[Troll]

I came across an Associated Press article on a recent trip to South Africa referring to a poll that NOP did for the Independent. Haven't seen any threads here referring to this but forgive me if it's been raised already. This is the best link I could find dealing with this. Quote from it:

* 54% believe Blair lied about the prewar threat from Iraq, while 31% did not
* 51% said they agreed or strongly agreed "it is now time for Tony Blair to resign and hand over to someone else." 35% per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed."

Seems the findings of the Hutton Commission actually had a negative impact for Blair with people feeling that it was a whitewash. They also think the latest enquiry will be similar. Ironic. The public rallies behind the BBC with staff and the public engaging in public demonstrations in support of the BBC despite its drumming at the enquiry and Blair, who gets a clean bill from the Commission loses face.

[voodoo]

F-U Blair!

I really loath him for what he has done. The bastard should resign. Harsh words yes, but he's worked hard to earn them. :/

[theolein]

I also think that Blair really overdid it with this one. His clean honest image that he used to have is gone now and many people in the UK obviously no longer trust him. I myself was one of those people that used to think that he was a decent guy.

[Spheric Harlot]

"Teflon Toni", eh?

[John C. Smith]

down with blair, bring on Smith

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by theolein:
I also think that Blair really overdid it with this one. His clean honest image that he used to have is gone now and many people in the UK obviously no longer trust him. I myself was one of those people that used to think that he was a decent guy.

He never had an honest image. His 1997 election campaign was full of promises he broke.

Bring on Tony Benn!

[Sven G]

BBB: the Blair-Bush-Berlusconi connection...

[eklipse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Bring on Tony Benn!

[Lerkfish]

so, are the british not subjected to charges of treason for pointing out their leader obviously lied to them?

cool.

[lil'babykitten]

Bliar should go, public opinion is against him. But then again he hasn't given two sh1ts about public opinion in the last year. He won't go until he wants to. There is no viable opposition to him, to say that he will be voted out. I think he could be around for quite a while longer.

Anywho, Vote Benn - a great politician.

[Sherwin]

Hmmm... I actually don't want Blair to have to resign. Why? Because the longer he's in power the more chance there is of having a proper government in place here.

That means Tory.

Oh. And some of us never trusted Blair in the first place. The only trustworthy politician in the UK who isn't in the Tory party is Tony Benn - all the other non-Tories are complete losers with less intelligence than a box of Swan Vestas.

[RooneyX]

I'm glad to see support for a great statesman like Tony Benn. He's of the old school righteous politician and isn't scared to speak the truth. He even grilled Saddam in person before the war. I'd like to see anyone else try that.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hmmm... I actually don't want Blair to have to resign. Why? Because the longer he's in power the more chance there is of having a proper government in place here.

That means Tory.

Oh. And some of us never trusted Blair in the first place. The only trustworthy politician in the UK who isn't in the Tory party is Tony Benn - all the other non-Tories are complete losers with less intelligence than a box of Swan Vestas.

Rather! Right you are, sah!

Cheerio! Toodle pip, and all that rot.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hmmm... I actually don't want Blair to have to resign. Why? Because the longer he's in power the more chance there is of having a proper government in place here.

That means Tory.

Oh. And some of us never trusted Blair in the first place. The only trustworthy politician in the UK who isn't in the Tory party is Tony Benn - all the other non-Tories are complete losers with less intelligence than a box of Swan Vestas.

I wondered about this. There seemed to be the assumption here that disinchantment with Blair equals support for a more left wing PM. That's only true on the left, which is just one sliver of the electorate.

I hope you are right that the Conservatives under Howard are finally out of the doldrums that they have been in ever since they foolishly poleaxed Maggie, but we will see.

But really, Sir Anthony Wedgewood-Benn? I'd sooner vote for Dennis Skinner.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


But really, Sir Anthony Wedgewood-Benn? I'd sooner vote for Dennis Skinner.

Bediel would be a good PM.

But let's face it. Blair is a lying fascist. Remember this is the man who tried to sell part of Gibraltar to the Spaniards as a way of sneaking the Euro into the British economy. The Gibraltarians told him to F off.

[Monique]

It is funny that you say people do not trust him. Which people are they? The conservatives never liked him and it will never change. I forgot the conservatives are not in power right now and they won't at the next election. If the majority of British people vote the conservative will go back in power and Mr. Blair is safe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Monique:
If the majority of British people vote the conservative will go back in power and Mr. Blair is safe.

You've lost me here. Are you suggesting that Blair would remain in power if the Conservatives become the majority party in Parliament at the next election?

That's not quite how it works. If the Conservatives take the majority, the new Prime Minister would be the Conservative leader. Blair, or his replacement, would become Leader of the Opposition unless some other party has more seats in Parliament.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You've lost me here. Are you suggesting that Blair would remain in power if the Conservatives become the majority party in Parliament at the next election?

That's not quite how it works. If the Conservatives take the majority, the new Prime Minister would be the Conservative leader. Blair, or his replacement, would become Leader of the Opposition unless some other party has more seats in Parliament.

She/He means that if Tony gets voted out or resigns he'll be let off the hook for being an a$$ and a liar.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
She/He means that if Tony gets voted out or resigns he'll be let off the hook for being an a$$ and a liar.

Which is far better treatment than he deserves. Endangering the lives of soldiers for a fib... he deserves some sort of punishment.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Which is far better treatment than he deserves. Endangering the lives of soldiers for a fib... he deserves some sort of punishment.

Eggs, tomatoes and gulag.

[christ]

It is really strange, and quite scary, that anyone could think that 'Tony Benn' could or should be elected to any position of power, anywhere. The guy is a dinosaur, a throwback to the failed socialist experiments of the 50s and 60s, and I can only assume that those favouring him didn't live through those ridiculous Wilson days.

Benn/ Foot CND Socialism is, and always was, wrong, and we shouldn't look at them or it with rose tinted glasses.

Blair currently leads a traditional conservative party (it just happens to be called 'New Labour', but that is only an accident of nomenclature). As soon as the left wrest back control from Tony then they will go back to being unelectable. Roll on that time, I say.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by christ:
It is really strange, and quite scary, that anyone could think that 'Tony Benn' could or should be elected to any position of power, anywhere. The guy is a dinosaur, a throwback to the failed socialist experiments of the 50s and 60s.

Yeah, sure. And your Jesus supports democracy.

[christ]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Yeah, sure. And your Jesus supports democracy.

Up until now, I had thought that I had a good grasp of the English language and its usage. The meaning of this response, however, completely escapes me.

I have no idea whether you agree with me or not, even though you appear to be responding to something that I wrote, and neither can I see any link, however tenuous, between your words and the title and/or thrust of this thread. As such it is difficult for me to understand how you are contributing, either positively or negatively, and therefore you appear to have failed in your rudimentary attempt at communication.

Please continue to try, though, for I relish the possibility of a meaningful dialogue with you, at some point in the (perhaps distant) future.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by christ:
Up until now, I had thought that I had a good grasp of the English language and its usage.

I'm glad to have corrected you. Now go study the difference between socialist theory, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

You'll notice that the oppressive systems you refered to have nothing to do with socialist theory and are not that different from corporate political power (which is more or less how the military and oil trade work - like Stalin).

You might also take a look at the similarities between Marx's manifestos and the American Constitution - both advocated democracy, personal liberty, political accountability and the right to bear arms, the right to form militias and the right to unionize labor power. Marx was solely against rampant corporate power, unchecked laissez faire economics and privatisation, which is understandable if you were around in Victorian times and witnessed the abuses that took place (such as the Irish famine). It's even more understandable today.

Get educated. Marx predicted the use of technology for education in the hands of the masses to improve democracy. You're looking at and using that technology now. The elite would prefer that you didn't have so much information. Remember the dotcom bubble they were trying to inflate was solely to sell you Nike shoes produced for 2 dollars by some guy with five kids who isn't allowed a lunch break. It blew up in their faces.

[christ]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I'm glad to have corrected you.<blather snipped>

You haven't.

Are you mixing me up with someone?

I made a post likening Benn to a socialist. (the only post that I had made in this thread)

You fell off your perch with a 'Jesus and Democracy' post, which I didn't understand then, and after your 'explanation', am no wiser about.

I noted my lack of comprehension

You rattle off in a completely indescribable direction, babbling about nothing comprehensible.

Why do you bother posting, if you wish neither to engage in conversation, nor to make any sense? Or was someone else the target of your ire, and you mistook me for the real offender?

I still can't tell if you are pro-Benn, pro-Marxist, pro-Blair, pro-democracy, pro-socialism, pro-Jesus, anti- any of the above, or what.

What point are you trying to make? Being straightforward may not have the appeal of being a smart-alec, but it would surely make you more easily understood. You never know - if more people understood you, more of them might agree with you, and you would be able to park that anger of yours.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Yeah, sure. And your Jesus supports democracy.

What a weird comment!?

Please stay on topic if you can.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by christ:
You haven't.

Are you mixing me up with someone?

I made a post likening Benn to a socialist.

I still can't tell if you are pro-Benn, pro-Marxist, pro-Blair, pro-democracy, pro-socialism, pro-Jesus, anti- any of the above, or what.

First point makes no sense. Benn IS a Socialist. The Labour Party is Socialist.

To your second point, I'm making points. I'm not for or against anything. I'm a personal anarchist and don't want to belong to any system, creed or nation. But I like my Macs.

[christ]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
First point makes no sense. Benn IS a Socialist.

Hence my "The guy is a dinosaur, a throwback to the failed socialist experiments of the 50s and 60s" (Did you read my post, before you threw in your 'zinger'?)

The Labour Party is Socialist.

Was.

At best it is only part (a very small part) socialist nowadays. It was socialist, or at least more so, in those long ago, dark days when Benn was a serious politician.

As I noted in the post that you failed to read in your haste to be witty, "Blair currently leads a traditional conservative party (it just happens to be called 'New Labour', but that is only an accident of nomenclature). As soon as the left wrest back control from Tony then they will go back to being unelectable"

I'm making points. I'm not for or against anything. I'm a personal anarchist and don't want to belong to any system, creed or nation.

No you aren't. You are trying to score points, but they would be much more easily followed, both for and against, if you employ a bit more lucidity, and a bit less super-cool zen impenetrability. You obviously do want to belong to a system (e.g. you joined MacNN), but apparently only to score ponts against it. That's OK, each to their own, and I much appreciate you taking the time to humour me and enlighten me as to what you mean.

Now, do me another favour and explain:

Yeah, sure. And your Jesus supports democracy

Like I asked you the first time.

PS - In future it would save everyone a great deal of time and effort if you were to follow the traditional "read - comprehend - respond" route, rather than "see - respond, and only read if forced to" route that you seem to favour.

[RooneyX]

Your opinion is rubbish, Christ (Hmm, that sounds kinda cool). You've made several errors and are trying desperately to correct them while doing what you always do best. Benn is a stand up man with more morals and rational thought than any politician you can name. I dare you to contest that. This thread has already shown more support for him than any thread has for Bush.

And how do you define socialist? Hint: It has nothing to do with the so called Cold War experiments you mention.

[christ]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Your opinion is rubbish, Christ (Hmm, that sounds kinda cool). You've made several errors and are trying desperately to correct them while doing what you always do best. Benn is a stand up man with more morals and rational thought than any politician you can name. I dare you to contest that. This thread has already shown more support for him than any thread has for Bush.

And how do you define socialist? Hint: It has nothing to do with the so called Cold War experiments you mention.

Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. A (nearly) sensible response, that seems to address the subject at hand.

Now let's pretend that this was your first response instead of all that preening and posturing.

My opinion, like yours, is an opinion. It may differ from yours, but that doesn't make my opinion rubbish, any more than you disagreeing with me makes your opinion rubbish. I have made few, if any factual errors, and therefore have had no need to correct them.

I agree with you that Benn is a stand up man (if by that you mean honest), and I also agree with you that he is a moral and rational man. That does not make him a saint, nor does it make him a sensible man to wish to follow, and it doesn't make him a person that any rational person would wish to elect. In my opinion. Which is what I expressed.

And don't make the mistake of confusing me with a pro-Bush person. Anti-Benn does not equate to pro-Bush.

I said that he was "a throwback to the failed socialist experiments of the 50s and 60s." You contest my definition of socialism - how do you define socialism so that Benn doesn't follow it? He would be dismayed to hear that, I suggest.

I also said "and I can only assume that those favouring him didn't live through those ridiculous Wilson days", and I stand by that, too.

I also said "Benn/ Foot CND Socialism is, and always was, wrong, and we shouldn't look at them or it with rose tinted glasses." Why does this call into question my definition of socialism? We (sorry, I and some of the other posters above) were addressing Benn as opposed to Blair, it is you that went off on the tangential rant about Engels, Marx, Cold War and so on - I don;t believe that I expressed an opinion on the content of that rant, I just speculated as to what started it.

Bored now.

[RooneyX]

I'm not looking at Benn or Socialism through rose tinted glasses. But you've made a couple of errors, you've called a man a dinosaur when he's still highly respected and listened to, and you've concluded that Socialist theory doesn't work without defining what it is (it has never been concluded or implemented anywhere and Marx himself said it would not occur or be implemented until society reached a technological peak).

So how have you defined socialism in your mind? What do you think it's manifesto is or could be?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
you've called a man a dinosaur when he's still highly respected and listened to

Of course, respect for and listening to the man are two different things. I have supreme respect for the way Benn stands by his principles while at the same time disagreeing with almost everything he says.

Just thought I'd point out the obvious.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Of course, respect for and listening to the man are two different things. I have supreme respect for the way Benn stands by his principles while at the same time disagreeing with almost everything he says.

Just thought I'd point out the obvious.

I don't agree with every single person's every opinion. But when a person has more sensible opinions then most that doesn't make him a dinosaur. How many politicians are actually honest enough to share their opinions on a variety of matters instead of hiding behind spin and propaganda all the time? Benn is one of the very few who says what's on his mind. You don't have to agree with it all - a good politician is all about transparency.