Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

blair gone today

tony blair gone today,good riddence worst pm in history
«1

Comments

  • [quote][cite]Posted By: athelstan[/cite]tony blair gone today,good riddence worst pm in history[/quote]

    Maybe, but he defeated the Tories three times.
  • Not hard when the Tories kept scoring own goals.
  • Don't think any PMs have been altogether honest and trustworthy, don't think Blair is the worst in history though
  • [cite]Posted By: Charltonchick[/cite]Don't think any PMs have been altogether honest and trustworthy, don't think Blair is the worst in history though

    He said "the worst pm" I think he meant afternoon - he is obviously going to miss Tony.
  • He has screwed up in Iraq but has otherwise done a good job imho.
  • blew loads of cash on public services and didn't really make much difference, nice idea but failed to deliver, particularly education which sucks!
  • Tell me a pm that hasn't failed in one way or another?

    To many people to satisfy all.
  • no but they could achieve their own objectives.. and these were supposedly set low to be achievable!
  • [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]blew loads of cash on public services and didn't really make much difference
    but there are 20,000 more doctors & 75,000 more nurses - with waiting lists down from 18 months to 18 weeks
  • yeah its still shite.. try going to casualty. Plus they massage a lot of the figures. Interesting figures though. And as for Schools, come on give me some stats for that?
  • Sponsored links:


  • maybe we just see the worst of it..

    greenwich schools are in the bottom 10 in country... worst truency rate in the country.. worst teenage pregnancy rate in the country.. terrible.. terrible education system in greenwich.. each year 600 kids from greenwich move out to grammer schools in kent and the rest go to places like colfes and eltham college.. leaving what is left to rot in a shit hole and just turn into 2 bob criminals
  • yeah its awful isnt it, if they could concentrate on these 'bad zones' it would make a huge difference, discipline is the main problem I think.
  • edited June 2007
    After chronic under investment of the previous generation, thousands of crumbling schools have been, or are being, modernised, rebuilt or replaced. In years to come these new schools may come to be seen as a legacy of Blair's government. Also there are 40,000 extra teachers, probably as many extra classoom assistants.

    Standards are not exactly world-class, but they were very bad in 1996 - Gordon Brown said UK schools have gone from being below average to above average. I don't know what schools are like in other countries but that assessment seems to sum it up; standards are higher than they were, but are still unsatisfactory eg. 30,000 kids leave school with no qualifications every year.

    With the improvements, the Conservatives now agree in funding improvements in state schools through taxation ..... ten years ago they believed in encouraging those who could afford it to send their kids to private schools instead.
  • [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]yeah its awful isnt it, if they could concentrate on these 'bad zones' it would make a huge difference, discipline is the main problem I think.
    if we converted private schools to state schools the people with money and power would not be able to opt out of the system - that would help for a start ....... and replacing Greenwich LEA would be another big boost!
  • Greenwich secondary school are, by and large, woeful.
  • I hate what Blair has done in Iraq, but otherwise we could have & have had a lot, lot worse.
  • edited June 2007
    Blair is a liar. Weapons of mass distruction which broke so many UN rules. Lying on the EU treaty with no referendum. Giving more power to the EU. A couple of years later he will be EU super state president and of course feather him and his family's cap like the Kinocks have.

    As Makel said its the same Constiution but we have marketed differently.
  • My personal view on education is that problem areas such as inner city boros like Greenwich need a different approach. Kids need to be pushed to reach their potential and those who don't want to learn should be weeded out so they don't affect others, be it a grammar system or something else.
  • I share your feelings, but Grammar Schools are great for those that get in, but definitely not for those who have the door shut in their face aged 11.
  • Where's Len? I have been expecting chapter and verse on why Blair is the devil incarnate and why the EU is the seventh level of hell ;-)
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited June 2007
    You say Blair is a liar i don't think so he took advice which is what every leader does, it was the wrong advice and therefore a mistake but once you start something like iraq, you cannot walkaway as it would lead to anarchy
  • yes but I think in this case it might have been the better of two evils.. needs reform though clearly
  • [cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]yes but I think in this case it might have been the better of two evils.. needs reform though clearly
    I don't believe a Grammar School system is a good answer, but it would certainly be better than what we have in Greenwich.
  • I can't understand the argument against selective schools. If parent wants to pay for their child's education in a prep school at great expense (all AFTER tax) so their kids get a chance to get into a good grammar school then what's the problem there?

    We all have choices, apparently 1 in 4 of all children in private schools come from families that earn either average wage or lower than average, I think that's about 25-30K...

    If a grammar school is selective then it follows that the children that attend are of a better mindset to study, and one would hope get the full support of their parents..my wife is a secondary school ICT teacher and it's amazing to hear the difference between good grammar school kids (and behaviour) compared to poor state, and the support received from the parents...That's not saying all state schools are bad....or even that all grammar schools are good.

    The school she's moving to is a grammar and has class sizes of 20 doing GCSE, compared to >30 in state, that is a huge difference for the teacher and pupil alike.

    Personally I'm fully behind streamed education, if children from poorer families get good support from their parents there no reason why they can't flourish in grammar schools as long as they pass the entrance exam.

    actually Grammar schools tend to have less of a catchment area which actually will help poorer families as they do not need to pay extortionate prices to buy a property within said catchment areas..
  • edited June 2007
    Streamed education, does not need to be in different schools, with the grammar system and Greenwich LEA's incompetance you tend to get the top 25-30% leaving at 11 for either private or grammer education. This leaves the schools left struggling to say the least as the bottom 25% drag the middle down to their level.

    Greenwich actually serve up good primary education but at 11 all the smart kids leave making their secondary schools just like the sink schools of Kent.

    I have been told that Greenwich LEA has as many people working in it as they have teachers in the borough, thats right for every teacher their is someone doing their administration in Woolwich!!

    Though thats what happens when you live in the peoples republic of Greenwich.

    Salad do you ever visit Greenwich Watch?

    http://greenwichwatch.blogspot.com/
  • edited June 2007
    [cite]Posted By: athelstan[/cite]tony blair gone today,good riddence worst pm in history

    I am afraid I couldn't disagree more. On what possible basis can you make that statement?

    1. He has retained power for 10 years
    2. He has massively helped to bring a lasting peace in Northern Ireland
    3. His government has had unprecidented economic growth
    4. He is pretty universally admired by his political opponents
    5. In all but Iraq he has been successful in foreign policy - Sierra Leone, Kosovo amongst others
    6. The Tories have now decided to copy pretty much everything he does

    I could list loads more, (and by the way I have never voted Labour).

    I'll give you a few bad prime ministers

    1. Neville Chamberlain - Appeaser of Hitler
    2. Sir Alec Douglas-Home - Tory toff (the last pm appointed by the men in grey suits)
    3. Anthony Eden - Thought Nasser was Hitler and invaded the Suez Canal
    4. John Major - Ineffective shadow of Maggie

    Theres more if you want.
  • my main issue is that i thought the labour party was supposed to be a democracy...and i dont recall being asked if i wanted to go to war.
  • [cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: athelstan[/cite]tony blair gone today,good riddence worst pm in history

    I am afraid I couldn't disagree more. On what possible basis can you make that statement?

    1. He has retained power for 10 years
    2. He has massively helped to bring a lasting peace in Northern Ireland
    3. His government has had unprecidented economic growth
    4. He is pretty universally admired by his political opponents
    5. In all but Iraq he has been successful in foreign policy - Sierra Leone, Kosovo amongst others
    6. The Tories have now decided to copy pretty much everything he does

    I could list loads more, (and by the way I have never voted Labour).

    I'll give you a few bad prime ministers

    1. Neville Chamberlain - Appeaser of Hitler
    2. Sir Alec Douglas-Home - Tory toff (the last pm appointed by the men in grey suits)
    3. Anthony Eden - Thought Nasser was Hitler and invaded the Suez Canal
    4. John Major - Ineffective shadow of Maggie

    Theres more if you want.

    Bing- typed out something like your post ( far less eloquant!) and the server died and i lost it.

    I am not wax lyrical about Blair- but he carried on the work of John Smith in modernising the Labour party and, as a result, as BFR says, beat the tories 3 times- possibly his biggest achievement

    Genuinely hope Gordon Brown doesn't fail to succeed him, and in so doing, paves the way for a Cameron administration.


    Athelstan- great subject, why not give us your reasons for your statement????
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: CAFCBourne[/cite]You say Blair is a liar i don't think so he took advice which is what every leader does, it was the wrong advice and therefore a mistake but once you start something like iraq, you cannot walkaway as it would lead to anarchy[/quote]

    That is hilarious. There is total anarchy there already as civil war rages between Sunni and Shi'ite. How much worse could it get? I'm a lifelong Labour voter but I would never vote for Blair after the way he teamed up with Bush on such a foolish and misguided war that has completely wrecked Iraq and created massive instability in the middle east.

    Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of Iraq, which Blair obviously has, should have known to leave well alone and that an invasion would just make things worse. But, no. He did not have the balls (unlike Harold Wilson in the 60's over Vietnam) to tell the Yanks to stick their war up their arse and so he drags us into it and gets British servicemen killed for absolutely no reason apart from getting rid of an irrelevant tyrant who posed no threat whatsoever.

    My wife's cousin is serving over there and the thought he might be killed or maimed for such a ridculous war is very upsetting to us.
  • A friend of my brother was killed in Iraq and let's face it that was a bad decision from day one and it hasn't got any better. As for Blair going in on the back of bad advice, that doesn't stack up, he was happy to cite the "45 minute" warning - that Saddam could be sending WMD in the direction of British interests in 45 minutes, he was happy to invade before the UN weapon inspectors completed their job, and waiting another few weeks or a month as it turned out would have been the wisest move. The question is why...and that reveals a lot about his decision making and judgement. In March 2003 it was clear that America was going to invade and he made a fateful decision to go along with Bush regardless. Perhaps he expected that we'd find some WMD or evidence of a nuclear bomb programme that he could claim as justification after the event, or just that he put blind faith in an invasion being the right thing regardless of other considerations.

    The consequences of what happens in Iraq will be felt for a generation or more, the Iranians may or may not be making a nuclear bomb and because they are a predominantly Shia nation they will exert a lot of influence over Iraq which is also predominantly Shia. Previously the two nations were happy if that's the right word to oppose each other which kept after the Iran-Iraq war a certain stability in the region. That in itself wouldn't be so bad but Iran and Iraq are major oil exporters and the Iraq war was mostly about oil. So Blair has to take some of the responsibility for the invasion and the subsequent civil war.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!