steo on 10/5/2007 at 17:35
Well if you didn't want Iraq then you'd have had to support the Lib Dems and well, the rest goes without saying really.
Fingernail on 10/5/2007 at 17:35
How do people generally remember Thatcher? Usually there's more focus on mining strikes and trade union disputes than much else.
How do people remember Major? Usually sleaze and the fact that there's not much to remember about him.
How will people remember Tony? More about the War on Terror and the disappointment that not as much changed as everybody hoped it would in 1997, I suspect.
SD on 10/5/2007 at 17:45
Quote Posted by steo
Well if you didn't want Iraq then you'd have had to support the Lib Dems and well,
the rest goes without saying really.
I'm intrigued. What
does go without saying?
jimjack on 10/5/2007 at 18:49
As an ex-pat and a forward thinking kind of guy.
THE PM IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE PM!
The labour party's strength in the last three elections has mainly stemmed from the Tories weakness.Blair's domestic agenda was shit. He was more interested in the US than actually doing something to improve the country. My uncle says that Britain as he knew it is dead and gone. Blair and his party have managed to finish the job the Queen of twat Thatcher started. Most utilities are owned by foreigners, for that matter how many of them are illegal. Health, Education, Housing and law enforcement are messed. His down fall is Iraq.
But he does deserve some credit for Northern Irealnd. Maybe his stepping down because of the power sharing plan in NI is as good a way to go as he is ever going to get. But what do I know about Blair. Does he go along with everything Bush says. Does he wipe his arse with silk? Do people get pissed off if he is in comedy shows for African relief? Did he only get elected three times because he was up against idiots. Did he just make the labour party into the conservatives with better publicity?
Brown will be less US friendly I think and more socialist. Also he will provoke English nationalists by the fact he is a Scottish MP.
steo on 10/5/2007 at 20:04
I think what goes without saying is that the Lib Dems aren't now, and haven't been for a long time, in any shape to govern the country. Since that leaves just labour and the tories, both of whom backed the Iraq war, the tories more so than labour, Blair's blunderings in Iraq can't be a valid reason for switching the vote to ol' davey cameron.
Yes, I agree that the Iraq war was a huge mistake but it is one that both parties would have made. Yes, labour are crap but so is every other political party in Britian and elsewhere. You've just got to choose the lesser of the evils which, I believe, is labour.
R Soul on 10/5/2007 at 20:11
Quote Posted by steo
You've just got to choose the lesser of the evils which, I believe, is labour.
You could not vote. You could then write a letter to whichever politician best represents your own views and explain that you'd like to vote for them, but won't because...
steo on 10/5/2007 at 20:17
Gee whizz, I bet that would work just swell, R Soul. Why didn't I think of that?
Zygoptera on 11/5/2007 at 00:18
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
And to frame that point better, Howard may make bumbling or inept decisions from time to time but he seems to do it with heart in the right place and by that I mean, what's probably best for Australia in the long run.
I don't like Blair, and I disagree with a great deal of what he has done, but I have no doubt that he has done what he thought was right for the UK.
As for Howard...
I like Australia. I may sometimes make sheep-shagger jokes, call them the West Island, belittle their rugby teams etc but when it comes down to it I do like Australia.
John Howard, however, is the only western politician I would describe as utter scum.
Convict on 11/5/2007 at 00:35
1) It's ours to make sheep shagger jokes at you
2) No, we call you the east island
3) We've won more world cups than you!
Howard is Australia's second longest serving PM for a (many) reasons, one of which was suggested is that he reads the mood of the people of the day mimics it. Perhaps Howard is a reflection of ourselves rather than a blame-all bogey-man.
Scots Taffer on 11/5/2007 at 00:55
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I don't like Blair, and I disagree with a great deal of what he has done, but I have no doubt that he has done what he thought was right for the UK.
...
John Howard, however, is the only western politician I would describe as utter scum.
Well, I've lived in both countries and I've experienced what both PMs have been doing for a while now, and I can say that while Howard has made decisions that are unpopular with the international political media (such as his view on immigration policy/refugee status) it is certainly shared by a vocal majority of Australians, whereas the decisions Blair was making back home were backed by a vocal minority but the majority were too fed up to make noise about it anymore as they'd already been sidelined and marginalised enough by his policies. Blair has punished many people that he and his party were supposedly put in power to benefit,
New Labour is more about engendering a sense of entitlement to those who don't deserve it and battered-wife syndrome to those who actually contribute meaningfully to the country, and by that I mean public service workers (such as nurses, midwives, doctors and so on, not to mention police forces and teachers who have all seen themselves either deprived of pay or their working conditions drastically change over the course of Labour's term by their subtle erosion of acceptable standards and their encouragement of the lowest fucking common denominator) and tax-payers.
