Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, from the looks of things, it looks as though Teflon Tony's time is up. All the shit has finally began to wither his coat of many colors. Good thing? Bad thing? Thing thing?

At the start of his first term, I liked the guy. A lot. But not in a gay way. Even though I disagreed with his decision to back Bush, I kept thinking he was a decent, intelligent, and charismatic Prime Minister, but as the crap has unfolded my rose-tinted glasses have taken on different shades...shit-colored shades, to be precise. Especially, that whole 'Yo Blair...' conversation with Bush. Ugh.

Anyway, what are you thoughts? Do you think it's time he went? What has been his greatest achievement, and his biggest mistake? Do you think he will go? Also, is Gordon Brown really a good alternative? Are the days of New Labour's dominace over?

Say something, won't cha?

Link, innit?

'Nother one, innit?

I feel that if he hadn't backed Bush then not only would his country have been better off, but the world in general as well. I feel that without at least his support the war never would have started.

I wonder if he ever thinks "Ahh, hindsight, my old friend..."

Probably not. He genuinely seems to think he's doing something positive for the world.

I think it's about time we had a Prime Minister's who's tongue wasn't permanantly jammed up the President's butt.

I agree we want some who does not start a war

He has made many crucial mistakes while in power. It is definitively his time to go.

Apart from the whole unnecessary war thing, his obsession with ID cards is worrying, to say the least.

I never voted Labour, but Tony struck me as a genuine person trying to do his best and what he thought was right. I think a lot of what is said about him is close to slander. History will judge him more positively, I feel.

I also think the Labour party is now dancing into Fairyland if they think they will be better off without him.

Blair won three elections and has international capital. Most of the rest of Labour is a bunch of non-entities. Now, all politicians have a shelf life and Blair's is obviously nearly done, but the near cathartic way in which Labour seems determined to dump the best leader they have had in living memory- instead of just letting him ride it out- is close to suicide.

The Tories win from this backstabbing.

Yeah, the funny thing is that the Tories are riding up the opinion polls on the back of a Blair clone.

Whether he was trying to do his best is a moot point when his actions and support engender wars, and increase conflicts.

That depends on your opinion of the war, I would have thought.

Cameron isn't a clone, he is just using a technique. That is what Blairism is; it is not a personality, it is a method.

Well, your opinion of the war is either the correct one (It's bullshit!), or the incorrect one (It's righteous!), so I guess I see your point there...

Of course Cameron is a clone! He's even been styled to look like him! The irony is that he's winning the polls because people are fed-up with Blair, so what do they do? Look for an identikit! Hahahaha...Good ol' Brits...

Well, I call that two clueless opinions in one post myself. That's politics for you.

I also think they are both opinions history won't rate highly.

Wow, have you found a mysterious third way of considering the war(s)? That is political, but sadly the reality is as I stated it.

Bad, bad, bad decisions by powerful, powerful, powerful men.

Forgive my ignorance, but when would have Blair's term 'expired' provided his shelf-life hasn't?

Not much of an alternative though, was there?

Let's take Blair out of the equation. You are left then with the Tories still in power. All we would have then is the same decision but made far more quickly

The only party with an anti-war stance in this country is the Liberal Democrats, and any idea held only by them has a political capital of zero.

Like it or not, pro-war or anti-war is not a set fact for you to declare, it is merely a debate upon which people have opinions and to which final arbitration on right or wrong is a long way off. All your declarations otherwise don't change a thing.

Meanwhile, Blair achieved more to advance the social side of this nation than any party since Atlee's. In areas of Human Rights, for example the homosexual Age of Consent, he achieved what the Tories could never have done. And in demolishing ine Tories so totally, he put into motion the events that would finally get them to change into something better, even though they are taking a painfully long time about it.

Blair's net effect on this nation has been positive. He is a giant of post-war politics. He's done well- and without him, Labour has nearly nothing to show for itself and nothing to offer.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Forgive my ignorance, but when would have Blair's term 'expired' provided his shelf-life hasn't?

Well, he wanted to do three terms. Sounds fair.

What's that? I can't decide whether the country of my birth goes to war or not? Really? Wow...

He demolished the Tories so totally that they now seek to mirror his policies. Does that leave England as a one-party nation, or do you still consider the Lib Dems as an electable alternative? In that case: Thanks, Tony!

I'm not denying that he has done some admirable things, but you don't judge a rapist by weighing his good deeds with bad; some things are inexcusable. Like helping facilitate a war that has caused greater divisions all over the world...

Good stuff.

Once a person hates a politician is utter pointless to debate. I realize that ages ago. My only question is if there really is a need to rush the guy out of his job?

That was a humble, almost melancholy, little speech by Blair. It's such a shame that his legacy will be tainted by his poodling to Bush's bark.

i disagree...the people of this country have given far more than they have taken

the only reason unemployment is down is that the government has created 500,000 public sector jobs...it now realises that this is completely unsustainable and is hacking away at the NHS but is cutting all the wrong jobs...their are examples of hospitals where there are 4 administrators for every patient...where is the efficiency...

it shows quite plainly why people pay taxes which have almost doubled in 10 years

the last records showed a 50% increase in NHS spending for a 5% increase in productivity...

high paid industry has been replaced by low paid service work in much of the country...so even though the job numbers dont change significantly...the amount each worker earns does

the proof is in the fact that the introduction of the national minimum wage hasn't really effected the poverty figures at all

long gone are the days when a British passport garnered some degree of respect throughout the world...in no small part due to Blair's foreign policy not just in relation to Iraq but also due to his inept presidency of the G8 and the EU

And so the screw turn...

Brown the Liar! - 'mendacious'...great word.

No backing for Brown... - if not Brown, then who?

that pretty much shows tony blairs two faced colours....he wont back brown despite the fact that it was their agreement way back in 1994 that brown would do the work while blair gave the party an electable image then after 2 terms blair would step down...those two terms ended in may and now blair wants to stay on til next may and then not back brown for the leadership

i can personally see the band ol' days of labour returning...the mid 80's...height of tory/thatcher rule...labour infighting and getting slaughtered at the polls while the union militants cried like little girls cause thatcher was smacking their collective botty

Originally posted by jaden101
that pretty much shows tony blairs two faced colours....he wont back brown despite the fact that it was their agreement way back in 1994 that brown would do the work while blair gave the party an electable image then after 2 terms blair would step down...those two terms ended in may and now blair wants to stay on til next may and then not back brown for the leadership

I'm sure there's some duplicity on Blair's part, but I think the Machiavellian nature of Brown's motions to get Blair out are a factor of Blair's resistance to backing him.

Originally posted by jaden101
i can personally see the band ol' days of labour returning...the mid 80's...height of tory/thatcher rule...labour infighting and getting slaughtered at the polls while the union militants cried like little girls cause thatcher was smacking their collective botty

Yeah, that looks almost inevitable now. I hope it doesn't come to pass, but I don't see how this current situation can be resolved in a manner beneficial to Labour.

i could understand that if it were just Brown wanting to grab power by undermining Blair...but it's more and more labour ministers and backbenchers everyday

it's quite plain that Blair is now doing more damage than good...none of the policies he wants implemented as his legacy are achievable in what little time he has left...and not just because there is little time but also because he has little respect left

ratifying the EU constitution...failed because france and the netherlands rejected it

securing the middle east peace process advancements...failed because of the israel-lebanon war

getting the NI assembly up and running again...failed cause Ian Paisley was elected

reforming schools...not enough time left

ID cards...too expensive

the only thing left that he can begin to do is make severe changes to enviromental policy or start living up to the G8 commitments

and those 2 things will hit the economy...which Brown probably wont allow to happen in a small time frame cause he would like the changes to be made slowly so as to not damage the economy too much and also to make it part of his leadership

Tony Blair is quite a good PM if you ignore the bullshit with Bush. I mean, he's made Britain the richest it's ever been, which is quite an acheivment after the whole John Major insident.

His views on immigrants might be a problem, seeing as we're getting more and more, but it might not be all that bad in the future.

His Big Brother idea about cameras is stupid, yeah it stops crime, (or does it?) but I don't think a camera for every 5 people in London isn't scary.

I still don't understand why he's still going nuclear, it makes me think if he's not really labour, he's conservative.

Over-all, I'd rate him 3/5 as PM.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Tony Blair is quite a good PM if you ignore the bullshit with Bush. I mean, he's made Britain the richest it's ever been, which is quite an acheivment after the whole John Major insident.

His views on immigrants might be a problem, seeing as we're getting more and more, but it might not be all that bad in the future.

His Big Brother idea about cameras is stupid, yeah it stops crime, (or does it?) but I don't think a camera for every 5 people in London isn't scary.

I still don't understand why he's still going nuclear, it makes me think if he's not really labour, he's conservative.

Over-all, I'd rate him 3/5 as PM.

It seems like you are attempting to make sense, but you fail in almost every aspect.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Tony Blair is quite a good PM if you ignore the bullshit with Bush. I mean, he's made Britain the richest it's ever been, which is quite an acheivment after the whole John Major insident.


no he didn't...Gordon Brown is responsible for economic policy and has made all the major desicions...particularly making the bank of England independant from government



well done...after 9 1/2 years in power you finally realise what makes new labour different from old labour...they are exactly the same as the tories...hence they didn't reverse anything the tories did during their terms in government

He's a complete selfish idiot whose outstayed his welcome by 10 years. Simple as that. Its unlikely anyone better will replace him though Blair simply staying out over last few years could have prevented a lot of bad things...

I really don't like Blair has the right to stay until May just to get 10 years.

He can easily be out by the end of the year with a smooth transition.

Originally posted by jaden101
no he didn't...Gordon Brown is responsible for economic policy and has made all the major desicions...particularly making the bank of England independant from government



well done...after 9 1/2 years in power you finally realise what makes new labour different from old labour...they are exactly the same as the tories...hence they didn't reverse anything the tories did during their terms in government Yes, I make shit up, but you don't have to say it when everyone already knows.

I once phoned up Radio Clyde in Glasgow when Tony was having a Q&A session. I asked him if he would be letting his newborn son have the MMR vaccination (A controversial anti Measles. Mumps and Rubella injection which is believed to cause autism in children) and he refused to answer my question. However, I do believe he is a good man at heart, he's just surrounded himself with a gang of thugs who influence his every decision. And his wife looks a right pain in the arse as well with her 750 pound haircuts etc.