Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US And UK Relationship If Blair Loses  
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

Do you think that if Blair has lost this election and Michael Howard (or less likely Charles Kennedy) gets into number 10 that the relationship between the UK and US will weaken or will it remain the same now.
I dont know what it is, but I can't imagine Bush and Howard getting on, as we all know Bush and Blair are good friends and Howard has been calling Blair some nasty things recently.
Your thoughts?


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Micheal Howard wont get in, hes Welsh AND Jewish!! Robert Mugabe would stand a better chance!


Equally Cursed and Blessed.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting Catatonic (Reply 1):
Micheal Howard wont get in, hes Welsh AND Jewish!!

Good job neither David Lloyd George or Benjamin Disraeli ever became Prime Minister, isn't it?  Wink

I wouldn't think if Blair lost it would make that much difference. The US and UK need to work together and would do so, whoever won. Churchill and Roosevelt were hardly best of pals.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineKieron747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

I seriously doubt that Howard will get in. It will be a sad, sad day for Britain if he wins this election.

Should the worst happen, and the Tories win, I am going to apply for political asylum here in Canada!  Wink

Kieron747


User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
Good job neither David Lloyd George or Benjamin Disraeli ever became Prime Minister, isn't it?

David Lloyd George was born in Manchester and Benjamin Disraeli was brought up an Anglican!!

[Edited 2005-05-05 21:18:45]


Equally Cursed and Blessed.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Quoting Catatonic (Reply 4):
David Lloyd George was born in Manchester and Benjamin Disraeli was brought up an Anglican!!

True, and Wellington was born in Dublin, but famously pointed out "Just because you were born in a stable it doesn't make you a horse".

Lloyd George was extremely Welsh, whilst Disraeli never denied (and why the hell should he?) his Jewishness. Churchill was half Jewish too.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 5):
Lloyd George was extremely Welsh, whilst Disraeli never denied (and why the hell should he?) his Jewishness. Churchill was half Jewish too.

Well how would you explain labour not winning with Neil Kinnock as their leader? The conservatives were making a right mess of the country, its obvious that the British public werent ready for a Welsh leader.



Equally Cursed and Blessed.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting Catatonic (Reply 6):
Well how would you explain labour not winning with Neil Kinnock as their leader? The conservatives were making a right mess of the country, its obvious that the British public werent ready for a Welsh leader.

I presume you mean in 1992, as Labour were still fairly unelectable in '87?

His Welshness has been mentioned, along with his baldness (memories of that appalling comb-over) his red hair (what was left of it), his face not being the most telegenic and his image as being rather dowdy, all not making up the most immediately appealing sight for the voters. I personally don't think the fact that he was Welsh made any difference at all, but it was part of the package with which he was beaten. His rambling oratory was unimpressive to the public - he was labelled a windbag, a Welsh windbag at that for its alliterative appeal - and of course, there was that utterly misguided Sheffield rally.

People just didn't like Kinnock. But didn't like him because he was Welsh? It may have been a marginal effect. For some reason, there's also a slightly positive effect with Scottish politicians, who are viewed as dour, hardworking and trustworthy. But I wouldn't say that if you put a Scot up you will win the election, and you won't lose it if you put up a Welshman.

Pity about Kinnock though. I'd quite liked to have seen him as PM.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineNYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Thread starter):
I can't imagine Bush and Howard getting on, as we all know Bush and Blair are good friends

Bush and Howard, as they are both conservative, would get along just fine.

Remember, while Bush and Blair are good friends, Clinton and Blair were even better friends, and political soulmates as left-center leaders. Clinton even campaigned for Tony Blair a week or two ago!


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

UK/US relations will continue unabated. Whomever moves in to #10 Downing, be it Howard or Blair, will recognize that, even with occasional speedbumps, the relation between the US and UK has always been strong. It will remain that way, regardless.

User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Well, looks like it will be Blair again. So no change in relationship


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 10):
So no change in relationship

So, Kirkie, "how does that make you feel"?

Given that I think the US/UK relationship wouldn't have changed anyway. Nor do a few UKers here.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1409 times:

Personally, Im glad it wont change. I think it would have if Howard were to win. But thats just my opinion


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

Had Howard won, then problems at first, for his attacks on Blair over Iraq, (despite his voting for it and admitting he'd have done the same as Blair), but pragmatism would had ironed all this out.

In 1989, when the Berlin Wall feel, Germany then reunited, it was put about in Washington that Germany was now the one significant nation in Europe, hardly worth bothering with the rest.
Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, guess who was first to send significant forces to the Gulf, along with the US?
(And don't forget how Maggie went to Washington and put a metaphorical rod up Bush 1's arse ("Now George, this is no time to get wobbly")

A very unlikely Lib Dem win, now that would have been different, given direct favouring of Europe, compared to Blair's balancing act.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

While nobody's expecting a UK withdrawal from Iraq or anything as drastic, is it not just possible that the message from the UK electorate that the war was a Bad Bad Thing might be heeded by the Labour third-term government in more subtle ways, resulting in a slightly more distant relationship with the Bush regime ? Also, do we know how Gordon Brown feels about the "special relationship" - he is likely to take over one of these years.

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 14):
While nobody's expecting a UK withdrawal from Iraq or anything as drastic, is it not just possible that the message from the UK electorate that the war was a Bad Bad Thing might be heeded by the Labour third-term government in more subtle ways, resulting in a slightly more distant relationship with the Bush regime ? Also, do we know how Gordon Brown feels about the "special relationship" - he is likely to take over one of these years.

I suspect that it was more to do with a feeling that Blair had lied/misled/obfuscated* (*delete according to belief)over the war than the war itself. Let's face it, since when have the British ever been reticent about going to war? They do it all the time. So there was an issue of trust in Blair himself, rather than anything else. I can't see that making the slightest difference to the transatlantic relationship in terms of its direction.

The one difference it has made, is that Blair will find it virtually impossible to justify and kind of war of aggression against (for argument's sake) say, Iran. Diplomatic support only would be the limit.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
Churchill and Roosevelt were hardly best of pals.

I didn't know that...I recently read a book about the last 100 days of WWII in Europe, and it referenced the US/UK relationship at that time, and the impression (maybe wrong, then) I came away with was that Roosevelt and Churchill were close. Now Monty and Eisenhower, that was another situation altogether.

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 8):
Remember, while Bush and Blair are good friends, Clinton and Blair were even better friends, and political soulmates as left-center leaders. Clinton even campaigned for Tony Blair a week or two ago!

This quote summarizes just how strong the US/UK relationship really is. I recall how Clinton and Blair got on so well, but was then surprised that W and Blair get on so well also. Goes to show it doesn't matter who is in power in either country, the US and UK will continue to move forward as very close allies. Except in the matter of Bermuda II, of course... Wink

I believe Reagan and Maggie were also very close friends, correct, as they were both arch-conservatives in their own way?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1279 times:

Brown is pro American, in a distinct way, it's the Blue State, East Coast America, where he spends a lot of time on both business and pleasure, that he admires.
While his politics are also more rooted in the European Social Democratic model than Blair, he has campaigned hard for EU reform, is cold on the Euro and has been about the only major western political figure to work on 3rd world debt relief and general poverty reduction, against both US and EU opposition.

Brown apparently is committed to retaining some kind of UK nuclear capability, post Trident, in the 2020-25 period.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 16):
I recall how Clinton and Blair got on so well, but was then surprised that W and Blair get on so well also.

There is an interesting passage in "my life", Bill Clinton's autobiography. In it he tells how he impressed on Blair that Blair should "be the first one he turns to" when Dubya got his ass behind the desk.

If you take that as a simplified version of what actually happened, then it explains a lot. Blair considered the transatlantic relationship to be more important than one of personalities and Clinton emphasised that this was the way to progress after he had stepped down.


User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

Well, all this rubbish about Michael Howard not winning the election because he's Welsh is absolutely ludicrous.

Regards,

Chris..

A Welsh Conservative..


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

Quoting Christa (Reply 19):
Well, all this rubbish about Michael Howard not winning the election because he's Welsh is absolutely ludicrous.

Quite right.

He lost it because he is a vile old Thatcherite liar and was comprehensively rejected by the electorate. The only seats the Filthy Conservatives won were those where voters allowed the Tory Vermin to slip in the back door by voting LibDem.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 20):
He lost it because he is a vile old Thatcherite liar and was comprehensively rejected by the electorate. The only seats the Filthy Conservatives won were those where voters allowed the Tory Vermin to slip in the back door by voting LibDem.

My, you're going to be ever so upset the next time they win, aren't you?



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 21):
My, you're going to be ever so upset the next time they win, aren't you?

not if they manage to reinvent themselves and stop being chinless wonders only in it for the money. As of now they remain unelectable.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 22):
not if they manage to reinvent themselves and stop being chinless wonders only in it for the money. As of now they remain unelectable.

Well, they'll do exactly that. Labour circa 1983 were even worse, and look what they managed to do.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 17):
Brown is pro American, in a distinct way, it's the Blue State, East Coast America, where he spends a lot of time on both business and pleasure, that he admires.

Does he? Where does he go in the US?


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...
US And UK...The Differences? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 03:27:24 by Usairwys757
Do The US And UK Spy On Each Other? posted Sat Mar 31 2001 22:22:02 by Capt.Picard
US, Germany, France And UK Face Junk Debt Status posted Mon Mar 21 2005 00:17:12 by N5176Y
Qaddafi - "US And Europe Should Become Islamic" posted Wed May 3 2006 06:28:01 by Marco
US And Uruguayan Arrested In Terror Attacks posted Wed Mar 22 2006 23:23:57 by Derico
Support Your Senator And See U2 If You Donate $$$ posted Wed Oct 12 2005 17:19:31 by Oly720man
Liberal In The US And European Meaning posted Tue Sep 6 2005 16:31:19 by ZRH
Killing Kids In Iraq - US & UK Fault? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 09:00:48 by Saintsman
Those In LAX And UK -- A Heads Up posted Thu Feb 17 2005 09:52:15 by Russophile
The US And Denmark Invades Berlin :-) +Pictures posted Mon Aug 30 2004 20:11:22 by QIguy24