I have read in the British press that our P.M. Tony Blair is regarded quite highly in the U.S.A. Especially since Sept. 11th. In the U.K he would usually be considered as a honest(ish) guy whose main faults are heading a party mired with favor merchants and spin doctors, and to many conservatives (Im not conservative myself) he is considered to spend too musch time dealing with foreign affairs than british affairs. Is this the impression of him portrayed abroad?

To be honest, I hadn't thought much about him. To the extent that I had done so, I only had newpaper references to him as "Clintonesque".

However, in the days immediately following 9/11, my opinion of him shot up immensely. He was forceful and articulate in describing the situation, what Britain would do, and how Britain would stand by the US.

Blair would do well to reform British spelling to get rid of all those useless vowels. And declare that English is not a Latin based language and silly Latin rules about split infinitives can be dispensed with.

First, English is not a Latin based language, though we do have words derived from Latin. English is a Germanic language.

Secondly, even though English is not a Latin based language, many of our rules for grammer came from trying to apply Latin grammer rules to English.

Check out this link---http://englishplus.com/news/news1198.htm

"As much as possible people applied the Latin terminology and logic to English. This was where the "split infinitive" rule was made. In Latin, and most other European languages, the infinitive is one word. For example, the Latin word "ire" (pronounced like e-ray) means "to go." To apply this to English, some teachers and grammarians would say,"Treat 'to go' or any infinitive as a single word." That at first was just to help English speakers learn grammar easier.
However, we can see where the logic led. If we treat "to go" as a single word, then it is "wrong" to insert a modifier between the two parts of the infinitive. By the middle of the 1700's one influential grammar reference was promoting this. Soon others followed. While it never became standardized--even the some of the best writers and speakers were known to consciously break this "rule"--many students learned not to split infinitives."

The article goes on to point out that in English infinitives really aren't one word.

Merry

BTW, I don't know much about Blair's policies, but he's cute and I love his accent. Also, I appreciated the way he has supported the United States after September 11th. Britain really is one of our closest friends.

My father says that he doesn't believe that Britain will ever fully join the rest of Europe. He thinks that eventually Britain and the United States will join togather again.

Merry

Merry,

To be honest I wish we would .... there's only one currency worth giving up Sterling for and that is not the Euro....

We have more in common with the States ...

Fingers

He thinks that eventually Britain and the United States will join togather again.

Just like in 1984! One big happy Ingsoc family! (Kidding, kidding! That was one of my favorite parts of that book, though.)

Better Ingsoc than Eurosoc....

Fingers

I'll second that.

Peter.

Good, it's settled then. I'll start stitching another star on Old Glory right now. J

Whenever I hear U2's Stuck in a Momment I think of a bit (on a local radio station) about Britan being "stuck in Europe and can't get out of it."

We'll get out of it soon enough. Or better still, we could get the benefits of membership without the costs, by passing an act of Parliament that made our law supreme. There is no provision in the Treaty of Maastrict for expelling a member, so we could do it.

Peter.

Dont get me wrong I think the unification of Europe is a noble idea (any movement designed to bring people together is good). However I do worry that the human element can spoil honerable causes (one of the reasons the E.U was created was to try to ward off conflict in Western Europe, which had caused a great many conflicts in the past centuries.). What concerns me most is that the E.U seems to be a rather dominating alliance where some seem to benefit more than others and unfavourable rules are passed down to member states. (as our [Britains] right wing media love to point out). This can be seen as an enforced Fedearation and unions such as these, in which many are dissatisfied and reluctant to be a part of tend to fail (Soviet union, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia come to mind.) often with dire consequences. I could be wrong, the E.U. may become the most succesful union so far, but as historical events have often proved, problems could arive. For the E.U. to work succesfully all member states must have a good degree of satisfaction with the union or it just wont work.

I really don't think that an 'alliance' with America would be good for Britain just as it would not be good with Europe. Who would govern the alliance? Who would have the overall say? I tell you one thing, I bet it wouldn't be Tony Blair. Would an "Anglo-American" join be governed by the ruling party in Britain combined with the ruling party in the USA, and just how disatrous would that turn out??

Baaaaaaaaad Idea if you ask me! Nothing against Americans or America, love the country and the people, just love England as it is right now too!

Mind you, a few hundred American soldiers at each end of the Channel Tunnel would solve a few problems, something the current British Government don't seem to care about!

The UK should join NAFTA.

I don't like Blair, partly for being a Clinton Crony, partly for being destroying the House of Lords, partly for threatening the Monarchy. One branch of government should not be able to destroy or modify another branch of government.

The United Kingdom has to get a real executive. Placing all the power into one body is very bad. Your Head of State can't just sit around earning 15 million a year for doing nonthing, while letting all the power stay with the majority Party.

How has Blair "threatened" the monarchy?

And why should hereditary peers continue to sit in the House of Lords? The absolute worst form of government occurs when power passes along bloodlines.

Moreover, in the parliamentary system, the executive rules only with the confidence of the legislature. Any reform of the legislature initiated by the executive is thus done with the consent of the legislature.

And what do you mean by "real executive?" What do you think the PM & Cabinet are?

Simply because the parliamentary system lacks the explicit checks and balances of the US system does not make is bad.

He has gone after the House of Lords, who are in power for the same reason as the House of Winsor is.

The only power the House of Lords had was to delay Labour ie Blair's agenda. How would you like it if a US president attacked the court because all of his programs are found unconstitional?

Worst than the English Commonwealth? Worst than the French First Republic? Worst than the republic of Venice? Worst than Leninist Russia? Worst than 1970's Ethiopia? No, rationalist ideology embodied as the state is the worst form of government. Somehow, the British system has preserved human liberties much better than the French system.

The Prime minster and his cabinet are tied to the fate of Parlaiment. That's the problem.

He has gone after the House of Lords, who are in power for the same reason as the House of Winsor is.

Firstly, the House of Windsor has no actual power in the implementation of policy. And the House of Lords has effectively no legitimate power, unless you think that hereditary members and political appointees have any legitimacy in a democratic polity.

I don't... that's why I want the Canadian Senate reformed.

The only power the House of Lords had was to delay Labour ie Blair's agenda. How would you like it if a US president attacked the court because all of his programs are found unconstitional?

The House of Lords is merely part of the legislature. Blair's attempt to reform it are completely dissimilar to a US president's attacking the Supreme Court.


Worst than the English Commonwealth? Worst than the French First Republic? Worst than the republic of Venice? Worst than Leninist Russia? Worst than 1970's Ethiopia? No, rationalist ideology embodied as the state is the worst form of government. Somehow, the British system has preserved human liberties much better than the French system.

What do any of these examples have to do with parliamentary government?

And to which French system do you refer?


The Prime minster and his cabinet are tied to the fate of Parlaiment. That's the problem.

If you are saying that the Executive should not attempt to alter the composition of the legislature upon which it depends, then, as a general rule, that is correct. However, Blair is not attempting to extend the terms of Commons MPs indefinitely. I don't know how often the House of Lords has blocked legislation from the Commons, but as with any policy, Blair will be constrained by popular opinion and the confidence of Parliament.

You guys seem to be arguing over a designed system and an evolved sytem. The evolved system will have a lot of irrational dead ends and false starts and extremely illogical twists and turns. It is also going to be far superior to a designed system.

Yes, among evolved systems, Britan is alone. The US got lucky.

No, when the "British" system is imposed on, say Murgadustan or someplace it is no longer an evolved system.

At least Tony Blair apologised for the faulty intelligence on weapons of mass distruction in Iraq...Bush still hasn't.

It must be nice to have an intelligent, articulate leader like Blair. It it too bad that we in the US don't have one right now in the White House.

Blair could easily pass the buck (or pound) to Bush. Who does Bush blame? Cheney or Kerry?

As a matter of intrest, will any poster, guess as to the probable results of the forthcoming General Election i.e "New Labour's" majority in the House of Commons,(if applicable)...?
(For Non U.K posters, it's Election Year, with the most probable, but so far, unconfirmed date of Thursday, May 5th).
As a result, all the U.K political parties are now in "Electioneering" mode (Groan), and are now busy trying to score political points off of each other...

Look. In a very real sense, you know, the government's position is that we are taking REAL and SPECIFIC measures on that very thing that you just said (in a very real sense) and it is simply unacceptable for the right honourable gentleman to claim that I am avoiding the question, because I think that he will find that he still has yet to tell us whether he threatened to overrule him! Thank you and - in a very real sense - goodnight!

Re:last post
Looking forward to your "post-resignation" lecture tour, Tone...?
After all, post June 27th, you're going to have a lot of "free time" on your hands....
(In case you're wondering, Mr Tony Blair, announced at his Sedgefield constituency, last Tuesday that he will resign from office on that date.....).

Has anyone here seen the video to the 2003 George Michael song "Shoot The Dog"? I thought it was brilliant the way it skewered both Blair and Bush, and it was really well-animated, too. Michael also poked fun at himself by showing all the "past versions" of himself, from when he was in Wham to the "I Want Your Sex" and "Freedom '90" periods, to the mid '90s when he came out, and then back to the way he appeared at the time the video debuted. The song itself was a really good techno dance track, and the lyrics implied that Blair was Bush's "pet" and would do whatever he wanted. That may have not been far from the actual truth, as unfortunate as it was!

I really enjoy it when Homer Simpson mistakes Tony Blair for Mr. Bean...