Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM

First topic message reminder :

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!

" A "Winner" with less baggage than Blair, would be nice."

Indeed so - but Blair's baggage was only really accumulated once he had won.

Who knows what similar impedimenta another Labour winner might attract post-victory? And what it is necessary to gather in order to keep winning - as Blair did...

He's not wrong, as far as he goes - all good stuff - shame about Iraq.

He would now be unelectable, and is a potential embarrassment to the current party, in my opinion

In recent speeches, Blair is at pains to support the validity of Labour ambition to supplant the Tory administration, but it doesn't really come across as sincere from a man who was always a closet Tory, and is clearly part of the establishment - which traditionally supports right-wing government. The only honest act which might impress would be if he were to endorse a rapid publication of the long-overdue Chilcott report.

Miliband would be wise to maintain a reasonable distance in order to preserve the "Mister Clean" aspect he enjoys.

" He would now be unelectable, and is a potential embarrassment to the current party, in my opinion"

Sorry to say, but sure sounds uncomfortably close to a description of the present Labour incumbent to me...
.

If anyone in "The West" REALLY knew what was happening in Saddam's Iraq, that knowledge is probably in a file marked "Not to be opened before 2050" somewhere safe. The error was made by the Bush administration seeking an easy scapegoat for 9/11, and choosing Iraq, which apparently was unsympathetic to Al Queida and would not have harboured Osama bin Laden under any circumstances. That error was compounded by Tony Blair deciding all on his own that Britain would support the neo-cons in attacking Iraq. We shall never know his motives, but they had little involvement with the wishes of the British People.

Charismatic, of course, but so was the fascist Oswald Moseley.
Personally I would always prefer our elected Leaders to be less flashy. More in the Attlee mould. If you crave excitement, buy a Bruce Willis DVD.

All very understandable, but how would Attlee have fared under the media conditions we 'enjoy' today?

For instance , can you imagine him on Question Time?



" An interesting poser , Mr Dimbleby.  Hmmmm, yes, interesting indeed. Tell you what, I'll have a fill of my pipe , mull it over with a few chums and get back to you next week..."

Churchill deserves every plaudit possible for having successfully led Britain out of the darkness of World War 2, but the electorate in 1945 clearly wanted no more of the old forelock-tugging class-system and chose a Socialist government.

When Attlee went to see King George VI at Buckingham Palace to be appointed Prime Minister, the notoriously laconic Attlee and the famously tongue-tied King stood in silence; Attlee finally volunteered the remark, "I've won the election." The King replied "I know. I heard it on the Six O'Clock News."

Yes, indeed, Phil, not quite the same as PMQs of today.

Had Churchill got his way, the RAF would have had to fight Herman Goering's Luftwaffe with Boulton Paul defiant and Bristol Beaufighters as our main fighter force, both of these aeroplanes where totally outclassed by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Fock Wolfe 190. It was Sir Hugh Dowding and if my memory serves Lord Nuffield who kept the Spitfire and Hurricane as our first line or air defence. Left to Churchill we wouldn't have survived the Battle of Britain, so wouldn't have needed his " so much owed by so many to so few" speech as we would have been crushed on the first attack.

A common error to which many of us seem to be prone, is to assume that once we have elected someone to Westminster that they acquire a mystical ability to solve all the problems of society.
Some Tory ministers it's true appear to believe that they can walk on water.

Governments are of course humans like ourselves (at least, until the computers take over) with all the common human frailties and shortcomings. Expectations of universal world-wide Peace and harmony are doomed to be unfulfilled, though we still hope that our vote will ensure prosperity and happiness.  In denial of all the evidence.

Penderyn wrote:


I hope Blair won't grow a beard just to hide the rope.

Every one is down on Tony Blair have you all forgot the 18 years of the Thatcher gov't, not forgetting all the good that Tony did he won THREE G.Es minimum wage more money for OUR NHS & Education plus he cleaned up the mess that Thatcher left at her Butt.

I know Tony did get some things very wrong by being Bush's poodle but its time to sever some of the cords that tie us to the USA, because all American Presidents are all the bloody same including Obama and the TTIP treaty between the US & the EU is suited only to the benefit of the USA.

QUOTE: "....all American Presidents [work].... to the benefit of the USA."

I think that's what they're paid to do, Redflag. It would be very nice if the British government would behave similarly instead of just looking after their own narrow segment of our Nation, the wealthy.

"... not forgetting all the good ..."

As my dear old Dad used to say : " Gratitude is the shortest-lived of all emotions..."

"Tony Blair finally apologises for war in Iraq"

International Business Times 25 October 2015


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tony-blair-finally-apologises-for-war-in-iraq/ar-BBmpcms?li=AAaeUIW

Saw that - a partial and conditional apology - but welcome nevertheless

Blair's Message for Corbyn



" Make the most of your current hero status , Jeremy - they'll rubbish you when it suits them..."

I'm sure you're right. After a couple of years with Jeremy Corbyn as opposition leader, disillusionment will probably set in, since he won't have been in a position to effect any meaningful changes to the lives of ordinary people in the UK.  

I detested Enoch Powell, of course, but agreed with him on two points - his opposition to nuclear weapons ("only an insane person would use them"), and this: "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."

" Thank heavens I am so fondly remembered..."

Tory Blair strikes again......the man is an absolute shithouse.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/tony-blair-corbyn-government-dangerous-experiment

Extract: Tony Blair has said it would be a “very dangerous experiment” if Jeremy Corbyn or a populist politician like him were to form a government.

In an interview with the BBC, the former Labour prime minister said populist politicians, whether on the left like Corbyn or on the right, were worrying and he spent a lot of time thinking about how people in the centre should respond.

Blair famously said last summer that anyone thinking of voting for Corbyn as Labour leader because it was what their heart told them to do should “get a transplant”, but his latest comment may be his harshest yet.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for the achievements of Tony Blair's government in introducing Sure Start, the minimum wage and other notable reforms - however, in the 13 years the party was in power I wonder if a Prime Minister with a real socialist agenda would have achieved more for the ordinary people of Britain; and his determination to join the illegal war against Iraq to my mind cancels out any good he may have done.
What I have heard from and about him since he stepped down convinces me the man was never a socialist and never really valued the interests of anyone but Tony Blair.

On the eve of the Chilcot Report, it seems to me he is doing everything he can to damage the Labour party, including acting as a rallying point for those elected members who want to undermine the current leader - completely despicable behaviour

Totally in character. Wouldn't even allow Labour councils to build replacement houses for the ones sold off under Thatcherism.

bobby wrote:Had Churchill got his way, the RAF would have had to fight Herman Goering's Luftwaffe with Boulton Paul defiant and Bristol Beaufighters as our main fighter force, both of these aeroplanes where totally outclassed by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Fock Wolfe 190. It was Sir Hugh Dowding and if my memory serves Lord Nuffield who kept the Spitfire and Hurricane as our first line or air defence. Left to Churchill we wouldn't have survived the Battle of Britain, so wouldn't have needed his " so much owed by so many to so few" speech as we would have been crushed on the first attack.

If I remember rightly had we had we listened to Churchill years before we wouldn't have been in the mess we were in. I have a great deal of respect for Churchill as a War leader. Yes, he made mistakes in his early years, but he stood firm and solid in WWII, didn't keep away from danger when he was needed. Unfortunately, his political career didn't match up. I remember listening as a boy to speeches made in the open just after the war. One on the Green at Westerham where a statue of him 'sits'.

Tony Blair? No comment.

We're heading in the right direction! Hopefully there will be grounds to put the self-serving egotistical psychopath President Blair in the dock.

But what have we learned? It is still legally possible for a PM to take Britain to war without reference to the views of British voters.

According to Chilcot there were no lies and no deliberate deceit. There can be disagreements over judgement, but intent must be the key factor.

But now he hasn't hung Blair completely out to dry, it is possible that Chilcot himself will become the target of abuse.

I already see the understandably angry bereaved trying to re-interpret the words to seek to make a case for some sort of 'war crimes' prosecution.

Inevitable, I suppose, but probably doomed to failure......

You might want to say that no-one should be held responsible for 'unintended consequences' - I would want to disagree.

When the consequence is the deaths of nearly a million human beings on all sides, I would say anyone who initiated or supported that conflict is responsible - ffs I feel responsible because I didn't join the marches - how much more responsible is Tony Blair who chose to initiate a horrible conflict on the basis of his 'loyalty' to Bush and some unsubstantiated rumours about weaponry. I read most of what was in the press at the time and chose not to protest because I thought it likely that the government had knowledge I was not privy to - I now know that knowledge was that they had no proof of any immediate threat and no legal basis for entering the conflict.

In my eyes, Tony Blair and other members of the government of the time that voted with him on this issue are culpable and I would like to see them held accountable

I am sure there is a large number of people who wish that Chilcot had said something different - but he didn't, despite the attempts to re-interpret, or re-write, the words actually used .

Strangely, many of those same people might well forgive, say, Corbyn for unintended consequences of his actions, however.

Isn't political partisanship marvellous...?

Can you point out some of the unintended consequences of Corbyn's actions, please?

I note that those who are trying to destroy the elected leader of the Party are mostly Blairites.   In the light of the Chilcot report, is their certainty convincing?

I was opposed to the Iraq war in 2003. I don’t believe that we should ever get involved in overseas conflicts unless they present a direct threat to us. I’m not a pacifist, but I subscribe to the Swiss philosophy on this one – defend your own country if attacked, provide medical aid to the victims of war and help to refugees, and be available to be a referee in any post-war negotiations.

I’m ashamed that a Labour PM could have said to a Republican like George ‘Dubya’ Bush: “I will be with you, whatever” – eight or nine months before the invasion of Iraq. I’m ashamed that Blair took us into a war that cost the lives of 179 British service personnel and had no clear justification. Basically, Bush was after the man “who tried to kill my daddy”, and his cronies wanted to open up new markets to American companies. Saddam Hussein was certainly an evil tyrant, responsible for the deaths of around half a million of his own people, but if we’re going to remove every monster in the world, we’d have our work cut out. Assad? The House of Saud? Mugabe? Kim Jong-un? I’m sure there are plenty of others.

Having said that, let’s keep our feet on the ground. It's understandable that Blair wanted to support the USA in the aftermath of 9/11, but in that case he should have stopped when Bin Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were destroyed. We can’t say that Blair was directly responsible for any particular Iraqi deaths (though we can say that Thatcher gave the order to murder the 323 people on board ‘The General Belgrano’ when it was sailing away from the Falklands on the eve of a UN peace initiative). Bush would no doubt have invaded Iraq even without British support, and the fact is that most of the casualties ever since have been the result of Iraqis attacking Iraqis. Saddam Hussein, and his delightful son Uday, would no doubt have continued to murder Kurds and Marsh Arabs had they remained in power. To say that is in no way to condone Blair’s actions – especially his unconditional support for Bush and his contempt for his own cabinet – but it is best to keep things in perspective. It’s so sad that Labour’s most successful leader ever will have an epitaph that was said to a right-wing US president: “I will be with you, whatever”.

Phil Hornby wrote:I think the point that some of us ( ie 'the clearly mistaken folk ') on here make about Blair is that he knew how to win in the prevailing circumstances of his time - not that his approach and policies would necessarily succeed now.

Hitler was very similar: they were both totally cynical War Criminals, but Hitler had a slightly better sense of reality!

A 'sense of reality' is clearly important for us all...  

Phil Hornby wrote:A 'sense of reality' is clearly important for us all...  

Blair, alas, couldn't even remember his own childhood correctly, let alone what our Party was built for, or how to keep the law.