True Colours shining through

[thebish]

Like them or loathe them (doesn't matter either way) - Blair and Brown carried weight in Europe - their opinions were courted and sought... (Brown as a financial heavyweight... Blair as a hollywood glamourpuss)

Look at that again Bish. Then ask yourself, "did I really just type that?"

I don't see how you could deny that Brown was seen as a financial heavyweight in Europe.

[Prufrock]

Ridiculous to suggest he wasn't. Ridiculous to suggest that, whatever your views on them as individuals or politicians, those two weren't massive 'players'. Put it this way, once they're gone from the top two jobs, can you imagine any European or global institution even considering, say, DC as it's president, or Georgie as it's head of the monetary fund. Sarkozy wouldn't have had the balls to tell Blair to keep his nose out. I don't actually think DC is the anti-christ (Osbourne can feck off, but Cameron I don't dismiss) many would portray him. Particularly in Europe I get the impression that he gets we have to be part of it, to even remotely count on the world stage, but his party don't.

[Hoboh]

Ridiculous to suggest he wasn't. Ridiculous to suggest that, whatever your views on them as individuals or politicians, those two weren't massive 'players'. Put it this way, once they're gone from the top two jobs, can you imagine any European or global institution even considering, say, DC as it's president, or Georgie as it's head of the monetary fund. Sarkozy wouldn't have had the balls to tell Blair to keep his nose out. I don't actually think DC is the anti-christ (Osbourne can feck off, but Cameron I don't dismiss) many would portray him. Particularly in Europe I get the impression that he gets we have to be part of it, to even remotely count on the world stage, but his party don't.

I'd wager given a referendum that most of the country wouldn't "get it" also! hence the reason Europrats deny democracy because its only democracy if they get the yes vote and people on here defend this and deny the whole Euro thing is German dictatorship via the back door. I don't care how much wriggling you Europhiles do on this one, you cannot deny you are undemocratic! exactly why some of us do not want any deeper involvement with Europe.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ridiculous to suggest he wasn't. Ridiculous to suggest that, whatever your views on them as individuals or politicians, those two weren't massive 'players'. Put it this way, once they're gone from the top two jobs, can you imagine any European or global institution even considering, say, DC as it's president, or Georgie as it's head of the monetary fund. Sarkozy wouldn't have had the balls to tell Blair to keep his nose out. I don't actually think DC is the anti-christ (Osbourne can feck off, but Cameron I don't dismiss) many would portray him. Particularly in Europe I get the impression that he gets we have to be part of it, to even remotely count on the world stage, but his party don't.

What (global) jobs of any significance/prestige have either Brown or Blair taken up since leaving office?

But it's not like we're comparing like for like here - if DC and GO are in office for a decade with the automatic gravitas/experience on the world stage that comes with that, then we'll talk, but for now the comparison would be with a pre-millenium Blair and Brown, surely?

[Prufrock]

Even if they are in office for the next ten years, can you even imagine George Osbourne being mentioned in the same breath as 'IMF'? Blair was instantly liked, partly due to the fact that at the time many of the world leaders shared his politics, but also because he was leader of a Britain that didn't treat the rest of the world with at best weary disdain.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Even if they are in office for the next ten years, can you even imagine George Osbourne being mentioned in the same breath as 'IMF'? Blair was instantly liked, partly due to the fact that at the time many of the world leaders shared his politics, but also because he was leader of a Britain that didn't treat the rest of the world with at best weary disdain.

Well it depends on whose breath we're talking about what value we attach to it.

If, somehow, GO is in office for 10 years and is seen to have done a good job, then yes, I can 'imagine' it.

And as for Blair, yes, I daresay that many world leaders of his generation did 'share his politics' and look where that consensus has got us! (Which is not to say that I subscribe to your revisionist view of Blair's being near universally liked and respected.)

[Lord Kangana]

I'm not sure I would compare Blair and Bush's politics, save for them both being warmongering c*nts.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not sure I would compare Blair and Bush's politics, save for them both being warmongering c*nts.

Well they both enjoyed a deficit, even in the good years, for example...

[Lord Kangana]

But by approaching the problem from two different ideologies.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But by approaching the problem from two different ideologies.

Actually I don't think either of them was ideological on domestic policy.

[Lord Kangana]

OOh, not sure abot that. Bush is old school no new taxes/trickle down economics of his dad. Actually, it was his dad's team with him as the puppet (perhaps "figurehead" would be less inflammatory?). Blair was very ideological. His ideology revolved around him appearing simultaneously both more powerful and benevolent than Gordon Brown in the press. The success of both these approaches can be measured in the current mess.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

OOh, not sure abot that. Bush is old school no new taxes/trickle down economics of his dad. Actually, it was his dad's team with him as the puppet (perhaps "figurehead" would be less inflammatory?). Blair was very ideological. His ideology revolved around him appearing simultaneously both more powerful and benevolent than Gordon Brown in the press. The success of both these approaches can be measured in the current mess.

As I say, my own take is that it's hard to look at Bush's (over)spending record and say that he subscribed to any conservative fiscal ideology.

As for Blair... I don't think what you have just described there, however inaccurately (in my opinion, admittedly mainly based on Jonathan Powell's obviously pro-Blair/anti-Brown memoirs), amounts to an ideology.

[Lord Kangana]

That they couldn't achieve the goals of their ideology does not necessarily gainsay that they followed them. In short, whatever system Bush subscribed to, it is still an inescapable truth that the overwhelming majority of people expect more from their governments than simply controlling money supply and inflation. Thats why politics becomes messy, even when you start out with the best of intentions. Or what you believe to be the best of intentions.

Just as an aside, the Clarke-Brown years (I think) still reamain Britains best by most economic indicators (as chancellors, you understand) in the modern era.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

That they couldn't achieve the goals of their ideology does not necessarily gainsay that they followed them.

Yes, I understand that distinction but I stand by my view that neither was terribly ideological in the way I understand the term. I actually, I dont' know the Bush case well enough to be that certain, but I'm confident enough saying it about Blair.

I guess this is where we agree to disagree...

Just as an aside, the Clarke-Brown years (I think) still reamain Britains best by most economic indicators (as chancellors, you understand) in the modern era.

Depending on what mood I was in, I'd tell you that the groundwork was laid before they got there or that the good years look a bit hollow when you consider what followed them...

[Lord Kangana]

But its an accepted schism of capitalism that economies run in cycles (indeed, its the principle reson why Brown's "end to boom and bust" was so absurd)?

Anyway, I believe that we are now leaving the Thatcher-Reagan consensus era of economic approach (broadly Monetarism), just as we moved on from the Attlee/peace dividend consensus (broadly Keynsian). Its just a hunch, but I believe this present government will just about get a handle on the economic situation, then because of policy impact lag they'll lose their mandate by a narrow majority to a David Milibaad led Labour party, who will actually enact the Big Society idea more effectively under better economic conditions. That or we're all f*cked and staring into the abyss, but I'm a glass half-full kinda guy.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyway, I believe that we are now leaving the Thatcher-Reagan consensus era of economic approach (broadly Monetarism), just as we moved on from the Attlee/peace dividend consensus (broadly Keynsian). Its just a hunch, but I believe this present government will just about get a handle on the economic situation, then because of policy impact lag they'll lose their mandate by a narrow majority to a David Milibaad led Labour party, who will actually enact the Big Society idea more effectively under better economic conditions. That or we're all f*cked and staring into the abyss, but I'm a glass half-full kinda guy.

I've said before that I'm not as partisan as people think - I'd take that vision of the future now if it were on the table!

[Prufrock]

Even if they are in office for the next ten years, can you even imagine George Osbourne being mentioned in the same breath as 'IMF'? Blair was instantly liked, partly due to the fact that at the time many of the world leaders shared his politics, but also because he was leader of a Britain that didn't treat the rest of the world with at best weary disdain.

Well it depends on whose breath we're talking about what value we attach to it.

If, somehow, GO is in office for 10 years and is seen to have done a good job, then yes, I can 'imagine' it.

And as for Blair, yes, I daresay that many world leaders of his generation did 'share his politics' and look where that consensus has got us! (Which is not to say that I subscribe to your revisionist view of Blair's being near universally liked and respected.)

Instantly liked is not the same as near universally liked and respected. What I would say is he and Clinton certainly got on, Shroeder initially liked him, and Chirac respected him about as far as it is likely a centre right French President would. I think it is important to mention Sarkozy, whilst at one time being Chirac's 'heir' (pre MAHASIVE falling out), was always considered more open to Britain and America than the Franco-German obsessed Big Jaques, and yet it is difficult to imagine Chirac being quite so dismissive towards Blair as M.Sark was to Cameron. What I would say is they listened a lot more to Blair. They all seem dismissive towards Cameron, which I suspect is a result of the fact so much of his are are of the Little England introspective wont.

[Prufrock]

Ridiculous to suggest he wasn't. Ridiculous to suggest that, whatever your views on them as individuals or politicians, those two weren't massive 'players'. Put it this way, once they're gone from the top two jobs, can you imagine any European or global institution even considering, say, DC as it's president, or Georgie as it's head of the monetary fund. Sarkozy wouldn't have had the balls to tell Blair to keep his nose out. I don't actually think DC is the anti-christ (Osbourne can feck off, but Cameron I don't dismiss) many would portray him. Particularly in Europe I get the impression that he gets we have to be part of it, to even remotely count on the world stage, but his party don't.

I'd wager given a referendum that most of the country wouldn't "get it" also! hence the reason Europrats deny democracy because its only democracy if they get the yes vote and people on here defend this and deny the whole Euro thing is German dictatorship via the back door. I don't care how much wriggling you Europhiles do on this one, you cannot deny you are undemocratic! exactly why some of us do not want any deeper involvement with Europe.

I'm intrigued Hoboh, as to how you would argue the EU is undemocratic? It's oft posited, and I'd like to hear why you think it so?

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure I would compare Blair and Bush's politics, save for them both being warmongering c*nts.

FTR, I didn't mean Bush.

Hard to describe anyone who turns a surplus into a deficit as an ideological conservative.

[Hoboh]

Ridiculous to suggest he wasn't. Ridiculous to suggest that, whatever your views on them as individuals or politicians, those two weren't massive 'players'. Put it this way, once they're gone from the top two jobs, can you imagine any European or global institution even considering, say, DC as it's president, or Georgie as it's head of the monetary fund. Sarkozy wouldn't have had the balls to tell Blair to keep his nose out. I don't actually think DC is the anti-christ (Osbourne can feck off, but Cameron I don't dismiss) many would portray him. Particularly in Europe I get the impression that he gets we have to be part of it, to even remotely count on the world stage, but his party don't.

I'd wager given a referendum that most of the country wouldn't "get it" also! hence the reason Europrats deny democracy because its only democracy if they get the yes vote and people on here defend this and deny the whole Euro thing is German dictatorship via the back door. I don't care how much wriggling you Europhiles do on this one, you cannot deny you are undemocratic! exactly why some of us do not want any deeper involvement with Europe.

I'm intrigued Hoboh, as to how you would argue the EU is undemocratic? It's oft posited, and I'd like to hear why you think it so?

Very easy, the EU and its supporters do not support member states holding referendums, pressure is heaped upon states NOT to have them.
Why? because they realise that a politicians view of Europe is not the same as the general publics, they play the elitist game and the power brokers are in Bonn.
You see twice the Germans via massive military might have tried to dominate Europe and failed they were on course to do it via ecconomics untill forced to shell out lord knows what on regaining the former East Germany during which other European ecconomies grew to a size they could no longer afford to dominate so now they go the political route!

Why don't you and other Europhiles press for a referendum on the EU if you are convinced it's SO good for us? or do you worrie you won't get the answer you want, are you actually just as undemocratic as the EU?