Greenback Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by youngmcgill I take your opinions but dont accept them, I think in a realisitc world it wasnt necessary, the reality of the situation was that there is nothing that hasnt been done that would have been done should he have been in this country. Personally I think its just another excuse for the Tories to have a jibe at the Labour government but in reality everything that could have been done has been. How many executives or managers of companies work from home or dont work in the office? Thats the wonder of modern technology. I bet your are both not Labour voters... Executives or managers of companies aren't the main figureheads of the country, though. As to whether they actually run the country... I'd love to vote Labour, but as far as I'm concerned they don't exist any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmcgill Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by Greenback Executives or managers of companies aren't the main figureheads of the country, though. As to whether they actually run the country... I'd love to vote Labour, but as far as I'm concerned they don't exist any more. Tony Blair runs the country, so what hasnt he done that he could have if he was in London? Your moving to a whole new point and demonstrating more so that its your dislike for Tony Blair rather than something he has not done. If you can demonstrate to me something Michael Howard could have done that Tony hasnt and something which Tony could have donehad he been in the country that he hasnt done by being in Egypt, ill vote conservative! You also omit to recognise that whilst in Egypt Tony was visiting other heads of state which is relevant to the development of our own country, he wasnt just sitting on the beach all day! I think the point im trying to make is that this is just another excuse for Labour haters to have a jibe at Mr Blair, just like youve demonstrated its more your dislike for Mr Blair rather than something that he has not done. He cant be in his office 24/7 365. Everything that could be done has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by youngmcgill Tony Blair runs the country, so what hasnt he done that he could have if he was in London? Your moving to a whole new point and demonstrating more so that its your dislike for Tony Blair rather than something he has not done. It's not just jibes about Blair, but recognition that our head of state can't have it both ways. If he was so concerned with the situation in Asia he'd have been back in a shot - that's what Prime Ministers do in response to major events. But it was only when he gauged the force of public reaction that he got his government into gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmcgill Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by Greenback It's not just jibes about Blair, but recognition that our head of state can't have it both ways. If he was so concerned with the situation in Asia he'd have been back in a shot - that's what Prime Ministers do in response to major events. But it was only when he gauged the force of public reaction that he got his government into gear. Sorry but I still disagree, you still havent answered my question, what could he have done from London that hasnt been done? There is physically nothing he could have done which he hasnt already done whether he was in London, Egypt or anywhere else. was he to cancel appointments with the Egyptian President in order to come back to London to control something which he has no control over? The only thing he could have done other than what he has would have been to jump in the ocean and start swimming to rescue people! When theres a major event do all Prime Ministers and Presidents run home to their office? No, they deal with the situation and thats what Prime Ministers do, deal with problems and situations! Did Bush go to his office from his Texas ranch? No. Did the australian prime minister return to his office from Queensland? No. So what makes our Prime Minister any different? You have yet to come up with a viable argument, its just your dislike for Mr Blair and the abour government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Youngmcgill, I wouldn't vote Labour in a million years. I respect Greenback's views, but in my case I think I DO know who Labour are now! They are a European -style, touchy-feely, Social Democratic party that believes in high public spending, constant borrowing, hammering the middle classes with "stealth" taxes, and they subscribe to a busybody, interfering, nannying philosophy. Re Howard, I reluctantly admit that you are probably quite correct here. I too cannot see Howard as performing at a higher level than Blair. Despite my dislike of New Labour , I admit that my party are nothing like the force in opposition that they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony_BLiar Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Oh dear...how did this debate end up being a political slanging match? The initial post was about looking after ourselves rather than the tsunami victims. To get back on the right track, I dont agree that we shouldnt give to help those in need, but I also dont agree with our govt giving our money away to illegal wars and the needy of other countries when we have so many REALLY poor people in our own country. What about clenning up our hospitals for a start? The tsunami is a very worthy cause, but after years of giving aid to various other countries, whose populations are devastated by war induced starvation, why are they still in the same mess? Basically the govts of these countires dont give a toss about their own and expect to be bailed out by western countries, they take it for granted and by doing this they are taking the pi@@. Only when there is a real and unavoidable need for aid, such as now, should we give. Its about time some other countries did something for themselves....and please, dont anybody go on about "its our fault cos of colonialism"..a weak and racist argument against british people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmcgill Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Oh come one, get a grip people, weve all totaly strayed from the point of this discussion and turned it into a love hate debate about Labour, we all have our own opinions and political views, however these views shouldnt be reflected in our opinion of this disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by youngmcgill Sorry but I still disagree, you still havent answered my question, what could he have done from London that hasnt been done? There is physically nothing he could have done which he hasnt already done whether he was in London, Egypt or anywhere else. was he to cancel appointments with the Egyptian President in order to come back to London to control something which he has no control over? The only thing he could have done other than what he has would have been to jump in the ocean and start swimming to rescue people! When theres a major event do all Prime Ministers and Presidents run home to their office? No, they deal with the situation and thats what Prime Ministers do, deal with problems and situations! Did Bush go to his office from his Texas ranch? No. Did the australian prime minister return to his office from Queensland? No. So what makes our Prime Minister any different? You have yet to come up with a viable argument, its just your dislike for Mr Blair and the abour government. It's not about what he could have *actually* done if he was here, in Cairo, or in Timbuktoo. It's about hypocrisy: on the one hand, not being particularly interested in the crisis initially (an accusation which, by the way, is not just aimed at Blair but the cabinet as a whole) and on the other, preaching to the public about his desire to rid the world of famine, etc. If you're in politics, and you haphazardly pick and choose when you're going to play the humanitarian card, you lay yourself open to accusations of populism, and people start questioning your motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmcgill Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by Greenback It's not about what he could have *actually* done if he was here, in Cairo, or in Timbuktoo. It's about hypocrisy: on the one hand, not being particularly interested in the crisis initially (an accusation which, by the way, is not just aimed at Blair but the cabinet as a whole) and on the other, preaching to the public about his desire to rid the world of famine, etc. If you're in politics, and you haphazardly pick and choose when you're going to play the humanitarian card, you lay yourself open to accusations of populism, and people start questioning your motives. Honestly, wake up and smell the coffee! Would you have been happier to see the cabinet sitting in the cabinet office talking about nothing? There is nothing they could have done! It doesnt make any difference! Would you rather have wasted tax payers money flying people in from all over the place to sit in the cabinet office and talk about things they could have done over the phone? Typical Torie, a money waster! your main concern would probably have been what doughnuts were on offer at that particular cabinet meeting!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmcgill Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by Greenback It's not about what he could have *actually* done if he was here, in Cairo, or in Timbuktoo. It's about hypocrisy: on the one hand, not being particularly interested in the crisis initially (an accusation which, by the way, is not just aimed at Blair but the cabinet as a whole) and on the other, preaching to the public about his desire to rid the world of famine, etc. If you're in politics, and you haphazardly pick and choose when you're going to play the humanitarian card, you lay yourself open to accusations of populism, and people start questioning your motives. and incidently, Tony Balir didnt make the Tsunami happen so how can be picking and choosing, he would have been choosy if he waited a week or 2 to respond!? Stop being silly and come up with a semi devent argument! Would you rather the cabinet stopped using the telephone and had all of their meetings in person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.