what I wish we had heard at the joint press conference

[winterbadger]

from "Love Actually"

Press Conference Reporter: Mr. President, has it been a good visit?

The President: Very satisfactory indeed. We got what we came for and our special relationship is still very special.

Press Conference Reporter: Prime Minister?

Prime Minister: I love that word "relationship". Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship. A relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to, erm... Britain. We may be a small country but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.

what we heard instead

(And yes, the context was slightly different, since Blair was in Washington today and in the film the psuedo-Bush is visiting #10 Downing Street. But still...)

Comments

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

The difference is that Hugh Grant's character in Love Actually wasn't GWB's little toadie who doesn't see what we've been dragged into as bullying.

The most distressing piece of news today was that because we Brits are going to be denied a referendum on the European Constitution, Mr. Blair may have to continue his lies, deceptions and spin for an extra couple of years on the pretext that he needs to stick around and 'clear up the mess'.
(On a sunnier Malcolm Rifkind, the old whet has thrown his hat into the Conservative leadership contest...*smile*)

[winterbadger]

The difference is that Hugh Grant's character in Love Actually wasn't GWB's little toadie who doesn't see what we've been dragged into as bullying.

My point (and Richard Curtis's) exactly.

The most distressing piece of news today was that because we Brits are going to be denied a referendum on the European Constitution, Mr. Blair may have to continue his lies, deceptions and spin for an extra couple of years on the pretext that he needs to stick around and 'clear up the mess'.

I think the government's decision to indefinitely postpone the referendum is actually a sensible one. What point is there in going to the expense of a referendum on a constitution that's a dead issue? With France and the Netherlands rejecting it, it's a dead letter. Holding a referendum on it in any other country is going to be like performing CPR on a corpse--a lot of work and effort and a guarantee of no movement at the end.

(On a sunnier Malcolm Rifkind, the old whet has thrown his hat into the Conservative leadership contest...*smile*)

A Thatcher hold-over? A Scot who can't even get elected in Scotland? Some bannerbearer for the Tories...

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

>I think the government's decision to indefinitely postpone the referendum is actually a sensible one. What point is there in going to the expense of a referendum on a constitution that's a dead issue? With France and the Netherlands rejecting it, it's a dead letter. Holding a referendum on it in any other country is going to be like performing CPR on a corpse--a lot of work and effort and a guarantee of no movement at the end.

There we differ. The reason Chirac allowed a referendum in France was that Britain was holding one. It would now be less than honourable to not go forward with our own. If the Constitution is properly explained (it's *very* British in style), even sceptics could get on board. The European Constitution is also nowhere near dead either (despite some gleeful press reports), so yes, although the French and Dutch votes were a big blow (and maybe a wake-up call) to forward movement in Europe things are by no means over.

>A Thatcher hold-over? A Scot who can't even get elected in Scotland? Some bannerbearer for the Tories...

That would be Major - Rifkind was Foreign Secretary under the last Conservative administration. MR is also along the same lines as Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine...very much of a moderate.
He also held what was always a marginal seat (well, since the 60s) in Edinburgh, so any swing like that, that happened in 1997 was going to put him out of the job.

As bannerbearers go, why not? Would you rather another chinless wonder like William Hague, a neo-nazi like Iain Duncan-Smith, a stop-gap like Michael Howard? Or would some real opposition to Gordon Brown (with the accompanying hard questions/real answers) be what the country deserves?
Like the Democrats here, I keep waiting for the Conservatives to put up someone with some probity as an authentic opposition, maybe when they do both Blair/Bush will find their deceit and lies finally mean that they're out of power.

[winterbadger]

Given that I think the Tories are bad for Britain, I'm perfectly happy with them putting up hopeless gorks 'till the cows come home.

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

> Given that I think the Tories are bad for Britain, I'm perfectly happy with them putting up hopeless gorks 'till the cows come home.

Tories are bad for Britain? You have looked at what Labour is doing to Britain, because it looks an awful lot like what the GOP have succesfully done in this country - divide and solidify their base. It's why Labour did so dreadfully south of the Watford Gap, and why they didn't do so badly above it - pump resources into their areas of support. I've lived under both Conservative and Labour governments and have to be honest, one that is willing not to be bullied (I'm thinking EU levy-veto, Falklands conflict, Gibraltar issue, willingness to stand up to the US (Liam Fox is da man!) is preferable to one that is poodle to what ought to be it's nemesis...you think Blair brought up the word Kyoto at any time today?

Your comment could also be applied to the thoughts of the GOP. I'm certain they'd be happy to see unelectable Democrats put up for election until they've fulfilled their agenda. (As much as I admire them, Clinton, Dean and Barak are never going to be electable in Red states, which means we'll end up with Edwards or Gephardt *blah*) Me, I'll take a responsible moderate government that's accountable for their actions, not the extremist variety that appears every day to be so similar in both the US and UK.

[winterbadger]

I continue to be amazed that you castigate Blair for being a poodle to Bush (when IMO he's just being what he's always been--a moderate who tries to conciliate everybody) while praising the Tories who would have been, if anything, more Bush than Bush. The only reason they've shown any opposition to the war has been because they were in opposition. If they had been in power in 2003, they would have been asking Bush whether he really wanted to bother going to the UN at all. You have this strange vision of Thatcher as this sweet, motherly lady who was kind to little children and furry animals and never said a harsh word to anyone, but she was more conservative, more violenty and unreasonably antiCommunist, and more mindlessly pro-industry than Reagan, and more bellicose than the entire Labour Party conference put together. You claim to want moderate government, but when you have it you don't like it because it's Labour. Kyoto? Do you seriously think Kyoto would even get mentioned in a Conservative government? Please! How you can square your beliefs in personal freedom, environmentalism, and independent conscience with support for conservatism... I love you, Sean, but I don't understand you.

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

>I continue to be amazed that you castigate Blair for being a poodle to Bush (when IMO he's just being what he's always been--a moderate who tries to conciliate everybody) while praising the Tories who would have been, if anything, more Bush than Bush.

I can see why you think Blair is a moderate, but he's not. A number of his policies have been deliberately divisive (in particular the allocation of resources to areas that house Labour's 'natural' voters) You only have to look at the results of the election to see that. If the Tories are more Bush than Bush (and that's a claim you could never make stick in any way shape or form, since none of our politicians wear their faith so openly...oh except Tony Blair...) why were Labour and GOP strategists working together on election planning, and why, before the last election in the US did the GOP decide not to meet with Liam Fox (head of the Conservative Party), yet the Kerry team was happy to? I think you might have your parties on their heads currently.

>The only reason they've shown any opposition to the war has been because they were in opposition. If they had been in power in 2003, they would have been asking Bush whether he really wanted to bother going to the UN at all.

Perhaps, but then John Kerry supported sending US troops into Iraq. The Conservatives took exactly the same track as the Democrats - supportive until it became obvious that the whole affair was a farce.

>You have this strange vision of Thatcher as this sweet, motherly lady who was kind to little children and furry animals and never said a harsh word to anyone, but she was more conservative, more violenty and unreasonably antiCommunist, and more mindlessly pro-industry than Reagan, and more bellicose than the entire Labour Party conference put together.

Now, that's not only insulting, it's wrong. I am not, and never have been a Thatcherite. I am a Conservative, but I am very clearly on the opposite end of the party to anyone linked closely to Thatcher. Just because you support the party, doesn't mean you're a fan of all of the policies - I know you're a huge fan of Joe Lieberman, aren't you? I identify closely with Ken Clark *not* Alan Clarke.

>You claim to want moderate government, but when you have it you don't like it because it's Labour. Kyoto? Do you seriously think Kyoto would even get mentioned in a Conservative government? Please! How you can square your beliefs in personal freedom, environmentalism, and independent conscience with support for conservatism...

Yeah, you're really reaching here. The present government is pushing through a bill for mandatory ID cards! On top of this, moderate Conservative governments (such as Heath and Major's) have had huge successes - who do you think brought Britain into the EU, decimilised the currency, brought Britain into the forerunner of the Euro, oh, and introduced first set of laws to make racism a crime? The Conservative Party fully supported Kyoto, it's not an issue along party lines, we Brits are bright enough to understand it's impact.

>I love you, Sean, but I don't understand you.

I've been writing this response over a few days, and no, you don't *smile*. I've been trying to decide if it was because you haven't been immersed in Britain as you're not a native (I'm willing to bet if you had you'd have been voting Liberal - *not* Labour) or if it's because you're not a moderate... neither of those conclusions is meant in any way as a slight, but as perhaps an explanation. I can't understand extremism either, but then of course I come from a nation where it's not the done thing *grin*

[ragdollgirl.livejournal.com]

g-d you sound interesting!! add me?