Tony Cunting Blair Page 2

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • Chris-Gardiner 6 Jul 2004 18:41:54 962 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    JimBeam wrote:
    Who dont ppl vote in the Liberal Democrats then? Im from Ireland so i dont know much about them.
    I often wonder the same thing.

    I think it's partly because they're seen as neither one thing nor t'other, and partly because they're seen as wishy-washy (maybe this used to be the case, but it isn't so much anymore - mostly, they seem to treat complex isues as just that: complex, which doesn't lent itself to soundbite and tub-thumping). I also think it's partly because the Lib Dems are prone to political stupidity as much as the next party (like sacking people for engaging in open debate about Palestinian suicide bombers). Their overtly pro-Europe attitude costs them some points, too.

    And I think partly this is all because they get a fraction of the exposure of the other two parties, and so lots of people simply don't really know what the Lib Dems are about. So, hearing little, there soesn't seem much to either particularly like or dislike.

    EDIT: and what Stixx said

    Edited by Chris Gardiner at 17:44:34 06-07-2004
  • andrewfromdoncaster 6 Jul 2004 18:44:10 1,687 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    StixxUK wrote:
    A lot of people don't vote Lib Dem for the simple reason that they don't think they can win (which of course they can't if people don't vote in their favour). A friend of mine said he would like to see them in power, but it was more important to him that Labour don't win again, so he's voting Conservative.

    Does your friend not understand contemporary politics? Lib Dems are socially liberal, like Labour - the Tories are socially conservative. The Lib Dems are economically liberal/social and approve of higher spending, and higher rate of tax etc.... , akin to Labour in many instances - the Tories are economically conservative and prefer trickle down approaches. Your friend was evidently shooting himself in the foot with that one, and i suppose its tough shit for him for having a woeful level of political awareness.
  • tannerd 6 Jul 2004 18:46:14 2,691 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Cornflake wrote:
    Though in all honesty I think every single party is a shit as the other. So much so that I no longer see the point in voting, who ever get into pwoer will do good and bad, usually the latter.

    Understandable, and I used to feel the same, but the BNP has changed that. There is no way I'm letting one of those bastards to get a seat representing me. So I vote, either for whoever I think will win, or for whoever has the least stupid manefesto (ie anyone claiming 24/7 tube running isn't going to get my vote).

    On the war in Iraq, IMO, in the long run it will be seen as a good thing. The reasoning, obviously, is bollocks - but who cares. It is just rhetoric. I'm of the opinion that anything that will have such an eventual positive affect on so many people is worth it, no matter how misguided the reasons, be they real (oil) or illusionary (WMDs).

    It would be nice if this kind of pressure was applied in other areas of the world (eg the war-torn areas of Africa) but hey, I bet many of you wouldn't like to be drafted into the army to go and sort it out....

    I'm not defending Bush (shudder) or Blair, but I think the media is making more of it then it really needs to. Sorting out the current situation in Iraq and getting our own house in order should be more important.
  • Errol 6 Jul 2004 19:15:17 12,485 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Retroid wrote:
    The most scary thing about all this is the prospect of the Tories benefiting from his feckups.

    /Shivers

    No. The most scary thing is that today's polls show that if there was an election tomorrow, people would still be voting for Tony Bliar !

    I find this staggering.
  • Shinji 6 Jul 2004 20:46:36 5,903 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I was referring to the way that the 3rd way has shown how it expands opportunties and reduces poverty; do you not agree with this notion? Or, maybe you are complaining that it hasn't gone far enough - you are anti 'corporate UK'?

    See, I don't believe that the "3rd way" has been anything other than a PR exercise. All I've seen under labour has been an *expansion* of the privatisation plans of the Tories, to the extent that our schools, hospitals, public services and even government divisions are now being run by favoured private companies, effectively creating a massive drain of cash from the pockets of taxpayers, via the treasury, into the pockets of City fat cats. It's more far-reaching and more disgusting than anything the Tories ever even proposed; they're just better at hiding it behind platitudes than the Tories were.

    Net result? Crapper schools. Crapper hospitals (I love the spin over the NHS waiting lists - you now have to sit on a waiting list to be put on the main waiting list, in an attempt to make the main waiting lists look shorter!). Crapper railways. Crapper government services. Daft decisions like top secret file storage and criminal record databases being outsourced to the private sector, at massive expense. Government buildings - extremely valuable state property - being sold off at way below market value to companies close to the Labour party, many of whom run them through Cayman accounts and avoid even paying any British tax on the transactions.

    All of it covered over with a veneer of laughable spin; we're told that things are getting better even though any idiot can see that they're getting worse, and massive damage is done to long-term prospects for institutions like hospitals in order to shore up short-term success figures.

    Labour has raped this country in their name of their corporate allies, more brutally than the Tories ever did. The war in Iraq is just the icing on the cake that has been the regime of one of the most corrupt and greedy governments the UK has ever suffered.

    And the chances are the fuckers are going to get another term. How wonderful, eh?
  • WoodenSpoon 6 Jul 2004 20:51:32 12,285 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Weren't the Tories topping the opinion polls?

    /Hasn't been keeping up
  • JimBeam 6 Jul 2004 20:57:33 260 posts
    Registered 11 years ago
    The one thing i constantly notice all parties doing to get votes..

    Reformist politics.. Rehashing old unowrkable ideas an making them sound fancy..

    Why cant we have a gov for the people who listens to us when we shout,like the anti war demos.. and anti GM foods demo..yet Tony Blair goes on record saying " I believe that ppll do want...."

    I fucking hate that man sooo much... Why hasnt someone tried to kill him or Bush I dont know.. Presidents ahve been killed for less...
  • Sid-Nice 6 Jul 2004 21:51:28 15,852 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yes I can remember those wonderful times under Twatcher and Balls, where have all the nice polictians gone? Like Norman Tebbit and Michael Heseltine.

    If anybody believes that this New Labour are socialist, then they want there heed seeing to. Tony Blair's role-model is non other than Magaret Thatcher. Blair has bent over backwards to please the middle-of-the-road voter, leaving New Labour as neither nowt nor summick.

    It was the Tories who raped this country not Labour, Thatcher sold off every feasible asset this country has ever had. British Telecom, British Gas,The Water Board, the Electricity Board, all multi-billion revenue state owned companies. What has Labour had to sell?
    During the miners dispute, Thatcher bought subsidised coal from a socialist state (Poland) the country that was fighting for trade-unionism, what a joke.

    When Labour got in power, I was hoping for re-nationalisation of the companies that were sold, also I thought Labour would of re-purchased council houses etc. This government are a joke as far as representing the working classes, New Labour is just a left wing extension of the Tory Party. I agree Shinji things haven't improved with New Labour and services have slightly went downhill. But with the Tories selling off all our assets, Labour were fucked before they even started.

    The French are the major share-holders in my water supply, America, France and Swiss owned companies have shares in my gas and electricity supply. The Tories left this country in a irreparable state, we produce very little most jobs are in the service industry. And most people in employment spend their days chatting on websites like this one.

    I Don't think that during Labours time in power, things would of been much different under Tory rule. The damage was done under Thatchers regime, the only way there'd be radical changes is through revolution or WW3.

    NNID Sid-Nice

  • andrewfromdoncaster 6 Jul 2004 22:29:40 1,687 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    But you're forgetting that this is the most left wing any government can be in the post new right era. Promising to renationalise certain areas and redistributing wealth more equitably plays well to those on the left like me and you Sid (and perhaps Shinji, though i dont know what to make of what you're saying), but it doesn't play well with Mondeo man who has to fund his kids through uni or whatever, and thus the party advocating left wing policies will never get elected. What we have is a government that has to do the best it can to act left wing, but remain electable.

    Things could be worse; people who don't need tax rebates could be getting them under the Tories for their health and education.
  • TheRealBadabing 7 Jul 2004 00:00:28 1,314 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    andrewfromdoncaster wrote:
    Things could be worse; people who don't need tax rebates could be getting them under the Tories for their health and education.

    Is that worse than people who can afford their own healthcare and education using precious public resources? I'm not a Torie, but I think you'll find that the cost of one treatment on the NHS or a year's education far outweighs the loss of tax revenue if we were to incentivise the better off to pay for their own health and education.

    Reward people for taking the weight off services that were designed to help the less well off. Right now, if your company provides you with healthcare, you pay more tax...how is that an incentive?

    Surely if Lord Nochin paid for his own hip replacement, that would be better than taking up space in an NHS waiting list?
  • Retroid Moderator 7 Jul 2004 00:15:17 44,782 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    What's worse is that I saw a young Tory on breakfast TV a few months back slagging off Blair as being smug and condecending and then saying Michael Howard was 'a new face'.

    O_o

    Idiot.

    Labour are Tory-lite, anyone who thinks anything would've been any better under the Tories is simply delusional. Which is why I find it so comical when some shadow secretary of summat pops up and slags off a service which they knackered in the first place and wouldn't have done anything different if they'd had the chance :/
  • Sid-Nice 7 Jul 2004 00:53:17 15,852 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    At the end of the day, no matter which political party is in power, it's the same 5% who own 90% of the wealth. It's the same men in grey suits who advise the party leaders in todays government, that advised the leaders in the previous one. Tony Blair is just a figurehead and no matter who or what political party was in office during the Iraqi crisis, I think we'd of had the same or a similar outcome. The only difference being, if Maggie was in charge she'd of wanted to nuke Iraq.

    NNID Sid-Nice

  • andrewfromdoncaster 7 Jul 2004 09:43:59 1,687 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    TheRealBadabing wrote:
    andrewfromdoncaster wrote:
    Things could be worse; people who don't need tax rebates could be getting them under the Tories for their health and education.

    Is that worse than people who can afford their own healthcare and education using precious public resources? I'm not a Torie, but I think you'll find that the cost of one treatment on the NHS or a year's education far outweighs the loss of tax revenue if we were to incentivise the better off to pay for their own health and education.

    Reward people for taking the weight off services that were designed to help the less well off. Right now, if your company provides you with healthcare, you pay more tax...how is that an incentive?

    Surely if Lord Nochin paid for his own hip replacement, that would be better than taking up space in an NHS waiting list?

    i think you'll find otherwise, so don't patronise before you understand the reality; people who pay the most tax benefit the least from public services- they are in surplus. By taking them out of the system you remove the vast amount of tax and only a handful of individuals from the service. When you consider that the marginal costs of public services are very low, small increases in provision aren't very significant as the services benefit from economies of scale e.g. NHS bulk buying. The tory plan of giving 5000 to people in both health and education takes money out of the system (assume that the person uses both options = 10,000 - that means that they only need earn around 35,000-40,000 a year to pay that much in pure income tax, regardless of indirect taxes) This means that anyone above the mid 30,000's is contributing more than they are receiving - taking them out of the system takes a load of other cash out too.

    Also your ignorance fails to address the point that private institutions can set their own wage levels and therefore may lead to a draining of NHS and Educational staff, leaving some money still in the state system, but a poorer service because the staff have been poached.
  • andrewfromdoncaster 7 Jul 2004 09:45:35 1,687 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Sid Nice wrote:
    At the end of the day, no matter which political party is in power, it's the same 5% who own 90% of the wealth. It's the same men in grey suits who advise the party leaders in todays government, that advised the leaders in the previous one. Tony Blair is just a figurehead and no matter who or what political party was in office during the Iraqi crisis, I think we'd of had the same or a similar outcome. The only difference being, if Maggie was in charge she'd of wanted to nuke Iraq.

    /is in full admiration but not necessarily agreement with this marxist tone
  • Deleted user 31 December 2006 17:50:48
    I don't know where else to put this

  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,315 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    WMD (or rather their absence) will be Blair's political obituary. His stupidity and bad judgement over this issue will go down in history. He squandered a huge amount of political capital and public goodwill for this. He will always be remembered for this hideous disaster, no matter what he has done or will do. He shafted his own career and historical standing more effectively than if he had gone up to the Queen during the state opening of Parliament and groped her tits. There's a slim chance he could have clawed back a bit of the damage by owning up, coming clean, and saying sorry, but no. He just keeps digging. Does anyone in the whole country outside the US Embassy and Jack Straw's arsehole have any respect or sympathy for the man any more? I doubt it. Such a stupid, stupid waste.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,315 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    pjmaybe wrote:
    The sight of that smug bastard Howard walking into number 10 though, no, I really don't think I could stomach that.
    /makes sign of cross, wraps himself in bunches of garlic, buys a few rounds of silver bullets off eBay, starts sharpening a stake

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,315 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    StixxUK wrote:
    A lot of people don't vote Lib Dem for the simple reason that they don't think they can win (which of course they can't if people don't vote in their favour). A friend of mine said he would like to see them in power, but it was more important to him that Labour don't win again, so he's voting Conservative.
    What. the. FUCK?????

    /loses all faith in humanity

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • smoothpete 16 Apr 2010 17:33:42 31,514 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    You'll be banned shortly I'd imagine. All the best.
  • StarchildHypocrethes 16 Apr 2010 17:35:54 25,902 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Shit bumps.
  • HiddenAway 16 Apr 2010 17:37:41 14,894 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You're using the EG forum search for relevant posts?

    Don't. It always gives you ancient threads. Look out for the unofficial forum search instead...

    On Twitter: @HiddenAway1

  • Deleted user 16 April 2010 17:45:11
    I want to vote for the Lib Dems. But I'd rather vote labour and have them win over the conservatives than vote lib dem at Labour's expense and end up with the Conservatives winning. My heart says go LD, my head says vote Labour :/
  • Ka-blamo 16 Apr 2010 17:46:31 7,351 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    6 year old thread bumping....hmm, I don't want to play
  • Deleted user 16 April 2010 17:51:10
    You're right, it's a conundrum. Kind of a case of saying 'you go first' to everyone else. But moreso than LD vs Lab, I don't want to see the tories in :/

    I'll see how the Liberals do in the polls over the coming weeks. If they do well, I'll jump.
  • Deleted user 16 April 2010 17:55:36
    How about using the thread everyone is using rather than bumping one from 6 years ago?
  • Bremenacht 14 Sep 2010 12:23:16 18,286 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Tony says he may have been right about WMD's in Iraq.

    Libya may have been the greatest terrorist threat to the West not much more than 20 years, and now the UK is pally with them and Gaddafi is still there - largely thanks to Mr.Tony being nice with them. Yet, TB didn't consider that to be possible in Iraq.

    I think I'd enjoy a biography of Blair - just not the one written by him.
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply