Tony Blair for President? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

james t kirk · 05-10-2003, 06:37 AM

I was reading in the paper that a majority of Americans feel that Tony Blair is a more inspirational leader than George W Bush.

I was quite amazed at this, but it kind of makes sense.

I was quite conflicted about the whole Iraq thing, and part of that stemmed from the fact that Tony Blair seemed so passionate about ridding the world of Saddam. An american president shaking his fist is one thing, but a British Prime Minister is something to make you think.

I noticed that if you listened to the rhetoric, Bush always hammered on about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and terrorists, and security, whereas Blair seemed to take the moral high road, and claim that the world had a responsibility to get rid of a mad man. A moral dilema. But the problem with that is is that the world is full of nut bars.

Anyway, i heard that there was a movement in the usa to nominate Tony Blair for president. (I know it's impossible, so don't tell me that.)

Too bad you couldn't do that though.

Wouldn't it be something if you could.

Liquor Dealer · 05-10-2003, 07:07 AM

I don't know if it could be interpretted as Blair taking the high road or them doing the good cop bad/cop routine. Regardless (and this word to me has always been irregardless until I was ridiculed for my lack of education) of how it came across I believe that when the smoke clears and all of the saying has been said and done the liberal democrats will have an opportunity to cuss GW for six more years. If the election was help today that would be a certainty. I believe Blair would be eaten alive by American politics - he comes off as being "too nice" to deal with some of the lowlife scum that American voters send back to the Senate year after year.

4thTimeLucky · 05-10-2003, 07:24 AM

Blair is an exceptional politician and the US would be lucky to have him.

His greatest strength, I believe, is that he works on so many issues at once and rarely takes his eye off the ball. GW seems only able to concentrate on one issue at a time and even then not very well. By contrast Blair ran around the world getting support for the war, sped the emergence of the Palestine road map, worked on the Irish peace talks, introduced contentious health care reform, is negotiating on whether to join the EU and has made sure that the economy remains steady. All this and more means that he never gets caught out or shows a weakness to the opposition. By contrast GW's impact on the home front seems to be either non-existent or simplistic, huge tax cuts, the size of which seems to go up and down like a yoyo. Not impressed.

robjmq1 · 05-10-2003, 08:32 AM

Part of Blair's appeal is a result of the Paliamentary system in Great Britain. Unlike the President of the US, who is for the most part shielded from public debate, the PM on Great Britain must defend himself to his party and the opposition in an open forum in the House of Commons. You'll never see this kind of exchange go on in American Politics.

The_Dude · 05-10-2003, 08:38 AM

i'd take blair over bush

james t kirk · 05-10-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Blair is an exceptional politician and the US would be lucky to have him.

His greatest strength, I believe, is that he works on so many issues at once and rarely takes his eye off the ball. GW seems only able to concentrate on one issue at a time and even then not very well.

By contrast GW's impact on the home front seems to be either non-existent or simplistic, huge tax cuts, the size of which seems to go up and down like a yoyo. Not impressed.

My impression of Blair is that he is what any country needs in a politician. He is well spoken, intelligent, and knows how to keep a party in line for the most part.

You are quite correct about W, he seems obsessed with Iraq, and seems to not care or understand about economics, especially, the impact deficits can have, although LD does have a point that US politics is a beast.

Watching the entire war thing unfold on the tube, I hardly believed a word Bush said, but it was Blair that had me wondering. Why did he back Bush on this. I am still not really understanding that one.

I can buy the "moral" angle, i could never buy the "Iraq is a threat to the US or the world" angle

Here is a link to the Globe and Mail's write up last week on Tony Blair. It's a fascinating read

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ery=tony+blair

Here's one of the most interesting bits from the article....

.....................................................................................................
But the post-Iraq Tony Blair is also, by several measures, the most successful and valuable politician in the world right now. Never in recent history has a politician seemed so adept at playing the three-dimensional chess of political risk and opportunity. Other politicians seem barely able to choose between principle and expediency, or to offer citizens even a crayon sketch of either.

Mr. Blair, on the other hand, is engaged in a vertiginous high-altitude dance in which opportunity is delicately balanced against principle. Most astonishing was the contrast between U.S. President George W. Bush's attempts to explain the war -- a dull reiteration of the phrases "weapons of mass destruction" and "war against terrorism" -- and Mr. Blair's version. He set out his case in a series of speeches with Churchillian resonances, stepping around those justifications and offering a moral argument for humanitarian military intervention.

.......................................................................................................
With the whole war in Iraq thing I was very conflicted.

I never bought bush's arguements, i think it's wrong to kill people, the CNN thing disgusted me - people watching downtown Baghdad in real time getting bombed and thinking it was a video game. Those were people getting killed.

But, Saddam was a murdering piece of shit, I am glad he is gone. That was the one good thing that came out of this war. The one real thing. I only hope they don't merely replace him with another despot.

There are no weapons of mass destruction, even if there were, they were no threat to the US.

I remember watching Chretien on the news saying that he opposed "regime change", and it made me sick to listen to that crap. That - regime change, is the only good thing that has come out of this.

I respect Tony Blair.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Regardless (and this word to me has always been irregardless until I was ridiculed for my lack of education)

Why can't you just post a comment without creating a straw man? Posting a tongue-in-cheek dictionary entry is not the same as ridiculing you for your lack of education--but whatever, play the victim.

Here's the original link Liquor Dealer is lamenting about:

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....t=irregardless

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 02:08 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Just watch'n tv over here in the UK and Tony Blair was voted the worst Britain alive... By the british

I was gonna post this as a thread, but wasn't sure which forum to put it in, Nonsense, Humour, or Politics thanks for giving me an area to put this fact.

EDIT:
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Just read some of the comments about him. that have been posted here.

Well he is the English William J.Clinton, and he isn't a bad replicant, but the quality of sheer bullshitedness is not good. King Tony will not amount to anything except for the man who took England into the Euro.

ARTelevision · 05-10-2003, 02:56 PM

President of the European Union!

comments?

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 03:55 PM

ARTelivision nah, TB won't settle for pres.of the EU. Thats for failed politicians (Neil Kinnock). He wants the whole hog.. He will be the man that brings the English (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), into the EU.
IMHO Scary!

reconmike · 05-10-2003, 04:09 PM

I think that is great, Canada can use a leader with some balls.

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Why can't you just post a comment without creating a straw man?

Straw Man

Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

People who opposed the Charlottetown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada.

We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.

Proof:

Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.

References:

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138

Taken from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallicies
------------------------------------

So actually, Liquor Dealer was just indulging in an oblique slam external to the arguement, not presenting a strawman. Whereas in your linked post, you engaged in an ad hominim attack of style over subtance.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 05:07 PM

Try again, Lebell.

A straw man argument occurs when one ignores or distorts someone's position in order to discredit it or argue against the new (and weaker) position presented.

Read the link, if you haven't already. You will notice that I don't attack or impugn LD's level of intelligence. LD intentionally claimed that my post (in the other thread) stated or somehow inferred that he was less educated by his use of the word "irregardless." My post didn't allege any such thing; hence, his claim that he "was ridiculed for [his] lack of education" as the basis for his inability to use the word "irregardless" despite his desire to is a straw man.

As for your claim that my recent post is an attack against the person:

Clearly, irrespective of the fact that calling someone on their use of a straw man argument to bolster one's claim is not a fallacious attack on the person's argument, my comment was a question rather than a statement.

edit: btw, I demonstrated the "proof" of a straw man (which you submitted):

Quote:

Proof: Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.

when I posted this:

Quote:

Posting a tongue-in-cheek dictionary entry is not the same as ridiculing you for your lack of education

Mad_Gecko · 05-10-2003, 05:14 PM

- ZZZzzzzzz -

"This isn't an argument. this is a contradiction"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"yes it is, an argument is a discussion about two opposing viewpoints, a contradiction is just a denial of each other's views"
"no it isn't, times up"

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Try again, Lebell.

A straw man argument occurs when one ignores or distorts someone's position in order to discredit it or argue against the new (and weaker) position presented.

You can choose to redefine "a strawman" arguement as you wish, but if you look again, that is basically the definition that I presented. But unless your credentials match or exceed Dr. Stephen Downs, of the University of Alberta, I think I'll go with his definition and not yours. (link above. Did you read it?)

Quote:

Read the link, if you haven't already. You will notice that I don't attack or impugn LD's level of intelligence. LD intentionally claimed that my post (in the other thread) stated or somehow inferred that he was less educated by his use of the word "irregardless." My post didn't allege any such thing; hence, his claim that he "was ridiculed for [his] lack of education" as the basis for his inability to use the word "irregardless" despite his desire to is a straw man.

As for your claim that my recent post is an attack against the person:

Clearly, irrespective of the fact that calling someone on their use of a straw man argument to bolster one's claim is not a fallacious attack on the person's argument, my comment was a question rather than a statement.

edit: btw, I demonstrated the "proof" of a straw man (which you submitted):

when I posted this: [/B]

So.

Entering a debate with a definition of a word used improperly by another debater is not an ad hominim attack, especially if you put "tongue-in-cheek" in the post?

Ok, I'll have to remember that.

As to the rest of your post, whatever.

I'll let the readers of this farce decide who has better built their position since I don't see a point in continuing a "yes it is, no it isn't" discussion.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You can choose to redefine "a strawman" arguement as you wish, but I suggest that unless your credentials match or exceed Dr. Stephen Downs, of the University of Alberta, I think I'll go with his definition and not yours. (link above. Did you read it?)

Look, Lebell, I'm not redefining straw man. You misunderstood Dr. Downs' definition. I read his link and my credentials aren't particularly relevant--yet, suffice to say that although my degree isn't in logic, law relies a great deal upon logical constructions.

Here are some more examples so you can better understand the gist of a straw man argument:

Fallacy: Straw Man

Quote:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Quote:

So.

Entering a debate with a definition of a word used improperly by another debater is not an ad hominim attack, especially if you put "tongue-in-cheek" in the post?

Neither posting a correct definition of a word nor the fact that the last paragraph of that definition was written tongue in cheek is by no stretch of the imagination an attack against a person's character.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You can choose to redefine "a strawman" arguement as you wish, but if you look again, that is basically the definition that I presented. But unless your credentials match or exceed Dr. Stephen Downs, of the University of Alberta, I think I'll go with his definition and not yours. (link above. Did you read it?)

Now that you've edited this paragraph, what exactly is your point?
Is my definition of a straw man fallacy "basically the definition that [you] presented"?
If so, how am I using an incorrect definition of a straw man fallacy?

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
[B]Look, Lebell, I'm not redefining straw man. You misunderstood Dr. Downs' definition. I read his link and my credentials aren't particularly relevant--yet, suffice to say that although my degree isn't in logic, law relies a great deal upon logical constructions.

Here are some more examples so you can better understand the gist of a straw man argument:

Thank you for straightening me out on the definition of 'Strawman' smooth. Now, will you read it yourself and apply it correctly?

Liquor Dealer did not use a strawman. You tweaked his nose and then he didn't care for it, regardless of the qualifiers you choose to put on it. So when he brought it up, you attacked him again, this time using the ad hominim attack "Strawman". I called you on it and you didn't like that either, so here we are.

I really shouldn't have replied, but like a lawyer, I like to get the last word in. That's one of my own weaknesses.

Anyway, I think this horse is dead.

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 06:44 PM

Sorry about editing that. I did it fast when I reread what you wrote and I hoped you hadn't seen it already.

My bad.

smooth · 05-10-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Thank you for straightening me out on the definition of 'Strawman' smooth. Now, will you read it yourself and apply it correctly?

Liquor Dealer did not use a strawman. You tweaked his nose and then he didn't care for it, regardless of the qualifiers you choose to put on it. So when he brought it up, you attacked him again, this time using the ad hominim attack "Strawman". I called you on it and you didn't like that either, so here we are.

I'm not applying it correctly?

Here's the original post:

Irregardless

Quote:

Thus, logically, "irregardless" falls into the same category of multinegative words as "irreligionless" and "unambitionless" - words whose components are coherent and unassailable but run at cross purposes. We are not unmindful (though by no means not unmindless) that constructions involving the negation of a negative are not unacceptable in English, but it is perhaps not inapposite to point out that the stacked negatives produce unmeaningless results only if we allow all elements in the compounded expression to participate in the anti-unmaking of its sense. Regrettably, Webster's Tenth chooses to be irregardful of the logic issue.

followed by this post:

Quote:

Oops, meant to put a big

!
Mea culpa, LD, the devil made me do it

.

How can you possibly construe that to be:
a) an attack against one's level of education
and
b) an attack against one's character?

LD's claim that I was attacking his level of education by this post is a straw man--I never stated nor insinuated that he lacked education.

edit:

using it correctly:
LD: blah, blah,...irregardless...blah, blah...
Smooth: Irregardless is a funny word...look here at this funny definition.
LD: now I can't use irregardless because Smooth ridiculed my level of education.
Smooth: Huh, I never said that. Why resort to a straw man?
Lebell: Look, Smooth is attacking LD's character. Here Smooth, let me teach you about logic from a website.
Smooth: What are you talking about?
Lebell: This is a dead horse!

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 04:46 AM

Would you two stop defacing james t kirk's thread and take this outside please.

Thank you.

james t kirk · 05-11-2003, 05:46 AM

No kidding eh.

I read all this stuff and i think, What the F are they talking about?

Daval · 05-12-2003, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Blair is an exceptional politician and the US would be lucky to have him.

His greatest strength, I believe, is that he works on so many issues at once and rarely takes his eye off the ball. GW seems only able to concentrate on one issue at a time and even then not very well. By contrast Blair ran around the world getting support for the war, sped the emergence of the Palestine road map, worked on the Irish peace talks, introduced contentious health care reform, is negotiating on whether to join the EU and has made sure that the economy remains steady. All this and more means that he never gets caught out or shows a weakness to the opposition. By contrast GW's impact on the home front seems to be either non-existent or simplistic, huge tax cuts, the size of which seems to go up and down like a yoyo. Not impressed.

Well said, I agree wholeheartedly. I respect Mr. Blair and think he is much more of a diplomat than Mr. Bush. It is only due to Mr. Blair that I think the US was able to get as much support as they did. George should be thanking Tony profusely for all he has done for him.

miked10270 · 05-12-2003, 07:53 AM

It's nice to see that Tony Blair is rated internationally. Strangely, in his home constituency of Sedgefield, County Durham, he's commonly called "Phoney Tony".

To be fair, he does have a significant advantage over Bush (and no - it's not the freehold ownership and possession of a brain :>). One of the fundamental differences between the UK & US Governments is the permanence of department heads - the level at which permanent professionals can rise to. For example, while in the US the head of HHR or the NIA is a political appointment, in the UK, the head of MI5, SIS, etc... are career civil servants who remain in their posts regardless of changes of government. As such, while Bush had to bring in his advisors when he was appointed president, and those advisors had to largely learn to run departments AND formulate policy, Blair's advisors have effectively spent their entire careers in the departments they now head. This leaves the UK ministers (who are political appointees) free to set policy guided by a senior civil service who have also served the previous administration.

MIke.

4thTimeLucky · 05-12-2003, 08:08 AM

can't agree with mike enough.

career civil servants are the backbone of out government and often its brain too!

The politicising of CSs in the UK is one of our more troubling trends.

On the other hand, Bush did have his pick of the birghtest minds and advisers who had gained their skills under his dad's presidency.

Pyrate · 05-13-2003, 04:48 AM

it's bloody nice for a brit to hear these things!!!

james t kirk · 05-13-2003, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by miked10270
It's nice to see that Tony Blair is rated internationally. Strangely, in his home constituency of Sedgefield, County Durham, he's commonly called "Phoney Tony".

That's often the case, weird things happen in the leader's own riding.

Chretien once had to run in a riding other than his own because if he ran in his own, he might have lost. And he's the Prime Minister.

05-10-2003, 06:37 AM	#1 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Tony Blair for President? I was reading in the paper that a majority of Americans feel that Tony Blair is a more inspirational leader than George W Bush. I was quite amazed at this, but it kind of makes sense. I was quite conflicted about the whole Iraq thing, and part of that stemmed from the fact that Tony Blair seemed so passionate about ridding the world of Saddam. An american president shaking his fist is one thing, but a British Prime Minister is something to make you think. I noticed that if you listened to the rhetoric, Bush always hammered on about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and terrorists, and security, whereas Blair seemed to take the moral high road, and claim that the world had a responsibility to get rid of a mad man. A moral dilema. But the problem with that is is that the world is full of nut bars. Anyway, i heard that there was a movement in the usa to nominate Tony Blair for president. (I know it's impossible, so don't tell me that.) Too bad you couldn't do that though. Wouldn't it be something if you could.

05-10-2003, 07:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I don't know if it could be interpretted as Blair taking the high road or them doing the good cop bad/cop routine. Regardless (and this word to me has always been irregardless until I was ridiculed for my lack of education) of how it came across I believe that when the smoke clears and all of the saying has been said and done the liberal democrats will have an opportunity to cuss GW for six more years. If the election was help today that would be a certainty. I believe Blair would be eaten alive by American politics - he comes off as being "too nice" to deal with some of the lowlife scum that American voters send back to the Senate year after year. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

05-10-2003, 07:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Blair is an exceptional politician and the US would be lucky to have him. His greatest strength, I believe, is that he works on so many issues at once and rarely takes his eye off the ball. GW seems only able to concentrate on one issue at a time and even then not very well. By contrast Blair ran around the world getting support for the war, sped the emergence of the Palestine road map, worked on the Irish peace talks, introduced contentious health care reform, is negotiating on whether to join the EU and has made sure that the economy remains steady. All this and more means that he never gets caught out or shows a weakness to the opposition. By contrast GW's impact on the home front seems to be either non-existent or simplistic, huge tax cuts, the size of which seems to go up and down like a yoyo. Not impressed. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-10-2003, 08:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i'd take blair over bush __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-10-2003, 02:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	HAHAHAHAHAHA Just watch'n tv over here in the UK and Tony Blair was voted the worst Britain alive... By the british I was gonna post this as a thread, but wasn't sure which forum to put it in, Nonsense, Humour, or Politics thanks for giving me an area to put this fact. EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHA Just read some of the comments about him. that have been posted here. Well he is the English William J.Clinton, and he isn't a bad replicant, but the quality of sheer bullshitedness is not good. King Tony will not amount to anything except for the man who took England into the Euro. __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious Last edited by Mad_Gecko; 05-10-2003 at 02:19 PM..

05-10-2003, 08:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
robjmq1 Upright	Part of Blair's appeal is a result of the Paliamentary system in Great Britain. Unlike the President of the US, who is for the most part shielded from public debate, the PM on Great Britain must defend himself to his party and the opposition in an open forum in the House of Commons. You'll never see this kind of exchange go on in American Politics.

05-10-2003, 02:56 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	President of the European Union! comments? __________________ create evolution

05-10-2003, 03:55 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	ARTelivision nah, TB won't settle for pres.of the EU. Thats for failed politicians (Neil Kinnock). He wants the whole hog.. He will be the man that brings the English (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), into the EU. IMHO Scary! __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-10-2003, 04:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I think that is great, Canada can use a leader with some balls. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-10-2003, 05:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	- ZZZzzzzzz - "This isn't an argument. this is a contradiction" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "yes it is, an argument is a discussion about two opposing viewpoints, a contradiction is just a denial of each other's views" "no it isn't, times up" __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

05-10-2003, 06:44 PM	#19 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Sorry about editing that. I did it fast when I reread what you wrote and I hoped you hadn't seen it already. My bad. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-11-2003, 04:46 AM	#21 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Would you two stop defacing james t kirk's thread and take this outside please. Thank you. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-11-2003 at 06:09 AM..

05-11-2003, 05:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	No kidding eh. I read all this stuff and i think, What the F are they talking about?

05-12-2003, 07:53 AM	#24 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	It's nice to see that Tony Blair is rated internationally. Strangely, in his home constituency of Sedgefield, County Durham, he's commonly called "Phoney Tony". To be fair, he does have a significant advantage over Bush (and no - it's not the freehold ownership and possession of a brain :>). One of the fundamental differences between the UK & US Governments is the permanence of department heads - the level at which permanent professionals can rise to. For example, while in the US the head of HHR or the NIA is a political appointment, in the UK, the head of MI5, SIS, etc... are career civil servants who remain in their posts regardless of changes of government. As such, while Bush had to bring in his advisors when he was appointed president, and those advisors had to largely learn to run departments AND formulate policy, Blair's advisors have effectively spent their entire careers in the departments they now head. This leaves the UK ministers (who are political appointees) free to set policy guided by a senior civil service who have also served the previous administration. MIke.

05-12-2003, 08:08 AM	#25 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	can't agree with mike enough. career civil servants are the backbone of out government and often its brain too! The politicising of CSs in the UK is one of our more troubling trends. On the other hand, Bush did have his pick of the birghtest minds and advisers who had gained their skills under his dad's presidency. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-13-2003, 04:48 AM	#26 (permalink)
Pyrate Psycho Location: London, CorBlimeyLand	it's bloody nice for a brit to hear these things!!! __________________ ?