Martin2005

Another rant from the ill informed

Devildog

Ok, Martin. Tell us. Where does your "correct" information come from?

Curious because:

If its from Blair himself, or his aides it will be spin
If its from Brown, it will be spin
If its from the Labour party it will be spin
If its from pro Blairites it will be spin
If its from anti blairites it will be spin
If its because your boffing Cherie on the side, well it will probably be from an alternate reality.
And if its from the media (in any shape of form) - well, it will just be sh!te.

I base my opinions on events. And those events are pretty clear to see.

So, do tell.

Martin2005

If you mean what book am I reading (you go on like my views are based solely on this) then its 'Blair Unbound' by Andrew Seldon, he's a political historian, and has written Biography's of all the past significant PM's.
It's a full account of Blairs second and third term in office, and it's a bloody good read, if you like that sort of thing.


Hope that answers your question

[Davey]

Thats like saying, "I told you, you would miss cancer" after recovering from cancer and getting AIDS!

SJ_Skyline

"Blair Unbound"...

I think I'll wait until it's released straight to DVD

Martin2005

Sorry you lost me there matey

Devildog

Cheers.

The reason I ask, is that the information upon which you are basing your views is unlikely to be significantly more accuate than that upon which that those with opposing views to you are basing theirs.

Much of Blair's actions are very recent and many remain current policy. As such, it is unlikely that God himself would have the full rundown, let alone a political historian.

In which case the sources of information, and hence impartiality of what is written in that book must be brought into question.

You are of course quite entitled to your views, however to accuse others of being ill-informed is somewhat hypocritical IMO.

At this stage in the proceedings there can only be much conjecture (or simply untruths)

You don't make a successful politcal career by being fully transparent in your views, dealings and acts, let alone become PM.

Martin2005

I'm almost lost for words - given your criteria everything ever written by anyone is either a lie or inaccurate.

This book doesn't set out to be political, it's a very detailed account of the decision that were made, who made them, and why they were made, and is all been painstakingly co-oberated. It's not a 'Blair is great' lovefeast, it's pretty scathing in places.

Please don't take my word for it, there are plenty of reviews of the book on the web, have a look.

I suspect if there was book that was nowhere near as well researched that attacked and rubbished Blair, then you would be first in-line to say how accurate it was.

Lets have a bit of balance, it not a big conspriacy you know!

Devildog

Where it deals with subjective matters such as this, then yes, pretty much in my experience.

Coroberated by whom? Christ man, I doubt very much anyone would be sticking their hand up to the Iraq affair, cash for peerages, etc, etc, etc saying, "that was me" - it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt in the event of any subsequent legal proceedings. No one important enough to know would be stupid enough to make definative comment.

Ah yes, that other media source renowned for its acuraccy - the WWW

Not at all. I don't base my opinion of Blair on something I've read. I base my opinion of Blair on what the man says and does and the outcome which arises from that.

Its not a conspiracy - its politics .

Martin2005

We aren't going to agree....

It's impossible to have an sensible balanced discussion with someone who rejects out of hand anything that does not fit with their view of the world.

_RIP_

Some people just like to hear the sound of their own voice (written word on SN). And I'm not pointing any fingers