Bye, bye Blair

I was half expecting him to pronounce himself president for life.

As we enter the 'deep analysis' stage of the Blair years I come back to my over-riding feeling - I am just so glad that he's going. I feel almost as strongly about it as I did about Thatcher's - and I've been a member of the Labour Party since 1973. I even stood for Parliament in 1979. So for me to feel like that about a Labour Prime Minister is pretty shameful. His major error was Iraq. We marched against it. We told him loud and clear and his stupid, Christian sense of godliness told him to go against us. He was clearly totally and utterly wrong. I will never forgive him for that. Before then he had simply annoyed me. He wasted much of the first five years when he could have made a real difference. OK - he brought in the minimum wage and the Freedom of Information Act, he signed up to the European Bill of Human Rights and he did spend loads more (however misguidedly) on health and education. He has tried to put Africa on the front of the agenda and he has, very reluctantly, picked up climate change as an issue. But it isn't from the heart and you shouldn't be able to say that about any Labour politician. I distrust him, I hate what he's done to my party, I loathe much of his foreign policy, I abhor his introduction of PFI into our institutions (for which we will pay for another 75 years) and I think he has gone pretty much stark staring mad in the last couple of years. Overall - a great opportunity lost. Score 3/10. But I won't dance on his grave. I will reserve that pleasure for Thatcher.

Yes couldn't agree more TC. I feel terribly let down but the old maxim just seems ever more true. 'Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.' Does ANYONE think that Brown is going to be any better?

While I reserve the right to feel even more disappointed that my country twice elected that idiot Bush into office, my overriding feeling about Blair is one of disappointment. I had such high hopes for him, but he veered way off course some time ago. I really think it's time that Britain introduced proportional representation, instead of the ludicrous system you have in place now, which has proven disastrous for Labour. You need to be able to vote for an individual on individual merits.

It's definitely time for PR! I've lost the ability to have "high hopes" for any politician. Anarchy is the way to go! That said, Blair did give temp workers paid holidays... pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Hey! Lay off the guy. He gave us all a good day back in 1997. :) When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Simon Jenkins had some interesting things to say Re PR this week. Coalition, the natural consequence of PR, removes the outcome of an election from the hustings to the private deal of corridors, cabals and careerism. It's worth a read, plus he's very mean to the Lib-Dems, which is always fun.

I have to say, I think the alternatives would have been worse. William Hague? Michael Howard? Good grief! We did get the minimim wage, which is good, and childcare tax breaks. My main disappointment is the promise to put all the freight back on the railway, which has been quietly forgotten since 1997.

I hope that Michael Meacher enters the leadership contest. It would be interesting to have - however briefly - a prime minister who appears to have a genuine concern for the environment.

Two news criticisms that I've seen are: (a) NHS+civil service money has been squandered largely on bureaucracy. (b) Iraq War. Because I don't know how a laberynthine megalith such as the NHS, or civil service, ought to be run I can't say whether or not that's true. But if I notice that city fat cats increase their pay, as do MPs, I'd guess that any committe, quango, cabal, or group will seek to serve its own interests & bloat. I guess fighting public sector workers simply isn't in the nature of a leftish party! The Iraq War. Now that was truly a moronic abomination. So, though I don't really like Blair. He smiles too much while stabbing people, whereas at least Alastair Campbell and John Prescott have the decency to get in fights on TV where we can see it! I'd still be inclined to give him a more generous score. 6 1/2 out of 10 My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

He started off alright. Besides, did anyone really expect anything different? BTW, has anyone noticed that everything became italicized?

"BTW, has anyone noticed that everything became italicized?" I blame Blair for that and all

Brown's opening salvoes appear good. I like the eco towns thing. Oddly enough I have some hopes of Brown. He comes from the same political stock as John Smith - and he surprised me immensely in the short time he had as party leader. I think there may be something rather good in Mr Brown - but he has to give up this fixation with PFI.

Like many other young (ish) people living in rented accomodation, the single most important issue is the housing crisis. From the Brighton Newspaper, 'Gordon Brown acknowledged first-time buyers' frustration at soaring house prices - and said he wanted to build more affordable homes.' and I agree wholeheartedly with comments like this. "Does Gordon Brown think we're all stupid? The way he talks about this suddenly being an issue now, you would think he'd had nothing to do with Government policy for the last ten years! The Government has had ten years to make it easier for councils to build affordable housing and has done nothing, basically because it has suited the Government to have rising house prices (due to restricted housing stock supply) in order to fuel a 'feel-good factor' amongst the Nation's voters. Get real Gordon: we already know that you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution!" Within 5 years time I will have enough money saved to buy a 2 bed flat (thanks to the fact I still have money from the flat I sold some years ago and currently have an extrememly low expenditure and earn around the average wage)even if the situation remains as it is (and the predictions are it will worsen with a 1 million home defecit in London and the SE in the next 20 years) If it is hard- ish for me, then a family with only one wage earner, paying South Eastern rent have a snowball's chace in hell. And people like me are delaying having a family because we have no room. If people delay having children, who will support an ever increasing generation of pensioners? Immigration will then become even more necessary. Although that isn't a bad thing, I don't think we should rely on the fact there will always be a 'brain gain' from places like Poland. I would like to see more brownfield sites than are currently proposed redeveloped (at a rate to ease the shortage) so all prices drop so that I can have a four bedrooom cottage in Oxted.

I think the government policy that each local Authority should deal with its own housing independently, is insane on a small Island like ours. I think there should be one central housing list. Unless a person has a job in London there is no reason why they shouldn't be housed in parts of the North where councils are set to bulldoze some 6000 homes because no-one wants to live there. It may not be so desirable to move away from family and friends but to be blunt, IMO, 'beggars can't be choosers'. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Brent, Haringey, Islington, Hackney, Wandsworth, Lambeth and Lewisham are amongst those considered Britain's worst council estates, just to put a comment or two into perspective. ;) When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I was a tory because they were traditionally the most economically right party and I used to thoroughly believe that society should be a meritocracy. I abandoned affiliation because since the Thatcher era, the two main parties have moved so closely together, I can't see any real discernible difference between the two. Also, I have begun to understand that not all 'poor' people are idle scroungers. I guess I began to see the inherent value of my own drive to suceed, love of study, academic ability and so on and began to understand them as 'gifts' or 'advantages' rather than something I 'earned'. Another turning point was mixing with and acquiring friends who are dependent on the welfare state and realising that their shameless acceptance of this is unfortunate inherited thinking rather than malice against the hardworking tax-payer. I also have many friends with multiple mental health, family, emotional and addiction problems. My buzz word as a hardline pro capitalist was 'choice'. I realise now that escaping poverty is a choice but a hard one requiring, skills, stamina and opportunity beyond just a free education. I still have right leaning thinking, I still think the welfare state needs reform, I still think the affluent pay far too much tax, but understand that the bounderies are blurred, it isn't as black and white as I once thought. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Does this prove that right-wingism is just a phase you grow out of???

I think any extreme view is one you grow out of! I think experience enables you to see multiple points of view. It works the other way. Think of all the hippies and rabid socialists who eventually get a haircut and become insurance salesmen. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Well, the affluent proportionately pay less tax than the poor. I still don't see the logic... the affluent consume the same or less public services so why pay more. I will never understand socialism I think! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

didn't really make myself clear really. Its the whole proportionate thing I don't understand. Imagine going in to a hi fi shop and asking for the price on a plasma TV. Well that depends on how much money you have. We need £1500 per telly to pay for the goods, the overheads and staffing etc. Since you are well-off and earn lots of money, you can afford to pay £3000. Poor Jim here didn't have parents who encouraged him to read and he didn't have many opportunities and is caught in a trap of addiction so we'll give him the telly for 99p, we use the extra £1500 we creamed from you to pay for it? Bonkers! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

It's called an equitable redistribution of wealth PJ.

it's crap jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

... and if you are just going to apply Robin Hood politics to tax succesful people to death, it would reduce their drive thus having a detrimental effect on the economy. If everyone ended up with the same - why would anyone bother to work hard? My sister for a practical example says that since she is now in the 40% tax bracket, the increase in take-home pay for the next promotional level isn't worth the extra responsibilities and effort. So she isn't applying for it. jude

So greed is good?

I think greed is part of human nature. All animals compete for resources. I have mellowed in my old age. I used to be almost a complete free market anarchist opposing all taxation other than that required to keep the peace and maintain essential infrastructure. Now, I realise that to have a true meritocracy, people have to have access to good education and healthcare and so on. I think it is in the interests of all society to have basic healthcare and education for all. But one of the problems I have is the mentality of people who treat the welfare state as a right. Things like the choice based letting scheme, where council lists are operated like estate agents only re-enforce these people's beliefs that it is their right to have a house which may be the same as the one next door which someone else has slogged their guts out for. They need to understand it is an act of charity to them. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

So we should grovel?

"Oh" said Dr. Johnson, with a laugh "The lottery is a tax on the daft!"

Hmm - verdict. Well it’s a hell of a fall from the elation I felt when he first got in, to the horrified incredulity I felt watching him pave our way into the Iraq war. What’s always bugged me is that, had Labour been in opposition at the time, ‘doing what he thought was right’ would’ve meant him leading the Labour Party in a vote against the invasion of Iraq. No question. Imo, it was the size of Blair’s recently supersized ego rather than the depth of any personal convictions that got us into this mess. Unforgivable. I rather like the French second ballot system. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

"I think greed is part of human nature. All animals compete for resources." Reverting to 'that old chestnut' - when it suits! When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

It goes some way as an explanation but not an excuse. I don't try and excuse greed or rather, a desire for comfort and security. I am saying it exists and therefore a workable model of society surely has to take into account that people are motivated when they can have the rewards of their own efforts? I AM open to change. I am often pleased when I discover I am wrong. Take medical care. I used to believe that total privatisation with a safety net of very basic care for those who can't afford it would be a fairer and more efficient system. However I changed my mind and I realise that a public health system is best for society as a whole. Actually it was a rather casual conversation with our Justyn T that helped sway me. He gave a very intelligent critique of all the models and explained the problems inherent in the American model of healthcare. I am still waiting to hear a similarly convincing argument for socialism. David makes a good case and I see the validity of his point about the regressive tax and that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income. However, it is the 'as a proportion of' bit I struggle with. People used to say I would feel differently if I became disabled and therefore had to quit my job and ended up living on a heart sink council estate. Well all those things happened and I still feel the same. Okay, the lifts break and the ceiling leaks and we have mice - but I don't mind. I have a huge amount of gratitude that I have been housed at all. That's a gift, not my right and I damp-proofed and papered and painted the walls and killed the mice (well two of the little blighters so far!) and am working hard so that I can move on. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"If everyone ended up with the same - why would anyone bother to work hard?" This is, in a nutshell, what rampant supporters of capitalism argue, isn't it? Not suggesting you are one, Jude. But it's not as if the only alternatives are the current situation, or everyone gets the same no matter what. If what we care about is people getting rewarded for working harder, then why don't we actually reward people in proportion to how hard they work? This sure as heck isn't how capitalism operates. The big winners at the moment are those who are prepared to work moderately hard in the short term specifically towards the goal of amassing lots of cash, so that they can kick back and slack off as soon as possible. Some of the biggest losers are those who are prepared to work bloody hard their entire life but never show any particular ambition or inclination towards furthering their own status. Sure, there are scroungers who expect and take advantage of a welfare state. But then there are people like a certain chap I've seen in court recently, who has managed to pay himself £350k a year out of an insolvent company and who has been taken to court by the Inland Revenue, whom he owes millions, and who is paying for his defence using Legal Aid, and who will almost certainly not pay any of what he is ordered to pay on the basis that he cannot afford it. There are greedy, lazy people who are rich and there are greedy, lazy people who are poor - people who use their energies and intelligence solely for the purpose of getting as much as they can for as little effort as possible. I'd say there's little or no correlation between how wealthy you are and how prepared you are to work. But who's doing the greater damage to society - someone who scrounges a paltry £10k of benefits, or someone who makes sure they jump through every loophole going to give away as little of their dragon's hoard as possible?

"Basically that the more money you put in the hands of people who spend all their money, the more money gets pumped into the economy, which is good for economic growth." That's great. Gimme your money! Hear me croon at: www.myspace.com/shavedbybuddha When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

tcook said: "His major error was Iraq. We marched against it. We told him loud and clear and his stupid, Christian sense of godliness told him to go against us. He was clearly totally and utterly wrong. I will never forgive him for that." (And thank God he did. We should thank God every night that Blair and Bush cared enough about the helpless people of Iraq to go against the so-called "popular opinion" and just do what was right. If it was left up to people who argue against them, Hitler would be in charge of Europe today. God bless Blair - God bless Bush.) styxbroox says: "I feel terribly let down but the old maxim just seems ever more true. 'Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.'" (You feel terribly let down? Wow! Someone on this site told me that the UK is largely secular - they failed to say that they no longer care about people other than themselves. I'm sorry, styxbroox, but you can no longer feel happy about people being lowered alive and feet-first into tree shredders in front of their own family members. You can no long feel happy about women being raped and humiliated in public by that dictator's two sons. But don't worry, some where, some time, more people will be brutalized by some dictator that you can support while you trash your own elected "stupid Christian" (as tcook put it) leaders at home as they attempt to come to the aid of those helpless people.)

First of all, your numbers are terribly skewed. It is clear that you have fallen for the leftist's propaganda and lies. "It's not a good against evil issue, precisely because both options - leaving Saddam in power or taking him out and ending up where we are now - were bad." Only evil can say that. If it were not of evil men like Saddam Hussein, there would be no need for such rescues. But you want to blame the rescuers instead of the terrorists. You want to just allow the evil men of this world to just have free reign - do nothing and call that better. It is unfortunate indeed, that good people have to die in order to fight evil in this world. France pretty much laid down to Nazi Germany. Now you would have England lay down to the radical Moslems. I remember how you despise the Christian religions of the world; evidently you are far more tolerant of radical Moslem's. Once someone said in America, "Give me liberty or give me death." Evidently you don't believe anything is worth dying for. Those people wanted us to free them. They asked us to help years ago when W's father was president. But people like you prohibited it. Now, they welcome our help. It took the U.S. fourteen years to establish a very shaky Republic. Now "the people" seem to want Iraq, while in the midst of continual terrorist attack to form there democracy in just a couple of years. Both England and America lost hundreds of thousands fighting in WWII. America's civil war cost us over 600,000 men and women. You quoted that many in this war. Lies. It hasn't even been 6,000. Or at least not much more. You have no real argument that will leave you above the appearance of being a coward and a traitor to your own British troops and a Godless person who does not care for the helpless and the innocent people. So, you create numbers, manufacture lies and cling to the lies of those who hate freedom and demorcracy and who are fear mongers and traitors to the cause of righteous men everywhere. You are a coward and just too dishonest to admit it. You hate this war, not because of our dead or the death of the innocent - or you would mention the dead of the innocent and our warriors. To come to such grand numbers, you can only be referring to the death of the enemy (which are much, much, much larger than ours - but do not get mentioned in the press). So it appears to be the enemy, those who purposely kill women and children and the elderly, that you are wanting to save, that you are morning for. Much better to kill the Christians. Be honest - that is the real reason you hate Blair and Bush - isn't it. You would rather that the whole world fall to terrorists and dictators than to have a Christian leader lead you into war against them. It really isn't Blair that you hate. It isn't Bush, terrorists, or dictatorship - it's Christianity. Jesus. God. But both Bush and Blair voiced a belief in the Christian God, so you hate them and stand against anything they try to do to make the world better, because if they succeed, you are afraid that people will see it as a Godly victory. Well, get used to it because He will be victorious in the end. You can be sure of that. And you WILL bow to Him.

“To come to such grand numbers, you can only be referring to the death of the enemy (which are much, much, much larger than ours - but do not get mentioned in the press).” Sorry? So when people are disappeared by the bus load and bombs explode in Iraqi markets and cafes, it's the enemy who are being killed? So are the majority of people in Iraq insurgents from other countries now? Or in your comaparison, by ‘ours’ were you solely referring to the deaths of British and American troops versus insurgents. I believe that when Buk said, “the question is whether the consequences of the war on Iraq have been better or worse than if we hadn't gone to war.” he was including every innocent victim – christian or muslim – when weighing up the consequences of the invasion. Seems a fair point to me. I expect Jesus would've approved of that concern. “So it appears to be the enemy, those who purposely kill women and children and the elderly, that you are wanting to save, that you are morning for.” Oh I give up. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

"Well, get used to it because He will be victorious in the end. You can be sure of that. And you WILL bow to Him." Blimey. How about this: I won't bow to YOUR god nor allah nor bhudda nor the bloody tooth fairy. It's all the same to me. You seem to imply America's victory is God's victory. Is that what you're saying? Like a football game? God supports America? Arent't the state and religion split in the US? Anyway, God didn't do much for those people in the buildings that got flown into. Nor did he do much when Katrina hit... he doesn't have much control over weather does he? Doesn't care much about American troops either, at least, not the ones going home in a box. "America's civil war cost us over 600,000 men and women". Out of curiosity, who's side was God on during that war? Listen: I abhor regimes that oppress women, young people, old people, black people, white people, whatever. I don't think anyone should be able to run around killing innocent people, like the terrorists do. And for that reason I abhor the behaviour of people who share your views. Other self-richeous pseudo-religious (yes, PSEUDO religious) people with those ideas include suicide bombers and meglomaniacs and haters of true liberty and true freedoms. Anger in the name of God is the most cowardly anger there is. At least take responsibility for your hatred of these people. Be a man, for God's sake.

Enzo, In this particular instance getting your knickers in a twist is a pointless piece of energy expenditure. Your knicker-knotting-calorific-count would best be put to use elsewhere. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

2Luo says: My comments (added) Sorry? So when people are disappeared by the bus load and bombs explode in Iraqi markets and cafes, it's the enemy who are being killed? (If the cowards wouldn’t hide behind the innocent and fought like brave men, none of this would occur. Why do you always want to argue the case of the terrorists? If we did nothing, a whole lot more buses, nightclubs and marketplaces full of innocent people would die at the hand of the terrorists. You seem to be saying that we are causing the death of innocent people on purpose. You don’t seem to understand that it is the terrorists that target the innocent. But you just give them a pass. You don’t consider that war has always had a certain amount collateral damage. We try very hard not to kill the innocent. But we have to fight the enemy. But they hide behind the innocent and then you blame us instead of the cowards that are hiding behind them. They know you will do that, so they do it to try to have us kill the innocent. And you fall for it. Fools!) So are the majority of people in Iraq insurgents (I don’t like the word ‘insurgents’. It a convinient word to use to avoid calling them what they really are – COWARDLY TERRORISTS.) from other countries now? Or in your comaparison, by ‘ours’ were you solely referring to the deaths of British and American troops versus insurgents. (What?) It truly does hack me off, to hear this kind of talk. I’m really sick of it. What do you think we should do, just let the terrorists have their way? Let them kill as many women and children as they care to? It irks me that you can defend them this way. First, you said (your ilk said) we should talk to them. So we talked to them – not once – but 14 times through the UN. Then you said set sanctions on them. We did that too. Now what? Well, we (Bush and Blair) decided that they could not stand by and do nothing as innocent people were being slaughtered. However, you say, it seems, “No, no, we must allow Saddam Hussein to continue to kill these people. Don’t you dare do anything to stop him. Don’t you dare try to stop him from paying $25,000 to parents who want to strap bombs to their own children and target innocent Israeli women and children. If you do, we will march in the street for the rights of the terrorists. We will protest against the innocent that die from collateral damage that the poor terrorists have to hide behind in order to keep fighting for their worthy cause.” Yes this makes me mad. Anyone who argues for the cause of the enemy as you do, in my opinion is a traitor. And traitors tick me off. Now that the terrorist are importing from other middle eastern nations, you cry and whine that we should run away. “Who cares if ‘those people’ ‘over there’ get the chance to enjoy freedom and democracy? Forget them,” you say. “ Let them all parish under the attack of the terrorists. Get rid of Blair and Bush – we don’t like those Christians anyway.” It is plain to see that you are not Christian even without your blatant attacks on them. I always believed that every person had a soul – I’m beginning to wonder.

There were plenty of Christians with me on the anti-war marches (No there weren't. I don't know what you call plenty, but if that could happen, it could only happen in England.) and the war was opposed by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many church leaders in the US. (I don't care what they think. Don't talk to me about the Pope or any Bishop or Archbishop. I am not impressed. I am not a catholic. I do not follow the dictates of "The Church". I am too much of a Christian for that silliness. I follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – not the Pope.)

I just found out that TCook is "management" on this site. OH, Boy - nobody tells me anything. And here I am, ticking him off. Ha - I took an early retirement but I'm still ticking off management. LOL WILL IT NEVER END!!!!!!!