New PM

That was their choice and they're not saddos for doing so either. It's like me, who could imply that you are a 'saddo' for supporting and defending a really crap government, but I ain't going to, that's your choice.

No, Its nothing to do with your dislike of the government. It is about reducing any disagreements to the level of childish name calling such as the type that would go on in school. Somewhere someone came up with the term Bliar and it is repeated constantly or 'he is Bush's poodle' people dont seem to want to discuss it anymore than that.

It dismissive and allows for no debate.

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Cookie_385

As soon as someone uses the 'Tony Bliar' childishness I realise that they don't have anything intelligent to say so don't bother reading the rest of their post/blog/whatever. So I have no idea whether I agree with what they've said or not.

Exactly, Repeating a silly, childish nickname suggests to me that it is someone who repeats what they read and shows no signs of being willing to actually engage in a reasoned discussion, in which case whats the point?

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Add to the fact tony blair is a damn liar he said he would serve a full third term if elected as prime minister he did not thats a lie he knew damn well he wasn't going to serve the full term. He told us we would get a referendum on the european treaty we are not going to get that so he lied again and those are just two examples so actually i think using the term bliar is very applicable.

No, It isnt. The paragraph of reasoning you gave before is. You don’t need to reduce your argument to 'bliar' you have already made a argument. Although I disagree with you because Blair properly did intend to serve a full term but this was made more difficult by Brown and by Blairs unpopularity with the public. People wanted him to go. I hardly think they can now turn around and say "But you said you’ll serve a full term'. I agree with you that he should but he was prevented from doing so by Brown and by the press/public. The EU treaty is tricky since I know little about what the latest one contains but we have never had one before.

As to the john major reference i don't remember him having a nice backdoor agreement with maggie to take power and he certainly didn't topple her out of downing street as gordon brown has done. Tony blair and gordon brown were supposed to be longtime friends funny how easily gordon found it to stab bliar in the back when a sniff of power came up.

No, but others did backstab Maggie, its just they didn’t end up as the next Prime Minister. I actually do think their should be a election since people do vote depending on the PM a lot of the time but I dislike the people trying to claim that this is a Labour only problem.

By the way, you have admitted that Blair was all but forced out so why do you think he is a liar because he said he would serve a full term. Its obvious that control over his future was removed from him to some extent.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Also, were you calling for a election when Major took over?

You mean like Gordon Brown did?

Bliar is simply more descriptive of the person. Sorry if you don't like the idea of him being a liar, I know you've shown yourself to be quite fond of him in the past and all that.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Originally Posted by cookie_365

'Well, by being as much of a smug, self satisfied prick like you'.

Which ironically, is how you're coming across to me

You mean like Gordon Brown did?

Bliar is simply more descriptive of the person. Sorry if you don't like the idea of him being a liar, I know you've shown yourself to be quite fond of him in the past and all that.

At least I gave reasons other than a catchphrase I have heard a million times before. I like reading and debating issues like this but if I wanted to listain to name-calling I would go and talk to a 12 year old, if you have nothing of value to add then why bother repeating something like a parrot?

By the way, your one of the people that actually gives geniune reasons for disliking the government and debates issues. So why do you care about the childish name-calling?

and yes like Gordon Brown did. I think he should call a election. I know I am defense of the government but that doesnt mean I agree with everything they do or that I like Brown.

After just watching Question Time on the beeb, with the tory representitive Michael Howard on the panel, it is reassuring to note that the tory's are far from being voted in to run the country...........as Piers Morgan said on the prgramme, "What do the tories stand for at the moment", which to me seemed an obvious question, which Howard could not answer.
I think it just goes to show that the Lib Dems are the second party in the country at the moment, with the tories lagging behind at a distant third.
When will the tories wake up?

Never hopefully !!

[Cobbydaler]

Well, Gordon's spending our money wisely already.

Two departments abolished & three created...

Link

Three new departments were set up on 28 June 2007 by the Prime Minister. They replace the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Department for Children, Schools and Families is responsible for children’s services, families, schools, 14-19 education, and the Respect Taskforce.
The other two new departments are the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR).

New websites, new letterheads etc, etc...

[ntluser]

I think we can only judge Gordon Brown & his government by their actions.

If we see a continuance of spin, sleaze, lies & deception we will know that nothing has changed.

If we see that the agenda is the same as Blair's that will be another telltale sign.

My concern at the moment is to see if Gordon Brown is going to ratify the latest treaty without a referendum because being ruled from Brussels will have a major impact on our lives.

[King Of Fools]

Originally Posted by ntluser

My concern at the moment is to see if Gordon Brown is going to ratify the latest treaty without a referendum because being ruled from Brussels will have a major impact on our lives.

Especially when Tony Blair becomes EU president!

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by King Of Fools

Especially when Tony Blair becomes EU president!

That was one of my other fears but I don't think the other leaders would like it which is why presumably he got the peace envoy job.

Mind you, it doesn't mean that he won't try for the job in a few years time!! LOL!!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

At least I gave reasons other than a catchphrase I have heard a million times before. I like reading and debating issues like this but if I wanted to listain to name-calling I would go and talk to a 12 year old, if you have nothing of value to add then why bother repeating something like a parrot?

By the way, your one of the people that actually gives geniune reasons for disliking the government and debates issues. So why do you care about the childish name-calling?

and yes like Gordon Brown did. I think he should call a election. I know I am defense of the government but that doesnt mean I agree with everything they do or that I like Brown.

Bliar is only childish to those people who are incapable of understanding the reasoning behind it
It is an insult to the man, unfortunately, some people love him so much they take the insult to themselves too, and so object and try to stiffle free speach (something Bliar liked to do)

As for Gordon, what does it tell you about your beloved leader that he called for an election when Major came in (and that was after a proper leadership contest, no back room shenanigans and dodgy deals) yet when his butt's on the line he doesn't call for it.
Confirms to me he's despirate for power not what's in the country's best interest or what the people want.
Much like Bliar was.

Dislike or opposition to someone or something can take many forms but doesn't detract from the original feeling or intent. You don't like the term "bliar" as you feel it is childish and easily repeated by people so again it seems appliacable as blair made a career out of easily said and repeated comments and terms.

Fact is many in the UK feel let down by blair they feel disgusted with the whole brown taking power situation and they have the right to express that in anyway they choose. What we have basically had is a coup a leader forced from office and a person taking power without mandate or consultation with the public.

I liked last night's question time where michael howard asked a simple yet important question ie as brown has been at the top of the government for the last ten years making all the policy with blair what are these new ideas he suddenly has to improve things and has he come up with them in the last few weeks (doubtful) or been publicly baking policy he felt was wrong while holding onto his good ideas till he was in a position to implement them and get the credit as PM.

That wasn't answered by the labour mouthpiece they had on who followed the brown line so studiously that it occupied most of her thought process. If this had happened in another country we would have had our politicians commenting on how bad for democracy it is.

[ntluser]

I think the term "Bliar" came to be used as a term of derision since it accurately reflected Blair as one in office who lied both to his fellow Parliamentarians and to the British public.

Pity really that the code of conduct for MPs is so weak and ambiguous that he could not have been impeached in the same way that Richard Nixon was in the United States.

In a sense, its repeated usage is like the childish name-calling one hears in the school playground but if we replaced the word Bliar with the word "traitor" it becomes a whole lot more serious.

Tony Blair has betrayed a lot of people some of whom have died to be part of his legacy.He's betrayed the young by lowering standards in education but pretended that standards have improved. He's betrayed the working man or woman in the street by permitting the rising of taxes and raids on their pension funds. He's allowed Europe to have a stronger grip on life in Britain and sold off our democracy. He is beneath contempt.

Let's hope that Gordon Brown is more honest, transparent and has the integrity and common sense to do a good job for the people of Britain without lining his own pockets in the process.

Why should brown be any different he has been right up there with blair the whole time nodding in agreement and then writing the cheques now i am meant to believe he is this "new" sort of leader yeah ok i have to go now the tooth fairy is coming round for coffee.

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Well, Gordon's spending our money wisely already.

Two departments abolished & three created...

Link



New websites, new letterheads etc, etc...

I'm not happy at the splitting up of the Dept of Education....I'm worried that the link between 11-18 and Further Education will be weakened by splitting them apart.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which ironically, is how you're coming across to me - a smug, self satisfied prick

Takes one to know one, nah nah nah !

And you smell! Pooey!

I do not know why Blair is particularly given stick for lying.After all it's a prerequisite of a politician's job and frankly all of them are doing so to to varying successful degrees.