The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Honest Opinions on Tony Blair.

Scroll to see replies

Domestically he was a good PM who did a lot in terms of improving people's quality of life and making Britain a fairer society, but his foreign policy was atrocious, and like a lot leaders, power got to his head, and he got worse/crazy towards the end and that's all people think about now
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
FPTP :facepalm:

It;s the same for me exept tory.

But if you lived in a Tory/Lab swing seat would you still vote Green with a Lab party where Corbyn is leader?

Caroline Lucas is trying to push a kind of "progressive pact" between parties so as not to contest seats where a splintered left let Tories and UKIP in. We do not live in a electorally progressive enough country to be able to vote for who we want most without side effects.


I could be pushed if Labour improve under Corbyn. Always liked him as a man, but yet to be convinced as a party leader. Labour would also need to throw off the middle class triumphalism that dominated under Blair and probably played a role in driving some working class voters to the BNP/UKIP.

Original post by IAMADAM27
Wasted vote.


Unfortunately we have a voting system that means a significant proportion of the population's vote will always be wasted no matter how we chose to vote.
Obviously the Iraq disaster wish has caused a lot of the problems.

But his economic policy was just Thatcherite neo-libral.

Instead of investing in services he paid for them PFI's, did nothing to curb tax dodging, wouldn't replace council houses Thatcher sold off, all the outsourcing and centralised anti democratic control of party.

New Labour didn't cause the financial crash but a lot of there polices really help situation.
Fit. Would've banged.
The prick got me killed.
I wonder if conservatives were dropped on their head as a child, or not quite human as anybody else ha ha.

Blair and the rest of the world wanted and benefitted from stealing/ controlling Iraq's oil.. just like they wanted and benefitted from stealing/ controlling Libya's oil. This is called a commercial transaction. The UK et al wanted to seize control of the Iraqi state and did so, then using the armies they were able to control its assets, no different than bankrupt's estate/ assets transfer to the state (official receiver). Is this really rocket science? This is like the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. Do we really need some expensive PR exercise to tell us this?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you