In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On May 01 2017 21:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tony Blair has been "returning" to British politics for years, with no real results. He is a political non-entity with currently no political power. Even Blairites avoid associating with him publicly. Blair would destroy the Labour party if he tries to rejoin it publicly.
On May 01 2017 21:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tony Blair has been "returning" to British politics for years, with no real results. He is a political non-entity with currently no political power. Even Blairites avoid associating with him publicly. Blair would destroy the Labour party if he tries to rejoin it publicly.
Why is he so hated? Is it just Iraq?
Iraq is symptomatic of the entire Blair problem. He's got this Messianic self image where he sits down, has a heart to heart with God, does whatever the fuck he wants to do and then stares at the camera and says "hand on heart, I honestly thought I was doing the right thing" as if that absolves him when everyone around him told him he was doing the wrong thing. Schools, the NHS, Iraq, privatizations, borrowing through the good times, top up fees, whatever.
He was given a huge majority due to the 18 years of Conservative rule and effectively had total control of British politics and yet still can't help but to blame everyone else for his mistakes. Fuck him all the way to prison where he belongs.
The real downpoint was probably the point he went full American and started alluding that God told him to do it, which is the point that the British public realised with horror that he was a completely amoral psychopath.
He had everything going for him and the country, yet somehow he ended up ruining the country. New Labour was meant to marry Tory aspirations with traditional Labour societal responsibilities. Instead PFI ended up ruining the NHS with debts to private companies with consequences seen today. Inequality shot up due to students having to pay for university education and many other policies that were meant to provide social mobility vanished, repressive security laws were passed (though that may not be his fault in particular) and generally the mood turned from Cool Brittania to Cruel Britannia due to a pursuit of gdp growth at all costs. Oh and Iraq on false pretences, driving one man who stood against the dodgy dossier to suicide, whilst Tony Blair is now a millionaire from public speaking circuits to rich businessmen.
New Labour actually did some stuff that was pretty good, and certainly didn't ruin the country. Their refusal to even try and deal with certain things has led to some crises down the line though (ie immigration and housing). The causes of Brexit can be traced back to New Labour, but honestly they didn't directly ruin anything, they were just more of the same really, a slightly less fundamentalist version of Thatcherism.
I think Blair is mostly hated for Iraq but alot of it is his refusal to admit his lies.
On May 01 2017 21:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tony Blair has been "returning" to British politics for years, with no real results. He is a political non-entity with currently no political power. Even Blairites avoid associating with him publicly. Blair would destroy the Labour party if he tries to rejoin it publicly.
Why is he so hated? Is it just Iraq?
Just FYI, Kwarks view is not representative of the entire British public, and has given a very harsh summary of his time as PM. One thing that is for sure is that the daily mail loathe him, which seems to form the opinions of a large part of the population EDIT: I'd also add that most people that hold a sympathetic view of him find it much easier to not mention it, as the debate is incredibly toxic.
In 20 years there might be a reasonable middle ground reached
On May 01 2017 21:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tony Blair has been "returning" to British politics for years, with no real results. He is a political non-entity with currently no political power. Even Blairites avoid associating with him publicly. Blair would destroy the Labour party if he tries to rejoin it publicly.
Why is he so hated? Is it just Iraq?
Just FYI, Kwarks view is not representative of the entire British public, and has given a very harsh summary of his time as PM. One thing that is for sure is that the daily mail loathe him, which seems to form the opinions of a large part of the population EDIT: I'd also add that most people that hold a sympathetic view of him find it much easier to not mention it, as the debate is incredibly toxic.
In 20 years there might be a reasonable middle ground reached
Most people regardless of political persuasion hate him for Iraq and his money making after leaving office
On May 01 2017 21:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tony Blair has been "returning" to British politics for years, with no real results. He is a political non-entity with currently no political power. Even Blairites avoid associating with him publicly. Blair would destroy the Labour party if he tries to rejoin it publicly.
Why is he so hated? Is it just Iraq?
Just FYI, Kwarks view is not representative of the entire British public, and has given a very harsh summary of his time as PM. One thing that is for sure is that the daily mail loathe him, which seems to form the opinions of a large part of the population EDIT: I'd also add that most people that hold a sympathetic view of him find it much easier to not mention it, as the debate is incredibly toxic.
In 20 years there might be a reasonable middle ground reached
It is amazing what people will blame the Mail for. The left wing media are equally - if not more - critical of Blair than the right wing media.
Leaving the EU already costs 500/year. I don't think that's all, it's just that Brexit is starting to bite.
Sorry but that article actually more or less debunks the statement...
Different studies are saying different things about household spending power. None of them claim a loss would be because of Brexit and instead include all general market effects like oil prices.
Leaving the EU already costs 500/year. I don't think that's all, it's just that Brexit is starting to bite.
Sorry but that article actually more or less debunks the statement...
Different studies are saying different things about household spending power. None of them claim a loss would be because of Brexit and instead include all general market effects like oil prices.
It doesn't debunk anything. It just says that Brexit is a factor but not the only one. It also says it's too early to conclude anything for sure at that point. Nevertheless, Brexit is starting to bite as I said. If you live in the UK, you can notice that prices are going up for some products.
That's one hefty buy-in to being allowed to negotiate. But Britain is desperate to get anything they could possibly get so they will gladly pay any price.
On May 03 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote: That's one hefty buy-in to being allowed to negotiate. But Britain is desperate to get anything they could possibly get so they will gladly pay any price.
Britain is not going to pay a hundred billion euros for anything. Are you nuts? That'd fund the NHS for a year. It's over 10% of the entire national budget. You'd have to be a lunatic or an idiot to even think it could happen. It'd be like Canada asking for $400,000,000,000 to renegotiate NAFTA.
On May 03 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote: That's one hefty buy-in to being allowed to negotiate. But Britain is desperate to get anything they could possibly get so they will gladly pay any price.
Britain is not going to pay a hundred billion euros for anything. Are you nuts? That'd fund the NHS for a year.
Oh come on, don't be Romanian.
I do wonder if the EU thinks they can actually get this money though. Whether or not they can, though, it appears that they will try.
EPT
