The Blair 'legacy'
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Yummy!!! 
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,456
And here was eye thinking ewe where being ironic...
A
Ardross
Guest
Sadly not when you posted that - back in a very wet Yorkshire . I have just put the heating on !!!
Actually some of the comments on this thread have kind of set me off thinking this Broon thing through.
Somewhere along the line, the abdication of President Blair, who I’ll concede was dynamic for the first couple of years, before seeking out the comparative safety of ‘Nation Management’ (devoid as it is in philosophy and big ideas), before ultimately presiding over ‘Paradise Lost’, might have masked the true identity of the person whom we should be concentrating on. The Chancellor?
This one is of course a bit more technical to assess, but it seems to have passed by most commentators that in terms of the profound effect that any single politician has had on our lives for the last 10 years, it is probably Gordon Brown who warrants a closer appraisal as his unique tenure at number 11 draws in. The truly disingenuous might credit Kenneth Clarke? Indeed there is a grain of truth in that he certainly laid the foundations and returned a degree of stability to the economy after Messrs Major and Lamont had done their worst. It’s a cautionary tale for all that the Tories historical reputation for sound economic management, which had be won over centuries was blown out of the water within a couple of years. I realise I risk sounding repetitive, but the more I think about it, the more I’m persuading myself that the Blair legacy (at least in party political terms) is sound economic management, which in turn has prepared the ground for future Labour governments. In that respect the architect of the substance behind the Blair success isn’t the man himself, but his Chancellor, and those who saw to the mechanics (Mandelson and Campbell).
Now a list of ‘great’ Chancellors is probably even harder and more contentious to put together, (useless or irresponsible ones is much easier). The point of this post however, isn’t to try and generate a hierarchy and place Brown somewhere on the pantheon thus. I think most people can accept that he has been a central figure of his generation in terms of his duration and contribution in helping define an age etc, and as various Ministers have come and gone Brown has been pretty well a permanent feature of stability, rarely getting embroiled in anything too damaging.
It occurs to me however, that there are a number of factors by way of Blair legacy that now threaten to trip Brown up beyond the obvious googlies he’s bowled him.
My old sparring partner on these pages (Clivex) has often cited the fact that we tend to vote opposites into office. I’m not sure it’s that straight forward, and to no small extent that conclusion depends on what you take as your point of reference, as it’s invariably not difficult to demonstrate contrary traits in one person to another anyway, and plain easy, when politics provides a convenient and natural vehicle to demarcate from. I think there’s potentially another dynamic at play to do with success spawning imitation, and I’m not convinced that elements of this aren’t what we’re voting for? I think in Dr Who it’s called regeneration, and we don’t have to look very hard for evidence of it.
To no small extent Tony Blair was a product of Margaret Thatcher, and a very necessary and foreseeable one too. She was a scientist and perhaps didn’t fully understand history and how the British hegemony works? She wanted to smash Socialism, but in her typical short-sightedness didn’t realise the dangers of doing this. What she should have done of course was to try and impose a manageable domination over it, which periodically allowed for Labour Governments to take power for a term, but always had the Tories in the wider ascendancy. Indeed history suggests this happened prior to Premiership, as you only need to add up the number of years that each party has served during the last 100. Successive electoral rejections would inevitably lead to Labour seeking to copy a successful Tory formula, and in doing so would inevitably create a much more potent threat to them. That we can’t tell the two parties apart now, is an allegation often made by both Tory and Labour supporters (and MP’s come to think of it) as Tory members frequently claim that they’ve had their clothes stolen. Her ’79 and ’83 Saatchi & Saatchi elections prompted Labour to start copying methods as well as policies. By ’87 they were running better campaigns but still carried too much unelectable baggage. Eventually ‘New Labour’ was invented (which I acknowledge drew from the Portugese Socialist party too) that combined Tory policies with Tory tactics. Provided it was fronted by the right personality though, it threatened to be a much more potent adversary.
The Tories out there who complain so bitterly about Blair might care to reflect that it was their own beloved Tsarina of Finchley who was to no small extent responsible for his creation.?
But if there’s a salutary lesson in this then I’m increasingly coming to believe it could travel a full circle. Having successfully seen off right-wingers like John Major, William Hague, Ian Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard, the same lesson seems to have been finally taken on board by the Tories. Blair’s legacy to the Tories is of course David Cameron. As I said success leads to imitation, and it might very well be that this is what we’re electing?
All of this finally returns me to the point at hand, and the implications for Broon. The next election looks like being one for the purist as it seems to be asking the country to inadvertently make a more subtle choice than appears to be the case at face value. Suddenly the Tories are not only fielding their own clone, but also appear to be taking on board much of Labours tactics. At this juncture I’m going to hop over the Atlantic for parallels, as I think that’s all too relevant as well.
After 3 losing terms the Democrats had to re-invent themselves and largely on the back of a poor economic record, and GH Bush’s famous “read my lips” gaff, they hit on a formula that resulted in WJ Clinton. Labour copied much of this success, and things like presentation, spin, aspirations, values and visions started to appear instead of good old fashioned policies. It’s infuriating to fight against, as it’s not a static target that can be visually challenged and dismantled in the traditional sense. In the parlance of a marksman it’s a moving target that lacks form and definition, and as such it morphs into different shapes, and bullets invariably fly through it, rather than hit it. Cameron I believe is of this Clinton, and Blair delineation, and since he also has the benefit of being more televisual and has been able to cast-off the now unelectable right wing philosophies of Attila the Hen, poses a much more potent threat.
Brown by contrast is none of these. He’s much more about ideas and substance even if he seems to think there’s an economic solution to everything. It could make for an interesting, if subtle clash, and right now I’m not sure which way I’d like to call it. On the day of writing, Brown has announced plans to build 5 new ‘Eco towns’. Ironic that Ebeneezer Scrooge is trying to re-invent himself as Ebeneezer Howard, but nonetheless an excellent initiative which in my opinion doesn’t go far enough. (There’s quite a few of us in the profession who’ve been wanting to build another generation of new towns for years) but this is a major initiative, that is more akin with Labour’s post war government when the party enjoyed the reputation of being the one that had challenging and radical ideas and approaches etc. Contrast this with Blair and his sense of ‘Nation Management’ that was functional rather than inspirational.
What I believe we’re going to get is something of a roll reversal with Brown trying to address issues and representing ‘the substance’, and ‘the proven’ whilst Cameron tries to adopt the tactics of the evasively nebulous charismatic communicator. Who will prevail? I don’t know, but there is a clue in Tallahasse I believe, but that risks making the assumption that American and British voters, are of similarly feeble minds, (something I’m increasingly starting to believe as it happens).
So what happened there? Well we had a man who was second in command in a popular and two term administration that had brought economic prosperity to the US, standing for the top job. A shoe in? Well you’d have thought so. The fact that Clinton would have won had he been allowed to run isn’t in dispute, so it should have been a steering job.
However, the candidate was an intellectual heavyweight (as opposed to over-weight which he is today) and thus a bit inaccessible, not a great communicator, and perceived as being dour and wooden, even though he came with credibility, substance and a demonstrable track record. Fighting him with ‘a similar’ would have been foolish, so the Republican puppet masters found something about as polar opposite as could be imagined!!! Now it’s undoubtedly useful when your brother just happens to be the returning officer for the key state, but the history books testify that the charismatic communicator and personality who was devoid of any substance prevailed. As I said though, that’s not to say the UK will follow the same path.
In an ironic way, Blair’s actually made both parties more electable, (and amorphous in the process) and in a truly ironic way, the genealogy of this might even have started with Margaret Hilda Roberts? If Brown does choose to fight on his record and an agenda of substance he ought to win you’d have thought?. It’s just that Tony Blair has created a landscape through a popular culture of skin-deep and superficial celebrity that now allows presentation to prevail over substance. In many respects the climate for a back-lash against this facile window-dressing might exist and Brown needs to challenge this and get it across thus. If he fails to do so, then Blair’s legacy might well involve the creation of an infinitely more potent opposition in his own image that is supported by an undemanding and superficial environment that allows it to prosper in the way that once sustained him.
I never regarded Mary Shelley as one of histories greater socio/ political analysts, now I’m having second thoughts.
Somewhere along the line, the abdication of President Blair, who I’ll concede was dynamic for the first couple of years, before seeking out the comparative safety of ‘Nation Management’ (devoid as it is in philosophy and big ideas), before ultimately presiding over ‘Paradise Lost’, might have masked the true identity of the person whom we should be concentrating on. The Chancellor?
This one is of course a bit more technical to assess, but it seems to have passed by most commentators that in terms of the profound effect that any single politician has had on our lives for the last 10 years, it is probably Gordon Brown who warrants a closer appraisal as his unique tenure at number 11 draws in. The truly disingenuous might credit Kenneth Clarke? Indeed there is a grain of truth in that he certainly laid the foundations and returned a degree of stability to the economy after Messrs Major and Lamont had done their worst. It’s a cautionary tale for all that the Tories historical reputation for sound economic management, which had be won over centuries was blown out of the water within a couple of years. I realise I risk sounding repetitive, but the more I think about it, the more I’m persuading myself that the Blair legacy (at least in party political terms) is sound economic management, which in turn has prepared the ground for future Labour governments. In that respect the architect of the substance behind the Blair success isn’t the man himself, but his Chancellor, and those who saw to the mechanics (Mandelson and Campbell).
Now a list of ‘great’ Chancellors is probably even harder and more contentious to put together, (useless or irresponsible ones is much easier). The point of this post however, isn’t to try and generate a hierarchy and place Brown somewhere on the pantheon thus. I think most people can accept that he has been a central figure of his generation in terms of his duration and contribution in helping define an age etc, and as various Ministers have come and gone Brown has been pretty well a permanent feature of stability, rarely getting embroiled in anything too damaging.
It occurs to me however, that there are a number of factors by way of Blair legacy that now threaten to trip Brown up beyond the obvious googlies he’s bowled him.
My old sparring partner on these pages (Clivex) has often cited the fact that we tend to vote opposites into office. I’m not sure it’s that straight forward, and to no small extent that conclusion depends on what you take as your point of reference, as it’s invariably not difficult to demonstrate contrary traits in one person to another anyway, and plain easy, when politics provides a convenient and natural vehicle to demarcate from. I think there’s potentially another dynamic at play to do with success spawning imitation, and I’m not convinced that elements of this aren’t what we’re voting for? I think in Dr Who it’s called regeneration, and we don’t have to look very hard for evidence of it.
To no small extent Tony Blair was a product of Margaret Thatcher, and a very necessary and foreseeable one too. She was a scientist and perhaps didn’t fully understand history and how the British hegemony works? She wanted to smash Socialism, but in her typical short-sightedness didn’t realise the dangers of doing this. What she should have done of course was to try and impose a manageable domination over it, which periodically allowed for Labour Governments to take power for a term, but always had the Tories in the wider ascendancy. Indeed history suggests this happened prior to Premiership, as you only need to add up the number of years that each party has served during the last 100. Successive electoral rejections would inevitably lead to Labour seeking to copy a successful Tory formula, and in doing so would inevitably create a much more potent threat to them. That we can’t tell the two parties apart now, is an allegation often made by both Tory and Labour supporters (and MP’s come to think of it) as Tory members frequently claim that they’ve had their clothes stolen. Her ’79 and ’83 Saatchi & Saatchi elections prompted Labour to start copying methods as well as policies. By ’87 they were running better campaigns but still carried too much unelectable baggage. Eventually ‘New Labour’ was invented (which I acknowledge drew from the Portugese Socialist party too) that combined Tory policies with Tory tactics. Provided it was fronted by the right personality though, it threatened to be a much more potent adversary.
The Tories out there who complain so bitterly about Blair might care to reflect that it was their own beloved Tsarina of Finchley who was to no small extent responsible for his creation.?
But if there’s a salutary lesson in this then I’m increasingly coming to believe it could travel a full circle. Having successfully seen off right-wingers like John Major, William Hague, Ian Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard, the same lesson seems to have been finally taken on board by the Tories. Blair’s legacy to the Tories is of course David Cameron. As I said success leads to imitation, and it might very well be that this is what we’re electing?
All of this finally returns me to the point at hand, and the implications for Broon. The next election looks like being one for the purist as it seems to be asking the country to inadvertently make a more subtle choice than appears to be the case at face value. Suddenly the Tories are not only fielding their own clone, but also appear to be taking on board much of Labours tactics. At this juncture I’m going to hop over the Atlantic for parallels, as I think that’s all too relevant as well.
After 3 losing terms the Democrats had to re-invent themselves and largely on the back of a poor economic record, and GH Bush’s famous “read my lips” gaff, they hit on a formula that resulted in WJ Clinton. Labour copied much of this success, and things like presentation, spin, aspirations, values and visions started to appear instead of good old fashioned policies. It’s infuriating to fight against, as it’s not a static target that can be visually challenged and dismantled in the traditional sense. In the parlance of a marksman it’s a moving target that lacks form and definition, and as such it morphs into different shapes, and bullets invariably fly through it, rather than hit it. Cameron I believe is of this Clinton, and Blair delineation, and since he also has the benefit of being more televisual and has been able to cast-off the now unelectable right wing philosophies of Attila the Hen, poses a much more potent threat.
Brown by contrast is none of these. He’s much more about ideas and substance even if he seems to think there’s an economic solution to everything. It could make for an interesting, if subtle clash, and right now I’m not sure which way I’d like to call it. On the day of writing, Brown has announced plans to build 5 new ‘Eco towns’. Ironic that Ebeneezer Scrooge is trying to re-invent himself as Ebeneezer Howard, but nonetheless an excellent initiative which in my opinion doesn’t go far enough. (There’s quite a few of us in the profession who’ve been wanting to build another generation of new towns for years) but this is a major initiative, that is more akin with Labour’s post war government when the party enjoyed the reputation of being the one that had challenging and radical ideas and approaches etc. Contrast this with Blair and his sense of ‘Nation Management’ that was functional rather than inspirational.
What I believe we’re going to get is something of a roll reversal with Brown trying to address issues and representing ‘the substance’, and ‘the proven’ whilst Cameron tries to adopt the tactics of the evasively nebulous charismatic communicator. Who will prevail? I don’t know, but there is a clue in Tallahasse I believe, but that risks making the assumption that American and British voters, are of similarly feeble minds, (something I’m increasingly starting to believe as it happens).
So what happened there? Well we had a man who was second in command in a popular and two term administration that had brought economic prosperity to the US, standing for the top job. A shoe in? Well you’d have thought so. The fact that Clinton would have won had he been allowed to run isn’t in dispute, so it should have been a steering job.
However, the candidate was an intellectual heavyweight (as opposed to over-weight which he is today) and thus a bit inaccessible, not a great communicator, and perceived as being dour and wooden, even though he came with credibility, substance and a demonstrable track record. Fighting him with ‘a similar’ would have been foolish, so the Republican puppet masters found something about as polar opposite as could be imagined!!! Now it’s undoubtedly useful when your brother just happens to be the returning officer for the key state, but the history books testify that the charismatic communicator and personality who was devoid of any substance prevailed. As I said though, that’s not to say the UK will follow the same path.
In an ironic way, Blair’s actually made both parties more electable, (and amorphous in the process) and in a truly ironic way, the genealogy of this might even have started with Margaret Hilda Roberts? If Brown does choose to fight on his record and an agenda of substance he ought to win you’d have thought?. It’s just that Tony Blair has created a landscape through a popular culture of skin-deep and superficial celebrity that now allows presentation to prevail over substance. In many respects the climate for a back-lash against this facile window-dressing might exist and Brown needs to challenge this and get it across thus. If he fails to do so, then Blair’s legacy might well involve the creation of an infinitely more potent opposition in his own image that is supported by an undemanding and superficial environment that allows it to prosper in the way that once sustained him.
I never regarded Mary Shelley as one of histories greater socio/ political analysts, now I’m having second thoughts.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
'kin hell Alun - I was 29 when I started reading that post & I've now realised on finishing it that I'm 36!!!!!!!! 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@May 13 2007, 10:20 PM
'kin hell Alun - I was 29 when I started reading that post & I've now realised on finishing it that I'm 36!!!!!!!!
Well my Sunday Paper of choice had sold out by the time I got round to getting out of bed this afternoon, so I thought I'd write my own instead
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
:laughing:
Very interesting and thought-provoking stuff Warbler. I agree with a lot of your analysis, but a different emphasis on details [and perhaps an age gap/perspecitve] leads me to a harsher assessment of the personalities concerned. I think you are correct about the dynamics of the current tansitionl period and the future, so far as political 'mirroring' goes. But I see the past a bit differently, partly due to coming from a different place in 1997.
Much as I despised the Major Govermnet, I developed a real loathing of the whole 'new Labour Project' during the run-up to that election. The fundamental difference between Blair and Thatcher [and one that has continued to escape him as he's not very bright] is that she was a conviction politician - love her or loathe her, she was a woman of huge integrity, who told it like it was and stuck to her guns...
... whilst Tony is a chameleon, whose every thought and action since his election has been, for the first term, to get re-elected; and since then, to forge out a future role for himself on the world stage. The man is a posturing shell, totally without scruples or decency, governed by vanity and self-serving greed. Because of this, he's surrounded himself with aides who veer from the downright sinister [Mandelson, Gould, Cambell &tc, also bruisers like Reid and Clarke] through the jobsworth greasy-pole climbers like Hoon, Hain, Byers, Blears and Ruth Kelly, to the shamefully ludicrous like John Prescott.
Brown is at least a politician of integrity, unlike most of the New Labour clones. All those who were admirable were sacked early - Frank Field, Glenys Dunwoody, Kate Hoey and their ilk. In fact the Labour Party was infiltrated and hijcked in the 80s by a small group of career-driven busybodies, chancers, and people on the make - and it's to Gordon Brown's shame that he went along with this for so long. I disagree with his policies in the main - the formation of this huge welfare system by which over 50% of the population is eligible for state benefits is grossly destructive of civil liberty, civil society, and every tradition of this country. It not only enables but encourages the massive shift we've seen over the course of this govermnent to a top-down, opressive Statist society on the continental model - an abhorrent shift to my way of thinking, and one which betrays this country's entire history.
Blair's goverment will be remembered for the destruction of:
... our privacy, our personal freedoms, our legal system, our parliamentary democracy, our constitution, local democracy, the United Kingdom as an entity; also our education system, our manufacturing base, our rural and agricultural health, our national sovereignty, the independence of the Civil Service, te comparative safety of our cities and streets, the relatively peaceful co-existence of religious groupings, the compact between the country and its armed forces, decency and accountability in public life - and much else besides.
I haven't even mentioned the shameful failure to support our heritage and culture, the criminal Foot & Mouth fiasco, nor the Iraq war, any one of which would put me off ever voting for these destructive clowns [not that I ever did!].
I think history will judge him very harshly indeed. I certainly do.
And it still amazes me that intelligent people were so blinded by hope that they couldn't see it coming.
PS I didn't get a Sunday paper today etiher :laughing:
Partly couldn't be bothered as they will all be full of BLiar assessments!
PPS Warbler is quite correct that Brown's ecomomic success during his first term as Chancellor is due to two things: the excellent foundation of ecomomic health and stability bequeathed by Ken Clarke, and Brown's own immediate announcement that he would stick to Tory spending limits and policies for his first term in office. It wasn't until his own tinkering, overcomplication, borrowing, and general financial overmangement and overspending kicked in, as his efforts to grab more and more control over everyone's life and money gathered pace, that the wheels started to come off, as they are now doing big time. Though the spectacular success of the City will probably save us, if banking doesn't get chased out of the UK
I don't believe btw that Brown can't be fingered for one of the biggest disasters of this era - the failure to reform the Welfare State. He's thrown more and more cash at it to create a 'client underclass' of Labour voters - making the problem worse rather than better; and he was the one responsible for the sacking of Frank Field, who might have acheived something of value in this area [as might Glenys Dunwoody at Transport].
Much as I despised the Major Govermnet, I developed a real loathing of the whole 'new Labour Project' during the run-up to that election. The fundamental difference between Blair and Thatcher [and one that has continued to escape him as he's not very bright] is that she was a conviction politician - love her or loathe her, she was a woman of huge integrity, who told it like it was and stuck to her guns...
... whilst Tony is a chameleon, whose every thought and action since his election has been, for the first term, to get re-elected; and since then, to forge out a future role for himself on the world stage. The man is a posturing shell, totally without scruples or decency, governed by vanity and self-serving greed. Because of this, he's surrounded himself with aides who veer from the downright sinister [Mandelson, Gould, Cambell &tc, also bruisers like Reid and Clarke] through the jobsworth greasy-pole climbers like Hoon, Hain, Byers, Blears and Ruth Kelly, to the shamefully ludicrous like John Prescott.
Brown is at least a politician of integrity, unlike most of the New Labour clones. All those who were admirable were sacked early - Frank Field, Glenys Dunwoody, Kate Hoey and their ilk. In fact the Labour Party was infiltrated and hijcked in the 80s by a small group of career-driven busybodies, chancers, and people on the make - and it's to Gordon Brown's shame that he went along with this for so long. I disagree with his policies in the main - the formation of this huge welfare system by which over 50% of the population is eligible for state benefits is grossly destructive of civil liberty, civil society, and every tradition of this country. It not only enables but encourages the massive shift we've seen over the course of this govermnent to a top-down, opressive Statist society on the continental model - an abhorrent shift to my way of thinking, and one which betrays this country's entire history.
Blair's goverment will be remembered for the destruction of:
... our privacy, our personal freedoms, our legal system, our parliamentary democracy, our constitution, local democracy, the United Kingdom as an entity; also our education system, our manufacturing base, our rural and agricultural health, our national sovereignty, the independence of the Civil Service, te comparative safety of our cities and streets, the relatively peaceful co-existence of religious groupings, the compact between the country and its armed forces, decency and accountability in public life - and much else besides.
I haven't even mentioned the shameful failure to support our heritage and culture, the criminal Foot & Mouth fiasco, nor the Iraq war, any one of which would put me off ever voting for these destructive clowns [not that I ever did!].
I think history will judge him very harshly indeed. I certainly do.
And it still amazes me that intelligent people were so blinded by hope that they couldn't see it coming.
PS I didn't get a Sunday paper today etiher :laughing:
Partly couldn't be bothered as they will all be full of BLiar assessments!
PPS Warbler is quite correct that Brown's ecomomic success during his first term as Chancellor is due to two things: the excellent foundation of ecomomic health and stability bequeathed by Ken Clarke, and Brown's own immediate announcement that he would stick to Tory spending limits and policies for his first term in office. It wasn't until his own tinkering, overcomplication, borrowing, and general financial overmangement and overspending kicked in, as his efforts to grab more and more control over everyone's life and money gathered pace, that the wheels started to come off, as they are now doing big time. Though the spectacular success of the City will probably save us, if banking doesn't get chased out of the UK
I don't believe btw that Brown can't be fingered for one of the biggest disasters of this era - the failure to reform the Welfare State. He's thrown more and more cash at it to create a 'client underclass' of Labour voters - making the problem worse rather than better; and he was the one responsible for the sacking of Frank Field, who might have acheived something of value in this area [as might Glenys Dunwoody at Transport].
A
Ardross
Guest
Are you a member of UKIP Headstrong ?
Where have you been - Beaujolaising in France?
A
Ardross
Guest
Context dear old thing context !
A
Ardross
Guest
Headstrong won't like it - it is a good socialist red.
A
Ardross
Guest
Dirty pink ???? We are back to Blossom Hill White Zinfandel I see .
UKIP? Disappointing response Ardross.
It's not as if Headstrong didn't give you enough ammunition to dismantle her ideas with. The Civil Service? Independent? to name but one obvious example. The Civil Service has never been independent.
Neutral? may be.
That's what it's supposed to be of course. Capable of switching sides over-night if need and serving the government of the day with total impartiallity. And if any government in recent year was more guilty than any other of politicising the Civil Service and the police and the army (in civil matters) it was Thatch.
Conviction politician? Who wouldn't lie?
The Belgrano was within 12 hours steaming distance of our task force and closing :suspect:
And just for the mysterious record!!! The Norweigans might have had a bigger part to play in its detection than is known?h34r:
It's not as if Headstrong didn't give you enough ammunition to dismantle her ideas with. The Civil Service? Independent? to name but one obvious example. The Civil Service has never been independent.
Neutral? may be.
That's what it's supposed to be of course. Capable of switching sides over-night if need and serving the government of the day with total impartiallity. And if any government in recent year was more guilty than any other of politicising the Civil Service and the police and the army (in civil matters) it was Thatch.
Conviction politician? Who wouldn't lie?
The Belgrano was within 12 hours steaming distance of our task force and closing :suspect:
And just for the mysterious record!!! The Norweigans might have had a bigger part to play in its detection than is known?
h34r:
K
Kathy
Guest
Great programme about Gordon Brown this evening on Dispatches.
A
Ardross
Guest
Unless it was by a member of UKIP I assumed it was intended to be funnyOriginally posted by Warbler@May 14 2007, 07:58 PM
UKIP? Disappointing response Ardross.
It's not as if Headstrong didn't give you enough ammunition to dismantle her ideas with. The Civil Service? Independent? to name but one obvious example. The Civil Service has never been independent.
Neutral? may be.
That's what it's supposed to be of course. Capable of switching sides over-night if need and serving the government of the day with total impartiallity. And if any government in recent year was more guilty than any other of politicising the Civil Service and the police and the army (in civil matters) it was Thatch.
Conviction politician? Who wouldn't lie?
The Belgrano was within 12 hours steaming distance of our task force and closing :suspect:
And just for the mysterious record!!! The Norweigans might have had a bigger part to play in its detection than is known?
A
Ardross
Guest
I suspect that the Tories are scared of Brown even if their supporters are not - Labour has already gone up 3 pts in the polls and a serious PM might go down well with a public fed up with fluffy media friendly types - Cameron could end up looking very lightweight .
Tim nice but dim
Tim nice but dim
disappointed, by Ardross, but I'll strike a blow for alternative and radical views
I could of choice challenge aspects of your HS's assumptions, I'd ask you to consider the impact of Keith Joseph for instance? Patrick Minford, you will find harder to defend? The welfare state was established for whose defence?......
I could of choice challenge aspects of your HS's assumptions, I'd ask you to consider the impact of Keith Joseph for instance? Patrick Minford, you will find harder to defend? The welfare state was established for whose defence?......
A
Ardross
Guest
I don't have time Warbler to go through her post in detail . Minford is a buffoon still believing in monetarism for a start.