Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM

by sickchip Tue May 29, 2012 7:33 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!

by sickchip Thu May 31, 2012 8:19 am

Notice how the anti Blair
chums dismiss my post on Blair's achievements?

I hope you're not referring to me, Mel. I answered your post regarding what you regard as 'Blair's achievements'. I answered in broad terms because, as I pointed out, it would take too much space/time to debate all 50 points listed.

by Mel Thu May 31, 2012 8:42 am

Sorry sickchip, I can find no ref from you in response to my post on Blair's achievements (which if you remember I promised ) on this thread.

Have you perhaps unintentionally replied on another thread?

by sickchip Thu May 31, 2012 8:59 am

Sorry Mel,

My mistake. I'd replied to a link you'd provided earlier in this thread. I'd missed your own subsequent post that I now realise you're referring too.

I refer you to my previous comment on the link you provide:

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.

I will endeavour to respond better this evening - I'm heading out now. I will say his contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process was extremely valuable.

by Mel Thu May 31, 2012 9:33 am

Thanks chip. One down 49 to go. Smile

by oftenwrong Thu May 31, 2012 12:04 pm

Future historians will record that Tony Blair was the first Prime Minister to realise that, backed by a majority of 179 under the Labour Whip, he did not actually need Parliament's agreement to anything he wanted to do.

by jackthelad Thu May 31, 2012 1:49 pm

I for one don't think the Iraq war was wrong, what was wrong was America and the UK doing it alone, the United Nations should have done more to remove a despotic cruel dictator. Syria is another country in question, it just shows how useless an organisation the United Nations is. Why do they call it the United Nations when Russia and China veto everything, they are supporting a corrupt and cruel regime, nothing united about it at all. Maybe oil had something to do with it, they tackled Lybia in a different way and got rid of Gaddaffi, plenty of oil in Lybia.

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 3:57 pm

Mel wrote:Hello Red Cat,

I agree the Iraq war should be a seperate issue. Notice how the anti Blair
chums dismiss my post on Blair's achievements?

Hi Mel
yes you dead right. Iraq was just one issue no matter how people feel about it. yes I saw that too Mel, funny how you dismiss what they do not like about his achievements, all sounds so very easy to do

by ROB Thu May 31, 2012 4:03 pm

As with your BBC, your Tony Blair is appreciated by many here. A prophet has no honor in his own country.

Pity. Mr. Blair is one of the finest geopoliticists of his time.

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 pm

blueturando wrote:
Hello Mel
can i just say, I agree with 90% of your post. but can I just add. I could not really care about the Iraq war. as what really mattered to me was Tony Blair built us a new School in our area. that to me meant a great deal more to me than the Iraq war

Red Cat.....I am sure the many thousands of dead people and their grieving families will be delighted you had a new school built. Good to see your principles are intact

Well lets put it like this. does it really matter what I say. I think not. yes my principles are find. as i have two friends in the Army who happen to believe that they did a good job out there and even believe its a better place than it was. now that is there view and not mine. but was you out in Iraq Blue? or are you just judging it form you home just like me? if I lost my Son out there I would still be happy that he was doing a job he loved. plus yes i would be very happy that his children had a new school or Hospital. something you party never managed in 18 years. even after going to war two time. I wounder how there families feel to know they was killed while there children when to school with a hole in the school roof. I bet they was just over the moon about how much to cared for there children while they was away fighting Gulf war one and for an island full of sheep

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 4:37 pm

blueturando wrote:
so I hope the right wing post millions of replies about Tony Blair as not one of them will matter one little jot in the end

I guess that's like the endless posts about Thatcher......Doesn't matter a jot

yes I agree Maggot like Blair is just all historical bygone days now. i guess there is only one small diffidence and that is the Tory party are wallowing in Maggots economic policy of the past. yet I do not see or read any Labour supporter wallowing in Tony Blair's economic past other than to defend right wing attacks that no right winger will support with fact or figure to back up there own allegation.(very wise may i add, as you would be backing a loser)

However, most of us already know that living in the economic past would be a total failure as you party is showing us day in day out. as the world has moved on from the 1980s or 1990s. however, there are parts of the past that are still giving the UK very large problem as a direct result of Maggots economic policy that was a 30 year bomb in the making. but Banking deregulation being a good example and fine illustration of Tory economic failure. that has so far cost us £350 billion in bailout or QE, with a growth figure of less the the EU. Know economics are not my thing but even I can read and work it out for myself.

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 4:38 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
As with your BBC, your Tony Blair is appreciated by many here. A prophet has no honor in his own country.

Pity. Mr. Blair is one of the finest geopoliticists of his time.

I believe that is a very fair summary Rock. well posted too

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 4:49 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Future historians will record that Tony Blair was the first Prime Minister to realise that, backed by a majority of 179 under the Labour Whip, he did not actually need Parliament's agreement to anything he wanted to do.

Also OW Future historians will also record what an utter mess John Major was that helped give Tony Blair a 178 majority. as for two years before the 1997 GE most of the Tory party spent most of the day on the parliament Green fighting once more over the EU. In fact they was so busy they almost forgot to run the UK PLC. i am not sure that Tony Blair even had to fight that hard to win the 1997 GE. as much like today the Tory party is finish and washed up within just two years of taking office.

Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM - Page 3 Images53

Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM - Page 3 Images53

by oftenwrong Thu May 31, 2012 5:44 pm

"much like today the Tory party is finish and washed up within just two years of taking office."

Although there have been many "reviews" of Tory Budget proposals since they were made, there can be no finish to this stumbling administration while the Quisling Lib-Dems continue to prop up the rotting edifice.

by Blamhappy Thu May 31, 2012 10:44 pm

How long will they continue to prop it up?

by Mel Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:59 am

As long as Clegg is there pretending to be a Lib Dem.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:31 pm

Quote : "As long as Clegg is there pretending to be a Lib Dem."

I think the real answer lies in the NHS changes.

It is now impossible for Clegg to obtain the operation whereby his head can be removed from Cameron's arse...

by trevorw2539 Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:57 pm

Blamhappy wrote:How long will they continue to prop it up?

They have no option. Without supporting the Horrors - er - I mean, Tories, they are out of work, kaput, finished. Just think, many of them would be jobless rich layabouts. Crying or Very sad

Others in the job queue. cheers

Ah well. We can but dream on.

by Blamhappy Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:52 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
They have no option. Without supporting the Horrors - er - I mean, Tories, they are out of work, kaput, finished. Just think, many of them would be jobless rich layabouts. Others in the job queue. Ah well. We can but dream on.

That's how I see it - although it must be excruciating remaining in power alongside the Tories, I don't see them throwing in the towel.

I would love to be wrong though!

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:29 pm

For the LibDems to withdraw from the Coalition - and thereby lose influence - on account of the spite which is being poured upon Britain, would take integrity.

And they don't have any... Crying or Very sad

by Redflag Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:47 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
Blamhappy wrote:How long will they continue to prop it up?

They have no option. Without supporting the Horrors - er - I mean, Tories, they are out of work, kaput, finished. Just think, many of them would be jobless rich layabouts. Others in the job queue. Ah well. We can but dream on.

If they pull out of the coalition they would be still employed as MPs, not unless you know something we do not trevor2539 they would still have to represent there constituencies until 2015 or Scam..er..on calling a GE, and I do not think he would knowing that he would be out of a job also, the money would not bother him but the prestige would. :affraid:

by sickchip Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:16 am

Red,

If they pull out of the coalition they would be still employed as MPs, not unless you know something we do not trevor2539 they would still have to represent there constituencies until 2015

I think you're wrong there, Red. If the coalition split then a General Election would be necessary.

If the Lib-Dems had the integrity to stand by principles they've, supposedly, stood for for years, they would've/could've/should've put an end to this shambolic government by now.

by sickchip Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:31 am

Can I ask a few questions of those defending Blair on this thread. It's in reference to the opening post which makes reference to Blair's close friendship/bond with Murdoch - I thought I'd ask since all his admirers here seem to have studiously avoided acknowledging that fact, or referring to it - and I wonder why?

How do you feel about Blair's bond with Murdoch, the fact that he's godfather to Murdoch's child and therefore obviously close? Does that 'sit comfortably' with you?

Would you choose to be so close to Murdoch? Would you be so reluctant to judge a tory, or would we hear your howls of criticism, if they had such a 'special relationship' with Murdoch?

by Redflag Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:17 am

sickchip wrote:Red,

If they pull out of the coalition they would be still employed as MPs, not unless you know something we do not trevor2539 they would still have to represent there constituencies until 2015

I think you're wrong there, Red. If the coalition split then a General Election would be necessary.

If the Lib-Dems had the integrity to stand by principles they've, supposedly, stood for for years, they would've/could've/should've put an end to this shambolic government by now.

Your wrong SC the Tories could govern as a minority gov't, but they would never get another Bill passed in the H.O.C. but as you know they have got all their Tory Ideology Bills through their just waiting for them to come into effect which will be towards the end of this year and 2013.

The reason Scam..er..on would not call another GE he is not stupid he knows that along with the L/Ds the Tories would suffer at the polls also.

by sickchip Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:44 am

Your wrong SC the Tories could govern as a minority gov't

They might try, Red......but there is no way that would be tolerated - on the grounds of irrationality, and impractibility alone.

A vote of No Confidence would be called by opposition mps.

A general election would be demanded.

by Mel Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:04 am

"I will endeavour to respond better this evening - I'm heading out now.
I will say his contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process was extremely valuable." (I replied "one down 49 to go)
Sickchip. The above you said in ref to my post on page 2 where you confused threads, remember?

Having failed to respond as promised :"this evening" You now expect this-- Quote "reference to Blair's close friendship/bond with Murdoch - I thought I'd ask since all his admirers here seem to have studiously avoided acknowledging that fact, or referring to it - and I wonder why?

I might reply to your question Chip if you would take the trouble to reply to my post as promised. Thanks.

by Redflag Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:07 am

sickchip wrote:
Your wrong SC the Tories could govern as a minority gov't

They might try, Red......but there is no way that would be tolerated - on the grounds of irrationality, and impractibility alone.

A vote of No Confidence would be called by opposition mps.

A general election would be demanded.

You must admit SC that Scam..er..on would avoid a GE like the plague, whether or not he would succeed would be another question you forget he will know that if he did call a GE the people of the UK would chuck him and his cohorts out on their ears including the L/Ds not that it would bother him. :affraid: :affraid: :affraid:

by Stox 16 Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:06 am

The Lib/Dems are on a one way ride. they cannot pull out now as there loss so many seats they would be finished for good (which i think they are anyway) but there only real hope is for the publics view of them changes. its all they have left to hope for. its a thin hope but its all they have left

Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM - Page 3 Downlo14

Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM - Page 3 Downlo14

by Stox 16 Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:10 am

Mel wrote:As long as Clegg is there pretending to be a Lib Dem.

I think Clegg will become one of the most hated leaders within his own party in time. OW sums them up very well. The Quisling party Lib-Dems

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:35 am

Mel wrote:
I might reply to your question Chip if you would take the trouble to reply to my post as promised. Thanks.

Mel,

I see no point in countering the views of somebody who, when defending labour's record under Blair, makes statements like this:

by Mel on Wed May 30, 2012 11:14 pm: The rich got richer and so did the poor ( as stated before) hence the divide did not change.

......one of the most ridiculous comments on these boards! What's the point in debating with somebody who believes in such nonsense?

I note no Blair supporters have replied to my question about Blair's relationship with Murdoch - must be head in the sand time!

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:19 am

Chip,
Your obvious hate for Blair is as strong and meaningless as your rudeness.

You stated you would return to address the remaining 49 points I made re Blair's achievements. You failed to do so and instead resort to rudeness.

On the subject of Blair I agree that we should not debate the subject again as you obviously are unable to hold your temper. Your problem, not mine.

I was awaiting your reply before answering your question on Blair and Murdoch. I shall not bother wasting my time on the subject in view of your unjustified rude attitude.
Back to the debate on the dreadful Coalition where we tend to agree.

By the way, have you yet found a seemingly viable political party that you might consider voting for?

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:06 am

Chip, last word on the subject.

Mandleson's contention was that "it didn’t matter if people got stonkingly rich under New Labour, because people at the bottom would get better off too. Inequality didn’t matter, poverty did."

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:08 am

Mel,

Can you tell me where I've resorted to rudeness?

'The rich got richer and so did the poor ( as stated before) hence the divide did not change.' (something that is blatantly incorrect). I've merely said if you believe that there is little point in arguing with you - it would go nowhere.

I'm sorry for being right. Cool

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:26 am

Mel

people at the bottom would get better off too.

....and they did? Oh I see! That's why millions have little chance of getting a mortgage and struggle to find affordable rents, had less spare cash in 2010 than in 1998. When set against living costs, and inflation, the wages of ordinary people had actually been reduced by the end of Labour's tenure, Mel.

And I don't hate Blair (anger is not the same as hate) - I simply think it's important that the Labour party disown his brand of politics because it looked after the minority rather than the majority. I guess that's what this is about .....attempting to purge the Labour party of any residual Blairites. That's important to me - I want the Labour party to represent, and defend ordinary people.

You are right about the tories making the rich richer and poor poorer - but it's a given, that's what those b'stards do. We all know that, and most of us want them out; but let's replace them with a Labour party of, and for, the people.

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:30 am

Chip "Can you tell me where I've resorted to rudeness?"

Read your post again!!!

I am not so pig headed as you say I am right when proven wrong Chip.
One the subject of the "divide" (alone) I may be wrong. However on the main point the poor did become better off under NL which is utterly correct.

No matter how incorrect I would ever think of any of your statements, i would never resort to---- "..one of the most ridiculous comments on these boards! What's the point in debating with somebody who believes in such nonsense?" An insult in my book Chip.

We both agree the present government is damaging the country and the masses, why are we harping on about the last government? Surelely we should be concentrating on what is happening now rather than arguing about NL and Blair.

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:38 am

Well Chip, it is obvious that things got worse for the masses from 2008 to 2010 because of the Global Crisis. They are in comparison a bloody sight worse off now after 2+ yrs of Tory policies, you might agree.

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:39 am

" let's replace them with a Labour party of, and for, the people."

Agreed and I am sure we have one.

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 am

Mel,

Apologies if I did offend you labelling your comment ridiculous. I do get quite heated about stuff that bothers me. It's my frustration coming to the fore, and is not personal.

We both agree the present government is damaging the country and the masses, why are we harping on about the last government? Surelely we should be concentrating on what is happening now rather than arguing about NL and Blair.

Agreed! I believe we're actually on the same side - perhaps we only have tactical differences.

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:52 am

Mel wrote:Well Chip, it is obvious that things got worse for the masses from 2008 to 2010 because of the Global Crisis. They are in comparison a bloody sight worse off now after 2+ yrs of Tory policies, you might agree.

I agree entirely! And as for the Tories - as I said, it's a given - it's what they do....feed the rich, and starve the poor.

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:16 am

Now that's much better Chip now that you have calmed down.
Nothing wrong ih having strong feelings as long as you are in control.

I really know that we disagree mainly on Blair and therefore perhaps we should agree to disagree on that subject.

by Mel Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:35 am

As promised Chip, as a final word on the Blair Murdoch relationship.

Blair admitted he "shied away from a confrontation with press barons such as Mr Murdoch because it would have derailed more important measures he was trying to push through."

Agreed Blair kept in close contact Murdoch phoning him three times over a week in the days before the 2003 invasion. However he has insisted Murdoch never bothered him over policies that might have favoured his business interests.

It seems he got closer to Mudoch after he stepped down as PM, hence I suppose his becoming godfather to his child Grace in 2010. That happening does not comfirm that Blair acted in favour of Mudoch's empire whilst in office.

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:17 am

Thanks Mel,

I think you're right about our argument re: Blair - we can agree to disagree. Let that be an end to it.

Now - let's focus on ousting this shambolic Tory/Lib-Dem coalition before they ruin this country and the lives of millions in it! Smile

by Sponsored content