[Fahrenheit]

So, Tony Blair is nearly 10 years into his stint as PM. There are rumours abound that he will step down this week, before the Local Elections (which I am voting in - first time! ), although downing street are denying this. It seems that the most likely candidate will be Gordon Brown( which deeply upsets me, because, and I know we vote a party in, the PM has the largest say, and I really think we should call a general election, but thats not the issue here).

I really want to know, on maybe the last week of his power, what taste Tony Blair leaves in your mouth (no, Murbot). Does he seem like a charismatic leader who has led the uk into propserity, a dog humping dubya's leg, or a man who has done a shocking job in power, and who has left a legacy of a poor NHS, allegations of bribery and really done more harm than good, not helped by an ineffective and rather pathetic cabinet beneath him.

Either way, keeping 10 years in power, whether he is any good or not, shows a good amount of comittment and ability to win the hearts of the core-voter...

[Windswept]

I've always liked Tony Blair. I think he's smart and well-spoken. I know that a lot of 'you' don't like him; but I, for one, will miss him a lot.

I liked the way he answered questions during prime minister's 'question time'. In many instances, the questioners seemed rather rude and offensive; but he would keep his cool and give a well-reasoned, articulate answer, while completely maintaining his composure and sense of humor.

Btw, I've never understood why the members are so loud, rude and obnoxious while someone is trying to answer a question that one of them has asked. Half the time, one can hardly make out the answer, because of all the noise and jeers.

Since you Brits are supposed to be so well-mannered and polite ( ), I've just never been able to understand the above-described scenario, which I have seen displayed 'many' times - so this raucous behavior is not the 'exception'. The members seem a rather churlish lot, in fact.

In contrast, we classless, rednecked colonials are generally extremely polite and courteous when listening to members' speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. So nyah! haha

Anyway, I enjoyed how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton seemed to be such great friends. When Bill made his last speech in the UK before leaving office, and when he was saying his goodbyes, I remember that Tony Blair teared up and got quite emotional about seeing his friend and counterpart giving up political power. I thought that was pretty cool.

[Mugge]

For a social democrat he's not that bad. I guess the thing I like least about him is how he set the trend about rushing for the middle, after mr. Blair there were very few ideologically clean parties left in Europe. It's all about the middle these days. Oh, and spin doctoring.

[adamb]

Prime-Minister's question time really annoys me. I usually listen in, but the constant jeering really shows these people up as childish simpletons. I really don't know why they havn't realised they look and sound like idiots acting the way they do.

As for Tony Blair, I've never been a fan. Saying that UK politics in general is really starting to annoy me. There is far too much nonsense and not enough common sense. The deterioration (and seeming acceptance that this deterioration is normal, and passing the buck on to someone else) of society cannot be placed soley on Tony Blair, but I feel that Labour party policies have done nothing to combat this deterioration.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by adambrennan Prime-Minister's question time really annoys me. I usually listen in, but the constant jeering really shows these people up as childish simpletons. I really don't know why they havn't realised they look and sound like idiots acting the way they do.

Honestly, the first time I watched a session, I was well and truly shocked at the unbelievable rudeness and jeering. I believe that if people did that on the floor of the House or Senate, the sergeant-at-arms would remove them - or at least give them a warning, and 'then' remove them.

I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so. They refer to each other as "the gentleman from Alabama", and so forth. And they 'do' act like gentlemen, pretty much at all times when on the floor of the houses of Congress.

I must say that watching prime minister's question time gave me a whole 'other' perspective on British society.

(But, that wouldn't be hard, I guess, because I'm incredibly naive in that regard. )

[cosus]

To be honest, do English politics really matter? Not the way Bush has been acting!

[Chinney]

Tony Blair will always wear his terrible decision on the Iraq war like a stone around his neck. I suspect that he, unlike GWB, already knows that he was wrong.

[psmith2.0]

Wouldn't something like this fit/go better over in AppleOutsider (non-tech, political/cultural type of a thread)? I'm not trying to be a goober or a Mod, just sayin'...

General Discussion: General tech discussion, including talk about Apple and industry trends.

AppleOutsider: Discussion of everything other than technology, ie. The Real World.

Straight from the forum headers themselves.

Calling all mods...code yellow!

[Fahrenheit]

Oops yep!

[scratt]

He was a breath of fresh air when he first came to power. A kind of Labour version of Maggie, and obviously schooled to be so.

He kind of got lost in the Brit Pop revolution, and became a bit of a media / rock start junkie. Which kind of lost him credibility IMO. It was fun, and exciting times, but served no real purpose other than to get young people to vote for him for no good reason!

He has succeded in turning the UK into a satelite nation of the US, and truly has become the lapdog of the current US government. For that alone I hope he rots in hell.

All in all, if I was writing his school report, I would say that he had promise, slipped into bad company, and as such has thrown his future away.

And for heaven's sake Tony, get that dodgy front tooth sorted out. You surely must have enough dosh to pay for that by now? Hmm?

[digitalprimate]

Yeah, after giving this a bit of thought, I also have to say that I deeply respect Tony Blair, especially after that gray, anti-EU dunce that was John Major. It's sad that he couldn't influence GWB more, because I truly believe that he was a voice of reason there.

And the rudeness during Question time? I think that's a British tradition of heckling, which is unseperable part of how the british fill in democracy.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by adambrennan Prime-Minister's question time really annoys me. I usually listen in, but the constant jeering really shows these people up as childish simpletons. I really don't know why they havn't realised they look and sound like idiots acting the way they do.

Originally Posted by Windswept Honestly, the first time I watched a session, I was well and truly shocked at the unbelievable rudeness and jeering. I believe that if people did that on the floor of the House or Senate, the sergeant-at-arms would remove them - or at least give them a warning, and 'then' remove them. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so. They refer to each other as "the gentleman from Alabama", and so forth. And they 'do' act like gentlemen, pretty much at all times when on the floor of the houses of Congress. I must say that watching prime minister's question time gave me a whole 'other' perspective on British society. (But, that wouldn't be hard, I guess, because I'm incredibly naive in that regard. )

I like it because it keeps people honest. If you say something stupid you deserve to be jeered. I could never, never, ever, envisage a situation where someone like George W. Bush would have to go before, say, the senate and answer questions and put forth arguments like that and have his feet held to the fire by the Democrats. It just wouldn't happen. Generally British politics are very reserved; we don't have much partisan flag-waving, confetti-from-the-ceiling stuff. Maybe the jeering doesn't fit in with that image but I for one hope it stays.

[scratt]

Here Here!

One of the things I find so false about US politics and increasingly 'celebrity interviews' is that no-one can ask any of them a question they don't like. And even if someone does break the taboo they seem to be able to deflect it as if the person asking 'such a rude question' is some kind of activist, with no credibility. All this with a glance, and a simple "I'n not going to answer that".

These people are public employees, and as such should be answerable for their actions when asked in work time, about work related activity.

I like it that we still have that to some degree in English politics. But that's about the only thing I do like about any politics, anywhere, right now.

[digitalprimate]

Oooh the best one I think is: "Now is not the time to be like this. The people need our support. Partisan questions like that will only distract from focusing on the matter at hand"

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Farenheit I really think we should call a general election

Why do you think that?

Originally Posted by Farenheit a man who has done a shocking job in power, and who has left a legacy of a poor NHS, allegations of bribery and really done more harm than good, not helped by an ineffective and rather pathetic cabinet beneath him

This is silly Farenheit, no offence. The idea that New Labour introduced sleaze is preposterous considering the actions of the Tories before. Ian McDonald's infamous statement that "truth is a difficult concept" can be found in the Scott Report that should freshen everyone's memory.

TB has transformed public services. The country was basically dysfunctional in 1997. You're too young to remember so I guess I'll have to forgive you for believing the crap in the Daily Mail. Tripling spending on the NHS has totally transformed the quality of service offered, but that could have been achieved by a mere doubling of expenditure if it had been managed properly. Now public services are working but with massive inefficiencies. There is great dissatisfaction within the NHS, especially among doctors. Also, despite 90% of patients being happy with the service they personally receive, there is still a pervasive feeling that the NHS is crap. This is a PR problem as much as anything else. Doctors are natural Tories so of course they're going to bitch about Labour reforms to the NHS, even while pocketing salaries that have risen way faster than anyone else's. GPs get paid ridiculous amounts of money now, which is why we have such an influx of medical students complaining that they're not going to find a job in the NHS. So what? You can't moan about lack of choice in the NHS while simultaneously wanting cosy job guarantees. Markets have two sides. Polly Toynbee recently pointed out a statistic that shows how successful the NHS is: in a decade when national wealth rose by 30%, private practice fell by 1%. And that figure includes a 30% rise in cosmetic surgery, which the NHS doesn't do. Basically, people are happy to use private healthcare until something expensive happens to them, like cancer or a heart attack. Then the hypocrites run gratefully to the free expert care of the NHS.

Another TB success was the national minimum wage. Imagine someone your age or younger trying to get a part-time job pre-'97. Lots of 16-year-olds were grateful for £1.50 an hour. Now a 16-year-old must be paid a minimum of £3.30 per hour. Of course the right-wing press predicted the death of our economy once the NMW was implemented. Instead we've had record-breaking sustained growth.

Unfortunately TB has also done some things that nobody (not even TB himself, I suspect) could have predicted in '97. Going into Iraq was a moment of such bizarre madness that the rest of the world gaped in horror and amazement. The dire predictions of sane people everywhere have been shown to be horrifyingly accurate, and the Iraq war has eroded TB's authority, robed New Labour of much of the support it so painstakingly built up, paradoxically strengthened the Conservatives, and ultimately may even cost Labour the next general election. Worst of all, TB's decision to join Dubya in Iraq wasted the lives of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of British troops. I look forward to TB's autobiography, in which I predict he will admit the utter craziness of going to Iraq. There will be no point in pretending after he leaves office.

Another thing I personally blame him for was his weak leadership on the issue of the EU. Long before Iraq, when Blair was riding high and people would have jumped over a cliff if he'd told them to, the UK had a better chance than ever before of building a deeper relationship with the EU. Instead Blair floundered and timidly avoided confronting the public with their ridiculous misconceptions about the EU, preferring instead to perpetuate the pie-in-the-sky myth of Britain as a "transatlantic bridge". The reality of course is that the US shamelessly used Britain's support while giving absolutely no compensation in return, while the EU's suspicion of the UK continued unabated.

Britain is a far, far better place today than it was in 1997. But it still has a long, long way to go. The next step is to tackle yob behaviour before society unravels. Handing this job to the Tories would be hilarious were it not for the fact that the grand ideologies of the past were killed by TB's modus operandus. It's not so much a rush to the centre ground as a random sampling of ideas from everywhere. The result is chaotic and hard to pin down, but perhaps just as effective as sticking to the party dogma of old.

[Fahrenheit]

See y'all on June 27th. Damn he made a good speech today.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Mugge For a social democrat he's not that bad. I guess the thing I like least about him is how he set the trend about rushing for the middle, after mr. Blair there were very few ideologically clean parties left in Europe. It's all about the middle these days. Oh, and spin doctoring.

Well, the thing is, I personally am all in favor of 'the middle'. I'm right of center on some things, left of center on others... so, yeah, hovering 'around' the middle seems like a logical place to be, don't you think?

The reason Bill Clinton got elected, and was able to accomplish something like welfare reform (an 'anti-liberal' cause), for example, is that in various instances he adopted the agenda of the 'right' - and started a trend of 'crossing over' into the 'other' party's list of goals. Pretty clever, really.

I think that 'anyone' who sticks rigidly to 'any' party's platform just contributes to the do-nothing partisan bickering that has been consuming Congress' time for *years*. *sigh*

Of course, the parties can't stomach a reasoning and flexible politician. Just look at what happened to Joe Liberman.

Originally Posted by digitalprimate Yeah, after giving this a bit of thought, I also have to say that I deeply respect Tony Blair, especially after that gray, anti-EU dunce that was John Major. It's sad that he couldn't influence GWB more, because I truly believe that he was a voice of reason there.

I 'so' agree, wrt GWB.

And the rudeness during Question time? I think that's a British tradition of heckling, which is unseparable part of how the british fill in democracy.

Originally Posted by spikeh I like it because it keeps people honest. If you say something stupid you deserve to be jeered. I could never, never, ever, envisage a situation where someone like George W. Bush would have to go before, say, the senate and answer questions and put forth arguments like that and have his feet held to the fire by the Democrats. It just wouldn't happen. Generally British politics are very reserved; we don't have much partisan flag-waving, confetti-from-the-ceiling stuff. Maybe the jeering doesn't fit in with that image but I for one hope it stays.

I have to agree with both of you, and with scratt too. I think the idea of the prime minister's question time is an 'incredibly' cool thing - in the interest of promoting transparent government; and it's really quite courageous of the PMs to face such an onslaught on a regular basis. Shows how well they think on their feet, requiring a nimble intelligence and a skillful command of the language. Very impressive.

But, honestly, I think the rudeness and jeering detract from such a forum. On the other hand, the vocal reactions do present a quick assessment of the lie of the land, so to speak, and provide a chance for any 'shy' members (if there 'are' any ) to make their feelings apparent.

Originally Posted by scratt Here Here! One of the things I find so false about US politics and increasingly 'celebrity interviews' is that no-one can ask any of them a question they don't like. And even if someone does break the taboo they seem to be able to deflect it as if the person asking 'such a rude question' is some kind of activist, with no credibility. All this with a glance, and a simple "I'n not going to answer that". These people are public employees, and as such should be answerable for their actions when asked in work time, about work related activity. I like it that we still have that to some degree in English politics. But that's about the only thing I do like about any politics, anywhere, right now.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Fahrenheit]

I reckon on a scale of one to ten of how well George Bush would perform in a question time scenario, he would rank roughly as high as he can count.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Farenheit I reckon on a scale of one to ten of how well George Bush would perform in a question time scenario, he would rank roughly as high as he can count.

Well, you know he 'does' have press conferences from time to time, when he is pretty thoroughly grilled by the members of the White House press corps.

They certainly don't cut him any slack; and, to be perfectly honest, I'm usually fairly surprised at how well he does. Of course, his advisors have a pretty good idea of what questions will be asked, and drill him on those ahead of time, I'm sure. I think most/all the US presidents prepare in that same way for press conferences.

I think Tony Blair is going to feel SO relieved at being rid of his job. I saw him on tv today, and his face looked rather serene, I thought. Or maybe the lighting was just especially good.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Windswept Well, you know he 'does' have press conferences from time to time, when he is pretty thoroughly grilled by the members of the White House press corps. They certainly don't cut him any slack; and, to be perfectly honest, I'm usually fairly surprised at how well he does. Of course, his advisors have a pretty good idea of what questions will be asked, and drill him on those ahead of time, I'm sure. I think most/all the US presidents prepare in that same way for press conferences. [...]

GWB does a good job deflecting the questions, responding with pap and patriotism, and sounding like a likable good ol' boy while he does it. I am not sure if that counts as 'doing well' though. I suppose that from a sheer political perspective, it served him well for a term and a bit. I am not sure that it is serving him well anymore. I am not sure that it ever served the country well.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Chinney GWB does a good job deflecting the questions, responding with pap and patriotism, and sounding like a likable good ol' boy while he does it. I am not sure if that counts as 'doing well' though.

Well, I have to agree with you completely, of course. I guess what I meant was that I am always amazed that he actually manages to come up with 'some' kind of answer, as opposed to just standing there with his mind going blank.

I suppose that from a sheer political perspective, it served him well for a term and a bit. I am not sure that it is serving him well anymore. I am not sure that it ever served the country well.

No, it has never served the country well.

As I've said before, he was chosen by the Republicans *solely* because 1) he had always been faithful to his wife (in contrast to Clinton), and 2) because his father had been president. They considered 'those' qualifications to be adequate for their purposes, which consisted mainly in appeasing the religious right. Ugh. Such manipulative cynicism is simply nauseating.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Windswept [...] I guess what I meant was that I am always amazed that he actually manages to come up with 'some' kind of answer, as opposed to just standing there with his mind going blank. [...]

True, that is surprising isn't it. You said it better than me.

[Chinney]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ory/Front/home

Interesting article about Blair. Makes the point that he was able to put across a fair bit of the traditional Labour agenda, but only by stealth. Also argues that Iraq was not just a 'deal' he made to play the American card, but part of his core belief. Blair is/was a strong moralist, and he saw it as as moral struggle.

[Dorian Gray]

Really good article, Chinney, and a must-read for anyone who wants a quick summary of the Blair decade.

God I'm jealous of the man! The fairy-tale youth and post-Smith rise to prominence. I mean, plotting the Granita Pact in a swish North London restaurant? A restaurant which, in a romantic twist, is now gone? Can it get any sexier?!

Originally Posted by Douglas Saunders in The Globe and Mail It was aspirational food for a nation just beginning to have dreams.

What a great sentence. Inspirational stuff all.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Windswept Well, the thing is, I personally am all in favor of 'the middle'. I'm right of center on some things, left of center on others... so, yeah, hovering 'around' the middle seems like a logical place to be, don't you think? The reason Bill Clinton got elected, and was able to accomplish something like welfare reform (an 'anti-liberal' cause), for example, is that in various instances he adopted the agenda of the 'right' - and started a trend of 'crossing over' into the 'other' party's list of goals. Pretty clever, really. I think that 'anyone' who sticks rigidly to 'any' party's platform just contributes to the do-nothing partisan bickering that has been consuming Congress' time for *years*. *sigh* Of course, the parties can't stomach a reasoning and flexible politician. Just look at what happened to Joe Liberman. I 'so' agree, wrt GWB. (...)

Well, it's not that I want to diss pragmatism, but I kinda miss the drama of the feisty political debates. Today it seems to be more about persons than ideas.

[Windswept]

Was just reading a few paragraphs about his youth.

Tony Blair has always stood out from the crowd. At school he drove his teachers to distraction, constantly questioning their authority. At university, he acted out his rock star fantasies as the lead singer of a band. Few at that stage would have predicted a career in the sober world of politics, even though Blair's charisma and ability to charm people were evident from an early age. Blair was known as a cheeky, argumentative schoolboy. The story of his rise to power is certainly not a rags to riches tale - he was born with every advantage in life - but it is no less remarkable for that. It is the story of how a middle class, privately-educated barrister - the son of a would-be Tory MP - went on to become the most successful leader in the history of the Labour Party, profoundly changing it and the country in the process. And how a man once seen as a lightweight - preoccupied with his own image and popularity - became one of the most powerful and controversial figures on the world stage. [snip] The student Tony Blair had a rebellious streak Blair's teachers at exclusive Edinburgh boarding school Fettes recall a cheeky, rebellious figure; a talented actor who loved being the centre of attention and who cultivated a "cool" image among his peers. "Tony was full of life. Maddening at times, full of himself and very argumentative," Blair's housemaster Eric Anderson told Blair's biographer John Rentoul. "He was an expert at testing the rules to the limit, and I wouldn't swear that he stuck rigidly to the rules on not drinking, smoking or breaking bounds. But he was a live wire and fun to have around." At the age of 17 he was given "six of the best" for persistently flouting the school rules. Then he was threatened with expulsion. It was his girlfriend's father, Lord Mackenzie Stewart, an Old Fettesian and cross bench peer, who came to the rescue, striking a deal with the school that allowed Blair to spend the final few weeks of the summer term living with him. Mackenzie Stewart's daughter, Amanda, was the first girl to be admitted to Fettes. Typically, it was the super-confident Blair who beat the 440 other boys to win her heart. Blair also met Charlie Falconer while at Fettes. The man who would later become his Lord Chancellor was a pupil at the rival Edinburgh Academy. Blair left Fettes with three A levels and a place at St John's College, Oxford, to study law. The young barrister impressed Michael Foot with his enthusiasm. Like many teenage boys in the late 1960s he was besotted by rock music. He idolised Mick Jagger but he also dreamed of wielding power behind the scenes, as a manager or promoter. Before taking up his place at Oxford, he headed for London, where he spent a carefree year "managing" student rock bands and putting on gigs and discos with his friend Alan Collenette. To make ends meet, the pair stacked shelves at Barkers food hall, in Kensington. At Oxford he briefly fronted a rock band, Ugly Rumours. Friends recall his charismatic stage presence, but also his professional attitude. "He even wanted to rehearse," said band mate Mark Ellen.

I saw an article a few days ago saying he might come to the US for various opportunities. He'll undoubtedly make a fortune on the lecture circuit. Heck, *I'd* love to go hear him speak in person.

[Windswept]

Blair to be named Special Envoy to the Middle East.

Link

Outgoing PM Tony Blair to Be Named Special Mideast Envoy Tuesday, June 26, 2007 WASHINGTON — Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be named on Wednesday as special envoy for the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East with a portfolio focused on Palestinian economic and political reform, a senior U.S. official said. Members of the Quartet, the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia, will give their public blessing to the post and announce that Blair has agreed to take the job in simultaneous statements from Washington, New York, Brussels and Moscow, the official told The Associated Press. "They have talked about the idea ... of having an envoy, having someone who would be available on behalf of the quartet to work on a variety of issues, including efforts to help support the development of Palestinian Authority institutions," Casey told reporters. The senior U.S. official said the quartet had agreed on a job description for the special envoy position that Blair will assume shortly after leaving office on Wednesday, the senior official said, disputing reports in the Israeli media that Russia was holding up an official announcement. "The Russians are the least enthusiastic about creating the position and least enthusiastic about Blair, but they didn't object," the official said. "No one objected." The Russian delegation did not object to Blair or the expanded role of the envoy position, but had not received instructions from Moscow on how to proceed, according to the official. So, the job description and statement on Blair were agreed to "ad referendum," which means the matter is settled but that all parties reserve the right to make minor changes to the documents, the official said. Blair's new job will deal primarily with helping the Palestinian Authority build political institutions and will not, at least at first, involve direct mediation or negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis, the official said. The official noted that the quartet itself "retains the right to be the interlocutor between the Israelis and Palestinians." The post is expected to be unpaid but will come with staff and logistical support from the quartet, as did a previous similar position held by former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, who had a narrower job description. Blair's portfolio will be broader than that of Wolfensohn, who dealt mainly with economic issues related to the Gaza Strip, which is now in the hands of the militant Hamas movement, the official said. "The job is not just about economics, but it should not be mistaken as a mediator or negotiator," the official said. Blair will be helping develop economic support and reform for Palestinian institutions as well as looking at rule of law questions, particularly in light of the split in the Palestinian government, the official said. The official said that after the quartet announcement, President Bush would likely address Blair's appointment at a speech he is to give at a mosque and Islamic center in Washington.

It would be nice if Blair could work a little diplomatic magic in this seething cauldron, where they never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Fahrenheit]

"You caused this mess, now clear it up"

[turbulentfurball]

While he's made a few mistakes in the past, he's certainly done a lot of good for this country. I think a role like this would be good for him. Strike while the iron is hot; tackle a major world issue while he's still an influential figure. He'll still have a lot of standing with world leaders for a while yet, and it seems like a worthwhile undertaking.

This time tomorrow we'll have a new Prime Minister; only the third in my lifetime. I don't feel so old when I think about things like this

Edit: Farenheit, quit sounding like the Daily Express/Daily Mail

[Bryson]

I don't get that "Quartet" thing. Last time I looked, Russia, the USA and everyone in the European Union were in the United Nations anyway...? So why isn't it just "The United Nations"?