It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tony Blair Resignation

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Doubl Posting.


[edit on 6-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   


Okay, so Tony Blair is gone, and how long is it going to take for you folks to hate the next PM of Brittan?


He has not gone yet. He has not even said when he will be leaving office, most of it is just hype.




Or, is the next person already hated even though he/she is not in office?


That is the British Population for you.
You either like or dislike the Guy who is in office, like it or not happens all over the place in other countries as well.




My point is quite simple, How are you going to rally around a new PM and make some positive changes in politics and your quality of life?


Nothing will change unless (the New leader brings home the troops from abroad), I do not see anything significant happenen.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Happy Resignation day!!!!!!!!!!!!! I very happy for the people of Britain!!.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Che
Happy Resignation day!!!!!!!!!!!!! I very happy for the people of Britain!!.


- ?

Happy because a man at the lowest rung of government (a very junior Minister) resigned before he was sacked and 6 other unpaid bag-carriers (the PPS people) had to jump before they were pushed too?

Wow, talk about easily pleased and an enthusiast for the minutia of the British governmental system.

......were you seriously expecting some, er shall we say, 'other news'?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Who will replace Blair?
Gordon Brown?

How will this effect US/British relations?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Here is a link to the map of how the seats broke down in 2005:

BBC Election 2005 Map

Not electable North of Watford? Lol....give over. Not sure why I am defending them, as I don't support them, but obvious BS like that needs correcting.


We looking at the same map right? Look at the population centres, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow/Edinburgh, red as blood.

Thanks for proving my throwaway point though.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
It already is, due to the lousy management from this goverment, yes they have increased the funding to the nhs but hardly any of it has reached the front line,


- Well in my own area there are (within 15mls of me) 5 new hospital units (1 maternity, 3 A&E and a brand new huge multi-floor ward building) with another huge extension currently under construction.

There is one hugely expanded college, one brand new school and two schools currently under expansion to do away with the old temporary buildings, build brand new science blocks and sports facilities.

Sorry but I can see significant tangable results from the investment, not empty waste.......


nobody is saying that these facilities havn't been built, what i was trying to infer though is that these facilities are going to cost around 4-5 times more than if they were built by the public sector, with all of the extra money going to line some one pocket instead of provideing better public services, if you saw the recent despatches programme you would have seen that these building are no better maintained than the public sector ones either and some are already falling apart even though the owners are still fleeceing the british taxpayer and will be for up to a quarter of a decade.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
At the end of the is he actually going to leave? or is this all for show?


Whoever is elected next must be better then what we have now, what we have now is a complete shambles.

the government are more concerned with banning smoking and drinking rather than how much this country is being over run.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Who will replace Blair?
Gordon Brown?


there is a good chance that Alan Johnstone (sp) will be running, what will he be like? dunno he seems to have forgotten his union roots and fast developing the same smarmy sneering manner than Blair also has



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
No way -this goverment under tony blair has raised taxes 150 % since they cam to power.

Were f##### over now by those b####### in number 10 and 11 - lets have a tax cutting goverment from the tories for a good clean out of the corridors of sleeze.


The torries came up with £35,000,000 of cuts, but when research was done they managed to prove £1.3M of them. I live in Liverpool, for those not aware of where that is, its up north in Merseyside. We have had the Liberal Dems in here for two terms of council and they are doing an amazing job we should give them a chance at running the country but old money votes for conservative, and anyone who doesn't want the tories in won't waste a vote on LIb Dem thinking that no-one else will vote with them and votes labour



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_artist

I live in Liverpool, for those not aware of where that is, its up north in Merseyside. We have had the Liberal Dems in here for two terms of council and they are doing an amazing job we should give them a chance at running the country
a lot of people would consider voting for them apart from one issue Europe, most people in the UK dont want to be driven even further into this quagmire and yet the lib dems seem to want us to rush in giving away yet more control of our own destiny with very few questions answered



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by The_artist

I live in Liverpool, for those not aware of where that is, its up north in Merseyside. We have had the Liberal Dems in here for two terms of council and they are doing an amazing job we should give them a chance at running the country
a lot of people would consider voting for them apart from one issue Europe, most people in the UK dont want to be driven even further into this quagmire and yet the lib dems seem to want us to rush in giving away yet more control of our own destiny with very few questions answered


According to recent reports the EU is pushing us that way anyway without giving us much choice. They intend on implimenting a non-bordered EU regions map. Creating i think 7 regions effectively wiping britain off the map



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Wouldn't suprise me in the least, there has been some speculation in the past that the Reason this goverment hasn't done anything about the immigration probs in the past is due to the fact they believe that if a referendum was to ever be held on us entering further into europe, these european immigrants would then vote in favour (effectively using a form of gerrymandering) it seems no matter which way we go were still knackered



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut
We looking at the same map right? Look at the population centres, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow/Edinburgh, red as blood.

Thanks for proving my throwaway point though.


What? Have you lost the ability to read a map? You do actually know where Watford is, right? So how is this map proving your assertion that the tories are unelectable "North of Watford", or only get voted in the SE. The map proves the Tories get elected the length and breadth of the country. They have seats from Cornwall to Scotland

Labour gets voted in many (not all) Urban centres, where all they're new voters from Poland live
, and the Tories get the more rural votes. Hardly rocket science dude. In fact, where I live, the only Labour seat is in Reading West, with a high immigrant population. The rest of the surrounding country and Reading East are Tory.

Try engaging the squidgy grey stuff between your ears next time.


[edit on 7/9/06 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
ooopps..double post

[edit on 7/9/06 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Wrong forum?

There are some implications for UK's involvment in Bush's wars overseas but is this really a WoT subject? UK politics surely!

Anyway be good to see the back of Bliar (definitely son of Maggie) but not expecting much from our next 2 prime ministers I'm afraid.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
nobody is saying that these facilities havn't been built


- Er, well actually your original claim was that hardly anything had been done -

due to the lousy management from this goverment, yes they have increased the funding to the nhs but hardly any of it has reached the front line, most of it has been spent on extra layers of management and lousy PFI programmes amongst other things
.


what i was trying to infer though is that these facilities are going to cost around 4-5 times more than if they were built by the public sector, with all of the extra money going to line some one pocket instead of provideing better public services,


- This is a classic case of failing to understand the basics of 'PFI' and using the most sweeping generalisations to brand the whole project.

For a start each and every instance of 'PFI' is different.
Each example of 'PFI' is individually negotiated.

There are examples of some good PFI deals and some bad, such is real life.
In the beginning some of the inducements to encourage private-sector engagement in PFI were probably too generous (hindsight is a wonderful thing).

But to claim there is only one view and one truth about PFI is absurd.

As the government (and the private sector for that matter) have gained confidence and experience at this the government has been able to drive better and better 'deals'; this is not particularly unusual with any long-term major financial relationship.

Parts of it are like a mortgage, in very general and basic terms.

The private funding takes the bulk of the risk in construction and running (facing penalties for late delivery etc etc) on the basis that the government will make a regular payment during the lifetime of the particular project.


if you saw the recent despatches programme


- OMG.
'I saw it on a British political show so it must all be completely true and a fair and accurate representation of the whole policy in every instance'.

Yeah right.



you would have seen that these building are no better maintained than the public sector ones either and some are already falling apart even though the owners are still fleeceing the british taxpayer and will be for up to a quarter of a decade.


- It was not an either/or situation.
Claiming the public sector could have managed these buildings/facilities at the same or a better standard really is in any case pure speculation and secondly and most importantly to miss the point entirely.

Those project would not have been there at all by other (public) funding methods because the public funds were not available and there to be had from the public sector in the first place.

You like other critics of PFI have yet to answer the central question in all this.
But there's little surprise in that cos it's almost always avoided like the plague.

Given that the general public are not inclined to vote for a significant raising of our tax to pay for the modernisation and repair of the public services
(and they are not......even threats to curtail any tax rises to only the very highest earners has been a vote-loser for the Lib-Dems......hence the current British love of so-called 'stealth taxes = so long as they're fairly small and unnoticeable 'we'll' put up with them)?
'We' (just like the various major financial institutions at home and abroad) also aren't so keen on the government engaging in a massive borrowing spree either (hence the complaints over even Gordon Browns moderate borrowing to date).

So, how and where else can the money come from?

The fact is that set amongst the realities of present British politics PFI has been the only way to accomplish the goals of public sector renewal (as demanded - repeatedly - by the British public) and maintain a relatively low tax regime.

The tory party was the first to introduce PFI, Labour have modified the terms but carried on and the Lib-Dems likewise want to fiddle with the term but maintain the basic policy.

Continue the game of playing both ends against the middle all you like but until you can come up with a criticism that addresses the reality all the rest is akin to silly adolescent-style smart-arsed quibbling.

......and again it's obvious that this is a thread all about UK domestic politics and has not the slightest thing to do with the WOT.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
its the most stupidest thing in the world..

he said he is going, why demanded a departure date? does the Labour party know that it is currently doing David Camerons job for him? he doesn't even need to do anything. Labour are putting the Tories up in the polls

they have risked the future of our Government and there is even a rumour that Labour will be divided when it comes to the Queen speech, so that might end up throwing parliament into chaos. do they REALLY want to risk the chance of the monarchy stepping in (it can happen and she has the power to. they were discussing the chances of it the other night on skynews). Mountains out of molehills or what...the media are making it even worse.

they really should of just let him get on with it, because its hard for him to be taken serious now with him being forced to "name the date".

Tony Blair isn't to blame for this, party fighting is.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by infinite]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
its the most stupidest thing in the world..

he said he is going, why demanded a departure date? does the Labour party know that it is currently doing David Camerons job for him? he doesn't even need to do anything. Labour are putting the Tories up in the polls


- It comes with familiarity/contempt infinite, and IMO, life in such a nut-house bubble like the political world.

Too few seem to have a genuinely GSOH and far too many are simply obsessed (brings to mind the first rule of politics........er, I mean what ought to be the first rule of politics......... those seeking a career in politics should face an automatic bar


(OK, so that might amuse but that does ignore the truth that there are many good men and women of good conscience involved).

It reminds me of that bunch of ideologically-minded/obsessed tory MPs pre-1997 who deluded themselves that that was it, they were always to be the party in power no matter what, so some of the similarly ideologically minded/obsessed Labour MPs seem to think they are immune to a lesson at the polls.

It happens. 1979 was all about a similar imagined 'vital' right-left row between the obsessives, they were even happy to see their own party defeated and look what that brought Labour.

The really laughable thing is that as co-author of the whole 'New Labour' project Gordon Brown will be little different in substantive policy to Tony Blair.

Blair and Brown are both set to make speeches today.
The Beeb were reporting Brown as giving a 'cool it' message to his support and TB is expected to be a little more explicit this afternoon about going sometime next year (without naming an actual date).

[edit on 7-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Blair and Brown should have a fight to the death for the leadership


i think the in-fighting is abit childish, Labour MPs are creating a mini "left vs right" in their party. I believe the far left are standing someone against Brown (McDonell?), but the likely hood of him becoming PM is the same of my chances of being Declared King Daniel of the United Kingdom, blah,blah,etc



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join