ChatterBank1 min ago
I Wish Tony Blair Would Keep Quiet On Eu Rather Hypocritical Stance
58 Answers
Tony Blair is set to complain about the prospect of an EU referendum he is rather hypocritical after he caused havoc in 2004 what do ab think
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit
All very tragic but NI is part of the UK.Civilians were killing each other.The armed forces and police were engaged in a policing action on home soil trying to stop secretarian killing by the populace.
The Falklands are a British protectorate and was invaded by a foreign power who tried to subjugate the islanders against their wishes.That sadly resulted in the loss of lives in the cause of freedom not on a bed of lies in a foreign field because the government leader at the time was a lackey to Mr Bush or in the case of the Falklands Mr Regan.
All very tragic but NI is part of the UK.Civilians were killing each other.The armed forces and police were engaged in a policing action on home soil trying to stop secretarian killing by the populace.
The Falklands are a British protectorate and was invaded by a foreign power who tried to subjugate the islanders against their wishes.That sadly resulted in the loss of lives in the cause of freedom not on a bed of lies in a foreign field because the government leader at the time was a lackey to Mr Bush or in the case of the Falklands Mr Regan.
You may have changed your mind Naomi, but millions of British people didn't, which is why Labour won decisively again in 2001 and 2005. The Tories continued to be hugely unpopular, and remained so until dave was elected Leader after the disastrous defeat of the Tories under Michael Howard.
As I have said on another post this morning, and on many previous occasions, Blair would probably have won again in 2010, if he had not been replaced by Brown. Brown lost the 2010 Election, rather than dave won it
( which of course, technically, he didn't, which is why we have had a so-called coalition Govern ever since )
So ....if Blair was so awful, why was he and the Labour Party so successful ?
It can't just have been down to the Tories inability to elect a strong enough Leader !
This is old ground, that you and I have trodden over many times before of course, and the result in 4 weeks time is by no means certain. But if dave expects to win an outright majority, he appears to have left it too late.
As I have said on another post this morning, and on many previous occasions, Blair would probably have won again in 2010, if he had not been replaced by Brown. Brown lost the 2010 Election, rather than dave won it
( which of course, technically, he didn't, which is why we have had a so-called coalition Govern ever since )
So ....if Blair was so awful, why was he and the Labour Party so successful ?
It can't just have been down to the Tories inability to elect a strong enough Leader !
This is old ground, that you and I have trodden over many times before of course, and the result in 4 weeks time is by no means certain. But if dave expects to win an outright majority, he appears to have left it too late.
"Tony Blair...the Labour Leader that kicked the Tories out after 18 years, with a greater landslide than 1945, and then went on to win another two consecutive Elections."
it was probably time for a change anyway, and he achieved what he did by lurching the party to the right and abandoning socialist principles in order to grab voters who would not otherwise have considered Labour, knowing those who wish to retain the party principles had no where else to go, and was certainly not going to go further right again. Whilst there is merit in being what the public look for, it means differentiation between parties becomes wafer thin and when the public regain sense there is no clear alternative to vote for. A weakness of having a party system overlaying the basis of a constituency simply electing a genuine representative.
it was probably time for a change anyway, and he achieved what he did by lurching the party to the right and abandoning socialist principles in order to grab voters who would not otherwise have considered Labour, knowing those who wish to retain the party principles had no where else to go, and was certainly not going to go further right again. Whilst there is merit in being what the public look for, it means differentiation between parties becomes wafer thin and when the public regain sense there is no clear alternative to vote for. A weakness of having a party system overlaying the basis of a constituency simply electing a genuine representative.
Labour was re-elected after the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq had begun, so they were democratically approved, though of course people who don't really like democracy will continue to rant. And people who praise the virtues of untamed capitalism will still loathe Blair for making money. But then politics does strange things to people's brains.
Old Geezer you should revise the history of the thirties
where exatly this happened
Standly Bladwin ( not one of history's winners ) won an election on appeasement of Germany even tho at the time the charge was levelled at him that he had put his party interests and erm his own above that of the country
Meanwhile Churchill was campaigning for the extremely unpopular re-armament in a war-weary population
My point is not so much that Bliar isnt ( a liar ) but that it has happened before
where exatly this happened
Standly Bladwin ( not one of history's winners ) won an election on appeasement of Germany even tho at the time the charge was levelled at him that he had put his party interests and erm his own above that of the country
Meanwhile Churchill was campaigning for the extremely unpopular re-armament in a war-weary population
My point is not so much that Bliar isnt ( a liar ) but that it has happened before
Mikey, //…millions of British people didn't [change allegiance] , which is why Labour won decisively again in 2001 and 2005..//
...and from jno, // Labour was re-elected after the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq had begun//
… both of which say more about the herd mentality (well the herd mentality of the meagre 59% who bothered to vote at all in 2001, and managed to retain its Labour government in 2005 albeit with a vastly reduced majority) than about Mr Blair’s disastrous leadership.
Blair, who has always looked after number one, knew he was on his way out and got out while the going was good leaving Gordon Brown, the failure. Clever man! He never lost an election!! Ed shouldn’t count on the electorate’s respect for Tony Blair. I don’t think it exists.
...and from jno, // Labour was re-elected after the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq had begun//
… both of which say more about the herd mentality (well the herd mentality of the meagre 59% who bothered to vote at all in 2001, and managed to retain its Labour government in 2005 albeit with a vastly reduced majority) than about Mr Blair’s disastrous leadership.
Blair, who has always looked after number one, knew he was on his way out and got out while the going was good leaving Gordon Brown, the failure. Clever man! He never lost an election!! Ed shouldn’t count on the electorate’s respect for Tony Blair. I don’t think it exists.
@Gromit
"It does not look like the Tories will get a majority. If they form a coalition with the Libs or SNP, ditching the referendum will be a condition. Cameron does not want a referendum, so if he can weasel out of it and blame someone else, then he'll be happy."
So, even those of us who were preparing to _grudgingly_ vote Tory with the SOLE intention of getting our first-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make our opinion on EU-int/out known to the political parties, are going to be cheated out of that chance, one way or another?
Very astute analysis, if you turn out to be right. I'm a neophyte when it comes to gambling but I'd gladly take a punt on that. (Then again, what bookie, worth their salt, would accept a bet that boils down to "politician breaks election promise"? lol
"It does not look like the Tories will get a majority. If they form a coalition with the Libs or SNP, ditching the referendum will be a condition. Cameron does not want a referendum, so if he can weasel out of it and blame someone else, then he'll be happy."
So, even those of us who were preparing to _grudgingly_ vote Tory with the SOLE intention of getting our first-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make our opinion on EU-int/out known to the political parties, are going to be cheated out of that chance, one way or another?
Very astute analysis, if you turn out to be right. I'm a neophyte when it comes to gambling but I'd gladly take a punt on that. (Then again, what bookie, worth their salt, would accept a bet that boils down to "politician breaks election promise"? lol
jno...well said 10:01 !
Naomi...."Herd mentality" ? So its OK when the "herd" vote Tory but not when they vote Labour ? How does that work then ? That is known as democracy !
In 2005, Blair got 355 seats and Howard only managed 198.....a convincing margin by any way of looking at it, don't you think ?
And that was on a turn out of 61.4%. If people can't be bothered to go out and vote, they have no grounds under which to moan and whinge afterwards.
Blair's record still stands.........he got rid of a widely discredited Tory Government that had run out of steam and was descending into farce, led by a frankly weak and useless John Major. And while I'm about it, lets not forget why Major got the job of Tory Leader in the first place....because he wasn't Michael Heseltine.
Naomi...."Herd mentality" ? So its OK when the "herd" vote Tory but not when they vote Labour ? How does that work then ? That is known as democracy !
In 2005, Blair got 355 seats and Howard only managed 198.....a convincing margin by any way of looking at it, don't you think ?
And that was on a turn out of 61.4%. If people can't be bothered to go out and vote, they have no grounds under which to moan and whinge afterwards.
Blair's record still stands.........he got rid of a widely discredited Tory Government that had run out of steam and was descending into farce, led by a frankly weak and useless John Major. And while I'm about it, lets not forget why Major got the job of Tory Leader in the first place....because he wasn't Michael Heseltine.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Who's Been Running The United States?
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.