Do YOU still believe in Tony?

[JoolsToo]

Just been watching BBC2 - just wondered what MNers thoughts were on our Prime Minister ....

Got to go now, but something else that really pees me off is the amount of packaging on food - even organic yoghurts come in plastic pots then wrapped in cardboard. Think we should tax packaging wherever possible to reduce the amount of waste we're producing.

Oldiemum - can this be a world society? Or are we speaking UK or Europe type size?

And how structured would it be? When you say top or bottom, how high away from the bottom is the top, and does there need to be a top and bottom?

Good question. Rawls meant a single state with one government, but lots of people have taken this up to think about global justice

I'm going for now, but I'm thinking Oldiemum.

Meanbean, that's the point, you can start from scratch. If you don't mind risk, you could have society where some people sit around on chaises longues while others till the fields, and hope you get a chaise longue. But if you are risk averse, you will go for a pretty equal distribution. Actually, Rawls thinks that most people would accept some inequality, provided that it contributes to making the worst-off person better off than they would be otherwise (called the maximin principle). But the point is that there are many ways of achieving this, so there is plenty of scope for arguing about the fairness of different kinds of social arrangements. The thing I like about it is that it helps one to get away from rationalising one's own self-interest as general principles of justice.

But Oldiemum it takes away the fact thatin society some people are willing to work and some aren't - thats my big beef with stuff - I dont mind subsidising some groups and some things but I do others big style and why should I if I have made the effort to get an education and a job??

You don't know whether you will be willing to work, or, indeed, able to work, either. It's a lucky dip. If you want to read the book, the title is A Theory of Justice.

Ds and I went to Brighton yesterday and took part in the Vote for Trade Justice demonstration, which was full of really honest and decent leftwing people who are terribly disappointed by TB's government. It was quite moving for me, because the last time I was in Brighton was in 1997, and then I was very proud to be a delegate for my constituency to the LP annual conference. Strange somelike me can come from completely inside to completely outside that hall within so few years, and says a lot about how much TB has changed what the LP used to stand for.

Tony Blair is just a truly terrible person. Vapid, a chronic liar who no longer seems to know what the truth is. You didn't need hindsight to know the Iraq adventure was going to be a disaster! I knew. All the people who marched knew. Robin Cook knew. The majority of the country knew.
Examples of lies: He didn't plan to invade Iraq prior to the reports from weapons inspectors etc.
Fact: He promised Bush he would follow him into Iraq long before 9/11
Lie: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that can be launched on British interests within 45minutes
Truth: Well I think we all know the answer to that now, don't we?
It goes on and on. We were treated like morons.
As for cosying up to Bush, one of the most rightwing, anti-democratic, illiberal leaders the US has ever had, what the f**k is a so called Labour polician doing in bed with that man.
I despise him utterly. And don't even get me onto his support for Guantanamo. I find him disgusting beyond words. No wonder Gordon hates him.

Here, here Rowlers. TB is human and will obviously make mistakes. He who never makes a mistake, does nothing. People like to carp on about what he hasn't done but he has actually achieved a lot and as for this notion that he should declare to all and sundry whether his son has had the MMR jab, why? I would not open my personal medical records to every Tom, Dick and Harry so why should he?

I think one of the underlying legacies of the Tory years is the state of many former mining communities. High unemployment, low paid jobs on offer, youth disaffected, serious substance abuse problems, it's a living tragedy. The response from Skeletor's Father, Norman Tebbit "Get on yer bike" to find work was without compassion. Not everyone could leave their families and travel 100's of miles to find work, pay high accommodation costs, travel costs and still afford to send money home. After all, this is Britain, not South Africa and this is exactly what the blacks had to do if they wanted to work outside the townships.

Can't get on with things for thinking about this but have worked out I'm a communist at heart. So if planet earth was about to explode and a few plane loads of us managed to escape to the moon which miraculously had become overladen with oxygen, water and every plant and animal under the sun. Think a central government would provide all the basics regardless of income or ability to work. Consumables would be rationed to protect the planet moon, all jobs would attract the same number of rations but those who made decent contributions to the society outwith their chosen work would get a few extra rations. (As would the elderly or those deemed to be unable to work.) Once you died all your consumables and rations would return to the state. What constituted a decent contribution would be decided by a referendum. Scientists would set the maximum number of rations that were sustainable for each area and local governments would sort out arguments over who did/didn't deserve extras with appeals going to the central government. Those who refused to work when able or who committed crimes would be sent back to planet earth or put on very basic ration books until they mended their ways.
Mmm - but it all sounds a bit boring. Maybe I'll think again.

I don't understand why people want to know if TB gave Leo his MMR either. If people don't trust his judgement on Iraq why would they trust it any more on MMR? His son's medical history is confidential

Tony Blair is just a truly terrible person. Vapid, a chronic liar who no longer seems to know what the truth is. You didn't need hindsight to know the Iraq adventure was going to be a disaster! I knew. All the people who marched knew. Robin Cook knew. The majority of the country knew.
Examples of lies: He didn't plan to invade Iraq prior to the reports from weapons inspectors etc.
Fact: He promised Bush he would follow him into Iraq long before 9/11
Lie: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that can be launched on British interests within 45minutes
Truth: Well I think we all know the answer to that now, don't we?
It goes on and on. We were treated like morons.
As for cosying up to Bush, one of the most rightwing, anti-democratic, illiberal leaders the US has ever had, what the f**k is a so called Labour polician doing in bed with that man.
I despise him utterly. And don't even get me onto his support for Guantanamo. I find him disgusting beyond words. No wonder Gordon hates him.

And of course, telling us that Iraq was connected to 9/11 was a lie too. So many lies.
I hold him personally responsible - along with Bush - for the babies and children who have been blown to bits in Iraq. So IMO he is murderer too. And I could never vote for a child murderer.

Did TB say that Iraq was involved with 9/11? I missed that one!

Aloha.Wow. Yes, I can see you do not like the man . I don't understand his attachment to Dubya either. That really perplexes me and no doubt there is some deep underlying reason for this which will be revealed in about 50 years.

My take on it is that the US want to pull out of Saudi Arabia (their presence on Saudi soil brought on by the Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein{spit}is what enraged Osama Bin Laden {double spit} in the first place). If they pulled out their troops it was likely that SH would invade Saudi Arabia as he had threaten to do so in the past. Therefore, they decided to take out SH as this was the lesser of 2 evils. Maybe my mind is working overtime but it's interesting that the Saudi Princes would like to see Dubya re-elected.

Another thing to remember is that TB worked tirelessly to stop Dubya from alienating the UN and tried immensely hard to get UN support for this war. Let's not forget that SH kicked out the UN inspectors and would not let them back in for years. It's only when he was threatened that Hans Blix and co were invited back in again. SH could have prevented this by being honest and open in the first place. His track record (using biological agents against the Iranians and Kurds) led most of us to think that he had something to hide. He brought this terrible war on his people but the fact that it was a pre-emptive strike sets a bad precedent for the future.

Just another thought. Who would have believed that Sept 11th would have happened? If intelligent reports said that terrorists would use jet aeroplanes as a fuel bomb to bring attack the WTC, we would have scoffed. But it happened and the result was worse (or better if you are an Islamic terrorist) than expected. Let's bear this in mind whilst hanging TB. History proved that we were right to go to war against Hitler and who knows what history will show in this case.

The attack on the Twin Towers was not completely unheralded. There was a great deal of intelligence beforehand. And Iraq had nothing to do with it whatsoever - despite this nonsensical rhetoric about the attack on Iraq being part of the 'war on terror'. In fact, it seems that Al Qaeda only has taken a foothold in Iraq since the invasion, as previously Iraq was not a theocracy (unlike Saudi where Al Qaeda was based and drew its support - but no invasion there, eh? Not for Bush's oil chums.)
This is from an article Michael Meacher wrote for the Guardian. I think it is interesting. Also, in 2000 Rolf Ekers of Unscom wrote, "In all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally'. Ironic, isn't it, that despite all the claims that Saddam Hussein was lying about WMD, the liar turned out to be so much closer to home?

"It seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001). "

And yes, I just hate people who cause small children to have their limbs blown off to please their friends. Funny that. I must be very odd...

for those who think tony blair is great,would you still feel the same if god forbid anything happens in england because of your involvement in iraq?,we had 191 people blown off on their way to work,children on their way to school,could have been more victims if the train had not been delayed by minutes as otherwise it would have exploded in a platform full of people,i hold aznar, bush and blair responsible for their deaths and the deaths of everyone in iraq,turkey,morocco and any other country that has suffered or will suffer because the world is a very dangerous place thanks to our "invasion" our "invasion"

Some of you seem to be under the illusion that the world only became dangerous when we invaded Iraq. Prior to Sept 11th, Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC back in the early 90's. They also attacked the US embassy in Kenya ca. 2000 I think, lots of lives loss there but hey, they're only Kenyans. They have been active in the Middle East trying to destablise govts for whatever reason they care to give and how many lives have been lost there?

It is wrong what has happened in Iraq but how many young children died under Saddam Hussein's regime? Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war? Why don't you weep for those children of both sides too? Rwanda? We should hang our heads in shame, as we should for what is happening in Sudan.

Do you really think that if we sit back and do nothing that none of the world's trouble will be visited on us? We tried that with Hitler and look what happened. I don't know what the answer is but prior to Sept 11th, we ignored the antics of Al-Qaeda and look at the result. I believe that Iraq was a mistake with the limited knowledge that I have but no doubt there is a bigger picture that will only become clear in several years time.

Has it never struck you that so many things which the government has done - child tax credits, nursery places, massive investment in health service, classroom assistants - are not givens, they will disappear in a puff of smoke if Tories get in.

So bitch away about Tony Blair and in a few years you ll truly have something to cry about.

Also, I am sick and tired of this idea - by all Michael Moore-ites - that Iraq was lovely place before the war. Saddam made and used WMD - he gassed 100,000 Kurds, had death squads, committed horrific acts of torture, mass graves are now being discovered. It was a terrifying and oppressive regime, where people disappeared and died in their thousands. I think there was a case for a humanitarian intervention in Iraq.

TB's problem is that the invasion of Iraq was justified because they supposedly had WMDs. If he had argued simply that, for humanitarian reasons, a regime change was necessary (which brings a whole load of other questions about rights to intervene in other countries anyway) he would not have lost credibility. He may even have had the support of the majority of the population, I don't know.

Nobody is saying that Iraq was a lovely place, or that terrorism didn't exist before the war.

But there was no ongoing genocide (like in Rwanda and now arguably Sudan) in Iraq - there had been atrocities commited against the Kurds and in the war with Iran but if we were going to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons then we should have done it then. As it was, we sent the troops in and created a bigger humanitarian catastrophe than existed before - both because of direct war casualties and because the politics of Bush and Blair combined with the war created a climate in which Al Quaeda would have found it easier to find new recruits. If the war was really about humanity, why don't we invade China, Israel, Russsia etc?

jeez, all of you talking about how awful saddam was, what about north korea? what about blimmin bhutan???? what about kyrgistan (sp?) where they still boil people alive for political dissent (we are ALLIES with these people btw becuase it suits us militarily and oil wise to be so!) give me a break that the motives for invasion were anything to do with making iraq a better place for iraqis?

christonabike, to condemn tb for what he has done is certainly not to support the tories. and if tb is replaced by gordon brown, i'll certainly give labour another shot, despite how very very little they have done with their enormous majority. shame shame shame on the the blair govt both for international outrage, and domestic cowardice in the face of their overriding paranoia about not being re-elected...and shame on the great british public for giving them reason to worry about not being re-elected if they fulfilled even a fraction of their original pre '97 manifesto pledges...