|
I too agree with the editorial from The Observer. Vile characters like Galloway have a way of sullying the most honest of comment. However Blair deserves to be pilloried. Instead of going around the world being feted and highly paid with that sanctimonious wife of his, he should be keeping an extremely low profile. He is a political opportunist through and through and he thought the Iraq war would give him an everlasting legacy. Well it did, just not the type he wanted.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
I'm a centrist and not a natural Labour supporter, but if it hadn't been for his disastrous alliance with the trigger-happy cowboy in the White House, Tony Blair might have been remembered as one of our better Prime Ministers.
We were certainly better governed than we were in 1992-97, when the Major government lurched from crisis to crisis.
Interestingly, i think history is becoming kinder to Harold Wilson. The economic problems of both his governments are mostly forgotten, but he's remembered for his steadfast refusal to send British troops to be killed in Vietnam.
Totally Agreee! By the way,have we all forgotten the unecessary sinking of the Belgrano?
|
I'm a centrist and not a natural Labour supporter, but if it hadn't been for his disastrous alliance with the trigger-happy cowboy in the White House, Tony Blair might have been remembered as one of our better Prime Ministers.
We were certainly better governed than we were in 1992-97, when the Major government lurched from crisis to crisis.
Interestingly, i think history is becoming kinder to Harold Wilson. The economic problems of both his governments are mostly forgotten, but he's remembered for his steadfast refusal to send British troops to be killed in Vietnam.
Totally Agreee! By the way,have we all forgotten the unecessary sinking of the Belgrano?
Remembering how many Royal Navy ships were sunk by Argentina (who started an illegal war to boost popularity of a corrupt fascist government) the sinking of the Belgrano was totally justified and correct.
( Left-wing thinkers always take sides against Britain and favour our enemies - who gave IRA killers 'get out of jail free' letters, while supporting the present witch hunt against soldiers? Who described the IRA as 'freedom fighters'?)
|
|
Interesting to speculate on what Labour's attitude to the Argentinian invasion would have been if it had happened under Wilson's or Blair's leadership. Footie was against our sending the task force, and I'm sure Corbyn would have been, but the difference between the Falklands and Vietnam or Iraq was, and is, that the Falklands are still a British colony and rely on us fon support.
|
|
|
|
I well remember the sinking of the Belgrano, and i well remember a PM with gravitas, who when questioned later about the affair simply said 'my decision', no looking for scapegoats to blame, no odd suicides in the woods when the wrong answers were given, no dodgy dossiers sexed up by spin doctors, the buck stopped there with M Thatcher, though i'm no fan of the lady you always knew where you stood with her, that i do respect.
As for Blair, in may ways i feel a bit sorry for him, converting to Catholicism when you've already seemingly sold your soul to Murdoch seems a bit odd, there has to be some natural feelings of decency missing, by now most of us with a history like that would have learned to pipe down and keep below the radar, but not he, and i hope he carries on over a long life trousering ever more vast wealth and continues to poison all he touches.
Why the right on MSM still publishes what he says and gives him air time i can't fathom, the very last person i'd want allied to any cause i supported is that man, nor any of his side kicks that are still haunting the world.
|
|
Can't make the leap from Blair/Iraq to the Falklands affair. One was, as it turned out a war based on not very much in the way of truth or intelligence. The first casualty of war is always the truth!!.The Falklands is a British protectorate and as long as the population wish to remain so then that is it for me. General Galtiere did not think for one moment that we would forceably take possession back. How wrong he was. Especially after war was declared he should have expected some form of retribution, and he got it too. Even the comparisons between Thatcher and Blair don't work on any level. History will dictate who will remain in the memory and for what, somehow I don't think it will be Blair.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
converting to Catholicism when you've already seemingly sold your soul to Murdoch seems a bit odd, ....
Not at all. Makes perfect sense. A few Hail Marys, a bit of penance and - lo and behold- you are redeemed, with a rosy feeling of self satisfaction and the continuing delusion that you are a divine instrument for goodness. In all fairness, his heart probably was/is in the right place, he just didn't have the wisdom to be more like Harold Wilson, mentioned above. Much of the value of politicians, as in some other professions, is what they don't, rather than what they do, do. Masterly inactivity, or, in the mechanical world, if it works, don't mend it.
|
|
At the time of the vote re Iraq, the Tories were virtually 100% in favour. IDS was fervent in his belief and clearly was impressed by GWB in the risk that Iraq posed, and vigorously campaigned to that end. There was then a vote in Parliament which assented to the war. The only party fully in favour was the Tory party. A large number of Labour supporters voted against. All of the LibDems were against. And yet Blair was the scapegoat?
|
|
"And yet Blair was the scapegoat?"
Of course he was, and is. He was the head of the government at the time. He was the prime mover. He made it his own mission. His voice was the loudest.
I've no doubt there were and are others with blood on their hands, but Blair was their figurehead.
|
|
A very fair point Nortones, i never for one moment tried to absolve the rest of them that voted for death and destruction from their share of the guilt, i hold a candle for none of them.
MP's of all parties should by then have come to realise the sort of person they were dealing with in Blair (i'm sure many did but went along with it), they see the dodgy dealings day in day out, we the general public get a sanitized and doctored view and generally told what we want to hear by a press that was in the main enamoured with and virtually in love with the man whe it came to the BBC and that may well be the case with much of the MSM who also share a responsibility for the tragic Iraq and Libya affairs, they should all have been far more suspicious of that sexed up WMD dossier, and i have no doubt they knew deep down what they were about to do, kill for oil, was wrong.
Quite why we still have to be the poodle that jumps as high as the American in charge at the time tells us to i do not know, are we so afraid still of the non existent Soviet threat that we will do anything we are told in order to pay for our protection, its comparable to some holywood film with some hapless shop owner paying protection money, why do we do it.
MP's did belatedly regain a little respect when they voted no to Camerons second own little war a few years alter, but the rhetoric has got tough again over Syria when Trump decided apparently overnight to change tack, are we waiting for the next false flag chemical release to be arranged by the dirt tricks dept.
Mind you if 50 cruise missiles @ X billions dollars can only make a few pock and scorch marks in an airfield and destroy a few probably already few knackered planes, then there was probably more to the operation than met they eye, it certainly pleased the war monger losing Democrats enough to shut them up for 5 mins, quite who got played there the most is debatable.
Back to blair, he and his regime were ultimately responsible for yet another one of the recent dark chapters in our history when, by their collusions with american oil and arms interests and their representatives in high office in the USA, their lies and deceptions led to wars that were not only unecessary but have led to millions of totally innocent people being maimed and slaughtered, both at the time and in the chaos since.
They also by having these wars without a coherent plan for when they were over, were directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and associated groups, who filled the vacuum and have destabilized these very countries, from which they will porbably never recover, they want to do the same to Syria, though Putin has thrown a spanner in their plans which is saving Syria for the time being, we'll see in the fullness of time what happens there.
Why we continue blindly time after time to vote for people like these is a mystery, we the electorate share a reponsibility too, we endorse their actions by re-electing them time after time, we really should know better by now.
Edited by gordonbennet on 11/05/2017 at 07:34
|
Why we continue blindly time after time to vote for people like these is a mystery, we the electorate share a reponsibility too, we endorse their actions by re-electing them time after time, we really should know better by now.
GB, your very comprehensive analysis is thoughtful and probably very largely correct, but we the voters have only limited options.
Vote for one of the existing parties, abstain from voting, create or support a new, different party (which has no realistic chance of gaining power) or resort to armed revolution to take over (slightly difficult).
Given these options, surely it is hard to blame people for still voting as they do.
|
|
Galileo, old friend, i can only put my views of this into the context of buying something you need at the shops.
If the shop sells nothing worth buying you don't buy anything, buying what you hope some oily salesperson says is the least dangerous or least worthless of all worthless items isn't an alternative, i can't do it.
I'm a patriot i suppose, whether thats allowed desirable or fashionable at the moment i haven't a clue and it wouldn't make a scrap of difference either way because the very last thing i would want is to be approved by these people, i and millions more have found ourselves to be unrepresented by the three cheeks of the same backside the mainstream parties morphed into over the last 20 years, we had a brief hope in UKIP which is now strangely being allowed to die a withering sad and apparently assisted death, its former leader vanished like will o' the wisp. Was one of UKIPs main remits to stop the growth of the BNP after all?
What i can't do is vote for the least worse of the current motley parties, i do not trust the (suddenly flavour of the month with the MSM) shiney new remainer turned staunch Brexiteer PM any more than i do any of the others to deliver what the people have voted for in the referendum (mainly because of her previous complete ineffectiveness as Home Secretary and the fact she lied over this general electon taking place), so i will not give them my vote because if i do and they sell us out just as i expect them to, then i will have to suffer my share of the treachery to come for the genuine people of this country, i can't do it.
I do blame people for still voting tribally as they do, just how many times do they have to vote for the same people, oh its ok they will do better this time they promised to, be honourable this time, stop dipping their fingers in the expensis till this time, stop wasting the nations assets this time, stop promoting their cronies to the upper house this time, etc etc, before they eventually twig its themselves the electorate who are the problem by endorsing more of the same time after time.
I want to vote for something again and not against something which a politician and their seriously biased media mates tells me is worse.
I'm afraid my ballot is likely to have some earthy comments about all the above writ large, not as it will make a scrap of difference to the coming tory landslide, and i truly hope that i am wrong and PM May really is going to do the right thing.
If i am wrong and we have a true Brexit with honour, return of our fishing grounds, re-established borders with proper immgration quotas established for industries unable to source suitable staff on an equal footing for the entire world, no open border, and dedicated well supplied teams who's purpose is to guard our country, search out illegals and returned enemy fighters and foreign criminals and boot them out forthwith, then i shall be the very first to say on here that i was completely wrong.
|
|
I tru;y hope things do turn out as you and I would wish, I voted not to join the EU in 1975, not that it made any difference. We, and many thousands of others would change the way the country is run, it is frustrating that there seems to be no legal or feasible way to do this.
I have therefore resigned myself to coping as best I can and trying to ignore the things that I disagree with but which don't seriously affect me in my day to day life. To some extent, ignorance of current events, bothh at home and worldwide, is less stressful than keeping up with them. (This is my daughter's policy, to which she attributes her lack of wrinkles and facial lines in her forties).
|
|
Political decisions are always polarising. The main thing to remember is to agree to disagree if neccesary. Everyone has their own view and occasionally when it is expressed fully and lucidly it can change the minds of others. The point about Blair is a well made one. The vote did give him the mandate to take us to war and I for one at the time thought it was correct. It was only later that it was revealed the evidence on which the vote was taken was not as described. Therefore it now comes down to who knew. In any event the Prime Minister would and should know the veracity of the case for war. The buck stops with him. That was Blair. He carries the can because it happened on his watch. It also seems clear that he knew exactly what the facts were yet chose not to reveal them. He remains culpable to this day. He should be thoroughly ashamed but I doubt very much if he has that human trait in him. Cheers Concrete
|
|
It's not just Tony Blair - and the conservative oposition of the day - who may be responsible. The Queen should also carry the blame. She had the best advisors available and she does have the power to stop this. She is the head of our armed forces and they fight in her name. People - including many civilians - die in these conflicts and the outcome was predictable. The UK is the only country in the world that has a religous leader with nuclear weapons with global reach. The monarchy is part of the problem - just listen to the words of our national anthem.
|
|
You really can't blame the Queen for this. She is entitled to withhold Royal Assent to any Act of Parliament, but never does, as she knows that it would cause a colossal constitutional crisis and threaten the whole institution of monarchy. Let us hope that when eventually he comes to the throne, Charles will be as wise as his mother and grandfather.
|
|
Quite right Avant. The monarchy are above blame in this.
Tony Blair was responsible for the deception. I do not know how he has the nerve to want to be a force in politics ever again.
|
|
"Tony Blair was responsible for the deception. I do not know how he has the nerve to want to be a force in politics ever again."
No politician has ever shown a lack of nerve - not that sort of brazenness, anyway. A thick skin is pretty much a pre-requisite for the job. And his avowed reason for wishing to re-enter the fray is apparently because he is so stirred by the way things are going in the country and in the Labour party. As if we can begin to believe the man actually has anything passing for a conscience, or that matters of principle are important to him!
|
|
A constitutional crisis would be preferable to losing a war. It would not be a UK court that would prosecute any such failing - the establishment would never put itself on trial. It would be an international court and it would be humiliating in the extreme.
I do not understand why we allow our military personnel to be prosecuted - even by our own courts and those who control and start this are thought to be blameless. The whole decision making process failed the people of the UK. Both the Queen and Prince Charles receive full cabinet briefing papers, and have top-level advisors. I can and do include them both in the blame for this catasrophe.
As for Charles being wise - he has already shown his contempt for his marriage vows; he's not fit to rule.
|
|
The monarchy are to all intents and purposes an irrelevance now, the monarch signing off Lisbon treaty effectively made her and rest of them citizens of europe, they hold no sway now far as i'm concerned, they are european citizens.
Something Galileo said in his last post has been troubling me
''To some extent, ignorance of current events, both at home and worldwide, is less stressful than keeping up with them.''
I can only agree with the main sentiment, indeed my wife avoids mainstream media even more than i, helps keep her reasonably sane and she's also wrinkle free and i'm not brave/daft enough to give her age, but there's more in Galileo's sentence than at first appears, for what is the truth in current affairs, does anyone still capable of independent thought trust the versions of events both here and abroad that we are hearing/seeing, i don't which is why i seek other sources and distrust those equally, maybe somewhere in the mud lies the truth.
Who does one trust to give impartial news any more?, thats the issue now.
What was it Churchill is supposed to have said about the first victim of war being the truth, well that applies to a hell of a lot more scenarios than war these days.
|
|
The minute that one issue is linked to another it simply diverts the focus. Blair was the prime minister, and as such he misled everyone and made a terrible mistake. My hope is he ultimately pays the price. I am a believer in 'swings and roundabouts' and eventually he will get his just desserts. As for the monarchy; if you are a republican then it is easy to attach some form of blame to them on the grounds that they knew something we didn't. Even as a monarchist I can see the argument. But overarching it all is the simple fact that Blair lied, TO EVERYONE. Therefore little real blame can be attached to anyone else. It is not the Queens job to interfere with government. The second she does her position is completely untenable. I am sure she has opinions and occasionally offers advice, but active interference or involvement in governing the country and making parliamentary decisions is out of the question. She is damned either way, so wisely keeps her councel. The only issue here is the original thread. Blair is a vile unconcionable person and he and his vile wife are a real pair together. One day! One day!
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Concrete, as a republican, I agree with everyword you say.
I have studied constitutional law at degree level. It is unthinkable that the monarchy would interfere with the decisions of parliament.
I have respect for the royal family and,in particular, feel optimistic about the young royals. Prince Charles has had what must have been a stressful and challenging role to play. He is human I believe.
|
|
Hello scot22, I am a monarchist. Like independance for Scotland I remain to be convinced of the benefits of scrapping a perfectly workable system. Not to say I cannot be persuaded by a good and well put argument, but for now I cannot see on what that argument would be based. Apart from the usual love of pageantry and the pride it stirs, the royal family must be. apart from Disneyland, the worlds most lucrative tourist attraction. Furthermore I could not see any link between them and the decisions of Blair.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
I didn't see any connection either - apart from the fact theoretically could have refused consent. I defend the actual monarchy but disagree with its existence. Not as contradictory as it sounds.
I agree with what you say about the monarchy but I do see it as symbolic of our class ridden society. Also what happens to the income - I suspect much goes to wealthy hotel shareholders etc. Those that have tend to get the most. A book that had a great effect on me is Robert Tressel's classic, ' The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. Its worth a read As for Scotland my brother is a strong suppporter - I agree with you.
Good to be able to have differing viewpoints.
All the best
|
|
|
|
|
|
