Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Simon, because I have bias against Galloway, to be fair here he is:
and
Love him or hate him, he sticks to his guns.
-
What, the former member for Glasgow Hillhead?
In one electorate he was a fire breathing left winger. In another the Saddam stooge. London elected him on the basis and clear knowledge of the latter aspects of his career.
-
simon g - you are confusing London with Britain. Easy mistake but they are not the same. For example, only in London would George Galloway get elected :-)
-
1) The NHS/Health System
2) Public transport - the railways and the tube
3) SchoolsI don't think the public gives too much thought to public transport (I wish they did).
But as for investment in schools and hospitals...there's been shit loads. I have seen huge differences.
I can't say I agree with the way the money has always been spent or all the policies but to say there has been no change is churlish.
Juha, I read an article in Haaratz suggesting that Israel should try and collar Blair for the PMs spot :-) Not sure how that would play out with most of the PA audience.
-
Well, Don, I'm going to call Coddingstonswallop on most of your post
Well, gee thanks Craig, considering I was correcting your inaccurate portrait on devolution vs centralisation I find that a little rich.
If you read my posts you will realise:
1. I don't like Blair
2. I fundamentally disagreed with the whole Iraq venture
3. I can still appreciate the policies of the Blair led Labour party and see what affect they have had and still have in Britain and the rest of the world.How many other countries are championing Kyoto, debt relief, and end to EU subsidies, reform of international institutions?
These policies are long term, ambitious and still have a long way to run before achieving anything like their lofty goals. But denigrating them just because they have a Blair label is nuts IMNSHO :-)
-
No doubt (well, possibly a little doubt) Bush would have invaded anyway,
Well, the Brits had no doubts about US aggressive unilateralism and wanted to control it. They also thought removing Saddam was "a good thing". They also thought that by removing Saddam they would force the US and Isreal back to the negotiating table. That's the context.
However, I had some stand up rows with close friends about Britain going into Iraq, it was the wrong thing, done at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
-
the increasing politicisation of the civil service and concentration of power away from Parliament and into Downing Street
Well, that was Thatcher. Took apart the regional governments and vested all power in Downing Street.
You may not have noticed, but Scotland and Wales just had Assembly elections. The NE of England was given the option of devolving but voted not to take that option. Civil Servants are always moaning about politicians making decisions on their behalf but Labour have done a lot more for the regions and devolution than Thatcher ever did.
Rich, I kind of assumed you had grown up under Thatcher. That comment was not directed at you. Nor is this one...At the time (80s) I also remember how bullies and thugs such as Militant Tendency and Arthur Scargill tried to take over the Labour party and union movement for their own ends. These folk are still alive, kicking and sorry that Labour's policies do not match their own extreme agendas. I am not sorry that they failed back then, although they did succeed in making Thatcher look like a moderates, and as we see, the perceived centre usually wins :-)
-
I liked the balanced perspective. Personally I have always found TB very hard to stomach, but I recognise that is more of a style thing. The war in Iraq has been a disaster and makes necessary Kosovo interventions less likely to happen in the future. Blair badly misjudged the Bush administration, in my opinion. He wanted to rein in their unilateralist desire for 9/11 total revenge and failed.
I am not sure if I buy the "war criminal" label. The British public still voted for him and would vote for him again judging by some more recent polls. George Galloway, the darling of the London Left, is more of a criminal than Tony Blair will ever be.
He was elected to nullify the 1980s
I believe he and Gordon Brown did that. The pits might still be closed but Britain in 2007 is a very different place to 1987 and 1997. It is more affluent, in general, unemployment is at an all time low and it has a confidence that was completely knocked out of the country under Thatcher's rule. Heck, Britain seems to be discovering that there may be such a thing as "society" after all. Brown's trick has been to address poverty without scaring the middle-England support base, in this he has been successful.
I disagree with Rich's comments about them being more Thatcherite than Thatcher. I hear this from a lot of people, but they usually are ones who did not grow up under that lady's regime.
Finally, for a decade commentators have been predicting the demise of the Blair-Brown partnership. It never happened. It was no doubt robust and sometimes fractious, but ultimately will go down as of of he most successful in UK history.
Interesting how the NZ situation mirrors UK.
-
Good show from Damian Christie with a nice conclusion. NZ's not a bad place. Worth preserving, eh?
-
Oh, dear. I've just heard the Franks podcast on Codders (its the second session if you want to save some bandwidth - 9.3 megs).
He is wrong in suggesting that DC has had her freedom to speak, and even twist the truth removed. She hadn't. She still is peddling the same line in one of our major newspapers.
All that is happening is that the publication will to publish the Press Council decision. Does Franks not understand this?