Didn't he just. Not a bad return on £14 million in loans. Unfortunately the Tories were just as bad and the Liberals would (no doubt) love the chance to get their snouts in the trough.
I think that's kind of where US politics is. We elect a party, find out how bad they are so we elect the other party and repeat. Nexxo's right about power corrupting, but once in a while it would be nice to elect someone who wasn't a slimeball.
Nexxo's theorem on politics: Anyone who harbours the ambition to become a politician is by definition unsuitable for the position.
Then vigilante groups should ambush unsuspecting people, and install them in power!! Don't give them a chance to get ambitious!
englands done better economically in tony blairs reign than anyone eles - this is fact not my opinion, go to a govt & politics class or economics and youl see it compared to the past. The country from when it started to now, hasnt done this well before even despite the war in iraq. Now im not a fanboy but im simply greatful i dont live in the 1980s and early 1990's anymore - I remember my family being allot poorer aswell as many other people simply because there wasnt as much money going around aswell as jobs, unemployment was crazy. Im annoyed by this whole money for lordship thing but its not enough to get rid of tony blair - hes good at what he does - running the country successfully. Il still vote for him.
Labour did a lot better than the Conservatives, but for a large part only because it is very difficult to do any worse. Tony managed to do good things for the economy, but then again so did Hitler for post-WW1 Germany. It is not enough to support a government because it is good for the economy. There are ethical standards to consider as well: how honest it is with its voters, how well it treats its citizens and respects their rights (very important detail, that), how it behaves towards other countries. Tony may think he helped bring democracy to Iraq, but Hitler thought that he brought Arian purity to Holland. In his eyes, he was doing a good thing. He created the child benefit system, and the first orange my father ever ate was given to him by a German soldier. And the trains always ran on time... But even if you just look at economics, supporting the Bush Administration in a plan that, frankly, is political and economical suicide, is a BIG and rather unforgiveable mistake. Think of a doctor. If a fairly competent surgeon kills a patient by taking out the wrong kidney, or an otherwise competent radiologist manages to deliver a fatal radiation overdose to a patient 17 times in a row (both recent cases in the news), you expect there to be some scrutiny of their actions, and some sort of repercussions or reprimand. You don't expect people to shrug and say: "hey, but otherwise he does an alright job", and for him to blithely carry on to the next possible screw-up. Before Iraq, I did vote for him. Not anymore. Now he has my vote of no confidence.
So what you are saying is "It doesnt matter if our leaders will do anything for money as long as we arnt affected". With respect thats a very naive and dangerous attitude. We have been lied to on multiple occasions by this government. Companies with well documented failings have been given massive contracts after giving money to the governemnt. On top of this they cant manage the NHS for crap. And you think they are doing well? Im amazed they didnt get kicked out after Iraq and now it comes out about "loans" by people who happen to get honours soon after. They should be prosecuted for corruption.
He gave away seats, not killed people and then ignored it. Now yes its serious but your comparison to that of manslaughter is a BS one. Im greatful hes done a good job and i already stated i am annoyed. If there is someone that comes along and they can genuinely do a better job then il vote for them. Until then il vote for him again. If you want to talk about corruption i suggest you guys take some govt/politics classes - Its all there in one way or another. You know party members are meant to vote on their own beliefs right? they are forced by whips who pressure them into voting for the beliefs of the party leaders for whatever issue rises up. This isnt democracy, the mps are there to vote for issues reguarding their constititions although they dont because although they can simply follow their own views they risk not being passed over for promotions or anything that may further their career by their own party. Its why they follow orders. The problem with this is they are meant to vote on their own beliefs but its the norm to follow the party leaders views because of repurcussions on their career. Its everywhere in one form or another, now we can sit here complaining but the fact remains if everyone constantly remained split on decisions - nothing would ever get done to progress the country and we would spend possibly hundreds of years simply to pass a single bill until society deemed it acceptable ( womens rights anyone? - And even this was influenced by the wars since they took up jobs to compensate for the lack of men - lucky in some sense, who knows how it couldve been like now otherwise, also the death penalty aswell as laws reguarding rape were pretty messed up. Now yes it looks pretty bad but you should try run for office and see how far you can get trying to remain 100% clean in every way - its impossible. Im not saying what he did was a good thing, but compared to how bad previous PM's have screwed the country up id say it doesnt really compare.
He killed people in Iraq and then ignored it. So are we, apparently. Only because you are not drawing the parallel. In the example of a doctor, a patient is killed (or at least signifiantly harmed) by a gross and serious error. In Tony Blair's case, British soldiers and Iraqi citizens are killed, and the country thrown into a terrorist cross-fire because of a gross and serious error in judgment. I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue. We all know politics is a crooked game and we all know they are as bad as each other (and you really don't need to lecture me on political history). That does not mean that we as voters should not have some standards. Just because things are not the way they are supposed to be, doesn't mean we just have to compromise. Many a totalitarian government has come into power and many countries have been plunged into war because people were prepared to compromise for a quiet life, or for some illusion of material wealth. If we don't watch them critically and make them live up to decent standards, nobody else will. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. As for being split on decisions: that is how it is supposed to work! Otherwise you just have a totalitarian regime dressed up in a democratic veneer. The Party Whip system proposes that the MPs are not allowed to represent the wishes of their constituency in Parliament, but have to toe the party line as dicated by the Prime Minister. That is not democracy, that is dictatorship. When the anti-terror bill on the 90-day detention period was debated for weeks on end in Parliament, many people complained that it made a mockery of the democratic process. Personally, I felt proud of it. This bill was a very big deal. It had major implications for the rights of citizens in this country, and the importance of making absolutely sure that all these implications were explored and discussed, and the best possible decision made, cannot be stressed enough. This was the only right, truly democratic way of going through the process (whether it was passed or not). Had it been whipped through Parliament in a day, it would have been no different than the Prime Minister simply saying: "I decree it so". Saddam Hussein could get away with that, and we all agree that this was a bad thing; this would have been no different. Anybody who did not see that, frankly, did not understand democracy. As for women's rights: big sociocultural changes do not happen overnight; they take lots of time. That has nothing to do with following the democratic process but with the fact that society changes slowly.
Forgiving Blair is along the same lines as giving Clinton a thumbs up for selling nuclear secrets and getting BJ's from the office whore...
Yeah, that makes rather interesting reading, doesn't it? Clinton sells prohibited electronic hardware and nuclear secrets to China. A White House intern who may have known too much about this, Mary Caitlin Mahoney, was murdered on July 1997, in a District of Columbia Starbucks Coffee Shop. It was dismissed as a robbery. Shades of Dr. David Kelly, anyone? Before Bush fans gloat by the way, he meanwhile has sold nuclear secrets to India and Pakistan. Pakistan in turn tried to sell some on to North Korea and Lybia. Apparently they also tried to flog some to Iraq, but Saddam was not in a buying mood... so that's why we thought he was developing WMD: we tried to sell him the means to do so... How did the Manic Street Preachers put it? "If you tollerate this, your children will be next"...
Ok well I'l ask the question then - Who would you like to replace Tony Blair? Everyone is Argueing to get rid of him but there isnt anyone of a good enough stature to replace him with. Il never vote conservatives, i mean those guys have their ideology founded on helping the rich and are only compromising this to get into office since the majority of people are working class. Labour or Liberal Dems perhaps
The bloke who is really responsible for our economic stability - PM-in-waiting Gordon. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, Gordon hasn't got a super-rich-bitch wife to keep up with and anybody who can write a book called 'Where There Is Greed: Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future' is OK in my book.
