On Sat 1 Jan at 10:25am David Stanley wrote:
Just when I thought I couldn't dislike "Her Majesty" anymore she goes and gives a knighthood to the most evil man in the country.....
On Sat 1 Jan at 10:59am Father Hackett wrote:
No......not Piers Morgan surely?
On Sat 1 Jan at 1:34pm Nevillman wrote:
I assume you are referring to Blair. I think for someone to be the most evil man in the country there must be evil intent and I think that Blair thought it was in the long term interest of the country and maybe in his mind Iraq and the world to get rid of Saddam. Events have shown that he was almost certainly wrong in his appraisal and has lead to a worse outcome for most concerned, especially innocent civilians but it is too early to say ultimately. That doesn't in mind make him evil. Why do you think he is evil?
Why specifically do you dislike the Queen? Because of her role, personality or what?
On Sat 1 Jan at 8:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
Perhaps he's no longer useful and a knighthood will make him feel better as he's edged out of view or maybe he's ill.
On Sun 2 Jan at 1:44pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The problem with Blair and Iraq, is that the only opposition to the war in parliament was from the Liberal Democrats and backbench Labour MPs. The public also appeared to be against it, given the huge protests that occurred. However, for tories/conservatives to take the moral high-ground against Blair and Labour for going into war, is just too much, given their support for military interventions including in Iraq. Its no good in opposing the government if you ended up almost universally siding with them on the issue you are now so aggrieved with.
Yes, the Iraqi invasion was a huge blunder, and a Labour Prime Minister should never have been so hawkish and keen to buddy up so closely with the US Republican administration under George GW Bush. Labour as a party though, introduced many sensible progressive policies that are still popular to this day. Delivering peace in northern ireland, minimum wage introduction, massive investment into education and smaller class sizes, continual economic growth for over a decade that led to a surplus, investment into healthcare that reduced hospital waiting times, extended GP hours, more doctors/nurses, indoor public smoking ban, nearly 1m pensioners lifted out of poverty, sure start, massive investment in offshore wind energy, equality in age of consent and huge leaps in same-sex relationship laws, winter fuel allowance for pensioners ANDDDDDD.....a ban on stupid fox-hunting.
But Labour and Blair are the villains in all of this and not worthy of being in power........all hail the great heroes in etonion blue! They got brexit DONE and the country has never been better.........
On Sun 2 Jan at 8:10pm Nevillman wrote:
It's interesting you say that Labour were not worthy of being in power green. They still won the following election. Enough of the electorate must have been prepared to overlook the war or accept a mistake had been made or maybe didn't want the alternative or whatever.
I'm still interested to know why you consider him evil David.
On Sun 2 Jan at 8:47pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I was obviously being sarcastic about Labour not deserving to be in power, but its a sense that they get the blame for everything such as the Iraq war and the global banking crisis of 2008 and not to be trusted ever again. Which is remarkable given the poor alternatives available at the time and since, and the progress Labour made in their time in power compared to the incompetence of Tory rule since 2010.
On Sun 2 Jan at 10:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
You may have missed it sleeves but no one mentioned labour or the cons. Blair could have belonged to either party, they all do what the City wants or they get no money, it's quite simple. Have you heard of the Remembrancer?
On Sun 2 Jan at 11:43pm Basil wrote:
Nevillman wrote: 'They still won the following election. Enough of the electorate must have been prepared to overlook the war...'
You know, don't you, that the share of the vote for Bliar fell from 43.2% in 1997, to 40.7% in 2001, and to 35.2% in 2005? Hardly a ringing endorsement of the slmey charlatan, was it?
On Mon 3 Jan at 10:20am Nevillman wrote:
I did get the sarcasm green. I'm not sure if it is that labour were no longer trusted because of Iraq and the banking crisis. I think Labour started selecting duds as leaders. Despite his handling of the banking crisis, brown was not seen as a capable leader and milliband and Corbyn inspired no confidence and noone could see them as prime ministers. Corbyn was briefly made to look good in 2017 because he was up against may.
A fair point basil but he was still re-elected as prime minister and I did only say it was enough of the electorate. A good case for proportional representation maybe. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be in the current situation (up a creek without a paddle) if we had it now or if the Labour party had not lost its senses when selecting leaders.
On Mon 3 Jan at 10:47am Tom Pain wrote:
Wasn't it a wonderful boost for acrylic hatted coincidence theorists that Brown sold off our gold to the ECB at rock bottom price and, leaving politics picked up about 3and1/2 £million from "outside interests" according to the FT for "speeches".
On Mon 3 Jan at 11:34am Green Sleeves wrote:
@nevilman - i struggle to accept that Labour leaders were "duds" since Blair. Blair and Cameron couldn't wait to step-down from public service and cash in on their status, and Boris Johnson flip flopped from Westminster to City Hall waiting for a big opportunity such as foreign secretary or PM (Boris as PM or FS was seen as a bit of a joke before that). Meanwhile, Gordon Brown at least remained as a constituency MP for 5 more years, and Miliband and Corbyn are still representing their constituents to this day and in public service. As is Theresa May, to be fair. I think we all know Boris will be nowhere to be seen in Westminster the moment he gets binned as PM.
Perhaps May, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn were not scummy or slippery enough to succeed. The public may think it needs rabble-rousers, charlatans and 'entertainers' for their limited attention, instead of reasonable and rational policies. The media prefer these types as well. Where as Miliband eats bacon sarnies in a funny way, and Corbyn hates jews (apparently). This is why this country sucks. Its population are simpletons and we deserve to get screwed over by these conmen and brexit.
On Mon 3 Jan at 11:49am Green Sleeves wrote:
@TP, Brown sold off half "our" gold (i use inverted commas since Britain made most of its money plundering other countries) and even that is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions squandered by the Tories since 2010. I think they put the cost at £7bn for the early gamble of selling it when they did. I wonder what the cost of Brexit has been so far by contrast. The hysteria and exaggerations over the gold sale has been well overplayed by this point. Anyone would think we have no gold left at all thanks to that evil scotsman Brown.
Its a pity, with hindsight, that Brown didn't just give it away to India instead, as at least a mere gesture of reparations for the trillions Britain extracted from Indian rule, and more sadly and importantly the millions of lives they lost through starvation from Churchills "gratitude" to the Indian soldiers that fought for the British during WW1 and WW2 (which many british generals believed was essential to winning these wars).
On Mon 3 Jan at 8:48pm Tom Pain wrote:
I used to wonder what happened to the plunder from the empire where the sun never set. Did it benefit the natives of the British Isles? When I consider the industrial revolution and the savage way that the country folk were herded into squalid cities to slave in factories, I tend to think not. The average life expectancy was about 25 years in those days, though not for the fabulously wealthy with interests in massive global corporations such as the East India Co. The few thousand plutocratic families who gained so much from the the poor at home and abroad are mostly still with us due to their illimitable greed and miserliness. One can see the same game being played nowadays - the Malthusian depopulation obsession is in full play with the so called green movement. How is rewilding any different from the enclosure acts of old or the Highland clearances? The only difference I can see is that the victims are being tricked into willingness by a disinformation campaign of subtle brilliance, instead of being brutally removed or just plain killed. The poison of privilege remains, though it's not white privilege, that's just another clever camouflage to deflect attention from the culprits, and divide the victims. History needs careful study with diligent critical thinking to winnow out the chaff it is laden with. Of course there's a lot more but I see your eyes glazing over and programmed responses rising so I'll shut my gob.
On Tue 4 Jan at 9:55am Green Sleeves wrote:
Your truths are just too hard to read TP, I can't take these truth bombs anymore. The Globalist elites have programmed me into dispensing of evil thoughts like yours. I took the blue pill as I didn't want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
On Tue 4 Jan at 12:30pm Nevillman wrote:
I disagree with your post of 3rd green. Why is the criterion for saying that someone was a good leader of the Labour party whether they remained in parliament after they were no longer leader? You can be cynical about the kind of person the electorate seem to want to be the prime minister but brown, milliband and Corbyn just did not have it and I speak as a Labour supporter. Just because a prime minister leaves parliament straight after leaving office it doesn't in itself make them unsuitable to have been PM. Why do you think it does?
On Tue 4 Jan at 1:24pm Green Sleeves wrote:
It depends on the circumstances, but can reflect something significant about their character, including even their time in office. Deciding ones time is up for public service and instead flip directly to making some serious money from....lets face it, their "celebrity" status, instead of the very minimum of serving out their term that they were elected for by their constituents. I'm pretty sure Cameron and Blair both did that, and i happen to think it says a lot about their character, and also their failings as leaders. Both seem to be viewed quite negatively and in a "sleazy" way because of their actions and character. Boris is almost certainly cut from the same cloth.
Also, as another Labour supporter, what exactly made Blair different to Brown, Miliband and Corbyn as leaders/potential PMs? Policy wise, the differences aren't all that stark (Corbyn voted against Iraq). You either have the media on side or you don't, and Blair is the only Labour one who had that support - and its not because of Blairs skills or leadership. Just right time, right place. I'm sad you felt the 3 other Labour leaders mentioned didn't have what it takes, but I can't think of any of those 3 who would have done a worse job than Cameron, May or Johnson, do you? I think Blair also would have lost the 2010 election if he somehow carried on after everyone telling him to pi....off. He then would have carried both the failures of Iraq AND the global banking crisis in 2008. He was "lucky" for his own legacy that he got out before and allowed Brown to take the flack. Even though we all know it was neither of their fault anyway (but that is how tories operate and how propaganda works).
On Tue 4 Jan at 7:08pm Nevillman wrote:
I can fully understand why a prime minister would not want to return to the back benches after leaving post. Apart from anything else it would not help their successor to remain.
We have the electorate that we have. The leader of a party that wants to form a government must appeal to them. They are maybe over impressed by style, personality, character and the Labour party must appreciate that. You can't just blame the media. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree over the suitability of milliband and Corbyn as prime minister material green. I do agree that they couldn't have been worse than the last 3 prime ministers but you and I are not the electorate.
On Tue 4 Jan at 7:59pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Again, looking at the subsequent years that have passed by since various post Blair labour leadership elections....the alternatives to Corbyn and Ed Miliband have not been "prime minister material" either. David Miliband didn't stick around after being beaten by his little brother, and Chuka Umuna defected to the Liberal Democrats when he wasn't getting enough attention.
There was no obvious "Prime Minister material" in Labour over the past 10 or so years. Starmer may well be competent (and already a sir!), but he arguably has less personality than even his predecessors. The only hope is for Boris to continue to bungle his way out of office....which is thankfully quite likely.
On Wed 5 Jan at 9:23am Tom Pain wrote:
It's very difficult to see what blue pills and rabbit holes have to do with what I said, greenspite. I can't see anything a socialist would disagree with, or even Marx, come to that. If you gave up the pills and your damp burrow you might see a pleasant world of diverse, resiliant opinions.
On Wed 5 Jan at 8:45pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Not all socialists believe in every global conspiracy on offer. I have no problem in challenging mainstream views, but your alternatives (like with ivermectin for example) tend to be misguided or misleading. The evidence for the case of vaccines is infinitely stronger and broader than anything else, yet you will gleefully ignore that and instead jump on bandwagons of other potential treatments with either little evidence and dubious support, or flawed studies that were retracted due to potential fraud.
Its not to say everything you claim is false. Its just some of us here prefer to be shown actual evidence with full context disclosed. When you do share and cite some actual sources, it tends to not make even much sense to your original claim. Its like instantly jumping to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job because no planes flew into WTC Building 7 and that came down in addition to the twin towers. It raises eyebrows, but is not sufficient enough to use as proof. (by the way, i'm not sure you believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, its just a hunch....)