|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Tony Blair/Archive1
Sad[edit]
Isn't it sad? --
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- Makes one question how liberal the Labour Party really is. PoorEd 18:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)
In all fairness to Mr. Blair, shouldn't there be some mention of his relative success in Northern Ireland? User:Corvex 9:49, 17 March 2009 (EST)
- I agree with the last statement...also, should we work in, somehow, his conversion to Catholicism? Or, perhaps, his coming out as Catholic? Researcher 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both should probably be in. Would allowing the Bank of England to set its own rates warrant a mention, or do you think that's more specific to Labour? Personally I think that was one of the few highlights of his term as Pope of England. --Concernedresident (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Replacement[edit]
What do people think of User:Dalek/Tony Blair? It may need more snark and more criticism, which we can add to it, but I think it's more informative. I think the bullet-pointed list of his actions is better, really. For someone like Tony Blair - who everybody will have heard of, and know a couple of things about - you don't need an article to just go, "He was SO BAD! BAD MAN!" - but instead to give them his actions, achievements, failures, and let them decide. Without objection, I'll move the sandbox article over in 2-3 days. Otherwise, let's debate and hash it out? Dalek (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- How about just adding the list of things he did to the "legacy" section a bit at a time? Wholesale replacement seems a bit too much. Also, get rid of all those boldings in the bullet lists if you bring them in, please. ħuman
19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't read this article so don't have any opinion on keeping this stuff or not. Like the new format though, bolding is also good. -- Nx / talk 19:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer bolding to separate the item in the list from the description. Otherwise it looks like a mass of shite text that you can't read easily.
sshole 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, I've never liked it. Might be something as trivial as different monitors, of course. ħuman 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and been a bit arrogant, replacing the original article with my version. Forgot I was still a bot, so it won't have shown up. I think it addresses the mission-related stuff about Blair (authoritarianism) better and gives a better overview. I'm sure with lots of other people's hacking and editting, it'll one day be great.
EXTERMINATE 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and been a bit arrogant, replacing the original article with my version. Forgot I was still a bot, so it won't have shown up. I think it addresses the mission-related stuff about Blair (authoritarianism) better and gives a better overview. I'm sure with lots of other people's hacking and editting, it'll one day be great.
- Oh well, I've never liked it. Might be something as trivial as different monitors, of course. ħuman
- I prefer bolding to separate the item in the list from the description. Otherwise it looks like a mass of shite text that you can't read easily.
- Haven't read this article so don't have any opinion on keeping this stuff or not. Like the new format though, bolding is also good. -- Nx / talk 19:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Blair[edit]
The introduction of the minimum wage is a red herring - Blair widened the gap between rich and poor. He deliberately encouraged greed, particularly housing greed, thereby sowing the seeds for the credit crisis (and an Independent Bank of England did nothing to avert it). His personal example of greed and dishonestly spread corruption throughout British society (and particularly Parliament). He was twice questioned by the police in connection with the selling of honours (the only time a serving PM has been questioned by the police).
The remarks about education are also misleading - Blair's political interference in education did irreparable damage to British schools. Numeracy and literacy levels have only 'increased' because of a coordinated institutional effort to distort the facts, see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/may/07/poor-literacy-numeracy. He did similar damage to the health service, housing for the poor and law and order.
As for Human Rights, besides his various wars, he colluded in the torture of British citizens in Pakistan, as well as torture by the CIA and Libyans. Put 'Blair Gaddafi' into google images to get a true picture of the man. — Unsigned, by: 2.27.216.236 / talk / contribs 
Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)
HRA[edit]
'the Human Rights Act's application has, in many quarters, seemed bloated and stupid.' In one single quarter surely, i.e. among right-wing authoritarians. 155.245.49.97 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)