Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/5/1315228091579/blair-murdoch-007.jpg


The former prime minister was reportedly present in March last year when Murdoch’s two daughters by his third wife were baptised on the banks of the Jordan.

The information was not made public and its disclosure in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in Vogue will prove highly embarrassing for Mr Blair.

His close ties to the Murdochs could explain his reluctance to condemn the News International phone hacking scandal.

In July, it was reported that he asked Gordon Brown to put pressure on Tom Watson, the Labour MP who helped expose the scandal, to drop his investigation.

No mention was made of Mr Blair’s role as a godfather to Grace and he did not appear in pictures of the ceremony, which took place at the spot where it is said that Jesus was baptised.

However, the facts emerged in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in the fashion magazine.



What a great guy! And one of Britain's best PM's ever........and a staunch Labour man at that!

The thing about Tony Blair was that after lifting your wallet he could make you feel grateful for the experience.

There you go! Everybody can fawn over Tony here.

Two Bambi. Aw! My heart has softened and my anger is washed away.

Thank you, Shirina.

I figured I would take the notion of "fawning" to a whole new level.

You're quite welcome, sickchip.

May We Be Truly Thankful...

(blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

" At least I rid the nation of that nonentity John Major, and ended 18 Tory years- what more did you want...?!

" At least I rid the nation of that nonentity John Major, and ended 18 Tory years- what more did you want...?!

Tory lite policies and accelerated inequality please, Tony.

Whatever you do, don't use a landslide victory to help ordinary working class people. Thanks Tone........grrrrr yr grrreat!

I've checked the copyright laws Ivan, apparently I'm fine to post info from the public domain as long as I don't change it.

Not acceptable. You are in flagrant breach of OUR clearly explained rules concerning copyright. I would be foolish indeed to take your word that you're "fine to post" a full article of 33 lines - simply because you can't be bothered to edit it - and risk litigation. I'm not editing it for you, so it has been deleted.

Once again you seem determined to break our rules, and this is your last warning. Any further violation will be reported to the moderators. Ivan.

So Blair far from being a hero, needlessly started/helped start a war by doctoring info prior to showing it to Parliament. Not sure, but believe that pretty much makes him complicit in the deaths of the youth of this country on behalf of his long term goal of becoming a million/billionaire. On the positive side he's nearly achieved his socialist dream?

Documents released in 2011 revealed detailed discussions by Labour ministers with some of the world’s largest oil companies, including Britain’s BP, to carve up the Iraq's oil reserves in the run-up to the invasion.

Since the, Blair has gone on to benefit from lucrative contracts with regimes in the Middle East—most notably Kuwait—through his company, Tony Blair Associates, all the while continuing to deny cutting any deal with another immensely wealthy and powerful individual, former US President George W. Bush, in the run-up to the Iraq war.

None of this was even touched on by the Leveson inquiry. Like the numerous inquiries into the Iraq war before it, it has no interest in getting to the truth but instead seeks to bury it while protecting those responsible.

As if to reinforce the point, Blair’s testimony ended with Leveson inviting him to be part of a select group helping draft proposals for future regulation of the media.


Now if that isn't proof of the system (political class) looking after it's own, what is?


Go to the World Socialist website for more indepth info!!!

Almost forgot, the minute the cheating tw*t left Downing Street he was (still is) on a retainer of $5,000,000 per annum from JP Morgan. Not bad for somebody that (like all socialists) only thinks of the working man???!!!!

tlttf wrote:Documents released in 2011 revealed detailed discussions by Labour ministers with some of the world’s largest oil companies, including Britain’s BP, to carve up the Iraq's oil reserves in the run-up to the invasion.

Since the, Blair has gone on to benefit from lucrative contracts with regimes in the Middle East—most notably Kuwait—through his company, Tony Blair Associates, all the while continuing to deny cutting any deal with another immensely wealthy and powerful individual, former US President George W. Bush, in the run-up to the Iraq war.

None of this was even touched on by the Leveson inquiry. Like the numerous inquiries into the Iraq war before it, it has no interest in getting to the truth but instead seeks to bury it while protecting those responsible.

As if to reinforce the point, Blair’s testimony ended with Leveson inviting him to be part of a select group helping draft proposals for future regulation of the media.


Now if that isn't proof of the system (political class) looking after it's own, what is?


Go to the World Socialist website for more indepth info!!!

tlttf,

A most perceptive post.....I too found it a little galling when Leveson invited Blair (correct spelling) to help draft proposals - as you point out it stinks of the system/establishment looking after it's own. It begs the question whether these inquiries are just staged dramas to appease the public and fool them into believing something is actually being done?

tlttf.

Iraq Body Count puts the number of civilian deaths at 106,769.

That's since the invasion. Check out what occured during sanctions between 1991 - 2003. Sadaam may have been a 'brutal dictator', but his foes were perhaps more brutal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Thanks for starting the thread sickchip. I know we rarely agree on our politics but neither of us appear to have been hoodwinked by the snake oil salesman. I wonder how long the thread will survive?

I wonder how long the thread will survive?.

Here we go again, back on the snide remarks.

This thread is quite in order, as sickchip has complied with the requirements, provided an opening posting and kept it within the copyright guidelines.

What won't survive are cut-and-paste messages which ignore the rules and put not only the future of the forum in jeopardy but risk legal action against the administrators. If you want people to be able to read an entire article, all you need to do is post the link to it. Weird innit?

Ivan, it must great for your ego to choose which posts to leave (or not).
Regarding copyright. If I take something published within the public domain and do not change it and ensure that the author is recognised, I've broken no laws at all. I note that you naturally find it offensive for something not right about your beloved Blair to be seen as offensive and should be altered or removed at your whim as the administrator (are you related the all powerful Oz). Report away as your continuous berating and changing of my posts are getting a wee bit tedious.

But it was under the Blair government that relations with the arch-reactionary press baron reached their zenith, as the Labour Party embraced his big-business agenda. The courtship began in 1995, when, shortly after ditching Labour’s constitutional commitment to social ownership, Blair was invited to address executives at Murdoch’s News Corporation at a gathering at Hayman Island.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/blai-m30.shtml

There Ivan is that better, or does it still say nasty thing about your hero?

Murdoch’s acolyte Tony Blair testifies before Leveson inquiry

The trip, Blair told the inquiry, was part of a “very deliberate and very strategic” attempt by Labour to secure the oligarch’s backing.

Once in government, Murdoch’s influence was so pervasive that he was described as the 24th member of Blair’s cabinet. The pair were so personally close that, after standing down as prime minister in 2007, Blair went on to become godfather to Murdoch’s youngest daughter, attending her 2011 baptism on the River Jordan, complete with flowing white robes.

http://www.is4profit.com/business-advice/general-advice/copyright-basic-facts/using-copyright-material.html?gclid=CMWU0ozWp7ACFYwQfAodRR3wXQ

Do I always need permission to copy or use copyright material?

No, there are certain exceptions to the rights given to the copyright owner. For example, limited use of works may be possible for non-commercial research and private study, criticism or review, reporting current events, judicial proceedings and teaching in schools. But if you are copying large amounts of material and/or making multiple copies then you may still need permission. Also it is generally necessary to include an acknowledgement of the name of the copyright work and its author.

Oh dear Herr Ivan, one of us is wrong and it aint me1

Tony Blair: A great Labour man and Prime Minister

Now is that irony or is it post-ironic?

In order to fully comprehend Tony Blair it is only necessary to view him as an Actor. His entire career has been role-play, cast as "World Statesman".
Everything he did was designed to keep him Centre-stage, under the spotlight, and everyone around was in a supporting role, including the Commander-in-Chief of the World's most important standing army.

He managed to reduce Parliament to mere scenery, and now deals with a Public Enquiry as others might appear on the Parkinson Show. Machiavelli could have learned from Blair.

Goading and provoking someone is not acceptable tlttf here on this forum tlttf, especially when it is directed against The Administrator.

You and I have never seen eye to eye on political matters and have both resorted to rudeness to one and other. We have both agreed to cease this rather childish nonsense therefore let us keep it that way.

Ivan is under strict rulings by forumotion regarding many things here including copyright abuse. You must understand that he could be held liable in certain cases should he fail to address the issues.

You have kindly left a link on one post in the appropriate manner. This is all that is being asked of you and the sarcasm is not necessary, if you do not mind.
It is our responsibilty as members of this very worthwhile forum to abide by the rules for all our sakes as the forum could be closed and leaving Ivan in trouble.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Regards,
Mel.

sickchip.

Thank you for going to the trouble of adding this thread on Blair. I shall answer you as promised later today, when time permits.

http://www.leedsne.co.uk/50_labour_achievements

Sickchip. I think the above link covers the question on Blair's
achievements, rather than have me going on at length.

Hey guys! I notice things are getting quite heated that's the one thing you can truly rely on Politics for, a good old-fashioned heated debate that will undoubtedly get personal and even churlish! Doh.

Unlike Politicians when it comes to forums you have to abide by certain rules and if you dont agree with them, spitting vengeance is not very becoming, in fact its hurtful and unjust.

There is not a Politician in history without major fault, quite simply if you're poor then Labour is the party for you and if not then why not back the Conservatives...

The upsetting part is when friends fall out over opinions and occurrences linked to our attention grabbing Politicians. So from one daft blonde to a bunch of politically minded debators, take a step back, think before you act and remember as confining as it maybe, rules are rules...

Personally I think Tony Blair was a very good PM....Up until the Iraq war that is. But Sickchip is 100% right, Blair appealed more to the likes of me (A Tory) than he did to true Labour Socialists.....Maybe he looked at 18 years of Tory rule ans thought 'Well if you can't beat them, join them'.....and we got Tory lite.
Disappointingly he seems to have used all the good work he did to then go on and do something that normally Labour supporters on here would despise, but I guess it's ok as he wore the Labour badge for a few years?

PS......I would love to see Blair in PMQs up against Cameron...Blair would run rings round him and reduce Cameron to a blubbering mess

Goading and provoking someone is not acceptable tlttf here on this forum tlttf, especially when it is directed against The Administrator

This is my last moan on the subject as I am sure that TLTTF and I are big enough and ugly enough look after ourselves......but I can go back through my posting history and find dozens of examples of goading, slating and attempts at name calling or hurtfull comments directed at me because I'm a Tory.
To be honest I am not really that bothered and as the administrators will tell you, I have never made a complaint and never will....I know passions will get high when we are discussing passionate subjects.....but please do not try and hide behind 'the rules' only when it suits you, only then to come back and behave in exactly the same way to Tory posters on Cutting edge.

Rant over.......Sorry, and now back to the thread

Mel wrote:http://www.leedsne.co.uk/50_labour_achievements

Sickchip. I think the above link covers the question on Blair's
achievements, rather than have me going on at length.

Mel,

Thanks for the link. I would say there are quite a few things on that list that are debateable - as to whether they are good or bad. For instance the opening point:

1) A Rising National Minimum Wage: It didn't really rise when measured against inflation - especially house price/rents, energy costs, etc. People on minimum wage have gradually become worse off or more dependent on top-up benefits. The minimum wage is also abused in that it is used across a range of job types now that should pay more. And let's not forget whilst the poor got poorer under Blair's New Labour, the rich got richer; thus inequality was accelerated under Blair's watch.

There are other questions that could be debated, such as the level of public spending evidenced in the list provided - neccessary/affordable??

However, I don't think there is much point in debating it too much - it is quite an extensive list and I fear we'd simply head down blind alleys, and wind up merely agreeing to disagree on many points.

I do, simultaneously, concede there are some commendable achievements on the list you've provided.

A very good and decent post from you blue at 12:28.

Not so good at 12:38 though. This myth that "because I'm a Tory" you are subjected to "hurtfull comments" etc, is not true unless you have provoked in some cases.
It is your perogative to favour the Tory party, nobody can challenge that blue. However snide comments, untruths or perhaps in many cases false information provided by Tory supporters will inevitably put Labour supporters backs up. No excuse for goading anyone here on these threads as it creates bad feelings examples of which we are now enduring unfortunately.
To openly flout the rules of the forum also has no justification and for anyone Tory or not to question the rules and rulings laid down by the forumotion and it's Administrator is not on when they are fair and correctly administered.
You sir are not guilty of some of the aforementioned breaking of the rules, however to show contempt to the Amonistrator or indeed any of his Officers is not going to be tolerated, especially when it is accompanied by snide and sarcastic comments in open forum. You have openly condoned this kind of unacceptable behavour by siding with the offender in this case.
Please see reason. Thank you.

Your "last moan" mine too.

mistidebonno. Welcome.

What an excellent and sensible post. Thank you.

sickchip. You are welcome.

Almost anything isas you say "debateable"

You said Quote "And let's not forget whilst the poor got poorer under Blair's New Labour, the rich got richer"

Where you are ill informed is this. Yes the rich got richer and so did the poor, hence the divide between the two did not change.
Unlike now when the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, specifically designed by Tory ideology.

I'm going to add another moan to this subject.

First, of all, tlttf is actually correct in regards to copyright. Using an article for the purposes of critical analysis and commentary is an exception to copyright law under the fair use doctrine. Because Cutting Edge is not a site dedicated to disseminating news, it wouldn't be regarded as "stealing" someone else's work to promote our own forum. In addition, if the article is already published on the internet and freely available, most judges in a common law nation would not consider using the article as a copyright infringement. Copyright would come into play if someone was cutting/pasting articles available only through a subscription and reproducing it here for free. Given the laws surrounding fair use, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to raise a fuss about a news article posted here unless the author of the article actually complained to Forumotion.

One of my degrees is in library science - believe me, I know copyright law.

However, as my second point, tlttf is also wrong. Regardless of the laws regarding copyright, we do reserve the right to establish our own particular rules for the use of copyrighted material on this forum. We would ask that published articles be kept to a paragraph or two followed by a link. Even if you're not in violation of copyright law, limiting the length of articles cuts down on those dreaded "wall of text" posts that most people won't read anyway.

In addition, Forumotion is based in France, if I'm not mistaken, and while the laws are essentially the same in common law nations, I really have no desire to a) learn French and then b) become an expert in the specifics of French copyright laws. Thus we have adopted a "better safe than sorry" approach to the use of copyrighted material. Realistically, I'd be more worried about getting hit with a meteor or struck by lightning than I would be about getting sued over someone posting a news story in its entirety on this forum. Yet the rules for posting such content on Cutting Edge are well established and everyone followed them quite well. I don't understand why anyone would suddenly feel the need to break them now. Has something changed that I'm unaware of?

I don't want to be a hard-ass about these things, and I really don't enjoy growling and hissing at people ... so please don't make me growl or hiss!

Remember, it's politics ... people get really defensive about this subject. I do too! But I would take Misty's advice and take a few steps back. Whatever a person's political leanings, we're a Cutting Edge community first, a Tory and Labour supporter second. At least, that's how it ought to be.

Carry on.

Phil Hornby wrote:May We Be Truly Thankful...

(blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

" At least I rid the nation of that nonentity John Major, and ended 18 Tory years- what more did you want...?!

Thank you PH, I was grateful for taking us out of the hands of the Tory party, also for the money he had to pour into the NHS after the Thatcher gov't had neglected for 18 years and the minimum wage which is why Beecroft brought out his report attempting to get rid of workers rights and in the end up the minimum wage.

It now looks like Tony Blair has another new job???

The new special relationship: Why HAS Cameron held EIGHT conversations with Tony Blair (of all people) on how to run the country?
• Blair visited Cameron at Chequers last July, Downing Street reveals
• Pair speak once every three months with next call due in September
• They have spoken on phone seven times most recently in February
• Topics include Euro crisis, the economy, and public sector reform
• Blair also advises Cameron about coping with the rigours of the job
• Ex-PM speaks to senior ministers on public service reform
• Blair said to admire Cameron's efforts to drag party into centre ground

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151864/A-new-special-relationship-Cameron-holds-conversations-Blair-run-country.html#ixzz1wMfr0PZx

Just read on Twitter than Tony Blair's office has scotched rumours that he's been advising Cameron. I'm sure PMs and ex-PMs sometimes have to talk over national security issues, and as Blair is supposed to be a Middle East peace envoy, he may well have been consulted over Libya. He was probably more use than the gormless William Hague, who announced to the world that Gaddafi was on his way to Venezuela!


'The Daily Mail' is known to hate Cameron, he isn't right-wing enough for the paper. Just how much further he could go to the right without putting on jack boots is hard to imagine, but if that scurrilous rag can undermine him by trying to link him with Blair, then no doubt it will. Something of a non-story, I suspect.

You may be right Ivan.....Lets wait and see as they say

"Rebel without a cause", and particularly confusing in view of the well-known Tory principle of not bothering with anything which doesn't turn a profit.

RockOnBrother wrote:

tlttf wrote:Re: Tony Blair: A great Labour man and Prime Minister
by tlttf on Wed 30 May 2012 - 10:17

Oh dear Herr Ivan…

Your use of the italicized text is, in my view, tiresome.

It's juvenile and stupid, but there you go. It says lots more about him than Ivan. But hey, he's here to terminate us all! haha