I hope I see support on DU for the UK Labour Party in the 2005 Election

[Michael_UK]

In the UK, we're going to have an election coming up (probably May 2005). Now, I know a lot of people here don't like Tony Blair. Does that mean you want Labour to lose? Well, I hope not.

The system here is one where you vote for your local representative, so you're not actually voting for Tony Blair. Now, despite the war in Iraq, Labour has managed to create a stable economy, improve the National Health Service, reduce enemployment, increased funding to the poorest in society, do deals to write off the debt of third world countries, and is being proactive on climate change.

There's so much positive the Labour has done, and I hope that Iraq doesn't push people here to either the Conservatives (unlikely) or the Liberal Democrats (whose policies can be very right wing).

Of course, I can't force anyone to support Labour, and I welcome differing views, but I'd be happy if I can get the message across the the UK Labour party isn't George Bush.

Flame ahead, if you will

[bluestateguy]

1. I'm not sticking my neck out to support Blair

If he loses, it's because he brought it on himself. I much prefer the Liberal Democrats, but if the Tories win, so be it.

I used to like Blair very much. He is a disappointment to the world.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Well, can they not...

Please do something about that horrid man? I mean, having lived in your fair, fair nation for a spell, I am well aware that the Tories are the party of the twit and the other guys are...well, the other guys. Admittedly, when I was there they did not amount to a bucket of warm knackers. But that man Antoine? Can't you just send him to spend the rest of his days being driven slowly mad in retirement in "That Hotel in Torkay"? ;-)

[Walt Starr]

3. I cannot support a party that would put Blair in a position of power

Sorry.

Were I in the U.K., I'd be ABL (Anybody But Labor).

[Michael_UK]

5. What is your problem with Blair?

Is it Iraq?

[Walt Starr]

9. Yep

It's Iraq and generrally being Bush's lapdog lacky.

Blair is a major league asshole and any party that would put that man in a position of power is not one I could support.

[Michael_UK]

11. here's my problem

you'd be prepared to lose the most progressive government the UK has had in a long time, just over Iraq?

I ask you this - if Blair had said no, would it have stopped Bush?

[meti57b]

21. "just over Iraq"

The bush war against Iraq and occupation has killed 100,000 Iraqis, turned us into war mongerers and aggressors, and has bankrupted the U.S. economy. Blair has supported bush in this and bush shoves that in our face all the time.

Blair could repudiate his past position on the war against Iraq, so it is his choice. I know the people of your country do not support that war.

However, there is no need to be concerned about what I think. I don't post or talk about Blair and the British government. I have enough problems with my own government to keep me busy.

[WyLoochka]

31. If Blair had said "No"

that likley would not have stopped BushCo. But you Labourites would not now have blood on your hands and would be in a far better position to help the entire world out and work effectively AGAINST the neo fascists of Washington DC.

You can't do that now, you are permanently chained to and identified the world over with BushCo, thanks to your leader. Tony Blair has not achieved one concession, not one consideration, not one compromise from BushCo on anything that he said he would insist upon in his toothpaste sharing con fabs with the Texas chain saw neo fascist. Not one. He caved immediately and repeatedly and got zilch. He has no influence. He's a wimp and an "appeaser." "What's to support?

A government that supports neo fascism can not truthfully be regarded as "progressive."

[Capt_Nemo]

33. Appeasing neo-conservatism now is just the same as

appeasing fascism in the 30's

How many people will have to die for you to realize that?

Blair is a de facto neo-conservative and I consider him or anybody
that supports him to be on the OTHER SIDE of the barricade, period!

[Michael_UK]

36. So, if I consider Blair a progressive, then that makes you a fascist

What kind of logic is that? A flawed one

[WyLoochka]

56. It means you are gullible

Blair has thrown everything he's got into supporting the BushCo neo fascist agenda, and those are the facts, no matter what you "consider" him to be.

[Capt_Nemo]

78. Blair is a neo-conservative enabler and that is very close to being

a fascist enabler.

If you believe he is a progressive because you are in denial
about Tony Blair's agenda. He is a neo-conservative 5th
column and your party has been corrupted from the inside.

Wake up!

on edit: I hope you're realy proud that your party´s leader is already responsible
for the death of more civilians than Milosevic and Tudjman put toghether.
Keep up the bodycount!

[AP]

102. Neocons would have an easier time in Iraq if UK were not there.

I suspect that Iraqis lives have been saved because the US is not in control of the areas the UK is in.

[BillZBubb]

55. If Blair had EMPHATICALLY said NO

Bush could not have invaded. The fig leaf of "allies" allowed him to go ahead. Had Blair been honest and said there was no proof of WMD and that the inspectors needed to stay in and finish their job, there would have been no invasion.

Blair is a worthless piece of shit. If he takes Labour down with him so be it. They deserve to lose if they support him.

[AP]

103. ...a bomb would have gone off in central London and Tories would be in...

...power.

They'd be running the same fear campaign they used with the IRA to keep Thatcher and Major in power for as long as they did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. So you mean that Blair gave in to the terrorists?

In this case, the BFEE? No, I think he has more integrity than that.

[AP]

118. I think he has all the angles covered.

[Jack_DeLeon]

91. Are national ID cards progressive?

I havent looked into the bills or whatever much but alot of the things like that coming out of the UK dont sound very progressive to me.

[AP]

104. ...his tuition plan, increasing employment and higher wages are liberal

and progressive.

[Jack_DeLeon]

128. Well as long as your happy....

having to show your papers to any authority figure that asks then who am I to question that.

[AP]

130. Jack, the UK has no picture IDs at all. The driver's license is a piece of

paper you fold four times and which has no photo -- and a lot of people don't have them. Now that you don't need a passport to travel in Europe, fewer people probably have one.

I don't know all the details about the national ID (and I doubt that anyone can ask you for it anytime) but I suspect that if in the US if most people didn't have drivers license, we do SOMETHING to make sure most people had photo IDs.

How many times are you asked for your dirvers license as ID? Does it bother you when you are? Probably not. Well imagine a country where most people don't have any photo ID at all.

In any event, this issue alone is a useless measure of how liberal that government is.

[Jack_DeLeon]

131. how many times I have been asked to show my DL....

Only a handful of times. I can only distincly remember about 5 instances.

Two were when I was pulled over for speeding, two while paying for something with a credit card, and once when paying by check.

It didnt particularily bother me to show my ID when purchasing goods, I suppose if it had I could have just taken my business elsewhere.

As for the showing the police my ID, that is only required if you are driving. If the police ever asked to see my ID while I was not driving I would refuse.

[Capt_Nemo]

32. So you don't mind to be lied into an aggression war

What is the part of war criminal that you don't understand?

Now one just has to suppress his own ethics and scruples just because
an evil guy is the leader of his own damn team?

Well, tell that to the 100,000 Iraqi dead...

[veggiemama]

120. The biggest problem with Tony Blair is that he's the love child of

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Raygun. TB has effected the transfer of more wealth to the top from the bottom than ever Baroness Maggie or Raygun ever dared dream! When the Queen has to put the brakes on the PM's megalomania, then something's terribly rotten at 10 Downing St. Blair has sold out the working class, the trade unions, immigrants, civil liberties, lone parents, the NHS, etc, etc, etc. And he's not only poodle to Bushco, but also to Murdoch--for whom he's destroying the finest television network in the world!

Labour's fine by me, but I cannot support "New Labour".

[KitchenWitch]

4. Labour Party

I am obviously not as familiar with UK politics as I am with politics in the US, but I am no Tory (not sure of the spelling). Even democrats can take a wrong turn and support mistakes. I do not like Tony Blair, because he is shrubco's lapdog, but that does not mean I would withdraw support for your Labour Party!

[Michael_UK]

6. Thank you n/t

[leftynyc]

77. Me neither - cutting off my nose to spite my face is stupid

Putting the Tories back in power is just not an option.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Go on, convince me that Labour has policies to the left of the Lib Dems

The argument is academic for me - Labour got under 10% in my constituency last time, so I'm voting to keep my Lib Dem MP in whatever you say.

I'll start by pointing out that the Lib Dems want a 50% tax rate for earnings over £100,000, and to reform local taxes to be income based - more progressive than the banded property tax. They are also less authoritarian than Labour on criminal matters.

[Michael_UK]

10. Ok

Living in an area where Labour have no chance of winning, I can see why you'd vote Lib Dem, so you're not the type of person I'm targeting with this OP.

Having said that, the LDs take the position of trying to take votes away from Tories and Labour and given that Labour are more centrist and the conservatives are slipping off to the extreme right wing, the obvious place to be attacking now is from the left. However, if you look at places where liberals actually have power, (councils) they've been as willing to sell off services, supported anti Union laws in the 1980s under Thatcher, supported Trident. Ultimately, as a third party, they're opportunist - antiwar stuff is just expedient at the moment

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. but the same goes for Labour too

Blair is just as opportunistic at adopting old Conservative policies as any Lib Dem. Look at all the PFI stuff - cooking the books to hand over the capital assets to private companies, and make the government's borrowing look less. He keeps nuclear weapons, the anti-trade union laws; he's destroyed the student grant and fee system in England (I was a student under Thatcher, and much better off than one under Blair).

There may be genuine left wingers among Labour councils; and some MPs too. But the majority of the Labour MPs are only too willing to support Blair and his centre right policies.

Being antiwar is 'expedient'? How about 'principled'? The principle being not to kill people based on information made up by your own press secretary.

[Michael_UK]

19. I agree that Labour isn't all sweetness and light but...

... if you look at the actual results, what Labour has achieved, are they progressive or not? I'd say they are.

PS, I met Alistair Campbell last week, and he pointed out how much intelligence was passing through Blair's office every day. It wasn't cooked up by Campbell or Blair.

BTW, I don't say antiwar is "expedient" generally, but in the case of some liberal democrats, I suspect it is

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. If we ignore the plagiarised student thesis

or the magical transformation of information in Blair and Campbell's hands:

In an e-mail to Campbell on 17 September, Powell wrote:

"In the penultimate para (of the foreword) you need to make it clear that Saddam could not attack us at the moment. The thesis is he would be a threat to the UK in the future if we do not check him." (CAB/11/53)

A week later the dossier was published a foreword by Blair saying:

"I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest."

(After the event, Jack Straw has said on several occasions that neither he nor Blair described Iraq as an "imminent" threat, while admitting that they used the words "current and serious" threat. He made a big point of this in giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 24 June. He seems to have a cockeyed notion that a "current" threat doesn’t require as urgent attention as an "imminent" one. But doesn’t a "current" threat, which already exists, require a more urgent response than an "imminent" one, which is merely expected to exist?)

http://www.thebevinsociety.com/user/story.php?id=106

And then see most of the Butler report, which shows the way the intelligence reports, full of 'may', 'possible' 'small', were rewritten in Blair's reports to be "definite", "beyond doubt", "significant" etc.

[aneerkoinos]

43. Well

I think it's hard to have respect for the critical thinking skills of person who believes what Alistair Campbell says. :D

I say, if your mission in life is to bring more support for New Labour Neoliberalism and Neocolonialism, DU is pretty challenging place to come fishing... :)

[foreigncorrespondent]

24. So...

so you're not the type of person I'm targeting with this OP.

...just who the hell are you targeting with this thread on an AMERICAN left wing message board?

I'm not an American by any means. And my country is just as responsible for the illegal war, as yours is. But the people here DO NOT VOTE in the U.K. elections, so why on earth are you targeting anyone here?

Ok, so you want support for Labour, so why don't you go out and begin working towards getting that support in your own community, rather than telling people to support a person they detest, from across the pond? This thread really makes no sense to me what so ever.

Oh and for the record I'm Australian, and do not support Blair one little bit. If Labour throw him to the curb, then they might have a chance of gaining some respect back, but until then, don't count on it.

[Michael_UK]

25. Well I do

I'm a member of the UK Labour party, and I go out campaigning, at least once a week.

Now, the majority of brits supported the Democrats, even if we realised that Kerry wasn't the perfect candidate - and I know many americans were thankful for the support they received from Brits, even if we couldn't vote in your election.

In return, I'd just like you invite fellow progressives to show a little support for progressives in the UK, even if you can't vote. I didn't realise isolationism was a left-wing trait, I thought that was the other side

[foreigncorrespondent]

28. What part of...

..."I'm an Australian" didn't you understand? So the U.S. election wasn't MY election.

And no were in my post did I even suggest isolationism. What I said was, you cannot expect people here to support someone they hate. That is like asking them to support Bush* now, because he "won" the election.

I said to you, if the Labour party would throw Blair to the curb, then they have a chance of winning some respect back, but until then, don't count on it.

For the record, Australia voted in October. Not once did I come to DU and tell the lovely people here to please support Mark Latham (leader of the Australian Labor Party.) If people showed support for him, then that was of their own doing.

The day I voted I had to bite my tongue as I was casting my vote for Latham, because to me, he wasn't the candidate of my choice, but I was an anyone but Howard girl. There was no way on earth I was going to come here and suggest people support someone who I myself didn't fully support.

Now tell me, do you fully support Blair? And be very careful how you answer this, because if you answer yes, then you also support an illegal war.

[Michael_UK]

30. I'm fully aware of the Australian election

My posting here was precipitated by the fact that I see so much posting about how bad Labour are, and how they should lose the next election. All I'm doing is defending progressive values.

I don't think it's possible to fully support a candidate, but yes I support Blair, with all that implies.

[foreigncorrespondent]

41. No!

My posting here was precipitated by the fact that I see so much posting about how bad Labour are, and how they should lose the next election. All I'm doing is defending progressive values.

What you did do was make a post that you knew would attract flames. That isn't exactly defending progressive values, is it? You cannot force someone to like something you like.

My partner and I had many discussions over the last (almost) five years about the death penalty. I was for it and she was/is against it. She never once tried to force me to see her side, because she realized if I was going to change my view of this issue, I would do it under my own steam, in my own time. Now I have made her very proud of me, because my view did change, and now I do not support a death penalty. And the people to thank for my change of view is my partner, Matthew Shepherd's father, and the good people here on DU. Without any of the writing anyone listed above wrote, I would never have changed my opinion.

Now, you need to sit back and take into consideration what the good people of DU have been through during the last four years. They have had an unelected fraud sitting in their Oval office. They have had terrorists attack them, but not just that, they since learned that their very own unelected government who is meant to protect them either knew about it happening before it happened, or had a part in making it happen. They have had to go through one war in the name of terror. Then they have had to sit back and watch as their unelected government proceeded to invade a sovereign nation with the help of YOUR country and MY country, all the while that unelected government allowing the suspected head of the terrorist attack on their nation get away, when they had him cornered. They have had to put up with lie after lie, and the media spinning constantly to protect the unelected government occupying their White House. And this list could go on and on.

Once you have sat back and realized what these poor people have been through, then you need to sit back and think about the fact that after all that, and yet another election that was STOLEN from them, which means they have yet another four years to try and get through the same tyranny that has struck at their nations chords, that these people are completely shattered.

Then you come along just over a month later and request they support something they see as being just as much at fault as their own government. Now was not the time for this.

I understand your wanting to support progressive values, but this isn't a way of going about that. If they want to support what you want them too, then they will make that decision for themselves when the time comes.

And, yes, I do realize the good the Labour party has done for the U.K. but I also recognize the bad stuff they have done as well, and if I were voting in your up and coming election, my vote wouldn't be going for them. Because for me, the bad stuff really does out weigh the good.

[Michael_UK]

44. In my first post

I explained that "I can't force anyone to support Labour", but I'd like to persuade people see through the Bush = Blair = I want the conservatives to win rhetoric.

I'm fully aware that it's shit that Bush won the election (although I doubt substantial fraud was involved). But, the US isn't the centre of the world - politics goes on elsewhere. With an election coming up, I'm sure as progressives, we should be interested on what goes on elsewhere (Ukraine, France, UK) and not just stop discussing things, just because Kerry lost. Fierce discussion is what makes us progressives - we don't just follow the rantings of some Limbaugh type character.

I'm not here to offend, just to put across my point of view - sorry if I offended.

[foreigncorrespondent]

53. Who said anything...

...about there being substantial fraud involved? I certainly didn't. I said they had another election stolen. Stop trying to put words there that aren't there. I get tired of that when I have discussions with repukes, I don't need it when I have discussions with progressives.

Now again I will ask you what part of "I'm an Australian" don't you understand? I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't exactly the centre of the world and that politics does happen everywhere else. And not once did I say the U.S. was the centre of the world. I am just trying to make you understand that your timing with this thread truly sucks.

There is NOT one person here that has ever said Blair equates to Bush*. Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to what people actually do say around here, you would learn that what in fact they don't like about Blair is his support for the corrupt regime running their country. They don't like Blair because of how he has been Bush*s lap dog. Just like they don't like my PM for the very same reason.

And no one has told you we need to stop discussing stuff just because Kerry had an election stolen from him and then proceeded to concede. What has been said to you is the many reasons why people do not support the U.K. Labour party. And it is quite obvious that you are not willing to accept anyone elses views that do not support your own.

Now my reasons for hating your beloved Labour party are simple, they sold out to the Bush* regime. And if it ever comes out that Kerry did have some sort of Skull and Bones deal with Bush*, then I will be saying the exact same thing about him. But until that time, I just see Kerry as a cop out, plain and simple. He let hndreds and thousands of people not just in America, but across the world down, when he conceded to the boy king.

And by the way, you realized the moment you typed in "flame ahead, if you will" that you would be offending, so please do not insult my intelligence by telling me your intentions weren't meant to offend.

[Michael_UK]

57. Ehh??

I'm so sorry - I thought you saying the "election was stolen" related to fraud ... anyway, that's hardly important.

Now you're accusing me of misrepresentation, when I say people equate Blair to Bush - well, I'm afraid that's what I see.

I welcome debate, and for that reason, if people were against the war, then that's fine. If people don't like Blair that's their perogative. Again, read what I wrote. All I'm trying to do is point out that on domestic issues in particular, the Labour Party is nothing like Bush, and the Labour Government has achieved a great deal

[foreigncorrespondent]

61. Yes!

well, I'm afraid that's what I see.

And you are most likely seeing that, because it is painfully obvious that you do not read what people say properly! You only see what you want to see, and that is truly sad. You miss so much by doing that.

1. I did say the election was stolen with that being related to fraud. You, however decided to ignore what I was saying and began adding words. I never once said there was substantial fraud involved. I don't know how big the fraud issue goes, until recounts happen, do I?

2. I have told you several times in this thread that I am an Australian. Yet you told me the U.S. election was my election. Further, you tried to tell me I was saying the U.S. was the centre of the world. Sorry mate, only arrogant American republicans think that way.

3. In my first post to you (see reply #24) I asked you a question. No where did I say that question was rhetorical, and yet you poroceeded to not answer that question. In stead you decided to tell me about how Brits were supporting Kerry, and how you would like the same back. Yet I must say here, not once did our American friends right here on DU ask for any support from abroad.

4. I have told you not once but twice if your beloved Labour party would throw Blair to the curb, then your beloeved party would have a chance of regaining some respect, but until that time, don't count on it. You have decided to not listen to that.

Need I go on? Or do you think you might actually begin paying attention?

[Michael_UK]

64. er

1) Eh? (again) I think you're arguing semantics - say the election was stolen, then the fraud would have to be substantial, which you suggested - hardly the grossest misrepresentation

2)I understand that you're australian - look, this board is pretty quick, if I used "you" went I should have said "they", hardly a big deal. My thread is generally directed towards american progressives

3) I answered your question, and also reiterated it in replies to other people

4) I have listened to your point about Blair "being kicked to the kerb", but the point of my OP is that I don't feel this is a valid point - as I've pointed out, Labour doesn't swing on its relationship with Bush and the Iraq war.

You seem to be getting worked up over this. Look, I support Blair, you don't. My point, again, is that the Labour Party isn't about Blair, a point I have been trying to make and supported by some on this board. I accept that you disagree, let's leave it at that. Please stop accusing me of misrepresentation and not reading your posts.

[foreigncorrespondent]

65. Oh please!

Again you insult my intelligence.

I'm not getting worked up at all. If I was getting worked up, you would know about it. But as I sit here and type I am actually quite calm, just a little tired considering it is coming on to 4am for me.

1. Does the word substantial not mean great as in huge any more? As I said, I really don't know the size of the fraud that has taken place until recounts are done, do I? So please do not add words to things I have said.

2. Please don't take such a cop out approach to what I stated. You dealt with one part of that, and totally ignored the second part. And I'm sorry, but no where did you say that you wanted progressive American's to respond to this only. You titled your thread "I hope I see support on DU for the UK Labour Party in the 2005 Election" am I not a member of DU?

3. Where did you answer my question? You didn't answer my question. I asked you who the hell you were targeting on an AMERICAN forum. You totally skipped over that question and gave me the whole turn around about how the Brits supported Kerry. If you did answer my question, then you must have used invisible fonts to do it.

4. As I have already stated in this thread, anyone who doesn't agree with you, you refuse to accept their views. I have given you reasons and you brush them off as not being valid. Do you believe that to be a progressive thing to do? People here feel those reason are legitimate enough for them.

Now my point is, so long as Blair is the leader of the Labour party, then the Labour party IS about him. Just like here in Oz the ALP is about Latham, and the Liberals are about Howard.

Just because you have decided to brush aside the evil Blair has done for the sake of the good doesn't mean everyone has to follow in your footsteps. If you want to see support for Labour, then perhaps you should be looking around for a progressive forum in the U.K.

[Michael_UK]

71. hey

1) I'm not going to argue what substantial means, but I clearly didn't misrepresent you.

2) Perhaps I didn't make it very clear. Look, in my first responce to you, I didn't note you were australian. I noted this, and explained that this board is quick and I made one mistake, particularly as I was responding to a number of people

3) I explained why I targeted an american forum, but I'll explain again. I see people on an american forum attacking the Labour party as right wing fascists by some. I see people who think Blair and Bush come from the same political ideology. I think this is unfair and I was defending my viewpoint. I didn't exclude australians, so don't claim that I did. I did suggest that I expected most people who responded would be american (no big shock there) and didn't say "no non-americans please".

4) I've already accepted we disagree and said that opposing the war was a perfectly valid point of view. I'm not going to continue this debate if you keep accusing me of things I haven't done.

[Sapphocrat]

81. fc, nicely done...

Aside from the issue at hand (Labour), you just said something a lot of Yanks (especially on DU) need to hear repeated, in a single paragraph (the one beginning "Now, you need to sit back...").

Meaning: I hope the next time one of us feels especially ashamed to be an American, and worries that the rest of the world lumps all us Yanks into the same big, ugly pot, your post is representative of all the fur'ners who really do get what's going on here... and get it from half a world away better than most Americans do. You're not alone in your sense of our situation (although, I'm beginning to think Aussies, especially, have some sort of supernatural understanding of Americans), but it's the sort of thing we need to hear, and hear often. (And I would enourage ALL non-USians to remind us from time to time that you understand we're not all Ugly-American clones.)

So, thanks for expressing your observations aloud. I think you just did a great service to a lot of us, without even realizing it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

87. Thank you, Sapph!

I guess I did do something possitive without even realizing it. I was basically telling this guy what he needs to do, because it was painfully obvious to me that he in fact was lumbering ALL yanks into one group. And that group is, everyone is against Labour, when clearly not everyone is against Labour as much as everyone is against Tony Blair, and that is what the OP just doesn't seem to get.

And I truly believe the Aussie/Ameican understanding thing relates more to how our countries were founded. We both have similar backgrounds.

[Michael_UK]

95. ??

I was lumbering all Yanks into one group - where???

Oh well, never mind

[Walt Starr]

50. To be honest with you, I sincerely hope Labour loses

:shrug:

Even if that means the evil Tories get in.

[Michael_UK]

52. I'm so sorry to hear you say that

[Walt Starr]

58. As I see it., it's the only way to get rid of a man as evil as Bush

:shrug:

To me, the Tories woiuld be the lesser of the two evils.

[AP]

106. Shockingly misguided.

[AP]

105. This is why liberals lose. You realize that that attitude will have ...

... serious and irreversible consequences on the lives of millions of people? It will no doubt result in the shift in a ton of wealth to the top of British society and will help fascists entrench themselves in british government (and no matter what you think, Blair is not a fascist).

[SweetLeftFoot]

60. Aussie

I am an Aussie in Scotland and the feeling up here (I move in most exalted political circles!!) is that Blair will roll over Brown very early after the election.

A Brown Labour Govt would be better.

[foreigncorrespondent]

66. G'day, Aussie abroad!

Where abouts in Oz did you hail from?

I have been saying if Blair is gone the Labour party has a chance of gaining respect back. I really do hope for the sake of the U.K. Blair does roll over. You guys don't need another Thatcher government, and having a poodle for Bush* doesn't help relations around the world either.

[SweetLeftFoot]

93. The deal

Blair and Brown have a deal (Granita deal) - similar to the one Hawke and Keating had - about the handover. Its going to be the next term.

I think allowing the war in Iraq to cloud your judgement regarding Labour is a major, major, strategic mistake. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

While Blair's support for Bush on Iraq is sickening, one really has to look at it in context.

First, as I posted above, Blair has track record of progressive government and peace making initiatives that cannot simply be wiped out by one morally unsound judgement.

And secondly, what the feck was he supposed to do? Given that he was obviously being fed cooked up intel, I genuinely believe that Blair genuinely believed that Saddam did have WMD and could use them quickly. There was certainly an element of him wanting to believe too.

Let's face it, in the long run the best result for progressives is a Labour Govt with Brown as its head. But the simple fact is that they need Blair to win the next election.

Would you REALLY rather Michael Howard?

[foreigncorrespondent]

99. Sorry!

You will get no more response from me. Telling someone you don't even know that they are cutting their nose off to spite their face really won't get you far.

BTW, The Iraq war is just ONE of MANY reasons I do NOT support the Labour party, ok?

[SweetLeftFoot]

114. Jaysus

Touchy.

[foreigncorrespondent]

132. Oh please!

You insult my intelligence by telling me I am cutting off my nose to spite my face. That is kinda telling me, I don't know how to make decisions for myself!

I am not being touchy, but I will not be insulted by anyone. I don't care if you are a fellow Aussie or not.

[SweetLeftFoot]

133. Insulting intelligence

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence and I'm sorry if you think I did.

[SweetLeftFoot]

94. Melbourne

I'm from Melbourne - inner city boy. Now in Edinburgh.

[bushisanidiot]

8. I agree. The Labour Party SHOULD find support here at DU.

I do like Tony Blair, but he has sucked up to pres. AWOL far too much. He is a good man who I think is afraid of sticking his neck out to say anything negative about his country's allies.. unlike AWOL who seems to look at insulting our allies as a some sort of frat party game.

[Michael_UK]

12. Exactly, I've no problem with constructive criticism,...

... but anybody but Blair is just ludicrous, especially when the Anybody is Michael Howard

[aneerkoinos]

22. Nope

Unless you think supporting DLC takeover of Democratic party is what DU is about. Supporting Lib Dems (comparable to Dean moderates) and/or Greens and Socialists would be in the DU spirit.

Scaring people with the Tory Troll (who's got the UKIP to worry about, among other things) is mind killer, just plot to keep the nicer, gentler kind of Thatcherism that Blair represents in power, when what people want and need is to move the center more to the left. Left of Blairism.

You cannot and you should not protect war-criminals even when they happen to be PM's and nominally from a progressive party. That way you keep poisoning your country, poisoning democracy.

[rman]

13. if "Labour" manages to kick out half the party that is "New Labour"

then i'll support them.

[Michael_UK]

14. New labour doesn't mean anything

new labour is just labour

[rman]

18. for something that doesn't mean anything, there's a lot of talk about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Labour_Party#New_Labour
....
Following John Smith's death in 1994, the leadership of the party was won by Tony Blair. Blair began to reconstruct the party's policies. His first move was to revise Clause IV of the party constitution, which had been adopted in 1918 and committed the party to 'the common ownership of the means of production' (widely interpreted in the past as a policy of nationalisation). A special conference of the party approved the change in March 1995. The key phrase of the new clause IV is:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each one of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Blair characterized his political philosophy as being the Third Way though critics pointed to the lack of any concise statement of its meaning, and the term later fell from use. Labour's economic policy sought to balance the laissez-faire capitalism of the Thatcherite era with measures that would lessen or reverse their negative impact on society. The party itself was rebranded new Labour for the purpose of election campaigning, which critics on the left charged was a separate party.
....

====

new Labour because Britain deserves better
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/lab97.htm

====

http://www.newlabour.me.uk/

[Minstrel Boy]

38. Of course it does.

New Labour bled the red out of the party. Its socialist heritage has been stood on its head for "third-way" neoliberalism.

It's your country, so do what you like. But myself, I'm a socialist, and I would not support Blair.

[Walt Starr]

70. New Labour pretty much seems to be Tory Lite

New Labour is to the British Labour Party what the DLC is the the U. S. Democratic PArty.

Turncoats is a word that comes to mind.

[Taxloss]

74. That's really not fair.

Sure, it is on things like PFI and tuition fees, but the Labour party has done remarkable work tackling things like child poverty and expending workers' rights. Not Tory AT ALL in that respect. Or on the environment. Or on housing.

[Walt Starr]

80. And the Democrats tried to do some good things, too

but the Democratic Party Leadership is still being Republican Lite.

It's time to throw the hypocritical bastards out!

[Taxloss]

88. The difference is that Labour is in power.

And looks to remain that way.

But when Labour wasn't in power, although it dropped the more radical parts of its agenda, it won because it wasn't the Tories, not because it looked like the Tories.

And by radical parts of the agenda, I mean punitive 95% taxes on the rich, unilateral nuclear disarmanent, closed union shops and union block votes, that sort of thing. Not the sort of centrist issues the Democrats are arguing about.

For heaven's sake, you guys have got a great product. Just sell it properly.

[Sapphocrat]

86. Just like 'neoliberal'...

...means "liberal" in the U.S.?

Uh... Not.

British "New Labour" and American "neoliberalism" are just different names for the same regressive ideology.

In case you weren't aware, in the U.S., "neoliberal" is the word neoconservatives call themselves. Read up on Leo Strauss and the so-called "neoliberal" movement -- it's all quite an eye-opener.

Good God, man, even Yanks understand that "New Labour" is the new-and-improved brand label Labour came up with to add a fresh, sweet-smelling scent to the party's stinking rightward shift -- and you know it.

"New Labour is just Labour." Indeed! :eyes:

Now, come on -- stop talking down to us as if all Yanks were really as stupid as some people make us out to be.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. What no interest in liberal democrats?They jibe more with DU.

[Michael_UK]

16. They seem to

based on wrong assumptions.

Take Tony Benn, one of the biggest critics of Tony Blair. I can't find the exact quote, but he said something like "If I were a young man, I would still join the Labour Party, as it's still the party for progresive politics"

[rman]

62. which wrong assumptions?

What you say about Brent doesn't explain how LD's only "seem" to jibe more with DU.

Wrt the issues LD is more traditional Labour then the current incarnation of the Labour Party where about half of the officials is in effect Tory Light wrt the issues.
This looks very much like the situation with Dems in the US, where corporate interests have hijacked the party in much the same way as the unions have been hijacked earlier.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Wish the Greens or Socialists could step up, but I would support the

Labour Party provided you all figure out a way to get Tony out. :)

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WyLoochka]

26. Nope -

would support Labour only if the party had run Blair out when given so many opportunities on silver platters. The Iraq invasion did not have the support of the people of the UK. There was no excuse whatsoever for the party not to have forced Blair into breaking his self-tied umbilical cord to Bush* or out entirely and to have replaced him, on principle, when he tied the UK to the moral and fiscal disaster that is BushCo.

As long as UK Labour has, as it's head, a big Bush chum whose actions, words and bald faced lies went a long way in helping to establish a false, media spun, impression of credibility for BushCo, thus assisting in his re-election here - no sympathy or support from me.

Good thing I'm not a voter in the UK. If your characterization of Lib Dems is correct (I'll check that out) seems you have a choice of Fascist Party A, Fascist Party B, or Fascist Party C.

[Michael_UK]

29. This is the point I'm making

You (along with a great number of DU posters) cannot see the difference between Bush and Blair (and Labour). You seem to forget the way Clinton worked with Blair. You forget that Labour is the true progressive party in the UK.

If Tony Blair had said no on Iraq, Bush would have gone ahead anyway - I think Blair was trying to restrain Bush.

Not even the tories here are fascist, btw. There's no need for hyperbole

[WyLoochka]

34. Labour USED to be the

progressive party. Now it's the weak kneed, vicariously neo-imperialist party. Brits never learn it seems.

Of course we can't see any difference between Blair and Bush - Blair hasn't shown that there is a difference. Blair is a fool and a failure - "restrain" Bush my ass. He sure didn't try very diligently. And at some point one walks out - on principle - IF one has any principles. Blair doesn't.

From my perch, the Tories are fascists - economic fascists - just like the GOP and the DLC are here. "New Labour" is synonymous with "DLC." That means they are fascist enabling, fawning, appeasing turn coats.

[Michael_UK]

37. They still are the progressive party, ask Tony Benn

[Minstrel Boy]

47. Ask Ken Loach and Harold Pinter.

And "progressive" can be every bit as vapid a political term as "liberal."

Is Labour - New Labour - a socialist party?

[WyLoochka]

48. Wll then, get some guts and

REPLACE Tony Blair, the fascist enabler with Tony Benn, the real progressive as your leader and you'd get somewhere here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Tony Benn's recent opinion on Blair and New Labour

Next week in Brighton the Labour party conference could and should demand such a withdrawal, asserting its right to compel a change of policy by a democratic vote. And Labour MPs should do the same when parliament meets again next month.

This might also prove to be the best way of saving the Labour party from the folly and misjudgment of New Labour and its leader, remembering that Clem Attlee dissuaded Truman from using an atom bomb in Korea, Hugh Gaitskell passionately opposed the Suez war, and Harold Wilson refused to send troops to Vietnam. That is what we are entitled to expect from a Labour government.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6302

[InvisibleBallots]

35. didn't the Tories support Kerry?

I remember one of them called Kerry "our kind of conservative"

[sadiesworld]

39. The lesser-of-two-evils...

appears to be a global problem. :(

[WyLoochka]

40. Where was the support of Labour for

Democrats? Silent and hiding of course. They didn't want to piss off their best buds George and Karl.

'Ya got some nerve coming here asking us for support of the Blood on Hands, Neoconservative, UN wrecking, New Labour hi-jacking of the UK, Michael.

It is so much easier to get rid of a bad PM in the UK than it is here. All you people who call yourselves 'progressives' had to do was to get enough of you together, walk into #10 and say that's it, Tony, you fucked up - pack your bags, you're out.

Did Labour do that? We know they didn't - the chickenshits. There is nothing to support. The UK will go down with the US in the coming "economic armageddon" New Labour helped set the stage for with it's utter and complete cowardice in the face of the corporate media created BushCo zeitgeist.

[Sterling]

42. What does it matter.

We don't get to vote in the UK.

[RogueTrooper]

45. After seven years of a Labour Government

And the best you can do is say vote Labour or the evil Tories will get back into power is, frankly, pathetic. Currently the Party will not be getting my vote next year. I may change my mind over voting for the closer to the election but one this is true. They will not be getting one dime from me to pay for their campaign, nor will they be getting any of my labor.

This is a Labour Party in which I spent more than a year of my life campaigning for up prior to the 1997 election. I campaigned again for the Scottish parliament referendum and the subsequent elections. I also did a bit of work for 2001. Neither am I some wild eyed leftist: I supported new Labour and it's values.

A friendly word of advice: The LibDems are a popular party on this board. Rocking up to DU and abusing them will offend a lot of DU's membership.

[Michael_UK]

46. That's not what I said at all

read my first post

[RogueTrooper]

49. You're right

and many of the things the Party had done in government have been good; but the Iraq war was unconscionable. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that a government, and it's leader, can lie to a nation on such an important matter as making war and not be held accountable.

I would happily go back to donating and volunteering if the party changed leader. I was a huge fan of Tony Blair; both his policies and style but the Iraq War sickened me. Not because he was supporting George W. Bush but because it was wrong.

[ShaneGR]

51. Hehe, a LOT of people on DU don't support Democrats...

What makes you think they'll support Labour?

[AP]

107. Yeah. Blair will get the Daschle-Reid-Kerry treatment from DU.

[Capt_Nemo]

123. Blair is no Kerry. Blair is Paul Wolfowitz mark II

and just as evil

[SweetLeftFoot]

59. Blair

While I deplore Blair's actions on Iraq, I think the social and economic reasons you nominated above are enough to support him.

ALSO - Blair has one in the bank ... Ireland. By having the guts to overcome the traditional hatreds and positions and actually engage with the Shinners, Blair has helped bring about peace in the North and (given that he can convince Ian Paisley that the Pope has no designs on Belfast) may even bring about a final, lasting peace this week.

So, clearly Blair is not from the same boat as Bush. Bush would happily have supported the Unionist (Proddy) side in the northern conflict and let the war rage on.

I think Blair recognised that the US is necessary evil for the UK. But he forgot that the UK managed to stay out of Vietnam without totally damaging the relationship.

Personally, I think Labor will with a decreased majority. They could hardly increase it though. The Lib Dems will do well and gain lots of metropolitan Labor seats.

But the Tories will be the big losers. They will lost the wet right to the Lib Dems and then UKIP will hive off the Little England element and the BNP will take some of the realy anti-immigration nuts.

[AP]

108. Vietnam had no impact on the UK. Total US control of Iraq would be used...

...(along with spreading instability througout the ME) to strangle the European and British economy.

[the_outsider]

63. consistent support of Iraq war is a deal-breaker

A large majority of British people are against the war. The labor party could have gotten rid of Blair a lot more easily than Americans can impeach *.

I think Blair genuinely believes in colonialism and imperialism. At least the American companies prompting * are hoping to make a shit load of oil money. UK will not make that much money either. So Blair's delusional imperial dreams and all that bullshit about freedom and liberty are even more intolerable.

I will be very glad if Blair loses, but I don't think that's going to happen. I would have voted Lib Dem.

Domestic policies are not the only parameters to judge an imperial politician. I am sure the empire was great for the British aristocrats in the late 19th and early 20th century. It wasn't so great for tens of millions of Indians who died from the biggest man-made famines.

[Taxloss]

68. The Labour Party is trying to get rid of Blair.

He's being impeached by his own MPs, some of them. If a leadership "stalking horse" emerged, it could all be over very quickly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Which ones?

Last I heard, not a single Labour MP had signed up to the impeachment motion. It's Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and a few Conservative and Lib Dems (not the bulk of the Lib Dems; they seem to have a "I'm not supporting an idea I didn't think of first" attitude, unfortunately).

[Taxloss]

72. They haven't signed it

They can't, they'd lose the whip. But some have indicated they might support the vote.

No, I can't name names, sorry, but I would have eiother heard it on the Beeb or read it in the Guardian. That makes me a lousy source. Sorry.

A traditional leadership challenge could emerge. It can happen very quickly, especially if this Blunkett business gets messier (And we'll be rid of Blunky too, bliss, joy)

[Taxloss]

67. I will be voting Labour, probably.

Blair's days are numbered, and Labour has done remarkable work lifting children out of poverty, tackling homelessness, and supporting rights for non-union workers and working mothers.

The Lib Dems don't have the ballast that the unions represent in the Labour party.

Of course, I might change my mind. But Labour has quietly doing amazing work fixing the social fabric of the UK. I think everywhere has seen direct benefits.

Of course there are loads of things I don't like, such as Iraq, which is Blair's baby, not Labour's, and PFI, tuition fees, casinos, transport under-investment etc., but you can't get everything you want.

[Michael_UK]

73. That is exactly what I've been trying to say

You've said it more articulately than I can.

[AP]

110. What's the problem with tuition fees?

A NO-INTEREST loan that you don't pay unless you make the median income and you never pay more than a set % of your income is absolutely brilliant.

The British Universities have been falling apart from underfunding, and this is a brilliant way to make the universities strong and to allocate the cost of education progressively.

A neocon would have come up with a loan program which guarantees bank profits and would have made sure that private companies got a huge percentage of the money people spent trying to lift themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.

[truebrit71]

75. LIB-DEM ALL THE WAY!!!!

Screw the poodle and the rest of his minions.

He is "W" lite...

[JanMichael]

82. Why not RESPECT?

Just curious.

No "Go George Go!"?

[Gruenemann]

84. YES!

SURELY this group would like to support the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS! I've met some of them--they're a great alterative to the Tories and the eternally grinning, funless world of New Labour.

[aneerkoinos]

85. If not for other reason

Lib dems promise to introduce proportional representation, which Blair also promised but ate his word (except for Scotland). After PR, you can vote also Green/Socialist and make your vote count!

[TeacherCreature]

76. The defeat and repudiation of Blair is a moral necessity

I would do or give anything to see that man defeated, disgraced, and tried for war crimes.

He is just as bad as Bush, or maybe worse, since as a supposed (I'd say former) progressive he should have known better.

[Capt_Nemo]

79. Absolutely right!

[Sapphocrat]

83. You'll get my support for Labour...

...the day Labour kicks Blair out on his arse.

Conversely, the Democrats will lose my support the day they nominate Zell Miller for President.

You can tell me something is a duck, but if it walks like a poodle, and pees on itself like a poodle...

Sorry, mate, but blind allegiance is a sorry way to pick your party.

And I don't need to hear any scare stories about the Tories. First, you're addressing a group of Americans who are subjected to just that sort of empty spin every single day of our lives in order to frighten us into backing a warmongering government (and guess what? we don't buy it here, either).

Second, you do have a Green Party in the U.K. It seems to me that any Briton truly concerned about progressive values would recognize that he had been summarily abandoned by Labour, and would shift his support to a party that does care about peace, human rights, and the environment. (No, there's no double standard in my saying that; third-party politics is still, sadly, unachievable on the federal level in the U.S. -- but it is quite a viable alternative in nations with working multi-party systems, such as Canada, Australia, and, by gosh, yes! the U.K.!)

Finally, what do you care whether DUers support your man or not? We have about as much influence with the average U.K. voter as we do with our own goverment (read: just about zero).

And were any of us so blind to Blair's war crimes as to actually want to lend our support, what, exactly, would you have us do -- take up a letter-writing campaign to all the undecideds in your district? Oh, that would go over in a big, big way -- or haven't you noticed that American credibility is in the crapper?

Oh, one more thing about the Tories: It certainly would be a shame if they took control of the U.K. -- but sometimes entire nations are like alcoholics: they need to hit bottom before they see the light and say, "Boy, does my head hurt! I'll never do that again!"

So while I would never wish a Tory reign on the British people, perhaps the installation of such a band of cretins is what it will take to awaken a few "My Labour Party, right or wrong" Brits out of their self-induced stupor. I hope not, as the U.K. will be plummeted into another Dark Age. But sometimes the only cure is some very harsh medicine indeed.

[lovuian]

89. Get ready the Liberal Party is going to win and Blair is out

:bounce:

[Djinn]

90. Technically I can vote in UK elections

I wont because I don't think it's really fair given how much time I've spent there since the last election but I would not, could not vote Labour.

I didn't vote for the economic rationalist version of Labor here (Australia) and I wouldn't do it in the UK either, even HAD Tory BLair oppposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq I wouldn't vote for him.

If I have to have a government that bows to corporate pressure, screws workers and privatises public assets/services why not just vote Tory anyway.

I fail to see how he's improved the NHS either? bringing in private contractors rarely does much for public health care. The PFI scheme sees private companies build hospitals and then "rent" them to the NHS at exhorbitant fees leading to crappy services and job cuts.

The story is much the same in Australia but just because someone keeps the Labour/Labor name doesn't mean they're a Labour party...in Australia an accurate way of summin it up is "I support Labour that's why I vote Green"

[no name no slogan]

92. Labour is great. "New Labour" sucks.

Tony Blair and his "New Labour" cronies are just as bad as our "New Democrats" and the DLC: both are too cozy to corporate power, and do the bidding of the multinationals and the military-industrial complex at the expense of working people.

Like the so-called "New Democrats", "New Labour" became the majority party by co-opting the economic platform of its opposition. It has effectively abandoned its working-class base in order to appeal to the yuppies in the suburbs, and the so-called "middle-class values". They have effectively de-fanged any arguments put forth by the Conservatives/Republicans by adopting most of their policies outright.

Given the alternatives, Labour is probably the best choice. But the leadership of the party needs to change-- especially those who are too busy kissing Uncle Sam's arse on foreign matters while neglecting the opinion of their constituency.

[AP]

111. Old Labour couldn't even get labour to vote for them -- they thought

that state ownership of the means of production was a bad idea. New Labour dropped that plank from the party platform and labour started supporting them.

[American Tragedy]

96. I'm sorry Michael but I don't think that I can

Normally I would. I recognize that the Labour party is our natural ally, but I now believe that it is important to set a historical precedent by electorally punishing Tony Blair, especially now that we have failed to do so here.

If millions of former Labour constituents vote for Kennedy, and cite the Iraq invasion as their motivation, it will force all future British prime ministers to consider more carefully whether they can politically afford to invest carelessly in a war.

Indeed, such a powerful rejection may even reverberate across the ocean to our own misguided citizens. That dissent might finally fracture the freeper myth that Brits are spiritually with the Americans on this.

Whatever happens, we need yall desperately, and I'm glad you're here. Keep us informed here on DU about the political situation in the UK.


By the way, what specifically did you mean when you said that some Lib Dem policies are right-wing?

[Michael_UK]

97. What I meant

Is that the Lib Dems are at present attacking (generally) from the left, but their role as a third party sometimes means that they change their stance depending on what part of the country they're in. In the North (predominantly labour) they'll attack from the left and in the south, will attack from the right. In the past, where they've led councils, they've supported cuts in services, attacked union laws, etc.

[billyskank]

100. I thought freepers hated us?

Always seems this way when they write to our newspapers. Maybe I read the wrong newspapers though? :shrug:

[AP]

113. The only historical precedent set by a Tory vicotry is that liberals...

...can never win.

[billyskank]

98. Wrong

our political system is so dysfunctional, and New Labour backbenchers so supine, that a vote for your Labour candidate almost certainly is a vote for Blair, unless he or she is one of the minority with a mind of their own.

Anyway, what's the point in a New Labour government? They steal Conservative policies in order to keep the Conservatives out, but for what? We still have a de facto conservative government!

[AP]

101. You have my support 100%.

[Michael_UK]

109. thanks n/t

[Capt_Nemo]

122. I hope that you realize that besides you AP is one of the half a dozen

blairites that still exist in DU.

Still in denial about Blair's true nature as a neo-con mole in Labour.

[AP]

125. AP is also one of the DU'ers comfortable that history will agree with me.

[Capt_Nemo]

126. AP you are heading for the biggest disillusionment any human

has experienced to this day.

And I'll be here to say to you: "I told you so"

Your attitude towards Blair reminds me of the faith the portuguese communists put in the wisdom of the Soviet leadership policies...

[corksean]

112. Rove to advise AGAINST Tony Blair

here's the thanks Blair gets for not coming out to support Kerry during the election.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=14920100&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=bush-guru-gets-world-s-worst-job-name_page.html

[AP]

115. ...Rove and a bunch of DUers. You'd think liberals would be tired of...

...falling for his tricks, like getting everyone so focused on war that they forget that the real difference between the right and left is which direction they like to see wealth and power flow.

[Capt_Nemo]

121. "Everyone (is) so focused on the war" because it is a matter

of right and wrong. Because it is the most relevant issue of our
times.

Blair's body count IS the relevant issue, not if he is left or right.

Stalin was left wing Hitler was right wing, yet what matters from their legacy is not where wealth and power were flowing...

Blair is responsible for the death of tens of thousands more innocent
civilians than Augusto Pinochet! That is THE issue!

[AP]

124. War is a part of the a bigger fascist strategy. And it distracts people...

...from seeing what is really going on and focusing on stategies that work to stop fascism.

[Capt_Nemo]

127. And I see no bigger enabler to fascism than Blair

That's where the blood on his hands comes from!

[AP]

129. And I see Blair as holding back Bush in a way that couldn't be done if

the UK were not in Iraq.

I imagine that Basra and environs would be bloody if the US were in control rather than the British. I see Blair's involvement as one of the few things that creates any pressure at all for I-P resolution (and there'd be none at all if the UK were on the sidelines). I don't see Blair using Iraq to shift power to the powerful (the way the US does for Halliburton) which, at the very least, limits the amount of money Halliburton could be making off Iraq.

And then I look at what is happening in the UK domestically, and it's pretty obvious that if Blair is trying to force a lot of wealth and power down to the citizens in the UK and Europe, there must be something else going on with their involvemen in Iraq which people like you are missing. Unlike with the US, it doesn't fit the pattern of fascism that so clearly is motivating US policy.

More things that suggest what Blair is up to something very different from what you presume: negotiating with Libya to remove a bogeyman for thet US to exploit to engage in more war; supporting Annan; and didn't Europe sort of subvert the US deomonization of Iran by negotiating separately with them? I honestly don't know all the details, but I get the impression that it's another piece of evidence that suggests that the UK is not in Iraq to facilitate US neoliberalism, but is there to try to limit the damage it does and the chaos the US is trying to create.

[Capt_Nemo]

135. There was no need for no one to hold bush back

the neo-con world conquest tour is grinding to a halt in the quicksand
of Iraq.

Anyone who knew the region knew that was bound to happen. That is why only power seduced fools like Blair believed the chances of success
of that ill-fated adventure.

He went into it because he believed the neo-con rhetoric. Everybody else was pretty happy in letting the american military machine march
into this quagmire of its own making.

It is a heaven sent containment strategy for all of US competitors, adversaries and enemies.

[tomorrowsashes]

117. FUCK NEW LABOR

New Labor is a bunch of fucking sellouts. They sold out the Liverpool Dockers, they sold out population of the UK, they sold out the world. No support for war pigs, corporate drones, or enemies of the working class, especially when they claim they are the opposite.

You can stay on the sinking ship that is the Labor Party, or you can join a group that wants real progress.

^Everything in the above post applies generally to the Democratic Party as well. We need to tell these wolves in sheeps clothing to fuck off, not vote for them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. "New Labour" is the DLC in the UK. Tony Blair is a war criminal.

Just like his master in the White House.

[TyeDye75]

134. Ill second that

I used to like Tony Blair but his pandering, embaresses me and embarreses my country on the world stage.

PS check out this t shirt http://www.bant-shirts.com/tony-blair-t-shirt.htm