Come on guys… this is silly. Of course it was suicide. 3 shots in the head was the way he chose to leave this world. 
On a serious note thou… Blair is quite the teflon guy. Its amazing. One must admire his savvy in surviving what might have taken down lesser creatures.
Does this increase the respect and admiration he gets in Britain ? I am impressed with him.
Mostly, no. Some see it as the mark of a highly skilled and pragmatic politician, others as a mark of an unprincipled, evasive character. I don’t think either characterisation is accurate, but his star is certainly more tarnished than it was in 1997.
No. He is often referred to as “Teflon Tony” as an insult.
Yes, owlstretchingtime, I do know several who tell me their vote will essentially be governed by what Hutton has uncovered so far. Apart from me.
Teflon Tony will never be trusted again but many people and so will not get their votes. Period. The Labour Party though is a different issue.
Time to ditch Tony…
Hmmmm notquitekarpov, this must be a Norf/Sarf thing.
As I say I really don’t believe that Hutton/Iraq etc will sway many, if any voters. Here’s why.
Those who were aginst the war (certainly the more vociferous) by and large are lefties (a generalisation I know, but fairly accurate) and aren’t going to change their vote, although they may well stay at home (the few leftie mates I have are saying that they will abstain). However there aren’t that many - and don’t forget the Cuontryside alliance had huge marches too, and I didn’t see Tony quaking.
Of those who are likely to vote Tory from Labour - ie the all-important swing voters I really think that the reason they voted for Tony in the first place was around issues like NHS/Transport/Schools etc, and this is why they will vote this time. In other words the Hutton enquiry is not going to shift votes.
I think the gloss had come of Blair/New labour long before Iraq. He’s just lucky that the tories are in disarray - Imagine what Thatcher would have done to this shower of crap.
Who’s head of the Tories now, what do people think of him, and which is the major third party? Is the Alliance still around?
Obviously I have completely lost track. Bad American! </whipcrack>
Leader of the Tories is Iain Duncan-Smith, who makes William Hague look like a birthday present. They’re still the major opposition.
The “major” third party is the Liberal Democrats, run by Charles Kennedy.
Iain Duncan Smith is head of the Conservatives, nastily, but not inaccurately, characterised as Iain Duncan Who? The Conservatives are still in some disarry about whether they should become a “caring conservative” party, more accepting of realities such as gay relationships and single parent families, or whether they should stick to a more Thatcherite vision of morality. The very public disagreements within the party don’t lend it any public appearance of being fit to govern.
The third party, although already regarded by many as a more coherent alternative to the Conservatives, is the Liberal Democrats. Traditionally they’ve been the most liberal (left, by US standards), although they do cosy up to Labour every now and then. Not having been in government, they have never been called upon to demonstrate how their policies would work in practice - I suspect that that inexperience, along with their own wavering on “hot button” issues such as limited liberalisation of drug laws, is the major doubt for floating voters considering the Lib Dems.
(PS - not that I remember the details, since I was 13, but the Alliance disappeared fifteen years ago when the SDP and Liberal Party merged to form the forerunner to the Lib Dems).
Thanks guy–uhm, chaps!
Iain looks like a slightly more cuddly Mikhail Gorbachev. I loved the newest pix on that site–“Look, here’s me with some black people!” At least the Tories in the UK are not in as bad shape as their Canadian counterparts.
Iain Duncan Smith is a season Ticket holder at Spurs - so he’s used to crushing defeats.
Well no. I’m saying that the American populace does not need to take the needs of citizens of other countries into account when selecting a president. The president does not serve the citizens of Canada, so I fail to see why Canadian opinion on his policies should have a direct impact American voting patterns.
Countries pursuer their own interests because the interests of citizens in other countries are unknown. That does not mean that nature raw in tooth and claw is the best way to negotiate when dealing with others of course.
The problem is that due to American size domestic issues (cheap drug prices for example) become foreign issues for the rest of us. The influence of domestic lobby groups can directly harm our economies. The American desire for secure oil for domestic industry directly involves you with the rest of the world. This is true of all countries that trade but the scale of American involvement can complete swamp the rest of use. It makes some people wish they had a measure of control.
From sailor
Huh? What are you babbling about? What has this to do with anything under discussion? Are you making a speech here, or is there some hidden relavence I’m missing??
I will admit that the American people have responsibilities. Whats that got to do with anything under discussion? The statements being made are that Joe American doesn’t give a shit about what someone in Europe or Asia or Africa thinks of Bush when they are making a decision about who they are going to vote for come next election. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. The same goes for every other country in the world. A vast majority of citizens (in those countries that CAN vote that is) will vote for the guy that does the most on the domestic issues they find relevant to themselves. They don’t give a damn about what someone in another country thinks of their candidate. A small percentage of voters WILL take that kind of thing into account, but the vast majority won’t give it a second though, focusing on the economy and whatever pet agenda they like.
Or do you disagree Sailor? We arent talking about what SHOULD be here…but what is. Reality and all that…
As to the second part of your statement…well, I think again the reality is that all countries do what they think is best for themselves and their citizens first. If they can, they work with other countries of like mind. If not, they do it alone (if they can). Again, this is reality. Unless you can name me a selfless country out there the DOESN’T do what it thinks is best for itself and its citizens first, but does what is best for the ‘world’ as its primary concern. Maybe this isn’t right…but its how it IS. No?
-XT
The “majority” arent even concerned with domestic issues ! They get dragged around by the media circus and vote for what looks/feels/sounds “better” to them.
Like I said… its the few undecided that change the final result… we should be discussing what is relevant to them.
Let’s have some numbers then Rashak.
How many Americans are being dragged about?
Which issues are they being dragged about on?
Which issues do you feel they should worry about?
How large is this swing vote?
Where does it exist?
You may have noticed that the fiasco in Florida came down to a few districts, a national swing vote block would’ve meant nothing.
We should. The problem is, your view of what’s relevant is highly debatable at best. When in recent years have the actions of foreign politicians (short of war, assassination or other dramas) been of more importance than domestic issues in determining the outcome of domestic elections?
(I have a nasty feeling someone’s going to tell me now)
Er, that was directed to Rashak Mani, incidentally.
Is this true? Cite? Doesn’t seem much like a natural Spurs fan!
It is true, I’ve even seen him there. Bear in mind he is MP for Chingford - THFC territory.