Scumbag Blair's gifts to his children

1984ReturnsForReal_2

All paid for courtesy of the taxpayer by the backhanded war contracts he made money from..............

leveller2911

I get a small amount of satisfaction knowing that Millions of idiots voted for Blair and his Champange Socilaist, they were ALL drawn into his smug grim,lies and deceit.

I wonder just how long it will be before his children are handed safe Labour seats to carry on his legacy.......Labour voters = naive,gullible halfwits who can't see the bigger picture and the flawed democracy which is Party Politics......

Just need to wait a decade or so and watch the Cons do the same.......!!!!!! how long are we going to put up with these self serving [EMAIL="b@stards"]b@stards[/EMAIL]? March on Parliament I say......

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

I get a small amount of satisfaction knowing that Millions of idiots voted for Blair and his Champange Socilaist, they were ALL drawn into his smug grim,lies and deceit.

I wonder just how long it will be before his children are handed safe Labour seats to carry on his legacy.......Labour voters = naive,gullible halfwits who can't see the bigger picture and the flawed democracy which is Party Politics......

Just need to wait a decade or so and watch the Cons do the same.......!!!!!! how long are we going to put up with these self serving b@stards? March on Parliament I say......

And after we have marched on parliament, what will we do when we get there, and what will we do after that?

drc

I think it just grates that this man is now a multi-millionaire, buying properties for his children whilst presiding over a war in which many young men and women have been killed or maimed and have received paltry payouts as compensation. So he sent these people off to fight in a very questionable war whilst his "young people" are living the life of luxury. Somehow seems very distasteful.

He also presided over (with Brown) the housing bubble which means many young people without millionaire parents will have to pay even more to get a tiny shack. He has made a lot of money from HPI. For an ex-Labour leader he seems to be lacking in socialist ideals, although he's probably a "do as I say, not as I do" socialist. Just a few reasons why people may feel aggravated by the news that he has bought each of his children a million pound property.

leveller2911

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

And after we have marched on parliament, what will we do when we get there, and what will we do after that?

New elections having got rid of party politics, voting for candidates who's first and only obligation is to the electorate and NOT the party.MP's who serve for a maximun term so they can't get "To comfy" .......If we don't the sleeze and corruption will continue to eat away at society, the electorate becoming more distant from the people who govern.

Our so called Democracy could spell the end of a true form of Democracy, watered down year after year.........It won't be any different under the Cons....

chris_m

Much as I despise Bliar, I do wonder if this money actually came from him or from his missus - top QCs ain't exactly on minimum wage, plus I gather she can command quite sizable appearance fees too.

FATBALLZ

drc wrote: »

he's probably a "do as I say, not as I do" socialist.

Is there any other kind?

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

New elections having got rid of party politics, voting for candidates who's first and only obligation is to the electorate and NOT the party.MP's who serve for a maximun term so they can't get "To comfy" .......If we don't the sleeze and corruption will continue to eat away at society, the electorate becoming more distant from the people who govern.

Our so called Democracy could spell the end of a true form of Democracy, watered down year after year.........It won't be any different under the Cons....

Ok, so we have done all of this, we now have a parliament filled with candidates whose obligation is to represent the electorate.

Sounds great.

However to get anything done they need a majority. So they need another 350 mps to vote with them. Hhhhmmm. How are they best going to achieve that?

Perhaps they will get together and form like minded groups, bit of compromise here, there and then they end up as a powerful group that can actually get changes passed in parliament.

Interesting.

Don't get me wrong, sleeze and corruption should be stopped and perhaps fixed terms are worth considering (but there is a case for either side). However the concept of 650 independant mps just doesn't work.

Procrastinator333

On the whole Iraq debate. I was in favour of removing Saddam.

Saddam and his government were a brutal and oppresive regime. Despicable. Nothing less. I didn't really care if there were WMD, it was a good excuse to get rid of a bad person.

I think Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have a lot to answer for in terms of sorting the country out post invasion. That is where the fault lies imo. I read somewhere that Rumsfeld was given a 900 page document on the importance and process for ensuring a smooth transition to democracy. He didn't open it, he threw it in the bin. That summed up there post invasion plan.

The article that convinced me my belief that the invasion was the rght thing came soon after Saddam was removed. Just one example of the sort of place Iraq was prior to Saddam's removal.

Uday (one of the sons) tried it on with a girl in a nightculb. She said no. So he had his goons pick her up. He then put her in a cage with his pet lion. The journalist was confident of this story as he saw the video that Uday had made and heard the taunts and laughter as Uday filmed her being eaten alive.

That is just one example. Just because we didn't hear about the majority doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Imo, the invasion and removal was the right choice. The error and failure came from the joke of a plan for the reconstruction of the country. Idiots. For that Bush and Rumsfeld have much to answer for. Blair must share part of that burden too, but what could the UK do without the US in that respect?

If you saw this kind of barbarism happening in the house opposite you would act, just because it is in another country is not a reason to turn a blind eye.

My opinion, but flame away.

leveller2911

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

On the whole Iraq debate. I was in favour of removing Saddam.

Saddam and his government were a brutal and oppresive regime. Despicable. Nothing less. I didn't really care if there were WMD, it was a good excuse to get rid of a bad person.

I agree he was despicable, but why did they/we stop at him?. Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe,Charles Taylor and others are/were just as bad.Where do we/they draw the line?, at what point do we/they go in all guns blazing.

What gives us/them the right to be the worlds Police?, what makes us right?