Blair's Cajones

[Porty]

I must admit I thought Blair would back down over the 90 day rule. It seemed that the odds and arguments are against.

However, he is going for it and he is going to either lose or win big time. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the policy, one has to admire the courage of his conviction. I am sure you all agree.

[xxxx]

I am sure you all agree.

Sorry to disappoint, I think it just shows his derangement. The 'Blair era' is certainly moving into its final, decadent stages.
I often think he worries far too much about his 'cojones', I fear his early nickname of 'Bambi' is something he has never got over.
I don't care how strong his convictions are, its his judgement and prejudices that worry me.
Maybe he's hoping for a resignation issue?

[Porty]

Thanks for the spellcheck

You did not disappoint me at all, as I'm sure you know.

It is make or break time and you are quite correct that we are in the last stages of his PM ship.

Did you see when he was asked by newsnight, if he would consider another term? He would normally be slick and come up with a snappy, funny answer. Think he is losing his edge, which is hardly surprising, it happens to most who hold such a position for so long,

[xxxx]

Did you see when he was asked by newsnight, if he would consider another term? He would normally be slick and come up with a snappy, funny answer. Think he is losing his edge, which is hardly surprising, it happens to most who hold such a position for so long,

Didn't catch that, though Charles Clarke's body language when wearily announcing his master's wishes was revealing. If he had been wearing a t shirt with the words 'Nothing to do with me mate, I just work here' his thoughts couldn't have been clearer.

[Porty]

Yep, I spotted that the other day too.

I fell for the delusion that "Blair must know something we don't" about the Iraq war. I was clearly proved wrong.

I have a similar feeling now, although he does seem to have persuaded many of his own MP's in the last 48 hours. It would be easy for him to fold, wonder why he's not?

[xxxx]

Yep, I spotted that the other day too.

I fell for the delusion that "Blair must know something we don't" about the Iraq war. I was clearly proved wrong.

He did know something that us soppy millions of marchers didn't. That the war was on no matter what. That he had already decided and that all their efforts were devoted to bring about the war.

I have a similar feeling now, although he does seem to have persuaded many of his own MP's in the last 48 hours. It would be easy for him to fold, wonder why he's not?

My suspicion is the resignation issue scenario, everything he's done since the election has been pretty much two fingers to 'old labour'. I'm not sure they yet feel confident to actually defeat him.

He seems very reluctant to hand over gracefully to his brooding neighbour and would prefer to resign on principle so he can say 'I told you so' when the next bomb goes off.

If he succeeds he will continue, with even greater conviction, to leave the legislative equivalent of a giant log in the no 10 toilet to greet his successor.

[Porty]

Well he lost and by quite a distance, interesting times.

BBC VOTE AS AT 17:30 ish Nov 9th

90 days 41%
42 days 6%
28 days 24%
Remain at 14 days 29%
82874 Votes Cast

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

[mr magnolia]

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far

I'm gobsmacked that a Labour Government is producing 'lawrandorder' legislation that results in this view from the Tories...

[xxxx]

Well he lost and by quite a distance, interesting times.

Did he lose? 28 days is a 100% extension of a period some think far too long already. Maybe, in sales terms, he was 'high balling'.

[Maria]

28 days is long enough to ensure that you lose your job and generally have your life ruined.

[Dadaist]

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

In the case of the torture debate it reflected accurately how many people are in the POL Torture Posse, and could therefore be used as valid evidence in the debate, if only any of them would own up to liking thumbscrews and plank-walking!!!

[Gemini]

Porty wrote:
Yep, I spotted that the other day too.

I fell for the delusion that "Blair must know something we don't" about the Iraq war. I was clearly proved wrong.

xxxx quote>
He did know something that us soppy millions of marchers didn't. That the war was on no matter what. That he had already decided and that all their efforts were devoted to bring about the war.
end quote<<

As described in the following
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[Porty]

Edited by Porty

Did he lose? 28 days is a 100% extension of a period some think far too long already. Maybe, in sales terms, he was 'high balling'.

Exactly what I have been thinking for a wee while. Start off with an extreme position and end up with what you wanted in the first place. They got 100% increase, landed the Tories etc in it if something goes wrong in the future and so on. Not sure it was worth it if that has been his strategy.

I think high balling is definetly the plan with the education proposals.

Don't agree that he has "lost the party", something like 87% of Labour MP's voted for the legislation.

The great pity is that Labour failed to give the British Public what they clearly wanted. Not me I hasten to add. I don't think the governments case was anywhere near proven.

[Porty]

In the case of the torture debate it reflected accurately how many people are in the POL Torture Posse, and could therefore be used as valid evidence in the debate, if only any of them would own up to liking thumbscrews and plank-walking!!!

I think if you read the thread in question you will find a few of what you call the "torture posse" being quite frank and open with their views, on torturing Oman, the subject of the thread. What you might call "owning up". The main problem here is that you want the debate to be wider than that covered by the poll. It obviously aint happening.

I imagine (no evdence whatsoever) that millions of UK people, who would not normally condone torture, would understand why a persom who had been forensically identified as a participant in a terrorist attack, could be tortured. Many of them wouldn't care if he had information or not and would proceed on the assumption that he did. If he didn't, so what?

[Dadaist]

If he didn't, so what?

Only you would desire to pose the question on why somebody shouldn't be tortured, as opposed to why they should.

[Porty]

Only you would desire to pose the question on why somebody shouldn't be tortured, as opposed to why they should.

Eh? I was referring to the millions of people I IMAGINE may think that way.

[Dadaist]

Only you would desire to pose the question on why somebody shouldn't be tortured, as opposed to why they should.

Eh? I was referring to the millions of people I IMAGINE may think that way.

Yeah, whatever. I imagine there are also millions who think that people who condone torture are despicable cowards who are happy for others to carry out violence on their behalf.

[Porty]

I imagine you are correct. In fact I can think of an example; the Army.

[xxxx]

The great pity is that Labour failed to give the British Public what they clearly wanted.

What the public want presumably was security, what was on offer was internment. It wasn't the solution in NI and it won't be here.
There weren't any marchers for a 90 day interment period, it was the met, cooling stepping out of the smoke of 7/11, choosing their moment to put this on the agenda.
Our prime minister constantly pushes terrorism as special category of danger, its spectacular and horrific, but it ain't that big a deal.

[Porty]

, its spectacular and horrific, but it ain't that big a deal.

I could not agree more, terrorism as a risk, is way down the risk chain. The problem started because 9/11 was on live television and the US over-reacted, we joined them. It is understandable, emotionally and psychologically but in terms of risk/benefit/cost, its nonsense.

[Dadaist]

I imagine you are correct. In fact I can think of an example; the Army.

ooh - swift bit of editing there!!

don't forget the navy and air force. at least the grunts have to look the man they are killing in the face sometimes.

even conflict has rules, and certainly regarding prisoners of war. i think that if we are talking about public opinion, it is that people expect POWs to be treated humanely even in the midst of a conflict, because that is how they would want their soldiers to be treated when captured - so it's not necessarily appropriate for our example to bring in the military.

low intensity warfare has its own rules too, but things start to get a lot murkier when you begin to define people as "illegal combatants" and "terrorists". if terrorists are people who target civilians for political purposes, then I guess you can include all the nuclear powers and their Prime Ministers as terrorists. i imagine.

[xxxx]

, its spectacular and horrific, but it ain't that big a deal.

I could not agree more, terrorism as a risk, is way down the risk chain. .

Yet its terrorvision 24/7, and there is no price too high to combat it, financially,morally or in terms of liberty. Like paedophilia, its so repellent, it banishes thought.

It would be more honest (if you believe in it as presented) to see it as the price of doing business the way we do, like road deaths and occupational accidents.

[Porty]

It would be more honest (if you believe in it as presented) to see it as the price of doing business the way we do, like road deaths and occupational accidents.

I do believe in it as presented and I totally concur with your statement.

[Porty]

ooh - swift bit of editing there!!

Yes, but only to add the second sentence. What's the inference? Are Moderators thinking of making editing (by non-moderators) a POL crime?.

low intensity warfare has its own rules too, but things start to get a lot murkier when you begin to define people as "illegal combatants" and "terrorists". if terrorists are people who target civilians for political purposes, then I guess you can include all the nuclear powers and their Prime Ministers as terrorists. i imagine.

One man's terrorism is anothers mans belief. (cant remember the exact phrase but you get my drift.) If I think of it, will it be ok to return and edit, sir?

[Dadaist]

Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.

The "this post has been edited" only appears once the post has had a reply.

[Porty]

The great pity is that Labour failed to give the British Public what they clearly wanted.

What the public want presumably was security, what was on offer was internment. .

Whilst you are correct, I think its pretty clear that right or wrong, most of the public agreed 90 days.

[Dadaist]

The great pity is that Labour failed to give the British Public what they clearly wanted.

What the public want presumably was security, what was on offer was internment. .

Whilst you are correct, I think its pretty clear that right or wrong, most of the public agreed 90 days.

I thought you said it was flawed thinking to favour an opinion poll in a debate?

Why don't you just tell us what you think, as opposed to (say) making a poll about it and then immediately clicking in the "yes please apply the thumbscrews" box?

[Porty]

Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.

I do that quite often too.

The "this post has been edited" only appears once the post has had a reply.

So where is the "this post has been edited" on my post?

Oh......there doesn't appear to be one.

I must have edited prior to anyone replying, I am so terribly sorry.

Is this moderator thing going to your head?

[Porty]

I thought you said it was flawed thinking to favour an opinion poll in a debate?

You thought wrong, go take a look.

[Dadaist]

Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.

I do that quite often too.

The "this post has been edited" only appears once the post has had a reply.

So where is the "this post has been edited" on my post?

Oh......there doesn't appear to be one.

I must have edited prior to anyone replying, I am so terribly sorry.

Is this moderator thing going to your head?

my approach to forums hasn't changed one iota since being a mod.

[Dadaist]

I thought you said it was flawed thinking to favour an opinion poll in a debate?

You thought wrong, go take a look.

so what does this mean then? (apology in advance if i have misunderstandimated you)

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

[Porty]

my approach to forums hasn't changed one iota since being a mod.

You pulled me for the edit or non-edit, when no-one had replied to the post in question?

I cannot recall you ever doing that to me before.

Is that not a change?

[Dadaist]

my approach to forums hasn't changed one iota since being a mod.

You pulled me for the edit or non-edit, when no-one had replied to the post in question?

I cannot recall you ever doing that to me before.

Is that not a change?

I didn't pull you, I just pointed out for the first time what I've seen you doing it before, and before I was a mod. So whilst my perception of you, the board, forum software, computers, conversation, debate, http, font design, crisp flavours and many other things has not changed, there may arguably be people who think your impression of me has.

[Porty]

I thought you said it was flawed thinking to favour an opinion poll in a debate?

You thought wrong, go take a look.

so what does this mean then? (apology in advance if i have misunderstandimated you)

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

In this case I am not "favouring" opinion polls, they happen to be all that's available. The polls are the only way that "evidence" has been gathered. If you have an alternative, then i must admit i am ignorant about it.

When i made the above statement I was thinking about statements like "The invasion of Iraq was the reason for the terrorist attacks in London".

It must be true as 70% of people say so in an opinion poll. In other words they are favouring the polls over any evidence.

[Porty]

I didn't pull you, I just pointed out for the first time what I've seen you doing it before, and before I was a mod. So whilst my perception of you, the board, forum software, computers, conversation, debate, http, font design, crisp flavours and many other things has not changed, there may arguably be people who think your impression of me has.

Ok, so the fact that you pointed it out was the change.

BTW were you wrong to pull me/point it out?