Blair's Labour vs Cameron's Conservatives? Watch

CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
who did a better job? (srs)
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Cameron's Tories, and I don't even like the Conservative party. I hate Blair. I think Gordon Brown was brilliant though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Cameron's Tories, and I don't even like the Conservative party. I hate Blair. I think Gordon Brown was brilliant though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
opposite day?
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
opposite day?
Nope, I genuinely mean it. If it wasn't for Brown, Blair would have changed our currency to the Euro.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
who did a better job? (srs)
Since 79..

Blair 1
Major 2
Thatcher 2
Cameron
Blair 2
Thatcher 1
Major 1
Brown

*Major 1 is the 87-92 parliament
*Brown is the 05-10 parliament

To answer your first question, Blair's first term was better, his second term about the same.
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
the conservatives always talk about the economic mess labour put us in before they took power in 2010. was that due to the global economy or was it actually due to the incompetence of labour?
if it wasn't actually labour's fault and brown was a decent prime minister, then does that make david cameron a turd of a PM?
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Cameron's Tories, and I don't even like the Conservative party. I hate Blair. I think Gordon Brown was brilliant though.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Are you serious? Cameron privatised stuff that Thatcher wouldn't dream of touching. To quote Dennis Skinner he "sold the queens head". Blair built schools and homes and Cameron's selling them. Conservatives, worse than the alternative.
1
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Blair>all
1
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by KingStannis)
Blair>all
I'd rep this if i could
1
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Are you serious? Cameron privatised stuff that Thatcher wouldn't dream of touching. To quote Dennis Skinner he "sold the queens head". Blair built schools and homes and Cameron's selling them. Conservatives, worse than the alternative.
Cameron wouldn't dream of attempting to hold suspected terrorists for 90days WITHOUT trial. Cameron didn't take the country into an illegal war. Cameron didn't want to take on the Euro for currency and didn't have to be stopped by his Chancellor.

I prefer that Cameron's govt is a Cabinet Government, because of the Coalition, rather than Tony Blair trying to dictate everything by having a 'sofa' govt.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
the conservatives always talk about the economic mess labour put us in before they took power in 2010. was that due to the global economy or was it actually due to the incompetence of labour?
if it wasn't actually labour's fault and brown was a decent prime minister, then does that make david cameron a turd of a PM?
It started off in America. If I'm right, they were handing out mortgages like sweets and a lot of people couldnt pay for them. Labour probably couldn't have stopped the crash, but could have lessened the damage.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
The Justice system is one of the important issues for me, especially since very few people seem to care about it at all. From that perspective, Blair was infinitely better than Cameron has been. Blair is a barrister and knew the importance of appointing a qualified lawyer to the post of Lord Chancellor, and in giving it adequate funding. While I don't appreciate his administration's creation of the post of Justice Secretary and removal of the LC from the Lords and as head of the Judicial system, the Cameron administration's ruthless slashing of legal aid funding and lack of respect for judicial review puts him several leagues lower than Blair's in my book.
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Cameron wouldn't dream of attempting to hold suspected terrorists for 90days WITHOUT trial. Cameron didn't take the country into an illegal war. Cameron didn't want to take on the Euro for currency and didn't have to be stopped by his Chancellor.

I prefer that Cameron's govt is a Cabinet Government, because of the Coalition, rather than Tony Blair trying to dictate everything by having a 'sofa' govt.



Posted from TSR Mobile
The Conservatives would have been just as involved in Iraq as Labour was, you can't suggest otherwise. Blair didn't take on the euro, he was keen on it in 2002 and had right up until 2007 to do so, and he didn't which just goes to show how Blair's government was not a "sofa" government.
This current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has seen record numbers of impoverished families, record numbers of people on food stamps a 56% rise in people claiming housing benefit and you claim to tell me that they're doing better than Blair's government? No way, it's a ludicrous claim. And as for the deficit.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by PetrosAC)
It started off in America. If I'm right, they were handing out mortgages like sweets and a lot of people couldnt pay for them. Labour probably couldn't have stopped the crash, but could have lessened the damage.

Posted from TSR Mobile
And what would Cameron have done differently?
0
reply
Twinpeaks
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Blair.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
I think...This is a better government, but Blair was a better Prime Minister.

*hides*
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Cameron wouldn't dream of attempting to hold suspected terrorists for 90days WITHOUT trial. Cameron didn't take the country into an illegal war. Cameron didn't want to take on the Euro for currency and didn't have to be stopped by his Chancellor.

I prefer that Cameron's govt is a Cabinet Government, because of the Coalition, rather than Tony Blair trying to dictate everything by having a 'sofa' govt.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Technically he did vote for it.

But at any rate i've never understood why people care about the legality of the UN. Over 30% of countries in the UN are dictatorships or imperfect democracies, why the hell should the west be told what it can do by North Korea or China on matters of removing dictators. Hell it's not like China even gets off it's ass to remove tyrants.

The Iraq war may have been a screw up but it's legality should be one of the last reasons to question it. America leads the free world (albeit for dubious self interested reasons) and if it wants to go beat up a tyrant, i say we should come to the party.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rakas21)
Technically he did vote for it.

But at any rate i've never understood why people care about the legality of the UN. Over 30% of countries in the UN are dictatorships or imperfect democracies, why the hell should the west be told what it can do by North Korea or China on matters of removing dictators. Hell it's not like China even gets off it's ass to remove tyrants.

The Iraq war may have been a screw up but it's legality should be one of the last reasons to question it. America leads the free world (albeit for dubious self interested reasons) and if it wants to go beat up a tyrant, i say we should come to the party.
Strongly agree. The set up of the UNSC with Russia and China is ridiculous.

That said, i do also think that the UN should still play a role, just that in promoting Human Rights and Democracy is not its strong suit. It can still help though with mutual enemies (ISIS say) , global warming or health concerns (IE ebola).
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Davij038)
Strongly agree. The set up of the UNSC with Russia and China is ridiculous.

That said, i do also think that the UN should still play a role, just that in promoting Human Rights and Democracy is not its strong suit. It can still help though with mutual enemies (ISIS say) , global warming or health concerns (IE ebola).
The UN is good as a forum to discuss things of minor importance like foreign aid targets but if a future PM said that they were going to ignore the UN i'd be fine with that.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Cameron wouldn't dream of attempting to hold suspected terrorists for 90days WITHOUT trial. Cameron didn't take the country into an illegal war. Cameron didn't want to take on the Euro for currency and didn't have to be stopped by his Chancellor.

I prefer that Cameron's govt is a Cabinet Government, because of the Coalition, rather than Tony Blair trying to dictate everything by having a 'sofa' govt.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Which illegal war would that be.

Can you tell me where I can get a copy of the Internatijnal courts ruling.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (272)
66.67%
No (136)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All