Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I want to know what you all think about Tony Blair! Whether or not he should resign and be happy with a decade as leader of the New Labour Party.

    Post your views!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Actually i'd quite like Gordon Brown to take over, Tony Blair has gone way off the rails in my opinion. John ("2 jabs") Prescott is also very amusing though that's not the best of reasons to vote someone in he does strike me as an honest person maybe because he's not clever enough to be a liar....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why should he resign, i don't see what mistake he's made?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
    why should he resign, i don't see what mistake he's made?
    iraq a war that his country didn't support should have a least had a referendum on whether or not the country should go to war or waited for the UN instead of joining the coalition of the willing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scottus_Mus)
    I want to know what you all think about Tony Blair! Whether or not he should resign and be happy with a decade as leader of the New Labour Party.

    Post your views!
    i really dont see why you had to start another thread when there are 4 or 5 perfectly appropriate ones existing on this page. there is also a thread identical, just days old.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    iraq a war that his country didn't support should have a least had a referendum on whether or not the country should go to war or waited for the UN instead of joining the coalition of the willing
    no point in 'waiting' for the UN as they would have never done anything. Referendum? i don't know about that, he's the leader that should be making the decisions not the general public who don't have the classified information he has access to, if you don't like him don't vote for him. It wasn't his fault either that some of the intelligence about Iraq from the CIA and other world intelligence services was not correct. The only possible blame is that he was more courageous than the average prime minister as he believed his actions will be remembered in history as heroic and noble.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
    The only possible blame is that he was more courageous than the average prime minister as he believed his actions will be remembered in history as heroic and noble.
    his actions would have had iraq not turned out to be such a shambles and if they had found some wmd's however it did and they weren't so now he should shoulder the blame instead of shifting in onto others
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    his actions would have had iraq not turned out to be such a shambles and if they had found some wmd's however it did and they weren't so now he should shoulder the blame instead of shifting in onto others
    but he wasn't to blame, the intelligence was.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
    but he wasn't to blame, the intelligence was.
    he still shouldn't have gone to war against the wishes of his people, 6 million people turned out to march against the war in london and he ignored it its insane
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yawn...this topic has been discussed to death and at the moment it looks like he is completely safe and he's been cleared 4 times anyway so lets just give it a rest.

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The Police said the London protest march was about 1 million people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t54857.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t54857.html
    spoilsport. Anyway i think the police had their figures a lot lower than the protesters so i'd probably settle for a middle ground a several million definetely more than 1m
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    spoilsport. Anyway i think the police had their figures a lot lower than the protesters so i'd probably settle for a middle ground a several million definetely more than 1m
    The protestors had reason to exaggerate, the police had little reason to.

    I'd stick to 1 million.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    he still shouldn't have gone to war against the wishes of his people, 6 million people turned out to march against the war in london and he ignored it its insane
    it was around £1million, hell The Sun is the best selling newspaper in England, there's plenty of idiots (not implying that all those who marched are idiots, but the general public does not and should not control what the priministers actions are, as i said before if those people don't like what he's doing then they don't have to vote for him next elections - that's their power).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The police estimate of 750,000 people could be an underestimation due to people bypassing official routes or going straight to Hyde Park without joining the main march.

    nicked that off the bbc it says the organisers put it at 2million
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
    it was around £1million, hell The Sun is the best selling newspaper in England, there's plenty of idiots (not implying that all those who marched are idiots, but the general public does not and should not control what the priministers actions are, as i said before if those people don't like what he's doing then they don't have to vote for him next elections - that's their power).
    wait wait wait you're saying that the general public should have no say in what the prime minister does and once they've voted him in they just have to be happy with what he does?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    wait wait wait you're saying that the general public should have no say in what the prime minister does and once they've voted him in they just have to be happy with what he does?
    1 million people do not represent the general public.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    1 million people do not represent the general public.
    its a big chunk and these are just the people who bothered to march and i said 2million goddammit!!! lol
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    its a big chunk and these are just the people who bothered to march and i said 2million goddammit!!! lol
    Indeed, these are the only people who feel strong enough, these is always a chunk of the population who will always be pro-war or pro-government, even during Vietnam about 30% of the US public supported the war all the way through.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.