Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
80% Of Britons Want Blair To Ditch Bush  
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

It seems that Blair's tendancy to follow Mr Bush in the supposed fight on terror is unpopular with the British electorate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...xml=/news/2006/08/17/nterror17.xml

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

never mind that...... just ditch Blair! The man is no good for the country


That'll teach you
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39668 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 1):
never mind that...... just ditch Blair! The man is no good for the country

Good point!
Blair is a smart guy but has stuck his tounge up the wrong...well..I am sure you all get the point.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
It seems that Blair's tendancy to follow Mr Bush in the supposed fight on terror is unpopular with the British electorate.

Bound to be really. If the whole thing had gone swimmingly well, then Blair would have taken all the credit. As it hasn't, both Blair and Bush will get blamed, and since the US is the senior partner, there'll be a tendency to think it's all their fault.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

No surprise. Remember how in 1945, Winston Churchill, Britain's greatest political and national leader since, well, ever, was crapped out of office in a General election that effectively yanked him away from the table at the victor's conference at Potsdam. Shameful.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
No surprise. Remember how in 1945, Winston Churchill, Britain's greatest political and national leader since, well, ever, was crapped out of office in a General election that effectively yanked him away from the table at the victor's conference at Potsdam. Shameful.

There is no way in hell you can compare Blair and Churchill. You only cheapen Churchill if you do.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

I don't think Blair is on the same level as Churchill, but he has certainly been an excellent prime minister. Of all the post-war PMs, he probably comes in just behind Maggie Thatcher.

User currently offlineThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 1):
never mind that...... just ditch Blair! The man is no good for the country

Bollocks.

You'd rather have David Cameron would you?


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Must be like the 80% in the USA that still love Bon Jovi ! Blaaaaaa , Once again , people are never happy with whoever is in office. The UK economy is good , unemployment is low, UK companies are doing great around the world.

And most of all Prime Minister Blair supports us in the war against Islamic wackos. Sometimes even in a democracy a leader can not win the popularity contest all the time. All I can say is that the people should go vote and throw him out if they are displeased.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 8):
Must be like the 80% in the USA that still love Bon Jovi

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Now that is funny and ironic.

Polls are only as accurate as the pollsters want them to be anyway, and the questions determine the answers. Polls are now just manufactured news for these news outlets that cant sniff out the real deal.

An impartial poll with accurate results is about as common as good rock bands from France.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

No surprise

About 60% of Americans want to get rid of Bush too...

/M


User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 8):
Prime Minister Blair

Oh, we are honoured with the PM bit .... Bush was overheard the other week calling our PM just 'Blair', and to his face at that.

Yet, a couple of years back, when a reporter dared to call Bush 'Sir' instead of 'Mr President', Bush replied "who do you think you're talking to"?.

Time, me thinks, for Bush to remember he was elected as a public servant, to look after the country for his people, not to be sucked up to by them!

Back on thread, I agree, much as I'm not a fan of all EU policy, I do believe that US foreign policy is seriously flawed and it's time for us to get out of something we should've never been in in the first place.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 11):
Yet, a couple of years back, when a reporter dared to call Bush 'Sir' instead of 'Mr President', Bush replied "who do you think you're talking to"?.

Proof ? I have been watching President Bush for a long time and one thing I can say is he never comes off as arrogant. Sometimes he seems to loose and candid for most people. As a matter of fact , most reporters use "Sir" when adressing the President , I have never seen him react badly to it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178760,00.html

Personally I love watching Prime Minister Blair when he is battling in Parliament. He is a tough opponent , and you guys should be proud to have a fighter like him.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

It's ironic that Blair is likely more popular than Bush in the U.S.

Compared to Bush, he seems far more intelligent and capable and, at least from my distant vantage, a far more successful head of state.

Maybe the British people have higher standards/expectations of their leaders? Remember, over here in the U.S., if you express discontent with the president you're a naughty naughty liberal. . .  Wink


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

So bring back the Conservative Party to power!!


MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12):
Proof ?

Sorry, can't give you the exact times/dates etc but I watched it more than once on the TV here and it stuck in my mind as being absolute arrogance.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12):
you guys should be proud to have a fighter like him

Personally, I don't have a problem with the man, he's better than some of the others we've had and there's nobody waiting in the wings who promises to be any better. I just wish he/we would sort out some of our own problems here in the UK before spending '000'000'000's on a whim to be a member of the 'world police'  frown 


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

The word here is 'Iraq'.
That's the key, however it is the fact that to people in the UK, Bush seems almost like something from outer space.
Clinton, well they could relate, Bush 1, ditto, even Reagan, even though often a controversial figure, at least could speak in public it seemed.

As for 1945, it was far from shameful what happened in the election, people loved and revered Churchill as a war leader, but in that election he showed himself to be totally out of touch as a potential peacetime PM.
Calling the 1942 Beveridge report-the basis of Labour's 1945 Manifesto, something akin to the Gestapo just confirmed this view.
Remember that memories were fresh from how appalling things were for those returning home from WW1, the parties responsible and Churchill's part in it.

It was largely the votes of sevicemen, who had such a huge respect for Churchill in war, that did for him.
And Atlee was a strong leader in foreign policy too. As good as Churchill would probably have been had he won.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
at least could speak in public it seemed.

I know I am "A biased Bush Fan" so no matter what I say its taken with a wiffff. But I , for one American like the way President Bush speaks. I like the way he is down to earth and real sounding. It is basically what I like about Prime Minister Blair, even I can understand what they are trying to say. President Clinton was also a great speech giver, but to me he just seemed like he was selling me something.

History will be the judge of these two Men, and Like Prime Minister Churchill , Hopefully the legacy will be positive.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2040 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
No surprise. Remember how in 1945, Winston Churchill, Britain's greatest political and national leader since, well, ever, was crapped out of office in a General election that effectively yanked him away from the table at the victor's conference at Potsdam. Shameful.

I think you don't actually remember that Cfalk but I do. It was a surprise in some ways but definitely not a shock. GDB has it pretty right.

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
As for 1945, it was far from shameful what happened in the election, people loved and revered Churchill as a war leader, but in that election he showed himself to be totally out of touch as a potential peacetime PM.
Calling the 1942 Beveridge report-the basis of Labour's 1945 Manifesto, something akin to the Gestapo just confirmed this view.
Remember that memories were fresh from how appalling things were for those returning home from WW1, the parties responsible and Churchill's part in it.

It was largely the votes of sevicemen, who had such a huge respect for Churchill in war, that did for him.
And Atlee was a strong leader in foreign policy too. As good as Churchill would probably have been had he won.

A fascinating sideline to that is that Churchill hated Beveridge and basically put him onto that task just after the "darkest hour" had passed but at a time when modern governments would not be into long term planning. And the main reason Churchill gave him that task was to keep him from being involved in things that Winnie thought were important.

Quite correctly, by mid 1945, the UK electorate thought that Atlee offered a far better prospect than did Winnie. It has only been when the ideas of the economist Hayek (Hungarian migrated to the UK) were taken up and made popular by the likes of Friedman, that the basis for the state involvement has become less popular and easily sustained, although that degree of state involvement still has its adherents. You don't hear many complaints about the Singapore system, but that is another story!

It remains to be seen how long some of the revisions of the propositions in the Beveridge report are sustainable. If Blair read the Beveridge report more carefully, and thought more how parts of it are still great and CHEAP concepts, he too might be more popular, his afflictions with Bush notwithstanding.

Parenthetically, had Atlee still been there, I don't think Suez 1956 would have happened, and without Suez, we might have a very different world.

[Edited 2006-08-21 17:40:37]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Totally agree, but Attlee and the rest of his cabinet, had also been part of Churchill's 'National Government' from 1940 too.
Atlee was his effective deputy.
They would be eventually be worn out in government.

They inherited, in 1945, a bankrupt, damaged, worn out and run down nation.
What did for them was for the public's, and quite understanable too, desire for a far faster recovery.
In the late 1940's, rationing worsened in many respects.
(Fuelling a crime wave-something forgotten now).
But as civil productive capacity slowly returned (after being totally turned over for war work for 6 years), the priority was to export for greatly needed foreign currency.
Anyone in power would have done the same.

A very, very harsh 1947/48 winter made it worse.
Commitments worldwide kept conscription too.

Through all this, the Beveridge related manifesto commitments were honoured.
When Churchill and the Tories returned in 1951 (Labour got more votes but less seats), far from rolling back on this they kept it up and in some cases, expanded further.

I think they were a remarkable government.

AGM-100, I think many do understand that Bush's public persona is, or rather was, widely popular.
Just why is the thing.
To be fair, unlike Blair or any PM, he is not exposed to the long rough and tumble of Parliament, question time, very agressive interviews etc.
Partly due to being head of state as well.
Like the Queen,


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8045 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 2):
Blair is a smart guy but

I have to say, I'm starting to wonder. We see him next to Bush and he can sling a sentence together about as well as the average man in the street, but next to Bush that makes him look like a genius. In truth, isn't he a lawyer of pedestrian ability, uncurious about the world?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
No surprise. Remember how in 1945, Winston Churchill, Britain's greatest political and national leader since, well, ever, was crapped out of office in a General election that effectively yanked him away from the table at the victor's conference at Potsdam. Shameful.

Complete and utter nonsense. Where do people get ideas like this?

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
As for 1945, it was far from shameful what happened in the election; remember that memories were fresh from how appalling things were for those returning home from WW1, the parties responsible and Churchill's part in it.

Plus, the country was a bankrupt, burned-out shell. People had had enough. Still, Mr Price is right:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 5):
There is no way in hell you can compare Blair and Churchill. You only cheapen Churchill if you do.

So, back to Bliar (that nickname actually annoys me but it's a point that needs to made).

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 6):
Of all the post-war PMs, he probably comes in just behind Maggie Thatcher.

Right. Thatch wasn't so much dishonest and given to military action (although she sure had her moments), but an all-out sociopath who hated the needy and poor, and set out to punish them as hard as she could, bludgeoning the health service, housing, transport, you name it - handing her buddies in the financial community the nation's birthright on a platter while effectively destroying society (indeed, quoted as, "There is no such thing as society," which always reminded me Golda Meir's, "There is no such thing as the Palestinian people" - both gave their political life to making it so).

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 7):
You'd rather have David Cameron would you?

Please god, much as I hate the Tories, why can't they find a decent opponent? No I don't want Cameron, he and Tories are hideous losers. I'm thinking of joining, they're so short of talent, I could be shadow foreign minister within a week.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 8):
And most of all Prime Minister Blair supports us in the war against Islamic wackos.

I would argue that he is a leading cause of the existence of Islamic wackos in the first place. It's not as though he didn't have a starring role in the killing of 100,000 Iraqis, 1400 Lebanese, god only knows how many Afgans. No-one can pretend that Blair is an innocent and well-intentioned man, unrelated to the crisis he has embroiled his country in.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 8):
Sometimes even in a democracy a leader can not win the popularity contest all the time.

Oh man this pisses me off. Just before the attack on Iraq, when 90% of the Spanish people were dead against the attack, the Spanish president (can't remember his name) was praised by Blair and Bush as showing marvellous leadership by ignoring the fervent and near-unanimous wishes of the people who elected him. It isn't "bravery", Orwellian lunacy.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 9):
An impartial poll with accurate results is about as common as good rock bands from France.

Yeah, you say that because...

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 9):
About 60% of Americans want to get rid of Bush too...

Surely not!

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12):
Personally I love watching Prime Minister Blair when he is battling in Parliament. He is a tough opponent , and you guys should be proud to have a fighter like him.

He does about as well as any British politician. He isn't a genius, he's an average person who has the good fortune to do a lot of personal appearances with W.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
I , for one American like the way President Bush speaks. I like the way he is down to earth and real sounding.

Why do Americans want a leader who is like them? Look, most people are morons. They may be good company at a BBQ or working for a local radio station, but leading a country, especially as big and heavily armed as the US, is a serious job, and being as inarticulate, ill-educated and basically useless as the man in the street (The Onion's "Area Man") is not a qualification for that high office. What other country could appearing (or being) stupid makes him a better candidate?



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4488 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 20):
ill-educated and basically useless as the man in the street

Ooo, someone went to Harvard...



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 19):
What did for them was for the public's, and quite understanable too, desire for a far faster recovery.
In the late 1940's, rationing worsened in many respects.

Yes, but. The but being the conflict over the availability of hard currency. If you check back on the BBC news, you will find quite extraordinary amounts on the subject of the availability of US dollars.

It is difficult to believe that the US could not have made matters easier, possibly by making repayment of the Lend Lease less onerous. I seem to remember reading that the last of this had just been repaid. Considering the UKs contribution, the US could have been more magnanimous, but there was still a sort of competition between the US and the UK as to who was the dominant power, even if the answer was bleeding obvious.

So a wish to reconstuct the ruined cities was strong, but the shortage of cash for some types of imports was a problem And, for those still wondering about AvB battles, it where some of the UK chauvinism for Brit airplanes comes from, the UK simply could not afford to pay US dollars for US planes. And some old habits die hard, or at the very least linger on - a bit like heartburn after a hefty meal!

Quoting GDB (Reply 19):
A very, very harsh 1947/48 winter made it worse.
Commitments worldwide kept conscription too.

Yep, and that is when I learned to ice skate, will never forget that, the local pond was still skatable in late March.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19):
Through all this, the Beveridge related manifesto commitments were honoured.
When Churchill and the Tories returned in 1951 (Labour got more votes but less seats), far from rolling back on this they kept it up and in some cases, expanded further.

It is difficult to know how much Churchill was in command when he returned. It might have been that he saw the light on Beveridge reforms, or more likely Eden and MacM did. But there were some forms of rationing during this later period of Tory rule that had not occurred during the war.

It is not always recognised outside the UK how difficult matters were economically until well over a decade after the end of the war - and Suez did not help on little bit.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Speaking of international leaders, I think that President Bush has a great many more friends than is commonly thought on the left. Chancellor Merkel, for example, and Prime Minister Mulr--, er, I mean, Harper.

 Wink

Regarding the Chancellor, I think the way that the President and her get along was well-demonstrated by his lightheartedness during his recent visit to Germany, followed by that international conference where he gave her a friendly "how's it going" massage.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Only 1% Of French Want Chirac To Run For 3rd Term posted Tue Dec 13 2005 03:11:37 by MidnightMike
Britons Want To Be French posted Mon Oct 16 2006 16:41:57 by QB001
S.F. Board Of Supes Vote To Impeach Bush. posted Wed Mar 1 2006 19:53:52 by Bohica
Best Reason Of All To Vote Bush! posted Sun Sep 19 2004 08:14:02 by Airlinelover
New Trend: "freeping" Of Polls To Help Bush posted Mon Mar 8 2004 19:23:09 by Zak
The Guardian: Blair Must Check Bush's March To War posted Thu Jan 30 2003 05:29:21 by PHX-LJU
Majority Of Britons Want To Leave Country posted Mon Aug 26 2002 19:43:56 by Airways1
And The Winner Of Best Costume Goes To: posted Wed Nov 1 2006 13:55:05 by CV990A
Blair To Make Statement Any Minute Now... posted Thu Sep 7 2006 15:30:19 by Thom@s
Blair To Step Down Next Year? posted Tue May 9 2006 13:52:20 by Texan