No, he should be sacked for failure to perform and be replaced by somebody with an ounce of decency.
2006-08-14 01:42:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by India 55 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I assume you are thinking about the arrest of the alleged terrorists and consequent events in the air industry, as this was the major news story last week. If Blair had come back just before the arrests it might conceivably have warned them, so no. Anyway, there was nothing he could do at that point.
Blair should have given a timely account to Parliament of his and the UK Government's actions concerning the crisis in Israel and the Lebanon, for which reason he should probably have been in the UK anyway.
There are plenty of things, on a number of issues, which most people in Britain think Blair should have done, or done differently, before he went on holiday.
2006-08-14 04:15:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Philosophical Fred 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, if only for the entertainment value of watching John Prescott trying to do a speech and make himself sound less thick than usual. It was like he was doing a very bad impression of Blair. I wish I could have seen the face of the person who must have spent hour in rehearsal just getting him up to that level...
2006-08-14 04:09:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by lickintonight 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, he has to have a holiday too, he would not doubt have spoken to John Reid who's job in government is to deal with issues like the threat of terrorism. I would have said yes had there been a terrorist act, can you imagine how many threats there must be in the course of time that we don't hear about. This one was so high profile as it involved airports and the measures that had to be taken. I imagine there must be far more than we get to hear about. Don't remember people being so wound up when IRA were blowing people up or planting bombs.
2006-08-14 21:52:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
come home to do what? His staff are more than capable of running the country, if he has to always be there to hold their hand I dont think I want that government. If they needed a decision on anything they can always phone him.
Besides, he knew about this before he went and spoke to Bush about it, this thing has been going on for weeks but only the public have been told now. By the time we heared about it the whole thing had been dealt with and handled.
2006-08-14 01:47:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Preacher 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No...the real pain is that he is coming home this week!!!!
I'd definitly vote for him if he said he would stay abroad.
Mind you, we have Two Jags Prescott in charge at the moment. So we have a chinless wonder running affairs of state more concerned with dreaming of his next 10 gallon hat and the wild west!!!! YEEEHAAA!
2006-08-14 01:59:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.
Perhaps we could also export Prescott and the rest of the cabinet as well and have them arrested if they return on suspicion of being incompetent meglomaniacs.
Ideally, this would be followed by sending them on rendition flights to eastern europe for "questioning" until they confess...
2006-08-14 01:51:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nothing to say? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes he should have come home last week. I find it strange that he is always on holiday when ever sometime like last week happens, he was away when the tube and bus bombs went off.
2006-08-14 01:45:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Little Miss L 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. He's entitled to time with his family, just like anyone else. And I'm not entirely sure what he would have come back to do. Make a speech?
2006-08-14 02:45:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by babyalmie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No why should he, I think that you over estimate Tony's influence on current events he is seen as siding with the us so his influence is negligible
2006-08-14 01:52:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. What good can he do. He's created the problems and seems unable to stop himself from creating more. He shouldn't come back at all
2006-08-14 01:46:06
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋