PledgeBank is now closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse, but you can no longer create or sign pledges. Find out more…

United States
I’ll do it, but only if you’ll help


You are reporting the following comment to the PledgeBank team:

si,
Lets not get into peerages or Iraq (although I would dispite your figures http://www.bluejayway.net/pdf/lancet_10-...)

"As for the idea he's doing it for votes, he is going to step down before the next election so that idea makes exactly no sense. "

Is Blair going to step down before the elections? Really? Brilliant, I mean its only a few weeks now, 4th May 2006 isn't it. Oh, you meant the next general election. What about the elections this May, what about the elections next May, what about the elections in 2008 and 2009, Blair will probably still be in power for all these, Labour will be standing in all these elections, and Blair will be encouraging people to vote Labour, I am arguing that this pledge has an alterior motive, namely to give people a good impression of Blair and Labour, to encourage them to vote Labour.

"If this was a famous film actor, everyone would be supportive, yet actors only pretend to be heroes and their story is very much 'spun'."

Firstly, show me a pledge like this made by a famous film actor then and I'll go make comments on it.
An actor wouldn't and has no reason to do something like this, they pick up their very large paycheck, go on a few chatshows to promote and thats it, they don't need to spin an image. Actors do help and give money to charities but they don't make a song and dance about it to try and get people to see their latest film.
But thats not your point, you made a bad analogy but thats no crime, you are making an appeal for consistency, fair enough.

The impression I get from reading that though is that you agree with me, that you are saying 'Ok, Blair is using this to generate publicity, but don't make negative comments about it because other people do it too'
If that was what you meant or were implying, then it is very poor reasoning, on a par with primary school children (don't punish me miss, coz everyone else is being naughty as well).
Using that type of logic I could say "Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes and got away with it, so if I kill prostitutes I shouldn't go to prison" Do you agree with that type of argument?

Edmund, I did read your comment as I get email alerts and I briefly answered it in my last comment.

"Cameron would be a hero" really? Tony Blair was a hero to many people once in 1997. But I would never consider a politician a hero, especially not David Cameron, who at best is a slighty more bearable alternative to Blair, but otherwise uses exactly the same tactics that I dislike.
The reason I am making negative comments about this pledge has nothing to do with my thoughts on Blairs policies, and everything to do with him using this supposedly non partisan site to further his political agenda.

"This is the sort of thing a Prime minister should be doing anyway."
Well, I could argue this is the sort of thing a london MP or councillor should be doing. Fair enough this is a good thing, I've said that about 3 times now.

My concerns are:
Q:Why now? A:The elections.
Q:Why here? A:The elections.

si, Edmund and anyone who supports the pledge:

I laid out my argument concisely and clearly in my last comment (00:03 Tuesday 11th April). If you disagree with my reasoning, the conclusions I have drawn or have a different alterior motive that is more plausible, please tell me.

If you can persuade me that I am wrong, I would be happy to apologise and might even sign up myself.

The pattern of replies has mainly been to stress the good this pledge will do, and more recently to plead for Blair to be fairly treated, I think both those are completely irrelevant to my argument.
Sam Hayes, 13 years ago.

Report abusive, suspicious or wrong comment

Please let us know exactly what is wrong with the comment, and why you think it should be removed.


:



Navigation