Iain Duncan Smith

[KualaLumpur1997]

Iain Duncan Smith - serious threat to Blair or raving madman? Personally, after his speech today I feel inclined to support him - the guts to come out and basically say that Tony Blair killed David Kelly!!! after all Blair is pure evil.

[Piedude]

Yeah, he had good jokes in that speech, and pleanty of blair bashing

[SemiCircle]

surely mr cough isn't developing a personality?

[KualaLumpur1997]

Actually, I hear he's been taking lessons on "how to make a speech and not be eternally ridiculed"

[Pod]

his speech was crap. He called Tony Blair a Lier in a case that hasn't yet resolved.... very political

[smiley clown]

Uv probably all seen it on B3ta anyway but here it goes.

[squealpiggy]

I think that Iain Duncan Smith is like one of those really long winded jokes with a really bad punchline. He's probably done more for Labour than Tony Blair ever has. What is it with the conservative party and weak bald leaders? If Ken Clarke was elected leader the Tories would easily win the next election. Oh well, there's always lib dems.

[Micky]

All I'll say for now is that I think IDS is one of the best things that's happened to this country over recent years

(I'll leave it to you to figure out why ;))

[almighty_bob]

IDS, they put him up on a pedestal to take on Tony, n now they knock him down
What is it with us Brits?
We do it to every1!
Except Tony of course; why would(or even how could) we put him on a pedestal???

saying this, sadly due to the intellectual level of previous cons or lab, Lib Dems cannt get in, unless there is an landslide victory...
i wont go into why, not sure i understand it me self... but its true...

[captain keyes]

mr duncan smith be a dick head and took the rightful place of mr hague

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by almighty_bob
IDS, they put him up on a pedestal to take on Tony, n now they knock him down
What is it with us Brits?
We do it to every1!
Except Tony of course; why would(or even how could) we put him on a pedestal???

saying this, sadly due to the intellectual level of previous cons or lab, Lib Dems cannt get in, unless there is an landslide victory...
i wont go into why, not sure i understand it me self... but its true...

Could somebody explain to me (without ranting) in exactly what way Tony Blair has been a bad prime minister? I mean I know he's the government and all that but what's he done that's so wrong besides been a charismatic statesman?

[GorillaBearBear]

I think his speech was utter crap. Anyone remember that oh so mature labour campaign that labour had last election - Hague with thatcher's hair. His speech was the Torie Equivalent. No policy or anything, Just blair bashing.

Oh yes, and tony blair has been too indecisive. He has failed to reverse the errors of past governments (Not entirely his fault but you know) and has broken so many promises. And then the policies he DOES stand firm on he stands in the wrong place. War on Iraq anyone?

[CheHamstera]

if we are to ever get rid of Tony Blair or at the very least teach him a lesson at the next election, which i think we all agree, we bloody need to before he starts caling himself President Blair, we need effective opposition.

IDS has had a rough ride as leader of the opposition becuase he couldn't stick his head above the parapet and say that the US and our respose to 911 was wrong. he couldn't oppose the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq without being branded a traitor and i guess to the Conservatives it seemed like a good idea at the time.

so he has been branded a weak and ineffectual leader and now he is mired in sleaze. perhaps the Conservatives need a new broom, cos i don't think IDS can ever be the leader they want.

but mainly this country needs an opposition party, who actually opposes the party in power. step up Liberal Democrats. now is the time.

... just my 2p...

[almighty_bob]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Could somebody explain to me (without ranting) in exactly what way Tony Blair has been a bad prime minister? I mean I know he's the government and all that but what's he done that's so wrong besides been a charismatic statesman?

Erm... it is difficult to explain, without ranting...
Work for the government, and you will find out yourself though....
many things, too many to list....

Well spoke CheHamstera

[Shiny_macShine]

this person is the best thing labour has had in a while! Everyone must be thinking i hate tony blair lets get him out and then you look at IDS and think that might not be such a good idea. I think the lib dems will do suprisingly well in the next election. Think about it IDS is william hague 2 (the "improved" version). He's boring, more pathetic and more hapless than his predessecor. A large amount of his own party are against him even. He can only fail. Tony blair would have to nuke london for IDS to get in.

[squealpiggy]

Oh yes, and tony blair has been too indecisive. He has failed to reverse the errors of past governments (Not entirely his fault but you know) and has broken so many promises. And then the policies he DOES stand firm on he stands in the wrong place. War on Iraq anyone?

I've always thought that Tony Blair has been quite singe minded about what he sees as important issues. He appears to be indecisive in silly non-issues like Asylum because he has to appear interested in those "issues" when he clearly has better things to worry about.

All this failing to sort out problems left by previous governments is why I disagree with democracy. Because all an election is is a popularity you're in a tough position: Clearing up a problem costs money, to get the money you have to raise taxes, if you raise taxes you become unpopular, people vote for the other side, even though two or three years of tax increases would result in a better life for the future.

Breaking promises? I have seen in the paper a lot that Tony Blair has "broken" promises, but I have never seen an accurate statement of what those promises were. Does anyone know the specifics of this or is he just a vague promise breaker?

As for standing up on Iraq, could you imagine the consequences if Britain had not been involved in Iraq? It would have been a bloodbath. It would have been another vietnam, not just foreign fundamentalist suicide bombers attacking Americans but a resistance by the entire country against an oppressing force. Sure we wouldn't have been involved but inaction is as bad as action, sometimes worse.

CheHamstera I take it by your "president blair" comments you are a monarchist who prefers an unelected head of state?

[Shiny_macShine]

there is a promise that is rather well known that he has broken. Before the 1997 election he said "education education education" it just hasn't worked! the league performance tables for schools are lambasted especially by the actual teachers! and top up fee's are creating more and more debt for the people who really don't need it which are people looking for a job and ther first house. Also foundation hospitals are good according to tony blair, but my dad has been a nurse for 40 years and he see's it as bollocks as do the majority of his own party.

Plus with the iraq war his reason for going to war which is pretty much official is that there were weapons of mass destruction which could be launched in 45 minutes and that was included in a dossier presented to the security council as the reason for war! There are no weapons! Another reason was because what saddam husain was doing to his people was very morally wrong. So why hasn't he liberated zimbabwe from robert mugabes rule which happens to have expelled are own citizens. Why hasn't he and bush declared war on north korea who actually do have a nuclear weapons program and are actually a direct threat to britain and america? The man is a liar and a cheat and he disgusts me.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Shiny_macShine
there is a promise that is rather well known that he has broken. Before the 1997 election he said "education education education" it just hasn't worked! the league performance tables for schools are lambasted especially by the actual teachers! and top up fee's are creating more and more debt for the people who really don't need it which are people looking for a job and ther first house. Also foundation hospitals are good according to tony blair, but my dad has been a nurse for 40 years and he see's it as bollocks as do the majority of his own party.

Plus with the iraq war his reason for going to war which is pretty much official is that there were weapons of mass destruction which could be launched in 45 minutes and that was included in a dossier presented to the security council as the reason for war! There are no weapons! Another reason was because what saddam husain was doing to his people was very morally wrong. So why hasn't he liberated zimbabwe from robert mugabes rule which happens to have expelled are own citizens. Why hasn't he and bush declared war on north korea who actually do have a nuclear weapons program and are actually a direct threat to britain and america? The man is a liar and a cheat and he disgusts me.

The real reason for Britain going to war in Iraq I think wasn't because of weapons though I get the distinct feeling that Tony Blair really was genuinely concerned about WMDs. The main reason we were involved is that without a calming influence GWB would start world war three.

One good reason for getting into Iraq is to create stability in the middle east. There are currently no Arabic democracies. To create one would create a great deal of support in the region. Iraq was a soft touch, and needed us to just get rid of it's leader. With rebuilding we could create stability in the middle East, end the palestine-Israel confict and introduce western ideals and democracy into a war-torn and oppressive region. Of course it's going wrong now because certain Arabic leaders like being leaders and don't want democracy. It's the leaders that are promoting martyrdom.

Anyway, digression aside, would it disgust you more that Blair and Bush have declared war on a country that may have gone on to develop nuclear weapons with a view to rebuilding the region, or to declare war on a country that already has nuclear weapons and sparking off a nuclear conflict? These situations have to be handled delicately. As for Mugabe, he'll get his. He's on his way out I think, and he knows it, hence his ever more desperate attempts to cling to power.

The trouble with education really is that noone has a damn clue what to do about it. Noone knows how to teach kids, so they are trying things out. It's experimental and therefore is causing some problems. But there has been a paradigm shift (yo!) in attitudes to education and parenting. My parents believed that a child should start school knowing their letters and being able to do simple sums. Many parents nowadays think that it's a schools job to teach their kids. And it isn't just reading and writing, it's teaching them how to behave, teaching them discipline etc etc. But the biggest problem with education is that Britain's media is more vicious than any other in the world. We're known for it! Our newspapers teach stupid people to be afraid as well as the US news programs. What with paedophiles and drugs, poor education, health, asylum seekers, mad people, out of control footbalers, lottery winning hooligans, pollution, terrorism... how on earth do we manage to do ANYTHING?! 10 years ago we were facing recession due to the maastricht treaty and going into Europe, those Eurocrats would almost certainly have us munching on straight bananas and speaking espanol within a year! 20 years ago we were as likely to be blown up by the IRA as get on a bus. 30 years ago we had recession caused by the labour party. 40 years ago we were at the mercy of crazed hippy teenagers on drugs, and the spectre of moral collapse thanks to free love. 50 years ago we still had rations, well we had just had a war. 60 years ago... oops, we were at war. 70 years ago there was a worldwide recession, that was still left from the 20s. So that's two decades. 90 years ago we were at war. 100 years ago... no we can't possibly have it as good as they did back then, what with slum housing, little or no education for the poor, massive poverty, cholera epidemics... how far bsck do you want to go? There's always something wrong with the way things are and there's always someone who will blame the leader!

Top up fees: There would be no need for top up fees if the last government hadn't scrapped polytechnics. Polytechnics were easy to get into and taught skills that could get you a career. A good career. You were virtually guaranteed to get a job at the end of your diploma or degree. They changed the system so that you could now call yourself a university if you owned a desk and an overhead projector, now what do you have? 8 million degrees worth nothing at all. I have seen graduate only jobs with a salary of £10,000. Ten grand? Why study! You can make more than that working for a supermarket!

So you now have the first time in history where the majority of school leavers do a degree. How is this helping? And who should pay for it? I mean I support free education, but where do you draw the line? If it is for vacational courses I have no probem with my tax money going towrds it, but I don't want to support someone going to Loughborough to study fine art so he can spend three years smoking weed and drinking subsidised lager! Top up fees are a necessary way of coping with idiotic mistakes like opening up higher education.

I know I seem really right wing on here, and I don't agree with everything Tony Blair has done, but he knows his stuff and he's the best we've got. And I for one don't want to see any other prominent politician as PM.

[smiley clown]

You're right that the schools are experimenting which may cause problems but my upper school( which over 600 people are relying on for their GCSEs and 300 for their A levels) has just received a cut of half a million pounds a year, which means that we have to pay 5p for every sheet of paper and there are no new exercise books for a few weeks. Cheers Tony!

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by smiley clown
You're right that the schools are experimenting which may cause problems but my upper school( which over 600 people are relying on for their GCSEs and 300 for their A levels) has just received a cut of half a million pounds a year, which means that we have to pay 5p for every sheet of paper and there are no new exercise books for a few weeks. Cheers Tony!

You really think that Tony ordered those cuts in education? What's the name of the Secretary of State for Education? Don't know? That's where the problem is.

[Dude]

Did anyone watch that TV awards thingy last night?

I swear Tony Blair was going to say "And we will find the weapons of mass destruction":D

Anyhoo, Tony Blair IS evil, he didn't kill Dr David Kelly personaly but hired an asassin to do it for him.

[squealpiggy]

Elected politicians don't do that sort of thing. Too risky. The people that organise that are not people you will have heard of.

[Ouroboros]

Well it's official, IDS lost the vote of confidence.

It's a shame, because the party might have a small chance of recovery with a new leader. But let's hope not.

GO LIB DEMS!

[squealpiggy]

Lib Dems are a long way off election victory. The best situation in this country would be for a strong conservative party and a strong labour party with a fairly strong Lib Dem presence. That way we are likely to have a hung parliament which would give equal power to the two main parties. Effectively this means that the Lib Dems have the casting vote!

[CATS]

the torys should make a choice, there are two options, kick out the one nationers (as i would) andelect john redwood (i hope he stands again)as party leader. Or they could kick out the thatcherites and elect michael portillo as leader. Either way, if both factions still exist within the party then it will never recover.

What would the lib dems do, the lib dems are the most stupid and hypocritical party of all, they target the youth, the demographic that is least likely to vote. They want PR but if they get in they would only use it SO far so as not to jepordise their majority won under FPTP. They have no one policy that isent contradicted in some way by another, they are not fit to govern, they try to be all things to all men and end up with a hollow shell filled with frightend would-be polititions. They move to the left when their roots are in right wing classical liberalism, they have no ideolody anymore, if you say they are the most left wing party, how many left wing governments have we had since callahan???

[squealpiggy]

The real reason that the young don't vote I think is because there is no real difference between the parties.Older voters can remember a time when the conservives were right wing and Labour were left wing and lib dems were orange. Young voters only remember a time when the conservatives were right of centre, Labour were slightly less right of centre and the Lib Dems are orange...