h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Tony Blair

Donald

He's never going to be beaten at the next election......the only way to get rid of Blair resides within the Labour party. Push for the backbenchers to vote against him......is all we can do

Sadly, I think that's right. I think people will vote labour party not think they are voting Blair. Some socialists I know, who have been that way for years, seem to be very deluded about Blair, a sort of wishful thinking self-deception about him. I remember one of them , right up to the invasion of IraQ, felt certain that Blair was merely acting as a control mechanism for Bush and would pull out of actual engagement at the last minute and show us all that he was a decent sort of bloke. 'Dream on' I said. Blair is more right wing than the conservatives and from day one seems to have been applying for the job of European President - which is why we saw all that scurrying around the world after 911. (and why Cherie appeared recently decked out like a minor royal)
When it comes to the vote, people will still delude themselves that they are voting for a socialist government and perhaps this is part of the way it went in the US. voting for the idealistic idea of a party rather than the reality of the person.

the tory press were going to go for Blair, and if they couldn'y get Blair, go for Cherie.

I'm going to happily vote for Blair at the next election.......so who will you vote for Donald?

>> right up to the invasion of IraQ, felt certain that Blair was merely acting as a control mechanism for Bush and would pull out of actual engagement at the last minute and show us all that he was a decent sort of bloke. <<

That was the feeling I and probably a lot of others had at the time as well until he published the "September Dossier" and then I realised he was serious. It has been policy for years that PMs don't discuss intelligence in the House of Commons and for very good reasons. TB put paid to that principle. Not only did he discuss intelligence, he used it justify a political decision. You can use intelligence to form an opinion, but never to justify it. As we are finding out, it is fraught with problems.

>> so who will you vote for Donald? <<

At the moment I have no idea. If Gordon Brown were to replace Tony Blair the decision would be easy. Micheal Howard gives me the heebie jeebies. His record as Home Secretary doesn't inspire me with any confidence at all. I might even vote Liberal Democrat for the first time in my life.

Donald

I've reluctently decided to vote Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru at the next election. Unless Blair is chucked IMO the best hope is for a Lib/Lab coalition.
For all Blairs faults he is not as right-wing as Howard. If the Tories had been sensible and selected someone like Ken Clarke as leader they might have a chance of winning.

Blair isn't upposed to be right wing at all. That's the point of a labour party. Isn't it?

it used to be
Tony Blair was the reason I left the Labour Party but I continued to vote Labour. Not any more

If Tony hadn't sided with Dubya.........what might have happenned?......seriously I think the ape may have gone more seriously mental.........Its an interesting conundrum

<< when America wanted Britain to to join them in Vietnam.>>

I didn't know that... thank God you didn't get involved! NZ and Australia did, (I don't think the NZ involvement was official,) but the result is NZ Vets with physical and psychological problems...

Although Harold Wilson gave political support to America during the Vietnam war, he stopped short of sending troops because of opposition from within the Labour Party and country as a whole.

Australia got involved because Vietnam was a little closer to home and they were really worried about a Communist takeover in SE Asia.

There is evidence to suggest that the SAS where in Vietnam in small numbers but it has never been officially confirmed.

Would British involvement have made any difference? Unlikely, but they may have been able to moderate some of the extreme tactics used by the Americans like the carpet bombing and the use of Agent Orange. After all, Britain sorted out the Communist problem in Malaysia without resorting to such tactics. Look at Malaysia now, a thriving industrial nation.

http://www.indexbooks.co.uk/war.doc

Donald

Thank goodness for that opposition then!

So why doesn't opposition work today?

Because in 1965 Harold Wilson only had a majority of 5. He couldn't afford to upset to many of his own back benchers otherwise a vote of no confidence would have had him out. Bit different than the 167 that Tony Blair enjoys.

Donald

There's no meaningful opposition and unlikely to be in the near fuure because the distribution of seats is heavily skewed in favour of Labour. Why do you think Blair doesn't address the East Grinstead question whereby Scottish MP's sit in Westminster but English MP's have no say in Edinburgh even though England provides the funding for Scotland. English politics is dominated by the Scotch diaspora. Change will come about when the brooding Brown reverts to good old tax and redistribute ways. He's already outside of his borrowing rules.

There's no meaningful opposition because Howard is forever blighted by memories of Thatcher (and despite what people say, she was *FAR* worse than Blair could ever imagine), the Poll Tax (his idea, his policy, his execution), the fact that his party has it's rolling eye on the wrong ball (hint: Everybody loves Portillo now) and the shadow cabinet is made up of intellectual lightweights and chinless wonders, most of whom would struggle to be recognised by the average member of the party.

Whats wrong with a bit of tax and spend? Providing he taxes the right people and spends in the right place, I say go for it.

You mean the Midlothian Question. East Grinstead is in Kent!

I agree, without the Scottish MPs, Tony Blair would have problems. However, that could change with Alex Salmond and the Scottish Nationalists.

>> Change will come about when the brooding Brown reverts to good old tax and redistribute ways. <<

It sure will - it will put Labour in Opposition again. It was Labour's pre-occupation with the redistribution of wealth that kept Margret Thatcher in power for 12 years. I don't think Gordon Brown wants to go down that road again.

Donald

What kept Thatcher in power for 12 years was the Left Wing of the Labour Party showing dangerous signs of being 'iner-lektual', which in Britain, just as in the US, is fatal.

It is actually fairly ironic that if Blair manages to 'achieve' the greatest swing in electoral history and have himself ousted at the next election, it will actually be for aping Tory policies - kissing up to the US, refusing to raise taxes and horrendously reactionary law and order policies.

Getting a bit of course but apologies for moving West Lothian to Kent and the funding issue is known as the Barnett Formula

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02586.pdf

I thought this thread was about 'what's wrong with Americans?'