** and I'd like a better government. But I do disagree with some things, mainly the ones that put principles before pragmatism.It all depends on what your principles are. To be pragmatic one must first have an aim or principle. Now you saw I am an idealist and you are pragmatic. However, it could easily be said that I am the pragmatist and you are the idealist. Your ideal seems to be economic competitiveness, and mine, in this situation is justice. You are willing to sacrifice some justice (truth) to maintain economic competitiveness, whereas I am willing to sacrifice economic competiveness to maintain justice. You seem to believe that in order to live a proper life a person must have a job, whereas I seem to believe that in order to live a proper life in which one can cope with previous actions that the truth must be known. It's all a matter of perspective, and you and I seem to have different perspectives.

Who?

Hope Brown gets in soon!You rant on about socialism, but have no idea who Mcdonnell is? He's the only 'Old' Labour candidate who is going to stand in the Labour Party leadership elections

I'm sorry but I can't agrere with you on that> Thatcher ruined this coutnry adn casued Blair to be what he was.

Well yes she did.. but she did it in style. It takes guts to be that damn evil.

Ohhh lets see, poll tax, Falklands war, privatisation of the rail, and the post, she took our milk away from our schools(bitch), she was tory, we had sooooooo many stikes under her, becuase of her bullying of the unions, including post office, dustbin men(and that was not nice) coal miners.


She did in fact fuck up the country.

she might have been a bitch but it could be argued that many of her policies benefitted the economy. Which included reigning in the unions and the privatisation of state controlled industries.

It was during here tenure that england went from being the 'sick man of europe' to a strong economy.

But i don't realistically expect people to agree with me on this forum.
I'll just say that IMO she was more of a benefit than a negative influence.

Blair (aka Smiler)

Glad I'm not the only one to see a resemblance between Blair and the smiler from transmetropolitan.

As I recall we had dustbinmen on strike in the labour government before her leading to the infamous picture of a rat among a pile of trash. She wasn't perfect, like leaders before her she did good and bad things for the country the overall balance will always be up for debate but honestly I prefer her to Blair she was less two faced. Sometimes Blair only seems like he cares about having a position in history.

Err... that's how the New Statesman described her.
The other bit, as you can see, is the one sided opinion of one Tory boy.

true, my mistake.

the readers still voted for her though. 5 position. not bad for someone described like that.

she might have been a bitch but it could be argued that many of her policies benefitted the economy. Which included reigning in the unions and the privatisation of state controlled industries.

It was during here tenure that england went from being the 'sick man of europe' to a strong economy.

But i don't realistically expect people to agree with me on this forum.
I'll just say that IMO she was more of a benefit than a negative influence.

Hehe it could be argued, but it's not true. Privatisation has done no more than give us shoddy services, try cathcing a train and getting a seat for you £100 a month travel card, or commuting to work in crampped conditions that are actualy ileagel if we where live stock being transported. The post office are losing sooo much money that they have annouced plans to shut down little village post offices, imagine what that will do for our country cusions.

She made it all about the money, and that's the state of affairs even now.

The 80's greed is good type thinkink that she was responsible for has left us with greedy fucked up curropt bastdards running our country.

Hehe it could be argued, but it's not true. Privatisation has done no more than give us shoddy services, try cathcing a train and getting a seat for you £100 a month travel card, or commuting to work in crampped conditions that are actualy ileagel if we where live stock being transported. The post office are losing sooo much money that they have annouced plans to shut down little village post offices, imagine what that will do for our country cusions.

She made it all about the money, and that's the state of affairs even now.

The 80's greed is good type thinkink that she was responsible for has left us with greedy fucked up curropt bastdards running our country.

but that's because they were natural monopolies!
what about the telecoms industry?
or British petroleum, British Aerospace.
Or the council homes that the tenants were allowed to buy? around 2 million people were able to become home owners.

not everything is a black & white issue you know

I just like this from the NEW STATESMAN (left-wing magazine) in the UK had to say about maggy.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200605220016I believe you are mispresenting the opinions of the New Statesman. The opinions that you consider expressed by NS, I believe, have been expressed by an NS reader (a Mr Andrew Roberts).

Oddly enoughly, though he lambastes John Major, I increasingly think the was one of the most able post war PMs that the UK has experienced. I think what prevented his time as premiership being fruitful were a circumstances outside his control. eg. an extremely hostile media, the need for consolidation of the British economy after its time in the hands of Thatcher. I believe Mrs T, whilst altering the British economy for the better, too a heavier hand than needed.

John Major was also the one who got the Northern Ireland peace talks started. Even Blair acknowledges that he wouldn't have been able to get NI to where it is today without the work of Major. He also introduced the citizen's charter, which whilst it contains policies which think don't work very well (league tables), it introduced public sector accountability to the public. He also made council accounts come under the scrutiny of the Audits Commission.

That and the fact that he was able to keep a working majority for so long with the Unionists withholding their support or the Tory party fracturing into one-nation-tories and thatcherites.

I always felt sorry for John Major to be honest, the biggest factor in his loss was the whole mess with the erg? can't remember what it was called but it led to the resignation of Norman Lamont as Chancellor and shook the belief that Tories were good at handling the economy.

I believe you are mispresenting the opinions of the New Statesman. The opinions that you consider expressed by NS, I believe, have been expressed by an NS reader (a Mr Andrew Roberts).



How?

its clearly says the following


Inspirational - yet worlds apart: there was no doubt about the victor in our readers' survey to find the heroes of our time. But who could have predicted such strong support for Margaret Thatcher and the Queen? Jason Cowley on the winners and losers

When in our issue of 3 April I invited readers and contributors to nominate their heroes of our time, I thought I had a good idea as to who might feature in our final list of 50. In the event, your response was as surprising in its range and unpredictability as it was overwhelming. Who, for instance, could have predicted that Margaret Thatcher, scourge of trade unions and, more generally, of the liberal left, would be there in our top five as nominated by you? Thatcher, as Alan Quinn, a reader from Aylsham in Norfolk wrote, "brought a major shift in 20th-century politics. The cold war ended and state-controlled dictatorships crumbled. The free-market reduction of state-controlled economics released entrepreneurship and competition across the world. All this in a decade - remarkable!"

Another surprise....

I just happened to find the link and i thought it was interesting what the readers voted for Thatcher.

anyway like i said.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. bye

Trilby63;12090530']Well yes she did.. but she did it in style. It takes guts to be that damn evil.

Yeah, but it dosn't change the fact thats he did what she did.

WHAT THE HELL, have British Leadership got to do with the Americans.

LIKE HELL, i am allowing U.S Bush worshiping morons to tell us, who is and who isnt our best leader.

Thatcher was good (even if a little OTT), Churchill was good (for his era0< Chamberlain was an idiot, and Blair just isnt suited to Politics, prehaps he can get a job as Bush's PA?

I always felt sorry for John Major to be honest, the biggest factor in his loss was the whole mess with the erg? can't remember what it was called but it led to the resignation of Norman Lamont as Chancellor and shook the belief that Tories were good at handling the economy.The Exchange Rate Mechanism. I don't think it's Lamont's or Major's fault for Black Wednesday. The ERM was a tying of all other currencies to the German Mark, basically the germans could do what they wanted and the other countries had to adjust to follow suit. It was the German central banks decision to raise interest rates because of what was happening in Germany that forced Lamont to raise UK interests rates to prevent the Pound slipping out of its agreed exchange rate band. This leaders to speculators losing faith that the UK can remain in the ERM. Hence, they start selling GBP by the bucketload forcing the Treasury to buy up what they sell to stop GBP depreciating too much (bastards like George Soros make billions in the process). Finally the Treasury admits it cannot sustain its commitment to the ERM and leaves, and devalues the GBP to level that is more natural for it (and the UK economy has done pretty well ever since).

The major reasons for the UK being forced to leave the ERM are that the GBP/DM exchange rate was set far too high, and that there was no Central European bank looking out for the interests of the EC/EU as a whole, just the Bundesbank looking out for what was best for the German economy.

How?

its clearly says the followingSorry, I was specifically refering to the opinion that Thatcher was a great leader. It's hardly surprising if a left-wing magazine expresses a negative opinion about Thatcher is it?

I just happened to find the link and i thought it was interesting what the readers voted for Thatcher.Again, apologies. I did find the article interesting. Especially how it shows how diverse the readership of the New Statesman is.

The Exchange Rate Mechanism. I don't think it's Lamont's or Major's fault for Black Wednesday. The ERM was a tying of all other currencies to the German Mark, basically the germans could do what they wanted and the other countries had to adjust to follow suit. It was the German central banks decision to raise interest rates because of what was happening in Germany that forced Lamont to raise UK interests rates to prevent the Pound slipping out of its agreed exchange rate band. This leaders to speculators losing faith that the UK can remain in the ERM. Hence, they start selling GBP by the bucketload forcing the Treasury to buy up what they sell to stop GBP depreciating too much (bastards like George Soros make billions in the process). Finally the Treasury admits it cannot sustain its commitment to the ERM and leaves, and devalues the GBP to level that is more natural for it (and the UK economy has done pretty well ever since).

The major reasons for the UK being forced to leave the ERM are that the GBP/DM exchange rate was set far too high, and that there was no Central European bank looking out for the interests of the EC/EU as a whole, just the Bundesbank looking out for what was best for the German economy.

Thanks for the extra info I was younger at the time and had far less interest in this kind of thing but I do remember the outrage of the time and believe it was a black mark against the Major administration in the eyes of the public like how the pensions crisis will be against the Blair administration once the country wakes up.

No. Thatcher was the best leader the country has ever had. new Labour has done more to destroy any residual national identity, whilst legislating against the tax paying, white middle classes. Personally, I blame the rank stupidity of the average British voter for complying with such patent demagoguery. But wait, it just gets better..... instead of such principled, reasonable and charismatic politicians as Hague, Johnson and Kennedy, we now get David Cameron.

Hes still 10 times better then Bush.

So, basically your saying that Tony Blair is the worst leader because he went to the Iraq War and tried to disguise it by adding in all these "facts"?

I hate this government, mainly for screwing up the education system but also on most other issues too. I do support the compulsory ID cards though, I mean who cares as long as they'll be able to track criminals and terrorists better? If you've done nothing wrong what's the problem? Too bad the governments too phased by some idiotic human rights groups who should have better things to do, like protecting abused women and children in developing countries, to go ahead and do it.

EDIT: Also it would help combat underage purchase of alcohol, movies etc. It could also be used to track who buys what products from where to help in crime investigations.

So, basically your saying that Tony Blair is the worst leader because he went to the Iraq War and tried to disguise it by adding in all these "facts"?

I should, and would, hope not. He happens to be a disengenous, cravenly compliant hypocrite due to his reversal of the notion of transparency, however, to castigate his entire career due to this is foolish. Whilst Blair could have opposed Bush in regard to Iraq, he would have foregone the "special relationship", presumably a schism he found himself unable to countenance. That Blair lied is of no concern to me in regard to his legacy, however that he has seen British lives wasted in the cause of placating American neurosises is deplorable.

However, it is the myriad of beaurocratic augmentations, demagoguic about turns and waste of public funds that renders Blair an abysmal Prime Minister.

No. Thatcher was the best leader the country has ever had. new Labour has done more to destroy any residual national identity, whilst legislating against the tax paying, white middle classes. Personally, I blame the rank stupidity of the average British voter for complying with such patent demagoguery. But wait, it just gets better..... instead of such principled, reasonable and charismatic politicians as Hague, Johnson and Kennedy, we now get David Cameron.
Nah, our best peacetime PM has to be Attlee. As bad as modern politicians are, that doesn't make Thatcher good.

However, it is the myriad of beaurocratic augmentations, demagoguic about turns and waste of public funds that renders Blair an abysmal Prime Minister.

As they say here QFT *clap clap*

I should, and would, hope not. He happens to be a disengenous, cravenly compliant hypocrite due to his reversal of the notion of transparency, however, to castigate his entire career due to this is foolish. Whilst Blair could have opposed Bush in regard to Iraq, he would have foregone the "special relationship", presumably a schism he found himself unable to countenance. That Blair lied is of no concern to me in regard to his legacy, however that he has seen British lives wasted in the cause of placating American neurosises is deplorable.

However, it is the myriad of beaurocratic augmentations, demagoguic about turns and waste of public funds that renders Blair an abysmal Prime Minister.
That and his complete disregard for democracy, whether it be obvious strong public opinion, fiddling with our constitutional law to suit has party or the elected Parliament.

Nah, our best peacetime PM has to be Attlee. As bad as modern politicians are, that doesn't make Thatcher good.


Sorry, but Atlee does not excite me. The NHS was, and remains, a humane, responsible notion that was mismanaged, whilst the welfare state has been the greatest factor in the diminution of Britain.

what We need is a few more of Characters in Parliament

Sorry, but Atlee does not excite me. The NHS was, and remains, a humane, responsible notion that was mismanaged, whilst the welfare state has been the greatest factor in the diminution of Britain.
The welfare state and the NHS are largely synonymous in my view, and I would argue that both have been just as mismanaged over the years through privatisation, means-testing and the endless bureaucracy that comes with both.

And what do you mean, exactly by the "diminution of Britain?" It's difficult to talk about it without knowing exactly what you're going on about, and I don't have a Mail at hand.:D

what We need is a few more of Characters in Parliament
Boris Johnson. He's chairing HIGNFY tonight, BBC 1 at 9.

The welfare state and the NHS are largely synonymous in my view, and I would argue that both have been just as mismanaged over the years through privatisation, means-testing and the endless bureaucracy that comes with both.

And what do you mean, exactly by the "diminution of Britain?" It's difficult to talk about it without knowing exactly what you're going on about, and I don't have a Mail at hand.:D

I do apologise for my sense of personal responsibility.

I happen to agree that privatisation, means testing and the like were mis-managed, simply because the rank stupidity of the average voter precludes full privatisation.

I do apologise for my sense of personal responsibility.
Where on earth did that come from?

I happen to agree that privatisation, means testing and the like were mis-managed, simply because the rank stupidity of the average voter precludes full privatisation.
Privatisation of our services and running them as a business has done us no good whatsoever in most cases. (Leyland being an obvious exception) The current shambles that resembles a railway system and the recent decision to close rural post office are good examples of where privatisation has failed.

Where on earth did that come from?


Privatisation of our services and running them as a business has done us no good whatsoever in most cases. (Leyland being an obvious exception) The current shambles that resembles a railway system and the recent decision to close rural post office are good examples of where privatisation has failed.

I do concede that watchdogs, and intervention, are requisite for effective privatisation in most public services, however only the NHS and, possibly, the prison service, ought to be privatised.

I do concede that watchdogs, and intervention, are requisite for effective privatisation in most public services, however only the NHS and, possibly, the prison service, ought to be privatised.
Both have suffered enough from privatisation as it is, although that probably extends to the NHS more than it does to the prison service.

However much I hate "New Labour" and wish there was actually a true Labour party running, it's preferable to the Tories by a long way, preferable to the Republicans (and th Democrats really) from America by a long way, and miles preferable to many other countries which are in far far worse states than us. However flawed our government may be, in the grand scheme of things, we have it lucky. It could be much worse (though that doesn't stop me longing for better :p).

Oh, and, for the record, I think me and PM's family will have to have a huge party the day Thatcher dies :p I don't give a damn if she made "strong decisions" or "had balls" - I'd rather have a primeminister who doesn't do much than maintain things, than a primeminister who utterly screws up pretty much every aspect of the country and who basically says herself that she doesn't give a damn about whats best for society.

I hate the screwed up justification of despiceable acts and views by praising their "strength" or "determination" or "steadfastness".

I'd like to apologise for not reading the six pages of posts prior to this, but laziness and the drunkenness from my office christmas party preclude it. But I must object to the OP's concern about the cessation of the investigation into BAE re. bribery regarding the Eurofighter sale to Saudi Arabia.

Corruption is endemic to British politics and by and large it hurts the country, and by and large it doesn't get reported. You can bet that palms were greased to get us into Eurofighter, just look at the POS Italian Panther vehicle we're lumbered with as evidence of it in action, so why shouldn't greased palms in an example of corruption that actually benefits Britain enable us to flog a few of them to some gullible Saudis.

If you want an example of some corruption that has gone relatively unreported except for a small bit in Private Eye, look at Blair's realtionship with Bechtel. Blair has given Bechtel £30 million to set up the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which is responsible for deciding whom to flog britains once promissing nuclear industry to. Needless to say Bechtel have stacked the NDA with former bechtel employers and it doesn't take a huge leap to guess who they'll sell to. (there were rumours that Bechtel would get the Olympics bid, but given their crap reputation of building tunnels that fall on people's heads and so on, I think they've decided to give them something less important, even if it means selling the whole of west Cumbria down the river to do it. Meanwhile Tony has given Mr. Riley Bechtel an honoury CBE on the QT, so it won't be a huge surprise when he waltzes into a cushy non -exec post when his term as prime minister is up.

When you've got corruption like that going on on a day to day basis you really have to rejoice when some of it actually benefits Britain fo a change.
(That is until BAE jump ship to America having bought up every other British arms supplier, but that's another story.

/Rant.

Not as bad as a great deal of other governments, to be honest, even if it is a bit ragged.

However much I hate "New Labour" and wish there was actually a true Labour party running, it's preferable to the Tories by a long way, preferable to the Republicans (and th Democrats really) from America by a long way, and miles preferable to many other countries which are in far far worse states than us. However flawed our government may be, in the grand scheme of things, we have it lucky. It could be much worse (though that doesn't stop me longing for better :p).

Oh, and, for the record, I think me and PM's family will have to have a huge party the day Thatcher dies :p I don't give a damn if she made "strong decisions" or "had balls" - I'd rather have a primeminister who doesn't do much than maintain things, than a primeminister who utterly screws up pretty much every aspect of the country and who basically says herself that she doesn't give a damn about whats best for society.

I hate the screwed up justification of despiceable acts and views by praising their "strength" or "determination" or "steadfastness".


You obviously weren't alive in the seventies when the UK was the sick man of europe.

It's pretty hard to blame thatcher for screwing things up when you consider the state of the country in 1979.

I think Blair is the best PM since Atlee, who was by far the greatest leader this country ever had. (Churchill won the war but was a terrible peace time leader). Yes, the Iraq war was stupid, and the NHS is inefficient, and there is too much privatisation. But The standard of living has improved massively in the last 9 years. And we have the minimum wage, which is the best thing since the NHS.

You obviously weren't alive in the seventies when the UK was the sick man of europe.

It's pretty hard to blame thatcher for screwing things up when you consider the state of the country in 1979.
No, I wasn't.
My relatives were though, and they lived through Thatcher and were screwed over, just like much of the rest of the population.

Not when you look at how the state of the country deteriorated, with unemployment soaring, manafacturing output going downhill, awful tax systems, boom and bust policies, disgusting abuse of power with the police, the failure of privatisation, terrible schemes such as selling off council houses... Even if she took control of the country in a bad state, she sure did a lot of things that directly made it worse.

However much I hate "New Labour" and wish there was actually a true Labour party running, it's preferable to the Tories by a long way, preferable to the Republicans (and th Democrats really) from America by a long way, and miles preferable to many other countries which are in far far worse states than us. However flawed our government may be, in the grand scheme of things, we have it lucky. It could be much worse (though that doesn't stop me longing for better :p).

Oh, and, for the record, I think me and PM's family will have to have a huge party the day Thatcher dies :p I don't give a damn if she made "strong decisions" or "had balls" - I'd rather have a primeminister who doesn't do much than maintain things, than a primeminister who utterly screws up pretty much every aspect of the country and who basically says herself that she doesn't give a damn about whats best for society.

I hate the screwed up justification of despiceable acts and views by praising their "strength" or "determination" or "steadfastness".

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just saying.. well.. Margerat Thatcher has a pair of balls..

No, I wasn't.
My relatives were though, and they lived through Thatcher and were screwed over, just like much of the rest of the population.

Not when you look at how the state of the country deteriorated, with unemployment soaring, manafacturing output going downhill, awful tax systems, boom and bust policies, disgusting abuse of power with the police, the failure of privatisation, terrible schemes such as selling off council houses... Even if she took control of the country in a bad state, she sure did a lot of things that directly made it worse.

I'll give you James Callaghan's own words about unemployment and manufacturing output.


When we reject unemployment as an economic instrument — as we do — and when we reject also superficial remedies, as socialists must, then we must ask ourselves unflinchingly what is the cause of high unemployment. Quite simply and unequivocally, it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce. There are no scapegoats.

Anyway, the decline in manufacturing started under Wilson. Much of the UKs manufacturing was dead by the time thatcher got into office, she just pulled the trigger. I doubt your relatives were driving around in triumph dolomites, or hillman imps, after all. It's not something she can be really blamed for.

You have to remember that it was thatcher that stopped the county's slide into bankruptcy also. You might not like the changes, but had she continued with the status quo, a point would have been reached where the IMF would no longer stabilize the pound. That would have sucked big time.

Boom and Bust is meaningless labour spin.

I think Blair is the best PM since Atlee, who was by far the greatest leader this country ever had. (Churchill won the war but was a terrible peace time leader). Yes, the Iraq war was stupid, and the NHS is inefficient, and there is too much privatisation. But The standard of living has improved massively in the last 9 years. And we have the minimum wage, which is the best thing since the NHS.
Blair doesn't even come close.

Best wartime leader = Churchill
Best peace time leader = Attlee
Best all rounder = Lloyd George

Blair doesn't even come close.

Best wartime leader = Churchill
Best peace time leader = Attlee
Best all rounder = Lloyd George

I'll give you the Attlee spelling, and admit I know sod all about lloyd george, but For me at least, Blair has really improved things. ALthough much of the credit should maybe go to Gordon Brown.

UnHoly Smite: You want to see what your government and mine support?

The site below describes the way in which Mr Avazov's body was found when it was returned from prison. It also links to a page that shows pictures of Mr Avazov's body. The pictures are graphic and not for the weak of heart. Is this what you truly believe in? Can you really support a regime that boils people to death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafar_Avazov

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that have to do with the US/UK? Accoring to the link, it was a uzibekistani prison. Do we support or aid that tortutre?

You done crying now? Blair is the best leader you have had since churchill.




On what level? I support voter ID cards.




In war that is fine.



Which regimes? Your past ones have done this to.



There is nothing with fighting terrorists.



Not this shit again. :rolleyes: Gitmo is fine and its none of your damn business anyway.

So you're deluded, right? Or hi? Gitmo isn't fine and as a human being, it's my business and everyone elses when a fellow human being gets harmed.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that have to do with the US/UK? Accoring to the link, it was a uzibekistani prison. Do we support or aid that tortutre?Short answer - yes.

Long answer - The UK is happy to follow the US on foreign policy here, pretty much unquestioningly. Both states have both known that torture has been taking place in Uzbekistan, and have used evidence obtained torture in their lines of investigation. After the US was granted to rent the K2 airbase close to Afghan border, the US then donated about $80 million to regime for the purposes of aiding law and order (I would give you the reference for this, but I jsut read it in a book and I can't seem to find the page). Both states know full well that the Uzbek state regularly uses torture and both seem to willing to either fund the Uzbek state in that capacity or not criticise their allies for funding Karimov. And then a couple of years downt the line when the Iraqi WMD claim is failing to have the audacity to claim that invading Iraq was to help prevent human rights abuses whilst simultaneously proping up the Uzbek regime.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1484251,00.htmlCritics say the US double standards are evident on the State Department website, which accuses Uzbek police and security services of using 'torture as a routine investigation technique' while giving the same law enforcement services $79 million in aid in 2002. The department says officers who receive training are vetted to ensure they have not tortured anyone.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=705972005 - the DFID increased aid to Uzbekistan by 20% after the Uzbek regime shot and killed more than 200 peaceful demonstrators in the city of Andijan.

edit: Sorry, I know something of this subject, and sometimes I forget that and just assume everyone already knows everything I know.

true, my mistake.

the readers still voted for her though. 5 position. not bad for someone described like that.

Now that I agree with. And, credit where credit's due, the New Statesman were prepared to publish comments by their natural enemy (Andrew Roberts), praising another of their natural enemies (Margaret Thatcher). Too many national publications would never do that.

I still wouldn't have wanted her to be town dog-catcher, let alone Prime Minister. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that, so I can devote my attention to bickering about longbows on another thread.