- This topic has 184 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I saw a programme about Blair at the weekend and some guy was telling a story about Blair and Chirac talking before the Iraq invasion.
Chirac made the following points to Blair:
(1) The Americans and British wouldn’t be welcomed in Iraq
(2) Iraq would descend into civil war
(3) A Shia majority isn’t the same as democracy
On each count, Chirac was right and Blair was dead wrong.
I don’t think it was a case of not having a "post-Saddam plan", but a case that, once you opened up the country, they were going to start killing each other.
And nothing they could have done was going to stop that.
Chirac knew that before the invasion … even I knew that before the invasion.
And Blair’s inability to see that has, as Dave Jay said, ruined the lives of over 3 million people.
Now, to counter-balance that and come out as a good PM, what has he done?
(and please don’t mention the economy, governments don’t control the economy)
Steve
There is only one more thing that I think Blair did that was as bad as Iraq, him standing up and saying that the MMR vaccine was safe and then electing for separate injections for his own brat. What a horrible thing to do.
I think Blair was good for the first couple of years, New Deal was good .. although now they are saying it didn’t work, I can assure you it did.
Grassy,
I cannot be arsed either.
I do not disagree with much of what you say really. All I am saying is that I do not think any PM Labour or Tory would have made a different decision about going to war with the US. Wether Chirac was right or wrong is an important but mute point. With the "special" relationship between UK & US no UK PM I know of would have had the balls to do any different.
I do not agree that Blair or Bush are responsible for the murderous actions of Insurgents and Iraqis. The responsibility for that is more complex and is something funded from outside Iraq.
There will have to be an election in 2009 or 2010.
Special relationship or not, Wilson kept us out of Vietnam despite coming under a great deal of pressure from the Americans and Thatcher tried privately to dissuade Reagan from the Grenada adventure. The relationship does mean we are one of America’s natural allies, but it does not commit us to supporting every aspect of American foreign policy. Blair had a choice and should be held accountable for the decision he made.<br>
(Edited by Aranalde at 2:08 pm on June 28, 2007)
utter b*****ks
to suggest that the continuing and ruinous decline in education and health is down to a previous government after over 10 years in power – these are patently labour failures in that the standards have shockingly declined over the past 10 yearsthe smoking ban will cost labour votes just as the hunting ban will, it will cost jobs as well and sweeping bans such as these are not acts of a government of the people
overweight people, who through their selfishness, laziness and gluttony cost the health service and tax payer more than smokers and drinkers combined and contribute half as much tax should be the next targets of the PC brigade – the only way to address this is to now tax people on their BMI, you’d soon see a change then – also, they should pay double fares on public transport as they take up the space of two normal fare paying passengers
some may say brown has ‘vote winners’ up his sleeve – they are more likely to be the acts of a desperate man who will sacrifice the future of this country to keep himself in power past this government – god help the next government that is not labour – it will inherit this mess and then have to listen to labourites proclaiming they are failing and that it is their fault and the fault of an old conservative government and nothing to do at all with the last 10 years<br>
I agree Simon .. the fatties are a burden on society that us normal folk shouldn’t have to tolerate.
I think Brown offering Liberals a place in government is him trying to set up a coalition before the next election which will probably result in a hung parliament.
Simon, like I said in my previous post, people on the dole are more likely to smoke, drink and be overweight. They eat, drink and smoke more than any other group and are already being targeted and denied medical treatment if they are too fat. If they don’t lose weight they are being allowed to die, I can’t see how the government can be harder on them than that? Short of employing soldiers to chase fatties with machine guns in order to excercise enough to lose weight. :cheesy: <br>We’ll have to agree to disagree on the rest you mention again the continuing decline and I agree with you that things appear to be in decline, but this did not begin in 1997, the rot had set in years, if not decades before that. 20% of the population are classed as "functionally illiterate" and that is not just the preserve of the young, 20% of 20 yr olds, 30 yr olds, 40 yrs olds and so on can’t read and write good like what I can (;) ) to an acceptable standard. Even using this crude indicator as a indication of poor educational attainment and it’s attendant social problems, ie unemployment, crime etc. this has been going on for donkeys years. Perhaps their always were and always will be people who don’t have the brains to hack it but used to have industry to keep the thick ‘uns (I’m joking here,) occupied so they still had a role in society. Now we have a service economy rather than an industrial one, thanks to privatisation (Tory) and the steady decline in British industry which was virtually dead after 18 years of Tory rule. I don’t think any goverment will want or be able to roll back the years so at an individual level people need to change and not expect jobs for life and get by on their own two feet doing whatever they cab.<br> People need to start taking responsibility for their own lives and not looking to blame others for their failures. As a state we need to stop bailing them out. As for this being a loony left type idea to pour money and food into the bellies of fat scroungers as you seem to suggest – "If a man does not work neither shall he eat." Lenin said that and he was about as left wing as it gets.<br>
Let’s face it .. NuLabour like the Tories before them are in league with big business, the war in Iraq, PFI’s, ID cards and all the other rubbish is all about big business. NuLabour is hooked on the idea that big business will see us all through because they are generating the wealth that will pay for the social services, pensions etc. This of course isn’t true and they will cop out in the end, like the welfare state did before it.
Seven Towers:-
Now we have a service economy rather than an industrial one, thanks to privatisation (Tory) and the steady decline in British industry which was virtually dead after 18 years of Tory rule.Industrial decline was going to happen in the UK during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s regardless of which party was in power.
Heavy industry and manufacturing in the UK was still mainly based in factories designed pre-war and managed by a generation who were incapable of adapting and changing. Plus they had the dinosaur lefty unions to drag them down too. Whereas the likes of Taiwan and Japan started up anew and had more modern methods of production, greater manufacturing and management skills and a harder working, flexible workforce not weighed down by the class prejudices of the British.
Why should anyone want to buy a badly made, unreliable, overpriced British machine (with non-existent after service) when they could get a better product cheaper from these emergent nations? That had nothing to do with which party was in power here. That some people still peddle the myth that it was, just goes to show that propaganda works. I worked (albeit briefly) in two manufacturing industries in the UK during the 70’s – I wouldn’t have bought anything they made – they were sh*t* – and overpriced at that.Hi Insomniac
I accept that the unions, workmanship and price had a lot to do with the British Industries going down the pan, I didn’t mean that the decline of British industry began and ended in those 18 years. The problem is that it all happened too quickly for some. Some people profited from the collapse of British industry and hastened it to line their own pockets, for the most part they were Tories. That is free market economics in action though, pure Thatcherism so anyone who voted for her shouldn’t complain about it. I wouldn’t have voted for her even if I had been old enough but plenty did.
Production in the Far East is run about the same way British industry was run 150 years ago. Long hours, low pay and no job security or rights for the workers. How long the Chinese will be happy to remain the world’s sweatshop remains to be seen. I work for a British company who manufactures goods in China and am going out there on business in a month or so. It’ll be interesting to see what it is like. They seem to be an emerging industrial society as opposed to our post-industrial society.
Chinese stuff tends to be of "variable" quality too, the saving grace is that it is so cheap people almost don’t expect it to work rather than the British manufactured tat of old.Yes Seven Towers, you’re right in that the low wage, long-hour economies of the likes of China will, ultimately, go through the same brth-pangs that the UK did over 100 years ago (unions/strikes/better conditions & wages for employees etc.) . The Taiwanese and Japanes seemed to have survived this metamorphis and still outstripped the UK industrial effort.
Still doesn’t alter the fact that British goods that had more than 2 moving parts were, for decades after WW2 unreliable over-priced sh!te.
You’ve hit the nail spot on the head with the expression "post-industrial" – Britain unfortunately was always going to be a "post-industrial" economy long before most others – simply because emerging nations with ,low-paid long-hour, sweatshops were coming to the fore. At least Thatcher recognised that and made it easier for the commercial-based sector to be deregulated and to thrive. Whatever you may think of her, most companies’ pension funds prospered under her (unlike Gordon Brown with his pension stealth tax – private pensions that is, not state employee pensions of course!).
True, Britains’ industrial decline plus Thatcherism led to a society where some made rich pickings. However unpalatable that may be, I think it’s fair to say that there are always those who take advantage of changes in economy and society. Plenty of pre-glasnost commies lived a life of luxury. Had a Labour government been in power for 30 years after the war, there would still have been those who would have made a mint.
Britain’s industrial decline was not down to Thatcherism.Apparently the UK is backing Tony Blair for President of the EU ..
[b:3vikkwyg]LOL[/url:3vikkwyg][/b:3vikkwyg]
if he lands that one, he’s won the lottery!
I don’t know who exactly decided he should be put forward or if the job was advertised or if he has stood in an election.
EU gangsters at their best.
It is all part of the constitution / Lisbon Treaty which our dear, beloved, Government promised have let us have a vote on.
Oh hang on ……………………………
Blair is coming out as the favourite now .. how much do you think he should get paid?
.. he’ll be Europe’s first unelected leader since Hitler.
It’s laughable.
Why the f@@k do we bother with elections? It seems the political classes will do whatever they want anyway (especially our EU masters). Although, hey, the Irish actually had the temerity once to vote NO to an EU plan. How dare they? Still, it’s all been sorted now and the Irish, whose history is one of continual struggle against their English oppressors, now end up with an unelected Englishman as their boss. Funny old world isn’t it.Yes, yes, I know I post a lot about the EU / Immigration / the rise of Islam etc. What else do you expect from a middle-aged Telegraph reader? However, I always enjoy reading the opinions of other forumites, even those I disagree with. It does me good to hear opinions contrary to mine, and I have changed my stance over the years on a few arguments that have been aired on here.
Anyway, back to the topic. Here is a surprising /interesting piece from The Spectator Coffee Shop blog. Surprising (to Spectator readers) because the author actually wants Blair to be President.The EU prepares for a Conservative government
David Blackburn 2:49pm
The wheels seem to have come off Tony Blair’s EU presidency campaign and no doubt there is much genuflection and soul-searching in Connaught Square. The Director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant, gives an intriguing explanation at Comment is Free:
‘Yet it may be the Conservatives who spike Blair’s chances of getting the job. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has told the other EU governments that the Conservatives would see support for a Blair presidency as a “hostile act”. A week ago, Blair was the clear favourite, with the likely support of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, plus several of the smaller countries. But on my travels around Europe last week, I have found that Hague’s comments have made a huge impact.
A number of prime ministers are unwilling to take a step that would incur the wrath of an incoming Conservative government. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel remain supporters of Blair, but are now hesitating over backing a man with so many opponents. The Conservatives may have achieved their first diplomatic coup in Europe, even before taking office.’
The EU must placate a fiercely Eurosceptic prospective Conservative government. Blair’s support for the Iraq war and impassioned Atlanticism make him a controversial presidency candidate in any case, but the Tories visceral animosity to Blair makes his candidature the obvious initial concession.
Brown’s government is supine at home but the apparent ditching of Blair on the back of a Hague after dinner speech illustrates just how moribund it is abroad. I don’t see why there must be a European President, and certainly one that’s unelected, but there is going to be one. The first EU President will define the role. If it is filled by some Beneluxian nonentity European nations will cease to be as prominent, both economically and diplomatically, on the world stage, which, as we emerge from recession, would be disastrous.
If the EU intends the President to project European commercial and diplomatic interests to the Americans and the emerging East, then it should ignore the Tories’ opposition to Blair. Despite past history, Iraq and his current habit of interrupting his jet-set lifestyle to lecture on climate change and materialism, Blair’s international profile and popularity in the US and China would benefit Europe and, dare I say it, Britain. He might not be the Global Statesman of the Year, but Blair is ideal for this seemingly absurd but important job. The Tories are right to seek the restoration of sovereign powers to Westminster, but Blair’s candidature is no such issue.Some of the comments from Coffee House regulars are worth a look at too; you can almost imagine the steam coming out of their ears as they read a piece that praised Tony Blair.
Link for those who want:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5471128/the-eu-prepares-for-a-conservative-government.thtml
Do you want Tony Blair to be your president?
Would he be good for the UK, good for the EU, good for anything?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.