Can Brits on DU tell me why there is "Rally Round Brit Flag" for Blair?

[KoKo]

I caught Tony Blair's "Press Conference" on C-Span for a little while tonight where he answered questions from NYT
's and other "international reporters questions" about how "Iraq Occupation" was going and about the Hutton Report.

I watched for maybe 15-20 minutes and I got totally "turned off" him! He is so articulate and convincing.....I know he is a master of "SPIN" unlike our inarticulate "Chimp" who can't "walk and chew gum" and relies on prepared notes and mispornounces every senence and is a Religious Fudie.....so has to use "God/Blessings/Hugs/Mighty Sword of Doom" in every speech.

But, what turned me off him was his "glibness.....his command of language....and his SPIN and "covering his butt." So between the two of them there are such contrasts: The "Illiterate Fool, Bush" and the "magnificent Orator, Blair."

I hope Brits can help me out..........why would Tony Blair (Labor) ally himself with Chimp (Capitalist/Corporatist/Idiot) and expect that this is the road to go down for the health of the British Economy?

How? Why?

And, I've tried to read here and watch BBC enough to understand that Brit Labor Party doesn't ever wan't to see Margaret Thatcher or John Major's butts in Britain again, so Blair was the "LAST GREAT HOPE!"

But what about your "NEW DEMOCRAT PARTY?" What about Charles Kennedy?

Where are you Brits heading?

[KoKo]

1. Kick for Blair "Apologists" or whomever can answer my question!Bush/Blair

tied together like twins.....If Blair goes down.....Bush sweats bullets! We need to watch this.........

[mr blur]

2. Blair? A sad case.

It's hard to convey the disappointment and disgust of those of us who worked for 17 years to get rid of those bastard Conservatives only to find this jerk sucking up to Bush. I remember my elation when Blair's bunch won the election and then decided that all the things they were supposed to believe in had to go in order to turn them into this sad excuse for a Labour government. At the time he was the ONLY hope. The problem is that I do believe he's a sincere and even honourable man - but then there are many who would say the same about Bush.

Where are we Brits heading? McDonalds, by the look of it, like everyone else in the world.

[KoKo]

3. I've heard this from other DU Brits, and your Columnists, that Thatcher,

Major left such a "pall" over Britain that no one wanted to see them back. And, that in Blair's early days he was seen as many of of viewed Clinton.....as a "Great Communicator" who gave "Idealism" back to the Democrats where we could be proud of who we were for the first time in a long time.....but....Clinton was attacked from the first....his misfortune of trying to have a "diversified administration" started off with appointing Janet Reno as Attorney General. She ended up with Waco Fiasco on her plate and mismanaged it terribly. Then there was the sngle-engined plane which flew into the White House and fired bullets and Clinton had to put up blockages of the portion of PA Avenue (the pedestrian and cut through avenue for many Washintonians) and he got all kinds of outrage about "cordening off the WH" for that.....then there was Hiillary's Health Task Force (although Cheney had his own Energy Task force without any dissention) but anyway "they" went after her and Clinton on that one.....and the rest most DU'ers remember was downhill with attack after attack and requests for documents and hearings and the Ken Starr appointment.

So, ClintoM was our "Great Hope" and Blair was yours. Blair lasted longer than Clinton....(not, totally sure of timing),.without all the Torrie attacks (at least none that were as devastating as Clinton's RW attacks) but now Blair is having problems and his own party....after being in the wilderness for so long.....doesn't want to censure him......for fear of the Torries back in power?

I hope I have this right. I'm not a Brit and watching from the other side of the Atlantic.....I may be way off..and I'm trying to make this a sort post.....I did get many "nuances" from our DU Brits about all this when I asked several times in other Forums....over the past year leading up to our "Invasion of Iraq."

What is interesting to me.....is that you have a "left of Labour Party" and it's the "New Democrats" and I love your Charles
Kennedy........Why isn't your "Left of Labour Party" ready to step in and take down Blair giving an alternative to the Torries?

I know this is simplistic....but I would love to hear from you Brits!

[T_i_B]

10. My reply to your take

That Thatcher, Major left such a "pall" over Britain that no one wanted to see them back.

In certain parts of the country yes, In what used to be the industrialized north for instance I don't think that the tories will have a prayer for a long time to come.

Mind you, there are still more than enough tories down here in Essex but the matter of why the tories are unpopular must be addressed. The Poll tax was the first problem. A blatantly unjust tax that caused riots and proved unworkable, proved to be the downfall of Thatcher more than anything else.

Then there was Black Wednesday, which pretty much destroyed peoples trust in the tories to do the economic job properly.

Then there was acres upon acres of sleaze and scandal during the major years of government.

And to top it all the tory party had a big civil war over the whole European question.

Add to that the fact that after so long in power the tories had more or less run out of ideas and you have a party that was destined for the scrapheap in 1997.

But Blair REALLY compounded it for the tories. Blair has articulate, eager to please, he had the media on his side back then and was able to spin things as he saw fit, and he was moderate enough to convince lots of former tories to vote for him.

The landlide that Blair won in 1997 was his finest hour and at the time he was viewed with adoration by the media and had stratospheric poll ratings. The momentum from 1997 and the pathetic state of the tories kept his landlide in place in 2001.

However, this landlise majority has turned into Blair's ivory tower. Blair feels that he can do whatever the f**k he likes without fear of repercussion, and he is shafting Britain relentlessly as a result. :grr: "new" labour is as power hungry as ever, but now there is a huge degree of arrogance about it as well. They feel that we who want a fairer more equal society are expendable and a liability to their lust for power.

As to the Liberal Democrats, they used to be the centerist party but now Blair has moved over to the hard right they are the left wing party. Something that I think a lot of people inside and outside of westminster are still struggling to comprehend.

[sweetheart]

4. Blair has an outdated model

Firstly, i'm not british, but i've been living here since mid-90's.

Figure that each nation in the "pax americana" gets special market access that other nations do not get... like japan gets car marketing access to america... britain gets music and information media (bbc, reuters...etc.) In return, america gets "international" friendship and a rubber stamp friend.

Consider tony blairs dilemma on septermber 11th 2001. Your choices are either to keep the relationship arms lenght until the felons are out of office, or to snuggle up. Given that bush likely would have started a nuclear war without british common sense, i'm glad he intervened.

Britain tried to stop parts being shipped to israel for government to murder people... but to do this involved stopping the integration of british heads up displays with american aircraft, and the larger hidden picture that britains nuclear arsenal and most of its high tech weaponry are useless unless america cooperates. Given this very tight existing cooperation, are you the prime minister to dump all this? British people have been fed a lifeblood of american cinema and lots of propaganda to feel that america is like them... and up until this year, i've never had any experience negative with british folks, as being "american" got me a drink at the pub, like from a chap whose father fought alongside american folks in 1944.

Ok, so what i'm saying is that britain is in love with the illusion that america is a friend... and indeed the people are... just not the government... that is the enemy of every living person on this earth... but we know this... so why cooperate?

Well, things move slowly in real life... and the BBC has increasingly exposed american lies and bigotry from brilliant documentaries on the drugs war hoax, to similarly insightful documentaries on the creation of the american constitution, with actors re-enacting the federalist arguments... so i'd say an educated brit knows more about america than most americans do.... that does not answer your question of where its all heading.

The labour party reformed itself under a chap named niel kinnoch during the long dark opposition years... and one of the changes was dropping nationalization of industries and heavy socialism for "lite-socialism" and hence the name new-labour... like DLC democrats... and we all know how confused they are.

As it has turned out during their administration, the corporatist and socialist views juxtoppose each other, and labour realizes that without the corporatist element, it is out of government. So, you're a small island nation with 65 milllion inhabitents, expecting to grow to 75 million in a coupla decades. You are first world in media and the arts... second world in terms of average quality of life, housing and medical services... and you have no chance competing with agressive centrally planned states like south korea, so your alternative is to imitate the latest empire of rome whevever on earth that is... as in being best buds, britian gets the good stuff, and not as much as the bad stuff as the american people have to tolerate.

Geesh, there was a significant period there where britain was friendly friendly with nazi germany... no suprise that its now that way with nazi ameirica... and when it gets too bad, things will break, as the propaganda effect of the public media induces strong dislike of americans, and over time will turn britain's public policy against the US totally. Already, it is really not fun being american in britain... An evil criminal in the white house makes us all dodgey criminals to the unsuspecting public.

Labour is doing a good thing with its tax policy, the very opposite of the shrub, giving child credits, and a major milestone of new labour is a marked reduction in child poverty... good kudos where it counts. I think new labour is doing very well by american standards.

The health service provides free medical care and grossly subsidized medicines for all people on this island chain. There is public media chartered by the democratic government to challenge and expose the truth... that beloved BBC that is today, the world standard for global news... as no matter US claims to corporate size, truth is sorely lacking. The biotech business spurned by the fundies in america has been very welcome in britain and will surely create a long term job growth for the nation.

The whole government is online... check it out: http://www.ukonline.gov.uk .

charles kennedy is a small town boy from the highlands, and though i think he has a good heart and good ideas, he's not the gravitas to displace blairism... and the tory party (british neocons) has a serious problem in that its membership is all grey and dying... last vestiges of "imperial britain" refusing to re-adjust to a new world.

I'd say that socialism in britain is very very healthy. election turnout in this area is 65%. Prison populations are like 1/10th US populations per capita, and violent crime and gun crime are nonexistant next to the US's gun culture.

Given all of that, britain is slowly chugging its way towards an integrated europe with "states rights" and towards the euro. Being slow to move this way is indeed wise, as otherwise the rug would get pulled out from beneath america, as soon as britain takes the euro, the dollar will no longer be the preferred global reserve currency... and this will drastically destabilize america, perhaps even pushing her in to gross currency devaluation and credit default. Britain is truly a friend to america in this regard.

My experience of british life is that folks round these parts have lived here for several thousand years and their sense of cultural identity is not worried about "heading" somewhere, rather enjoying their gardens, drinking at the pub and enjoying life. The government in westminster will never change that common sense.

I hope this rambling diatribe makes sense... :-)

regards,
-s

[KoKo]

5. Sweetheart! Thank you for your delightfully rambling post! You said so

much and encompassed so much in it......that in a strong way you got to the "heart" of what I was asking!

I'm sorry about Charles Kennedy, though. He could rival Tony Blair in Blairs "sincerity" of communicating. Kennedy gave such inspiring "anti-war" speechs in Parliament (which I heard watching BBC and Parliament hearings on C-Span when I was glued to the Hearing here in the US....I almost saw a Rober Byrd.....in style...in a very young version.

I really was so drawn to him but a couple of Brit DU'ers sort of said what you did when I posted about him. I asked if he could be a new Tony Blair......(could he be a Dean?) Is there hope for him......???

Back to the rest of your post: Very interesting what you say. A friend of my daughters just got back from London and wants to do everything to get her "Green Card" extended to get back there. She loved the lifestyle of Pubs and Fun (what she said) and can't stand being in America as a young gal today. She feels we don't know how to enjoy life anymore here.

As for Britain's tie to the US.....what you say makes sense. It's the culture tie, the WWII tie.....and all of it....including the reluctance to give up national currency and join the Euro...... So maybe Bush being supposedly tied to Britain heritage- wise (Bushes supposedly tied to Royal Family) and Blair.....this was as you say........ a natural "meet up of purposes?."

I wonder about the "New Democrats" and Charles Kennedy, though. I wonder if Kelly's suicide/or(?) will hurt Blair. If the Brits aren't so jaded as we are here to criminality and government corruption by our intelligence agencies...will the Brits have more moral problems with Kelly and the intelligence faking?

Is there a "Buzz" about this over there......considering there were HUGE ANTI-Invasion marches all over GB with the biggest being in London? Alls quiet now about that......except that the hearings are at least trying to investigate this......but will Blair remain unscathed from this?

Many thanks for your post!!!

[sweetheart]

14. kennedy and blair unscathed

I met some labour voters in the pub the other day. They said their families had always voted labour cuz they were working class folks, and that they were ALWAYS going to vote labour... like american party politics, there are huge entrenched blocks of interests that will never abandon the labour party... only tony blair.

Charles kennedy is from a very lovely part of the highlands, like where i live today, with a very light population density, no cultural violence at all and no violent crime. This ginger man is a brilliant fellow and my own area of the highlands is liberal democrat, so he is the man for this region... for all the good its done... woof! So much of the national pork barrel gets focused way far away from the highlands, that a local MP is lucky to get real focus on a rural constituency. My wife has flown to london sitting next to the kennedy's a few times and she commented how charles looked wiped out... that his wife looked a lot better. Methinks hes a great leader of that party, and it could potentially become opposition like another poster said in about 2 elections (waiting for torys to die).

Then the atmosphere will shift to a different party polarity around "old labour", "corporate new labour" and "liberal REAL democrats".. just the libdems are going to win elections by getting the very voters often spurned on DU... real conservatives... people that oppose war, huge central government and moral interference in people's private lives by government... so charles kennedy's constituency spans very liberals to very conservatives... with the common element of real democratic choice, proportional representation and all that entails.

Now back to blair. Almost ALL of the labour party creame that came in to office with him has been sacked... from mandelson, to cook, to mowlam, to now alistair... That his cabinet and his structure of power is again NEW... the irony of new labour... everyone's new.... even the new public-relations structrue of downing street. They claim to be "fixing" public services, but this is a difficult claim to prove to voters, as widening roads, improving rail quality and speed, shortening health service waiting lists and coverage gaps... these are the day to day domestic issues that the public is still on board with blair for... as it is working.... slowly... the romance of fixing the walls in a school does not get votes like a good war.

Mr. Blair has a succession problem in that the remaining standing players, brown, straw and blunkett are really not alternatives, though some say brown wants to be. His charismatic personality has driven away charismatic people from his administration as there is room for only one smart dog in number 10... and as labour has been in power, the way to the upper eschelon of the labour party is now a way to be promoted to power and government... not just the front benches of a tiresome opposition... and so the new generation up and coming in labour are pure power seekers who may or may have not cut their teeth on the long dark years in the opposition forest. We'll see how those advisors and ministers work out... perhaps things will go really well.

There are 3 issues that i think are critical for britain to work out if it is to make its democracy truly robust.

1. Royals... this has to go. The queen should not be the head of the church of england... as this violates church/state separation. Not only that, but the engrained culture of royal brown nosing violates democratic loyalty to the real government... and creates a crony "friends" and "not friends" of the royals subculture in britain... and despite that royals are not in government, the longevity of relationships means having charles as your bud is much better than having tony blair, as where will he be in 10 years... As much as the supporters claim it improves tourism, the monarchy fills the power vacuum that should rightfully be that of the british people.

2. English parliment. There is a scottish and welsh parliment, and a national parliment in westminster. The jurisdictions of these parliments is really confusing, as the national parliment also represents England... whereas the scottish parliment does not represent the nation... likely you can't even name the first minister of the scottish parliment... and the english people are rightfully a biit ticked off that no regional parliment is looking out for their own interests. They should put a new english parliment in the midlands and be done with it.

3. Ridiculous concentration of population and interests around london. London and its surrounding regions, called collectively the "southeast" is the main jobs motor of britain... why? Well, because the government, the city (wall street), and all major corporations are near that area... this has created population growth problems in schools, immigration, jam packed freeways and tube trains and generally a "capital" city that is not ready to handle more growth, and never will without major rethinking of the wisdom of concentrating all jobs in britain to the southeast. It is plain stupid. The city of london should lose its tax free status, and this should be offered an alternative in all 4 regions.. manchester, belfast, glasgow and cardiff. This would shift the focus of capital investment in the UK towards the regions that need it... sort of like how american financial markets in california fuel its economy whilst the ones in boston support its economy... imagine the stupidity of keeping all financial markets only in NYC... it destroys growth potential... and likewise in the UK. The capital should not be in central london (parliment). They should build a new secure capital in the midlands somewhere so that VIP's can get in and out without shutting down london roads and bridges. Then 747's will not be flying directly over the housese of parliment on landing path of heathrow... a terrorist disaster waiting to happen. The problem is that london is a different country than the UK, and when you spend too much time there, you forget what country you're in... and since the government is there, no wonder it is out of touch.

Another long rambler... ;-)

cheers,

-s

[KoKo]

19. Interesting information about London being "tax free" and the focus of GB.

I can see what you mean..if New York City was the only financial capitol. Although, for a long time it was.....it's just as other areas like California and the SouthEast grew, banking expanded. NYC is still in most American's view the financial Capitol of America because of the NY Stock Exchange......but NY doesn't have the emphasis in American's minds as it once did as the only place to go if you want to be in finance.

Your view is interesting. And, the extra info about the Kennedy's was also interesing......and where the labour/new labour parties are going. Thanks!

[Jen72]

12. I think you have summed up Britain very well.

I think that Tony Blair has conference to face and it will be hell for him. He will have to make a speech to his grass roots and the unions that are very angry about Iraq and want him to focus on the UK.
I am dismayed by our involvment in Iraq and it is wrong, however on the home front I have seen the changes.
The laws of my country are not leaning towards the laws of America.
No death penalty, choice for women is safe, tight Gun laws, nudity of TV is allowed after 9pm. Gay rights are safe and are expanding to adoption laws. No religious fanatisim is sweeping our nation.
Jerry Falwell, Limbergh and Hannity would be laughed at and reduced to punchlines for their extremeist views.
Most of us have no problem with unstanding Muslims because we went to school with and had Muslim friends growing up.
I have had spells of unemployment under the John Major goverment and this one. The changes that have been made are designed to help, with access to further education and career guidiance that just was not on offer before.
I can also say that for all the problems with the NHS, waiting times,
staffing etc, the NHS saved my life in July. I have a major liver infection, due to a stuck gall stone. I did have to wait in the A&E for hours but I had a drip in my arm and pain relief. I didn't have to worry about money or insurence. I saw very capable though stretched staff and I am grateful for it. I am know waiting for an urgent op to remove my gall bladder but I am being paid sick cover while I wait and that will continue until, I am recovered.
That is the Welfare State at work in the UK.

I would love to see the Lib Dems, break through as the opposition party, making the Tories irrelevent. They has good policies. They have done very well in the South West and in council elections too.
The only problem with Charles Kennedy is the rumours that he is an alcholic. That may resurface. Did anyone in Britain see that interview with Jeremy Paxman?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

6. Mr Blur & Sweetheart pretty much summed up my view

(+ I'm tired - got out of bed when I heard about the Meecher article (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1036685,00.html & http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1036588,00.html ) so will be pretty short in reply

-- I think, post 9-11, there is a lot to be said for the theory that a large part of our elite are trying to keep Bush (well, mainly Cheney) at bay until you kick him out next year - the "Blair took us to war because it would be an even more dangerous world & dead UN had America just gone into Iraq alone" theory. But there's also the fact that Blair had already undertaken Sierra Leone & Kosovo before Bush came into the picture & had got great popular support for the "humanitarian intervention" approach to war.

(just realised that I really am too tired to think straight so will log off!!)

But just quickly, Kennedy & the Liberal Democrats ARE getting a little more media attention & they had a great success in the local elections in May, but they will remain the "third party" for at least the next two general elections (unless the Tories really do implode!) & political debate in Britain is framed very much around a two-party system.

Anyway, goodnight Koko01 & I'll see how this thread has developed in the morning!

(by the way I just found in my bookmarks this excerpt from Nick Cohen's latest book "Pretty Straight Guys" about his "anti-elitist elite" theory of New Labour:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1032607,00.html

[KoKo]

7. Monkey See.....thanks for all the links! And, replying while half asleep!

I will check them out tonight and tomorrow a.m...........

I'm still rooting for Charles Kennedy......LOL's :-)'s Good to hear the view from there though.. Helps my perspective when I get so irate over our idiot Chimp-in-thief...occupying the White House!

At least your guy has some record....and people were happy to see him get into office.......Sadly....we haven't had that joy since Clinton got in!

[KoKo]

8. BTW, Monkey See, I'm posting an excerpt of your 3rd link.Blair like Bush?

I'm stretching things in seeing some perverse link between our "Usurper in the WH with his Army of RWing Fundies....but when I read this......I started to think......about our Tom DeLay and those who think they are "common folk Americans and hated what they saw as the "Limosene Liberals or Liberal Elites" who didn't see the America they saw. I think I'm stretching the similiarities over what brought Blair into power compared to Bush....but there just might be some kernal of why Bush in the WH since everyone says he appeals to the "Common American" and what this article says about Blair. Maybe it's too much of a stretch.....because Blair is many "levels above" Bush...if only that he can use the English language in a way that conveys sincerity and doesn't abuse it..with mispeaks and broken grammar.

Sunday August 31, 2003
The Observer

To get ahead in Blair's Britain it was essential for the ambitious
to swear they were the enemies of elitism. Their power and
wealth weren't privileges but the hard-won wages they earned
from their humble service for 'the People'. Peculiarly, politicians,
businessmen, post-modern academics and culture managers
insisted that the elite wasn't in power or close to being in power.
The real elitists, the true enemies of the People, were men and
women with no more hope of receiving a peerage from Downing
Street than being made director-general of the BBC.

Sceptics were elitist because they refused to share the People's
grief at the death of Princess Di. Critics of business were elitist
because they clung to standards other than making money and
presumed to know better than hundreds of millions of
consumers. Fox-hunters were elitist because they wore fusty
uniforms. The knowledgeable on any subject from
flower-arranging to foreign policy were elitist because they knew
more than the ignorant. Judges were elitist because they were
judgmental. Broadsheet readers were elitist because they
looked down their noses at tabloid readers. Tabloid readers were
elitist because they looked down their noses at blacks and
gays. The bookish were elitist because they thought that 'great'
writers were 'better' than 'bad' writers. Authors who didn't put
'great', 'better' and 'bad' in inverted commas were elitist because
they assumed that their subjective standards had a wider
validity. To be in a minority was to be in the elite, and by
definition those who disliked MTV or Classic FM or Pop Idol or
Britart or piped music in restaurants or Andrew Lloyd Webber or
the National Lottery or cars or racist language or anti-racist
language or sloppy grammar or ready-to-eat meals or America
or McDonald's or alcopops or homeopathic hocus-pocus or
chicklit or lad-mags or newspapers or television or advertising or
public nudity or football were elitist because they disagreed with
others who did. If only for a moment, everyone was elitist.
Except the elite.

At the 1999 Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair promised to
fight 'the forces of conservatism, the cynics, the elites, the
Establishment'. Like Margaret Thatcher before him, Blair was
accused of being presidential. He was far grander than that.
Presidents in democracies were bound by written constitutions.
Britain didn't have a written constitution, and the
first-past-the-post system ensured the Prime Minister could
control the legislature with an enormous majority even if he had
failed to win a majority of the vote. 'Presidential' was too tame a
description. Like Thatcher, Blair was monarchical. He looked,
sounded and smelt like the leader of an elite. Yet here was the
elected monarch, fountain of tens of thousands of quango jobs,
peerages and favours, announcing he was the sworn enemy of
the Establishment.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1032607,00.html

[Jen72]

13. Meacher was on Radio 4 this morning.

He said many things that have been said on this board.
I made my more aware of what an up hill struggle it will be to
get the truth about 9/11 out.

[KoKo]

9. Kick for the early Brit risers!

:kick:

[T_i_B]

11. "Blair the great persuader"

Well if he was once he ain't now.

I agree that Blair is a bit too eager too please in a way. All his words ever really amount to is "VOTE FOR ME". He also has an ability to spin his message so it sounds like he is agreeing with whoever is talking to him when more often than not the opposite is true. Ulitmatly, Blair is platitudinous and phoney to the core.

As to why Blair decided to poodle to Bush. This article explains it very well. Blair was essentially trying to appease Bush in order to futher his own power. The reasons given here may be flimsy, wrong and immoral but they are nonetheless Blair's reasons. British solders are dying because basically Blair just wants to kiss chimpy's bum. :grr:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,998776,00.html

"Has Tony Blair become some sort of reckless crusader over Iraq? He thinks not. In September 2002 his analysis of relations between Washington, London and Baghdad was clear and cold. It rested on six essential points to which he and his aides would regularly return:

· Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.

· The US and Britain were among his enemies.

· The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.

· Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.

· The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.

· It would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so.

[KoKo]

17. Thanks for link...wonder how the British now are feeling about Blair's

certainty that "Bush was going to do it anyway.....so I will get him to go to the UN and if that doesn't work...well......never mind Britain will always follow America.

I find it hard to believe that the Labour party supports this still......with Bush's failure........:shrug: Britain could be left behind if it doesn't get in gear with the rest of the Euro-countries, couldn't it? Or, is our American economy viewed as still so dominant that Blair at all costs....felt and still feels that we two are "tethered together" in building Empires in the MiddleEast?

Blair's gamble of tying himself to Bush.....might not pay off......

[Jen72]

15. The only "Rallying around the Flag"

you will see in the England is in the bars and cafes across the country when England playe Macedonia in tonights Soccer match.

More people do have the St Georges Cross and the Union Jack around but the only times for flag waving are big royal occasions or sporting events.

[KoKo]

16. Kick!

:kick:

[AP]

18. Here's my take

I read Michael Meeker's article, This war on terrorism is bogus in the Guardia, and I couldn't agree with Meeker more in regard to his conclusions about the Bush administration's foreign policy aims and motivations. What I don't understand is why members of the Labour government paint Tony Blair with the same brush.

The logical conclusion that I come to is that Blair understands Bush's motivations clearly and is acting in defense of British and European interests. I am reading The End of The American Era, by Charles Kupchan (who served in Bill Clinton's National Security Council). The obvious conclusion to which you'd come after reading this book is that Europe is creating a liberal, competitive economy with which the US has the option of competing either by liberalizing it's own economy (ie, no more monopolies -- remember the GE-Marconi merger attempt? -- and no more tax give aways to the rich) or by sabotaging the economy so that the right wing does not have to change its platform founded on serving the interests of rich individuals and corporations.

Look at the US now. Thirty years ago, the US right wingers had to sabotage democratically elected socialist governments like Allende's in order to set the example that governments attempting to spread wealth among a nascent middle class (rather than send profits to Wall St and Houston) should think twice. Today, right wingers in the US sabotage democratically elected MODERATE governments domestically and abroad, to set the same example (look at Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hugo Chavez, and, yes, Tony Blair, is, without a doubt, on that list).

The thing the right wing hates most about liberals are two-fold -- don't try to give to many good jobs and too much wealth to the middle class, and don't get in the way of shifting wealth to companies like Haliburton and Enron. They think wealth and political power should only belong to the right wing. And the tools the right wing relies on for this sabotage haven't changed much in three decades: a lying media, and the destruction of the economy. From Chile on 11 September 1973 to Venezuela and California in 2003, the American right wing is willing to create economic misery for the middle class and working class in an attempt to convince them that their liberal leaders do not understand how economies work (when in fact, liberals inspired by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Meynard Keynes know perfectly well how economies work, but they do not have the power to go up against Wall Street -- just ask California how much it suffered when Wall Street raised its bond rating recently).

Tony Blair isn't trying to get cheap oil for British Petroleum, as Bush is doing for ExxonMobil. Blair is trying to make sure that the United States is not in a position to be in total control, unsupervised, of Europe's source of oil -- the Middle East. Tony Blair is trying to make sure that the US isn't in sole control of the spigot that will feed European and Asian economic growth for the next 100 years, which, if controlled by the US, right wingers will turn on and off at will to prevent liberalized economies in Europe from trying to spread wealth to the middle class, rather than to the hegemony of wealthy monopolies and big party donors. Right Wing Americans want to hang on for as long as possible to this economy which is increasingly resembling the uncompetitive, inefficient, monopoly, protectionist economies of Europe in the days of monarchy. And they'll try to destroy the British and European economies if that's what it takes to get conservatives elected in Europe who are on board with that program.

[AP]

20. Oops. Left Gerhard Schroeder from this list...

"Look at the US now. Thirty years ago, the US right wingers had to sabotage democratically elected socialist governments like Allende's in order to set the example that governments attempting to spread wealth among a nascent middle class (rather than send profits to Wall St
and Houston) should think twice. Today, right wingers in the US sabotage democratically elected MODERATE governments domestically and abroad, to set the same example (look at Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hugo Chavez, and Gerhard Schroeder, and, yes, Tony Blair, is, without a doubt, on that list)."

[AP]

22. kick for the brits. Comments?

[sweetheart]

23. Tony Blair is Loyal to Labour

I have no question on his loyalties, or how he must tread carefully on the tail of the tiger... to achieve european interests (read: british/socialist).

But if i were a british soldier being sent to basra, viet nam to get shot at and potentially killed for a scam, i'd feel slightly betrayed as arn't soldiers labour?

I still think that Tony Blair should use his political influence to sink the neocons before they sink him. He is inadvertently giving them credibility... whereas they are just thugs without him. I'm not sure how this is achieved, perhaps it is publically questioning the shrub's war on terror as ingenuine unless they get israel to stop rocketing civilians.

[AP]

24. Sid Blumenthal and Bill Clinton think Blair is totally committed to Labour

Blair is being put in an impossible positon by Bush. Any other path taken, and he'd probably be gone soon. I think he is taking the path that will sink the neocons in the long run.

Watch this space.

[StandWatie]

21. Britian isn't a sovereign state

It's a junior partner to the US.

They can't even fire their own nukes now, they are attached to Trident missles that have to come home to America to be serviced yearly. We have our own bases over there but they are given RAF names even though there are no RAF in sight. This all precedes Blair by some measure and explains why he has to do whatever Washington wants no matter how crazy it is.