Serious discussion on UK Sky TV news about ridding Britain of Blair

[DeepModem Mom]

Very interesting -- the problem is not with Blair's government, or with the Labour Party, but with one man, Tony Blair, who sent his country into war (as Bush did our country) under false pretenses, skewed intelligence, and, in a word, trickery. Blair has crossed the "gentlemens' agreement" threshhold for resignation. He -- not his party or government -- has lost the trust of the people. Impeachment is seriously under discussion.

Britain faces a dilemma, and possibly an unprecedented political situation. They have the advantage of a media that does not see its mission as propping up Tony Blair. Would that our own country had reached this level of awareness of the seriousness of what the head of our government has done, and the consequences that should follow.

[Englander]

1. "Serious discussion on UK Sky TV"....an oxymoron,shurely?

Sky=Fox.Who was taking part in discussion?

The problem is with the Blairites,post-Thatcherite free-marketeers who all signed up for Iraq. I think the solution is Gordon Brown,who unlike Blair,actually is a Labour member,as opposed to Conservative cuckoo.

There is an historical precedent,Suez in 1956 when Britain,France and Israel seized control of the Suez canal in Egypt,after Egyptian pres.Nasser nationalised Suez canal.
PM Anthony Eden failed in this adventure and resigned in 1957 siting "ill health"

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Sorry, I guess despite a post-graduate education...

I must be an intellectual midget in the UK, as I watch Sky all the time when I'm here. Unlike my Anglophile hubby, I prefer Sky's coverage and correspondents to the Beeb's. I can hardly watch any TV news in the U.S., but I can go about my business in the UK all day with Sky in the background, and not experience one maddening moment. It's my belief that Murdoch has to be on better behavior in the UK, as Brits are neither gullible, nor sheep.

This discussion was at a very serious level, the man being interviewed (didn't get his name) was completely against Blair and was allowed a long stretch of air-time to make a compelling case for his impeachment.

But I agree -- it would be so refreshing to purge the UK of Blair, with Gordon Brown a breath of fresh air. And I appreciate your historical perspective. That precedent is a very interesting one. (And the Blair dollar is a hoot!)

[Englander]

3. No need to apologise...

We have (mostly)strict broadcasting standards,and laws, so news must be balanced and non-shouty here.I don't like the glossiness of Sky,or the constant tickertape,or the music,&tc,&tc

The dollar is from this book;

The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency
by James Naughtie
272pp, Macmillan, £18.99

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1306165,00.html


:) :-)

[Mr Creosote]

4. I don't agree

"He -- not his party or government -- has lost the trust of the people" My personal opinion is that no-one trusts his party or government either. But even if people do hold that it is only Blair that shouldn't be trusted (which would mean that someone somewhere trusts Hoon) that view is constitutionally incorrect. This explains it quite neatly:
http://www.thinkhistory.btinternet.co.uk/collectiveandindividualresponsibility.htm
If Blair resigns over this issue then so should the rest of them, because they all supported the policy. Blair could not have got this through without agreement from the rest of the cabinet.