rayj wrote:What's the general consensus on Gordon Brown? I am a typical US citizen in most respects, and would like to get a direct low-down rather than Googling my opinions...

It seems like anything other than Blair would be a step up, but I thought that with Clinton, and now I pine. Why aren't these guys getting shot?

Big Gordy's a quiet, considered man, smart too. He doesn't appear* to be the type to be affected by the spotlight of political fame. He paid off the WWII debt to USA, so he might be less agreeable than Tony in his approach to the 'special relationship'. He's still New centre Labour, but he's a Scotsman and therefore still maintains that strong sense of social responsibility and fair play.





* but you never know what'll happen when the beast is released.

I haven't really followed public opinion about Tony Blair, beyond what I read on this board.

To be fair to Blair (book title anyone?), this board falls considerably left of the general consensus on American politics (and I don't bring that up to knock it, just as a segue) - does the general British population have pretty strong feelings against Tony Blair?

I liked how in Love Actually Hugh Grant plays this sort of Tony Blair type, but with some balls.

What I have found so interesting in the past year or so in American politics is how Democrats are picking up on traditionally conservative stances, and Republicans are doing vice-versa.

Democrats are wanting to be fiscally conservative, and are worrying about free trade and the value of the dollar. Democrats want to curb gov't spending in the black-holes of Iraq and Big Oil, and balance the budget like the good ol' days of Clinton when we were so fiscally conservative! Democrats want to focus on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, and Iran. I believe it was Hillary Clinton that sometime in 2004 flippantly brought up reinstating the draft.

From what I can tell, 2006 is going to be the death of the neo-conservative movement. But I'm not exactly sure what's replacing it.

Are there any paradigm shifts in politics like this over there?

I feel so lost in the news. I'll go watch something about Jon Benet Ramsey now. (kidding)

Brown supported the great ripoff Private Finance Initiative too. Blair is an excellent liar and manipulator, but we haven't seen enough of Brown to see how well he plays the press.

Brown has been waiting over 14 years to become Prime Minister. He had better have thought of some great ideas and refined them for when he becomes Prime Minister! What ideas has he shown us, other than giving massive tax breaks to big business, agreeing to trident submarine, and creating a flag waving day? Let's hope Brown does more great things like offer more free education to adults.

Blair is such a manipulative bastard that he's not going to let Brown become Prime Minister easily. Blair's choice pigfucker is going to be ten times worse than Brown.

Will Brown let our country give up on ID cards, going to war with arab countries, PFI, and the landlord driven economy? Would his government revive the British manufacturing industry? Er...

Let's hope Brown gets the job instead of some piece of shit pigfucker who has Blair's grin tattooed on his backside. Let's hope Brown kicks out Reid, Jowell, Beckett, and those other media playing fuckers who shouldn't be running the UK.

unarmedman wrote:does the general British population have pretty strong feelings against Tony Blair?

Yep. Guess what he's saying though?

Tony Blair wrote:It's the public that comes first and it's the country that matters, and we can't treat the public as irrelevant bystanders in a subject as important as who is their prime minister.

We want him out, so our members of pariliament tell him to get out. He says we want him to stay. We don't! How can the public answer this bullshit? We can't. I wish this manipulative man would just quit right now. He's a total piece of shit. He's clinging to power when his country wants him out of the job right now.

If you want to know our feelings about Blair, try reading the comments page to this article:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourle ... 90,00.html

Dear Gerald. Here are some traditional values that the Labour Party needs to return to:

1 Telling the truth, avoiding spin, avoiding arguments based on unproven premises and doubtful logic

2 Democracy (proper discussions in Cabinet, proper debates at LP conference, more accountability)

3 Not locking people up without trial or holding them without charge for more than a few days

4 Respect for international law

5 An independent foreign policy and an end to subservience to the USA.

Are these vote losers? Is a party that returns to these principles going to be in permanent opposition? If you think that these principles are vote-losers, please explain why. Please explain why the Labour Party now has difficulty in even acknowledging these issues let alone addressing them.

I'd assumed that Blair would try to hang on untli he had been in office longer than Thatcher (11.5 years) - in other words, he's primarily interested in his legacy or at least the historical perception of it. Is his ego that big? Yes, I think it is. Looks like he's not going to make it now. I'm not holding out much hope over his replacement, whoever it is. Brown would be less odious than Reid I'm sure, but to a large extent he's an unknown quantity. Although he appears to have backed a lot of what Blair has said, it's not really likely that the chancellor would have publicly butted heads with the PM over core policy issues.

Blair is widely (and justly in my view) seen as someone who has sold his own country out. Not just over Iraq and his blind support for US adventurism, but in allowing international grandstanding to take precedence over actually running the country in the interests of its citizens. It appalls me that a LABOUR government have presided over extended privatisation of healthcare, PFI, tuition fees in higher education, open encouragement of faith based schools against a background of collapsing science investment and now seems to be backing the replacement of Trident. I actually think that the choice of successor is going to be less important than the perceived electibility of the tories - something Blair never had to worry about.

YO31 wrote:I'd assumed that Blair would try to hang on untli he had been in office longer than Thatcher (11.5 years) - in other words, he's primarily interested in his legacy or at least the historical perception of it. Is his ego that big? Yes, I think it is. Looks like he's not going to make it now. I'm not holding out much hope over his replacement, whoever it is. Brown would be less odious than Reid I'm sure, but to a large extent he's an unknown quantity. Although he appears to have backed a lot of what Blair has said, it's not really likely that the chancellor would have publicly butted heads with the PM over core policy issues.

Blair is widely (and justly in my view) seen as someone who has sold his own country out. Not just over Iraq and his blind support for US adventurism, but in allowing international grandstanding to take precedence over actually running the country in the interests of its citizens. It appalls me that a LABOUR government have presided over extended privatisation of healthcare, PFI, tuition fees in higher education, open encouragement of faith based schools against a background of collapsing science investment and now seems to be backing the replacement of Trident. I actually think that the choice of successor is going to be less important than the perceived electibility of the tories - something Blair never had to worry about.

Nice diplomacy

Josef K wrote:

YO31 wrote:
US adventurism, .

Nice diplomacy

I try to be tactful where possible.

rayj wrote:

galanter wrote:Why assume there is some ulterior motive?

Both Bush and Blair see Islamic Fascism as a threat to democratic pluralistic societies. Both believe that appeasement won't work. Both believe this struggle will be a defining international issue for years to come.

Both mean what they say.

I mean no personal disrespect when I say this, Galanter, but...

You have got to be kidding. This is politics. POLITICS.

This is such a common mistake...thinking that just because it's politics people don't mean what they say.

Let me put it this way. Surely there are political voices out there you more or less agree with. Do you also assume *they* are lying and it's all just a ploy to _______ ?

Or let me put it another way. Surely the voters who take one side or another mean what they say. Some of these voters get involved locally...school board or city posts. Some of these low level politicians make it to higher levels. And higher levels yet. What is this magic mechanism that sends packing the people who really mean what they say, and promotes to higher office the ones who just lie about a position for an entirely different motive?

Just to be clear, in the above post I'm talking about lies about core values...not the petty lying and misrepresentation in debates.

Also don't confuse political compromise (which I think the US could stand a bit more of) with lying or moral compromise.

galanter wrote:What is this magic mechanism that sends packing the people who really mean what they say, and promotes to higher office the ones who just lie about a position for an entirely different motive?

Manipulation, covert aggression, spin, playing the press, dishonesty, delusions of grandeur, and so on.