By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interesting again in his speech, about the need for the Liberals and Labour to form some form of Progressive Alliance, that the party needs rebooting from the top to bottom
Labour are missing a massive trick by totally ignoring him, as he is the only one that seems to cut straight through the rubbish and speak with such clarity on every issue - not hard to see why he was able to get elected and make real change to the country.
Sorry if the deaths of hundreds of thousands sends you to sleep.
I genuinely think he thought he was doing the right thing.
How and why is beyond my understanding and it is fair to feel he and that moron Bush should have been held accountable.
If it were possible to put that to one side, Blair does speak sense in the political arena to this day.
Maybe the answer is to not allow anyone with strong religious views into a position of power. When you have world leaders acting on voices in their heads it can only spell trouble.
Brexit, the break up of the Union, an awful political and media class ... he wasted a massive opportunity to address many underlying issues in the UK but he just painted over them. All for party political power and a holy war, it now seems.
As the only possible response to anything Blair ever says then it does
Blair was as proven, hugely electable, he had a superb front bench that labour could only dream of now, a front bench with real world experience, now they are students who never left the lower 6th, concerning themselves with the obscure while the majority suffers.
It was just the choice of language I was picking up on.
I genuinely think he thought he was doing the right thing.
How and why is beyond my understanding and it is fair to feel he and that moron Bush should have been held accountable.
If it were possible to put that to one side, Blair does speak sense in the political arena to this day.
Maybe the answer is to not allow anyone with strong religious views into a position of power. When you have world leaders acting on voices in their heads it can only spell trouble.
Religion should not be anywhere near power, it should not be indulged, it should be only just about tolerated, people should point and laugh at all of it.
Brexit, the break up of the Union, an awful political and media class ... he wasted a massive opportunity to address many underlying issues in the UK but he just painted over them. All for party political power and a holy war, it now seems.
That's some pretty decent rewriting of history there.
There are many things Blair is responsible for but Brexit and the potential break up of the Union are not two of them.
Whilst one can argue he could have done more - he and Labour addressed many inequalities in their time in office - far more than the Conservatives have done since they got into power.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
I genuinely think he thought he was doing the right thing.
How and why is beyond my understanding and it is fair to feel he and that moron Bush should have been held accountable.
If it were possible to put that to one side, Blair does speak sense in the political arena to this day.
Maybe the answer is to not allow anyone with strong religious views into a position of power. When you have world leaders acting on voices in their heads it can only spell trouble.
"I genuinely think he thought he was doing the right thing."
The whole religion thing is over stated. Our subservient relationship to the US, our willingness to engage in illegal (or legal) foreign military interventions, our reliance on the military-industrial complex, are all more important factors.
Brexit, the break up of the Union, an awful political and media class ... he wasted a massive opportunity to address many underlying issues in the UK but he just painted over them. All for party political power and a holy war, it now seems.
Brexit has only happened because Cameron gambled on the UK voting to remain to prove to his Eurosceptic backbenchers there was not a desire for it. Until the referendum was announced this was a low priority to the electorate.
That's some pretty decent rewriting of history there.
There are many things Blair is responsible for but Brexit and the potential break up of the Union are not two of them.
Whilst one can argue he could have done more - he and Labour addressed many inequalities in their time in office - far more than the Conservatives have done since they got into power.
The left has to rewrite that history in fairness - the alternative is to except that they've royally fcked up and we're now stuck with Torys as a result.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2020 11:47]
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Brexit, the break up of the Union, an awful political and media class ... he wasted a massive opportunity to address many underlying issues in the UK but he just painted over them. All for party political power and a holy war, it now seems.
This doesn't really make sense.
You say he didn't do anything due to party political power but without power you can't do anything as Labour have brilliantly demonstrated this year.
You seem to want someone to get elected, do loads of things they didn't say in the campaign and then get elected two more times which simply wouldn't happen after the first term.
Without "party political power" there is no change so your whole premise seems wrong to me.
It all just looks a bit revisionist and internally inconsistent.
Blair was as proven, hugely electable, he had a superb front bench that labour could only dream of now, a front bench with real world experience, now they are students who never left the lower 6th, concerning themselves with the obscure while the majority suffers.
It was just the choice of language I was picking up on.
Fair enough, just find it mad when some just will respond like that to everything he does or says rather than look at the merit of it.
That's some pretty decent rewriting of history there.
There are many things Blair is responsible for but Brexit and the potential break up of the Union are not two of them.
Whilst one can argue he could have done more - he and Labour addressed many inequalities in their time in office - far more than the Conservatives have done since they got into power.
If you look at the underlying causes of both then Blair has his hand on the wheel as much as anyone in the Conservative party.
Rather remarkable that people don't think this issue is a reasonable red line for many and are happy to brush mass slaughter under the carpet.
It's hugely worrying but unsurprising. People love war despite the huge evidence it only makes this country less safe. Burgon is getting attacked for promising to poll members on Labour declaring war because people think it threatens our national security. It's like the last 20 years haven't happened.
You say he didn't do anything due to party political power but without power you can't do anything as Labour have brilliantly demonstrated this year.
You seem to want someone to get elected, do loads of things they didn't say in the campaign and then get elected two more times which simply wouldn't happen after the first term.
Without "party political power" there is no change so your whole premise seems wrong to me.
It all just looks a bit revisionist and internally inconsistent.
SB
[Post edited 20 Feb 2020 11:48]
What came first? The power or the policies?
I agree policies are academic if you don't get in but party politcal power is academic if you then don't have the right policies or commitment to implement change.
We'll just have to disagree on this score. I believe politics is much more about promoting the issues and solutions even in opposition and even over the longer term. I don't think it's about short-term electoral success. There is a balance but we've clearly gone too far towards superficial and personality politics over the past couple of decades.
The whole religion thing is over stated. Our subservient relationship to the US, our willingness to engage in illegal (or legal) foreign military interventions, our reliance on the military-industrial complex, are all more important factors.
"He thought" [By backing the US].
Too much was made of our 'special' bleeding relationship.
But I do recall Blair arranging a meeting with Bush at Camp David early doors following 9-11 in which he managed to briefly stall him from immediate action. Something Bush had come out and declared that the US was ready to act right away.
But they were determined and the UK government were determined to back them for its pound of glory too, I realise.
It's not a suggestion that I believed in it. I didn't.
I've made it perfectly clear what I think of his and Bush's actions.
If you look at the underlying causes of both then Blair has his hand on the wheel as much as anyone in the Conservative party.
The underlying cause of Brexit is fundamentally a historical apathy and distrust of the EU from the outset - the constant negative media around the EU and what it does.
It was then a gamble by Cameron who, by his own admission, utterly called it wrong in terms of a referendum.
Where is Blairs hand in this?
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
Blair shouldnt have a say on any british politics. The likes of him and Cameron royaly fckued up when they were running the country. They should disappear out of public life completely. Both should hang their heads in shame. They shouldnt be sticking their oars in on anything.
Too much was made of our 'special' bleeding relationship.
But I do recall Blair arranging a meeting with Bush at Camp David early doors following 9-11 in which he managed to briefly stall him from immediate action. Something Bush had come out and declared that the US was ready to act right away.
But they were determined and the UK government were determined to back them for its pound of glory too, I realise.
It's not a suggestion that I believed in it. I didn't.
I've made it perfectly clear what I think of his and Bush's actions.
Why did they make up a fake intelligence document in order to justify it then? That was us, not the US. The US actually used it as further justification for war.
Why did they make up a fake intelligence document in order to justify it then? That was us, not the US. The US actually used it as further justification for war.
No idea. Like I say I'm not supporting it.
I have recollections of the dossier claiming WMD and the unrealistic demands at the time of Hussain; demands he couldn't meet.
It was years ago and I've probably forgotten more than I can remember.
I'll read your link later though and remind myself.
Then there was of course the suicide of Kelly. All rather shady I know.
How much Blair was privy to at the time I don't know and how much was down to Intelligence. I thought the claim was the government was acting on information provided.
The underlying cause of Brexit is fundamentally a historical apathy and distrust of the EU from the outset - the constant negative media around the EU and what it does.
It was then a gamble by Cameron who, by his own admission, utterly called it wrong in terms of a referendum.
Where is Blairs hand in this?
No, it's disenchanted and disenfranchised voters wanting change. The EU became the useful target for those free-market, anti-regulation nutjobs who wanted to exploit that.
Blair was asleep at the wheel while the underlying structural flaws in our economy and society (not to mention the deeply unrepresentative political system that reinforces them) have been allowed to worsen.
Similarly, he and Brown were instrumental in losing Scotland. For Labour and possibly even from the Union. The only difference is that through decades of seeing it and understanding it, Scots could point the finger quite clearly at the UK status quo and not the EU. And I think the idea that our own politicians screwed us over is too much for many proud Brits to admit when there's Johnny Foreigner to blame.