Tony Blair is going

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

I never claimed such, but who we elect as our leaders and whether we keep them in office or give them the boot is our business, not yours.

Repetition, for the slow thinkers amongst us: Decisions you make at home that have consequences for us as well are also our concern. Decisions you make that have no consequences for us, are your concern alone. If you decide to raise the price for tickets when parking wrong, it is not our concern. when you put a set of human jokes into your top offices and they the mess up the world even more than it already was, then that is the world we live in also, and then these figures are our concern. Those silly wars being started and incompetently ofught by Blair and bush have chnaged life inEurope and Germany as well. Like it is our all concern if Iran gets nukes, or not. Like it was your ancestor's concern that the German brought a certain queer leader into office, too, back then, or like it was our concern as well when the soviets set up those SS-20s and Schmidt decided to react and pushed the West for a reaction (Pershing-IIs). There are no isolated nations that can act as if they were in an empty void, not causing consequences for others. If your neighbour plays his radio with 100 dezibel, then it is not only his concern, but yours, too. And if he starts to invite junkies into the house, and thugs camping in his cellar, then it is not his concern, but yours as well if you happen to live in the neighbourhood. Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Repetition, for the slow thinkers amongst us: Decisions you make at home that have consequences for us as well are also our concern. Decisions you make that have no consequences for us, are your concern alone. If you decide to raise the price for tickets when parking wrong, it is not our concern. when you put a set of human jokes into your top offices and they the mess up the world even more than it already was, then that is the world we live in also, and then these figures are our concern. Those silly wars being started and incompetently ofught by Blair and bush have chnaged life inEurope and Germany as well. Like it is our all concern if Iran gets nukes, or not. Like it was your ancestor's concern that the German brought a certain queer leader into office, too, back then, or like it was our concern as well when the soviets set up those SS-20s and Schmidt decided to react and pushed the West for a reaction (Pershing-IIs). There are no isolated nations that can act as if they were in an empty void, not causing consequences for others. If your neighbour plays his radio with 100 dezibel, then it is not only his concern, but yours, too. And if he starts to invite junkies into the house, and thugs camping in his cellar, then it is not his concern, but yours as well if you happen to live in the neighbourhood. Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

OK. And you still don't have a say in who we or who the UK elects as their leadership. :p

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

You can belittle me all you want Skybird, but your advice is still worthless to us.

Europeans have badmouthed our leaders ever since "farmer" Washington, through "monkey" Lincoln and on past "crippled Jew" Roosevelt. I see no reason why we should listen to you now.

And Sea Demon is right. You STILL have no say in who we elect as our leaders and furthermore, i'd rather have the worst president possible, even another Clinton, before i'd accept one that listened to European "advice".

The only thing that's obvious, before the fact, is that European nations always want what is good for Europe, not what's good for America. The two are rarely the same thing.

[jumpy]

hehe you guys!
Just to see it from another point of view for a moment, disregarding what I actually think of Labour politics, I have to say it's a piss poor job to show such a divided face to the public of this country. In truth Blair has already stated that he will not be standing for the leadership of the Labour party come the next general election. I can well understand his decision not to reveal a 'timetable' to his steping down. What leader in their right mind would go as far as to undermine his powerbase for the relatively short time he has left in office, afterall if he does that who in his own governement would take him or his policies seriously?
To my mind it is a gross negligence on behalf of his party members that they should have allowed such infighting to spill out into the public domain in the first place. But that's typical of politics in this country, where power is wielded by politicians and not statesmen.
Many might like Blair and many might not, but how many of either would relish Gordon Brown as the new PM? Regardless of the man, I just don't like the look of him. Silly, no?

By definition politicians are a self serving lot and easlily swayed by majority oppinion, else they loose that power of office. It has been a long time since we had any true statesmen in charge, entrusted to do what is right for Britain and not to allow personal vagaries to influence their behaviour or decisions. But I guess that's democratic rule for you; you never quite get what you want or need.
Like Arthur Dent, trying to get a cup of tea from the Sirrius Cybernetics Corporation Nutrimatic machine on board the starship Heart of Gold. No matter how detailed his description of what he wanted to drink he invariably got a substance that was almost but not quite entirely unlike tea, every time. And when he did sit down with the machine to wrangle a decent cuppa out of its circuits it took so much computing power that it very nearly led to the destruction of the ship and everyone on board... how typical.

[August]

Originally Posted by jumpy

hehe you guys!
Just to see it from another point of view for a moment, disregarding what I actually think of Labour politics, I have to say it's a piss poor job to show such a divided face to the public of this country. In truth Blair has already stated that he will not be standing for the leadership of the Labour party come the next general election. I can well understand his decision not to reveal a 'timetable' to his steping down. What leader in their right mind would go as far as to undermine his powerbase for the relatively short time he has left in office, afterall if he does that who in his own governement would take him or his policies seriously?
To my mind it is a gross negligence on behalf of his party members that they should have allowed such infighting to spill out into the public domain in the first place. But that's typical of politics in this country, where power is wielded by politicians and not statesmen.
Many might like Blair and many might not, but how many of either would relish Gordon Brown as the new PM? Regardless of the man, I just don't like the look of him. Silly, no?

By definition politicians are a self serving lot and easlily swayed by majority oppinion, else they loose that power of office. It has been a long time since we had any true statesmen in charge, entrusted to do what is right for Britain and not to allow personal vagaries to influence their behaviour or decisions. But I guess that's democratic rule for you; you never quite get what you want or need.
Like Arthur Dent, trying to get a cup of tea from the Sirrius Cybernetics Corporation Nutrimatic machine on board the starship Heart of Gold. No matter how detailed his description of what he wanted to drink he invariably got a substance that was almost but not quite entirely unlike tea, every time. And when he did sit down with the machine to wrangle a decent cuppa out of its circuits it took so much computing power that it very nearly led to the destruction of the ship and everyone on board... how typical.

Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.

[jumpy]

OT

Originally Posted by August

Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent
'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.

[August]

Originally Posted by jumpy

OT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent
'The Hitchhhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.

Ahh i wondered why that name was vaguely familiar. I saw the movie some time ago but haven't had the chance to read the series yet. Thanks for the reminder.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by jumpy

OT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent
'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.

42

[TteFAboB]

It's on wikipedia, therefore it's the truth (it's a joke):

Current political debate in Wales is about whether the National Assembly should be given more powers, such as the power to pass primary legislation, as the Scottish Parliament can in Scotland.

Perhaps you should take a look at the rest of the article, it could've been written by the English, you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales

You like the idea but not the lack of reciprocity. I don't like the lack of reciprocity either. It's always good to remember the cause of this is another lack of reciprocity: from the terrorists who do not grant to us what we grant to them. The Positivist right to travel safely by air land or sea, the Positivist right to walk without fear of blasts, the Positivist right to be free from incitation of hatred by infuriated clerics, etc.

You're most definitely unlikely to make any error in what you teach. That's what everybody usually, naturally and Positivistically rightfully expects (this is another joke). So you might aswell know the realm of International Law better than most to acknowledge that the greatest goal of its proponents is the superseding of sovereign national law by international bodies. This is my point, only. Let's say this is your desire, your belief, how can one complain against a bi-lateral treaty when one wants to overrule a nation's entire legal sovereingty? Perhaps you don't like to hear this from me, well, I am speaking out of realism. There are many people in this field who are honest and of good will and the concept can be seen as great and noble, a very good idea, I simply do not see them in command of the process, being put out of the way instead by the more opportunistic bureaucrats. But it's their merit anyway. While others theorize and philosophize about the greatness of International Law, which is every lawyer's greatest dream, this highly organized pack of wolves is ready to take control of the ground as soon as the structure is set (The Bertrand Russell Tribunal I and II, Permanent People's Tribunal, International Criminal Court and etc).

Here's something less hostile:

[snowsub]

Blair & Bush should be taking lessons from John Howard, he's got a 2:1 margin for preferred PM against the Opposition leader and more than that against his nearest party next-in-line (peter Costello). Basically the public want him to leader rather than anyone else, by a long way.

And as much as some people don't like him, the vast majority know he's got what it takes to do the job, regardless of how they like his policies. Ie He's not wishy/washy and will do what he thinks best regardless of pandering to popular opinion. (And most australian can respect that)

There's no way JH would be drawn into making a binding descision on when to retire (and there's been many many attempts to pin him down). IMO he'll take his party through the next election (and win) and could even go another full term. (I doubt he'll go the next full term, he'll step down somewhere when he feels like he's done all he want to)

[Skybird]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

Well said. Better to fight and lose than to cringe in babbling fear. We all know one thing, we cannot talk terrorists into submission. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are not slam dunks, and I would have handled it very differently if I were Pres, but at least we're doing something.

Blair. Not familiar with his economic policies but I get the feeling his leaving is like when the Brits dumped Churchill. Wasn't all peaches and cream after that, until Thatcher came along.

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well said. Better to fight and lose than to cringe in babbling fear.

Thanks. That does seem to be the modern European approach to external threats with the notable exception of the British.

[DAB]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Blair. Not familiar with his economic policies but I get the feeling his leaving is like when the Brits dumped Churchill. Wasn't all peaches and cream after that, until Thatcher came along.

Its not going to be quite like that... I don't think

In Britain, the Prime Minister is not directly elected, constitutionally he is selected by the govening political party to hold the post. In 1945, Churchill faced the consiquences of that. He was very popular - but the British Population remembered that the Conservative Administration of the 1930's (before we went on a war footing) had run out of steam and basicly voted as if they were voting in the election that had been due in 1940*

But in the last five years of the war, Britain had had a coalition government and the government had already planned its programme for the post-war era. Had Churchill won the election, odds are that he would have followed simular policies to Attle - indeed when the conservatives were returned to power 7 or 8 years later, it was on a manifesto to "build" upon the Atlee governments "achievements". In Britain we call this the consensus era.

Today, Britain is in anouther consensus era...and the three major political party's occupy a very narrow ideological position economically. Even the Liberal Democrats who the Conservatives have derrided as being Left Wing are in fact a free market, small state party.

The only space for manovour in British politics is social policy. To be blunt, Tony Blair represents this consensus and when he goes his successor will almost certainly continue where he left off. And that successor is almost certainly Gorden Brown - the man who designed the current economic policy of the UK.





UK constitutional convention allows for elections to be postponed beyond the normal five years in times of national emergency. But the government is expected to resign at the end of the five years so that other political parties can be brought in to share government.