For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
At 53, Blair is still fit and trim. But more than any Western leader other than George W. Bush, his reputation has been "shredded by Iraq," in the words of a senior Bush administration official who would only speak anonymously about a foreign leader. Perhaps even more so than Bush: Blair transformed the Labour Party into a juggernaut and oversaw a 10-year renaissance in Britain. He had further to fall than the American president.
How about it, Brits? What sort of a report card would you give him? _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 975 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:20 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
I shan't rant. I have supported the Labour party all my life; Blair has destroyed it, Iraq, and large swathes of the best British institutions, such as the National Health Service, while pandering to corruption both at home (peerages) and abroad (Saudi weapons deals, unncecesary Tanzanian military air traffic control system)
If you had told me in 1997 when I voted him into power that ten years on I would hate him more than Margaret Thatcher, I wouldn't have believed you.
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 1194 Location: England
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Blair is neither fish nor fowl.
A traditional Labour socialist would have been acceptable.
Or another hard Tory such as Thatcher.
With either of those you know where you stand.
However Blair fancies himself as a STATESMAN.
All we have had from his government is a 100% increase in tax take, endless "targets" and "initiatives", vast amounts of new legislation ... but very little real action.
England is now a country run by the Scots. Their MPs can vote on English laws ... but English MPs can't vote on Scotttish laws.
Labour can't stay in power without the Scottish votes so that unfair bias will never change.
And as for immigration ... sheesh, all you can hear on the streets now is Polish, Russian, Bulgarian etc. Eastern Europe must be empty!
Of course according to Blair's government this flood of new workers isn't a problem - it's a benefit. However they are clearly not talking to the lesser skilled British workers ... who can no longer get jobs in burger bars, stores etc due to the cheaper new arrivals.
Blair's crowd has also decided that "multiculturalism" was a mistake ... after years of forcing it on everyone. "Integration" is now the new buzz word. I suppose he assumes that holding the Moslem community close to our chests will reduce their inclination to plant bombs.
He as pumped tons of money into the NHS ... and it has got WORSE. Clever.
Britain is so stuffed ... and Blair & Co are responsible for many of the problems.
They will of course retire on huge protected pensions ... unlike the majority of the REAL workers.
Score: 1/10.
PS Cameron of the Tory party looks like more of the same ... a smooth git more interested in power than serving the people.
PPS I suspect that Blair will be far less admired once he resigns than anyone expects. _________________ Technology will save us!
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
A. He has made many bad decisions, but the one he will be remembered for (Iraq) was forced on him. Our economy is tied to the US.
B. Most importantly he has been in power whilst the north sea has peaked and gone into serious decline.
So a combination of bad policy and natural events have meant hes' been very bad overall, I'd say 2/10.
However I think whoever follows him has an extremley difficult job and will probably be far worse than him. If I were Blair I would retire as soon as possible, I can't undertsand why hes' still hanging around in his lame duck form. _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2677 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Pretty much all the great growth in the UK under Blair has been fueled by a strong increase in government spending (social programs plus war), and it has been financed by running up debt.
Funny how no one ever mentions this. To me, it seems the UK is doing exactly all the crazy financial things Sweden did during 1973-1991 which in the end resulted in the deepest recession since the Great Depression for us.
On the other hand, the UK has a very strong service sector (city of London=finance) while Sweden was and still is an industrial economy which was hurt so very very bad back in the early 90's. I guess the UK economy is more flexible.
If it wasn't for those huge amounts of swiftly dwindling oil revenues... _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Blair's reputation is sinking along with North Sea reserves. Margaret Thatcher's bloomed with the new oil.
Maybe petroleum flows create emotional and economic undercurrents as difficult to discern as buried streams and rivulets under city streets. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Quote:
Pretty much all the great growth in the UK under Blair has been fueled by a strong increase in government spending (social programs plus war), and it has been financed by running up debt.
Funny how no one ever mentions this. To me, it seems the UK is doing exactly all the crazy financial things Sweden did during 1973-1991 which in the end resulted in the deepest recession since the Great Depression for us.
Wo! Sweden was in a war? I thought you guys had pussied out after the muskets were outdated. _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Between them, Bush & Blair have been complicit in one of the most cynical crimes in human history. But have, for the most part, managed to successfully pass it off as some sort of noble enterprise - bringing fledgling democracy to a region in need.
Here's New Labour Party leadership hopeful, Hazel Blears, from yesterday's 'Guardian' after having been asked if she regretted voting for the war in Iraq:
Hazel Blears
Labour party chair:
'No, I don't. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was essential for the peace of the region, for the protection of the Iraqi people, and for our own security.'
Well, we can certainly tick all those boxes!
'2. Were the British people misled by the information they were given before the war began?
Hilary Benn
International development secretary:
Although we now know the intelligence was wrong I think the case for war was made in good faith.
Hazel Blears
Labour party chair:
The British people, along with people and governments around the world, had the best available information at the time. We were not misled by the government. All the evidence pointed to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. We know Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people, and against Iran.
Peter Hain
Northern Ireland secretary:
No. The whole cabinet believed the intelligence we were presented [with] and we made our case to the British people based on it in good faith. As we all now know, that intelligence was wholly wrong. We will be judged historically as to whether getting rid of Saddam Hussein, despite all the consequences, was a positive thing or that the consequences outweigh the positives of getting rid of a brutal tyrant.'
Sadly, the problem doesn't just lie with Blair, but with a whole rotten cadre of New Labour career politicians - Tony Benn's son included - who have been prepared to dip their toes into good old-fashioned gun-boat diplomacy and imperialism, for the sake of immediate political expediency. It may even have been its (then) Minister for Defense (Geoff Hoon) who first floated the idea of leading the way with tactical nuclear strikes. The founders of the Labour movement could never have envisaged that their party might ever sink quite this low. Or become quite so self-deluded in the process.
But, no mention of the WMD there from old Blearsy, I see, which was the point on which large swathes of the public and parliament were originally conned into giving the whole evil debacle the green light in the first place. And I do clearly recall, although most commentators seem to regularly overlook this fact, that Blair - right up to the last - was stating that Saddam could indeed remain in place if only he'd deliver up his stockpiles of WMD as requested. So much for the 'retrospective' imperative of removing Saddam from power.
To echo the sentiments of another correspondent here; I never thought I could loathe an individual quite as much as Margaret Thatcher - but Tony Blair is that man.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
mekrob wrote:
Wo! Sweden was in a war? I thought you guys had pussied out after the muskets were outdated.
It was after attacking Russia in the 1700's we pussied out. Attacking Russia seem to have a permanent castrating effect on any nation. After us it was the French in the 1800's and Germany in the 1900's. Just look at them now. Only guys who were not really castrated was the Japs in the early 1900's - but they kind of "won" also, even if they lost the peace..
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 975 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
MacG
I have just recently been to both the Guardian and Financial Times (got lured there by an article on Unconventional Oil) discussion boards; which would seem to me to be a fair sample of mainstream left/right UK opinion. Everybody except a few obvious nulab stooges hates him; Thatcher was (and still is) idolised by the right.
With the possible exception of Rupert Murdoch and the pitiful cabinet ministers Untothislast posted above, everybody seem to detest him.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
Tony Blair - February 22nd 2007:
"I know of nobody in Washington that is planning for military action against Iran. You can't absolutely predict every set of circumstances that comes about.
"As far as I know, there is no planning being made to attack Iran and people are planning a diplomatic and political solution because it is the only solution that is viable."
Either he's a genuine idiot (unlikely, for a barrister) or he's not even bothering to put any effort into the barefaced lies these days. We deserve better representation than this . . .
Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5487 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
untothislast wrote:
Tony Blair - February 22nd 2007:
"I know of nobody in Washington that is planning for military action against Iran. You can't absolutely predict every set of circumstances that comes about.
"As far as I know, there is no planning being made to attack Iran and people are planning a diplomatic and political solution because it is the only solution that is viable."
Either he's a genuine idiot (unlikely, for a barrister) or he's not even bothering to put any effort into the barefaced lies these days. We deserve better representation than this . . .
He also said:
Quote:
``I can't think that it would be right to take military action against Iran,'' British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a BBC radio interview. ``What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. It is the only sensible way we're going to get a solution to the issue.''
Has he suddenly 'seen the light' or just taking the blame for policies that will burden his successors? I think the later, but it's nice to have an admission anyway that the war madness is confined to the present King George. _________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: Re: Tony Blair's exit interview
The main points about Iraq -
1. They were too dumb to realize that this civil war/insurgency would happen. Everyone with half a brain knew it, and the 1st Bush even said that was the reason he didn't take out Saddam in the first place!
2. They won't admit they Fark the pooch on it, and continue to send more soldiers to a tar pit.
Total military blunder. _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
The state of Britain
You've never had it so good
Feb 1st 2007
From The Economist print edition
Globalisation has done wonders for Britain, though not for all Britons
COUNTRIES, just like people, have moods; and Britain's is somewhat grumpy right now. It is bored and disillusioned with politicians, not least with Tony Blair. It is unimpressed by public services, despite the public money Mr Blair has poured into them. It is cross about rising taxes and interest rates. It is concerned about social cohesion and frightened by its home-grown bombers. It is furious about the Iraq war and George Bush. And, to cap it all, its cricket team can't win anything.
Yet in a way it is odd that Britain's spirits should be low. The place is enjoying a period of extraordinary prosperity. Fourteen years of stable growth have kept unemployment down. There have been social gains as well as economic ones: fewer children and pensioners live in poverty than ten years ago. Crime is broadly lower. And with prosperity has come renewed political clout. Britain has helped to shape aid for Africa, the debate on climate change, European enlargement and, last week, negotiations to restart world trade talks.
All this is especially remarkable in contrast with the recent past. A quarter-century ago, the home of the industrial revolution was closing factories and mines. The class war raged as unions took on the government and business. In the South Atlantic a weird little war palely recalled Britain's glory days. Comparison with mainland Europe is also gratifying. After the humiliation of il sorpasso, Britain's GDP per head has once more overtaken not just Italy's, but also France's and Germany's. Although Britons are too good-natured to indulge in anything as Teutonic as Schadenfreude, they might be forgiven for a small smirk at the troubles of their old rivals.
Hurrah for an imperial past
There are lots of reasons why Britain has done well, and most of them are connected to the country's enthusiastic embrace of globalisation. The early restructuring of its economy gave Britain an edge, accelerating the shift from mass manufacturing, where it had few advantages, to high-value-added goods and services, where it has many. A City that had earned its keep for centuries by financing trade and foreign investment attracted new business as others too began to think globally. Governments since Margaret Thatcher's have kept labour markets flexible and product markets competitive, allowing firms to respond nimbly to changing opportunities.
Perhaps because of its imperial and trading past, Britain is remarkably at ease with globalisation. While American politicians stoke anti-Chinese hysteria and French ones fuel worries about the disappearance of jobs to eastern Europe, British politicians keep off the subject. The last vestiges of Britain's home-owned car industry closed in the run-up to the last election in 2005, causing barely a ripple of protest.
But globalisation has social, as well as economic, consequences. The flow of foreigners into Britain has accelerated over the past ten years, partly because of demand (booming economies need new workers) and partly because of supply (developing-country disorder and new entrants into the European Union). Although this huge wave of immigration has done wonders for the economy, Britons have also found it socially troubling; and that's one of the reasons why the country is not entirely at ease with itself.
Change usually makes people uncomfortable. So does the presence of lots of foreigners. But the government's policy has not helped. It chose long ago not to foist a common national identity on new citizens but to allow and indeed encourage them to retain the dress and language, faith and customs they came with. Time and propinquity, it was thought, would produce a richly diverse yet integrated society. But many now believe that multiculturalism has led instead to what Amartya Sen, an economist, calls “plural monoculturalism”—groups that live side by side but do not touch.
Policy, like custard, should be fine-grained not lumpy
This is of more than academic interest, for Britain harbours a pool of home-grown terrorists—a tiny minority of its 1.6m-strong Muslim community—who struck fatally once and may have been thwarted again this week. A new survey for Policy Exchange, a think-tank, finds young British Muslims value symbols of their Muslim identity—the veil, for example, and sharia law—more than older ones and say they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do.
Should Britain then abandon multiculturalism and all its works and press for more assimilation? David Cameron, the leader of the opposition, thinks so, arguing that members of ethnic minorities need to be treated not as part of a community whose values they may not share but as individuals equal before the law. Mr Blair suggested something similar in December and Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer and the prime minister's likely successor, is wont to wax lyrical on the importance of Britishness for all. The trouble is that Britishness is hard to define—especially since devolution has encouraged the Scots, Welsh and even English to prefer their more specific identities—and even harder to inculcate.
Yet the government should try to replace the lumpiness of multiculturalism with the finer-grained texture of individual rights and responsibilities. This is both truer to liberalism, which places the individual at the heart of things, and likelier to provide the economic flexibility that globalisation rewards. Such considerations do not lead easily to practical policies. But a start would include ditching the Downing Street guest-list of Muslim “community leaders”, rethinking faith schools, pushing to get more Muslim women into mosques and careers, and squelching the homophobes and extremists who refuse to acknowledge the right to free speech and equal treatment.
Much of that might be achieved by improving the quality of education, the best way to lift people out of ghettos into the mainstream. It is also, by neat coincidence, the key to ensuring Britain's success against ever-tougher competition as globalisation rolls on. No solution is perfect. Open your window, and, yes, you are bound to admit a few flies; but the main lesson of recent British history is that fresh air is good for you.
Were it not for the Iraq war, I think Blair would be viewed quite differently.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
MacG
