Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (74976)	2/17/2003 6:54:29 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Eastern Europeans should be seen and not heard?? And they call the US a bully? ROFLMHO! "It is not really responsible behavior," he [Chirac] told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

To: Rascal who wrote (74976)	2/17/2003 7:05:23 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 281500

Could be time for us to start listening to the opposition without getting all defensive. Trust me, I'm New Labour Why should the public believe a word politicians say anymore? Roy Hattersley Monday February 17, 2003 The Guardian politics.guardian.co.uk The New Labour leadership is at its least attractive when its members are at their most unctuous. And when the assurance, "you can trust me", is used as an obvious refuge from the necessity to conduct a rational argument, the politician who stands on his self-righteous dignity becomes absurd as well as an electoral liability. Unfortunately, there is no way of calculating how many votes John Reid lost for the government last week when he expressed the affront that he felt at the suggestion that, from time to time, the Downing Street press office attempts to manipulate the news. Doctor Reid - pretender to the title of Labour party chairman - was attempting to explain away the unfortunate comparison he had made between the security alert at London's Heathrow airport and the destruction of the World Trade Centre twin towers in which 3,000 people died. Part of his bluster was a refutation of the allegation that tanks at Heathrow were part of a publicity stunt designed to reconcile a reluctant nation to war. What sort of people, he asked, would exploit the tragedies of war in order to manipulate the press? One possible case immediately came to mind. The sort of people who had pretended that a research student's out-of-date thesis, speculating about the possibility of a terrorist attack, was an up-to-the-minute intelligence report predicting that one was likely to happen. And that was only one example of the dubious techniques which have been employed to justify almost every contentious aspect of government policy. That ministers behave in that way is now taken for granted by a nation which may still be offended, but is no longer surprised by revelations of dubious conduct. Twenty years ago, the valedictory comments of the retiring controller of the audit commission would have produced splash headlines in every national newspaper. Now the discovery that ministers tried to doctor his report to disguise the failure of PSI school building programmes only justifies half-a-dozen column inches. We all know that sort of thing goes on. The Gulf war has done no more than draw attention to a bad old habit. Last week, attempting to construct a moral justification for invading Iraq, the prime minister told the House of Commons that sanctions - as manipulated by Saddam Hussein - were denying essential vitamins to Iraq's children and vital drugs to Iraq's hospitals. The implication that opponents of the war are supporters of sanctions - or that without a war sanctions must continue - is clearly ridiculous. But it was not very different from the equally preposterous allegations he has made about the quality of teaching in this country - designed to justify changes in the organisation of schools which were intended to attract suburban votes rather than improve the quality of education. Saying whatever is convenient at the moment can only lead to eventual ridicule. Yet ministers still also say, "trust me". I recall the prime minister making that plea at the time of the Bernie Ecclestone "cash for cigarette advertising" scandal. And I remember writing in this column that I did not believe that Tony Blair had come to an improper agreement with the motor-racing industry. That is still my position. But I have no doubt that by repeating today my faith in his innate honesty, I have provoked half the readers of the column into wondering if I have gone soft or been bought off - buying off being part of the fashion of our time. Trust is indivisible. It cannot be enjoyed occasionally, or in part. Once it is lost, it is almost impossible for it to be regained. I retain my faith in Tony Blair as a basically honest politician. But the lapses by him, or the people around him, have (at very best) put that reputation in jeopardy. And it has put at risk the esteem in which thoroughly honest ministers - the Browns, the Darlings, the Hoons and the rest - are held. Five years ago, the prime minister could have won a single European currency referendum on the slogan, "Trust me". Not today. It is the lack of trust which has produced the slump in the Labour party opinion poll ratings - not opposition to war in itself, but a refusal to accept the government's word that war is necessary. People like me, open-minded six months ago, now ask themselves why, if there is a logical case for deposing Saddam - the possession of weapons combined with a tangible threat of their use - do ministers resort to such obviously phoney arguments? Doubts about a government's honesty would, normally, guarantee general election defeat, however great its majority. But the reduction in the prime minister's popularity has come at just the right moment to rescue Iain Duncan Smith. Why, his supporters will ask, change leader just as the revival begins? So, thanks to the ineptitude of the opposition, Labour will win again. Perhaps, in politics, it is better to be lucky than to be trusted.