World Politics

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Jacquie, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    haha one of my mates has suggested our pub quiz team (yes, we actually have one!) should go and watch a debate in the pub, which i'm sure the regular football viewers will just love. now they might get to see how the rest of us feel when they're yelling at the tv while we're trying to have a quiet pint ;)

    i don't think i can vote labour this time, i'm very sad about it but.....

    oh god i know, he's so smug!

    hmm i guess that's because the us tends to be quite insular in its news coverage, even political. that's not a criticism (well, maybe a little, but not of you, more of the inward looking nature of american media/politics) but it's just the way it is.

    cameron is the leader of the conservative party here - they are currently the opposition party (the current governing party is labour, run by gordon brown. i say run but his grip on it is tenuous at best :lol:) - at the moment they're looking like they could win, which would be a shame imho. clegg is the leader of our 3rd biggest party, the liberal democrats - they never stand any chance of winning as long as the two main parties are still going, but if there's a hung parliament this time (which also looks quite likely) they'll suddenly have much more power, which is good!

    yeah, that's crazy news, i heard it last night. i wonder what it says about me that my first thought was "wow, i wonder who did that then?" - i'm a great conspiracy theorist ;)
     
  2. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Polish president dying in that brutal plane crash, the whole world is mourning for this, and how unbelieveable that this could happen to anyone anywhere. God bless the Polish people and that they can get through this disaster with some sort of resolution and peace:( may he RIP~
     
  3. Ducky

    Ducky Master of the Moos Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    21,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^ And they lost their commanders of navy, army and airforce along with several ministers and other important people in administration.

    My nation has rule that only a certain number of ministers can travel in same plane and PM and president should never travel together (even they've done it few times just to make it simpler)
     
  4. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah we have that with the royal family which seems a tad ridiculous given that they don't do a damn thing anyway apart from waste public money. i think we should save money by putting them all on a very very leaky boat together :D

    or at the very least, privatise them, so they can give back to the economy - and then maybe they'd get to feel how normal people feel when their industries are privatised and sold off to the highest bidder.
     
  5. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just an FYI, The first of the Leaders' Debates will air this Thursday on ITV1. Can't remember the time it shows but properly 8pm-ish I think.

    My thoughts and prayers are will the families and friends of those who died in Poland. RIP.

    I don't even understand why we still have a Monarchy, they have no offical powers, they're just a formality we could do without.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010
  6. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'll try to remember to watch it, and also try to refrain from throwing things at the telly.... ;)

    i don't get it either - i'm republican through and through (in the general sense, not the american party politics sense!) but at least in the past the royal family had actual power and did a job (even though it was a tyrannical one) - nowadays they have no function at all beyond going to shake hands around the world and getting themselves into dodgy situations. it's a totally outdated institution and serves no purpose whatsoever.

    people say they're good for tourism but stats show that the most income they generate for the country is from the palaces/castles that are no longer inhabited, ie those that people can visit and gawp at. the state paying to maintain the ones they live in is ridiculous, no one needs a palace to live in, and it's a major drain on resources. of course there is the argument that they give people jobs but really, who wants to be a minion/servant?

    also people say that other nations look to our monarchy as some kind of bastion of national pride, and envy it (hence tourists liking all those palaces so much!) but is it really something to be proud of or to envy? why would anyone envy the fact that a bunch of people with no real power are nominally the top dogs just because they happened to have been born into a particular family? that's not something to be proud of. proper democracy with elected head of state is a much more noble thing to aspire to. and even then, why should we be so proud of them? it's not like they're actually english for the most part, they're at least half german (not to mention all the connections to the nazis, and dare i even mention prince bloody philip, the least diplomatic person on the planet?) :lol:

    it just seems silly to justify them with that old chestnut of tradition when in fact the royal family has a very very chequered past, and most of our royal history stems from france and before that danes. the ones that did have power abused the living hell out of it and fought all kinds of pointless wars (ha! i just described tony blair!), killed subjects left right and centre, and were generally a pretty frightful bunch. something being traditional doesn't make it right, especially when it's draining resources.
     
  7. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Labour manifesto: Brown unveils election programme

    Gordon Brown has insisted Labour has a "plan for the future" as he unveiled manifesto pledges not to raise income tax and reforms to "renew" Britain.
    They would be "relentless reformers" of financial markets and public services if they won a fourth term, he said.
    Pledges include minimum wage rises, extending paternity leave and a £4-a-week "toddler tax credit" from 2012.
    The Tories say Labour is out of ideas and the Lib Dems say they cannot be trusted to reform tax and politics.

    In a speech to unveil the manifesto in Edgbaston, Birmingham, Mr Brown said Labour was facing "the fight of our lives" adding: "The future will be progressive or Conservative but it will not be both.
    "We are in the future business, we are building a future fair for all."

    [​IMG]MANIFESTO PLEDGES
    No rise in income tax rate
    New global banks levy
    No stamp duty for first time buyers on homes below £250k
    Raise minimum wage in line with earnings
    Right to recall MPs
    Referendums on democratic House of Lords and changing voting system

    He dismissed "empty slogans about change" from the Conservatives and pledged a "realistic and radical plan for Britain".
    He said he wanted to create a "bigger middle class than ever before" and, in the wake of the expenses scandal, pledged to replace "discredited and distrusted politics with one where you, the people, are the boss".
    He pledged to spread excellence across public services - with every hospital a foundation trust, more power and responsibility for "strong school leaders" and for underperforming police forces to be taken over and chief constables replaced.
    "Labour will be restless and relentless reformers. Reformers of the market and reformers of the state," Mr Brown said.
    Cabinet minister Lord Mandelson described it as a "Blair plus" manifesto and denied Mr Brown had had to be converted to his predecessor's public service reforms: "He invented New Labour with Tony Blair and myself and others."
    'Tough choices'
    Among Labour's manifesto commitments are not to raise income tax rates in the next Parliament and not to extend VAT to items like food and children's clothes.
    Asked for a firmer commitment to rule out a rise in VAT, Mr Brown said: "We have not raised VAT since 1997, the only party that has raised VAT in the last 25 years is the Conservative Party."

    BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the manifesto specified the need for "tough choices" but did not appear to give much detail about them.
    But Mr Brown said: "We've done more than any other country to set out out plans in detail, the tax changes, the public spending reductions and the growth we will achieve to make that possible."
    Other pledges include raising the minimum wage in line with average earnings, a right to recall MPs, a referendum on changing the voting system and on removing the last hereditary peers from the House of Lords, and a free vote in Parliament on lowering the voting age to 16.

    Paternity leave
    There was also a "father's month" of four weeks' paid paternity leave and a new toddler tax credit of £4-a-week from 2012 is also promised for families with young children who earn less than £50,000.
    The manifesto also pledges that patients in England will get a one-week guarantee to get results from a test for cancer.
    There were further pledges to push for an international bank levy and work guarantees for the long-term unemployed.

    [​IMG]Jeremy Paxman will question Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in a special programme on BBC One at 8.30pm on Monday

    Labour promised not to raise income tax in its 2005 manifesto, but went on to introduce a new 50p tax rate for incomes over £150,000.
    Mr Brown said he did not want to take that measure but "had to" because of the banking crisis and had decided that those with the "broadest shoulders" should bear the biggest burden.
    He also said he had been personally affected by the Fiona Pilkington case - the woman who killed herself and her daughter after years of bullying from local youths.

    Royal Mail plans
    He said he wanted a Britain where anti-social behaviour and crime were "dealt with quickly" and those who did not get redress would be able to take out an injunction at the expense of their local authority.
    Business Secretary Lord Mandelson denied that Labour had dropped its commitment to part-privatise Royal Mail, plans which were unpopular with some Labour backbenchers and the postal workers' union.

    The manifesto says "for the future, continuing modernisation and investment will be needed by the Royal Mail in the public sector".
    Lord Mandelson told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "We are not resiling from the legislation that we introduced originally." He said it had been shelved because of "market conditions" and they could return to it if they changed.
    Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Labour had promised "fairness and new politics" in 1997, 2001 and 2005: "They are doing it again. If they haven't managed to do it in 13 years, why would anyone believe they are going to do it this time?"
    Conservative frontbencher Chris Grayling told the BBC the manifesto was "a series of reheated promises that Labour have already broken once, we had a series of ideas that had been taken and we had a number of big promises that had absolutely no costing attached to them at all".
    He said the pledge not to raise income tax was not believable as Mr Brown had already increased tax rates and was planning to increase National Insurance next year, which was a "jobs tax".
    Conservative leader David Cameron has been visiting a builders' merchant in the Reading West constituency in Berkshire and to a brewery in west London to talk to staff about his party's plans to block the bulk of the National Insurance rise.
    The Conservatives will unveil their manifesto on Tuesday, the Lib Dems on Wednesday.

    Source: BBC

    I forgot to say, let me know what you make of this? I'll be posting the Conservative and Liberal Democrat ones when they come out.

    Also highlight any important bits including the BBC interview tonight with the Liberal Democrat leader.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010
  8. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank's shazza interesting, and do you all like Gordon Brown better than Tony Blair?

    LATEST POLL ON HOW OBAMA'S DOING STATE-TO-STATE Scroll down the PD WEEK IN REVIEW~

    POLL
     
  9. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a really good question, I think I actually prefered Tony Blair to Gordon Brown because he was okay to start off with...It only got ugly when 9/11 happened and the so-called 'war on terror' started happening. I think because Gordon Brown isn't really all that great when speaking with the public and meeting the public (although I have to say he's getting better), he doesn't really have a tv face or personality. So the Leaders Debate on Thursday will be a real challenge for him (This is basically like the Presidential Debates you have in the states).


    Cameron: Tory manifesto will change Britain for better

    David Cameron: ''The Labour way assumes that only big government can solve our problems''

    Conservative leader David Cameron has launched his party's election manifesto, which he says is a "plan to change Britain for the better". He said the "optimistic" plan would bring a "new kind of government" with less state and more "people power".
    Pledges include allowing people to set up their own schools and veto high council tax rises.
    Labour said it meant people would be left "on their own". The Lib Dems said it was "style over substance".
    In other election developments on Tuesday:
    In a speech launching the manifesto at Battersea Power Station in south London, Mr Cameron said it was the "the biggest call to arms this country has seen in a generation".
    He said no government could solve all problems on its own and he wanted "everyone to get involved", adding government should be the "partner of the big society, not its boss".
    BBC political editor Nick Robinson said there was a "difference in philosophy" between the Conservatives and Labour, with the Tories saying "government needs to be pushed along" by the general public, while Labour was pledging that "government can be on your side".

    [​IMG]MANIFESTO PLEDGES
    Community 'right to bid' to run post offices
    Eliminate bulk of structural deficit over a parliament
    Cut £6bn 'wasteful' spending in 2010/11
    Cut number of MPs by 10%
    Annual limit on non-EU economic migrants
    Give parents power to save local schools due to close
    Give voters power to sack MPs for "serious wrongdoing"
    Scrap ID cards
    MPs to get vote on repealing hunting ban
    Raise stamp duty threshold to £250k for first-time buyers

    more here.

    It'll be interesting to see the Lib Dems manifesto tommorow. Also UKIP lauched their manifesto which seemed like a joke especially when it came to the EU etc.

    In other global political news:

    Summit agrees to protect nuclear stocks 'in four years'

    World leaders have agreed to secure all vulnerable nuclear material within four years, US President Barack Obama has said. He said the four-point plan agreed by the 47 leaders at a summit in Washington would make a real contribution to a safer world.
    The plan calls for every nation to safeguard nuclear stocks and keep material out of terrorists' hands.
    Earlier the US and Russia agreed to get rid of some weapons-grade plutonium.
    "Today we are declaring that nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security," Mr Obama said at the close of the two-day summit.
    "We also agreed that the most effective way to prevent terrorists and criminals from acquiring nuclear materials is through strong nuclear security."
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  10. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    apologies in advance for my getting a little ranty here....

    very good question! brown really is deeply unpopular - i think partly because, as shazza says, he doesn't have the face or personality - which to me is quite sad because politics shouldn't BE about face or personality and as far as i'm concerned it's a real shame that it is.

    do i prefer brown or blair? hmm that's really tough. um... i liked blair at first because he rejuvenated the labour party and after 18 years or whatever it was of tory rule, he gave people something to believe in and a real hope for change. and for his first term, he pretty much delivered. but then his policy got increasingly right wing - i realise he was only really after the middle-voters, the ones who make or break an election, but given he was meant to be leading a *socialist* party it really was very sad, as far as i'm concerned he shredded the labour party.

    as for the unpopularity over the war (both on terror and in iraq), well... tony did himself no favours whatsoever on that score - the whole country knows that the primary reason he went into the war was to keep america sweet. now, obviously in some areas, britain needs america, or at least to keep on friendly relations, but there's a difference between a diplomatic friendship and arse licking. there was a reason there were so many cartoons/news references calling blair "bush's poodle". the scary friendship between them that seemed entirely one sided really didn't help.

    the fact that most people in this country felt the iraq war was illegal, and something like 2-3 million protested to that effect, and were then neatly ignored by blair really really didn't go down well. it was around that point his name started to change - many people still call him "bliar". of those that didn't protest, i think this was largely down to ignorance - not in a mean way. take my mum as the example; she said "well i'm sure the government know what they're doing, they have more facts than we do" - my mum is a reasonably intelligent woman but she was taken in. the point isn't that they knew what they were doing or otherwise, the point is that they are elected as representatives of the people and therefore have a moral duty to be open and accountable. the fact that blair actively pursued the "oh, don't worry little people, we know what we're doing' line really angered me. how dare he try to pull the wool over the eyes of people who voted for him? as thomas jefferson said "when the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fear the people, there is liberty" - maybe fear isn't quite the word here - although the way the government used the media to whip up a major panic certainly means it's plausible - but that also goes for knowledge - the government are representatives, they're voted by us to make decisions on our behalf, but as soon as those decisions become obscured, and the represented don't know the facts because the government is trying to obscure them, then they stop representing us and start ruling over us. that's a BIG problem.

    having said that brown was just as deep in the iraq poop as blair - now he's trying to save himself by saying he knew very little about it but god, he was the chancellor of the exchequer, there was NO WAY that britain's role in the war could have happened without his express consent. him claiming ignorance now is just another reason for people to be against him. the same goes for quite a few members of blair's cabinet who are all furiously back pedalling, saying they didn't know what was going on, they weren't privy to meetings, they were secretly opposed but felt obliged to vote in favour etc, everyone knows it's bs, if the cabinet members say they don't know what's going on, they're lying.

    that said, it has recently emerged that blair promised bush that we'd be behind the us all the way in the war, in private, with no consultation with his government OR people - which to me is verging on dictatorship (although even so, the idea that the cabinet had no idea about this is ludicrous) the fact that in the recent enquiries into the whole way we went into that war he just smarmed and smug smiled his way around questions without actually answering any of them beyond the very vaguest terms just goes to show what a slimy bastard he really is.

    the other problem - with both of them - is their extremely heavy handed approach to legislating. they have introduced more laws in their term as government than *any* other government in history. something like 3000 brand new laws (with accompanying offences) were passed in about 2-3 years which is just crazy. i'm a socialist and i'm mostly in favour of centralised, "big" government (whereas the conservative/Republican view is for localised, small government) but even i think that's just bloomin' ridiculous! it means the police now spend more time doing paperwork than their actual jobs, also the police (and to a lesser extent legal industry) have totally lost track of what is and isn't a legal offence, and that means they just start abusing their powers. there is all kinds of evidence (video, pictures, testimony etc) showing that the police now get jumpy over the smallest thing and try to crack down on it because they've lost all sense of what they're supposed to be doing. this is primarily in the area of "counter terrorism" laws (ha, yeah right! i appreciate fully that terrorism is a massive problem but god, london survived the ira for 30 odd years, and we never had this much loopy legislation then, we need to stop giving in to it; bringing a city/nation to its knees legally is exactly what the terrorists want!) - stuff like it's now not allowed to photograph or video the police - how are we meant to report their misdoings if we can't record it? and i'm not saying here that everyone should go around recording cops all the time, but the police are a public body, in public service, and as such, like the government they MUST be held to account. telling people it's illegal to record them if and when they do something wrong just removes a whole layer of accountability and makes them, in effect, above the law. this has got to silly season stages, tourists have been arrested for photographing landmarks because there happened to be a policeman in shot, that kind of thing.

    so, which do i prefer. well, apart from his crap persona, and his backtracking over iraq, brown is pretty good financially, or at least some of the time. blair... erm well yes he's a good statesman but he's a smarmy git, he just oozes condescension and "oh look at me i'm amazing" kind of vibes, which really annoys me. i guess i dislike them both about the same. and as you can see i have a very healthy distrust of the government, which, quite frankly, is as it should be, more people should try it :D

    *and breathe*
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  11. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinda of reminds of someone I know :lol: *coughs*davidcameron*coughs* :p

    I completely agree with everything you said also.

    The Liberal Democrat manifesto was pretty good today (atleast they were being honest!). But if I'm being honest I still can't trust any of the parties 100%. With all this scandals in expenses etc. who are we to trust? Cameron talks about giving power back to the people but do people really want that? Do we really want to run schools and sack MPs? Haven't we got enough going on as it is...isn't Democracy more about letting the people decide who they want to represent them in government rather than the people being more involved in the government or being part of the government as the conservatives put it.

    The real fun will start after the Leaders Debate tommorow. I hope one of the leaders is able to step outside the box and actually surprise us...
     
  12. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know most Americans loved Tony Blair, he's charismatic and charming and good-looking, and smart. He was all over the news back when him and Bush were negotiating , the Iraq war, so we saw him all the time. I don't see Gordon Brown hardly at all, but have heard he's a bit droll and boring. BTW what is Tony up to now?
     
  13. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    absolutely, cameron's said himself he wants to be the new blair, which considering they're meant to be on opposite sides seems a little weird.

    :)

    well to be fair that is a pretty classic cons standpoint, minimal, localised government, as opposed to the classic socialist/social democratic model of "big", centralised government. but i think you have a point, people nowadays are so apathetic and disillusioned with politics that the chances of them doing much for themselves on a wide scale are pretty slim.

    as for trust, i don't think any one can (or should, actually) ever trust a government. i don't think they should always be hounded by any means but i think the questioning of authority is far more important than people think. a population that allows a government to blindly lead them places is going to end up being dictated to before they know it (just look what happened with hitler, no decent opposition + apathy and the depression of an economic downturn = oops!). we vote for these people, we essentially give them their jobs and as such they are accountable to us, and we should be able and willing to hold them to that account.

    they're all so entwined with business interests, lobbies, private interests (and this has always been the case, way back into the earliest governments but it's particularly bad right now, i think stephen byers' comments about politicians being like taxis says it all) that really, what the voters think or want means squat. it's all about what corporate interests want. so no, i don't think they really can be trusted. although on the plus side at least we often end up hearing about this stuff these days, in the past government was far less media-transparent, so the people had no idea what went on (presumably much of the same), at least now, although the media have their own trust issues, we have a free press and freedom and means to learn just what they're up to.

    yes, exactly! it is about representation, or at least it should be, but these days i don't think they do a very good job of representing the people, they seem massively out of touch - did you see that c4 thing recently where they made a bunch of mps live on very poor estates for a week - none of them had a clue! they were shocked that people still lived in such conditions in this day and age but if they're meant to be representative of the people - how can they ignore and/or be utterly clueless of massive chunks of the population like that?

    i think it's unlikely, but i also hope so...

    well the thing about blair is that he does project a very very good image of himself, he's astoundingly good at self publicity, and PR. it took quite a long time for people here to see through it and we got it every day, so if you over in the states only got a small proportion of what we got (as i would assume is the case, even if he was there and in the news a lot, you wouldn't get as much of him as us, just as we don't see as much of obama as you do) it would be harder to chip off the polished front and see the real deal. i think it says a lot about blair - and about modern politics more generally - that most people (including many brits who never bothered to look beyond headlines) base their judgement of politicians on how good they are at self projection. blair's unpopularity here only really happened after he did one too many wrong things and people started realising how much of an image it was. it took quite a long time.

    brown is kind of boring but again, i don't think that should matter - what's important, surely, is whether someone's capable of running a constituency or a country, whether they can represent voters, whether they are knowledgeable and diplomatic, whether they're able to get things done etc, it shouldn't be about whether they're fun and smiley or glum and gloomy. i'm pretty certain that if it'd been a popularity contest (as opposed to a political one) in the past, churchill would've been screwed, he was a cantankerous old git!

    blair now is on the public lecture circuit i think, raking in cash based on his stories of how he ruled. i think he's also some kind of special envoy (for peace) on behalf of someone (the un i think) to the middle east, which frankly is a joke. that's like saying ahmedinejad should be special envoy to the usa on behalf of the middle east! he was also slated to be the president of the eu council but that never happened, thankfully. there was a huge fuss about it here because the guy that won was *gasp* a bit boring but i'd rather have a competent boring politician than an idiot that looks good. i mean, the guy they picked has flaws (notably that he's not hugely powerful politically which means he can be easily swayed by the big nations) but he was definitely a better choice than blair.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  14. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    *lisasimpson* I think maybe your calling is to be a speaker or at least a writer:thumbsup: Your comments are interesting and full of information. Thank's for explaining everything and even more;) I'm sure Blair is not perfect, everyone has flaws, but I sure did enjoying watching him speak when he was in power. And, although it was a movie I liked the actor who portrayed him in "The Queen", how he talked her into honoring Princess Diana. Now on our beloved President Obama:lol: I've never seen anything that wasn't above reproach, he's pretty damn awesome. Steadfast, faithful to his ideas and theories and stands strong. He doesn't let any naysayers get to him, has a high opinion of him self, which he should. He's got alot on his plate and takes it as a challenge, and so far, so good:bolian: Keep us all in the loop on what's happening over there..thank's~
     
  15. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    aww thanks - i wouldn't mind being a journalist actually but it would mean getting into bed with too many influential types (i mean metaphorically speaking!)

    well yeah, he was and is definitely a good speaker, he's a charismatic guy, in fact in political terms he'd almost certainly fit in max weber's charismatic leader category (i'm a big fan of max weber, i love his work!, and there are good points about him, but he relied far too much on image and covered up his lies with it which was a bad thing to do.

    i still haven't seen the film - it's partly because i'm so anti monarchist i just can't be bothered to sit through it, which is probably silly of me i guess. that said i *adore* michael sheen (who played blair), i think he's wonderful so maybe i will get around to it. he was fabulous in frost/nixon as well, and the damned united actually. he's played blair in something else for channel 4 *and* something for an HBO/BBC collaborative film, and every time he's interviewed it comes up that he's played blair three times. plus he's welsh which is always good as far as i'm concerned. his accent is just lush :D

    as for princess diana, hmm, well a whole other story really. i think the government were right to make the royals acknowledge her death (especially as *cue conspiracy theory* it was very very convenient for them - too convenient maybe?) but god, i really didn't like her at all. i don't like charles either (or any of the royals) but she really bothered me.

    i agree about obama, he definitely seems to know what he's talking about and has shown that he won't back down on something he really believes in which is important i think. he has made a few mistakes so far, judging from a european standpoint, but all presidents make mistakes, it goes with the job, and all the people who go on about how awful he is because he hasn't, in one year, undone all the havoc that bush wreaked in 8 years, are just deluding themselves. give the guy a chance!
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010

Share This Page