It sounded better before Labour honestly, it has Brian Cox playing drums or something like that. Your judgement is clouded by Blair and Prescott linking hands and celebrating their victory to it. I can never get that image out of my mind.
Of the many things you could say about Blair, one of them isn't that his government was a shambles. Unpopular? Yes. Made poor decisions? Yes. But looking at how the two administrations post Blair have both struggled to find their own arse and elbow, Blair's premiership in at least that regard was much more satisfactory.
The two most unpopular PMs are Thatcher and Blair.
Do we think it's merely a remarkable coincidence both were historically very close together or possibly that we're too over dramatic and volatile in our opinions these days?
Major, Brown and as yet Cameron were never the 'force' Blair or Thatcher were. The next PM to be in that same category will get every bit as much 'hate' as those two.
Of the many things you could say about Blair, one of them isn't that his government was a shambles. Unpopular? Yes. Made poor decisions? Yes. But looking at how the two administrations post Blair have both struggled to find their own arse and elbow, Blair's premiership in at least that regard was much more satisfactory.
Quite.
(And the one before it, it must be said).
No fan of Blair, be to be honest if it hadn't been for Iraq my view on him would be neutral, probably slightly above that actually.
Perhaps he senses a war brewing in the Middle East and doesn't want us to miss out
I can't understand this. Do you really think the Tory party or any other front bencher of either main party if in the same position would not have joined the US in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Blair in many ways was merely the suit in a seat in these decisions. If Hague won in 2001 he'd have been every bit 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. In fact being a Conservative he'd have likely been closer to the Republican administration of Bush as Blair was.
So this idea Blair was the man who 'changed the course of history' on this matter is a bit dubious. We shouldn't pretend ANY politician of contention in either party would have done anything at all differently.
If Blair stepped down in summer of 2001, we'd still have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. This need to create a 'bogie man' character to rail against is transparant and tiring at times.
Comments
No it wasn't - it was cringeworthy from the start.
Quite. Those Labour supporters who hated the war and Blair and still voted for him in 2005 should really hang their heads in shame.
It sounded better before Labour honestly, it has Brian Cox playing drums or something like that. Your judgement is clouded by Blair and Prescott linking hands and celebrating their victory to it. I can never get that image out of my mind.
He was lying on his keyboards................but unbeknownst to the other bandmembers he was looking at the stars.
In an election, you don't vote for a leader, you vote for a party.
Gawd help us !
The Peoples Prime Minister
he probably wants to ensure those lovely tax loopholes are not closed.;)
I think we'd be safe.
I think he believes in public service and that he would be good for the nation
Maybe Cherie's running short of Polish plumbers for their property portfolio and wants to make sure nobody shuts the borders.
Is that really still the law?
Jeez, we really are a backward country aren't we?
What is the semantic difference between the following phrases:
a) I would be PM again?
b) I would like to be PM again?
Answers on a postcard to Michael Gove marked "O Level English Comprehension"
Do we think it's merely a remarkable coincidence both were historically very close together or possibly that we're too over dramatic and volatile in our opinions these days?
Major, Brown and as yet Cameron were never the 'force' Blair or Thatcher were. The next PM to be in that same category will get every bit as much 'hate' as those two.
Quite.
(And the one before it, it must be said).
No fan of Blair, be to be honest if it hadn't been for Iraq my view on him would be neutral, probably slightly above that actually.
I can't understand this. Do you really think the Tory party or any other front bencher of either main party if in the same position would not have joined the US in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Blair in many ways was merely the suit in a seat in these decisions. If Hague won in 2001 he'd have been every bit 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. In fact being a Conservative he'd have likely been closer to the Republican administration of Bush as Blair was.
So this idea Blair was the man who 'changed the course of history' on this matter is a bit dubious. We shouldn't pretend ANY politician of contention in either party would have done anything at all differently.
If Blair stepped down in summer of 2001, we'd still have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. This need to create a 'bogie man' character to rail against is transparant and tiring at times.
Me too. I can't believe I just said that as I can't stand him! :eek: