Tony Blair was right to say that politics needs help: Thai opinion

[Noistar]

"In Myanmar, Blair said one thing worth thinking about: the quality of governments depends on the rule of law. If the laws are clear, all government agencies can proceed within their power without having to wait for the government's endorsement for everything. Without good governance, it is hard for democratic governments to take a root, he said.

It would also help if governments invited foreign experts to help on things that are new to their countries. That was what the young Singaporean government did. Blair did not say that Western governments are role models for emerging governments. "There are good and bad governments. You can learn from us.""

I thought I'd deviate from the character assassination of Mr Blair and post about issues relevant to Thailand.

The 1st bit from the article would certainly benefit Thailand. The comment about 'democratic government to take root' is particularly relevant.

The 2nd bit supports my view, that instead of Thailand's obsession with going round and round, repeating mistakes, there are lessons out there.

The problem is, politicians don't want a better Thailand. That is long-term, ie not today. Thai politics seems to be like Thai culture. Act today as if there were no tomorrow. (Anybody else married to a Thai would probably see this in action).

Mr Blair's comments are not 'lies or truths'. He just seems to be laying out his 'stall' of high-level, common-sense which his years of experience as premier enable him to. I don't think the Thai person with the title of PM would ever be in a position to do that.

Humblest etc

[kimamey]

It seems Thailand is a haven for the Tory party. If they are so good why are you not back home enjoying all the good things they are doing now.

You lot idolised Thatcher so let's have a look at her record shall we.

1. Over 5,000,000 unemployed

2. 2 wars

3. Pound devalued

4. Gold reserves diminished

5. Divided society

6. Poll Tax

7. Riots in the streets

8. Whole manufacturing industries destroyed

Impressive or what?

Tony Blair at least tried to create a united society and make things better. Did he make mistakes? Of course he did, and the biggest one was listening to Bush which cost him and many others dearly. However, Britain went through one of it's most prosperous periods under Blair until the world-wide financial crash hit. Oh sorry! he was to blame for that too I suppose.

You guys must be so happy now that you now have that world renowned leader and political genius that is Cameron.

Attacking the Conservative party and the twit currently in charge does not excuse the inpet results Blair and Brown presided over. Thatcher was voted in to fight the unions who had, due to weak ineffective previous left wing socialist governments, been allowed to make Britain the sick man of Europe. Remember the power cuts, 3 day working week, refuge collection strikes. Remember unions inflitrated by communists - like the evil Scargil and clown Red Robbo. I do. Arguably Thatcher went too far the other way,

The UK was definetly right to expel the invading Argentinan facists of Galtieri from the Falklands. The first gulf war was a UN sanctioned mission to liberate Kuwait which had been illegally occupied by Iraq, Blair definetly mislead the British public on weapons of mass destruction and his "mate" Gordon flogged off chunks of the UK gold reserves cheap.

Blair had an extremely good PR mechanism and new when to bail out, leaving Brown to face the music. Blair and his policies didn't create wealth for Britain, It was all built on the growing credit mountian supported by his liberalising of banking regulations and riding on the back of similar phenomenon in other developed countries. The financial crash showed up countries that were living on credit, with irresponsible lending based on an ever increasing value of property and the certainty of income through employment. Take away the supports and it all crashes. Blair wasn't singularly responsible, but his actions and policies severely weakend Britains ability to cope and recover from it. Brown's public statement that the days of "boom and bust cycles" were over showed the grasp this pair had on world economics, as did his selling the gold off to fund government spending.

I don't see any current dynamic leaders anywhere in Western Europe at the moment. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Hollande, Merkel .......... not exactly inspirational are they.

As far as I know the proceeds from the gold sale weren't used to fund government spending but were invested in assets denominated in US dollars, euros and yen that would gain interest. The reason given for this was that gold had remained fairly stable for many years so it was essentially doing nothing. It was also based on the assumption that excessive global inflation was unlikely to happen again. The reason it did was down to the financial crisis in 2008 which maybe he should have seen coming but then so should most of the global financial institutions as well. Other countries also sold large gold reserves as well including the Swiss I think.

He didn't flog it off cheap as you put it but at the market price at the time which was low and I think dropped even more on the news of the sale but I don't know enough about it to say why that happened. I'm sure there's some mechanism to control gold sales now to prevent this happening. It may well have been a mistake but some of that comes from hindsight but it's true that it didn't work out well.

The liberalisation of banking regulations were, I'm sure more to do with Thatcher than Blair and Brown although to be fair they didn't do anything to change that. Probably because they thought the Tories would accuse them of being anti banks and business.

I'll assume you realise the power cuts and 3 day week were during a Conservative government and meant they were caused by the unions who had grown strong under the previous government. Margaret Thatcher did a lot to stop the more militant union leaders who were a minority but extremely harmful. In some ways you could credit her success to people like Arthur Scargill. Without their stupidity she may well not have done so well. Where she went wrong was that she never thought about what would happen to those suddenly thrown out of work, some never to return. Even those that did often had to take low paid jobs.

Although I'm not a fan of Margaret Thatcher she did do the right thing in the Falklands and to her credit she felt that Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown at the same time when there was support which would have probably worked better.

I don't think Blair was a bad PM and I don't think Brown was a bad Chancellor but I do think Brown was the wrong person to be PM.

All governments make mistakes and I think Tony Blair is right to say that politicians need help from outside although some of them aren't career politicians so have some knowledge themselves. The difficult part is getting the right advice of course and being able to make long term plans even if the results won't be seen until after you've moved on and of course not doing things that look good now but that you know may go wrong after you've moved on.

For Thailand the problem seems to be short term ministers. I think it's 4 Education ministers in 2 years so far. There is as always the corruption problem as well. Maybe they should learn from other countries who have much stricter rules in place. They don't stop corruption completely but at least it can be seen that there are consequences for those involved.

[Thai at Heart]

It seems Thailand is a haven for the Tory party. If they are so good why are you not back home enjoying all the good things they are doing now.

You lot idolised Thatcher so let's have a look at her record shall we.

1. Over 5,000,000 unemployed

2. 2 wars

3. Pound devalued

4. Gold reserves diminished

5. Divided society

6. Poll Tax

7. Riots in the streets

8. Whole manufacturing industries destroyed

Impressive or what?

Tony Blair at least tried to create a united society and make things better. Did he make mistakes? Of course he did, and the biggest one was listening to Bush which cost him and many others dearly. However, Britain went through one of it's most prosperous periods under Blair until the world-wide financial crash hit. Oh sorry! he was to blame for that too I suppose.

You guys must be so happy now that you now have that world renowned leader and political genius that is Cameron.

Attacking the Conservative party and the twit currently in charge does not excuse the inpet results Blair and Brown presided over. Thatcher was voted in to fight the unions who had, due to weak ineffective previous left wing socialist governments, been allowed to make Britain the sick man of Europe. Remember the power cuts, 3 day working week, refuge collection strikes. Remember unions inflitrated by communists - like the evil Scargil and clown Red Robbo. I do. Arguably Thatcher went too far the other way,

The UK was definetly right to expel the invading Argentinan facists of Galtieri from the Falklands. The first gulf war was a UN sanctioned mission to liberate Kuwait which had been illegally occupied by Iraq, Blair definetly mislead the British public on weapons of mass destruction and his "mate" Gordon flogged off chunks of the UK gold reserves cheap.

Blair had an extremely good PR mechanism and new when to bail out, leaving Brown to face the music. Blair and his policies didn't create wealth for Britain, It was all built on the growing credit mountian supported by his liberalising of banking regulations and riding on the back of similar phenomenon in other developed countries. The financial crash showed up countries that were living on credit, with irresponsible lending based on an ever increasing value of property and the certainty of income through employment. Take away the supports and it all crashes. Blair wasn't singularly responsible, but his actions and policies severely weakend Britains ability to cope and recover from it. Brown's public statement that the days of "boom and bust cycles" were over showed the grasp this pair had on world economics, as did his selling the gold off to fund government spending.

I don't see any current dynamic leaders anywhere in Western Europe at the moment. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Hollande, Merkel .......... not exactly inspirational are they.

As far as I know the proceeds from the gold sale weren't used to fund government spending but were invested in assets denominated in US dollars, euros and yen that would gain interest. The reason given for this was that gold had remained fairly stable for many years so it was essentially doing nothing. It was also based on the assumption that excessive global inflation was unlikely to happen again. The reason it did was down to the financial crisis in 2008 which maybe he should have seen coming but then so should most of the global financial institutions as well. Other countries also sold large gold reserves as well including the Swiss I think.

He didn't flog it off cheap as you put it but at the market price at the time which was low and I think dropped even more on the news of the sale but I don't know enough about it to say why that happened. I'm sure there's some mechanism to control gold sales now to prevent this happening. It may well have been a mistake but some of that comes from hindsight but it's true that it didn't work out well.

The liberalisation of banking regulations were, I'm sure more to do with Thatcher than Blair and Brown although to be fair they didn't do anything to change that. Probably because they thought the Tories would accuse them of being anti banks and business.

I'll assume you realise the power cuts and 3 day week were during a Conservative government and meant they were caused by the unions who had grown strong under the previous government. Margaret Thatcher did a lot to stop the more militant union leaders who were a minority but extremely harmful. In some ways you could credit her success to people like Arthur Scargill. Without their stupidity she may well not have done so well. Where she went wrong was that she never thought about what would happen to those suddenly thrown out of work, some never to return. Even those that did often had to take low paid jobs.

Although I'm not a fan of Margaret Thatcher she did do the right thing in the Falklands and to her credit she felt that Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown at the same time when there was support which would have probably worked better.

I don't think Blair was a bad PM and I don't think Brown was a bad Chancellor but I do think Brown was the wrong person to be PM.

All governments make mistakes and I think Tony Blair is right to say that politicians need help from outside although some of them aren't career politicians so have some knowledge themselves. The difficult part is getting the right advice of course and being able to make long term plans even if the results won't be seen until after you've moved on and of course not doing things that look good now but that you know may go wrong after you've moved on.

For Thailand the problem seems to be short term ministers. I think it's 4 Education ministers in 2 years so far. There is as always the corruption problem as well. Maybe they should learn from other countries who have much stricter rules in place. They don't stop corruption completely but at least it can be seen that there are consequences for those involved.

Brown set up the FSA on his first day in office, and he passed largely all regulatory power to the Bank

Can't post the really

Telegraph link, but even he admits he screwed up.

[kimamey]

You always know when Tony is lying as his lips move. He's much loved in the US but why not as he was the best PM of Britain America ever had ?

I think he would fit in nicely in Thai politics providing he survived.

You always knew when Blair was lieing when his lips move ????. Its the same with all UK MPs, and Labour are worse than all the other parties put together. Working mans party??? not in my lifetime.

All UK MPs. Are you sure? Have you checked them all? Perhaps you can give examples for all of them. I assume this goes for previous ones as well.

I think the reason there are a lot of lying MPs is because that's what a lot of people expect. Why bother to tell the truth and try to work for the good of your country when many people have already decided that as an MP you are a liar and only in it for the money.

[kimamey]

It seems Thailand is a haven for the Tory party. If they are so good why are you not back home enjoying all the good things they are doing now.

You lot idolised Thatcher so let's have a look at her record shall we.

1. Over 5,000,000 unemployed

2. 2 wars

3. Pound devalued

4. Gold reserves diminished

5. Divided society

6. Poll Tax

7. Riots in the streets

8. Whole manufacturing industries destroyed

Impressive or what?

Tony Blair at least tried to create a united society and make things better. Did he make mistakes? Of course he did, and the biggest one was listening to Bush which cost him and many others dearly. However, Britain went through one of it's most prosperous periods under Blair until the world-wide financial crash hit. Oh sorry! he was to blame for that too I suppose.

You guys must be so happy now that you now have that world renowned leader and political genius that is Cameron.

Attacking the Conservative party and the twit currently in charge does not excuse the inpet results Blair and Brown presided over. Thatcher was voted in to fight the unions who had, due to weak ineffective previous left wing socialist governments, been allowed to make Britain the sick man of Europe. Remember the power cuts, 3 day working week, refuge collection strikes. Remember unions inflitrated by communists - like the evil Scargil and clown Red Robbo. I do. Arguably Thatcher went too far the other way,

The UK was definetly right to expel the invading Argentinan facists of Galtieri from the Falklands. The first gulf war was a UN sanctioned mission to liberate Kuwait which had been illegally occupied by Iraq, Blair definetly mislead the British public on weapons of mass destruction and his "mate" Gordon flogged off chunks of the UK gold reserves cheap.

Blair had an extremely good PR mechanism and new when to bail out, leaving Brown to face the music. Blair and his policies didn't create wealth for Britain, It was all built on the growing credit mountian supported by his liberalising of banking regulations and riding on the back of similar phenomenon in other developed countries. The financial crash showed up countries that were living on credit, with irresponsible lending based on an ever increasing value of property and the certainty of income through employment. Take away the supports and it all crashes. Blair wasn't singularly responsible, but his actions and policies severely weakend Britains ability to cope and recover from it. Brown's public statement that the days of "boom and bust cycles" were over showed the grasp this pair had on world economics, as did his selling the gold off to fund government spending.

I don't see any current dynamic leaders anywhere in Western Europe at the moment. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Hollande, Merkel .......... not exactly inspirational are they.

As far as I know the proceeds from the gold sale weren't used to fund government spending but were invested in assets denominated in US dollars, euros and yen that would gain interest. The reason given for this was that gold had remained fairly stable for many years so it was essentially doing nothing. It was also based on the assumption that excessive global inflation was unlikely to happen again. The reason it did was down to the financial crisis in 2008 which maybe he should have seen coming but then so should most of the global financial institutions as well. Other countries also sold large gold reserves as well including the Swiss I think.

He didn't flog it off cheap as you put it but at the market price at the time which was low and I think dropped even more on the news of the sale but I don't know enough about it to say why that happened. I'm sure there's some mechanism to control gold sales now to prevent this happening. It may well have been a mistake but some of that comes from hindsight but it's true that it didn't work out well.

The liberalisation of banking regulations were, I'm sure more to do with Thatcher than Blair and Brown although to be fair they didn't do anything to change that. Probably because they thought the Tories would accuse them of being anti banks and business.

I'll assume you realise the power cuts and 3 day week were during a Conservative government and meant they were caused by the unions who had grown strong under the previous government. Margaret Thatcher did a lot to stop the more militant union leaders who were a minority but extremely harmful. In some ways you could credit her success to people like Arthur Scargill. Without their stupidity she may well not have done so well. Where she went wrong was that she never thought about what would happen to those suddenly thrown out of work, some never to return. Even those that did often had to take low paid jobs.

Although I'm not a fan of Margaret Thatcher she did do the right thing in the Falklands and to her credit she felt that Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown at the same time when there was support which would have probably worked better.

I don't think Blair was a bad PM and I don't think Brown was a bad Chancellor but I do think Brown was the wrong person to be PM.

All governments make mistakes and I think Tony Blair is right to say that politicians need help from outside although some of them aren't career politicians so have some knowledge themselves. The difficult part is getting the right advice of course and being able to make long term plans even if the results won't be seen until after you've moved on and of course not doing things that look good now but that you know may go wrong after you've moved on.

For Thailand the problem seems to be short term ministers. I think it's 4 Education ministers in 2 years so far. There is as always the corruption problem as well. Maybe they should learn from other countries who have much stricter rules in place. They don't stop corruption completely but at least it can be seen that there are consequences for those involved.

Brown set up the FSA on his first day in office, and he passed largely all regulatory power to the Bank

Can't post the really

Telegraph link, but even he admits he screwed up.

I think it was originally set up as The Securities and Investments Board (SIB) in the 80s but was changed in 1997 to The Financial Services Authority. The idea was to bring together several regulators under one authority after previous self regulation had seen several scandals which included that which brought down Barings Bank. The legislation it eventually worked under was brought in around 2000 I think.

It's true that it didn't succeed as it should have but it was, as Brown has admitted formed under the idea of independent financial institutions which it turns out are interconnected in a way he and his advisers didn't envisage.

I think he passed responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England but the new split FSA will be more under the BOE than before as far as I can see.

I don't know if any of this has any similarities in Thailand or not. I don't know what sort of regulation there is or how independent it is from interference for purely political ends.

[hellodolly]

| am getting the feeling from most of the posters here that they think if Blair had not been the PM England would be in great financial shape now. The world recession would not have touched them.

The world recession would still be there, it's just the government wouldn't have had to write blank cheques in the billions of quid to cover up bankers incompetence. Although, of the bankers hadn't caused the mess presumably the world wouldn't have had the enormous drop in growth.

Funnily, the g7 countries with relatively well regulated financial services industries have got through this mess quite well.

Never heard of the G7

[hellodolly]

Well I see at least three read the article and understood it not bad out of 33 posts.

He said

"When other panellists proposed big ideas for the world and looked to him on how politicians can help, he said, Politicians need help."

and most of the posters did not agree with him or they misread the article and thought it was an invitation to bash him and even some Thai bashing.

I swear some people are here because they are unacceptable where they come from.

Wake up people the Politicians the world over need help.

Yeah right - and how many can you name that ever listen???

That is further proof that they need help learning to listen is one of the things they need help with.

Except for Yingluck she listens real good to her brother.

[hellodolly]

Well I see at least three read the article and understood it not bad out of 33 posts.

He said

"When other panellists proposed big ideas for the world and looked to him on how politicians can help, he said, Politicians need help."

and most of the posters did not agree with him or they misread the article and thought it was an invitation to bash him and even some Thai bashing.

I swear some people are here because they are unacceptable where they come from.

Wake up people the Politicians the world over need help.

Yeah right - and how many can you name that ever listen???

That is further proof that they need help learning to listen is one of the things they need help with.

Except for Yingluck she listens real good to her brother.

[Thai at Heart]

| am getting the feeling from most of the posters here that they think if Blair had not been the PM England would be in great financial shape now. The world recession would not have touched them.

The world recession would still be there, it's just the government wouldn't have had to write blank cheques in the billions of quid to cover up bankers incompetence. Although, of the bankers hadn't caused the mess presumably the world wouldn't have had the enormous drop in growth.

Funnily, the g7 countries with relatively well regulated financial services industries have got through this mess quite well.

Never heard of the G7

It;s the G8 minus Russia. Since there is no subprime problem in Russia, I think it more relevant to say G7, since they all have similar parliamentary and financial models.

[kimamey]

Attacking the Conservative party and the twit currently in charge does not excuse the inpet results Blair and Brown presided over. Thatcher was voted in to fight the unions who had, due to weak ineffective previous left wing socialist governments, been allowed to make Britain the sick man of Europe. Remember the power cuts, 3 day working week, refuge collection strikes. Remember unions inflitrated by communists - like the evil Scargil and clown Red Robbo. I do. Arguably Thatcher went too far the other way,

The UK was definetly right to expel the invading Argentinan facists of Galtieri from the Falklands. The first gulf war was a UN sanctioned mission to liberate Kuwait which had been illegally occupied by Iraq, Blair definetly mislead the British public on weapons of mass destruction and his "mate" Gordon flogged off chunks of the UK gold reserves cheap.

Blair had an extremely good PR mechanism and new when to bail out, leaving Brown to face the music. Blair and his policies didn't create wealth for Britain, It was all built on the growing credit mountian supported by his liberalising of banking regulations and riding on the back of similar phenomenon in other developed countries. The financial crash showed up countries that were living on credit, with irresponsible lending based on an ever increasing value of property and the certainty of income through employment. Take away the supports and it all crashes. Blair wasn't singularly responsible, but his actions and policies severely weakend Britains ability to cope and recover from it. Brown's public statement that the days of "boom and bust cycles" were over showed the grasp this pair had on world economics, as did his selling the gold off to fund government spending.

I don't see any current dynamic leaders anywhere in Western Europe at the moment. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Hollande, Merkel .......... not exactly inspirational are they.

You can't sell a dream when you haven't got any money to spend. It's going to be austerity for a very very long time.

| am getting the feeling from most of the posters here that they think if Blair had not been the PM England would be in great financial shape now. The world recession would not have touched them.

The world recession would still be there, it's just the government wouldn't have had to write blank cheques in the billions of quid to cover up bankers incompetence. Although, of the bankers hadn't caused the mess presumably the world wouldn't have had the enormous drop in growth.

Funnily, the g7 countries with relatively well regulated financial services industries have got through this mess quite well.

One of the reasons the UK and USA were hit so badly is that they are more dependant on the financial services industry than other countries.

[NoshowJones]

You always know when Tony is lying as his lips move. He's much loved in the US but why not as he was the best PM of Britain America ever had ?

I think he would fit in nicely in Thai politics providing he survived.

You always knew when Blair was lieing when his lips move ????. Its the same with all UK MPs, and Labour are worse than all the other parties put together. Working mans party??? not in my lifetime.

All UK MPs. Are you sure? Have you checked them all? Perhaps you can give examples for all of them. I assume this goes for previous ones as well.

I think the reason there are a lot of lying MPs is because that's what a lot of people expect. Why bother to tell the truth and try to work for the good of your country when many people have already decided that as an MP you are a liar and only in it for the money.

Ok, I will rephrase that. Every Labour MP in the UK is a liar. If every Labour candidate who is up for election was asked if Labour was "the party of the working classes" none of their candidates would say no, and that would make them liars. Is there any UK born member of Thaivisa who would say Labour is the "party of the working classes"? I bet not. of all the other MPs, you would have to say about 95% are liars.

[Noistar]

You always know when Tony is lying as his lips move. He's much loved in the US but why not as he was the best PM of Britain America ever had ?

I think he would fit in nicely in Thai politics providing he survived.

You always knew when Blair was lieing when his lips move ????. Its the same with all UK MPs, and Labour are worse than all the other parties put together. Working mans party??? not in my lifetime.

All UK MPs. Are you sure? Have you checked them all? Perhaps you can give examples for all of them. I assume this goes for previous ones as well.

I think the reason there are a lot of lying MPs is because that's what a lot of people expect. Why bother to tell the truth and try to work for the good of your country when many people have already decided that as an MP you are a liar and only in it for the money.

Ok, I will rephrase that. Every Labour MP in the UK is a liar. If every Labour candidate who is up for election was asked if Labour was "the party of the working classes" none of their candidates would say no, and that would make them liars. Is there any UK born member of Thaivisa who would say Labour is the "party of the working classes"? I bet not. of all the other MPs, you would have to say about 95% are liars.

Who would you trust most, a politician or a second-hand car salesman?

Presumably a politician as every time a Government cuts-and-runs, we vote in more of the same. (when was the last time a British Government served its full term?)

[NoshowJones]

Maggie Thatcher maybe, PM for 13 years.

[Noistar]

Maggie Thatcher maybe, PM for 13 years.

At least there was no questioning who was boss and who was making the decisions

[Bof]

Tony Blair is one of the biggest liar , intellectual fraud this sad world has ever seen .

Currently handing out moral lessons at 200 K $ a speech , if there are any takers .

[Noistar]

Tony Blair is one of the biggest liar , intellectual fraud this sad world has ever seen .

Currently handing out moral lessons at 200 K $ a speech , if there are any takers .

Substantiated fact or opinion?

[Noistar]

You always know when Tony is lying as his lips move. He's much loved in the US but why not as he was the best PM of Britain America ever had ?

I think he would fit in nicely in Thai politics providing he survived.

You always knew when Blair was lieing when his lips move ????. Its the same with all UK MPs, and Labour are worse than all the other parties put together. Working mans party??? not in my lifetime.

All UK MPs. Are you sure? Have you checked them all? Perhaps you can give examples for all of them. I assume this goes for previous ones as well.

I think the reason there are a lot of lying MPs is because that's what a lot of people expect. Why bother to tell the truth and try to work for the good of your country when many people have already decided that as an MP you are a liar and only in it for the money.

We seem to be drifting into posts about politicians in general.

It seems that I was fortunate to have lived in a constituency where the MP was widely respected, across all party allegiances.

I speak about Frank Judd. He was the Labour MP for Portsmouth North. Whether he promoted himself as the 'working man's MP' I don't know.

Unfortunately he lost his seat during the massive Conservative election victory in 1979. It was always considered a great shame that the election showed that people were voting for the party, not the people.

There are some MPs who take their role of 'serving the constituency' seriously, and who truly want to do their job. Unfortunately, the perception and probably the reality, is that a vast majority have less altruistic intentions.

[NoshowJones]

The reason so many people vote Labour in Scotland is the mentality of " my father voted Labour so I must vote Labour" Yes there may be a lot of MPs of all parties who work hard for the constituency because they want to keep their seats and all the perks that go with it, including well paid jobs for some members of their family. You show me a Labour MP who will admit the party is no longer the "party of the working class" and I will show you someone who is not a liar. But that would be impossible.

[Thai at Heart]

The reason so many people vote Labour in Scotland is the mentality of " my father voted Labour so I must vote Labour" Yes there may be a lot of MPs of all parties who work hard for the constituency because they want to keep their seats and all the perks that go with it, including well paid jobs for some members of their family. You show me a Labour MP who will admit the party is no longer the "party of the working class" and I will show you someone who is not a liar. But that would be impossible.

They know that if they present themselves as the party of the working class, they are unelectable. That's politics..

[NoshowJones]

The reason so many people vote Labour in Scotland is the mentality of " my father voted Labour so I must vote Labour" Yes there may be a lot of MPs of all parties who work hard for the constituency because they want to keep their seats and all the perks that go with it, including well paid jobs for some members of their family. You show me a Labour MP who will admit the party is no longer the "party of the working class" and I will show you someone who is not a liar. But that would be impossible.

They know that if they present themselves as the party of the working class, they are unelectable. That's politics..

I think you have a point there, they lie to get elected, then they lie to stay elected, so they can fiddle their expenses and award themselves massive wage rises, then go and make more money at their other jobs, like Lawyers and Company Directors etc etc. Despicable people.

[Thai at Heart]

The reason so many people vote Labour in Scotland is the mentality of " my father voted Labour so I must vote Labour" Yes there may be a lot of MPs of all parties who work hard for the constituency because they want to keep their seats and all the perks that go with it, including well paid jobs for some members of their family. You show me a Labour MP who will admit the party is no longer the "party of the working class" and I will show you someone who is not a liar. But that would be impossible.

They know that if they present themselves as the party of the working class, they are unelectable. That's politics..

I think you have a point there, they lie to get elected, then they lie to stay elected, so they can fiddle their expenses and award themselves massive wage rises, then go and make more money at their other jobs, like Lawyers and Company Directors etc etc. Despicable people.

Just look at the mess they are in with the Unions. They sold out ot the City of London to get themselves elected, thus becoming big business friendly, moved themselves to the centre, thus pushing the conservatives to the right. It was straight out of the Clinton playbook in the USA. The moment that the labour party in the UK becomes the party of the Unions and the working class again, they will be as unelectable as they were in the 80's. People don't get it.

Largely to get elected you have be centerist. You have to steal votes from all sides of the line.

[NoshowJones]

The reason so many people vote Labour in Scotland is the mentality of " my father voted Labour so I must vote Labour" Yes there may be a lot of MPs of all parties who work hard for the constituency because they want to keep their seats and all the perks that go with it, including well paid jobs for some members of their family. You show me a Labour MP who will admit the party is no longer the "party of the working class" and I will show you someone who is not a liar. But that would be impossible.

They know that if they present themselves as the party of the working class, they are unelectable. That's politics..

Yes, I agree,

I think you have a point there, they lie to get elected, then they lie to stay elected, so they can fiddle their expenses and award themselves massive wage rises, then go and make more money at their other jobs, like Lawyers and Company Directors etc etc. Despicable people.

Just look at the mess they are in with the Unions. They sold out ot the City of London to get themselves elected, thus becoming big business friendly, moved themselves to the centre, thus pushing the conservatives to the right. It was straight out of the Clinton playbook in the USA. The moment that the labour party in the UK becomes the party of the Unions and the working class again, they will be as unelectable as they were in the 80's. People don't get it.

Largely to get elected you have be centerist. You have to steal votes from all sides of the line.

[billd766]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

[Noistar]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

I think your favourable comparison of Thaksin says more about you and your opinion.

Based on your interpretation of the TOPIC rather than your personal opinion of the character of Mr Blair, is there anything you can find that provides a positive note?

A high-level summary of the topic, may be that Mr Blair has merely offered the developing nations of SE Asia a suggestion as to how they can 'fast-track' catching up with the developed countries.

A laudable effort, but the TV posters seem to concentrate on their opinions of how Mr Blair performed in government.

Perhaps the posters have 'gone native' as they seem to be concentrating on the past, rather than seeking to find a new future.

Who's input would you trust, if you are basing your comments on personalities? Then again, you appear to imply that you are satisfied that with Thaksin at the helm, Thailand needs no help towards its ultimate destination.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Noistar

[jocko]

You always know when Tony is lying as his lips move.  He's much loved in the US but why not as he was the best PM of Britain America ever had ?

I think he would fit in nicely in Thai politics providing he survived.

Blair spent quite a lot of time in the US in the company of the Clintons. They taught him how to get elected. He always came across to me as a second hand car salesman. Too slick and oily for my liking.

Two good actors in front of the cameras, no doubt it Tony learnt a lot from Bill.

[hellodolly]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

I think your favourable comparison of Thaksin says more about you and your opinion.

Based on your interpretation of the TOPIC rather than your personal opinion of the character of Mr Blair, is there anything you can find that provides a positive note?

A high-level summary of the topic, may be that Mr Blair has merely offered the developing nations of SE Asia a suggestion as to how they can 'fast-track' catching up with the developed countries.

A laudable effort, but the TV posters seem to concentrate on their opinions of how Mr Blair performed in government.

Perhaps the posters have 'gone native' as they seem to be concentrating on the past, rather than seeking to find a new future.

Who's input would you trust, if you are basing your comments on personalities? Then again, you appear to imply that you are satisfied that with Thaksin at the helm, Thailand needs no help towards its ultimate destination.

Spot on

People would rather die than listen to the messenger because they think (rightly or wrongly) he is a crook.

Reminds me of the old saying don't shoot the messenger. Listen to what he has to say it might save your life.

Politics and Politicians need help.

To deny it because you don't like the messenger is just helping it to continue to get worse.

[billd766]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

I think your favourable comparison of Thaksin says more about you and your opinion.

Based on your interpretation of the TOPIC rather than your personal opinion of the character of Mr Blair, is there anything you can find that provides a positive note?

A high-level summary of the topic, may be that Mr Blair has merely offered the developing nations of SE Asia a suggestion as to how they can 'fast-track' catching up with the developed countries.

A laudable effort, but the TV posters seem to concentrate on their opinions of how Mr Blair performed in government.

Perhaps the posters have 'gone native' as they seem to be concentrating on the past, rather than seeking to find a new future.

Who's input would you trust, if you are basing your comments on personalities? Then again, you appear to imply that you are satisfied that with Thaksin at the helm, Thailand needs no help towards its ultimate destination.

They are two of a kind, Tony and Thaksin. Both have caused tremendous problems for their respective countries.

I trust neither of them whatever they say.

Neither of them were in politics for what they could do for their countries.

Both are responsible for countless deaths of their own and other nations people.

One led the UK into an international war and the other I firmly believe is leading Thailand into a civil war.

Whose input would I trust?

Certainly no politician of either country of the last 20 years and here in Thailand I would put more trust in the person on the street than 90% of Thai politicians.

[Noistar]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

I think your favourable comparison of Thaksin says more about you and your opinion.

Based on your interpretation of the TOPIC rather than your personal opinion of the character of Mr Blair, is there anything you can find that provides a positive note?

A high-level summary of the topic, may be that Mr Blair has merely offered the developing nations of SE Asia a suggestion as to how they can 'fast-track' catching up with the developed countries.

A laudable effort, but the TV posters seem to concentrate on their opinions of how Mr Blair performed in government.

Perhaps the posters have 'gone native' as they seem to be concentrating on the past, rather than seeking to find a new future.

Who's input would you trust, if you are basing your comments on personalities? Then again, you appear to imply that you are satisfied that with Thaksin at the helm, Thailand needs no help towards its ultimate destination.

At least you've back-tracked and put Thaksin on a par with Mr Blair.

I still ask. What does criticism of the character of Mr Blair help with an attempt to provide thinking time for countries, including Thailand?

Your obsession with politicians is blinding any attempt on your part to try to see benefit to Thailand. Even if the devil himself was providing suggestions, it would be pathetic and juvenile to ignore the attempt.

Facts can be rationalized and considered. An inability to have an open mind will ensure that things won't move forward.

Never mind, perhaps Mr Blair is the devil.

He seems to have escaped charges of corruption, and convictions for the same. He is not hiding in a life of luxury with money he has taken from the poor in 'his' country. He comes and goes to the country of his birth without requiring the imposition of a 'get out of jail card', reconciliation bill.

Compare 2 politicians if you want, but at least make it a serious comparison.

The International war involved the military. It was undertaken for motives which you may disagree with, but it was part of an international effort. Brave people who choose to serve their country.

A civil war will not be the same. If Thaksin (not sure why he's in this topic) chooses to perform a selfish action which precipitates the unnecessary killing of civilians, you can't compare him with anyone.

Your input has all the hallmarks of 'sit on one's butt, do nothing and hope everything turns out ok'. I think you'd find you were living in a different type of world if your philosophy had been followed in the past century.

I thought Abhisit was the reason for thailand's woes. He must be grateful for the distraction Mr Blair's input has provided.

[billd766]

I distrust Tony B'liar more than ANY Thai politician I have ever heard of, and that includes Thaksin Shinawatra.

I am ashamed that he was born in the same country that I was born into.

I think your favourable comparison of Thaksin says more about you and your opinion.

Based on your interpretation of the TOPIC rather than your personal opinion of the character of Mr Blair, is there anything you can find that provides a positive note?

A high-level summary of the topic, may be that Mr Blair has merely offered the developing nations of SE Asia a suggestion as to how they can 'fast-track' catching up with the developed countries.

A laudable effort, but the TV posters seem to concentrate on their opinions of how Mr Blair performed in government.

Perhaps the posters have 'gone native' as they seem to be concentrating on the past, rather than seeking to find a new future.

Who's input would you trust, if you are basing your comments on personalities? Then again, you appear to imply that you are satisfied that with Thaksin at the helm, Thailand needs no help towards its ultimate destination.

At least you've back-tracked and put Thaksin on a par with Mr Blair.

I still ask. What does criticism of the character of Mr Blair help with an attempt to provide thinking time for countries, including Thailand?

Your obsession with politicians is blinding any attempt on your part to try to see benefit to Thailand. Even if the devil himself was providing suggestions, it would be pathetic and juvenile to ignore the attempt.

Facts can be rationalized and considered. An inability to have an open mind will ensure that things won't move forward.

Never mind, perhaps Mr Blair is the devil.

He seems to have escaped charges of corruption, and convictions for the same. He is not hiding in a life of luxury with money he has taken from the poor in 'his' country. He comes and goes to the country of his birth without requiring the imposition of a 'get out of jail card', reconciliation bill.

Compare 2 politicians if you want, but at least make it a serious comparison.

The International war involved the military. It was undertaken for motives which you may disagree with, but it was part of an international effort. Brave people who choose to serve their country.

A civil war will not be the same. If Thaksin (not sure why he's in this topic) chooses to perform a selfish action which precipitates the unnecessary killing of civilians, you can't compare him with anyone.

Your input has all the hallmarks of 'sit on one's butt, do nothing and hope everything turns out ok'. I think you'd find you were living in a different type of world if your philosophy had been followed in the past century.

I thought Abhisit was the reason for thailand's woes. He must be grateful for the distraction Mr Blair's input has provided.

So what you are telling me is that both the US and UK military started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no reference to the politicians at all.

From my 25 years experience in the military, yes I have served my time in the RAF, is that they NEVER start wars, politicians do with no real thoughts on how to stop the said war, nor do they have any idea what it will cost financially or the cost in human lives on all sides, nor do most of them care.

So Thaksin had no responsibility for the 2,000 plus drug deaths, Tak Ba or any other atrocities that happened in Thailand? Really?

I will assume that you were not that serious when you say that Abhisit was responsible for Thailands woes. If you were serious you must live in a different Thailand than I do.

The Iraq war was started on false information about WMD which both GW Bust and Tony B'liar have since admitted

[tomyummer]

I would've traded for Tony Blair any day for Bush.