European Tribune

Display:
I went for Blair. Not so much because he led us into a fake war based on lies (although it doesn't look good in the balance) but was he effective in governing the country.

In this he was not. He has presided over a domestic policy of promoting fear to enable the onset of the national surveillance state. Fear of youth, fear of muslims, fear of...you name we'll make you afraid of it.

cue Michael Douglas in the American President
We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it.

Well blair isn't a serious politician either. But he plays one on tv. and he's damaged this country domestically and he's damaged this country's international reputation as well. We are seen as the nodding dog in the back of the US military SUV and we could get away with it before. But now we'll have to spend a couple of premierships with fiercely independent PMs before we can be taken seriously as anything other than a US lackey.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 09:32:39 AM EST
How do you intend to get a fiercely independent PM?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 09:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right now our best chance is to find one in  Christmas cracker, cos there ain't a conadidate in parliament.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 09:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since the end of WWII all the world has asked of British prime ministers is that they do no harm. (Which is why Eden stands out as bad.) It's sad and ironic that Blair thought the way to be more pro-active in world affairs was to hitch the UK to the US -- sad because of how much real harm it's caused the world, ironic because it ended up discrediting the very idea of UK as a "world power," probably forever.

Still, I'm not sure I can look at this from a British perspective. My impression is that most Brits are rather comfortable with being a seoond-tier country. But from the outside looking in, I'm appalled by Blair's domestic policies as well -- the national IDs, collaboration with extraordinary rendition, racial profiling, all the various "Security" acts that never seem to inspire much opposition.  

At any rate, for all these reasons my vote goes to Blair. Up till now, the UK always managed to muddle through its Edens, Thatchers and Majors, but Blair has caused real and, I believe, permanent damage.

by Matt in NYC on Thu Dec 7th, 2006 at 10:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No Matt, you don't understand. It's not a question of being comfortable with being a second-tier nation. It's simply that we know we are the best and do not need all those military and imperial trappings to prove it to other people any more.
by Londonbear on Sat Dec 9th, 2006 at 01:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
The Purpose of Education
by rdf - Nov 20
14 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
18 comments

Help oppose Sarko's three strike nonsense
by nicta - Nov 20
8 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
96 comments

LQD: NATO as 'convenient threat' for Russia
by marco - Nov 21
2 comments

LQD: The real orgasmic Puritans
by Ted Welch - Nov 20
12 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
38 comments

LQD: Geoengineering Ranked
by nanne - Nov 21
50 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series