?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Right, I am now incredibly annoyed with Mr Blair. I've disagreed with Bush's poodle a number of times in the past on some major issues (most notably the War in Iraq) but this one I seriously hopes gets enough backlash against him that someone in his own party/cabinet decides to stand up to him and bring him down.

Seriously, if Blair stays in office much longer I really hope we see the biggest backlash against the government for decades. Something really needs to be done to show him and his sponsors and Parliamentary supportrers that Blair has completely lost touch with the feelings of those who kept him in power. OK, so there was little alternative than to keep him in power on a reduced majority (come on, few of wanted the Conservatives back and the LibDems still need to grow some more and get a more charismatic leader and representatives) but it doesn't mean that the country should roll over and accept his bullshit.

Anyway, what's made me mad this time?

Well, this......

Blair Falls Into Line With Bush View On Global Warming (Independent Online Edition; Sunday 25th September 2005)

Apparently this also now means Britains opposition to the Kyoto Protocl too.

Please, everyone, write letters of complaint to your MPs, your local papers, and try and get something done if this annoys you.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
silver_blue
Sep. 25th, 2005 02:20 pm (UTC)
I have a certain sympathy with the view that international agreements aren't going to work - not because they would be a bad thing, but because not enough countries (and particularly the USA) are going to sign them. In which case the only viable alternative (and only just viable) is development of science and technology.

The opposition to Kyoto or any variant of it is understandable - it's the weakness of democracy that it promotes short term thinking, and that's why elected leaders are not going to undertake measures that harm them politically when the benefits are going to be seen 20 years in the future. That's not going to change until there's a wider political impetus and it becomes a political advantage to support environmental protection. In the USA, Bush is already under political pressure because of rising oil prices, and therefore rising petrol prices, and it's far too politically dangerous to start supporting measures (even if he did have sympathy with them, which he doesn't) that would threaten further prices rises.

I don't oppose the Kyoto Protocol, it's a wonderful ideal. The problem is, it's also dead in the water as - so long as the USA administration takes its current view - is any other international agreement along similar lines.
dan_g
Sep. 25th, 2005 02:34 pm (UTC)
Well, as we can all see, the USA is quite right on Kyoto. After all, its just a couple of years down the line and there have been no ecological based disasters striking... No Tsunami's, or unexpectedly powerful hurricanes, and definitely no unseasonal weather variations...

So President Canute must have been bang-on to reject Kyoto.

Although I may have injected a tad of sarcasm into that response. 4 sentences of Sarcasm to be exact.
silver_blue
Sep. 25th, 2005 02:47 pm (UTC)
Although part of the problem is that, in terms of US hurricane statistics, there isn't an exceptional change over the last century. I'm no disbeliever in the dangers of global warming, but Katrina/Rita aren't really evidence either way.
angusabranson
Sep. 25th, 2005 03:14 pm (UTC)
Statistically if the same amount of hurricanes that have occured in the US since 2000 carry on occuring through to 2010 it will be comparable to the amount that hit in the 1930's/40's. The amount of Hurricanes have actually decreased in the last 50 years compared to the 50 years previous.

On the other hand this year has shown two very strong hurricanes (Category 4's), bringing this decades total so far to 3 - which equals the record for Category 4's in the US in any given decade (those between 1951-60, 1911-20 and 1891-1900).

No direct link to global warming has been established and to be honest it is way too early to see a trend. If more Category 4/5 Hurricanes crop up on a more regular basis over the next few years then we may be able to point at the link. Currently though hurricanes, on average in the US, are actually less common than they were 50 years ago.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

cholten99
Sep. 25th, 2005 02:54 pm (UTC)

> Seriously, if Blair stays in office much longer I really hope we see the
> biggest backlash against the government for decades.

Depends what we get. People in this country think that the only alternative to voting New "Labour" is to vote Tory - or more likely just to not vote at all and then see the sort of people we get in (tiny minorities like the BNP).

Meanwhile have you seen this : British troups to start pullout from Iraq!
silver_blue
Sep. 25th, 2005 02:56 pm (UTC)
Think it will be interesting. Blair is not going to be PM going into the next election, and Brown will certainly offer a different style. Personally I think he lacks the charisma political leaders seem to require these days, but then the Tory party are going to neuter themselves by not choosing Ken Clarke, so I can only see a Labour win next time around.
angusabranson
Sep. 25th, 2005 03:05 pm (UTC)
I tend to agree that we'll probably see another Labour win but that is largely depending on Blair's policies over the next few years. Even with a new leader the party will be affected by the perception of Blair. The same as the Conservatives were post-Thatcher.

Lets face it - when Labour beat the Conservatives and brought Blair to power pretty much anyone could have been leading the party as there was pretty much no way they'd loose as the Tories had provoked so much distaste that people were going to vote labour almost regardless of political beliefs. The adopttion of Conservative-lite policies may have kept Labour in power (and caused The Conservatives no end of problems as many of their traditional hunting topics are now being touted by their opposition leaving them helplessly adrift) but it was hatred and boredom of x years of Tory rule that swept them into power.

The same fate could happen to the Labour party. If 'the leadership' continues to ignore, or go against, the publics wishes it won't matter if Blair's replacement is the best leader the country could have or not - they'll loose to the backlash.

As for Clarke, I'm not sure he is the person to take the Tories forward. I have my own distatse for the man as I've seen interviews with him in his guise of Tobacco Industry Overlord and what he said disgusted me. Clarke wouldn't be a good alternative to Blair. We need a brand new crop of politicians coming up through the ranks - in all parties.
silver_blue
Sep. 25th, 2005 07:09 pm (UTC)
It's not so much that I have any great admiration for Clarke, simply that he's the Tory who might provide a challenge as leader of the party.

I'd equate the Brown for Blair situation more to 1992 - where the change of leader essentially won an election for the Tories by taking away the negativity that people felt to Thatcher by that point. It was a temporary measure, to be sure, but a new leader allowed them to pull out another electoral win which they probably wouldn't have been able to do with Thatcher at the helm.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow