Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
 


       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Politics
André in Zuid-Afrika

Tony Blair

Should he, or shouldn't he?

Quote:
I will quit within a year - Blair

Tony Blair has confirmed that he will step down as prime minister within the next 12 months.
Mr Blair said the Labour conference in two weeks' time would be his last as Labour leader - but he did not name a precise date for his departure.

He also apologised for Labour's conduct in recent days, admitting it "has not been our finest hour, to be frank".

Allies have suggested Mr Blair will announce a timetable early in the New Year and hand over power in May.

Mr Blair and his supporters will be hoping his statement will end the civil war that has broken out in the past week among Labour MPs over his departure.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said he wished "people would understand what it is required" and get on with the business of governing.

But some Labour MPs are already saying Mr Blair's statement will not be enough to quell dissent.


When I met the prime minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision

Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer said he did not think Mr Blair's statement "took us any further forward".

And he called on Mr Blair to "fire the starting pistol on a leadership election" at Labour's conference later this month.

Newcastle North MP Doug Henderson, a close ally of Gordon Brown, said: "It doesn't seem to me that the public knows any more about the PM's retirement plans.

"People keep saying to me that the Labour party must have a clear direction forward with clear priorities and a new leader before the May 2007 elections."

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said there was still a lot of "poison" emanating from Labour MPs - and allies of Mr Blair and Mr Brown were continuing to fight behind the scenes.

'No precise date'

In his brief statement, made during a visit to a London school, Mr Blair said: "I think what is important now is that we understand that it's the interests of the country that come first and we move on.

I think that Labour has had its moment of madness this week and I hope it will now move on

"I would have preferred to do this in my own way but it has been pretty obvious from what many of my Cabinet colleagues have said earlier in the week.

"The next party conference in a couple of weeks will be my last party conference as party leader, the next TUC conference next week will be my last TUC - probably to the relief of both of us.

"But I am not going to set a precise date now. I don't think that's right. I will do that at a future date and I'll do it in the interests of the country and depending on the circumstances of the time."

He also had a message for warring Labour MPs, saying: "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."

Speaking earlier, Chancellor Gordon Brown said it was for Mr Blair to decide when he quit.

"When I met the prime minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision," he told reporters during a visit to a Glasgow athletics track.

Mandelson reaction

Giving his reaction, EU trade commissioner and key Blair ally Peter Mandelson said: "I think that Labour has had its moment of madness this week and I hope it will now move on and that the plotting and the shenanigans will be put behind them once and for all.

KEY LABOUR DATES
25-26 Sept: Mr Blair and Mr Brown make speeches at the Labour Party conference in Manchester
15 Nov: State opening of Parliament including the Queen's speech outlining the government's agenda
2 May 2007: Tenth anniversary of Mr Blair's election as prime minister
3 May 2007: Elections for Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and most local authorities in England

"They've got to concentrate on the needs of the country, not themselves."

He said he always thought Mr Blair would step down after 10 years in office, as "it was as much as someone could do that job for".

Speaking earlier, Commons leader Jack Straw said he would expect Mr Blair to stay "to the halfway point of a normal four-year parliament", which would be May.

But Downing Street rejected suggestions a deal had been struck to hand over power on 4 May, three days after Mr Blair notches up 10 years in power and the day after the local elections.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Just resign Tony and call an election

Edward Dowty, Kings Lynn, UK


Send us your comments

Mr Blair has been under pressure to quit earlier than May in order to get a new leader in place before the elections in England, Scotland and Wales - which are expected to be disastrous for Labour.

Mr Brown - the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair - was also thought to be unhappy at the prospect of taking over at the end of a Parliamentary session.

The two men were reported to have to have had an acrimonious meeting over the issue on Wednesday morning.

It was followed by a day of open warfare between supporters of the chancellor and Mr Blair - and a string of government resignations - over when the prime minister should quit.


Report - BBC
greg in noord-frankrijk

If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.
KSa

greg in noordfrankrijk wrote:
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.

:o ???????????? :o
André in Zuid-Afrika

KSa wrote:
greg in noordfrankrijk wrote:
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.

:o ???????????? :o


Well, I'm not a Blair fan myself, but I won't go that far. :wink:
KSa

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
KSa wrote:
greg in noordfrankrijk wrote:
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.

:o ???????????? :o


Well, I'm not a Blair fan myself, but I won't go that far. :wink:

I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.
Benjamin [inactive]

KSa wrote:
I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.

I think I'd have to agree there. He's a politician. Yes, he's extremely irritating, and is often untruthful, and frequently does the opposite of what he says he'll do, and goes on lots of expensive holidays, and sent his children to a private Catholic school even though he and his party are supposed to support the state-run schools. But that's what politicians seem to be like.

I doubt that John McDonnell — who has already started his campaign to replace Tony Blair with himself — would actually turn out to be a great philanthropist if he were to actually get some power.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Benjamin wrote:
KSa wrote:
I would describe my feelings towards him as indifferent.

I think I'd have to agree there. He's a politician. Yes, he's extremely irritating, and is often untruthful, and frequently does the opposite of what he says he'll do, and goes on lots of expensive holidays, and sent his children to a private Catholic school even though he and his party are supposed to support the state-run schools. But that's what politicians seem to be like.

I doubt that John McDonnell — who has already started his campaign to replace Tony Blair with himself — would actually turn out to be a great philanthropist if he were to actually get some power.


Very true. Politicians are all the same. Believe me, I've worked very closely with politicians the past two years. :roll: But some are better than others. :wink:
Loic

If I were a Labour supporter, I'd think it's a horrible mistake. Nothing augurs worse for a political party's fortunes than a party that is more distracted by in-fighting than national issues.

Gordon Brown may or may not be have a hand behind the forcing of this issue, but it is certain that he has the power to stop it. He has chosen to stand aside.

I suppose Labour has forgotten how the Tories were driven into the wilderness. Of course, they have been in power for almost a decade and ten years is a long time by any standards. After forcing Margaret Thatcher out of power, John Major's Tories were able to survive a beleagured term that ultimately ended in a catastrophe. Would Labour go down the same route?

When Tony Blair won the General Election as a dashing and reform-minded leader 10 years ago, he probably would not have expected to bow from the political stage in this manner. He continues to believe that his presence is more of an asset than a liability but he ought to remember that authority is like virginity - once it is lost, it can never be regained.

I look forward to the Chancellor becoming PM and getting trounced by David Cameron in the next GEs.
KSa

I think that in all this turmoil the winner is democracy.
In democracy when people are finally fed up with a politician they simply don't elect them any more or force them to step down. I'm more anxious about all those untouchable politicians who are immortal on their posts.
André in Zuid-Afrika

KSa wrote:
I think that in all this turmoil the winner is democracy.
In democracy when people are finally fed up with a politician they simply don't elect them any more or force them to step down. I'm more anxious about all those untouchable politicians who are immortal on their posts.


Totally agree. That's the problem we have in SA today. The ANC seems unbeatable, and therefore they act as if they are untouchable. :x


Also agree with Loic. History is repeating itself in Britain, and Labour's going the same way the Tories did. My prediction is Cameron as prime minister after the next election (unless something drastic happens).
greg in noord-frankrijk

KSa wrote:
greg in noordfrankrijk wrote:
If I were British, I'd want him to be thrown out at once and sent to a court martial for high treason. As a European, I simply want him brought to the The Hague — like Milosevic was.

:o ???????????? :o


    Well the guy has deliberately let terrorists spread their hate in public in his own country (the ones who blasted Parisian underground 10 years before they did the same in London).

    He has given shelter to the murderers, whom French justice has claimed for 10 years, of French citizens.

    He has violated international law and basic human rights by attacking Iraq in 2003 : he *is* a war criminal.

    He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.

    He has betrayed the remainings of the"left" in the UK.

    He is still militarily occupying Northern Ireland.

    He has happily supported the recent massacre in Lebanon.

    He has sold his country to the US : many Britons do feel so ashamed about that (and rightfully so : no one likes their country acting like a prostitute).

    He has backstabbed the EU so many times that I don't know which example I should start with.
Benjamin [inactive]

Quote:
He is still militarily occupying Northern Ireland.

I feel that I should point out though that Labour, Tony Blair's party, officially support the SDLP in Northern Ireland — one of the main 'Catholic' parties which support a united Ireland. Unfortunately, according to various treaties, a united Ireland is not possible until a majority of the people in Northern Ireland appear to support such a motion, which is currently not the case.

Of course, we don't actually know whether or not the Republic of Ireland even wants Nothern Ireland anymore, which raises another question — would those who'd ideally support a united Ireland favour an independent Northern Ireland, or a Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom?

Quote:
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.

A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.

And when I was in Aberdeen in the North of Scotland last week, there were huge billboards everywhere which were trying to encourage people to stop smoking heroin... oh dear.
KSa

Benjamin wrote:


Quote:
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.

A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.


There is something I can't quite understand. According to rough estimates, since May 2004 (when Poland entered the EU) some 1000 000 (one million) people have left for the UK to seek a legal job. Most of them have found it and although it's often not a well-paid-super job they earn enough to live with dignity and for sure most of them don't live in "unthinkable conditions". Logically, I think that if unemployed British wanted to work in bars, hotels, as cleaners, plumbers, or bricklayers, they would be preferable employees to the immigrants from Poland.
greg in noord-frankrijk

KSa wrote:
Benjamin wrote:


Quote:
He has ruined the British working class, who were already living in unthinkable conditions.

A few months ago, I'd have said that you were being silly. However, there are many areas of Birmingham which I've vaguely heard of, but never been to. A few months ago, however, I went on a train which went around the other side of the city, which I hadn't seen before, and... oh... my... God. Now I know why there are so many parts of Birmingham which I've never visited! So I have to say, Greg, I think you are right.


There is something I can't quite understand. According to rough estimates, since May 2004 (when Poland entered the EU) some 1000 000 (one million) people have left for the UK to seek a legal job. Most of them have found it and although it's often not a well-paid-super job they earn enough to live with dignity and for sure most of them don't live in "unthinkable conditions". Logically, I think that if unemployed British wanted to work in bars, hotels, as cleaners, plumbers, or bricklayers, they would be preferable employees to the immigrants from Poland.



Thatcher and Blair organised massive unemployement, general sub-employment and all-out precariousness throughout the UK. Poles and Pakistanis go to the UK not because this country is a labour heaven : they go there because this is a jungle where even the natives — especially the worst off — have no rights. The UK is a caricature of Europe : the health of the people is a non-issue, the culture for the people is a joke, the political awareness of the people is best encapsulated by The Sun's page three, the right to strike is considered an obscenity and now the British find themselves a dream target for terrorists. Lies and falsehood have been set up as institutions : the economy is "booming", the unemployment rate is "4 %", it was "right" to invade Iraq (a country able to deploy WMD in "45 minutes"), Lebanon is a "threat" to Israel, the euro is a "farce", the "new" "Labour", the communautarian "model" is the best and so on and so on.

I don't want to be a doomsayer, but the worst for the UK is still to come — in all fields. This is the reason why it must be thrown out of the EU : it must cope alone with the problems (from economy to security) it has willfully created on its own. As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.
Benjamin [inactive]

So, when I renounce my nationality in a few years time, what do you think would be a good replacement? Maybe I should become Dutch... what do you think?

Quote:
As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.

I don't understand why you seem not to differentiate between government and people. If France where to go into an extreme economic decline, I'd be more than happy to help support its regeneration for the sake of the people there, even if it had been the French government's own fault. Why? Because I don't equate the government with the people in general.
Loic

Greg, I think you'd be disappointed. History would judge the current First Lord of the Chancellor i.e. the Prime Minister in a much more benign light. For one, he has transformed Labour into a politically viable party that can win votes as well as elections. We've forgotten how often Labour were relegated to the backbenches in the most of the 20th century and how the Conservatives were seen as the 'natural party of government'.

I maintain that Messrs Bush and Blair were misled by their firm convictions that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction as well as being linked to Al-Qaeda. On hindsight, discoveries disclosed have embarrassed these two leaders quite a bit. But I do not buy the story that the Prime Minister deliberately and wilfully misled the entire nation into participating in the war. This is just the case of an individual who thought he was right and who acted on his convictions.

As for inner-city working class poverty, this is all relative. I am sure you have not seen more dire conditions in other parts of the world. At least I don't see anyone starving, do I?

And pray tell me, what exactly is the 'left' nowadays when they have almost all become the 'right' in pratice? The left would have abolished all features of the market economy; they would perceive capitalism as I quote Jaures: L'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme. Of course, all lefties would eagerly be at the beck and call of Moscow when it comes to all directives.

Do not forget the towering icons of the left: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc. I am sure every East European who once lived under the yoke of the Soviet Union would agree that there is nothing admirable about the left.
Benjamin [inactive]

Quote:
As for inner-city working class poverty, this is all relative. I am sure you have not seen more dire conditions in other parts of the world. At least I don't see anyone starving, do I?

No. I supposed that Greg meant that they are cut off from society, rather than that they have significant material inadequacies. But even though one cannot pretend that poverty found in the UK is as bad as that found in much of the rest of the world, the psychological effects, including depression and humiliation, can be similar, especially when you are fully aware that others are significantly better-off than yourself.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Benjamin wrote:
Quote:
As a French taxpayer, I don't want to pay one single centime for that moral and financial collapse.

I don't understand why you seem not to differentiate between government and people. If France where to go into an extreme economic decline, I'd be more than happy to help support its regeneration for the sake of the people there, even if it had been the French government's own fault. Why? Because I don't equate the government with the people in general.

Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.



loic wrote:
For one, he has transformed Labour into a politically viable party that can win votes as well as elections.

This is no longer the case, it seems. And the Labour was transformed into a provisionally electorally viable party — certainly not politically —> how many political failures do you need to see that Blair is in an impasse ?



loic wrote:
But I do not buy the story that the Prime Minister deliberately and wilfully misled the entire nation into participating in the war. This is just the case of an individual who thought he was right and who acted on his convictions.

Oh loic, why are you romanticising everything ?! You think he chose to sacrifice young British guys, murder innocent Iraqis, betray his own people and waste huge amounts of money because of his "convictions" ? T'es un idéaliste, loic...


loic wrote:
Do not forget the towering icons of the left: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, etc. I am sure every East European who once lived under the yoke of the Soviet Union would agree that there is nothing admirable about the left.

loic : believe it or not, I have never voted for a leftist party or candidate in my entire life ! I don't like communism — either in theory or in (Soviet-like) practice.
Benjamin [inactive]

greg wrote:
Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.

You actually believe that democracy is a reality? :shock: C'est toi qui est un idéaliste, je crois. D'autre part, you've said yourself that Blair has betrayed his own people.

Before I address the numerous problems with your assumption here, I will ask you this: What do you suggest that those British citizens who didn't support Tony Blair do when everything completely collapses in this shithole (implicitly your words, not mine), as you're expecting? Emigrate to New Zealand?

Okay:

1. They didn't 'elect' Tony Blair as such. They elected individual MPs. The leader of the party with the most MPs elected becomes the Prime Minister. For example, my parents voted for Dr Lynne Jones in the General Election last year — she's been an MP for years now, and she's very very good. Although she's a Labour MP, she is very much the opposite of Tony Blair and is frequently seen as one of the most rebellious MPs in Parliament. Although my parents do not support Tony Blair, they definitely support Dr Lynne Jones. Thus, were they wrong to elect her because they'd notionally be helping Tony Blair into office again? This sort of situation can't be that uncommon.

2. It is important to remember that the British electoral system is one of the least democratic in Europe anyway:

Of course, the Liberal Democrats support changing the system to one of proportional representation, because they'd have significantly more influence if it was. Why haven't the current Labour government changed the system? Because it clearly wouldn't work in their favour.

3. Only 61.3% of people actually voted at all the General Election last year. I'm sure you will agree that this can largely be attributed to the fact that the leading politicians have alienated large sections of society, as you have already mentioned. Taking both this and what was mentioned in No.2 into account, I conclude that only 21.6% of British citizens actually voted for Labour. And then taking into account what was mentioned in No.1 about people supporting their Labour MP without intentionally supporting Tony Blair, and also taking into account what I'm going to say in No.5 about how a sizeable number of Labour voters are actually Liberal Democrats in reality, the figure for people who actually wished to elect Tony Blair would be even lower. 10% maybe, I don't know. Do a significant proportion of the 38.7% of British citizens who didn't vote support Tony Blair? I entirely doubt it.

4. The result of last year's General Election cannot be taken as evidence for widespread public support of the war in Iraq. Actually, it wasn't really possible for it to be a large election issue. Why? Because Tony Blair relied heavily on support from Conservative MPs in order to do what he did; I understand that a majority of Labour MPs actually opposed the war. However, if people had been electing Tony Blair himself (à la française ou à l'état-unienne), things may have been different last year.

5. Various opinion polls and studies have suggested that if everyone were to vote for their favourite party, or for the party of the leader who has impressed them the most (I remember that one distinctly from 2001), the Liberal Democrats would have a very good change of winning. Unfortunately, since people have got the idea that the Liberal Democrats 'won't win' stuck in their heads, insufficient numbers of people vote for them, so they don't win. And as mentioned in No.2, their representation at Westminster greatly undermines the votes they get due to the archaic 'first past the post' system. Personally, my favourite party are the Greens. Will I vote for them? Probably not. It's quite likely that I'll move to Scotland next year — I may consider voting for the Scottish National Party there.

6. A great many people take a fairly superficial interest in politics and vote based upon just a few issues. A lot of people might choose to vote for the party which promises to sort the chronic problems with the hospitals and the NHS out. Or for the party who wants to reduce immigration. Or maybe even for the party who promises to give them the best pension deal. Things which seem important to them personally, and things which they can understand (most people don't understand complex economic programmes, for example). Essentially, I see it as a grave error to assume that because someone votes for a particular candidate or party, they necessarily agree with many (or are even aware of) of their views.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Benjamin wrote:
greg wrote:
Well, to the extent the British elected Blair *twice*, I think ite missa est sums it up exactly.

You actually believe that democracy is a reality? :shock: C'est toi qui est un idéaliste, je crois.

You're right : I'm still idealising. Can't get cured...


Benjamin wrote:
What do you suggest that those British citizens who didn't support Tony Blair do when everything completely collapses in this shithole (implicitly your words, not mine), as you're expecting? Emigrate to New Zealand?

No. Just fight a little bit harder. Look at France : they had the government step back with the CPE (PS : I was not against the CPE, but I admit its opponents succeeded in kicking the PM's ass effectively).


Benjamin wrote:
They elected individual MPs. The leader of the party with the most MPs elected becomes the Prime Minister.

That's precisely what I don't like at all with Anglo-Saxon politics : there's no *DIRECT* ballot. In France we do elect our president : we just have ourselves to blame for any instatisfaction of any sort (which is by the way garanteed of course).


Benjamin wrote:
It is important to remember that the British electoral system is one of the least democratic in Europe anyway.

I know. Here the system is formally democratic but the brainwashing is quite powerful and the crooks rather astute, well-organised, talented and tenacious : on avale des couleuvres en permanence (sang contaminé, Outreau, nucléaire etc)...


Benjamin wrote:
A great many people take a fairly superficial interest in politics and vote based upon just a few issues.

Same here, I'm afraid.
Loic

Greg: I don't think I am unduly romanticising Tony Blair but I'd readily admit to seeing past events in a very sentimental light.

With regards to the Iraqi Invasion, you must remember of the existence of the rumoured 'smoking guns' and how plausible accounts of hidden weapons were at that juncture. Sadaam Hussein's intransigent as well as unreformed ways were his downfall: he did not co-operate with the weapons inspectors fully and led many to speculate with good reason that here was a man with something to hide.

On hindsight, we've all been taken for a ride, Messrs Bush and Blair included. If anybody was guilty, I'd blame the various spooks on the ground for failing to gather intelligence properly.

I'd like to meander here into the mechanics of the Westminister system of parliamentary democracy. Let's just say that this political system favours the incumbent and gives the ruling government a headstart in any election. It is technically possible for the opposition to gather 49% of the total number of votes cast and yet not end up with a single seat in parliament because all of their candidates have only scooped up 49% of the total share of ballots in their respective wards or districts.

Firstly, I'd like to warn Benjamin not to be seduced by the persuasive language that supporters of proportional democracy always come out with. It is a recipe for political instability and makes governing a country a mightily tricky assignment. The first-past-the-post system is just a natural extension of many things in life where people remember the champions and nobody gives a damn about the first runner-up.

A question to the English electorate: How do they feel about having another Prime Minister from Scotland? Is it fair that Scots get to vote on issues that pertain to England whereas the English are denied the right to decide on issues of Scottish importance?

A last question that is altogether unrelated to the thread.

Quote:
C'est toi qui est un idéaliste, je crois


Isn't it C'est toi qui es un idéaliste? In the same token, wouldn't it also be C’est vous qui êtes un idéaliste?
Benjamin [inactive]

Quote:
A question to the English electorate: How do they feel about having another Prime Minister from Scotland?

I personally don't care where the Prime Minister is from. It is slightly strange though that two of the most likely candidates to replace Tony Blair (Gordon Brown and John Reid) are from Scotland, and that Tony Blair was originally from there and spent most of his childhood there, not to mention that the current and previous leaders of the Liberal Democrats are both Scottish as well. Especially considering that Scotland is quite a self-contained place, is definitely 'another country' and clearly has an identity of its own, it's seems surprising that so many of the most influential people at Westminster, which is very much centred on England, are Scottish.

And if I go to university in St Andrews next year, Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, will be my MP! :)

Quote:
Is it fair that Scots get to vote on issues that pertain to England whereas the English are denied the right to decide on issues of Scottish importance?

No. And the Scottish National Party would definitely agree with me there.

Quote:
Isn't it C'est toi qui es un idéaliste? In the same token, wouldn't it also be C’est vous qui êtes un idéaliste?

It might be. I probably wrote that because this is how I'd say it in English:
It's you who is an idealist
Loic

From what I read about Scotland in articles, I must say that they sound like a rather disagreeable lot when it comes to fostering warm relationships with their English neighbours. The Economist concluded that Scotland suffers from mild anglophobic behaviour that is, the newspaper hastened to qualify, more jocular than serious.

From the perspective of an outsider, the Scots are concerned with magnifying and exaggerating minute cultural differences that exist between the two home countries. Among the Chinese, I'd go on to say that different dialect groups actually enjoy more heterogenity than the Scots and the English as there are visible differences not only in the spoken speech but cuisine, religion, etc. At least the Scots overwhelmingly speak English, don't they? And it's useless for them to say that they also speak Scots or Gaelic: they still all retain the capability to speak the Queen's English albeit with a different accent.

Quote:
It might be. I probably wrote that because this is how I'd say it in English:
It's you who is an idealist


I know. It sounds more logical. I hope someone -Greg or Patriccke- can clarify this. I once wrote in a speech bubble "C'est moi qui suis con, pas toi" and I wasn't penalised for it. Hence the source of my confusion now.
KSa

loic wrote:

I know. It sounds more logical. I hope someone -Greg or Patriccke- can clarify this. I once wrote in a speech bubble "C'est moi qui suis con, pas toi" and I wasn't penalised for it. Hence the source of my confusion now.

In one of my French books I've found a sentence: "C'est toi qui es bête !" And this is how I would have written this sentence.
Mais c'est Greg qui décide...
André in Zuid-Afrika

So will Gordon Brown take over from Blair? I'm watching an interview with him (Brown) on Sky right now, which seems to portray him in a very sympathetic light. He's always seemed rather cold to me, but he's coming across much warmer on this interview. He doesn't seem to have popular support, although he does seem to be extremely efficient.
greg in noord-frankrijk

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
So will Gordon Brown take over from Blair? I'm watching an interview with him (Brown) on Sky right now, which seems to portray him in a very sympathetic light. He's always seemed rather cold to me, but he's coming across much warmer on this interview. He doesn't seem to have popular support, although he does seem to be extremely efficient.


I'm sure France would love to have Brown as next UK's PM. All too manageable.
Benjamin [inactive]

Gordon Brown... what was it a BBC news reporter said the other day? 'He wants to be the leader of the Labour Party, he wants to be the prime minister, he thinks he should be the prime minister...'

I don't really know much about Brown, other than that it's been assumed for a long time that he'd eventually take over from Blair. However, he has been criticised over the past few weeks for not calling Labour to order, which he could easily have done, but presumably chose not to in order to weaken Blair's position even further.

I know who'd be perfect to take over from Tony Blair...

John Prescott, the current Deputy Prime Minister. *joking*
Loic

Yeah, why not Prescott? He shagged his secretary, didn't he? I am sure that is a clear demonstration of virility for an old git like himself.

On a more serious note, I heard on the news awhile back that the heir apparent aka Gordon Brown 'positively welcomes' an open succession. So John Prescott can throw his hat into the ring provided he can muster adequate support from the rank and file of the Labour party. I've heard of Alan Johnson's name being mentioned but frankly, I fail to see why there must be another Scot in Number 10 in post-devolution Great Britain.

I like Gordon Brown - he makes for a great case study for psychologists. He always looks so morose in parliament: dark and brooding and god knows what subtle schemes and plots his brain is weaving. He reminds me of Hamlet in a way except that of course, there is no evil Uncle Claudius hovering in the background.

But one thing is sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very complex character that defies a straightforward psychoanalysis.

And of course, he is obviously less charismatic than Tony Blair. That can only be good for David Cameron.
Loic

I would like to add that there is nothing more detestable in life than swing voters. Voting for a political party is like supporting a football club - you are born to support it and you owe allegiance to it throughout your life. It does not matter if the party's fortunes have hit a new high or ebb, one should stick with it through thick and thin.

Just thought I explain why I am such a passionate supporter of moderate right-wing causes.
Benjamin [inactive]

Don't worry, John Prescott has apparently decided that he won't contest, as has David Miliband. And rather amusingly, a grew of British journalists followed Prescott all the way to New York just so they could ask him 'when does Tony Blair plan to step down?' a few months ago.

The only person thus far who has formally declared that they will contest for the leadership post is John McDonnell, who is very much an 'Old Labour' figure. As you said, Alan Johnson and also John Reid are probably the main alternatives to Gordon Brown at this stage. John Hutton, Hazel Blears, Alan Milburn and Jack Straw have also been suggested.

It is assumed that John Prescott will resign as Deputy Prime Minister at the same time as Blair. Peter Hain has already declared his intention to stand for this position. Harriet Harman, who described Gordon Brown as 'the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' a few months ago, is also apparently a popular candidate.
Loic

Fascinating insight, Benjamin. I have been given to understand however, that the relatively youthful junior environment secretary David Miliband is not too keen on staging a bid for the top job. Can't say I know much about British junior ministers as I've only heard of him recently.

In all likelihood, I think the party faithful would rally around Gordon Brown as he is the annointed successor for quite awhile already and it is hard to change mindsets. It is interesting to see how Brown as Prime Minister would try to use his leadership to influence his party into continuing with centrist Blairite policies.

But we are living in exciting times, aren't we? 10 years of Labour and the memories of the last Conservative government are fast fading. I wonder what the old stalwart of the Tories Winston Churchill would have made of the current situation.
Benjamin [inactive]

Based on his comments last week which emphatically supported Gordon Brown, it would appear that David Miliband no longer plans to contend:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6063124,00.html
André in Zuid-Afrika

There was a report in the newspaper yesterday that Peter Hain wants to become deputy leader of the Labour Party. Would be interesting for us, since he's South African (or at least used to be).
Loic

I should make the way down to the Sutect Convention Centre to quiz Gordon Brown on his political plans then. Just realised that he is already in Singapore for a couple of days for the IMF meeting.

Now, the only barrier for me would be to get past the obscene amount of security....
greg in noord-frankrijk

What do you consummate observers of la vie politique outremanchaise think about Cameron ?

—> at least he looks funny :cry:
Benjamin [inactive]

I think he's Tony Blair with a face transplant.
Loic

If he becomes PM, that'd be another addition of a long illustrious list of alumni that Eton can boast of.

Also, I heard that his wife is the daughter of a baronet.

When was the last time any Prime Minister had such a 'posh' background?

At any rate, it's certainly a far cry from Alan Johnson's deprived childhood.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Is he Alan Johnson ?
Benjamin [inactive]

I think so...


Gordon Brown:


God on High...


As for the deputy prime minister, it would appear that both Peter Hain and Harriet Harman have now declared their intention to stand.

Peter Hain (seems to have the same mouth as André, perhaps because he's originally from South Africa):


Harriet Harman:
André in Zuid-Afrika

Benjamin wrote:
Peter Hain (seems to have the same mouth as André, perhaps because he's originally from South Africa)


Eh? :shock: Well, there seems to be some resemblance 8) , and of course he's a very distinguished looking man.... :wink:
Loic

I wonder if anyone watches "Little Britain" here. But their portrayal of bitchy Sebastian and his relationship with the Prime Minister has certainly influenced me into thinking if Tony Blair has such an aide at Number Ten!

In last night's episode, Sebastian was crooning James Blunt's "Beautiful" to a bewildered PM at the House of Commons. It was absobloodylutely hilarious.
Benjamin [inactive]

My geography teacher let us watch Tony Blair's speech at the Labour Party Conference last week. It was actually very good (and quite funny in places), even though it was essentially a farewell speech with an 'I haven't been as bad as you all think' tone. He kept emphasising how much he loves the Labour Party — his criticism of the Conservatives received the most applause, naturally.

Then I saw some of David Cameron's speech at the Conservative Party Conference this week. The conference introduced no new policies, but Cameron spoke a lot about protecting the environment and keeping the NHS (i.e. not privatising it), and even spoke out in favour of gay unions. Of which party is he the leader again?
greg in noord-frankrijk

Benjamin wrote:
(...) Cameron spoke a lot about protecting the environment (...)


The Economist depicts Cameron as a serial tree-hugger.



That alone says much about the vacuity of the political platform of the UK conservatives... Their accession to power would be a blessing for France. :twisted:
Benjamin [inactive]

Cameron apparently describes himself as a 'modern compassionate conservative' and said that he was 'fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster'. In spite of this, he called Gordon Brown 'an analogue politician in a digital age', he said that John Prescott 'clearly looks a fool', and has described the eurosceptic UK Independence Party as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly'.

Under Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party have changed their logo from this:


...to this:

(The new logo reminds me of that of the supermarket chain Somerfield).

I'm not quite sure what to think of Cameron and his touchy-feely style. Have protecting the environment and safeguarding the NHS really become the Conservatives' highest priorities, or is this a façade aimed at winning voters?
greg in noord-frankrijk

Benjamin wrote:
Cameron apparently describes himself as a 'modern compassionate conservative' (...)


So he likes to view himself as a modern Bush ? What is Cameron's position about Iraq ?
Benjamin [inactive]

greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
So he likes to view himself as a modern Bush ?

Literally as well, as their new logo would suggest.

Quote:
What is Cameron's position about Iraq ?

According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Cameron voted 'moderately for' the war in Iraq (as opposed to 'quite strongly for' or 'very strongly for'). It is important to realise though that this is based on how he voted in 2003, in rather different circumstances and when he wasn't leader of the party. There is no use in speculating what he might actually have done had he been the prime minister at that time.

In a speech last year shortly before the leadership election, he described the need to establish a representative government in Iraq as a 'cause worth fighting for', and said that giving up now would be disastrous. However, some have suggested that these comments were mainly intended to attract the further right-wing members of the Conservative Party during the leadership election. His position on Iraq does not seem to be particularly emphasised in general.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Life's not easy for Tony at the moment...

Quote:
Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
12.10.06
The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard also warns that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."

The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse.

His views will send shockwaves through Government.

They are a total repudiation of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly insisted that British presence in Iraq is morally right and has had no effect on our domestic security.

Sir Richard, who took up his post earlier this year, warned that "our presence in Iraq exacerbates" the "difficulties we are facing around the world."

He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

In one of the most outspoken interviews ever given by a serving soldier, Sir Richard also reveals:

* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."

* He understands why Prince William and Prince Harry want to serve on the frontline but has not yet decided whether they will be allowed to fight in Afghanistan.

But it is Sir Richard's views of the situation in Iraq that will enrage Downing Street.

He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."

As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.

"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

In comments that set him at loggerheads with Mr Blair, Gen Dannatt warns that the good intentions of 2003 have long since evaporated - pitching British troops into a lethal battle that few at home can understand.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.

Sir Richard warned that the consequences will be felt at home, where failure to support Christian values is allowing a predatory Islamist vision to take hold.

He said: "When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."

"Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind."

"There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in."

"We can't wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life."

"We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it."

"It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army."

General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.

"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don't want the nation to let the army down."

"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying take your uniform off'. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment - a soldier manning a machine gun in Basra loses consciousness when he is hit by a missile and next recovers consciousness in a hospital in the UK."

"He wants to wake up to familiar sights and sounds, he wants to see people in uniform. He doesn't want to be in a civilian environment."

He added: "I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."

"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."

"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."

"General Dannatt is completely right to say that it's a scandal ro have injured servicemen on mixed wards with civilians."

Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy."

The party's defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "This drives a coach and horses through the government's foreign policy."

André in Zuid-Afrika

The end of an era...

Quote:
TRIMDON, England May 10, 2007 (AP)
Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that he will step down as prime minister on June 27, after a decade in office in which he brokered peace in Northern Ireland and followed the United States to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Blair, 54, will leave office as soon as a new leader is elected for the Labour Party.

"'I've been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years," he told supporters in his in his Parliamentary constituency.

"In this job, in the world of today, I think that's long enough for me but more especially for the country. Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down."

Treasury chief Gordon Brown, Blair's partner in reforming the Labour Party and a sometimes impatient rival in government, was expected to easily win election a the party's new leader and become the next prime minister.

Blair's announcement is one that his Labour Party, and the nation, have been expecting for nearly three years, ever since the prime minister said in 2004 that his third term would be his last.

"Today, the beginning of the end," read the front page of The Guardian newspaper.

Blair met earlier with Cabinet members, who left No. 10 Downing Street without answering questions shouted by reporters swarming outside.

Brown has already declared he will be a candidate; at least one opponent from the party's left wing was expected to announce his candidacy Thursday afternoon.

John Burton, Blair's political representative in the northern parliamentary district of Sedgefield, said earlier that Blair would continue to represent Sedgefield in Parliament until the next national election, expected in 2009, unless he is offered "a major international or United Nations job."

The Iraq war, a police investigation of allegations that the government traded honors for political contributions and endless questions about when Blair would step down overshadowed his last term in government, after winning the third term in May 2005.

Blair has stopped short of openly endorsing Brown, a stern Scot who has long coveted the top job, but said last week that Brown would make "a great prime minister."


Benjamin [inactive]

In his speech today, Tony Blair described Britain as 'the greatest nation on earth'. I am appalled by that assertion, as was Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described his speech as 'defensive, defiant, and even chauvinist'.

It seems almost certain that the next British Prime Minister will be Gordon Brown:

Which is rather ironic, really, considering the current situation with the Scottish Parliament. Actually, he has apparently said that he will 'refuse' to even speak to the First Minister of Scotland if it is Alex Salmond, the SNP leader — which would be an outrageous policy, in my view.

Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats have tabled a parliamentary motion to dissolve parliament and call a general election.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Benjamin wrote:
In his speech today, Tony Blair described Britain as 'the greatest nation on earth'. I am appalled by that assertion, as was Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described his speech as 'defensive, defiant, and even chauvinist'.



Yes, I disliked it too. It's wrong to describe any nation like that.
Loic

What would Tony Blair's legacy be?

He made Labour electable. If Andre were to recall the years when Labour was in the political wilderness, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed to have a vice-like grip on the corridors of Westminister and Whitehall. They were the natural party of government.

The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Blair is after all a politician at heart and a very savvy one at that. He realised that Labour had to steal some of the Tories' clothes in order to appeal to the electorate. In the 1997 landslide victory, the south and the southeast ditched the Tories for Labour. The Labour emerged from a party with strong working class credentials into one with a more middle-class air of respectability. If I were British, I might even had voted for the New Labour.

Nobody today would seriously contemplate the privatisation of industries that were nationalised in the wake of the war. The beauty of the Blairite government is how he had managed to retain the good bits of the Thatcherite reforms whilst infusing his government's economic agenda with a healthy dosage of social concern. By giving the Bank of England fiscal independence, interest rates move in tandem with market forces and are not cynically manipulated by the government for political exigencies.

From 1945 to 1997, average economic growth per annum was 2.7 %. From 1997 to 2007, growth rates averaged 2.8%.

But I would argue that a lot of the credit for Britain (or as Benjamin would cynically point out, southeast England)'s economic boom was largely laid down by his Tory predecessors. Besides, financial stewardship of Britain is known to be largely beyond the remit of the Prime Minister as Gordon Brown is known to jealously guard his ministry's independence.

Looking back at Blair, I would like to add in my perspective as a starry-eyed non British. I was 13 when John Major was booted out from Downing Street. One of his first foreign trips to Asia was taken in the final few months of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony and I remembered he dropping by in a kindergarten and ostensibly reading a storybook to the children.

He later dropped by in Singapore to visit, of all places, a local supermarket with a Trade and Industry Minister who had also studied in Edinburgh.

He made a speech and I thought he was a very eloquent chap when he elucidated about his plans for an 'Opportunity Society'. Boy did we have a field day trying to speak with those same plummy vowels by pronouncing 'Opportunity' in the same exact way he did.

It is a little sad that he has since been demonised by both the left as well as the right. He is obviously a very intelligent man and a very accomplished orator. One thing I enjoyed watching in the news highlights is the Prime Minister's Questions. He can be cutting at times towards the leader of the Opposition. He has all the qualities I admire in a man save for perhaps his slightly Fabian convictions.

Labour has lost its way by unceremoniously nudging Blair out of office. Remember what happened when the Tories rebelled against Margaret Thatcher. The party was plunged into a civil war of which they had only just begun to recover, albeit barely.

I just wish Gordon Brown would call for snap elections - he needs it anyway if he does not want to be accused of lacking a strong popular mandate. However, the likely scenario would be that the Labour Party would be returned to their natural political habitat - the Opposition benches.

And hopefully remain there till kingdom come.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
What would Tony Blair's legacy be?

Unfortunately, I imagine he will be remembered mostly for the war in Iraq. Ironically, if he hadn't supported and participated in the Iraq war, then he'd probably be remembered as the first British prime minister who didn't follow the United States.

loic wrote:
He made Labour electable.

I find it unfortunate that Labour have made themselves more right-wing in attempt to make themselves more 'electable'. But I'm the sort of person who votes for the Green Party, knowing full well that they're not going to win. Of course, the Green Party could make themselves more 'electable' by adopting more business-friendly policies and by not proposing such high taxes, but they won't because then they'd be compromising their principles.

loic wrote:
Looking back at Blair, I would like to add in my perspective as a starry-eyed non British. I was 13 when John Major was booted out from Downing Street. One of his first foreign trips to Asia was taken in the final few months of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony and I remembered he dropping by in a kindergarten and ostensibly reading a storybook to the children.

He's always pulling off stunts like that. Some of my friends met him a few years ago at some conference where they presented the model formula 1 racing cars that they'd made, powered by carbon dioxide and produced by computer-aided design. I wasn't there, but I'd actually had some involvement with it, because I'd produced the logo for them (since I'm an 'arty' sort of person who knew how to use Jasc Paint Shop Pro).

He also randomly turned up at my previous school one day a few years ago as well, apparently without any prior warning.

And incidentally, one of my friends had lunch with David Cameron last week because apparently he wanted to meet an 'ethnic minority' family. Again, it's a publicity stunt.

loic wrote:
It is a little sad that he has since been demonised by both the left as well as the right.

Iraq. If that hadn't happened, then he would probably have been seen as a tolerable sort of prime minister by most people.

loic wrote:
However, the likely scenario would be that the Labour Party would be returned to their natural political habitat - the Opposition benches.

Do you believe that the Conservative Party have a kind of natural right to be in government at Westminster?

loic wrote:
And hopefully remain there till kingdom come.

I'm sure that the SNP would absolutely love that, even though they wouldn't admit it.
Loic

Benjamin, I honestly believe that the Conservatives are the natural party of Government. It is like supporting a football club - you just don't ask why. You are born with inherent allegiances that are nurtured and strengthened as you grow older. God forbid if I support a rival football club one day, just as God forbid I wake up one day and decide that I am actually a loony left at heart.

On this note, GO ARSENAL!!!!
Loic

Sometimes, I wonder if Tony Blair would still have supported the Iraq war if he had the benefit of hindsight.

But the Prime Minister is now resigned to the weary realisation that he is now damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He gives me the impression of being perfectly content to sit back and allow history to redeem himself. Who knows, Iraq might emerge as a prosperous and peaceful society in 50 years and historians of future generations would likely take a kindlier view towards his legacy.

When the Romans pushed their original frontier into the heart of Europe in the days of yore, they must have disrupted the schedule of their new inhabitants as well. Some lives were probably taken in the process of establishing Pax Romana. But history has generally taken a benign view towards the benefit of Roman conquest and nobody today would argue against it.

This would be the same for Iraq. In a hundred years' time, people'd look upon this invasion in a different light. Tony Blair would be vindicated. His political decision would be rehabilated.

One thing though is this niggling suspicion that he lied. Actually, I think it is doubtful. He is the sort of bloke who gives me the impression of being genuinely convinced of the existence of WMDs in Saddamist Iraq. It is hence debatable as to whether Tony Blair cynically manipulated the Government into participating in a war under false pretense.

He probably waded into troubled waters with an unhealthy dosage of over-optimism. Just a year before, British troops zipped into Sierra Leone to restore a measure of order and stability. British intervention in Sierra Leone was a moderate success. Tony Blair probably transferred his Sierra Leone outlook onto Iraq and erroneously presumed that the mission would be just as straightforward.

As to he modernising Labour, this is what savvy politicians have to do. He and Gordon Brown understood that they had to reposition Labour as a moderate centre-left party whose roots still hark back to socialism. One of the key feature of Old Labour's manifesto was its commitment to renationalise all the key industries that were privatised in earlier eras.

Today, nobody would realistically argue for the renationalisation of industries such as say, telecommunications. Not unless you as a consumer are perfectly happy to pay higher rates for your mobile subscription rates and receive an inferior service in return.

What is intrinsically wrong about understanding the needs and wants of the electorate and responding to their wishes? A political party exists because it serves its people and not the ideas of its founder.

Of course, nobody can please everybody so Labour took the sensible decision of mix-matching a set of policies that was designed to please the lowest common denominator of the public. It was a formula that projected them to Government where they remain till today.

As for the Greens, I simply cannot understand the raison d'etre of such a party. Apart from the environment, are they remotely competent in anything else?

I am very sympathetic to the Greens, you know. I used to watch Captain Planet when I was younger.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
Benjamin, I honestly believe that the Conservatives are the natural party of Government. It is like supporting a football club - you just don't ask why. You are born with inherent allegiances that are nurtured and strengthened as you grow older. God forbid if I support a rival football club one day, just as God forbid I wake up one day and decide that I am actually a loony left at heart.

On this note, GO ARSENAL!!!!

I find this view rather difficult to understand, I'm afraid, perhaps because I have never supported any kind of sports club or team. And although I was brought up to be generally sympathetic to a certain political party, which is the party supported by virtually the whole of my mother's family, I could not describe them as 'the natural party of government', since they have not been in power at Westminister since 1918. And I must say, if this was the main party which I supported, which it isn't, then I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit it.

loic wrote:
What is intrinsically wrong about understanding the needs and wants of the electorate and responding to their wishes? A political party exists because it serves its people and not the ideas of its founder.

I think I'd rather say that a political party exists because it promotes the beliefs of its members. Otherwise, parties might as well conduct mass opinion polls and base their policies on that, which would make all the parties the same. For example, the Scottish National Party exists to promote Scottish independence, whereas the Scottish Unionist Party exists to promote entirely the opposite, regardless of which view is more popular amongst the electorate. But maybe that sort of thing makes less sense in a de facto one-party state like Singapore.

loic wrote:
As for the Greens, I simply cannot understand the raison d'etre of such a party. Apart from the environment, are they remotely competent in anything else?

It's a bit of a myth that the Greens — or at least the Greens that I'm most familiar with, which would be the Green Party of England and Wales, and the Scottish Green Party — are concerned only with the environment. Their ideology is known as green politics, and goes back to the German Green Party in the late 1970s. The main principals of this ideology include sustainable development, social justice, participatory democracy, nonviolence, respect for diversity, and decentralisation. It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.

loic wrote:
I am very sympathetic to the Greens, you know.

I can't imagine why, since they represent political views which directly contradict most of the political views that you have expressed on this forum — the most obvious of which would be your support for neo-liberal economic policies. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have also expressed support for nuclear power.
Loic

Benjamin:

You remind me of George Orwell who could not in the world understand the relevance of club loyalties. Like him, you would probably only gaze dispassionately at an Arsenal-Tottenham derby or a Man Utd-Liverpool clash. Heck, you are probably nonplussed that Birmingham FC has been promoted to the Premier League next season!

You'd also agree with Rudyard Kipling when he called cricket a sport played by flannelled fools.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing. As I pointed out, you are in good company.

So it is impossible for you to understand why people support a political party. I don't know why - I just get a little depressed whenever a centre-right party receives a drubbing in the polls. Of course, not all centre-right parties get onto my radar. I am vaguely familiar with the tradition, history as well as the policies of the Conservative Party of the UK, the Liberals of Australia and the GOP. I project my footballing allegiances to these parties when we talk about politics.

Quote:
I think I'd rather say that a political party exists because it promotes the beliefs of its members. Otherwise, parties might as well conduct mass opinion polls and base their policies on that, which would make all the parties the same. For example, the Scottish National Party exists to promote Scottish independence, whereas the Scottish Unionist Party exists to promote entirely the opposite, regardless of which view is more popular amongst the electorate. But maybe that sort of thing makes less sense in a de facto one-party state like Singapore.


The Greens are just focusing on a niche market and they are happy with that. On the other hand, parties such as Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have more grandiose ambitions and it is imperative that they continuously reposition themselves in order to appeal to the market.

Besides, the Greens continue to exist because there are still people who support them. Imagine a scenario where the Greens become thoroughly discredited and not a single sod votes for them in the elections. They'd have to fold up irrespective of the intensity of their beliefs.

Quote:
It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.


Then the Greens had better not use any forms of modern technology such as the railway (a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution), the mobile phone (courtesy of the telecommunications Revolution) or the Internet (courtesy of the Information Revolution). For all of these products are tangible manifestations of economic growth and it'd be sheer hypocrisy for anybody who is avowedly against economic growth on one hand to consume these products on the other.

Quote:
I can't imagine why, since they represent political views which directly contradict most of the political views that you have expressed on this forum — the most obvious of which would be your support for neo-liberal economic policies. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have also expressed support for nuclear power.


Sympathy for their position does not automatically translate into unwavering support. I believe that environmentalism and businesses are natural bedfellows. Many companies have awaken to the shuddering realisation that sustainable development is also the most economically viable business model in the long run. They are responding to our worries when they adopt industrial practices that are more eco-friendly. From my point of view, I see this phenomenon as a happy marriage of economics and environment.

I don't see why they are mutually exlusive.

Personally, I am an environmentalist. I try to recycle glass and plastic as much as possible. I am against the distribution of plastic bags as a means of carrying our purchases at supermarkets. I am excited about researches done to replace petrol with an ethanol-based fuel that would power our motorcars.

I am just against any form of enviromental protection that is irrational and not consistent with the principles of market economics.

By the way, as you might already have guessed, I consider myself to be a partisan of neo-classical economics. Of course, I am not so old-fashioned as to subscribe wholly to the wisdom of Adam Smith or David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman. A bit of common sense must be applied in analysing every situation.

Karl Marx, by the way, is definitely beyond the remit of contemplation.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
Heck, you are probably nonplussed that Birmingham FC has been promoted to the Premier League next season!

I didn't even know that they had. And to be honest, I don't even know what the Premier League is.

loic wrote:
So it is impossible for you to understand why people support a political party.

Well, I understand why I support the Green Party — I have read their policies in comparison with those of other parties, and I find that I agree with them the most. However, if they were to change their policies such that I no-longer agreed with them, then I'd probably switch allegiance to the Green Socialist Alliance, or one of the others.

I tend to see my political views as being on a similar line to my religious views — it's the beliefs that count, not the organisation. If I realised that most Unitarians no-longer had a similar socioreligious ethos to me, then I would withdraw my membership from the Unitarian general assembly, stop attending Unitarian congregations, and start looking for another denomination.

loic wrote:
The Greens are just focusing on a niche market and they are happy with that. On the other hand, parties such as Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have more grandiose ambitions and it is imperative that they continuously reposition themselves in order to appeal to the market.

I wouldn't say that the Green Party are 'happy' that they are not in a position to implement their policies; it's more that their beliefs are more to them important than winning any power.

loic wrote:
Quote:
It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.


Then the Greens had better not use any forms of modern technology such as the railway (a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution), the mobile phone (courtesy of the telecommunications Revolution) or the Internet (courtesy of the Information Revolution). For all of these products are tangible manifestations of economic growth and it'd be sheer hypocrisy for anybody who is avowedly against economic growth on one hand to consume these products on the other.

The Green Party have often been accused of being against 'economic growth', partly I think because much of their criticism of the European Union centres around that organisation's focus on creating it. However, I don't believe that Green Party really are 'avowedly against economic growth', as you put it. Looking at their policy, it's more that they don't believe that 'economic growth' is inherently valuable — especially if it is to the detriment of quality of life, human rights, diversity, and the environment. Essentially, the Greens are strongly linked to the anti-globalisation movement.

loic wrote:
Sympathy for their position does not automatically translate into unwavering support. I believe that environmentalism and businesses are natural bedfellows. Many companies have awaken to the shuddering realisation that sustainable development is also the most economically viable business model in the long run. They are responding to our worries when they adopt industrial practices that are more eco-friendly. From my point of view, I see this phenomenon as a happy marriage of economics and environment.

I don't see why they are mutually exlusive.

The Green Party would not see the most of more 'eco-friendly industrial practices' which have been adopted by many businesses as environmentalist enough to last in the long-term.

loic wrote:
Personally, I am an environmentalist. I try to recycle glass and plastic as much as possible. I am against the distribution of plastic bags as a means of carrying our purchases at supermarkets. I am excited about researches done to replace petrol with an ethanol-based fuel that would power our motorcars.

I am just against any form of enviromental protection that is irrational and not consistent with the principles of market economics.

So essentially, you're a light green, as opposed to a dark green. There has actually been significant tension within the German Green Party between these two factions in recent years. Arguably, part of the reason for why the German Green Party (Die Grünen) and GroenLinks (in the Netherlands) have been more successful than, say, the Green Party of England and Wales, or Les Verts (in France), is because they have adopted more light green policies, whereas their counterparts in Britain and France have remained largely dark green.
André in Zuid-Afrika

loic wrote:
What would Tony Blair's legacy be?

He made Labour electable. If Andre were to recall the years when Labour was in the political wilderness, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed to have a vice-like grip on the corridors of Westminister and Whitehall. They were the natural party of government.



That's true. Before 1997, it was basically Conservative government permanently, occasionaly interrupted by periods of Labour government. "Natural party of government" meaning of course that they were in power most of the time, seemed the party preferred by the majority, except for occasional flings with the Liberals, and in the 20th century, with Labour. This image has changed a bit in recent years. (Blair was the first Labour prime minister to be elected for a third term.)
Benjamin [inactive]

It's now official that Gordon Brown will become Prime Minister on 27th June. There will be no leadership contest, because the only other remaining contender, John McDonnell, was unable to get the necessary 45 nominations from Labour MPs. Gordon Brown had 308 nominations, whereas John McDonnell had only 29.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are now calling for a general election, since they believe that Gordon Brown would be an entirely unelected prime minister otherwise.
André in Zuid-Afrika

It's rather silly of the Tories and the Libdems calling for an election now. It won't be the first time a new prime minister takes over midterm. In the British system you vote for a party, after all, not for a prime ministerial candidate (although that does play a part). But that's politics, it would've been surprising if they didn't call for an election.
Loic

Why is Gordon Brown's jaw so prominent? Every time I see a picture of him, I instantly notice his famous jaw.

I was reading a biography of him and I learnt, to my pleasant surprise, that he was quite the intellectual back at school. Read history in university. Brilliant chap, isn't he? My esteem of him has certainly soared.

Benjamin, do you know what is his religion? Does he belong to the Church of England or Scotland?
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
Benjamin, do you know what is his religion? Does he belong to the Church of England or Scotland?

He belongs to the Church of Scotland, and his father was a Presbyterian minister. I don't know whether he's actually very religious or not though.

I was just reading a book called Faintheart — An Englishman Ventures North of the Border by Charles Jennings. At one point, whilst talking about Edinburgh, he wrote:

'Over time, I realised that all this was pure Edinburgh, inside and out. It was like being inside Gordon Brown: rigorous, solid, lumpily handsome, old-fashioned, forbidding, short of élan, humourless, stuffy, imposing, suffocating, defiant, prim. I decided that in fact the bad bits — the shortage of light, the vertigo, the unease, the strong reek of the past — were so glumly Edinburgh that they were good bits after all, and that everything was really as perfect as it was going to get.'
Loic

Well, it seems that Gordon Brown is a human personification of Edinburgh then!

I think it is very believable that he is the son of a Presyberian minister if my stereotypes of Presbyterians are anything to go by: Dour churchgoers who tithe with a vengeance.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
I think it is very believable that he is the son of a Presyberian minister if my stereotypes of Presbyterians are anything to go by: Dour churchgoers who tithe with a vengeance.

Ah yes — I have a sentimental attachment to that sort of thing. I think it sums up Scotland rather well — for some reason, I always have this image of women with short grey hair, 'frowning' glasses and tweed suits, solemnly drinking tea with shortbread and Dundee cake. Actually, I met a woman from Edinburgh at the Annual Meetings of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches earlier this year — she was originally from England, but had lived in Scotland for about 20 years, and seemed to have become exactly like that.
Loic

Quote:
Ah yes — I have a sentimental attachment to that sort of thing. I think it sums up Scotland rather well — for some reason, I always have this image of women with short grey hair, 'frowning' glasses and tweed suits, solemnly drinking tea with shortbread and Dundee cake.


That must be very Old Scotland. But why short grey hair? That sounds like the image of a cultivated but otherwise middle-class housewife anywhere in the world!

       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum