Tony Blair, a critique.
What do I think of the British PM, of 1997-2007.
Tony Blair, has seen some economic growth, and some falls in unemployment, but all togetther was in many ways annoying. The Iraq war to me was just a foreign policy matter, and even if Britain had not been involved the USA would surely have invaded so that was just a minor thing in some ways. But in terms of domestic policies, he has done loads of bad things. He has pushed for imposing ID cards, a right wing act. And the biggest thing of all is he started Tuition fees for education so we have a less equal society, where he seemed in some ways to want a system where people work for scholarships like the annoying way in US movies, poorer people have to suck up to rich people (only in 1 movie), or have some special talent not anything to do with academia, qualifications to get to university, like being good at a sport only tall people, or big people could possibly be good at. That is a backward step, that makes hard nuts, win, and weak people lose, which encourages a more neanderathal and unequal society. I have not put the words right, but it certainly is the case, they were backward steps, to what I said, I think the phrase is Jocks, the label people use for American football thugs, and scum like that. So that in the US, instead of politics being dominated by clever people, you get sportsmen, covering th political system, people who do not care about government, and do not need to be clever to get to the top pf their profession, And he has moved in that direction, a disgrace.
Also he has pushed for nuke ways.
And he has befriended the archaetypal, American Football style politician, Arnie Schwarinigger, a man who is the most annoying epitomy of that style of politics imaginable. A born bully, with absolutely dreadful morals throughout his life, groping, and bullying, insulting weaker people, sucking up to the powerful, and rich. its horrific, And the worst thing is this. Before he was voted in, the Democrats in California were planning envionmental; friendly schemes, then he gets elected and takes the credit for them, So one of the worst things possible occurs. A bad person gets the credit, so it seems like bad people are good rulers. When they can only lead to bad. The only good is this, I like to think Blair, won Arnie the election, Ok I have not been that much observing that race, but I saw little bits on polls. And a look around Google News, after I saw Blair had visited there,l and said, all this Ramsey Macdonald style rubbish. You may say, thats a disaster, a British PM you supported helped a really annoying fellow to power. But the other side is this, If Blair had not arrived in Caluifornia,. just afore his re-election the Democrats would have carried on thinking that race was competitive, it was just that point that the Republican lead in California, turned massive. Surely as a foreign admired Left wing centrist had bizarrely honoured a governor of just one single state with glowing praise. Just like how when foreign leaders visit this often helps the leader of the land visited if the leader visiting is popular and powerful, as teh effects rub off on the guy. Like for Harold Macmillan in his 1950s meeting with Eisenhower, when his polols shot up, and Clinton at the Labour conference, the year Major was found to have had a affair with Edwina Currie, which helped put the Tories down in the polls, toa low rate again. Surely if Blair, has not artrived the Arnie lead would not have opened up. If the Dems had carried on helping their candidate there, then it could have seen themselves concentrate less on the Congress. And then the Dems may have just lost Congress, as their leads in Senate races would have fallen so much, polls would have predicted them a few weeks before as being likley to be Republican wins, which would have upset them, and seen probabaly a Republican majority in the Senate, and Congress. And so the world would still have it's most powerful country dominated by the right wing, and their ideaology of allignment to all that left wingers oppose, Which would have influenced the whole world.
Also Blair has allied so Much to Bush, I remember the worst thing of this, when he started making teh same statements Bush had made, just after the elec tion of Bush, abiut the school system, which you can paraphrase as if it has not worked to know, why not try right wing ways. Blair also claimed their is no such thing as a left right divide anymore, as he is willing to take right wing policies, All this means is that he is right wing.
Another thing I find annoying about Blair, is how he called Dubai a absolute monarchy a miracle. It is not. In all honesty the UAE is a land which exports more oil than Libya and has a lowe life expectancy and still has slavery and child labour. Despite it not even having a arms budget as the USA and Britain, prop it up, to get oil from there, while any left wing land, from the PLO, too pre Saddam Iraq was attacked by the west when they had good morals. So good morals 19588 Iraqi republic weas attacked, and evil morals, terrible UAE, was helped, which was a disgrace. It should have been the other way roubnd. As the UAE is poor per oil, and not wealthy per oil. This is a sign Blair is not in any sense ideaologically left wing. And considering history from World War One, to World War Two, to everything has shown left wing ideals to be right, it just seems insane hye has not got left wing ideals.
The most annoying thing about Blair, is what I can not understand why does he sometimes say he hates the Tories, if he is just closer to their views in practice than he is to left wing. Espcially if he is from a Tory family, the only reason he would not have joined the Tories, is if he met loads of Tories, and they all said, they hate people not like them. But most of what he belives in in 2006, is what the average Tory party member believes in. From nationalism, to monarchy, to not really minding about inequality. I also hear that they mix with terribly blinkered right wing journalists, and officials, so no wonder he is getting more and more and more right wing as time goes on. Right wingers, who just take the right wing view, and never wonder if it could possibly be wrong, on everything. Making dumb not all that knowledegable views, about politics where they know nothing about history, or facts, or what has actually happened. The only good thing he did was teh New Deal, and that was Gordon Brown, and other people's ideas it is said. like John Smith. Yes the only other good, was accepting EU expansion. And a small up in aid, which also was probabaly other leftists way forward.
Why the French Revolution was good
100s of Websites http://www.lonympics.co.uk/
An Index with links to almost all our sites.
The Highland Clearances and it's full terribleness
A site condemning the bias against the left wing, in most history books.
A site on the Belgian Congo, and how the king of that land killed 10s of millions of Congolese
The most evil regimes of the 19th Century
What were the nicest regimes ever
The Best regimes ever in terms of achievers
Which regimes killed the most people in the 19th Century, find out here,
Worst 17th Century regimes ever
A site stating what have been the world's largest empires ever
What would happen in a war between these sides
What were the most evil regimes ever
A list stating what were the worst 1990s regimes
What were the worst 16th Century regimes ever
What were the worst 15th Century regimes ever
What were the worst 2000s regimes
A site stating the 10 largest majority English speaking lands, as their main tongue in the world
A site on space, and the records to do with this subject
A site on a time traveling revolutionary
The world's 10 most powerful countries in 2008
My Worst regimes of the 20th century essay
My worst regimes of the 20th century stats
Our History Lounge - Where you can peruse many fascinating historical articles.