Do you think Blair will ever understand how hated he is?
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
Countdown said:
With regards to boundary changes the article below suggests that, while current boundaries favour Labour (and have done for a long time) boundary changes always favour the Tories.
and yet despite boundary changes that "always favour the Tories" ,"current boundaries favour Labour (and have done for a long time)" - looks like there's still a fair amount of catching up to do then, doesn't it?GavinPearson said:
The content would generally not interest people who prefer pedestrianisation, mass transit only or the banning of the car. Those views are generally held by people with a more liberal viewpoint, who might vote Labour.
That really depends on how you define liberal. Liberalism does not mean banning motor cars you know.martin84 said:
That really depends on how you define liberal. Liberalism does not mean banning motor cars you know.
I'm defining liberal by the policies, actions and speeches the Liberal and Labour parties make at a national and local level.I wouldn't call them motorist friendly. And in many cases, the overzealous implementation of pedestrianisation has led to people concluding that it simply isn't worth opening businesses in those areas because it plainly takes too much effort for their potential customer base to park, ride in, do one's shopping & leave. This is but one reason as to why people aren't shopping in the High Street any more.
Labour =/ liberal. On a libertarian-authoritarian scale, they're firmly in the latter corner.
Lib Bem =/ liberal. In some ways they might be, but they also firmly believe in state intervention where it has little or nothing to do with socio-economics.
The Dutch Liberal party has ecocomic views that are quite right-wing.
The use of 'liberal' as a synonym for 'left wing' is a pure Americanism, coming from the authoritarian religious wing of the GOP who want to ban abortion, equal rights for both sexes et cetera. They may want less state intervention when it's about their own, but equally want to prescribe their law to everyone else.
Lib Bem =/ liberal. In some ways they might be, but they also firmly believe in state intervention where it has little or nothing to do with socio-economics.
The Dutch Liberal party has ecocomic views that are quite right-wing.
The use of 'liberal' as a synonym for 'left wing' is a pure Americanism, coming from the authoritarian religious wing of the GOP who want to ban abortion, equal rights for both sexes et cetera. They may want less state intervention when it's about their own, but equally want to prescribe their law to everyone else.
rohrl said:
crankedup said:
whoami said:
crankedup said:
Is the hate as strong as it is for Bankers and top bosses of FTSE Companies. Same hate different reasons.
Which were the bankers that took us to war?I hate aggressive dogs and emo haircuts but I'm not going to try and shoehorn them into a discussion about Tony Blair.
GavinPearson said:
martin84 said:
That really depends on how you define liberal. Liberalism does not mean banning motor cars you know.
I'm defining liberal by the policies, actions and speeches the Liberal and Labour parties make at a national and local level.I wouldn't call them motorist friendly. And in many cases, the overzealous implementation of pedestrianisation has led to people concluding that it simply isn't worth opening businesses in those areas because it plainly takes too much effort for their potential customer base to park, ride in, do one's shopping & leave. This is but one reason as to why people aren't shopping in the High Street any more.
GavinPearson said:
I'm defining liberal by the policies, actions and speeches the Liberal and Labour parties make at a national and local level.
I wouldn't call them motorist friendly. And in many cases, the overzealous implementation of pedestrianisation has led to people concluding that it simply isn't worth opening businesses in those areas because it plainly takes too much effort for their potential customer base to park, ride in, do one's shopping & leave. This is but one reason as to why people aren't shopping in the High Street any more.
I agree about the destruction of the High Street bit. For years the Government and Councils have failed to recognise the majority of working adults (ie those with money) use a car, so to make it harder for them to use your towns and shops is hardly wise. But its politically incorrect to use a car these days, so its pedestrianised in the name of johnny polar bear or some botched road safety figures accompanied by 'think of the children!!!'I wouldn't call them motorist friendly. And in many cases, the overzealous implementation of pedestrianisation has led to people concluding that it simply isn't worth opening businesses in those areas because it plainly takes too much effort for their potential customer base to park, ride in, do one's shopping & leave. This is but one reason as to why people aren't shopping in the High Street any more.
However I wouldn't say the Conservative's are really any more motorist friendly, they too view the motorist as a cash cow bent over a barrel. They brought in the first fuel duty escalator, their Government brought in speed cameras, they've already made fuel more expensive in this Parliament with a VAT rise and will do so again in August this year. Cameron wants to privatise the roads, increase tolls and there's already rumblings they'll increase car tax because they - like Labour - feel they have a god given right to the publics money. The only pedestrianisation done in recent years where I live was under a Conservative Council so I'm not sure theres a definite link here.
I also take issue with lumping the Lib Dems and Labour into the same group. We talk a lot about Coalition tensions and the deep dislike the Tories have toward Labour and vice versa, but the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party are hardly the best of friends are they?
Back to the original subject of Blair and whether or not he'll realise how hated he is. I think the key fact to understand is the majority of the public don't hate Tony Blair, aside from a sizable portion with a serious objection to the Iraq War. There's parts of the World where he's hated a lot more than here, the UK doesn't hate Blair. More British people reserve hatrid for Thatcher rather than Blair.
Its easy to forget now but Tony Blair did win three general elections, the only Labour politician in history to do so and to begin with at least he was very popular. Yes the 2001 election was notable for voter apathy but that doesn't prove people hated Blair, if they 'hated' him they'd have gone out and voted for somebody else but they didn't, they stayed at home because people generally weren't bothered in 2001. Everyone was happy with the status quo in 2001, there was very little to complain about generally (unlike in 2010) so when the public stay at home thats just as much of an endorsement for you to continue in Government as a high turnout landslide. His popularity was hugely dented in 2003 of course and the 2005 election was extremely tight, yes Tory voters will bang on about boundaries and how farcical it was that Labour returned so many MP's with such a low share of the pop vote but the Tories didn't get the votes they needed where they needed them so they also have to look at that.
The turnout in 2005 (two years after a dodgy invasion of another country) was still lower than in 2010, make of that what you will.
crankedup said:
GavinPearson said:
martin84 said:
That really depends on how you define liberal. Liberalism does not mean banning motor cars you know.
I'm defining liberal by the policies, actions and speeches the Liberal and Labour parties make at a national and local level.I wouldn't call them motorist friendly. And in many cases, the overzealous implementation of pedestrianisation has led to people concluding that it simply isn't worth opening businesses in those areas because it plainly takes too much effort for their potential customer base to park, ride in, do one's shopping & leave. This is but one reason as to why people aren't shopping in the High Street any more.
kwits (Millipede, bks and Cable) are finished destroying the UK you'll all be living in mud-huts and Somalians will be sending over second hand football shirts to keep you all warm.
mybrainhurts said:
martin84 said:
I think the key fact to understand is the majority of the public don't hate Tony Blair, .....the UK doesn't hate Blair. More British people reserve hatrid for Thatcher rather than Blair
On what do you base that claim?900T-R said:
I really wish people would refrain from using 'liberal' as a synonym for 'sandal-wearing leftie'. The last time the two had any relation was in the 1960s, which was also the last time in history when 'left wing' had anything to do with 'being progressive'.
As an aside, no matter how we feel about the current Orwellian guise of the left end of the political spectrum, we should be thankful for the 1960s hippie/leftie movement; without it we'd still be ruled by Godbotherers who want to prescribe with whom and in which positions to have sex.
As an aside, no matter how we feel about the current Orwellian guise of the left end of the political spectrum, we should be thankful for the 1960s hippie/leftie movement; without it we'd still be ruled by Godbotherers who want to prescribe with whom and in which positions to have sex.
The use of the word 'liberal' is roundly abused on here. Some use it in the American sense to merely describe the political Left, which seems to be a misrepresentation rooted in McCarthyism. Also, 'liberalism' doesn't mean 'I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I want and no-one can tell me I'm wrong' either, as a lot of hedonists in The Lounge seem to think. That, if anything is 'libertinism'. Liberalism is a political philosophy espoused by Rousseau and Mill, with its origins post-French revolution, very much centred on the notion of a kind of 'contract' between the state and the individual clearly setting out boundaries and responsibilities for an individual's behaviour, and with public philosophical education given absolute priority so that an individual can contribute to the social progression of their society, realising what's good and bad, what's enlightened and what isn't, and changing the way they live and their attitudes and outlooks accordingly. I can imagine a lot of self-proclaimed 'liberals' on here baulking at that idea and loudly braying some s
te about coke, hookers and stag dos in Amsterdam.Edited by Twincam16 on Monday 18th June 17:06
One wonders - seeing him now he's undergone that familiar transformation common to PM's - ageing process accelerated etc.
No doubting he's a bright bloke married to an equally bright woman - but neither perhaps entirely embued with self doubt or criticism, of the type that enables one to consider one's actions in the light of other people's experiences. Can be a good trait when leading others in extremely testing circumstances, not so much a national political movement.
Having said that, he was more than keen to be the physical embodiment of the New Labour movement, right up to the end, and so with this mantle he must accept the plaudits and the brickbats.
Total, utter, wker. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, nor would I believe him if he said it was Monday, without independent corroboration. God did he and his minions roger this country - not in outright economic sense (he left that to his chummy neighbour) but in the way society was moulded during his tenure, from day one (or Ground Zero).
No doubting he's a bright bloke married to an equally bright woman - but neither perhaps entirely embued with self doubt or criticism, of the type that enables one to consider one's actions in the light of other people's experiences. Can be a good trait when leading others in extremely testing circumstances, not so much a national political movement.
Having said that, he was more than keen to be the physical embodiment of the New Labour movement, right up to the end, and so with this mantle he must accept the plaudits and the brickbats.
Total, utter, w
ker. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, nor would I believe him if he said it was Monday, without independent corroboration. God did he and his minions roger this country - not in outright economic sense (he left that to his chummy neighbour) but in the way society was moulded during his tenure, from day one (or Ground Zero).mybrainhurts said:
On what do you base that claim?
General observation. Thatcher still comes up in political discussion more than 20 years after she left office. The Conservative Party struggled for years to shake off the 'nasty party' tag and still hasn't really done it. During the 2005 election campaign, researchers put policies to random people in the street without telling them the party and a sizable portion who approved of the Tory policy changed their mind after finding out it was a Tory policy, 15 years after Thatcher left office! There's large parts of the UK which is still fiercely anti-Tory based on events in the 80s, new generations brought up to never trust the Tories because of that 'nasty lady.'Labour don't have these problems, the legacy of Blair will not impact upon Miliband's chances in 2015, he might still lose but if he does it won't have anything to do with Blair, voters wont see them as the War Party. Aside from discussions on the Iraq War, Blair is rarely mentioned in political discussions these days and its only 5 years since he left office. Even the Tories don't target Blair with their 'dont vote Labour' message, they target Gordon Brown. Generally people don't care about Tony Blair, Thatcher and Brown prompt more discussion and attract more hate. Tony Blair has managed to have a major impact on the World over 10 years, but most people in the country he led aren't bothered one way or the other about him only 5 years on.
The mans a genius, gotta give him that.
The Don of Croy said:
One wonders - seeing him now he's undergone that familiar transformation common to PM's - ageing process accelerated etc.
No doubting he's a bright bloke married to an equally bright woman - but neither perhaps entirely embued with self doubt or criticism, of the type that enables one to consider one's actions in the light of other people's experiences. Can be a good trait when leading others in extremely testing circumstances, not so much a national political movement.
Having said that, he was more than keen to be the physical embodiment of the New Labour movement, right up to the end, and so with this mantle he must accept the plaudits and the brickbats.
Total, utter, wker. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, nor would I believe him if he said it was Monday, without independent corroboration. God did he and his minions roger this country - not in outright economic sense (he left that to his chummy neighbour) but in the way society was moulded during his tenure, from day one (or Ground Zero).
One wonders if, in years to come, Blair will be eulogised in the same way Thatcher is. Many politicians seem to benefit from the obscuring effects of years. We've recently had a thread on Knocker Powell whose main attribute seems to be his "rivers of blood" speech, which was made at a time when many right-wing politicians were saying more or less the same thing. Indeed, so were many left-wing politicians.No doubting he's a bright bloke married to an equally bright woman - but neither perhaps entirely embued with self doubt or criticism, of the type that enables one to consider one's actions in the light of other people's experiences. Can be a good trait when leading others in extremely testing circumstances, not so much a national political movement.
Having said that, he was more than keen to be the physical embodiment of the New Labour movement, right up to the end, and so with this mantle he must accept the plaudits and the brickbats.
Total, utter, w
ker. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, nor would I believe him if he said it was Monday, without independent corroboration. God did he and his minions roger this country - not in outright economic sense (he left that to his chummy neighbour) but in the way society was moulded during his tenure, from day one (or Ground Zero).Blair is very clever. He is one of our richest PMs ever in the sense of the money made out of the post and post post. You've got to be pretty clued up to make those sorts of millions.
He is lauded as the person who turned the Labour Party around from the unelectable rabble the Trotsky mob turned it into. Indeed it seems it is one of the established facts given most reports you read in the media. I tend to think that he just put the final polish on the job that John Smith all but completed. Whatever, his cleverness made him tremendously popular.
Thatcher went from being the most unpopular PM to one who had a considerable following, at least for some time. Whilst most of this was due to the Falklands, with the able assistance of the PIRA who in their attempt, bodged it turned out, to blow up the Cabinet reinforced Thatcher's reputation.
I'm no fan of Thatcher, at least her later years, but I have to say that whenever I see the image or, better still, the video of her standing on the steps of The Grand with a light dusting of dust I have to say my admiration for her is tremendous.
But even then, for all her ability as a leader a passing was mourned by fewer than those who cheered.
So Blair went from popular to despised whilst Thatcher went from unpopular to hero in them back to unpopular. Yet here we are some 20+ years later and Thatcher's failures seem all but forgotten. Will something similar happen with Blair?
There's a lot more to forgive and forget with him though. He's had no Falklands moment nor has he arisen from anything similar to the PIRA attack on democracy. Added to that, he is a god botherer.
The population tends to forgive prime ministers. In years to come I think Thatcher's legacy will be praised and her mistakes all but ignored. It's what happens. I just can't see the same thing happening with Blair. If you forget all his errors, what's left?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff