Punters lose out again on Blair’s departure
July 27th, 2005
-
Even when he looks down keep following Lucky Tony
For the fourth time in just two years punters who piled in to bet on Tony Blair’s imminent departure are set to lose money on the political betting markets. In the aftermath of the May 5th General Election the price on him stepping aside during 2005 was just 2/1. On the Betfair exchange one punter bet that he would be out by September at a price less than evens.
More bookmakers are now taking bets on when Blair will go and the money is going on this happening later rather than sooner. The price against it happening during 2005 is now 25/1 and the favourite period is 2007 - 2008.
-
There seems to be a lemming-type mentality amongst a group of gamblers who seem always ready to put money on Blair going at silly prices whenever a new issue emerges.
As we said before the Olympic 2012 venue was announced punters should follow lucky Tony and those that did got a nice payday. The problem, however, with backing Blair to stay is that you are locking your cash up for as many years as he remains - which might not be a smart move even if the judgement is right.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Sadly true - there doesn’t appear to be any end in sight.
As an opponent this remains hugely frustrating as he is clearly the glue holding the whole Nulab ‘thing’ together.
As most agreed on a recent string, once he does go, GB (probably) aside (and his star appears to be on the wane), there doesn’t appear to be much in the way, if any new leadership or inspiration waiting in the wings to replace him.(Yes, yes - just like the Tories…yawn)
On reflection, this must be why much of the hue and cry for him to do so has dampened down from the left recently.
it would certainly make for far more interesting politics for the next 4 years were he to do so - can see why it’s increasingly unlikely though ?
He’s Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath all rolled into one.
BREAKING NEWS for NUALA …. BREAKING NEWS for Nuala ….
Malcolm Rifkind appearing on Radio 5live after 10am today . It’ll all be clipped vowels and a gentile Scottish ramble through the Tory leadership contest !
I’m not sure that ToryBoy is quite right about Tony Blair being the ‘glue’ for Labour. Like the Tories, Labour has a powerful tradition and core vote which keeps it together in good times and bad. That core is gradually diminishing for both parties, but it can still deliver 25%+ regardless of who’s leading them and what’s happening. What the parties need is leaders who add to that core.
I think it’s two things. Partly simply that most people feel he’s broadly right in what he’s trying to do: improve and modernise public services, combat terrorism, keep taxes reasonably low. Partly he’s incredibly good at communicating these objectives in terms that most people feel comfortable with. The combination of these things in a party leader is very powerful, and makes stuff like ‘Does he use make-up to make him look less tired?’ and even serious concerns about specific policies just bounce off. He’s not loved by most people, but they think he’s on top of the job, a very important characteristic in a PM.
People who detest him are usually either driven by a specific policy that they hate (Iraq, for instance) or visceral dislike of Labour Governments per se. The two groups added together do not form a majority for any other one party.
I don’t think he’ll stay after the election, though. Note that the Tory press has already started the “pshaw, that Gordon Brown, he ain’t a patch on Blair” line, though it’s so soon after they were depicting Blair as an evil liar that it is a hard trick to do.
4. I don’t think he’s the glue that hold the party together. Maybe being in the government is what holds the party together.
Nick Palmer @ 4:
I quite agree with what you say, and admire Blair for his handing of the economy and other achievements. Although normally a LibDem voter, I would certainly have consider voting Labour were it not for Iraq.
I believe the invasion of Iraq was a reckless blunder with repercussions to go on for a long, long time yet. The enormity of this mistake, for me, more than cancels his successes.
3 - It’ll all be clipped vowels and a gentile Scottish ramble through the Tory leadership contest !
Presumably in contrast to the non-gentile current leadership?
New Populus Poll in the Times :
Voting Intention :
Labour 40%
Conservative 28%
Lib Dem 22%
Perhaps more interestingly for the Tory party leadership contest amongst all voters Clarke beats Davies 29-12% and among Tory voters 29-26% . Against Cameron Davies wins 32-15% and 53-14%.
Sample 1,506 taken July 22-24. More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1709918,00.html
8 . Sorry about link try :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
Click Britain , scroll to “full list of articles” and then 13th topic “Voters unmoved by talk of Tory changes”.
Dave X [6] - you admire Blair for his handling of the economy, yet our PM himself admits he knows nothing of economics - he at least knows not to keep a dog and bark himself!
I wonder if our younger politicians are as talentless as some posters here make them out to be. All party leaders have to be tempted to behave like the M.D. in the old cartoon who told his secretary to “find the young man in this firm who can replace me - and fire him” … Blair at least will be keen to leave a leadable Party behind him, which he rightly believes Herself failed to do. As to timing, I’m sure that there will be focus group work on when an election is justified in the eyes of Jack and Jill Voter, and whether a new leader should “play himself in” for a year or so, or seek a new mandate straight away.
8 - Results very similar to latest Mori 41/28/25/6 .
Mike - nice picture, Bambi he most certainly isn’t.
What do people make of the latest OP results? Is the feeling that its BAU (with a Labour overstatement and Conservative understatement), or has there been a shift in sentiment towards Labour?
7 , Tabman . “…A gentile Scottich ramble ..”
It’s taken me over half an hour to unravel my dyslexic mistake - I always proof read before I post but at times I simply can’t see the quiche for the lentils . It should have been genteel , but it could have been worse :
” ….and a genital Scottish ramble through the Tory leadership contest” !!!!!
Frankly such a vision is difficult to take in !!!
13 - quite, the thistles!
Let us not for, whatever Blair’s achievements, he is not as good as David Davis. In the words of John Maples:
“He [Davis] might even be as good as Thatcher, he is certainly better than Blair.”
So its a massive Tory landside victory in 2009/10!
12 - I wonder whether there is a bit of a “bloody nose delivered - now let’s start with a more or less clean slate” feeling for some people at this stage. If I were a Tory I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it though. It is pretty meaningless until they have a new leader in place.
15 - far too modest. “Better than Churchill”, surely.
17 - Of course, even Winston never made it into the Territorial SAS
Yeah. Escaping from a POW camp? Davis would have managed not to get himself in there, thank you very much!
16 , James . I tend to agree . The figures several months after the new Tory leader is elected will be the first straw in the wind for 2009 . However the figures are disappointing for the Tories and if they drift down into the mid twenties and the Lib Dems push up from the low twenties then there will be a grating of teeth at CCO . I think the Lib Dems will be pleased that post election they are holding firm and Labour just ploughs on regardless.
13 - my apologies, I hadn’t realised. Ben (Original) is a fellow dsylexic. I’m just fumble-fingered
16,20 - to a certain extent post election both opposition parties fall into irrelevance, and especially so given recent events. The new leader will make things more interesting (or maybe not) depending upon the impact s/he makes.
18 - yes, he only managed active service in the 4th Hussars (Omdurman?) and the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers (WW1).
14 , book value . “… the thistles ! ”
Yes I can see David Davies in the far distance yomping commando style toward the valley , having escaped from the Howard Hills . Fortunately a birthday suited Ken Clarke is out of focus , sporting only a fat cigar and fedora !
http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/travel/scotland
There is often a boost for the government just after the election, e.g. in 1992, 1997. And parties in leadership elections usually lose a little ground - which is why at first I was expecting the Tories to do worse than they did in the by-elections.
Didn’t Blair’s ratings rise after the bombings?
I would also have expected the Lib Dem rating to fall after the election as the media reverted to ignoring them, so this is encouraging.
Still, as people say, it’s so long before an election I think it’s just interesting to us anoraks and doesn’t give any idea what’s going to happen next time, particularly as we are expecting a new Labour leader as well as a new Tory one.
No, I am not turning into Sean re the London bombings situation, but I love the last paragraph:
ONE of the failed suicide bombers fled the scene through the home of two pensioners. Melanda Henry, 77, described how the fugitive burst into his home after a bomb on a train at Shepherds Bush station failed to explode.
The man had escaped through an emergency exit on the train, climbed an 8ft wire fence and jumped 20ft into a garden. He scaled walls and fences until he found the Henrys’ back door open.
Mr Henry said that his wife Lola was clearing lunch on Thursday when she heard a crash. He said: “I was upstairs when my wife shouted there was a man in the house. Our back door was open and Shepherds Bush station is just at the back. It’s safe round here and we’ve never had a problem leaving the door open.
“I went downstairs but he had already opened the front door and run away. He shut the front door behind him, which seems a polite thing to do when you are in a rush.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707596,00.html
Gavin - drop me a line tabman@thatsaid.co.uk
5. After re-reading what I wrote, I think it’s a nonsense (it’s a bit worrying when someone starts to disagree with himself, but I was confused by all the talks about pigeons
).
I should reword my post @5: ruling helps Labour to keep all its differences behind the surface. I don’t think that when defeated the party will split or something like this (maybe Shaun Woodward and his butler could defect back, but it’s not relevant):
24 - “Such a polite young man, what a shame he didn’t have time for a cup of tea with us.”
22 - the new leader should revive Howard’s idea of combining shadow portfolios, so the Tories have a Shadow Secretary for Health and Efficiency.
Tabman 12. Glad you like the picture. this is one I’ve been trying to use for ages. One thing’s for certain - TB does not wear a hair-piece.
GOOD NEWS for posters who want to spell check their comments before posting. On the new version of the Google tool-bar - go to main Google site - there is a spell-checker which works with web-page forms which is what this is.
12-29. Judging from this photo, all the money he spends in makeup aren’t well spent.
29. I want (I need) the spell-checker! Do I have to go to google.com or to google.co.uk?
O/T Granville Technology that trades under “Tiny” and “Time” computers have gone into administration . All outlets will close . Not sure as yet how this effects guarantees . Anyone out there use Tiny - any good ?
31 - never had one. They always had some deals which were good if you happened to be buying a new kitchen sink anyway, but if you didn’t want all the extras were a bit pointless.
How deep is Brown’s involvement in the Railtrack debacle?
Alan Duncan seems to want to directly attack Brown: “The man who pulled the puppet strings from day to day and minute to minute was the Chancellor, Gordon Brown,’” he says. “The wickedness of the plan, the deceit and maltreatment of Parliament, the contempt for the decencies of this country’s political life — all can be laid firmly at the feet of Gordon Brown.”
[31][32] Now they’ve got their prices right, why look beyond Dell? (Top of the milk to you all…) My only hope is that when it’s my upgrade time they’ll also ship without an OS and I can enter the wonderful world of Linux
The Google tool-bar with the spell-checker that works when you post here is on
http://toolbar.google.com/en_GB/
It is great.
34 - you can always just overwrite Windows, though obviously a bit of a waste if you could have got the “bare” system cheaper without it.
35. I downloaded the tool-bar, but the spell-checker doesn’t work (it tells me that I should make sure if I’m connected to the internet or to try later).
[36] Yeah, I could partition my hard drive and do all sorts of stuff, but haven’t you noticed that techies never have machines that actually work
38 - I still can’t make my second monitor work on Linux. And if you don’t have the original CD to reinstall Windows from after repartitioning, you have to shrink the existing partition which apparently can be unreliable.
I think it’s called leave well alone…
NO No No - ban all spell chequers - if posters cant be aloud there own spelings what will we have to complaign abowt!!
Actually I have a google tool bar but it doesnt have a spell checker on it!
I wouldn’t worry too much. It probably doesn’t correct your Latin.
Come on BV! Linux isn’t that hard… unless, of course, you’re one of these strange Gentoo or Debian users
(Disclaimer: I user Debian)
(Disclaimer 2: this is all completely incomprehensible to non-techies…)
43 - no, Fedora.
What I want to do and can’t is to have my KDE desktop across two monitors (with different resolutions) attached to an ATI Radeon 9600 card. Answers on a postcard!
42. It wouldn’t probably catch “Breast East” anyway!
I installed the tool bar, but the spell checker doesn’t work. The only thing different is that my email address is now in yellow (has the libdems something to do with it?).
Its all Greek to me! the Romans were a lot of Johnny come latelys
41/42 Icarus/book value . As far as computer spell checkers are concerned as Blackadder said to Dr Johnston on completion of his dictionary I wish you all my :
“most enthusiastic contrafibularatories”
45 , Andrea . “Breast East” - Exactly . Wouldn’t have helped me out this morning with gentile , genteel or genital !!
Nick Palmer wrote:
People who detest him are usually either driven by a specific policy that they hate (Iraq, for instance) or visceral dislike of Labour Governments per se.
Reply:
Nothing to do with Blair’s character then? His lies, his spin, his manipulation, his lack of integrity? Your sychophantic defence and support of Blair is touching, but somewhat out of touch.
New Populus Poll in the Times :
I’m surprised any newspaper has the nerve to publish a Populus poll after their ridiculous election campaign figures. They should be too ashamed.
49 , Printz . All politicians lie , spin and manipulate . It’s part of the job spec . The fact is that the country chose TB as the Prime Minister and a Labour government in the full knowledge of his and their abilities and failings . That’s politics , move on !
51 - conversely, all posters here are the epitome of truthfulness, openness and probity
Absolutely no-one uses pseudonyms. Ever. Period. Nor do they disguise their political alleigance.
52. I think 90% of politicians are disliked by the public as a whole. This is chiefly because they have an unrealistic view of what politicians can actually achieve. I don’t care if people don’t like me. **** em.
52 , Tabman . Absolutely , I think not , complete rubbish . What a prattling fabulous Conservative NuLabourite you are !
Comment by Printz Jack W McTabman Icarus-book-value-Andrea Matlock Tory Boy Smithson Senior III - 31/2/05 @ 3:13 pm
51 - I disagree totally.
You are justifying lies told by the PM by saying it is part of the job.
No I am not going to move on.
My standards of integrity I expect from a PM are not in the gutter and it makes me very angry that others don’t see it an issue.
I don’t recall John Major or Thatcher being pathological liars, do you?
This country is being manipulated. People’s brains are being meddled with by spin.
This is nothing like we have had before, This is telling lies to control people. Telling people how to think.
What we have now is a form of psychological fascism. Telling people what to think. Using political correctness, or fear, or patriotism to quash opposition.
This goes well beyond Blair simply telling lies or getting his spin doctor’s grubby hands on intelligence dossiers.
It goes well beyond playing on our fears by letting us believe Saddam could launch missiles in 45 minutes, all over front pages, never corrected by government, to our win support for an illegal occupation of another nation.
There are things Blair and Bush don’t want us to talk about, like the link with the London bombings and Iraq for example.
Blair as always supresses debate, by using a twisted logic that the sychophantic media and sychophantic Parliament will follow.
Effectively Blair is now trying to create a climate where if anyone criticises his policy on Iraq and makes the connection with Iraq and London bombings they are “making excuses” for the terrorists.
In other words its “don’t talk about the war.”
It is like him playing the race card on immigation and Europe.
It is like saying anyone that wants a referendum on Europe is betraying Britain. Blair said a referendum would be a “betrayal of the national British interest” before he agreed to a referendum himself.
It is like saying William Hague is a racist for saying he doesn’t want Britain to be ruled from a “foreign land.”
It is dishonesty that goes beyond telling lies to stop debate.
It is something no other PM has done. It plays on people’s fears and on their naivity.
It is like Bush saying “you are either on our side or the side of the terrorist.”
In other words you are on the side of the terrorists if you don’t give Bush his full support.
It is fascism.
It is intended to silence all opposition and the media who back Blair or Bush try to create a climate of social compliance.
This is USA and BRITAIN, not the old Soviet Union and we deserve better than to be told what to think and how to think by our leaders who have created an illegal hell hole in Iraq and fanned the flames of hatred across much of the world.
It is playing with people’s minds.
You might be happy that most American people thought there was a direct link with Saddam and 9/11 and most have no idea what the Patriot Act is all about, PA2 coincidentally being pushed through on the day of the attempted London Bombings.
You might be happy for a nation of subservient beings that bow down in fear, manipulated by Blair’s spin and accepting of all the assaults on our freedoms and Mr Palmer’s ID cards, but I want better.
I am ashamed of what is happening to this nation and I am ashamed of those who stand by and say we should accept it.
Not only our our freedoms under assault, so are our thoughts.
You don’t like Tony Blair then Printz.
56 Can’t blame him though, can you?
Printz, you will have a heart attack before long. I think Jack W’s point was “t’was ever thus”. Older readers
may recall Mr Chamberlain standing on the steps of the plane after going to Munich, saying “I have in my hand a piece of paper: it bears on it the signature of Herr Hitler” before being drowned out in a chorus of cheers and renditions of He’s a Jolly Good Fellow. If Sky Cricket technology had been available then, would anyone have dared to say it was only the dinner menu. Was that lying, or justifiable spin - or indeed disastrous spin.
58. A high stakes gamble which Chamberlain lost.
Are you going to the conference blue2win?
Printz, It seems to me there is a healthy debate on what Bush and Blair are doing, much of it utter rubbish tho.
TT this is a very weak defence of Blair. He is only as bad as Chamberlain. He may be preferable to Halifax. He is a more serious man than F E Smith. He is taller than Alan Duncan.
55 , Printz . Well you certainly wanted to get that off your chest . Saves a visit to your doctor . The strange this is that your encyclical , not disimilar to that from the offices of the Daily Mail , is not shared by the electorate who rightly or wrongly in the full knowledge of all TBs qualities and failings chose in a democratic election not to agree. That’s democracy , not the “psychological fascism you describe” .
May I additionally prescribe a further visit to the dark room .
http://www.m-dash.com/01rufford/ppages/ppage33.htm
Wasn’t it Churchill who was castigated by the “anti-war” movement for warning of the dangers ahead in the 1930’s, many then as now believed a fanatical ideology could be assuaged by giving it what it wants. Churchill was ridiculed at the time and branded a war monger, strange that 60 years later he was voted the greatest Briton. (Should have been Newton, but thats not my point).
59 Woody Afraid not.
55. Well said Printz
62.”May I additionally prescribe a further visit to the dark room .”
He could find Oona King in the darkroom (her way to relax from the stresses of Westminster is to “Lie in a dark room”) and their meeting could become not very relaxing.
Printz, please tell us how you would deal with the threat now upon us. Please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me this is all some neocon plot to take over the world.
Peter - I’m not attempting to defend Mr Blair (I am not worthy to touch the hem of his garment). In fact I agree with Printz he has taken the art of spin to new heights (or depths, if you prefer).
I am trying to make the point that the game plays on because all the players agree on the rules (1938 no different to 2005) Somtimes the game is exciting and entertaining, sometimes it is bloody and vomit-inducing - but that’s the game and the electorate are quite happy with Tony at centre-forward (maybe more fools they, but that’s their prerogative). If we really are so averse to blood sports, I believe there are regular steamers to St Helena, but what makes you think St Helena Borough Council
is any different ?
Printz! I’m with you in the Dark Room
Where you’re madder than I am
I’m with you in the Dark Room
where you must feel very strange
66 , Andrea . Oona King’s stay in the dark room may be short as there is some speculation that she may accept a peerage and return to government !
Baroness Onna King of Galloway and Upper Nithdal Green and Bow ?!?!
62 - I’m no stranger to Rufford Abbey but I wasn’t aware of the Dark Room therein …
70- Backbenchers elected MPs will be very happy that defeated candidates (in former safe seats) will get better positions than them!
TT I chide not, old chap. Who are we to criticise or defend his Holiness.
Printz at 57,
“I don’t recall John Major or Thatcher being pathological liars, do you?”
The mines were closed down on a pack of lies - there was always loads of cheap coal under our feet but MT could not bear the rependence which this placed our economy under re: NUM.
As for John Major, this old shaft of mine meant something else:
“You’re not out with that Edwina again tonight John, are you?”
“Oh No, Norma, how could you think thus of such a grey man?”
But neither comes within a league of the charmer (read ‘liar’) Blair, who Rory Bremner has totally got the measure of - a total performer from the moment he puts on his socks till the moment he brushes his teeth at night.
I don’t think Blair can be in anyway compared to Churchill who was out in the cold and refused to keep quiet despite the threats to his career. He was right. He told the truth fearlessly and faithfully even where it hurt.
Blair took us to war on a false premise at best, supported by an outright lie about the threat. He has put others out in the cold who opposed his course of action.
Churchill never peddled the convenient half truth about the dictators as Blair does about Islamic terrorism.
To the Jihadists the Iraq war was another, but very potent demonstration, of the growing power of the Western crusaders who are the personification of the Devil which seeks to destroy the truth and the defenders of the truth.
Blair still gives us the nonsense that the current terrorist wave has nothing to do with Iraq. He plays with words saying it wasn’t caused< /i> by Iraq, implying there is no connection.
Of course this terrorism was not caused by the invasion of Iraq but that military adventure gave much oxygen to the cause of the insane murderers and many innocents in the world will pay the price. He really ought to be up front about that.
But that is difficult. The war was the right thing to do at the time. Accepting the consequences is the real test of statesmanship.
Wasn’t “This Old Shaft of Mine” a hit in Goldiggers of 1933 or some such ? I’m sure Tabman would know the words.
Jack W wrote: The strange this is that your encyclical , not disimilar to that from the offices of the Daily Mail , is not shared by the electorate who rightly or wrongly in the full knowledge of all TBs qualities and failings chose in a democratic election not to agree. That’s democracy , not the “psychological fascism you describe” .
Reply:
I doubt the Daily Mail would ever say these things, but they might come close. As to the case being made that Blair won the election (on 22% of available vote) maybe that shows how well the psychological fascism is working!
71 , Tabman . Tabman , book value and others having been convicted by The High Court of Liberal Democracy of distributing truthful bar chart leaflets are led away to serve their sentences in the quiche mines of Southark and North Bermondsey .
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~72/emsa/germany/gallery/de-treffen-2000-heidelberg/Seiten/walk-into-the-dungeons.htm
this might fix the italics problem.
oh well
81 Does this fix it
82 testing
B**ger!
73 indeed not - like Mike (and back to nos moutons) I’ve always thought the answer to when St Tony will go is “Never”. Is there a market on the date of his Ascension ?
33-Whilst Byers was the one that officially pulled the plug it was Shiti Vadera,Brown’s closest aid at the treasury who showed him the way.
Vadera is a member of Brown’s Council of Economic Advisers & in the months leading up to the back door nationailsation of Railtrack fired off the now imfamous emails talking of ‘triggering’ Railtrack’s insolvency & referring to the Railtrack small shareholders as ‘grannies’(presumably trained in communication & PR skils by Jo Moore).Railtracks shareholders have now uncovered a paper trail that leads direct to the Enron Chancellor.
Whilst the Railtrack small investors await the outcome of the recent court case,I understand that many of the Institutional investors caught up in this scandal are preparing their own legal cases & no doubt this will run & run.
If this type of activity had occured in the private sector it would surely be classified as fraud.
85 — What nonsense. Surely nobody here actually thinks that Railtrack was deserving of even more of our taxpayers’ money. Ergo, pulling the plug / triggering / whatever was the right decision, and opponents are merely making hay for political reasons. The shareholders might as well try it on, they will not get a penny extra.
I thought bringing Railtrack almost back into public ownership was the best thing Byers did. Who on earth could be sorry to see the end of the ill thought out privatized ‘Railtrack’?
Oh my god — I sound just like roger!
No offence roger, but you’re a noted New Labour enthusiast…
The only mistake was not having the power to make the Major Government pay for the outrageous cock-up out of their own pockets!
Don’t worry Michael it soon passes!
Does this solve the italics?
89. Is that the same mistake as Gordon Brown and his crew over paying Tax Credits by £2 billion.
88 I think that the Railtrack was the good bit of the privatisation. It was the rolling stock and operating companies’ mess that was and is the problem. Railtrack and the other odd bits and pieces should have been given to the operating companies so sensible management of the network as a whole could be developed.
86 - I don’t see it that simply. The company was sold on the basis of continuing subsidies and the government (even with a change of party) is not entitled to pull out of those commitments. No, it should not be a bottomless pit, with Railtrack getting whatever arbitrary figure necessary to keep going. But the charge is specifically that the insolvency was artificial, that Railtrack in fact had not broken its side of the deal.
I think the whole scheme of privatisation, which left no competition on most routes, was crazy. But that doesn’t give the new government arbitrary powers, any more than it is entitled to claim taxes retrospectively to reverse a tax cut it didn’t agree with.
78 - if only you knew the truth Jack, eh, BV?
89 - Shirley Porter style.
Then again, our party would still be paying for the First World War
86-The point is not whether Railtrack was deserving of any more tax payers money,the point is about the deliberate ‘ripping off’ of shareholders,even in New Labour’s brave new world this is called dishonest,deception or fraud or maybe that’s changed to?
89-I guess using your logic we should look forward to significant reimbursement from the Enron Chancellor for the enormous wate of public money with his tax credit scheme, the IT system in the NHS,the Scottish parliament building etc etc.
96 - it still is, in another sense of the word
Asquith’s handling thereof and Lloyd George’s machinations …
I remember it as if it were yesterday.
Michael and Roger - I see you applaud the setting aside of the rule of law so long as it fulfills a laudable (to you) political objective. A dangerous slope, which soon becomes impossibly vertical, as other times and places have found out. Oh dear, let’s not try to outPrintz Printz but I don’t know which is the more dispiriting - the sheer effrontery of the man, or the indifference of the chattering classes.
98 - if only they’d listened to John Morley.
94 The basic flaw was that the rails (Reiltrack) is not a road and competiion caannot be between users of that rail system (it never was and was not designed for that when built) but compete with other transport systems.
94, 97, 99 — Fortunately the rule of law cannot be set aside in this country, that’s why the courts are coming to their own decision on the merits of the shareholders’ whingeings. But the important principle is that the government should act robustly on behalf of taxpayers in general, and that’s to be applauded. Of course they must act lawfully with regard to shareholders, but how to legally stop pouring more money into Railtrack was essentially a technical matter.
The government says, if we are wrong, then let them sue!
97 , John . It says something that if you are correct that the voters decided to endorse Labour again ! Tories discussing economic competence and financial malfeasance is still a bit strong for the electorate …… Black Tuesday , Wednesday and many other days ! pensions misselling , the odd recession or two , ERM ……. ZZZZzzzzz …. wake me up when the Tories can add up again ….
test
101 - it worked to some extent on some routes. It did drive down London/Birmingham fares quite successfully.
97 - Ironically, Railtrack shareholders did quite well out of it, getting back a high proportion of the value of their holding immediately before trading in its shares were suspended. When you consider the stock market as a whole crashed in the interim, Railtrack shareholders may well have reason to thank Byers.
It would not, incidentally, be fraud in the private sector to terminate a contract (within the terms of said contract) even if it meant sending the other contracting party to inevitable insolvency. That is my reading of what happened to Railtrack, although others read it differently.
101 - It was indeed a major flaw. The new model they are pursuing is just very tight franchise agreements so effectively franchise operators simply provide a service as specified by the SRA for a pretty much fixed fee regardless of passenger numbers. I think the new system is actually okay - I have no great yearning for the so called good old days of BR.
105 - I think the point was that Railtrack were not competing with anyone, and driving down fares was because of competition between the train operating companys, rather than Railtrack.
How can forcing Railtrack into collapse be in the interests of the taxpayer who has to pay the price, which may well escalate. And As for Labour general and economic incompetence the list is ever longer: the decimation of manufacturing industry, the collapse into the red of the trade balance, the pensions fiasco, mass liability from unmanged public sector recruitment, the looming bankruptcy of many universities and NHS Trusts, the helicopters that never flew, the mass slaughter of animals that was never necessary, child tax credits, flexible economic cycles… . . . the Dome and lessor fiascos (worth less than 2 billion a time) I refuse to list as with time they will equate to peanuts (and who said that?)
107 - true, my original point about lack of competition was a bit tangential to the Railtrack issue.
108 - “How can forcing Railtrack into collapse be in the interests of the taxpayer who has to pay the price”
Why shouldn’t it be in the interests of taxpayers? Railtrack wasn’t doing a good job at all of converting massive taxpayer subsidy into well maintained infrastructure. Putting a new set up in place was costly plus there was some spending on a shareholder bail-out but the alternative (doing nothing) was also very costly because it meant continued poor value for taxpayer subsidy.
Burbachchris wrote: Printz, please tell us how you would deal with the threat now upon us. Please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me this is all some neocon plot to take over the world.
Reply:
Which part of the neo-con plot to take over the world don’t you understand?
Is it the plan to develop biological weapons that can target particular genes or races?
“Advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realms of terror to a politically useful tool.”
Adolf Hitler would be very proud.
Source: Official PNAC website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Co-written by Paul Wolfovitz, Bush’s defence deputy during the Iraq war, now president of the World Bank.
Gives an idea of the sort of people Bush has working with him and the evil means they would consider to achieve their ends.
Rail privatisation was neither as good or as bad as people say. The good point was that it boosted passenger numbers and reinvigorated many cross-country routes. Some operators saw opportunities that BR had missed. But maintenance was poor, and we are now paying for the backlog - perhaps over the odds.
There was a similar situation with the motorways in the 1980s. The Conservatives cut back on maintenance and then had to rebuild many sections. There is a cynical view that this was done to boost revenue for the big construction companies who were very close to the Party and large donors. If you are less cynical, you are still forced to conclude that the Conservatives were not half as thrifty as they made out.
Titter ye not , we have the Tories here arguing that the state should prop up a near bankrupt Railtrack and Labour saying market forces should play out !! No wonder us voters can’t see the Tories for the Conservatives .
As far as economic competence is concerned , I’m afraid the Tories have cried wolf too often . From the first day of Labour in office when they made the Bank of England independent , Tories have predicted economic doom and gloom and the more it didn’t happen the more we tune out to Tory messages on the economy .
108 - Cannot imagine that you really believe the doom ang gloom you spout . Destruction of manufacturing industry - that was the Consrvatives under Mrs T and deliberate . pensions misselling rife under the Conservatives so they could line their own pockets .trade balance into the red - Black Tuesday , helicopters - Westland .
Problems there may be but the economy is in a better position to face them than it was under the Conservatives and would be if your incompetent shower were running the country now .
Italics problem fixed. If you do use italics by putting in this please remember to close it down by doing this otherwise it goes on an on.
102-So you really believe that a nationalised industry will be run more effeiciently than a private one,where were you in the 60’s & 70’s?
What ever Railtrack cost in terms of government subsidies you can double it with a nationalised industry,only difference will be that every effort will be made to disguise & hide the real cost.
A subsidy will suddenly become an investment,surely you’ve heard of Gordon’s mobile goalposts.
103-Yes you are right 22% of the electorate did vote for Labour again.
So Tory economic competence,finacial malfeasance is ok to discuss but not when it applies to New Labour,just pretend its not happening & brush it under the carpet?
Didn’t I read somewhere recently that subsidy paid to Network Rail is higher than that paid to Railtrack?
116 , John . I think you’ll find that the site has discussed the various economic merits of the Conservative and Labour administrations . Unfortunately partisans fail to see the merits of their opponents.
If 22% voted Labour where does thst leave the Tories ?
So John , in the spirit of impartiality list the achievements of the Labour government from 97 .
117. I’m sure you did but the subsidy is being spent on the railways not on subsidizing dividends to shareholders
Re. 28, book value, you’ve just reminded me of the Derek and Clive sketch, Endangered Species: ‘Can you mention one whale who has written the equivalent of Othello, Shakespeare, Health and Efficiency?’
As a former Railtrack shareholder I remember thinking at the time the company was declared bust: What about the assets? What about all that land, buildings, etc. Surely when a company goes bust the liguidator sells off the assests for the best price?
Of course there was no way any Government could simply allow the railway land, stations etc to be sold off piecemeal to local developers, supermarkets etc but my feeling at the time was that these assets had value and this should be allowed for in calculating what if anything was due to the shareholders.
The government did of course back down and paid what to me seemed to be a reasonable compensation figure to shareholders so I now have no complaint. However the initial announcement which was something on the lines it’s bust it all belongs to the governnment now struck me as legal robbery and quite outrageous.
119: By “on the railways” you mean directors’ bonuses, no?
118-So does that preclude any further discussion?
-Yr point 2 Not far behind in % terms.
So in the spirit of impartiality:
-Independence of Bank of England
-Good Friday agreement
-Driver behind expansion of states joining the EC
-Not joining the Euro
-Emergency aid for Africa (shared with Geldorf & Bono)
-With the exception of Railtrack,expanding the privatisation program
-Council House sales
-Maintaining independent Nuclear deterrent
So Jack,in the spirit of impartiality I look forward to seeing your list of Tory achievements from 1979 to 1997.
123 , John . Now John that wasn’t too difficult was it ?!?! Nor will it be for me as a Conservative voter 79-92 :
Conservative Government Record :
Liberalisation of the economy
Privatization of moribund state monopolies (Except BR)
Reform of Trade Unions
Re-establishing Britain world position
Council House sales
Falklands and Gulf War 1
Armed Forces and Police morale re-established
Ban on handguns
Northern Ireland Accords pre Good Friday
Sadly it all started going down the pan from the late 80’s.
123/124 , John . Btw have noticed how the lists are not too different. Funny how the voters get the right answer !!
Sorry Lib Dems we’ll discuss the virtues of Campbell-Bannerman , Asquith and Lloyd George another time , unless …….
If only we had lost the 92 election.
126 , woody . Sorry about the Tories winning in 92 , partly my fault , my hand wavered and then I couldn’t do the deed , and plumped for the Brixton devil I knew and not the Welsh devil I didn’t . Not much celtic solidarity there , I know , but look we’ve ended up with TB and not ….. well ….. what if …… who would have been Tory leader from 92 …… Tarzan , Clarke or Howard or …. ???????
“If only we had lost the 92 election”
The recovery would be five years further on. Indeed it was a great shame but unlike Jack, not one I contributed to!
128 , Roger . It’s an interesting game “what if ?” Just think if that Sheffield Rally hadn’t taken place and a few waverers in the marginals had held their nerve , we might have had Prime Minister Neil Kinnock with a majority of say 15 or a minority government or , wait for it Tabman , a Lab/Lib Dem coalition …… the possibilities are quicheless !! and poor old John Major would have been the Alec D-Home of the 90’s and then what of Major and Edwina … the possibilities ……
129-”what of Major and Edwina … the possibilities ……”
Edwina thinks that Major was “one of the less competent prime ministers”. When they were lovers he was “capable, intelligent, decent, thoughtful person”, then he became a man who descrinated against women, gays and black people. “He behaved in an atrocious fashion” and the back to basics policy was “evil” (always according to Mrs Currie).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2294229.stm
Someone should remember her that they were in the same party.
Mike Smithson Apologies as I think the itaics problem came from my post where I hit the ? instead of the / to turn them off. Big fingers!
127. Kinnock would have been prime minister, Portillo would have been leader, Brown would have had the ERM to deal with. Still there we are.
132. Wasn’t Portillo a right winger at that time?
133. Yes, that was before he found himself. He dared and lost.
Printz - biological warfare? But don’t those things mutate? If flu can go from chickens to humans?
116 - but private enterprise is only efficient to the extent that the market in which it operates functions properly and competitively. Arguing that private enterprise is more efficient simply because some magical transformation occurs when a public sector shareholder is replaced by a private sector one is just dogma.
117 - I think Network Rail would say it is down to cost over-runs on the West Coast Mainline work which predated their involvement. Government would say it is increased commitment to enhancing track. That’s not to say it necessarily is either of those things but comparing work being done this year with work being done five years ago is comparing apples with pears.
121 - Planning regulations would have prevented Railtrack from converting Manchester Piccadilly or whatever into an Asda. For that reason the land wasn’t worth a whole lot and most analysts agree that the government payout for the land was perhaps over-generous compared to its value.
Further to 123:
- Minimum wage
- Constitutional reform: removal of hereditary peers, assembly for Wales and Parliament for Scotland and mayoralty for London
- Equalizing age of consent
I could go on, but I sense I’m missing the point.
136 James said: Arguing that private enterprise is more efficient simply because some magical transformation occurs when a public sector shareholder is replaced by a private sector one is just dogma.
Not magical but certainly remarkable. There are many examples from BT to British Airways to the now privatising Quinetiq that prove the value of a commercial company basis for enterprises. The shareholders are much more focussed and as they have a single objective in putting their money into a business they are much more aware of getting value for their money than any government funded organisation.
Believe me I have been there and despaired: mandarins can provide excuses and reports that make Enron look accurate. Think of the Dome, the massive overruns on technology projects (one estimated by Whitehall at £25m came in at nearly £500m and still doesn’t work properly), the Whitehall estimate for ID cards blown out of the water by the independent academic report a couple of weeks ago. There are many, many more.
All governments are wasteful in this way but some are more wasteful than others. Some recognised the value of the commercial imperative and others believe the state can be more effective than another manager. The latter has never had anything to back it up. Looming insolvency for some universities and NHS Trusts are just two further and recent examples of the incapacity of the state to manage effective and value for money services.
“The shareholders are much more focussed and as they have a single objective in putting their money into a business they are much more aware of getting value for their money than any government funded organisation.”
But without competition (or unless you turn a loss-making nationalised industry into a private one that doesn’t require subsidy), how is that benefit dispersed beyond the shareholders? (In a way that I would certainly agree competitive private markets benefit society as a whole.)
Bedford Borough Council is an interesting “government” operation in that half its activities are run by a wholly-owned Council “company” with the profits (and there are profits) being returned to the local taxpayers.
Frustratingly the dead hand of Whitehall has prevented many opportunities to trade (although there have been recent relaxations) and the next obvious step - allowing local taxpayers to buy shares directly. Still, an interesting model.
139 Book Value I agree there must be competition but that might be national or international. The problem with state enterprises is they are monopolistic and as such they are not measurable against another provider nor challengable by that competitor.
This is what is behind socialist fears of private enterprise in the NHS. It might show the state sector up. That, too, is why they tend to want to block any private provider.
Going back to rail privatisation (as it is a good example of how not to do it) it was botched because the view taken was that competition could only be between rail companies, when in fact the real and effective competition was, and still is, with road transport.
Surely the point about Byers & Railtrack is that if the Govt. thought it should be renationalised it should’ve done it properly by buying the company off the shareholders. Instead, it drove it bankrupt then seized the assets.
141 [buy the company ]
Railtrack’s market value was dependent on government subsidy, so to purchase the shares at market value would be to spend money twice; firstly in the subsidies and secondly in paying shareholders for the value of those subisidies. That’s pretty kafkaesque, not to mention an imoral use of taxpayer’s money.
test
141 - [ buy the company from ]
142 - not really. You need to consider that the original selloff price was higher than it would have been had Railtrack not been promised the subsidies - so the government coffers had been previously swelled by the value of the future subsidies.
Massive cock-ups are not the sole preserve of the public sector.
In reality private shareholders don’t have that much incentive to scrutinise the affairs of a company closely and take it on trust at least as much than public sector shareholders - hence why plenty of pretty capable private investors were stung over Marconi, Enron etc, etc.
To the extent private firms are more efficient it is down to competitive markets rather than active shareholder supervision. Blue2win mentions airlines, which are quite a good example - there are plenty of disasterously inefficient private airlines, particularly in the US where government policy has been to stifle competition for years. BA is comparatively very efficient but this required a fairly robust non-protectionist line by successive governments. It was not down to the “magic” of privatisation in isolation - indeed I would expect BA to be pretty much the basket-case it always was had it been privatised but protected.
146 - a reasonable point, but I suspect that the antipated value of subsidy at the point of sale was much less than the actual amount of subsidy given, in which case my point still applies.
When it was sold the prospectus concentrated on the real estate assets that came with the deal. Shareholders expected to buy into a successful property development company that would have sideline in railways.
147 James. Massive cockups are certainly not the exclusive prerogative of the government. But when its the government we all have to pay whether we like it or not. Not so in the privte sector.
We agree on the benefits of competition. The problem with state enterprises is that they are usually formulated to have no competition providing monopolistic or tied services that no-one else is allowed to compete with or is squeezed out of as the result of ‘dumping’ prices or restrictive legislation or both.
I don’t know about the Bedford scheme (and more would be welcome TT) but if the services are tied (ie not open to effective competition or single source bidding) there is a real risk the profits are simply re-circulated Council Tax I would think. But I am open to correction.
The airlines are an interesting case as they are so often flag carriers for their countries in every sense. The real deregulation in Europe is constantly hampered by undercover protectionism driven by national pride ( see the ridiculous cost of bailouts for Air France and Alitalia that see mto happen ever ycouple of years).
In the US the airline industry has had insolvencies through poor management for many years. After the PanAm debacle (that had flag carrier fudging in it) they were allowed go to the wall. The Chapter 11 procedure did provide some cushion but a legitimate and sensible one.
After 9/11 then the ball game changed and protection for the industry was essential as travellers and investors were moving to bail out and in a country the size of the US air transport really is essential. The criticism you might best level is that Congress has tried to keep the cushion in place for far too long, and it was an overstuffed piece of kit in the first place.
148 Tabman In fact changes of subsidy were envisaged from the start (and had to be considering the 50 years of under investment in the railways from governments of both parties).
The recent court case demonstrates that the government subsidy was to increase until the Byers Liars consortium came upon their great wheeze. Indeed if I recall correctly Tom Winsor was to meet Railtrack on the day BL put the boot in, to extend the payments Railtrack could expect.
However much of a mess the privatisation was (and it was an almighty cockup of a very sensible privatisation) the behaviour of the government and the lame excuses they have put forward must mark them as very unreliable business partners as well as world class sneaks.
New Labour’s TRUE record after 8 years:
Dodgy Dossiers and Alistair Campbell
A bloodbath in Iraq
Cannabis, 24 hour drinking promoted by law
Prostitution, super-casinos, gay cottaging, all made easier
Spin and the politicising of civil service/public services
PFI Privatised hospitals on the never, never
Million manufacturing jobs lost
Violent crime quadrupled
Discrediting of government critics
Millenium Dome
Hospital superbugs
A recruiting Sergeant for Al-Qaeda
100s more playing fields sold off
Finsbury Park and hate preachers left to fester
Still over a (unfiddled) million on NHS waiting lists
A “banana republic” voting system
Runaway teenage crime
Borders left wide open
A wider gap between the richest and poorest 10%
England denied same democratic rights as Scotland
Runaway underage STD and underage abortions
GM food approval based on a pack of lies
New Labour should be ashamed of that record.
153 , Printz . Oh dear , it seems your stay in the dark room at Rufford was to no avail . Try this with a spliff or two and a couple of chill out pills :
http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit09302002/bookreview.asp
153 - “A wider gap between the richest and poorest 10%”
You have changed position on this Printz. I can remember you attacking Labour for using relative poverty statistics to claim a reduction in poverty, and claiming that absolute poverty was the measure. If this is so, why is the gap relevant to you now?
I don’t see your problem book value. Child poverty is based on a relative measure, so average incomes falling would lift some children out the poverty statistics without them getting an extra penny.
And conversely, if the incomes of the richest 10% fell, the gap would narrow without the poorest 10% getting a penny. Therefore why can you deduce that things are going wrong from looking at the gap alone?
Seriously Jack W, I’m sure I’d enjoy that book!
But if I was a bog standard Blairite, I’d look at the disastrous past 8 years, repent my sins and join sensible folk like Micheal Meacher who has consistantly been right on every issue from GM food to Iraq and had the principles to say so.
Reading that USA may be preparing to nuke Iran if they are hit by another 9/11, true or not, makes me realise how unsafe the world is in the hands on the neo-cons, who the Blairites are so keen to support.
Book Value, although I am a socialist, I’m not the one who slagged of Thatcher for opening up the divide between rich and poor to get elected.
Book Value. This meesage may appear again as it disappeared the first time. What I wrote was, although I’m a socialist, I’m not the one who slagged of Thatcher for opening up the divide between rich and poor in order to get elected.
158 , Printz . You may have won a few round and then you mentioned Michael Meacher - a man so terminally dull he makes Steve Davis appear like a debauched orgiastic party animal .
You also mentioned “a bog standard Blairite” . If you’ve had a spliff as I suggested earlier , Michael Meacher will look like this:
http://www.dnr.metrokc.gov/parks/kcac/fixtures.htm
158 , Printz . You may have won a few round and then you mentioned Michael Meacher - a man so terminally dull he makes Steve Davis appear like a wild debauched party animal .
You also mentioned “a bog standard Blairite” . If you’ve had a spliff as I suggested earlier , Michael Meacher will look like this:
http://www.dnr.metrokc.gov/parks/kcac/fixtures.htm
Test.
158 , Printz . You may have won a few round and then you mentioned Michael Meacher - a man so terminally dull he makes Steve Davis appear like a wild debauched party animal .
You also mentioned “a bog standard Blairite” . If you had a spliff as I suggested earlier , Michael Meacher will look this :
http://www.dnr.metrokc.gov/parks/kcac/fixtures.htm
158 , Printz . You may have won a few round and then you mentioned Michael Meacher - a man so terminally dull he makes Steve Davis appear like a wild dissolute party animal .
You also mentioned “a bog standard Blairite” . If you had an exotic fag as I suggested earlier , Michael Meacher will look this :
http://www.dnr.metrokc.gov/parks/kcac/fixtures.htm
Jack W, you can say that again!
Well I’m sorry you talk about the dullness of Michael Meacher, but look at his record in recent years. He’s been proven right again and again and completely shown up Blair and his sychophants. I prefer substance over style, but maybe he should be more media savvy. Maybe I should have used Georgeous George as an example instead!
161/166 . Moi & Printz . Sorry about the quadruple post , not sure what happened there !! I thought a word was spammed , changed it , re-posted and then all 4 appeared , or it could be the venison funny fags I’m on !!
Prinz- Mr Meacher plays it both ways as he progresses majestically towards a retirement when he will have the time to visit his (eight?) homes on a regular rota. Having been a ‘loyal’ minister, despite his bennite pedigree, when he was given the boot he became an immediate thorn in the side (a la Peter Kilfoyle also) of Blair - yet still had the (wisdom?) to pose with Phil Woolas, a man who espoused all the Neoconservative Blairism he ‘rejects’, for the cameras on the night they were both elected in the same hall in Oldham.
Printz,
111,
You still didn`t answer his question, namely,Please tell us how you would deal with the threat upon us now?
It seems that you offer total critisism of current policy towards terrorism against the west, after september 11th.
But offer no solutions.
The usual lazy anyalsis of the hard left,is too blame the west for everything.
They never question that the leaving Iraq, creating a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, still might not be enough, to stop
attacks on liberal democracy.
However by your comments on a democratic elected government in the uk.
It would be intresting to understand if you think any government in the western world is legitimate.
DeZ
Well for a leader to deal with this issue, basically you have to do everything Blair hasn’t. I’ll tell you what Blair should do.
Blair needs to be very careful to distinguish between Muslims and the terrorists. Blair’s use of language after the 7/7 bombings was an insult to Muslims. Also talking of Al-Qeada quickly after the bombings only serves to give Al-Qaeda more publicity, especially when no direct link has been established.
Yes these attacks may have been inspired by Al-Qaeda, but they were home-grown terrorists, possibly motivated by hatred in our own mosques and the war on Iraq.
What Blair seems to have done is blame Muslims. You may dispute that, but listen to what many Muslims are saying. They feel like they are being targeted, when most are good people.
It is important that a leader accept the likely explanation why there is so much hatred for Bush’s and American foreign policy. Blair won’t do this because it would be to admit he made Britain less safe and not more safe by joining Bush in Iraq. Blair doesn’t want us to talk about the war, by suggesting that if we do, we are making excuses, and the media have followed Blair’s cue on that. Well that is rubbish.
Blair should put his own vanity and career interests to one side for once and let people be free to talk. This isn’t the Soviet Union.
He should demand that we don’t have a climate of silencing his own critics. What we have now is a witch-hunt in the media of people who speak out about the Blair, like the Birmingham Mosque Chairman, Mohammed Naseem, who said he wants an open inquiry on the bombings and not one like the Hutton Inquiry, because he doesn’t trust Blair after the Iraq case. Now when the media say this man should be kicked out of Britain, for saying that, I fear we are becoming a facist state and this will make more people more disenfranchised and more angry.
It is those that incite terrorism that should be kicked out. Blair should have done this long ago. And it will be no surprise that many of these terrorists have had links with Finsbury Park and Hook Handed Hamza. Not taking action has only allowed hatred to fester, possibly inciting these terrorists and has helped fuel a racial backlash against anyone that looks like a Muslim.
Blair is soft on terror and the answer isn’t to have intrusions on our own freedoms, but to take action ASAP, not use European Human Rights Act as an excuse to do nothing, because France and other countries don’t use that as an excuse. Ken Livingstone, a terrorist appeaser, should get the boot from the Labour Party, if he’s inviting terrorist supporters to speak, but Blair’s an appeaser himself, releasing 200 IRA terrorists in the small print of the Good Friday agreement.
Now if Blair’s prepared to do deals with the IRA, why won’t he at least accept the explanation, if not the reason of the new terrorists? Because he’d be admitting his own mistakes for once.
But silencing voices that are critical of Blair and represent the thoughts of millions will only create resentment. If you supress people, they will revolt.
It is vital that all people and all groups debate the way foward in an open and free way.
Blair should apologise for all the dead in Iraq caused by the invasion. He should hold memorials here and in Iraq.
He should have spoken out against the use of napalm in Iraq by Bush, depleted uranium and cluster bombs, and helicopter gunships shooting crowds in residential areas, all illegal under treaties America never signed up to.
He should hold an open inquiry into the Brazillian shot. The point is our we have to be seen, not to act like terrorists ourselves, not to use illegal weapons or methods ourselves, or we create anger and hatred and have no moral position to criticise others.
He should recruit a lot more police PDQ, because police can’t cope with keeping violent crime under control, they can’t even keep their stations open at night or patrol the streets, so how are they going to find the resources to track down terrorists and protest us from terrorist? We need more police by the tens of thousands. Again when a police chief spoke out saying he needed more resources, Labour came down on him like a ton of bricks to discredit him. I am sick of this fascism, when Sir Ian Blair is the mouthpiece of government policy in an election campaign.
But the best thing Blair should resign ASAP and say sorry, because he is a figurehead associated with Bush’s wars. Bush is the most hated man on the planet and if you look at opinion polls in the middle east, Saddam is one of the most respected.
When Bush, the man most hated in the world blasts in to your country and kills 100,000, if you are a Muslim or a person that feels this is wrong and unjust, you are likely to be very angry. Now that isn’t to defend any terrorist. All indescriminate killing of innocent people is wrong, whether it is in London or Fallujah. Bush and Blair have bombed bridges when they should have built bridges.
Sorry Printz, you need to stop reading conspiracy websites, the fact that Saddam is a respected figure in the middle east (true or not) says more of them and their ignorance. I expect better of you. All muslims call non-muslims ‘infidels’, that to me is an insult, all Muslims believe Islam is the true religion and that all others must be converted, unfortunatley for us one strain of Islam beleives that they have the god given right to do it by killing as many ‘infidels’ as possible. The war in Iraq may have made angry Muslims look at the bile spouted by these people, but it is not the cause of their hatred of the west.
171 - “All muslims call non-muslims ‘infidels’, that to me is an insult, all Muslims believe Islam is the true religion and that all others must be converted”
Erm, right. What about plenty of Muslims I have known who have neither called me an infidel nor tried to convert me?
171 - my Muslim friends have never suggested anything of the sort, even when my religionlessness comes out. And for the record, they’re pretty devout, so unless you can produce evidence that they have called non-Muslims like myself infidels, you’re completely wrong. I can think of other words they might call you in reference to that comment, and perhaps I too would use such terms.
Burbachchris, Where’s the conspiracy website that you refer to?
The link I provided was the OFFICIAL PNAC website link to a report co-written by Paul Wolfowitz. If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do.
It talks about “a substantial American force presence in the Gulf” transcending “the issue of regime change of Saddam Hussein.” This is a year before 9/11. The report ends by saying it would take an event on the scale of Pearl Harbour to hasten their plans. 9/11 was that Pearl Harbour, a convenient pretext to initiate an invasion in Iraq by allowing the American people to believe there was a direct link with Saddam and Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
None of that is a theory. It is fact. The fact are all there to see.
My information on support for Bush and Saddam actually came from a Zogby poll, not a conspiracy website.
My comment that they support Saddam more than Bush, is not intended to imply Saddam is any better, but to explain their anger, and that for Bush to attack Iraq has been a recruiting sergeant for terror. Again, no conspiracy theory. Our own security services warned of that before the war and two reports last week repeated that.
Your opinions about “all Muslims” would be akin to say all Christians that subscribe to the old testament believe thou shalt not kill. Bush killed, or authorised the killing of a lot of people before he even got the the Whitehouse and ordered more killing in Iraq with indescrimate weapons like napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium.
It would be akin to saying all Christians regard homosexuality as a sin. What you are doing is perpetuating a dangerous untruth in saying “all Muslims believe Islam is the true religion and that all others must be converted.”
It is, I suggest, an example of the Islamophobia that Tony Blair seems to encourage as I mentioned on 170.
171-’The war in Iraq may have made angry muslims look at the bile spouted by these people,but it is not the cause of their hatred of the west’
After spending 23 years travelleing throughout the Middle East region,the main cause of the hatred is the historical & ongoing ‘one sided’ foreign policy of the USA in particular (heavily supported & financed by the Jewish lobby)with support from other western countries, notably the UK in recent years.
Examples would include:
The Israeli’s have systematically seized & confiscated Palestinian land & property since 1948 without any form of compensation or right under international law.
The West has stood by & done nothing.
In the 1980’s the current Israeli Prime minister in his then miltary capacity ordered the troops in the Sabra & Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon,only to find women & children in these camps but that did not prevent them from being massacred.
Yes,a mild rebuke for this outrage from the USA but nothing else.
There are currently over 1 million Palestinians that have been declared ’stateless’by the UN,these are people that either fled Israel & or have been working in other Arab countries that are now denied reentry into Israel & the occupied territories,they have no passports or citizenship.
There are a further 1 million Palestinians that have been living in squalid refugee camps in the West Bank & Gaza for the past 30 years watching Israel seize more of their land in these occupied territories.
Prior to the war in Iraq,if there was a violation of the UN ‘no fly zones’ then Iraq would be bombed by the USA & UK.
And yet Israel has openly defied not 1 but 3 UN resoloutions & nothing happens.
And more recently of course we have some 25,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a war based on non existent WMD, lies & deceit.
You are right it is not just the war in Iraq that has caused the hatred.
Add to this Karl Marx’s ‘Religion is an opium for the masses’,a government that has stood by & allowed unrestricted UK entry & exit of some of the world’s most extreme Mullah’s to come & preach there poison in UK mosque’s,given political asylum to people like Al Masri who openly develops & glamorises websites for Al-Quade & boasts about his recruitment success’s for them.A non existent control of our borders with up to 1 million people illegaly in the UK & only time will tell if there are ’sleeper cells’ amongst this illegal population.
I believe you are right John in your analysis of long term anger over Palestine.
Iraq has been a tipping point. As you say 25k killed on a pack of lies, and images of Iraqi prisoner abuse and wedding parties etc hit by US missiles are perfect recruitment propoganda for Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
Polls show the disapproval for the American President at near 100% in many places, well up from Clinton.
There’s been more suicide bombers since invading Iraq than in the previous 20 years.
The link with Iraq is obvious, but there is longterm resentment over America’s interventions.
Blair’s and Bush’s actions and words only serve to make matters worse.
As ever, your analysis is one sided, Israel was created by UN mandate, it has fought for its existence ever since against neighbouring states who wish its destruction, those that now subscribe to the Islamic strain which promotes violence and hatred of ‘infidels’, will have no truck with Israel or a two state solution, their goal is the destruction of Israel - nothing less will do, including those who support its existence aka America and Britain. As for the plight of the Palestinians, perhaps you ought to look more at the tactics of Mr Arafat for their current morass. Israel has come to the table many times to create a deal, notably during the Clinton regime (when the 9/11 plot came into being).
As for the wests foreign policy, it has recently been admitted by Condeelza Rice that Americas policy for the support of undemocratic regimes that provided ’stability’ was wrong, but that it must be put in the context of the cold war. I also find it unfortunate that you add to all this arguement by repeating the mantra of these terrorists as justification for their actions, without adding the great services the west has done to the Muslim world as well, including military intervention to prevent their deaths. It is rather revealing that the reason Australia was targeted in Bali was its militray action in East Timor to prevent the ongoing attrocities there, but U suppose that doesn’t fit the theory of the nasty west versus freedom loving islamic terrorists.
As for the PNAC website I suggest you have spent too long on the internet looking for this sort of rubbish, and by the way I find it difficult to reconcile your hatred of Blair as some sort of fashist demagogue usurping our democratic rights, yet condemn him for allowing a liberal policy which allows freedom of speech for terrorists.
To make this a three-cornered argument, I find I actually agree with Printz on something for once - it is simply silly to make statements about the beliefs of ‘all Muslims’, any more than ‘all Christians’ or even ‘all pb.com posters’. It is of course technically correct that if we don’t believe in a religion we are unbelievers or (fiercer-sounding word with the same meaning) infidels, but I know a variety of Muslims: some are tolerant, some not, some are devoted to their religion, some not, etc. Just like Christians. A relevant point for current debates is that the devout Muslims that I know are without exception the most passionately opposed to the bomb attacks in London, since they feel it’s hideous that their religion has been taken as an excuse to kill innocent people. “The suicide bombers have all gone straight to Hell”, “The plotters should be executed”, “They are the worst kinds of traitors, to their country and their religion” are among the comments. Less devout Muslims are merely saying things more like everyone else: “What a bunch of loonies the bombers must be”.
I disagree about Iraq, of course: to see some of the counter-arguments, look at labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk. A long-standing Iraqi human rights activist said to me last year: “Our children and our children’s children will thank you for what your country did.” There are times when I wonder, but I hope he’s right. Certainly most of the suicide bombers in Iraq appear not to be Iraqi. Similarly, the position in Palestine is IMHO less one-sided than john argues, though I’m no fan of Sharon, and I know that Tony Blair thinks that Palestine is the root cause of a huge amount of disaffection with the West in the Muslim world.
To be fair to john and Printz, it is not necessary for what they say to be true for it to be a motivation for some extremists - it’s sufficient if they think it’s true. Whether the extremists would otherwise be peacefully playing golf is the more doubtful question - there is a good deal of evidence that having pro-Palestine and anti-Iraq war policies (like Spain and Egypt) doesn’t protect you against bomb plots. Since a hallmark of the bombers is that they don’t make demands or explain their actions, I think we have for practical purposes to treat them as a bunch of irrational psychopaths. That’s frustrating for a bunch of pontificating intellectuals like us, but sometimes one has to recognise a nutter when one sees one.
178. Nick. A very enjoyable post. Quite a rarity on that particular subject.
Nick Palmer @ 178:
As I understand it, the central demands of al-Qaeda are that the West removes it’s armies from Arab lands, stops supporting corrupt Arab dictatorships, and stops it’s one-sided support of Israel against the Palestinians. Sure, there are more outandish demands from some of al-Qaeda’s supporters, but those are the main requests.
Since the bombers usually claim to be acting on behalf of al-Qaeda, surely those are their demands and the explanations for their actions.
You may not agree that these demands are reasonable, but to pretend that they don’t exist, and to paint the attackers as “a bunch of irrational psychopaths” is a most dangerous act of dehumanization, and not worthy of a representative of Western democracy.
180. Do you think blowing up a tube carrying fifty odd arbitrary passengers is the rational behaviour of a non-psychopath?
roger @ 181:
Do you consider the deriberate targeting of civialians by Bomber Harris in the fire-bombing of Hamburg during WWII to be the rational behaviour of a non-psychopath?
Targeting civilians in warfare is atrocious, but not necessarily psychopathic behaviour.
Dave X, the reason AQ wants western armies out of arab lands is so they can do with them as they wish aka afghanistan. The current insurgency in Iraq has more to do with foreign extremists wishing to create a Taliban state there rather than a home grown rising against a foreign invasion. If it were not for this foreign insurgency in Iraq, both British and most American soldiers would have gone long ago, so its a bit of a chicken and egg situation. As for the demands that Dave X raises, ’support for arab dictatorships’, surely the desire to get rid of Saddam because he was a dictator was what got us in to this mess.
PS Given the current mess in Iraq, perhaps American support for dictators was a sound policy after all.
PPS which makes it a damned if you do damned if you don’t world for us.
183:
By far the majority of arrested insurgents are Iraqi. After the US attack on Falluja, IIRC, only about 2% of those taken prisoner were foreign.
If you have no stated objectives and the action has no obvious result other than that fifty five unknown people losing their lives how can this be ‘rational’? As for ‘Bomber Harris’ his objectives were known. So perhaps he was a ‘psychopath’ but not an irrational one?
Yes their numbers may be small, but they form the core resistance, providing technical and tactical backing and they are extremists, not nice people really, another core group are those faithful to Saddam, and their not too great either.
PS. Psychopath; Person showing abnormal or violent social behaviour…
Irrational; Illogical, unreasonable
hmmmm
187:
I can only repeated that al-Qaeda DO have stated objectives. And if you think that the tube bombs have had no obvious result, then you haven’t been reading the papers lately.
Burbachchris wrote:
As ever, your analysis is one sided, Israel was created by UN mandate… bla, bla, bla
Reply:
What I think, is irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the people of many parts of the world think who are being “radicalised,” into militant extremists.
Burbachchris wrote:
As for the PNAC website I suggest you have spent too long on the internet looking for this sort of rubbish,
Reply:
I repeat this is the PNAC OFFICIAL site. If you are saying the document I quoted is rubbish, then you are saying the neo-cons write rubbish, but odd how much of it has already been adopted.
Burbachchris wrote:
..and by the way I find it difficult to reconcile your hatred of Blair as some sort of fashist demagogue usurping our democratic rights, yet condemn him for allowing a liberal policy which allows freedom of speech for terrorists.
Reply:
I don’t see which point you are disputing. Are you denying Blair has left hate preaching to fester? Are you denying that Britain has welcomed terrorist supporters, turned away else where? Are you denying the new laws he wants potentially infringe on our existing rights?
177-Yes,you are right that Israel was created by UN mandate after much terrorist activity against the then Brisitish administartion of which many of the future leaders of Israel (Begin,Shamir & Rabin)were the then terrorists.
The points I raised are purely historical facts,please check with the UN regarding Isreal’s defiance of UN resolutions,number of stateless palestian’s,palestinians’s in refugee camps,seizure of land without compensation.
Even the Israeli commission of enquiry set up (after some 300,000 Israeli’s had taken to the streets demanding answers)after the Sabra & Shatila massacres in September 1983 concluded that the then Defence minister Ariel Sharon was responsible & should be dismissed.
Again,are you disputing the fact that 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed?
With reference to your point about the websites,the BBC (hardly regarded as impartial post Hutton),that illustrated the level of activity going on by the likes of Al-Masri with his Al Quadea website & recruitment in their program last monday (BBC 2 The new Al Quadea).Al Masri is one of many Muslim extremeists that have been given the right of asylum here.
Whilst we have been frequently told for a long time that it was not a question of if but when we would be subject to a terrorist attack & against this information.
-It is perfectly acceptable for people like Al-Masri to be given asylum here & not to kick them out when they start to preach their poison.
-It is acceptable to allow the world’s most extreme Mullah’s to come & go from the UK without restriction to preach their hatred in UK mosques.
-It is acceptable for Bristish muslim’s to attend Afghan training camps during the Iraq war & to brag to the media about how they are going to be trained to kill their fellow countrymen.
Yes, you are right that USA foreign policy (at least on the surface)has now switched from the support of Middle East dictators (of which Saddam Hussein was one of their key allies,as long as he was fighting Iran)to democracy (although this seems to be highly selective with little or any pressue on countries like Saudi Arabia).
However,please remember that democracy only guarantees the process & not the outcome as has been seen in Iran.
Nick Palmer wrote:
To make this a three-cornered argument, I find I actually agree with Printz on something for once - it is simply silly to make statements about the beliefs of ‘all Muslims’, any more than ‘all Christians’ or even ‘all pb.com posters’. It is of course technically correct that if we don’t believe in a religion we are unbelievers or (fiercer-sounding word with the same meaning) infidels, but I know a variety of Muslims: some are tolerant, some not, some are devoted to their religion, some not, etc. Just like Christians. A relevant point for current debates is that the devout Muslims that I know are without exception the most passionately opposed to the bomb attacks in London, since they feel it’s hideous that their religion has been taken as an excuse to kill innocent people. “The suicide bombers have all gone straight to Hell”, “The plotters should be executed”, “They are the worst kinds of traitors, to their country and their religion” are among the comments. Less devout Muslims are merely saying things more like everyone else: “What a bunch of loonies the bombers must be”.
Reply:
Agreed.
Nick Palmer wrote:
I disagree about Iraq, of course: to see some of the counter-arguments, look at labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk. A long-standing Iraqi human rights activist said to me last year: “Our children and our children’s children will thank you for what your country did.” There are times when I wonder, but I hope he’s right.
Reply:
I believe most of those in the West, opposed to the Iraq invasion, were opposed to Saddam.
However, this war has caused far more bloodshed than needed and pissed off or radicalised far more than it should.
Blair’s role has been to give unconditional support to US excessively brutal tactics and US lack of planning for the peace, as well as a lack of winning hearts, not only in the middle east, but around the planet.
Whatever good comes from this war, won’t excuse this act of aggression. We have acted like terrorists in our slaughter of Iraqis for our political ends, after leaving many of them to starve for a decade. Nor will it excuse the lies or the real reasons for the war, which was OIL and a powerful US military presence in the Gulf.
Nick Palmer wrote:
Certainly most of the suicide bombers in Iraq appear not to be Iraqi. Similarly, the position in Palestine is IMHO less one-sided than john argues, though I’m no fan of Sharon, and I know that Tony Blair thinks that Palestine is the root cause of a huge amount of disaffection with the West in the Muslim world.
To be fair to john and Printz, it is not necessary for what they say to be true for it to be a motivation for some extremists - it’s sufficient if they think it’s true. Whether the extremists would otherwise be peacefully playing golf is the more doubtful question - there is a good deal of evidence that having pro-Palestine and anti-Iraq war policies (like Spain and Egypt) doesn’t protect you against bomb plots.
Reply:
I see your position may be shifting towards an accepting of a cause and effect, that Blair has made UK less safe by his actions. However, I doubt you will admit it.
Nick Palmer wrote:
Since a hallmark of the bombers is that they don’t make demands or
explain their actions, I think we have for practical purposes to treat them as a bunch of irrational psychopaths. That’s frustrating for a bunch of pontificating intellectuals like us, but sometimes one has to recognise a nutter when one sees one.
Reply:
Treating them as irrational nutters may help Blair, by not admitting that there is a link to US/UK policy, but how is that going to solve the problem?
Do you think we can track down every single terrorist on the planet?
You treat a disease, by finding out what causes the disease.
The whole war on terror has only allowed hate to fester and Al-Qaeda to recruit thousands more and spread around the world like a virus.
You can’t kill a virus by just killing one cell at a time. The terrorists are being created faster than we can kill them.
Printz,
Thanks for answering the question, obviously do`nt agree on all things you said.
However hatred or percieved hatred is a problem.
Nevertheless we shouldn`t always condemn.
Blair in my eyes did do the right thing regarding Kosovo to protect muslims getting murdered against UN LEGALITY.
As with his push for a two state solution for Palestine and Israel, and his never ending efforts regarding the Irish Troubles.
It seems you disregard everything he does but surely this cant be helpful in every situation.
Dave X at 180 and 190: one of the difficulties is that there is no single agreed source for demands for Al-Qaeda, but if we take Bin Laden as the authority on their views, they go a good deal further than you suggest: inter alia he would like to abolish any traces of democracy and restore the Caliphate over the entire region (especially Israel). The point I was making, though, is that the bombers in London have not said whether they are supporting Al-Qaeda or Saddam or something quite different (note that most of the latest suspects appear to be of Somali origin, unlike the assumptions which some have made - perhaps they object to Western intervention against the warlords in Somalia?). No demands, no statement of objectives or support, just murder.
Printz at 191: you appear to be simultaneously blaming the Government for allegedly allowing hate preaching and blaming them for proposing new laws that will interfere with our rights, such as the law against hate preaching. Not for the first time, the only common thread seems to be that if Blair does something, you’re against it.
Dez
You said it yourself that hatred is the problem.
By putting his loyalty to Bush first, Blair has helped make that hatred stronger, as our own security services advised it would. In turn, that hatred has made the terrorism far worse and people are paying the price, not Blair in his armoured car and bodygaurds, but innocent people.
Through his actions he has made Britain (and the world) less safe. I can’t think of a worse thing any Prime Minister could do. He should have resigned and apologised. Instead he has shown no humility and will not even admit he has been wrong and he has promoted those that helped over-egg his case for war.
In this situation, I regard him as a traitor to Britain and a war criminal and any good he has done is no more relevant than saying Saddam or Hitler did good things too.
Blair has betrayed us all and I am not prepared to forgive that, and I expect many millions in Britain feel exactly the same way.
Personally I could not put it better than this:
I spent the first 10 minutes of last night’s Question Time Special believing I had been transported back to the post-9/11 edition of the same program, a program so utterly beyond the pale that it made me feel ashamed to be British.
The way we started, one could have been forgiven for thinking that everybody, but everybody was responsible for the 7/7 atrocity, apart from the fanatics who actually carried bombs onto trains. “We need to understand why these young men felt so detached, blah, blah…” Self-hating Brits, I’d call them. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m just your ordinary Joe: wife and kids, mortgaged up to the hilt, unfulfilling job, not enough money, etc., etc.. It’s a hard enough slog as it is without some one-step-removed apologist insisting that I take partial responsibility for the irrational actions of people I’ve never met, never hurt, but who would, given half the chance, slaughter me and everyone else I love. Its not my fault, see, and I resent being asked to contemplate the possibility it might be. In fact, it makes me quite angry.
Which is my problem in these sorts of public meetings. I tend to spend more time with my head in my hands than I do with my hand in the air. So when I hear people whose most important decisions each day are what to play on the iPod lecturing the country’s most senior policeman about the rules of engagement for suicide bombers, telling him how his men are “executioners” (these being the officers who ran towards, not away from, a man they suspected of being half a second from committing mass-murder), I want to be sick, have a shower, scream……do anything in fact, but speak.
Before the show, the director, David Coleman, talked a little about the selection process for the audience. He seemed a genuine enough guy, so I’m inclined to believe he’s being sincere about the efforts they go to in order to get a balance of opinion on the major issues of the day; although, you wouldn’t know it from the anti-war narrative that characterized this and most editions of the show since 9/11. That said, I think there is another reason for the real, not perceived, one-sidedness we witness most weeks, that has really nothing to do with all QT researchers being members of the Guardianista tendency.
Forget Shy Tory Syndrome, what we’ve got here is Reticent Pro-War Disorder. Voicing unqualified support for a course of action that will, inevitably, result in the deaths of many innocents, as well as the guilty, can be difficult for some. Certainly, it’s a damn-site more difficult than uttering mealy-mouthed platitudes in support of a policy of inaction which has theoretical consequences only: on the one hand, there’s a pile of bodies; on the other, a gaping space where the bodies would be. All things being equal, who will choose to pontificate atop a mound of corpses?
And it’s no surprise that it’s the activist student and early-20-something demographic that gets disproportionate airtime. They are the ones with arms arrow-straight in the air for the full 60 minutes, desperately seeking an outlet for the moral certitude that will otherwise consume them. A rectitude inversely proportional to their knowledge. You know, it’s nothing to be remotely proud of, but I’ve yet to hear an argument from this clique that I couldn’t destroy in a thrice in a forum that allowed for cross-examination of their unintelligent and unintelligible positions. I’ve spent the last couple of years confronting our future leaders of industry and tomorrow’s political elite as they parade through Cambridge market square in orange boiler suits, whilst fellow-students Cassandra and Abigail blow whistles and the token ethnic hands out leaflets so banal, so lame and just so utterly, utterly wrong, that the world famous alumni, with more Nobel Prizes between them than any other institution, are likely so embarrassed by the association that they must wish they’d gone to Trent Polytechnic.
But Question Time is about banging your drum the loudest, nothing more, and quite clearly, it’s something the antis are much better at than we are. Having superior arguments counts for nothing. And even when those arguments get an airing, when was the last time you saw a supporter of the war on QT matching the passion of the righteous stopper, or implacable zealot?
Which is why Blair’s performance at his monthly news conference was extremely heartening and why I hope it’s a sign of things to come. I’ve had my fill of the semi-apologetic defence of the most progressive foreign policy decision in a generation. It’s about time we started thumping a few tables ourselves, from Blair down to the humble blogger.
So apply for tickets and if you manage to make it along to future editions of Question Time, don’t be cowed by the loud-mouthed membership of the UK branch of Baathists Abroad. Give them both barrels, deride their isolationism, be appalled at the apologia, heap scorn on their childish anti-Americanism, and be proud of the fact that you believe people you will never meet, living in a country you will never visit, deserve a chance to experience the democratic and free existence that is the birthright of every last one us.
196,
Have to agree with you regarding QT after sept 110901 and the same thing after 070705, it seemed the only voices to be heard were the
people saying its everyones fault but the fanatics who did the atrocity.
197 Mad. Who wrote that piece? (I assume is wasn’t you because of the first line?)
Blair to quit Commons
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1540131,00.html
Not surprised Blair would quit the Commons after standing down as PM.
I believe he is far too vain to be second fiddle to anyone else.
At least he would be keeping his promise to go as PM.
Maybe he can go and do some bonding with Bush who will be gone too.
199 roger — straightforward googling shows that it was by brownie from Harry’s Place: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/29/that_huw_edwards_is_a_nice_man.php