Give Blair a bloody Nose they say !

The best outcome? A bloody nose for Tony Blair


What we think


This general election presents a serious moral dilemma for those of us
who have been implacably opposed to Tony Blair's decision to support
President George Bush's invasion of Iraq. This election asks a key
question: is that invasion - and the distortion of the facts used to
justify that course of action - so significant and so abhorrent as to
overshadow every other issue and be the deciding factor in the way we
cast our votes?

It is an awkward dilemma for a newspaper such as the Sunday Herald,
which finds itself in agreement with many of Labour's policies while
remaining fundamentally out of sympathy with the present party leader.
We approve of the Chancellor's management of the economy: through tax
credits and the national minimum wage Labour has made considerable
progress in reducing poverty. From the moves towards the cancellation
of Third World debt to the introduction of civil partnerships, Labour
has governed with some wisdom and evident justice. We believe that
Britain, after eight years of Labour government, is not only a more
prosperous country, but also in many respects a more tolerant one. The
creation of the Scottish parliament and a Welsh Assembly will stand as
monuments to this government's willingness to embark on real
democratic reform.

Yet the Iraq war has revealed serious, fundamental failings in our
system of government. Cabinet has become supine and easily dominated by
the Prime Minister. Tony Blair's ''sofa'' style of
government, where he consults with a handful of courtiers rather than
his ministers, has destroyed some of the essential checks and balances
needed to curb excessive executive power. Through his use of patronage,
the Prime Minister has created a ministerial team composed largely of
yes men and political clones - with perhaps the exception of
Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Further, our electoral system has handed Tony Blair an artificially
inflated majority in the House of Commons. The number of Labour MPs is
out of all proportion to Labour's share of the vote at the last
general election. This has allowed the Prime Minister to get his way
far too easily in parliament. Under almost any system of proportional
voting - such as the one which exists for the Scottish parliamentary
elections - Tony Blair would not have been able to win so
convincingly that crucial vote on March 18, 2003, which allowed him to
go to war.

Last week the campaign was electrified by the revelation of the
attorney general's first advice about the legality of taking military
action against Iraq. As many people suspected - and as this newspaper
has consistently sought to prove - that initial advice was very far
from an unequivocal legal green light for the war. The document of
March 7, 2003, is in fact strewn with doubts about the legality of
military action outside the authority of the United Nations Security
Council. There is little doubt that if the Cabinet had seen this
document in full, Tony Blair would have been hard pushed to receive
their complete backing for the war.

Not since the Suez crisis of 1956 - when the international furore
forced Prime Minister Anthony Eden to stand down - has a party
leader's integrity and trustworthiness featured as such a key issue
in an election. Tony Blair has undoubtedly played fast and loose with
the truth. When first elected in May 1997 he promised to be whiter than
white and to bring honesty and integrity back to government. Instead we
have had eight years of spin and distortion. Indeed, on his first day
in office Tony Blair said: "We are not the masters now." But that
promise to govern "for the people" has turned into governance by
personal fiat.

This newspaper remains appalled by Blair's uncritical alignment with
George Bush's neo-conservative Republican administration in America.
We are profoundly concerned too about the drift of Labour policy on
criminal justice - the curbing of habeus corpus, detention and house
arrest without trial and the imposition of compulsory identity cards.
We fear that this Prime Minister, were he to be returned with a third
successive massive majority, would - in England at least - see
victory as the political justification for measures which we see as
threatening to our basic civil rights as citizens. It may begin with
curbs on jury trials, the imposition of arbitrary minimum sentences and
the hint of intimidation towards legitimate asylum seekers. The
question is where does it end? We believe it should end with an
unequivocal and clear message from the British electorate that says any
prime minister who does not tell the truth - and who shows contempt
for even law lords who question his judgement - should not be given
further opportunity to mislead. We believe it should end with a prime
minister who takes his country to war illegally not being given the
chance to unilaterally deface democracy and international law a further
time. A third Blair term holds the fear that on its first day, on May
6, we will have retained the services of a prime minister whose
integrity and trust we already question.

The question is: what can we do about it? It is up to all of us in this
election to use our votes in a way which will ensure this country is
never again bounced into a war without parliament and the people being
in possession of the facts, the full legal advice, and the intelligence
assessment that can offer a verifiable choice between conflict or
peace. The best way to prevent a prime minister being able to
steamroller dissent - as Blair did with his 161 overall majority -
is to deprive the executive of an over-powerful reign. Numerical
supremacy, as Labour's second term showed, can turn a parliamentary
democracy into blinkered, elected dictatorship.

Scotland has a long tradition of tactical voting. So we urge our
readers today to examine the record of candidates in their constituency
and to consider who is best suited to send a powerful message to Tony
Blair; a message that we will not tolerate another four years of such
behaviour. In some areas this might mean voting Liberal Democrat, in
some areas SNP. In others still it means voting for Labour MPs whose
record on the war has been one of genuine moral independence.

The Tories' stance on the war in Iraq has hardly been more laudable
than the government's. They supported Tony Blair's decision to send
in British troops, albeit on the basis of intelligence information
which has since been found to be wrong. Last week Michael Howard
revealed that even if he had known the true nature of the Attorney
General's initial reservations about the legality of the war, he
would still have supported invading Iraq. That indicates a severe lack
of political judgement and leaves Howard in no position to criticise
Blair. It also leaves us in no doubt that he is without the necessary
qualities any decent prime minister should possess.

We urge our readers to therefore make sure their vote on Thursday is a
vote for a return to democratic principles that sadly have been absent
throughout much of Tony Blair's second term. A close call will
persuade many in his party that he is a prime minister without trust
and without the necessary desire to apologise - and one that should
be encouraged to stand down sooner, rather than later, during the next
parliament. That would be the new democratic beginning Britain now
deserves, and urgently needs.

01 May 2005

In a weeks time we will see what UK electorate has decided!
I fear a continuation of the currently flawed regime.
Gawd help us, but we may be pleasantly surprised.
However, those employed in the public sector [with their 60 retirement
age] and inflation linked pension package, will not support the
Conservatives.

Nor will the millions? on benefits; remember Hattonville ie Liverpool
some years back where I recall some 3/4 of residents did not pay full
,or any rates, and clearly those voters wanted the status quo to
continue, & were most vocal against poll tax.

"Gel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
<(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>In a weeks time we will see what UK electorate has decided!
>I fear a continuation of the currently flawed regime.
>Gawd help us, but we may be pleasantly surprised.
>However, those employed in the public sector [with their 60 retirement
>age] and inflation linked pension package, will not support the
>Conservatives.
>
>Nor will the millions? on benefits; remember Hattonville ie Liverpool
>some years back where I recall some 3/4 of residents did not pay full
>,or any rates, and clearly those voters wanted the status quo to
>continue, & were most vocal against poll tax.

Nor will many of those who remember what the Conservatives did in the
1980s and 1990s. It's not that some of the things didn't need doing but
the inhumane and uncaring way in which they were done.

Labour are probably even now a lot less corrupt than the last two
Conservative governments were.

On 1 May 2005 07:22:19 -0700, "none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>What we think

What I think is that you are not likely to get anyone to move towards
your viewpoint by posting this irrelevant trash in culture, broadband
and mobile phone newsgroups.

Anyone who is interested in discussion politics on usenet can choose
to do so by joining the relevant groups. Not the ones you have posted
to.


--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store

On 1 May 2005 07:22:19 -0700, "none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The best outcome? A bloody nose for Tony Blair
>
>
>What we think
>
>
>This general election presents a serious moral dilemma for those of us
>who have been implacably opposed to Tony Blair's decision to support
>President George Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Luckily you're a minority of whingers and toss[pots. Tone gets my
vote.

"Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news_6de.2632$%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 1 May 2005 07:22:19 -0700, "none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The best outcome? A bloody nose for Tony Blair
>>
>>
>>What we think
>>
>>
>>This general election presents a serious moral dilemma for those of us
>>who have been implacably opposed to Tony Blair's decision to support
>>President George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
>
> Luckily you're a minority of whingers and toss[pots. Tone gets my
> vote.

Me too. :-)

"Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news_6de.2632$%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 1 May 2005 07:22:19 -0700, "none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The best outcome? A bloody nose for Tony Blair
>>
>>
>>What we think
>>
>>
>>This general election presents a serious moral dilemma for those of us
>>who have been implacably opposed to Tony Blair's decision to support
>>President George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
>
> Luckily you're a minority of whingers and toss[pots. Tone gets my
> vote.
>

Your Bush in disguise!, I claim my 5 pounds.

Oliver Gunnell wrote:
> "Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news_6de.2632$%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>On 1 May 2005 07:22:19 -0700, "none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The best outcome? A bloody nose for Tony Blair
>>>
>>>
>>>What we think
>>>
>>>
>>>This general election presents a serious moral dilemma for those of us
>>>who have been implacably opposed to Tony Blair's decision to support
>>>President George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>Luckily you're a minority of whingers and toss[pots. Tone gets my
>>vote.
>>
>
>
> Your Bush in disguise!, I claim my 5 pounds.
>
>
Whose Bush? Witch guys?

--
John Appleyard

As a former British Gas customer sold off to OneTel, I've also threatened to
withdraw my custom if these posts don't stop. I would urge other OneTel
customers to threaten likewise.

Also notified PM's Office via his website.

On Sun, 1 May 2005 20:25:55 +0100, "Java Jive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>As a former British Gas customer sold off to OneTel, I've also threatened to
>withdraw my custom if these posts don't stop. I would urge other OneTel
>customers to threaten likewise.
>
>Also notified PM's Office via his website.

Every time Tony Blair comes on the telly I have to jerk myself off.

Am I normal?