Count me into the ‘what on earth is sammysnake talking about’ crowd. You really think Blair is socialist? Or idealist?!
Tony Blair’s long-time spin doctor once famously said of his leader’s administration “we don’t do god”.
Campbell’s no longer with the PM, so he’s a bit more free to speak.
To be honest, it’s not so much the fact that Blair has admitted being Christian - everyone knows that anyway.
It’s more that he’s invoking God to justify his decision-making to go to war in Iraq.
Many people are having trouble reconciling the teachings of the church (e.g. “blessed are the peace makers” etc etc) with a decision to prosecute an illegal and bloody war, particularly since Blair lied spectacularly to parliament and the nation about the reasons for war.
It’s the double-standards that really grate, it’s not simply an anti-religious sentiment in general.
If Blair had not gone to way, and later used the church to justify it, he’d still have been slammed, but at least we’d have been able to see the link between his faith and his actions - at the moment, the one does not seem to fit with the other.
*go to war…
Funny how easy it is to spot right-wing glurge no matter what country it’s coming from. But thanks for confirming.
Technically, Blair is elected as a Member of Parliament by those 60,000 people. He is appointed as Prime Minister by an electorate of 1, the Queen, but that is on the basis that he controls a majority in the House of Commons, so the real electing body is the Commons. However, general elections in the UK are about who controls the Commons, so in a real sense Blair is elected by all the voters in the UK.
This is not all that different from the situation in the US, where Bush was elected by the Electoral College, not by the voters – though in reality the voters were not voting for their favourite delegates to the electoral college, but for people committed to vote either for Bush or Kerry.
In each case, the head of government can be elected with a minority of votes of the citizens voting.
The big difference is that in the US the Electoral College cannot reconvene and throw the President out of office, while the Commons must meet regularly and can decide to throw the Prime Minister out of office (even if, technically, what would happen is the Queen accepting the PM’s resignation because he has lost a vote in the Commons).
Yeah, it’s amazing the silly conclusions people can make about another country they’re not familiar with, based on cartoonish stereotypes.
I was in England on Saturday, and caught Parkinson’s interview of Blair. For me, one of the highlights was when Parkinson mentioned the S word, and a smile flickered over Blair’s face. There may be a few socialists in the British Labour Party, but the guy who is leading the party is not a socialist, and never has been.
To be fair, he’s always pointed out that Labour is a centrist party - the abandonment of Clause Four confirmed that.
Socialism - or more particularly “old style” socialism - was one of the reasons why Labour spent 18yrs in opposition.
That’s why they’re New Labour - that “new” is important for Blair, as it means that New Labour /= Socialism.
Wow. I thought that at least one person on this board outside myself would object to publicly mockery for actually holding religious belief.
From The Lion and the Unicorn, by George Orwell (1941) – http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/lionunicorn.html:
In America, the “Nonconformist sects” influenced majorities. Many colonies were founded by them.
Where in this thread or the links from it do you perceive mockery against which one should object?
But even there, there’s a lot of “purple” territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png
Just sayin’. Don’t count out the liberal-secular vote.
So, could this be an opportunity for the LibDems? Who opposed the war, IIRC, and are not associated with religious politics in any way.
It is not the holding of religious belief that is mocked. Many British politicians are quietly and privately observant. It is when this becomes witnessing or the claim that their beliefs are somehow guided directly by God that it becomes uncomfortable to the British.
Religion in Britain has traditionally been a fairly private matter over the past century or so compared with the US.
This is a problem for Islam in the UK, which is professed and witnessed by clothing, actions, mass attendance and a direct and public connection with a controlling God. Some of the Islamophobia in the UK is undoubtedly to do with fear based on racism and a questionable connection with terrorism; but some of the phobia springs from the fact that public witnessing is extremely uncomfortable to the British mindset.
Anyone who seeks to jusitfy the deaths of 30,000+ people on the basis that “God told me it was OK” is totally deserving of public mockery.
If you want to “public hold a religious belief” you’d better make damn sure you actually live up to the tenets of that belief. Failure to do so - which Blair has amply demonstrated throughout his leadership - understandably (and IMO justifiably) leaves one open to ridicule and disgust.
:rolleyes:
From LabourWatch
In case anyone doesn’t remember, this is the text of the old version on Clause 4. For many people it sums up what the Labour Party stands for. Unfortunately, those people do not include Tony Blair.
“To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service.”
One of Blair’s first acts as leader was to remove this from his party’s constitiution.
According to Sammysnake, that action associates Blair with communist policy. 
:smack:
Blair has actually taken the Labour party to the right of centre.
Personally I think Blair’s comments about ‘God and History will judge me’ and that Guantanamo Bay is simply an ‘anomaly’ mean ‘I have completely messed up in Iraq and over human rights. I have lost loads of money in my personal life buying property. However I want a peerage and to make lots of money after I retire, so stop criticising me.’
In theory, yes absolutely.
Trouble is that old-style Labour voters will still vote Labour (even a Blairite version of it), and the traditional Tory voters will still vote Tory.
Most of the gains for the Lib Dems are from the liberal intellectual classes - but these are viewed with suspicion from both sides of the old divide.
I think that David Cameron’s election to leader of the Tories has ensured that they won’t die out as a party (which was looking increasingly likely, I have to say), and this might prevent them losing many more votes to the Lib Dems.
Lib/Dem supporter here.
Things look very good for the next British General Election, or the one after. Both the Conservative and Labour unthinking masses support has waned over the last generation.
There have to be considerable boundary changes in the next five years that will reduce Labour’s inbuilt advantage.
Lib/Dem support has held up through sex scandals and the loss of an addicted leader- auguring well for the solidness of the Lib/Dem support.
A hung parliament looks increasingly likely.
That could well lead to PR and an end to the extreme swings we experienced in the 1950s-1980s between party elites. Politicians would need to discuss and negotiate rather than just exercise power. Royal prerogative would be reduced. A second chamber with clout would emerge. Less chance of either Tories or Labour introducing illiberal measures.
Bliss. 
What does “royal prerogative” mean in the UK’s actual government?
You used to have a House of Lords with real clout. What kind of “second chamber” are you envisioning?
The Royal Prerogative is the power decended from the Right of Kings to act on matters of State. The PM alone without parliamentary support can declare war among many other powers.
See
The last time the Lords exercised real clout was 1911. Since 1948 then they have been able to delay legislation for one session of parliament, or try to bargain by messing up the government’s programme of business.
The Lords is now all appointed (excepting a rump of hereditaries - about 90 among 700 plus.) and IMHO is a better representative of the political makeup of the UK than the ill balanced Commons.
This is about to become a major issue- the Lords is shaking a stick over civil libertarian matters (ID cards and terrorism) and the Government is threatening to pass legislation limiting the powers of the Lords.
I believe that we need two chambers- one able to form a government and one to act as a break. See my post:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353970&highlight=British
The Upper House needs electoral credibility and limited powers, but powers that cannot be removed by the lower house.