Originally posted by NJE777
Conspiracy theory????? It is from our Constitution...

Australia is a sovereign entity. I guess you missed that part in your constitution?

Originally posted by NJE777
No it is not. Perhaps you need to read over the thread once more.
Perhaps you may also learn something.

Oh yes it is. Humor me this. What exactly does Australia have to do with internal U.K. issues?

In what way are you within the scope for something you are not physically or legally present for?

Originally posted by SteveR
If you think that's what I said, you have serious issues with reading and comprehending the english language. Thought I should point this out for your own benefit.
[edit on 10/5/07 by SteveR]

what are you on about...

I strongly feel he has destroyed the U.K. I am outraged when it comes to Blair.

you clearly said it....

serious man, grow up..
people are here to debate the topic, just because you dont like their pov does not give you leeway to act like a child....

I disagree, big deal... doesnt mean i dont understand english.
your the one that cant remember what you typed a few posts ago.

Originally posted by SteveR
Kindly respond to statements that were directed at you.

I am an Australian

Your comment to Agit was egotistical and rude.

Last time I checked ATS was an open forum and that means open to all.

How superior of you to reject another member based on futile grounds that he is 'outside your country'.

When Agit responded you picked out bits of it and used it in a you sarcastic insulting manner.

I tried to show you why Australians have an interest and a valid opinion in relation to Blair but you still reject it.

Get off your egotistical drum and try to be civil in your responses.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
you clearly said it...

I said he had destroyed the country. That is right. You picked up on that part, and put into my mouth that his support of the War on Terror is what destroyed the country. I never said any such thing. You missed, ignored, or weren't able to comprehend the meaning of "internal issues". We can talk about Iraq another time if you need to bring it up so often.

NJE...

Originally posted by NJE777
How superior of you to reject another member based on futile grounds that he is 'outside your country'.

Not superior, try logical. If you ain't living here, you aren't qualified to give absolute opinions on how great Blair has been as a PM. If you can't understand or accept this, perhaps it is you being superior.

Originally posted by NJE777
Australians have an interest and a valid opinion in relation to Blair but you still reject it.

Your opinion is as valid as any other foreign citizen's. Being an Australian gives you no special rights in regards to UK affairs. It has to be the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. And you call me egotistical.

[edit on 11/5/07 by SteveR]

Parliamentary Procedure

Lest anyone falsely believe otherwise:

1. All members are entitled to express their opinions on any topic, regardless of where they live.

2. Personal commentary directed at other members is off-topic and unwelcome.

3. The topic is the resignation of Tony Blair. Let's please try to stay with it.

And on that topic, I have a prediction to make.

For as much criticism as Tony Blair has gotten and still continues to receive, I seriously doubt his successor will be universally loved.

In fact, if anyone knows of any Prime Minister in the history of the office who wasn't despised by a significant number of Britons, I'd love to learn more about such an extraordinary individual.

Even the great Winston Churchill was hated by many of his countrymen, and he was hardly alone in that regard.

Thus I predict there will be no shortage of vitriol directed at the next PM, and consider it somewhat of a tradition at this point.

Welll said Majic. As an American I view the Great Britains as both allies and freinds I simply haven't met yet. So pardon me if I express a viewpoint that you may or may not agree with.

Mr. Blair is leaving office. He looks and sounds tired. So he should go. He's disliked intencely by some, and well liked by others, most are in the middle ground. Personally, I think well of him; he was a staunch and willing ally when my country needed one. For that, I thank him, and wish him well in whatever comes after.

Blair does seem very popular in the United States - I suspect we'll see him on the lucrative US lecture circuit before long. Mr. Blair may be coming to a university near you!

Seriously, though, I think it's far too early to even begin assessing Tony Blair's true legacy. For an objective and balanced view, time needs to pass - I think even now people are just changing their minds about Thatcher (and many still utterly hate her and simply can't form an objective view of her legacy), and that was 17 years ago.

I hope your view is the majority one. It truely is too soon to judge Mr. Blair fairly. If he does a lecture near me, I'd probably attend, as long as they aren't charging too much . His memoires should be interesting, too. Assuming he gives at least some of the really interesting details...

Originally posted by seagull
I hope your view is the majority one.

I don't think it is, to be honest. A lot of people find it hard to look at his decade in power objectively - some refuse to accept he has done any good at all (which is quite amazing... I always find it richly ironic when these people accuse Blair of spin and yet don't realise they're doing it themselves , 'spinning' Blair's legacy to look wholly bad).

It's certainly a mixture of good things (minimum wage, record levels of investment in public services, peace in Northern Ireland) and bad things (Iraq, ID Cards on the way) and some missed opportunities. Though I think the expectations were so high in 1997 that they were unrealistic, too, which certainly hasn't helped.

It is ironic that people spin it to portray the bad, when the bad is right there to be seen, along with the good.

In an aside, I thought that the national ID thing had died a richly deserved death. Sorry to hear that.

The bill was passed back in 2005, but it was announced yesterday that the cost of the scheme has increased to a whopping £5.31bn, a £400million increase (ironically when Blair was announcing his resignation and the Bank of England announced a .25% rise in interest rates - trying to 'bury' the news of the rise, perhaps?).

Why not channel that into the intelligence and security services and the police instead, which they can use to fight fraud/terrorism? I don't see how an overpriced piece of plastic with some details that I'm very reluctant to give a government will catch a terrorist. It simply won't. Invest the cash in new prisons, more police officers, better tools for our foreign and domestic intelligence services... that sort of thing.

That, coupled with the unpopularity of the scheme and Gordon Brown making some comments about 'preserving civil liberties' this morning in the launch of his campaign to become leader of the Labour Party may mean that ID Cards will be scrapped in the near future. There's hope yet.

I must say that ID Cards have made me think very seriously against voting for Labour at the next general election.