Why does everybody hate Tony Blair?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Why does everybody hate Tony Blair?
rayott34 9/24/2006 9:11:11 PM

Why does everybody hate Tony Blair? I live in America, and I’m not able to follow British news often, but from what I do see is all negative of him; there are all of these articles talking about when he is going to step down from power. I was surprised, and I didn’t know that he was losing that much power/popularity. Here are my questions, 1. Why do some people, even other labor people, want him to leave office? Is it because of Iraq, or domestic issues? 2. Is there a specific law, like some kind of term limit that forces him to step down? 3. Why is Brown supposedly going to become the next PM? Is it just that he is the most popular member of the labor party, and they have the most seats now, or is it something more complicated then that? 4. If Brown does become the next PM, what will change?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

interestedamateur 9/25/2006 4:22:28 AM

Rayott

Mr Blair has been around for a long time, and inevitably people run out of steam over time. Unlike the US, the UK doesn't have a time limit for serving PM's - thinking about it recently, I've come to the conclusion that the way you do it is better, because it enables new people with fresh energy and ideas to come in regularly. Part of the problem is that he has simply been around for so long.

Domestically things aren't too bad in the UK. We have plenty of employment, and British people have the wealth to purchase houses all over Europe. After the recessions of the 1980's - 90's, fresh investment is slowly improving our schools and hospitals, and crime (despite what the papers say) is falling. Despite this, there are some problems such as immigration, and perceived positive discrimination to minorities through political correctness which upsets many people. The labour party also has a mantra of continual change and interference in life which can get on your nerves after a while.

Where he has really upset people though is over foreign policy. The Iraq war was never 100% popular, and when no WMD's were found he was widely considered to have lied to the general public. Opposition to the war is also growing as Iraq falls apart. Afghanistan isn't popular everywhere - not everyone understands why we are there and the operation is significantly under-resourced.

So, to sum up, there are some domestic problems but he has really upset people over foreign policy. Add the point that the media is tired of him, he is running out of fresh ideas, and the simple fact that he has been around for so long, and there you have it - time for him to go.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 9/25/2006 4:31:13 AM

As for Mr Brown, he is clearly the successor in waiting. He is a towering figure - we can thank him for 10 years of continual economic growth during a period, for instance, when western Europe has experienced slow growth and high unemployment.

We don't really know much of what his policies will be. Expect public service modernisation to continue. As for foreign policy, he has tended to keep quiet over Iraq and Afghanistan. You will probably find that he is still broadly supportive to the USA and the War on terror, but perhaps more selectively so. For instance if you invade Iran or Syria, you may find that we don't take part in this, but provide more support in Afghanistan or elsewhere. That's only my theory though - he's said so little its hard to tell.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 9/25/2006 9:25:18 AM

My third posting in a row!

Rayott, Gordon Brown made his keynote speech to the labour party conference today. In it he made it clear that we would remain in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Internal security measures would be revised and tougheened up as required.

I thought overall it was a very good speech, but then I like him because the economy has been so good!

Quote Reply

Yimmy 9/25/2006 7:34:48 PM

Tony Blair is a lying, back-stabbing wanker, while Brown is a cunning scheming git. Unfortunately we have little else to chose from.

Personally, I dislike Blair because he has so blatantly lied on so God damn many occasions. The fact that he hasn't been called out on it all only goes to shoy how dim-witted the general public and opposition really are. Just look back at what he said he would do (for the armed forces for instance) before he took power, and what he actually has done while enjoying power.

As for Brown, the economy looks like it is starting to go stale to me, while being a half-decent economist has little to do with being a good leader.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 9/25/2006 10:41:57 PM

Tony Blair is a lying, back-stabbing wanker, while Brown is a cunning scheming git. Unfortunately we have little else to chose from.

As for Brown, the economy looks like it is starting to go stale to me, while being a half-decent economist has little to do with being a good leader.

Tony Blair is a lying, back-stabbing wanker, while Brown is a cunning scheming git. Unfortunately we have little else to chose from.

So Tony Blair is a politician then?

Seriously that may be why you hate him, and at least it is a rational reason if the accuseation is true. However I doubt that is why everyone hates him.
I think the reason for a lot of people is fashion.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral 9/26/2006 8:25:18 AM

I left the labour party over Iraq, but that was just the last straw. Promises were broken over devolution and (obscure one this) education. We were promised that his first priority would be education (education, education), but it turned out to be a poor second to health. Money was thrown at healthcare quicker than it could be rationally used. The inefficient structure we are left with will take another term in office to sort out.

Why leave the party over Iraq? A million strong march was played down as half a million (still one of the largest demonstrations ever) and ignored. Parliament was misled into endorsing a war we should never have started. This on the back of a war that we had been misled about too (Afganistan). At this point it became clear to me that Blair wasn't serving the best interests of the country. We spend human lives and over a billion pounds a year to fuel these wars.

The only strategic advantage in the two middle east wars lies in controling oil/gas supply. Unless you fill every power vaccuum and oppose every dictator in the world there will always be a haven for terrorists. US intel analysis has indicated that invading Iraq has increased the risk of terror attacks.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 9/26/2006 12:31:23 PM

I feel for students today, who have much greater demands placed on them than I did when I went to Uni (15 years ago). I don't know if it's government policy towards students that is what is upsetting Yimmy, but its fully understandable if that's the case.

Of course it is more difficult for them in that many more young people now have further education (45% nowadays, compared to 30-ish% when I went). It comes down, I guess, to how you consider resources should be spent. The government have decided to prioritise on the NHS, which fundamentally supports elderly folk, not the young.

As for Iraq, I believed Tony Blair at the time when he said there was a threat. I didn't know precisely what the threat was, but I thought they weren't making it clear for operational intelligence reasons (i.e. not revealing sources etc). My mistake for believing him.

However, notwithstanding Iraq, the reason I voted labour at the last election was because of their economic record. Some younger members won't really understand the hardship, fear, waste, loss of hope, and devastation to people's lives caused by the recessions of the early 1980's and early 1990's. I was caught up in the second recession and unemployed for 30 months. From my, and I suspect many people's point of view, so long as there is good work around, everything else is secondary.

Quote Reply

Yimmy 9/26/2006 5:32:18 PM

Well, that is not really the case. I am fortunate in having a mother who is willing to pay for my (increased) university fees et al for the first year, so I have no real reason to smart over that yet.

I dislike Blair and Brown for what they are and what they seem to stand for. Put simply, they lie and are not faithful to their word. This may be the case with all politicians, and I may well be too young or too poorly read to know of many past instances.... but for me Blair and Brown have been unreliable, I would far sooner put my trust in the monarchy.

Quote Reply

Heorot Interestedamateur 9/27/2006 8:30:12 AM

Interesting viewpoint based on your age.

My formative experiences were in the 60's and 70's culminating in the disastrous regime of Jim Callaghan. Inflation at 20% plus and, despite double digit pay rises, I was getting poorer by the week. I will NEVER EVER vote labour. For me, opprtunites and a chance to earn real money and acquire wealth came under the Tory government of the 80's and early 90's. Labour policies since then are DIRECTLY responsible for two long periods of unemployment (25 months in total) and my current income being a fifth of what it was in 2000.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur Reply to Heorot 9/27/2006 9:40:22 AM

Interesting viewpoint based on your age.

Yes, I'm in my mid-30's, so I missed the 1970's.

Fortunately my job only dependes upon government policy to a small degree (I work for charities and although our profession has benefitted to some degree from increased government funding, we also gain funding from elsewhere), so I'm hoping I've got a job for life. But who knows?

I would still argue that life has improved for most people in the last ten years, but I appreciate that is cold comfort for someone in your position.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT