Jump to content

Goodbye Blair, a great leader or disappointment .


StrOwez

Recommended Posts

Blair was great in presidency...sorry, Prime Minister, how silly of me... in his early years. Coincedentally, these were the years when Brown was really running the country, when the 'special relationship' was Blair being Brown's, not Bush's lapdog.

 

 

 

Roll on Bush and Blair has something he thinks is the best thing that happened to him. Now he's in the limelight, he's in control, he's the main man. Unfortunately, this also falls into where Britain comes apart, the legacy is tarnished, it's not all rosy. Had it not been for the complete and utter incompetence of the Tory party to actually function in politics, we wouldn't have to discuss Brown's leadership, we'd all have wind turbines and be burning our ties in Cameron's great revolt since 2005.

 

 

 

Based on this, Brown will be a good leader, I mean, he's already done it, hasn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saved the NHS? Poured money into managers, penny counters and pencil pushers whilst refusing pay rises to nurses. The MRSA crisis in itself needs no introduction. The use of PFI hospitals to make their expenditure look less, whilst it is massively more. The deliberate closure of hospitals in conservative areas to favour labour areas (which has affected me personally).

 

What MRSA crisis? You mean that bug that's been hugely exaggerated by the media is actually dying off? The NHS is in the best state it's ever been, and certainly a lot better than it was under the Tories. The idea that the NHS is in freefall is just false, and if there are any stresses on it, it's because of the expensive prices of new drugs and an aging population, not the actions of the government.

 

 

 

The MRSA crisis that currently kills 7,600 minimum per year (with people perfectly capable of dying without it ever being identified) in NHS hospitals, whilst in privately owned hospitals (BMI health for example) has 0, this is not a typo, 0 and thats blood cases, not deaths. The governments policy of renting out cleaning contracts to the lowest bidder and giving the anti-infection teams of hospitals no say in the matter is the cause of this. Also you have sidestepped the issue of PFI and tory area closes - strangely enough Tony Blair also refused to answer questions on PFI. I'll elaborate on how personally i've been affected by these closures. In my area there are two hospitals, Hospital A is accessible from more than 2 major motorways, has helicopter capability, is ranked the best in the country for certain areas of medicine and attracts medical specialists from across the country. Hospital B is smaller, accessible by one small road and is a considerable distance from the city. Hospital A is threatened with closure, Hospital B is not - guess which is in a tory/labour area. The NHS is the worst healthcare system in Europe with many preferring to go abroad for treatment - I cannot understand how this cannot be seen to be a failure.

 

 

 

 

Iraq? Morals and heart? sorry to exaggerate but Hitler thought what he was doing was right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Dr David Kelly was another tragic victim of this prime minister.

 

Blair killed Kelly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but tragic as his death was, he committed suicide. He certainly wasn't a 'victim' of Blair. As for comparing Hitler to Blair... it's like comparing chalk and cheese. Blair went into Iraq because he believed (and yes, I think he genuinely did) that WMD were in Iraq, and to remove the Iraqi people from tyranny. Now, I don't agree with him, but I can't fault him for going to war on those criteria. If ever there is a 'good' reason to go to war, those are it. As for Hitler... well I'm not even going to go there, because like I said, comparing the two is pointlessly stupid.

 

 

 

The reasons for Kelly's suicide as you very well know was his use as a scapegoat and media spotlight by the government - ok so he didn't jab the knife in personally but his actions had an effect. Believing that there were WMD in Iraq doesn't make the slightest bit of difference - he was wrong, he screwed up and thats a no no for a prime minister. The Hitler remark was quite obviously hyperbole but both characters waged a war they believed to be correct (different scales of course, but the point stands).

 

 

 

 

My final grievance is his constant attack on the middle classes and their finances - inheritance tax continues to be a huge burden, with government's believing it is ok to take 40% of a person's belongings because they are no longer around to defend them. The massive taxes on the arts as well - my uncle recently bought a painting and is forced to pay 25% of its worth every year in tax, meaning every four years he buys the painting again, and again, and again. Justice is also falling to pieces, jails are full, judges are incompetent and not replaced or punished, gang culture, knife and gun crimes are all on the rise but don't worry! Fox hunting's banned! and all those inconvenient pensioners who can't afford to pay their council tax (which is by the way, rising hugely over the rate of inflation) because of their lack of pension and declining winter fuel payments are locked up safely where they can't hurt people with their walking sticks.

 

Again, believe what you like. Stats show crime is actually going down, and where stats show it's going up, there are enough staticians and police officers to say this is only because people report more crimes now. As for prisons, I'm not too hot on this issue, but I hear Gordon promises the construction of new prisons to deal with this problem. As for the pensioners, that's a weak argument. Not to mention ironic. People have never received as much benefits as they do now with New Labour, including pensioners. I find the issue usually with pensioners isn't that they can't afford to pay, it's that they refuse to. That's not the government's problem, they had their chance to control taxes during local elections. I'd also point out it makes them criminals...

 

 

 

Then what about the recent gun epidemics of Manchester and London? Prisons are full, because of Tony Blair's refusal to build more earlier in his rule, and judges are now asked to give shorter sentences or non-prison punishments to alleviate this - hardly a success. Pensioners do not get more benefits, in the last 5 years the WFP payments both my grandparents receive are insufficient and without independent savings (which my grandmother can only access because my grandfather is deceased) she would not be able to support her home. Going 35 in 30 mile an hour zone makes you a criminal, doesn't mean you should go to jail for it - maybe the government should ask why they won't/can't pay, rather than jail anyone who disagrees.

 

 

 

 

As for the comment about taxing on the middle classes, I can't comment. I don't know anything about that, but if population votes a left-wing party into government, than expect higher taxes. It's basic left-wing ideology - more taxes, better public service.

 

 

 

Taxes I have no problem with, stealth taxes and a focus on one class I do. Do you think its right to steal dead peoples belongings? Or tax the arts out of existence. Perhaps the best indicator of this is how far the "no tax day" has reached - the day when people stop working to pay taxes and instead start working for themselves - has moved from May 27 in 1997, to June 10 this year, almost all of this through stealth taxing.

 

 

 

 

And finally the "hooman rights culture" that our illustrious leaders dear wife has brought upon us. Christian children not allowed to wear trinkets whilst other religions are allowed similar trinkets in state schools, political correctness making everyone afraid of offending anyone and the steady trickle of power away to Brussels.

 

Correction... ALL races are asked to hide their religious icons in the workplace and in schools. It just happens to be the case that Christian symbolic trinkets can be hidden, while Sikh turbans can't (as was the case with that women at British Airways). If Christians are told to hide their trinkets while other races aren't (when they can be hidden), then yes, that's prejudism, but I've yet to come across such a case...

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm - Christian girl told to remove her chastity ring or face expulsion, whilst Sikh children wear bangles freely. I couldn't care less whether anyone wears anything religious or not in schools, but it has to be all or nothing.

 

 

 

 

Ahh yes, "political correctness". What does this actually mean? Because I call it by a different name - "being tolerant of other people's values and traditions".

 

 

 

There's a key and important difference and you know it - tolerant of people's values means accepting and allowing them to continue - not pandering to every whim and scapegoating anyone who dares to crack a racist joke or similar - perhaps the late Bernard Manning is a good example of this "racist bigot" the papers have called him - yet the man was personally asked to perform at a West Indian cricket captain's birthday - hardly a hated racist. It irritates me so much when people throw around the word "offended" nowadays - it means nothing anymore. Perhaps I can sum this up with my general view - I don't care what your views and beliefs are, provided they don't affect me do whatever the hell you like - just don't expect me to change the way I live for you; I have values and traditions too.

 

 

 

 

As for your comment about the EU, well I'll agree with you, but only because I see the EU as too much of a capitalist body for my liking, not because I feel we should have so much control over our own affairs. It's important to recognise the simliarites in our cultures over the differences, the EU achieves this. It's just I don't particularly like its capitalism-driven system.

 

 

 

eh? you think people shouldn't have control over their own affairs? Or did I misinterpret.

 

 

 

Finally I'm not liking all this comparing to the tories - I couldn't give a diddly squat about what the tories did in comparison (i'm certainly not one) and being the lesser of two evils does not make him a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.

 

 

 

Hmmm, Churchill's name did not come up..?

elvis501atn4.png

To be honest Antrune, you are a bit of a toff really aren't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.

 

 

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Stands up to Americans? Americans are a great ally to the UK and have no reason to be stood up too. Maybe Blair believes that being nuked is actually a big deal. Uk doesn't have to stand up to the US because they're on the same page. They have the same beliefs. (I guess not much of a British government expert) They're allies and if you believe he has to "stand up" then why are we allies in the first place.

Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.

Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Brown at all.

 

I read a story in the newspaper (with pics) of him with 3 prostitutes in a bed covered in ice cubes or something like that..

 

 

 

Blair was quite good. He kept his decisions strong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.

 

 

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Stands up to Americans? Americans are a great ally to the UK and have no reason to be stood up too. Maybe Blair believes that being nuked is actually a big deal. Uk doesn't have to stand up to the US because they're on the same page. They have the same beliefs. (I guess not much of a British government expert) They're allies and if you believe he has to "stand up" then why are we allies in the first place.

 

Well, actually we've been allies ever since WWII when the USA helped us to defeat the Nazis, and we kinda stuck together through the Cold War and beyond.

 

 

 

Maybe we're coming across as anti-American here. I'm not anti-American, but I do feel that, as Striker said, we should "stand up" to the Americans more. You don't realise this, but Blair was actually bashed in this country for being sub-servant to America and Bush. We're not saying "stand up" as in become enemies - but we should stop with this blind following of Bush just maintain good diplomatic relations and question his decisions more. I'm certainly all for that idea - Iraq and this "War on Terror" (foolish concept IMO) have proven maybe America doesn't know best, and shouldn't go about the world acting like its police...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a story in the newspaper (with pics) of him with 3 prostitutes in a bed covered in ice cubes or something like that..

 

 

 

I think it's pretty safe to assume that he didn't plan on having that story broadcast like that (if, of course, there is any truth in it). But really, who cares what he does in the privacy of his own home? None of that alters his leadership qualities.

suzironniesigwx2.jpg

The Poison Fairy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.

 

 

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Stands up to Americans? Americans are a great ally to the UK and have no reason to be stood up too. Maybe Blair believes that being nuked is actually a big deal. Uk doesn't have to stand up to the US because they're on the same page. They have the same beliefs. (I guess not much of a British government expert) They're allies and if you believe he has to "stand up" then why are we allies in the first place.

 

Well, actually we've been allies ever since WWII when the USA helped us to defeat the s, and we kinda stuck together through the Cold War and beyond.

 

 

 

Maybe we're coming across as anti-American here. I'm not anti-American, but I do feel that, as Striker said, we should "stand up" to the Americans more. You don't realise this, but Blair was actually bashed in this country for being sub-servant to America and Bush. We're not saying "stand up" as in become enemies - but we should stop with this blind following of Bush just maintain good diplomatic relations and question his decisions more. I'm certainly all for that idea - Iraq and this "War on " (foolish concept IMO) have proven maybe America doesn't know best, and shouldn't go about the world acting like its police...

 

 

 

First off, thanks for not being rude like I had a feeling someone was going to. :) Second, the war on has already begun and litten the kindling in the Middle eat a war IS going to happen. Yes it's bush's fault but he was just doing what he thought was right.

Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.

Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.

 

 

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Stands up to Americans? Americans are a great ally to the UK and have no reason to be stood up too. Maybe Blair believes that being nuked is actually a big deal. Uk doesn't have to stand up to the US because they're on the same page. They have the same beliefs. (I guess not much of a British government expert) They're allies and if you believe he has to "stand up" then why are we allies in the first place.

 

Well, actually we've been allies ever since WWII when the USA helped us to defeat the s, and we kinda stuck together through the Cold War and beyond.

 

 

 

Maybe we're coming across as anti-American here. I'm not anti-American, but I do feel that, as Striker said, we should "stand up" to the Americans more. You don't realise this, but Blair was actually bashed in this country for being sub-servant to America and Bush. We're not saying "stand up" as in become enemies - but we should stop with this blind following of Bush just maintain good diplomatic relations and question his decisions more. I'm certainly all for that idea - Iraq and this "War on " (foolish concept IMO) have proven maybe America doesn't know best, and shouldn't go about the world acting like its police...

 

 

 

First off, thanks for not being rude like I had a feeling someone was going to. :) Second, the war on has already begun and litten the kindling in the Middle eat a war IS going to happen. Yes it's bush's fault but he was just doing what he thought was right.

 

Just because Bush think he's doing right doesn't mean:

 

 

 

A) He is right or;

 

B) We should follow his every command

 

 

 

Would you rather one man got to do whatever he wanted in the world with no resistance, or would you rather that person's action be questioned before they are initiated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Just because Bush think he's doing right doesn't mean:

 

 

 

A) He is right

 

 

 

 

(tony blair) - you cant fault his morals or his heart

 

 

 

slight incongruence there surely...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Just because Bush think he's doing right doesn't mean:

 

 

 

A) He is right

 

 

 

 

(tony blair) - you cant fault his morals or his heart

 

 

 

slight incongruence there surely...

 

Not really... I never said Tony Blair was right either, in fact I believe he was wrong to go to Iraq. I don't fault Bush for going into war because he felt it was the right thing to do, I fault it because I feel it was the wrong thing to do. This topic is about Tony Blair as a leader, and I find someone who can stick to their morals and not be drawn away from them a good leader.

 

 

 

I'm not gonna fault someone for doing what they think is right, Bush included, and I think you'll find I did criticise Blair earlier on for going to Iraq. I was saying that in the future, decisions made by whoever in the US administration should be questioned, as they should in all walks of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But where do we draw the line between sticking to your morals, and blindly and stubbornly refusing to take advice or realise your faults? Couldn't agree more on the US though, any administration needs to be questioned and quite rightly so.

 

 

 

Now somebody reply to that huge post I made earlier, that took a lot of writing dammit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.