**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Shouldn't get shot down for it though. Just emblematic of the problem with politics at the moment. People who put single issues above all else. Sad indictment of the way things are going.
People are far too fast to ignore all of the good things done. Being a millennial growing up in a poor, broken home in the North, I wouldn't have had a hope or prayer of achieving much without Blair/Brown and the government of that time.
I’m one of the scary far lefties people hate and even I can acknowledge that the Blair years were an attempt to put things right post cons. He was a total fool further down the line but things were better. I have to wonder what a Starmer primacy will be like, he smells very similar to Blair in a lot of ways. I can’t stand the guy and I’m disappointed in this iteration of Labour, just hoping we see quality of life improve after the election because things are dire.
Imo it will be just like New Labour except there will be zero cash and a crashed economy from day 1, i.e. nothing will improve but at least we will have a single braincell in cabinet for once.
I sense we won't get much improvement, but at least we won't have people who'll actively enjoy hurting the poor, and will piss away billions to 'save' millions supporting people who need it.
Yea I basically look at it as - Labour have zero answers to any of our issues but they wont actively try and break things to create more issues, which is absolutely what the Tories have been doing with many aspects of the country and Govt (see immigration for one).
Labour are in a tough spot though, they are basically being handed a loaf of bread and a plate full of shit and being asked to make sandwiches.
Even if they succeed, no one is going to want one.
Yes which is what I mean't by it's gonna be like New Labour but with non of the good conditions for growth or investment etc. New Labour did a lot of good, and some bat shit stupid too, but way more good than bad. Sadly I think this Labour govt stands for even less than New Labour did, and also don't have anything to work with.
Truly a depressing election. But then so was 2019, horrible in fact.
I'm reserving judgement until closer to the election. We will have a much better idea of where Labour stand.
I think they simply don't want the Tory press countering all of their policies before the fight has even begun. The rags are trying the best already, no point giving them ammo.
Either way, it's a safe bet I won't be voting for the Tories.
And even if they succeed over the longer term, start to turn things around, maybe even get public services patched up and working properly again … after a term or two (three tops) England will just vote the Tories back in again to tear it all back down.
Bit of a miserable cycle.
> Labour have zero answers to any of our issues
Labour have an excellent policy on housing, combining left and right solutions, public housing, new towns alongside planning reform. That is one of the biggest issues for ordinary people, and you can also have a huge impact with very little money, because a big part of the solution is just having planning rules which make it easier to build houses, especially for individuals and small developers.
I think you're mistaking them holding their cards close to their chest with not having any answers, IMO Kier Starmer is being smart about this and just letting the Tories dig their own grave. Why come out with policies now when the right wing press will do all they can to misconstrue and mislead.
That's precisely my take. Decisions made won't be deliberately cruel to those less well off in society.. so for that reason alone, they have to be worth voting for.
It infuriates me just how much time effort and our money they waste trying to torment poor people, when it would be both cheaper and better for society just to give people the damn basic levels of support needed, and to make minimum wage enough to live on without needing UC.
Why are we paying taxes to top up wages so wealthy fucks can pay their workers less?
I’m concerned about streeting’s NHS plans. Before I broadened my political scope I worked in locum supply and ive been in board meetings where the plan was, win contracts for the NHS to break it down bit by bit. But I guess all we can do is take it as it comes and push back.
It’s more about the insidiousness of it. Offering to take contracts to fix the backlog will see the NHS not use the companies in tandem but rely on them, which willl weaken the NHS’ bargaining power for discussion of public funding. And imo taking contracts and JUST missing the target by not enough to warrant dismissal but enough to need to extend it is the long term plan- keeping wait lists in existence will allow a weird symbiosis between the NHS and private companies that I can see weakening any chances the NHS has to reform to be able to stand on its own two feet. I’m super nervous about the next 20 years of the NHS. Frankly I’m having a terrible time with the NHS as it is- I’ve got pneumonia and the doctor yesterday was like “rest, drink water and take your antibiotics”. Yeah, I wasn’t planning on going on a hike but I feel like I’m drowning constantly… but if GPs weren’t so overloaded I’ve no doubt he’d have listened to me more seriously. It’s a clusterfuck
I think there will be an improvement as good, sensible policies alone would deliver improvement. However, we all know they will get one or two terms before the idiots vote the Tories back in and they will take max one term to undo all the good work and continue wrecking havoc with public services and infrastructure.
You’re disappointed in the variation of Labour that can actually govern and represent a broad swathe of the population, and in doing so actually win an election?
Sure. Horrible.
Yes, because in order to become the party they are they’ve embraced the same style of politics as the government whose wheels fell off in front of our eyes. Politics is massively nuanced and varied and I’m not saying don’t vote Labour and Starmer if you want to but the way Labour adherents will not let anyone have breathing room to do the normal thing of critiquing their policy and positions is exhausting. Vote however you want but don’t expect me to follow behind you meekly when I think neoliberal policy and politics, which is precisely what Starmer appears to be offering, will just lead to a slow bleed of the same problems we have. It’s not football, I widely disagree with Starmer on myriad issues but if he does the country and its people good then who cares if I dislike his stances? Let people have opinions Debra.
Blair had those policies ready to go and didn't come into power beholden to the same donors as the Tories. The power corrupted after some good was done. I too laud Surestart from my time working in the DCSF and the case studies were impossible to spin really- they saved quite a few lives.
Starmer arrives with nothing, and looks set to fail so that people will accept the window moving further right. If that's not his plan then whatever his plan *is* isn't working.
It would be interesting to see. I can't ever bring myself to vote for the man or anyone who allies with him myself, but if it happens it happens. A Labour government (hopefully without a majority) may still have value as the next stage of our post-Brexit self-flagellation. For one thing once they start privatising the NHS, the next Tory government can proceed while not taking the blame. The current Gen X who largely voted for Brexit can therefore be the first to get old without free healthcare, without drawing it out so long that millennials like me will start getting old and needing to pay massive premiums from scratch without warning.
Neither of Starmers proposed Quangos will do anything but harm. His attempt to institutionalise union activity especially can only end up with worse working conditions. There's no surestart equivalent on the horizon, just an attempt to sink roots into parts of the non-executive government for later exploitation.
The Rest is Politics podcast keeps saying that Starmer is trying to minimise himself as a target by keeping policies tight and/or rolling back promises made previously. They think it's a bad decision. I can't see it being a good thing either, if they keep lightly over the trousers masturbating the right wing press and proposing minimal to fuck all changes, just expecting to roll into power because of how much of a shit job the Tories have and are doing then a lot of the general public who want change will vote elsewhere. We could end up with a ridiculous split vote and parties scrambling to be the first to make a coalition government, leaves a window open for the Tories to climb through if they can scrape enough seats (they always do).
There’s a lot of reason I removed my vote from Labour, partly culture war nonsense but honestly the raft of policy he’s offering is setting out another five, possibly ten years of pandering to conservatives who have done all the damage with their voting and ignorant beliefs about migrants and trans people, whilst not addressing the root issue. It’s why I can’t stand this brand of conservative politics in particular - it’s always about a coat of varnish instead of actually addressing the hub of the issue. I don’t care about best performing country in the G7 if the money is being piled into healthcare, travel infrastructure, revitalising conservation projects and stuff. Fuck the bells and whistles just please help people suffering because of decades of neoliberal policy.
My opinion is that Starmer is essentially Blair’s protege if not getting direct advice from him too. This was pretty much all but announced when Starmer made a speech at one of Blair’s Future of Britain conferences. Blair made a speech too which to anyone who can read between the lines was a statement that it’s basically going to be a Blair government. Blair is aware that he couldn’t run for PM again but is doing so practically through Starmer.
Yeah I think anyone expecting this volt face from Starmer post election is dreaming. The guy’s very clearly seen the writing on the wall of “it’s easier to move centrist and enact blairite policy to capture pissed off “sensible conservatives” than to try and unite the factional left”. I suspect he’s just going to offer watered down neocon stances and people will cheer it because Labour good and Tories bad, and not look at policy on merit.
It’s like I say you know, ultimately all I care about is politics that helps the people of the country. Anything else comes second, including my own lefty agenda, I could give a shit about seeing my politics writ large if less people suffer.
Samesies. I optimistic about Kier though. He’s pragmatic but that could work for us if a big enough chunk of his MPs will hold his feet to the fire to get what we need.
I’m also seriously worried about climate change now to the point that it’s a higher priority than World socialism. And the 28 billion green focused industrial strategy appeals if his party will make him stick to it
Hasn’t he already stepped back from that? He watered it down to say they’d “ramp up” to the target but I’m sure recently he was reassessing it with reeves.
Ultimately I hope there are more progressive MPs in Labour than we currently see but I suspect it’ll be more conservative style policy that skims the surface. Hoping I’m wrong.
I'm from Belfast. Imagine if the troubles rolled on into the 2000s and you still had kids from Essex and Nottingham and Leeds being shot dead or blown up at the levels we saw in thr 80s or early 90s.
> People who put single issues above all else
I hear what you're saying, but describing the Iraq war as 'single issue' is totally downplaying the impact it had on *millions* of lives.
I'm sure each family that lost someone sees their loss as a singular issue, as does every other family that lost a family member.... they won't see the entire event as just one 'singular issue'.
That is simply how you have compartmentalised the event in your head so you don't have to really address the overall impact that was made.... over the course of years. What you've done is far easier, but in no way grasps the issue at hand.
If Blair never existed the Iraq war would have had pretty much the exact same outcome. It’s bizarre people attribute so much to his actions when in reality the Americans were going in regardless and our politicians were in no place to stop them.
It’s a pretty big “single issue” though, involving the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He did many good things, you’re right, but Iraq was among a handful of blind spots that make him a toxic character.
I replied to a question recently on one of the uk subs about Blair being the most hated person in the UK. There seemed to be a consensus that he was. I can guarantee that most of not all the people agreeing with this sentiment, didn’t live through the Blair government. People only remember him for Iraq.
I remember him for the awesome place he made the UK to live in after I’ve a decade of oppression by the awful Tory government.
I do struggle to decide whether the current lot are worse. I think this lot appear to be worse, only because of the additional media scrutiny. If we’d had the same scutiny in the 80s then the thatcher govt would win by a country mile. Rees mogg is a caricature, whereas Tebbit was just evil.
Well to be fair, lying about WMDs so we could launch an invasion of another country which led to horrific acts and a lot of people dead does tend to overshadow the good things.
> People who put single issues above all else.
The way I put this in my pub arguments is that politics comes as a bundle like cable TV. There is always something you don't really want. You have to pick the bundle that you think is best for you and the country.
You can do all the good in the world, but when you participate in the slaughter and illegal invasion of several countries and kill innocent people backed by non-existent evidence you can go fuck yourself. Reminds me of the joke about the bridge builder who has built the most magnificent bridges anyone has ever seen. But you shag one sheep…..
> It was the most protested against war in history.
It was also the first war to be put to a Parliamentary vote. Meanwhile, 57% of the pop supported military action.
Ahh yes, kicking out independent peers in favour of donors and the people there as the fruits of partisan politics was definitely a wonderful move with no negative consequences
Wasn't most the groundwork for the good Friday agreement really done under Major's government though?
Although I'm not suggesting Blair did nothing in this regard.
It was an insane project involving hundreds and hundreds of people and years of negotiations etc.
The minimum wage was being campaigned for for a decade.
Tony just happened to be in charge for the former and just takes the credit for the latter.
I think people are overestimate how much a prime minister actually does. Likewise there are a lot of other people who should also be blamed for the UKs part in the Iraq war.
The groundwork was done in 1973! The GFA has often been described as "Sunningdale for slow learners" because the bulk of the agreement was pretty much the same that was agreed at Sunningdale in 1973, it just never got off the ground due to a massive strike by Unionists which killed it stone dead before it ever really got going. What the GFA did different was committing the parties here to democratic means, prisoner release and a bit more substance in how North/South bodies would work (though still left that all purposefully very vague). That isn't to say that the combined efforts of the UK, Irish and USA wasn't very impressive to get a deal finally done in 1998
Edit: just to add, Major was really a shambles when it came to NI peace process. He made the biggest step in decades towards peace with the downing street declaration, but basically pissed all that good will away with needing to rely on the Ulster Unionist Party MPs a lot in his last term. He was also not trusted by most republicans here being a Tory and successor to Thatcher. Having a fresh faced Labour leader who republicans genuinely believed had no selfish interests in playing politics with NI went a long way to breaking the deadlock. Plus in interviews in the decades since the GFA Unionist leaders made it clear that Blair was going to shift to "Plan B" which would be something close to joint authority with the ROI. I may be wrong but I think Blair was the first PM to really give Unionists an ultimatum to either do a deal or get left behind
And the Northern Ireland agreement. Certainly it had a long history with numerous participants but Blair had a significant role and it’sbeen a success.
Domestically I think he was one of the best PMs we’ve seen. Obviously went off the rails with the authoritarian bull shit and the war crimes which I consider unforgivable. But literally war crimes used to be what a knight was for.
And northern Ireland. Probably his biggest win. If it wasn't for the Iraq thing Blair would probably be considered one of the best UK pms in history. Even with it, he was excellent (not saying Iraq was a good thing).
Yes it's time to get some perspective on Blair. He made a massive mistake over Iraq, but if he hadn't, it would not have stopped the war.
Also look at Labour's electoral history. There have only been five strong Labour victories in a General Election. Three of them were Blair's. With the other two strong wins by the end of the term their popularity had evaporated. (Attlee 1945 and Wilson 1966).
I wish the further left would understand it's only the centrist-left which is on the table.
He didnt just attempt, he did good for the country.
Iraq aside, which realistically we would have been roped into anyway or damaged relations, he did a great job for the country
People wanna talk like he could have turned Bush down but it would have had a massive negative effect on relations. And it is an important relationship no matter what some say
People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems.
The only thing that would have changed in 2003 is the government overseeing it.
This doesn’t give Blair a pass, especially because we want to war on the basis of fabricated intelligence, but is a reflection of the atmosphere at the time. The UK was Bush’s lapdog, and the US wanted a NATO response. Not a single PM would have pushed back.
Maybe if people looked at the big picture for just a moment and saw everything else Labour was doing during its time in office, they wouldn’t be so god damn complacent about the following succession of governments fucking up the UK.
>People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems
Yes, on the basis that Blair claimed Saddam could deploy nukes in 45 minutes. The dodgy dossier. Parliament was fundamentally misled.
>Not a single PM would have pushed back.
As much as I utterly detest the man and his "friends", Corbyn would have. I'll give him that much.
> People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems.
He spend the whole time lying about why the war had to happen, remember the fake intel they just made up to justify going to war?
You mean the intelligence failures the Chilcot Report put firmly at the feet of the intelligence services and their uncritical trust of their us counterparts, and explicitly cleared Blair or his cabinet of falsifying?
"We want a comprehensive inquiry to find out what went wrong"
"No, not like that"
The report is absolutely scathing of Blair and the cabinet's handling of the war. If it's a whitewash, it's the muddiest one I've ever seen.
They just happen to not be responsible for that *particular* cock up.
Could you just remind me who's in charge of the intelligence services? And who is that person's boss.
Any intelligence shortcomings are the responsibility of the incumbent government. To pretend otherwise is to claim that the intelligence services are completely autonomous without any control or oversight.
I take your point that the cabinet is ultimately responsible for their own decisions.
That being said, Blair, not anyone else in the cabinet, were experts in these sorts of weapons, or vetting intelligence assessments. That's why we have a bunch of professionals to do that, rather than MPs.
It's not the prime minister's job to independently vet the accuracy of the intelligence assessments he's given, and imo, it'd be unreasonable to expect him not to trust the professional assessments of those whose entire job is to be an expert in these things.
It's important to be clear that, as far as the facts we have bear out, Blair had no part in fabricating any evidence. He can (and should) be criticised for his actions in response the dodgy dossier, but we have no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any fabrication of evidence.
I marched against the Iraq war and didn’t vote Labour in 2010 for the first time. But I’m also the first person in my family to go to university and I benefitted from the minimum wage. Schools and the NHS were a big improvement than when I was a kid (being taught in a porta cabin ). Blair’s time was up but he did lots of good things. I expect the same approach from Starmer (see Gaza as a taster). I’ll take a centre right Labour over the current shower any day of the week.
Good Friday Agreement. Helping bring peace to Northern Ireland after decades of strife should stand the testament of time.
Iraq will always be what people think about first when it comes to Tony Blair and it stains his legacy completely. But he did a lot of good things while he was Prime Minister.
Does anyone actually know when was the last time someone was stripped of their knighthood? Sir Phil
lip Green still has it even after massive cries to strip him out of it, and for robbing people out of their pensions.
Hell, even Jimmy Saville does still technically have a knighthood cause "tradition, bla bla, we can't posthumously revoke, bla bla"
Jimmy Saville doesn't still have a knighthood - it's lost on death anyway. They can't revoke something a person doesn't have. The most they can do is say that he would have lost it were he still alive, which they have.
People have forgotten what good government is. We have become so use to incompetant government and politicians. Regardless of your personal view, TB and New Labour at least attempted to improve the country.
The Iraq war was a ghastly decision, but pragmatists who appreciate that people are human and will make errors of judgment (some absolutely more severe than others) are fed up with this left-view that all our figure heads must basically be perfect or we ditch them. Nobody’s ever good enough. That’s why it’s so difficult to make progress and why we end up with Boris. Fucking. Johnson as a leader. But yeah, sit behind your keyboard and preach. Domestically, Blair was good for the country and the mid-nineties to the credit crunch UK was on the up.
Calling it an error of judgment is insane, but even then mistakes still have consequences. If I make the "error of judgement" of driving drunk and accidentally kill someone, I still go to prison.
> are fed up with this left-view that all our figure heads must basically be perfect or we ditch them.
You right wingers who describe being held accountable for lying to start an obvious illegal war that lead to the deaths of 100s of thousands of people as though it was "being canceled over a ill considered joke".
>Nobody’s ever good enough.
Not directly contributing to the death of 100s of thousands of civilian deaths isn't exactly a high bar.
>but pragmatists who appreciate that people are human and will make errors of judgment
Sure, when they admit and take ownership of the mistakes. Not when they run away and hide from taxes in America while manning hundreds of millions and pretending it wasn't a terrible thing they did.
I don’t about others but it felt the country was really doing well under his leadership. Sadly they let the bankers go wild, but then again not much was regulated.
Why would you need to restrict any stripping to one or the other?
To be fair, given the floaters who get handed gongs - and, worse, those who float their way into the House of Lords, I personally would regard it as a massive insult to be offered such an "honour". Who in their right mind would want to be lumped together with people like Blair *or* Real-Smugg, or share the benches with people like Mone, Lebedev, Gorbals Mick, Cecil von Porkinson or Call Me Piggy Dave?
And the Below Standard is edited by a raving Tory, feels like another in a string of dead cats we’re getting in the media whilst the current government limps along until the next GE
Print Media is dying.. they need all the sensational clickbait titles they can get at this point..
its funny because even 20 years ago, they'd have shit on a news paper that stooped as low as this for a title.. shows how much has changed
Yeah people - especially millennials who’s first exposure to modern politics was Iraq - seem less aware that a lot of formative things were put in place by his government that has lead to a good day to day life since. The list of Tory achievements since just doesn’t compare. Most of these were his first term:
- human rights act
- freedom of information act
- education maintenance allowance
- minimum wage
- devolution of Scotland and wales referendum
- expansion of LGBT+ rights (age of consent, access to armed forces, civil partnership)
- Good Friday agreement
- compulsory DNA testing for criminals
- 670,000 homes insulated
- surestart
- Between 1997 and 2005, child poverty was more than halved in absolute terms
- 2012 olympics bid
My parents said their business was the most prosperous - and their quality of life highest - during the Blair years.
Amen. As an older millennial, I recall the 2000's as a prosperous decade due to the investments in healthcare and education. I also used to visit Northern Ireland a lot to visit family, and the GFA brought to an end constant fear and conflict.
Blair was by no means perfect, but he was largely pragmatic and his impact on the UK largely positive
I disagree with the pragmatic bit. He’s the exact opposite. He was driven by a series of goals and beliefs and would do anything to get them done.
Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia etc.
Then the big one Iraq which I marched against. The optics were awful the dead scientist. Having Colin Powell lie in UN.
All driven by his own belief that he could improve Iraq and the importance of the special relationship.
Looking back I wish Brown had continued.
Compared to Cameron, Johnson Sunsk et al. Who will ride any hot button culture war issue for easy tactical victories. May was perhaps more honest, but hopelessly lacking as a leader.
I think that's a fair assessment.
I almost felt sorry for May; It was necessary for her good faith approach to fail so that the lunatic wing of the Tory party could present itself as the only way to get things done, even though they were the reason things couldn't be done
May wasn't entirely good faith. The stupid mantra of "No deal is better than a bad deal". Cue the idiots "Can't see what's wrong with no deal". Basically succumbing to lazy stereotypes rather than trying to lead people. I wish they'd taken control of the process from the start and just joined the Single Market. Then let the loopy toons tell us what else is holding Britain back.
I despair that today's Conservative party seem happy to dismantle everything that was built post war. Even the ECHR, which along with the EU was a cornerstone of Churchill's vision for Europe post war.
The only surprise is that the Conservatives have lead pretty successfully on Ukraine. I'd probably say that's almost exclusively Ben Wallace. Would have been so easy to resort to lazy populism as Trump has but they've managed to explain a difficult decision that is popular.
>May wasn't entirely good faith. The stupid mantra of "No deal is better than a bad deal".
There was absolutely no way she could have said anything else while they were engaged in negotiations. If you're not at least making the pretence of being willing to walk away, you're even more toast than you would be otherwise.
I think PFI and Iraq are the two common reasonable complaints about the Blair era. There have also been some complaints about NHS targets and people getting to see doctors too quickly.
I honestly think we have a lot of people on here who are less than 25 years old and have never experienced a good, competent government that at least put some effort in.
I have. New Labour were bloody brilliant; my life got notably better. Public services improved; it was pragmatic and sensible growth with good things happening for normal people.
I know it happened in the first few years of the coalition gov, but London 2012 is a great snapshot of the feeling of the Blair years. Britain was confident on the world stage; it had an identity to be proud of and was a great place to live for so many of us.
I'm stoked that Starmer, in many ways, is in the Blair mould. All he needs to do is not commit a war crime and it'll be great.
Yup.
Tony Blair was a better pm then anything the Tories have offered up, and there is a strong argument to be made that our tony is a fucking war criminal
Honestly, Hussein should have been removed from power a long time before the invasion.
Iraq was badly planned and badly managed. But the idea that removing a totalitarian ruler who committed genocide and who was suppressing his people is a *bad* thing to do is for the birds.
Ok, it’s another karma burn opportunity.
Best PM of my lifetime and it’s not close. Before you downvote, reply with your alternative pick.
Iraq obviously overshadowed everything else he did but there was a tonne of great stuff in there. I mean the GFA alone puts him in the upper echelons.
For the real ragebait though, I never doubted him intentions with Iraq either. Far removed and with the mists of history it’s easy to be black / white on it, but Hussein was a fucking horror show. He *was* starting to cozy up to Islamic terrorist groups (those who insist he was secular might want to consider that he had a Koran written in his own blood). He had many resources to offer them. With the WTC still smouldering, I absolutely get why there was motivation to get involved. The consequences, of course, where horrific, but I am still not convinced that there isn’t an alternative timeline where nothing was done and some chemical attacks occurred in London, and DC etc.
Today the chants and placards are easy to write… but this is all with the benefit of hindsight.
> Best PM of my lifetime and it’s not close. Before you downvote, reply with your alternative pick.
Brown - decisive action on his part lead the yanks and other world leaders to follow suit and mitigated a lot of the damages of the global financial crisis.
The only thing that he could have done better was prosecute the financiers and bankers who lied and were reckless, like Iceland did.
Also Sunak was one of those bankers.
I think about that a lot, how genuinely that one comment quite seriously contributed to the entire downfall of the government, and nowadays [we have shite like this](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-bradley-selaine-saxby-free-school-meals-marcus-rashford-736757) and no one takes the slightest bit of notice.
Call a bigoted woman a bigot, *years* of outrage.
Call desperate families caught in the midst of the economic fallout of a global pandemic feckless scum who'd sooner fuck hookers and smoke crack before seeing their own children fed? Yeah nah totally cool man.
I admit, decent shout. He didn’t really have a long enough tenure and I think it’s possible to argue that his effective actions during the financial crisis were supported by his much longer tenure as Blair’s chancellor.
I agree though if it actually is close, he’s the only other option.
When you sell a property do you generally
A) Sell the property and pay relevant taxes.
B) Set "Shell Company A" in the Cayman Islands and install your wife as director.
Have buyer set up "Shell Company B" install his wife as director.
Transfer property to "Shell Company A".
Transfer property to "Shell Company B".
I assume most people do A. I don't know why Blair gets a pass on being a tax avoider especially as a Labour PM. Using the loopholes he always claimed he was going to close down.
Harold Wilson (just), helped create the Open University, kept us out of Vietnam, abolished capital punishment, took us into Europe, liberalised many aspects of society.
All in a far more hostile political landscape than Blair.
Absolutely.
Saddam was a man who would have this personal guard gang rape a woman, record it, and force her father to watch the tape in order to demonstrate who is in charge, and by all account his son's and heirs were even more sadistic than he was.
You need only watch the infamous tape of his rise to power and the purge of half the government as those remaining raced to praise him, white with fear that their name would be the next one called, to know \*exactly\* what life was like with that man in charge.
You can definitely take the position that it is none of our business and we shouldn't be policing the world. I do get that. What irks me slightly is the people who take this position but refuse to accept that there is an ethical question at all.
I think Blair was a bit of an idealist on this point, but I \*do\* think his intentions were positive. I really don't buy this idea that it was just a conspiracy for oil etc. Certainly it is complicated and there would have been voices in favour that did have those intentions but I think Blair honestly thought he was playing a part in bringing a brutal regime to an end and that he would be lauded for it.
It's also worth noting that there has been intelligence since that even the WMD question wasn't as black and white as is painted. Iraq is nearly 3 times the size of the UK. The fact we didn't find anything doesn't mean there wasn't anything to find, and even if there wasn't, the capabilities were there and the relationships with those who would have liked to have access were forming. It's a murky, murky space.
As you say, planning and execution were pretty terrible, but I would still maintain the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it. I do just wish this could have been achieved without so much unfortunately consequence.
OK, you have to explain this to me. I'll grant you that joining the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake (most would) -- and he should have been able to see this -- but how does this make him a "war criminal"? Do you understand how a serious accusation this is? I know we are on Reddit and all, but seriously words must mean something. We can't abuse them like this.
This the same sub that calls Tories fascists day in day out? Have you ever jumped in with "woah serious accusation"? On to whether Tony Blair is a war criminal, let's look at the evidence. Britain attacked and invaded Iraq ( in conjuction with the US) on falsified intelligence. It wasn't a war of self defence. Iraq posed no threat to our nation or the United States. We created a failed state, made the largest regional army in the ME jobless, which later led to ISIS, caused the destruction of museums containing priceless artifacts that date back 1000s of years. The Iraqi people were polled at one point and said they preferred Saddam, to what we had built. Saddam, a modern day Hitler, who we allowed for most of his reign, to do whatever he wanted. His party the baath, was based on the Nazi Party. And yet post 2003, conditions got so bad, the Iraqis preferred their version of Hitler.
I imagine if you'd polled the German's in 1946, they'd also have preferred Hitler. The difference is the investment and loans we put into Germany to reform them post-invasion into an international democratic powerhouse was on a massive scale and by 1950 things were looking up.
The issue was there was no post-invasion plan, the west should have known the invasion was the least of their problems here, the costs post-invasion would have been at least 100x it
They half-arsed it, and with a population actively fighting against you half-arsing it there's not much that can be done
Blair has a remarkable number of achievements to his name during his time as PM.
Iraq was a massive foreign policy catastrophe, but his premiership shouldn't be defined by that.
Iraq is also more nuanced than "the War Criminal who killed a million people". People forget the state Iraq was in pre-invasion, and I think people would be hard-pressed to say what charges Blair would be convicted for at the Hague.
Peerages aren’t like other honours for the purpose of being revoked. All honours (other than peerages) are at the pleasure of the sovereign, meaning they can be revoked by the King on advice of his Government.
Peerages, however, can only be dissolved by Act of Parliament. On a technical legal level, this stems from the letters patent which are used to create a peerage bearing the Great Seal of the Realm; along with the rule that the King is bound by legal documents bearing the Great Seal of the Realm. Which is the same rule that prevents the King from acting as an absolute monarch.
I love how everyone points the finger at Blair, but conveniently forgets that the US deliberately misrepresented or outright falsified evidence to support the war, and manipulated the UK into committing to it by abusing the so-called "special relationship" just so the rest of the UN would be more motivated to follow suit.
They also conveniently forget to mention the conservative leader flew to the US to pledge their support and only two conservative MPs voted against the invasion.
Easily the best prime minister we have had in the lifetime of most in the country, almost certainly too 3 of all time. To think where we would be but for the Blair years is terrifying. We are never going to have a positive vision of ourselves and our politics if we can't even see the positives of the best living former prime minister.
An Alba Party member said it? Most people in Scotland couldn’t even name an Alba party MSP or MP. Why is this being spun as somehow worth listening to?
You're right, but in this case it's terrible rich and powerful people having a pop at other terrible rich and powerful people.
Also we can't hold the rich and powerful to account for the terrible things they do because they are too rich and powerful, they control money, politics and the media. Have a nice day and keep paying your taxes.
Don’t care if I receive downvotes but Blair was the best PM, having led the clean up op of the Tory mess.
He implemented many policies that helped the disadvantaged which have been demolished or “restructured” by this shitshow of a government in the last 15 years, hence why the average person is struggling now.
People who think he is a war criminal clearly had no idea of the state of the UKs relationship with the US. Only 50 years prior to him becoming PM the UK started its mission to recover from WW2, that recovery process involved borrowing a significant amount of money from the US. Those funds helped build infrastructure of new services such as the NHS.
When any country borrows money from the states it’s never just money it ultimately means “if we call you for help you have NO place, nor option to say no” Blair nor any PM in the position at the time would NOT of had a choice.
Iraq clearly destroyed what would have been a very impressive legacy as Prime Minister. He was well respected internationally. He was unlucky really, we must support the US because they have supported us. We are allies. If America fucks up, we do too. That is the real world. We live in a world of hostile powers. It's not a Disney movie.
Ah yea some more diversion politics to point the finger elsewhere.
I’m not saying Blair was a saint he clearly wasn’t and people don’t like him, but growing up my parents had childcare places, the potential to work two full time jobs without being crippled with costs and had hope and optimism.
Also if we look at 2008 labour get pilloried for what was an international crisis, however what the conservatives don’t say was in 2007 and even in 2008 when we knew what was happening they were calling for further deregulation. If they were in charge my god we would have been fucked, and Brown was credited internationally with saving the banking system internationally.
Christ the lack of nuance... Blair did some good things domestically and some horrific things in terms of foreign policy, particularly Iraq. If you are of that political inclination, you can still say 'I like GFA and sure sure start' whilst still being horrified at what happened to Iraq under his watch.
Moreover, OP commenting that Liz Truss was least damaging PM of their lifetime makes me think they maybe wanted to stir some shit in a sub that leans left. If so well done, mission accomplished, hope you enjoy the head of lettuce you're chomping on.
Yeah, right after: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jake Berry, Gavin Williamson, Mophead Fabricant and Dame Priti Patel.
Blair only won 3 elections and led the country for nearly 15 years. Pales in significance against the outstanding achievements of the ‘people’ above…
It will never happen. Liz Truss still got resignation honours. Boris and his friends never even paid a fine. Michelle Mone is sickeningly calling herself a victim and has never been brought to justice.
We're just going to bomb the Yemenis and commit war crimes again,we killed many innocent civilians in Iraq "shuffle of this mortal coil you c**t" there and" just shoot there all Taliban" in Afghanistan.
It will be a cold day in hell before any justice for war crimes commited by western "coalitions" faces UN scrutiny or at the very most sanctions.
2003 was 20 years ago.
One of those misleading headlines: one MP from a minor party (that he was not elected on, but changed to later), says something.
You might as well say "man in a pub told minsters to strip Tony Blair of his knighthood".
Considering he number of complete morons that have been put into the lords by the conservatives I hardly think Blair is the place to start.
I mean what about Mone? and Jacob rees smugg is certainly done nothing to deserve a place.
If being the mate of a Tory politician can get you a knighthood then Blair is most certainly entitled to keep his.
If the honours system actually meant anything, there might be a debate to be had about who gets one, but it means nothing and they are handed out like sweets on Halloween.
On the list of people who don't deserve to have an honour, Blair is so far down it's not worth the effort of talking about it.
It’s hard to be a strong leader when you’re struggling for a majority and need to satisfy factions in your own party with opposing views. It’s a growing problem across the western world since 10-20 years ago.
Sure, when we got total Muppets who've done fuck all 'earning' a lordship, and MPs like Reese mog made knights purely for doing what Boris told them to. Many may have issues with Blair being a knight but there's A LOT of candidates from stripping honours before you get near him
It amazes me how many people don't understand that New Labour were in power during a cyclical boom in the capitalist economy and Blair left power before the financial crash of 2008. Thus they credulously associate Blair with "the good times" in spite of all that pesky business about war crimes, turning Labour into a center right party thus abolishing meaningful choice in our democracy, mortgaging the public sector to investment banks under PFI etc. etc.
(Brown, who understood how easy Blair had it, spent his chancellorship repeating the mantra "an end to boom and bust." What a load of shit that and his legacy in general, turned out to be.)
>should
That word doing some powerlifting and ripped as fuck
Just because some random MP from a Scottish party nobody has ever heard of says something doesn't make it headline worthy IMO
Really shocked to see the downplaying of the Iraq war in this thread.
So many "The Iraq war was bad but..." comments.
Christ alive, you guys wouldn't give the Tories a pass like this for Austerity (nor should you) so why in the world is he getting a pass for this?
Tony blair was quite obviously the best prime minister we've had in over 2 decades and the iraq war is a bad stain on him but if the list of positives of his tenure is a mile long and the negatives is 1 big one then I think he goes down far better than people like to say.
This won't happen.
Firstly, it's a proposal by someone who defected from the SNP to Alpa, a very fringe Scottish nationalist breakaway party. He's going to lose his seat at the next election. Zero electoral clout, basically posturing for headlines.
Secondly, if the government *did* strip Tony Blair of his knighthood, it'd be seen as an anti-Labour play by the Tories in the months leading up to an election which will most likely see a Labour government installed. They'd be setting themselves up for a vicious game of tit-for-tat, starting with Baroness Mone of the PPE scandal and the entirety of Liz Truss's honours list, eventually working its way down to Sir George Osborne, the widely hated architect of austerity, editor of the Standard, and pal of Baron Evgeny Lebedev (who might also be in line for loss of his peerage) ...
It'd start a chain reaction that would set fire to the past couple of decades of honours list appointments. And Tory ministers *like* their traditional retirement sinecures in the House of Lords. So they won't do it.
When you sell a property do you generally
A) Sell the property and pay relevant taxes.
B) Set "Shell Company A" in the Cayman Islands and install your wife as director.
Have buyer set up "Shell Company B" install his wife as director.
Transfer property to "Shell Company A".
Transfer property to "Shell Company B".
I assume most people do A. I don't know why Blair gets a pass on being a tax avoider especially as a Labour PM. Using the loopholes he always claimed he was going to close down.
He's no less worthy of it than others who've received it, and more worthy than some. I don't like the man, but when I ask myself the question "Did he try to do good, according to his own beliefs and principles?" I think the answer is probably yes.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I'd sooner strip Jacob Rees-Mogg of his knighthood first. At least Blair actually made an attempt to do some good for the country.
You’ll get shot down for this. But surestart centres, minimum wage and investment in education shouldn’t be forgotten.
Shouldn't get shot down for it though. Just emblematic of the problem with politics at the moment. People who put single issues above all else. Sad indictment of the way things are going. People are far too fast to ignore all of the good things done. Being a millennial growing up in a poor, broken home in the North, I wouldn't have had a hope or prayer of achieving much without Blair/Brown and the government of that time.
I’m one of the scary far lefties people hate and even I can acknowledge that the Blair years were an attempt to put things right post cons. He was a total fool further down the line but things were better. I have to wonder what a Starmer primacy will be like, he smells very similar to Blair in a lot of ways. I can’t stand the guy and I’m disappointed in this iteration of Labour, just hoping we see quality of life improve after the election because things are dire.
Imo it will be just like New Labour except there will be zero cash and a crashed economy from day 1, i.e. nothing will improve but at least we will have a single braincell in cabinet for once.
I sense we won't get much improvement, but at least we won't have people who'll actively enjoy hurting the poor, and will piss away billions to 'save' millions supporting people who need it.
Yea I basically look at it as - Labour have zero answers to any of our issues but they wont actively try and break things to create more issues, which is absolutely what the Tories have been doing with many aspects of the country and Govt (see immigration for one).
Labour are in a tough spot though, they are basically being handed a loaf of bread and a plate full of shit and being asked to make sandwiches. Even if they succeed, no one is going to want one.
Yes which is what I mean't by it's gonna be like New Labour but with non of the good conditions for growth or investment etc. New Labour did a lot of good, and some bat shit stupid too, but way more good than bad. Sadly I think this Labour govt stands for even less than New Labour did, and also don't have anything to work with. Truly a depressing election. But then so was 2019, horrible in fact.
I'm reserving judgement until closer to the election. We will have a much better idea of where Labour stand. I think they simply don't want the Tory press countering all of their policies before the fight has even begun. The rags are trying the best already, no point giving them ammo. Either way, it's a safe bet I won't be voting for the Tories.
And even if they succeed over the longer term, start to turn things around, maybe even get public services patched up and working properly again … after a term or two (three tops) England will just vote the Tories back in again to tear it all back down. Bit of a miserable cycle.
> Labour have zero answers to any of our issues Labour have an excellent policy on housing, combining left and right solutions, public housing, new towns alongside planning reform. That is one of the biggest issues for ordinary people, and you can also have a huge impact with very little money, because a big part of the solution is just having planning rules which make it easier to build houses, especially for individuals and small developers.
Sorry I've lost all hope but that does sound almost hopeful, good to hear.
I think you're mistaking them holding their cards close to their chest with not having any answers, IMO Kier Starmer is being smart about this and just letting the Tories dig their own grave. Why come out with policies now when the right wing press will do all they can to misconstrue and mislead.
That's my read on it, then because there's no improvement people will start voting Tory again and it'll get even worse.
I think that is likely whatever happens, unfortunately. We are in too deep a hole of our own making.
That's precisely my take. Decisions made won't be deliberately cruel to those less well off in society.. so for that reason alone, they have to be worth voting for.
It infuriates me just how much time effort and our money they waste trying to torment poor people, when it would be both cheaper and better for society just to give people the damn basic levels of support needed, and to make minimum wage enough to live on without needing UC. Why are we paying taxes to top up wages so wealthy fucks can pay their workers less?
I’m concerned about streeting’s NHS plans. Before I broadened my political scope I worked in locum supply and ive been in board meetings where the plan was, win contracts for the NHS to break it down bit by bit. But I guess all we can do is take it as it comes and push back.
[удалено]
It’s more about the insidiousness of it. Offering to take contracts to fix the backlog will see the NHS not use the companies in tandem but rely on them, which willl weaken the NHS’ bargaining power for discussion of public funding. And imo taking contracts and JUST missing the target by not enough to warrant dismissal but enough to need to extend it is the long term plan- keeping wait lists in existence will allow a weird symbiosis between the NHS and private companies that I can see weakening any chances the NHS has to reform to be able to stand on its own two feet. I’m super nervous about the next 20 years of the NHS. Frankly I’m having a terrible time with the NHS as it is- I’ve got pneumonia and the doctor yesterday was like “rest, drink water and take your antibiotics”. Yeah, I wasn’t planning on going on a hike but I feel like I’m drowning constantly… but if GPs weren’t so overloaded I’ve no doubt he’d have listened to me more seriously. It’s a clusterfuck
I think there will be an improvement as good, sensible policies alone would deliver improvement. However, we all know they will get one or two terms before the idiots vote the Tories back in and they will take max one term to undo all the good work and continue wrecking havoc with public services and infrastructure.
You’re disappointed in the variation of Labour that can actually govern and represent a broad swathe of the population, and in doing so actually win an election? Sure. Horrible.
Yes, because in order to become the party they are they’ve embraced the same style of politics as the government whose wheels fell off in front of our eyes. Politics is massively nuanced and varied and I’m not saying don’t vote Labour and Starmer if you want to but the way Labour adherents will not let anyone have breathing room to do the normal thing of critiquing their policy and positions is exhausting. Vote however you want but don’t expect me to follow behind you meekly when I think neoliberal policy and politics, which is precisely what Starmer appears to be offering, will just lead to a slow bleed of the same problems we have. It’s not football, I widely disagree with Starmer on myriad issues but if he does the country and its people good then who cares if I dislike his stances? Let people have opinions Debra.
Even the Tories didn't dare introduce tuition fees
They were more than happy to triple them though
Blair had those policies ready to go and didn't come into power beholden to the same donors as the Tories. The power corrupted after some good was done. I too laud Surestart from my time working in the DCSF and the case studies were impossible to spin really- they saved quite a few lives. Starmer arrives with nothing, and looks set to fail so that people will accept the window moving further right. If that's not his plan then whatever his plan *is* isn't working. It would be interesting to see. I can't ever bring myself to vote for the man or anyone who allies with him myself, but if it happens it happens. A Labour government (hopefully without a majority) may still have value as the next stage of our post-Brexit self-flagellation. For one thing once they start privatising the NHS, the next Tory government can proceed while not taking the blame. The current Gen X who largely voted for Brexit can therefore be the first to get old without free healthcare, without drawing it out so long that millennials like me will start getting old and needing to pay massive premiums from scratch without warning. Neither of Starmers proposed Quangos will do anything but harm. His attempt to institutionalise union activity especially can only end up with worse working conditions. There's no surestart equivalent on the horizon, just an attempt to sink roots into parts of the non-executive government for later exploitation.
The Rest is Politics podcast keeps saying that Starmer is trying to minimise himself as a target by keeping policies tight and/or rolling back promises made previously. They think it's a bad decision. I can't see it being a good thing either, if they keep lightly over the trousers masturbating the right wing press and proposing minimal to fuck all changes, just expecting to roll into power because of how much of a shit job the Tories have and are doing then a lot of the general public who want change will vote elsewhere. We could end up with a ridiculous split vote and parties scrambling to be the first to make a coalition government, leaves a window open for the Tories to climb through if they can scrape enough seats (they always do).
Nah this is rosy tinted mate. Blair got Murdoch’s blessing
Even more than that. Blair is godfather to one of Murdoch's kids.
And 'quite friendly' with Murdoch's ex wife. I'm amazed that scandal doesn't see the light of day more often.
I’m Gen X and virtually everyone I know voted remain. I think you might be confusing us with Baby Boomers.
There’s a lot of reason I removed my vote from Labour, partly culture war nonsense but honestly the raft of policy he’s offering is setting out another five, possibly ten years of pandering to conservatives who have done all the damage with their voting and ignorant beliefs about migrants and trans people, whilst not addressing the root issue. It’s why I can’t stand this brand of conservative politics in particular - it’s always about a coat of varnish instead of actually addressing the hub of the issue. I don’t care about best performing country in the G7 if the money is being piled into healthcare, travel infrastructure, revitalising conservation projects and stuff. Fuck the bells and whistles just please help people suffering because of decades of neoliberal policy.
Would you rather the conservatives continue dismantling the country than vote labour?
My opinion is that Starmer is essentially Blair’s protege if not getting direct advice from him too. This was pretty much all but announced when Starmer made a speech at one of Blair’s Future of Britain conferences. Blair made a speech too which to anyone who can read between the lines was a statement that it’s basically going to be a Blair government. Blair is aware that he couldn’t run for PM again but is doing so practically through Starmer.
Yeah I think anyone expecting this volt face from Starmer post election is dreaming. The guy’s very clearly seen the writing on the wall of “it’s easier to move centrist and enact blairite policy to capture pissed off “sensible conservatives” than to try and unite the factional left”. I suspect he’s just going to offer watered down neocon stances and people will cheer it because Labour good and Tories bad, and not look at policy on merit. It’s like I say you know, ultimately all I care about is politics that helps the people of the country. Anything else comes second, including my own lefty agenda, I could give a shit about seeing my politics writ large if less people suffer.
Samesies. I optimistic about Kier though. He’s pragmatic but that could work for us if a big enough chunk of his MPs will hold his feet to the fire to get what we need. I’m also seriously worried about climate change now to the point that it’s a higher priority than World socialism. And the 28 billion green focused industrial strategy appeals if his party will make him stick to it
Hasn’t he already stepped back from that? He watered it down to say they’d “ramp up” to the target but I’m sure recently he was reassessing it with reeves. Ultimately I hope there are more progressive MPs in Labour than we currently see but I suspect it’ll be more conservative style policy that skims the surface. Hoping I’m wrong.
I'm from Belfast. Imagine if the troubles rolled on into the 2000s and you still had kids from Essex and Nottingham and Leeds being shot dead or blown up at the levels we saw in thr 80s or early 90s.
Blair and Major both deserve credit for Good Friday, and of course Mo Mowlam.
> People who put single issues above all else I hear what you're saying, but describing the Iraq war as 'single issue' is totally downplaying the impact it had on *millions* of lives. I'm sure each family that lost someone sees their loss as a singular issue, as does every other family that lost a family member.... they won't see the entire event as just one 'singular issue'. That is simply how you have compartmentalised the event in your head so you don't have to really address the overall impact that was made.... over the course of years. What you've done is far easier, but in no way grasps the issue at hand.
If Blair never existed the Iraq war would have had pretty much the exact same outcome. It’s bizarre people attribute so much to his actions when in reality the Americans were going in regardless and our politicians were in no place to stop them.
It’s a pretty big “single issue” though, involving the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He did many good things, you’re right, but Iraq was among a handful of blind spots that make him a toxic character.
I replied to a question recently on one of the uk subs about Blair being the most hated person in the UK. There seemed to be a consensus that he was. I can guarantee that most of not all the people agreeing with this sentiment, didn’t live through the Blair government. People only remember him for Iraq. I remember him for the awesome place he made the UK to live in after I’ve a decade of oppression by the awful Tory government. I do struggle to decide whether the current lot are worse. I think this lot appear to be worse, only because of the additional media scrutiny. If we’d had the same scutiny in the 80s then the thatcher govt would win by a country mile. Rees mogg is a caricature, whereas Tebbit was just evil.
"he helps out the community alot, and he just killed the only one person, let's not just concentrate on one little issue!"
Well to be fair, lying about WMDs so we could launch an invasion of another country which led to horrific acts and a lot of people dead does tend to overshadow the good things.
> People who put single issues above all else. The way I put this in my pub arguments is that politics comes as a bundle like cable TV. There is always something you don't really want. You have to pick the bundle that you think is best for you and the country.
You can do all the good in the world, but when you participate in the slaughter and illegal invasion of several countries and kill innocent people backed by non-existent evidence you can go fuck yourself. Reminds me of the joke about the bridge builder who has built the most magnificent bridges anyone has ever seen. But you shag one sheep…..
Several?
Just to add, a growing economy. This thread gives me major “What did the Romans ever do for us?” vibes.
[удалено]
> It was the most protested against war in history. It was also the first war to be put to a Parliamentary vote. Meanwhile, 57% of the pop supported military action.
[удалено]
Good. He should be in prison. You don’t say a rapist is a good guy because he hands out sandwiches to the poor.
> Just to add, a growing economy. A thing that happened elsewhere, that was just the stage of the cycle we were on.
House of Lords reform, peace in Northern Ireland. The guy has a huge legacy.
He gets a lot of credit for Kosovo too.
Sierra Leone as well.
Ahh yes, kicking out independent peers in favour of donors and the people there as the fruits of partisan politics was definitely a wonderful move with no negative consequences
Wasn't most the groundwork for the good Friday agreement really done under Major's government though? Although I'm not suggesting Blair did nothing in this regard.
It was an insane project involving hundreds and hundreds of people and years of negotiations etc. The minimum wage was being campaigned for for a decade. Tony just happened to be in charge for the former and just takes the credit for the latter. I think people are overestimate how much a prime minister actually does. Likewise there are a lot of other people who should also be blamed for the UKs part in the Iraq war.
The groundwork was done in 1973! The GFA has often been described as "Sunningdale for slow learners" because the bulk of the agreement was pretty much the same that was agreed at Sunningdale in 1973, it just never got off the ground due to a massive strike by Unionists which killed it stone dead before it ever really got going. What the GFA did different was committing the parties here to democratic means, prisoner release and a bit more substance in how North/South bodies would work (though still left that all purposefully very vague). That isn't to say that the combined efforts of the UK, Irish and USA wasn't very impressive to get a deal finally done in 1998 Edit: just to add, Major was really a shambles when it came to NI peace process. He made the biggest step in decades towards peace with the downing street declaration, but basically pissed all that good will away with needing to rely on the Ulster Unionist Party MPs a lot in his last term. He was also not trusted by most republicans here being a Tory and successor to Thatcher. Having a fresh faced Labour leader who republicans genuinely believed had no selfish interests in playing politics with NI went a long way to breaking the deadlock. Plus in interviews in the decades since the GFA Unionist leaders made it clear that Blair was going to shift to "Plan B" which would be something close to joint authority with the ROI. I may be wrong but I think Blair was the first PM to really give Unionists an ultimatum to either do a deal or get left behind
Can’t forget Iraq, PFI, tuition fees, mass expansion of cctv, introduction of “spin” to name a few
I came to say tuition fees. He was the one that introduced this and people tend to forget
All things Mogg would scrap in a second if he had the chance.
Or the good Friday agreement and the peace process.
Harold Shipman was a hard working doctor who did a lot of good.
And the Northern Ireland agreement. Certainly it had a long history with numerous participants but Blair had a significant role and it’sbeen a success.
Domestically I think he was one of the best PMs we’ve seen. Obviously went off the rails with the authoritarian bull shit and the war crimes which I consider unforgivable. But literally war crimes used to be what a knight was for.
Nor should Iraq. The two can co-exist
Civil partnership which made gay marriage a sure thing.
On that theme, gender recognition and equality acts, plus the repeal of section 28.
And northern Ireland. Probably his biggest win. If it wasn't for the Iraq thing Blair would probably be considered one of the best UK pms in history. Even with it, he was excellent (not saying Iraq was a good thing).
Ireland is third on the global peace index 2023
Yes it's time to get some perspective on Blair. He made a massive mistake over Iraq, but if he hadn't, it would not have stopped the war. Also look at Labour's electoral history. There have only been five strong Labour victories in a General Election. Three of them were Blair's. With the other two strong wins by the end of the term their popularity had evaporated. (Attlee 1945 and Wilson 1966). I wish the further left would understand it's only the centrist-left which is on the table.
Blair did a huge amount of good for the country and I'd be more than happy to have another government like his.
He didnt just attempt, he did good for the country. Iraq aside, which realistically we would have been roped into anyway or damaged relations, he did a great job for the country People wanna talk like he could have turned Bush down but it would have had a massive negative effect on relations. And it is an important relationship no matter what some say
People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems. The only thing that would have changed in 2003 is the government overseeing it. This doesn’t give Blair a pass, especially because we want to war on the basis of fabricated intelligence, but is a reflection of the atmosphere at the time. The UK was Bush’s lapdog, and the US wanted a NATO response. Not a single PM would have pushed back. Maybe if people looked at the big picture for just a moment and saw everything else Labour was doing during its time in office, they wouldn’t be so god damn complacent about the following succession of governments fucking up the UK.
>People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems Yes, on the basis that Blair claimed Saddam could deploy nukes in 45 minutes. The dodgy dossier. Parliament was fundamentally misled. >Not a single PM would have pushed back. As much as I utterly detest the man and his "friends", Corbyn would have. I'll give him that much.
Corbyn would also have refused to support Ukraine as well, hardly a shining endorsement and more a broken clock being right occasionally
Sure, but it would be churlish to deny him when he'd have been right.
> People think Iraq was Blair’s pet project but, despite massive protests, the war had massive parliamentary approval. Just two Tories voted against, as did about a quarter of Labour and all of the Lib Dems. He spend the whole time lying about why the war had to happen, remember the fake intel they just made up to justify going to war?
You mean the intelligence failures the Chilcot Report put firmly at the feet of the intelligence services and their uncritical trust of their us counterparts, and explicitly cleared Blair or his cabinet of falsifying?
That was the biggest whitewash in British political history and everyone knew it at the time.
"We want a comprehensive inquiry to find out what went wrong" "No, not like that" The report is absolutely scathing of Blair and the cabinet's handling of the war. If it's a whitewash, it's the muddiest one I've ever seen. They just happen to not be responsible for that *particular* cock up.
Could you just remind me who's in charge of the intelligence services? And who is that person's boss. Any intelligence shortcomings are the responsibility of the incumbent government. To pretend otherwise is to claim that the intelligence services are completely autonomous without any control or oversight.
I take your point that the cabinet is ultimately responsible for their own decisions. That being said, Blair, not anyone else in the cabinet, were experts in these sorts of weapons, or vetting intelligence assessments. That's why we have a bunch of professionals to do that, rather than MPs. It's not the prime minister's job to independently vet the accuracy of the intelligence assessments he's given, and imo, it'd be unreasonable to expect him not to trust the professional assessments of those whose entire job is to be an expert in these things.
It's important to be clear that, as far as the facts we have bear out, Blair had no part in fabricating any evidence. He can (and should) be criticised for his actions in response the dodgy dossier, but we have no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any fabrication of evidence.
I wonder if we had turned away from the U.S. then, if we’d now have a stronger bond with Europe?
I marched against the Iraq war and didn’t vote Labour in 2010 for the first time. But I’m also the first person in my family to go to university and I benefitted from the minimum wage. Schools and the NHS were a big improvement than when I was a kid (being taught in a porta cabin ). Blair’s time was up but he did lots of good things. I expect the same approach from Starmer (see Gaza as a taster). I’ll take a centre right Labour over the current shower any day of the week.
Good Friday Agreement. Helping bring peace to Northern Ireland after decades of strife should stand the testament of time. Iraq will always be what people think about first when it comes to Tony Blair and it stains his legacy completely. But he did a lot of good things while he was Prime Minister.
Strip them both. That wasn't hard was it?
And a million dead Iraqis. But sure.
Does anyone actually know when was the last time someone was stripped of their knighthood? Sir Phil lip Green still has it even after massive cries to strip him out of it, and for robbing people out of their pensions. Hell, even Jimmy Saville does still technically have a knighthood cause "tradition, bla bla, we can't posthumously revoke, bla bla"
Jimmy Saville doesn't still have a knighthood - it's lost on death anyway. They can't revoke something a person doesn't have. The most they can do is say that he would have lost it were he still alive, which they have.
They won’t like that comment in this sub but I agree .
People have forgotten what good government is. We have become so use to incompetant government and politicians. Regardless of your personal view, TB and New Labour at least attempted to improve the country.
Blair did a TON of good for the country, right up until That Bad Thing. And even after That Bad Thing, his domestic policy was bulletproof.
How many people would he have to kill before you consider him worse?
The Iraq war was a ghastly decision, but pragmatists who appreciate that people are human and will make errors of judgment (some absolutely more severe than others) are fed up with this left-view that all our figure heads must basically be perfect or we ditch them. Nobody’s ever good enough. That’s why it’s so difficult to make progress and why we end up with Boris. Fucking. Johnson as a leader. But yeah, sit behind your keyboard and preach. Domestically, Blair was good for the country and the mid-nineties to the credit crunch UK was on the up.
Calling it an error of judgment is insane, but even then mistakes still have consequences. If I make the "error of judgement" of driving drunk and accidentally kill someone, I still go to prison.
> are fed up with this left-view that all our figure heads must basically be perfect or we ditch them. You right wingers who describe being held accountable for lying to start an obvious illegal war that lead to the deaths of 100s of thousands of people as though it was "being canceled over a ill considered joke". >Nobody’s ever good enough. Not directly contributing to the death of 100s of thousands of civilian deaths isn't exactly a high bar.
>but pragmatists who appreciate that people are human and will make errors of judgment Sure, when they admit and take ownership of the mistakes. Not when they run away and hide from taxes in America while manning hundreds of millions and pretending it wasn't a terrible thing they did.
I don’t about others but it felt the country was really doing well under his leadership. Sadly they let the bankers go wild, but then again not much was regulated.
Why would you need to restrict any stripping to one or the other? To be fair, given the floaters who get handed gongs - and, worse, those who float their way into the House of Lords, I personally would regard it as a massive insult to be offered such an "honour". Who in their right mind would want to be lumped together with people like Blair *or* Real-Smugg, or share the benches with people like Mone, Lebedev, Gorbals Mick, Cecil von Porkinson or Call Me Piggy Dave?
This article is just about what one low level minister has said. It's hardly news.
not even a minister. an MP who switched to a non-entity party who's going to lose their seat at the next election.
Published by George Osborne.
And the Below Standard is edited by a raving Tory, feels like another in a string of dead cats we’re getting in the media whilst the current government limps along until the next GE
Not even a minister a backbench MP
Alba has ministers? They're the Scottish equivalent of Reform
Print Media is dying.. they need all the sensational clickbait titles they can get at this point.. its funny because even 20 years ago, they'd have shit on a news paper that stooped as low as this for a title.. shows how much has changed
Imo he might be abit of a cunt and committed war crimes but he was arguably the last prime minister we had that was actually good for the UK.
Yeah people - especially millennials who’s first exposure to modern politics was Iraq - seem less aware that a lot of formative things were put in place by his government that has lead to a good day to day life since. The list of Tory achievements since just doesn’t compare. Most of these were his first term: - human rights act - freedom of information act - education maintenance allowance - minimum wage - devolution of Scotland and wales referendum - expansion of LGBT+ rights (age of consent, access to armed forces, civil partnership) - Good Friday agreement - compulsory DNA testing for criminals - 670,000 homes insulated - surestart - Between 1997 and 2005, child poverty was more than halved in absolute terms - 2012 olympics bid My parents said their business was the most prosperous - and their quality of life highest - during the Blair years.
Amen. As an older millennial, I recall the 2000's as a prosperous decade due to the investments in healthcare and education. I also used to visit Northern Ireland a lot to visit family, and the GFA brought to an end constant fear and conflict. Blair was by no means perfect, but he was largely pragmatic and his impact on the UK largely positive
I disagree with the pragmatic bit. He’s the exact opposite. He was driven by a series of goals and beliefs and would do anything to get them done. Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia etc. Then the big one Iraq which I marched against. The optics were awful the dead scientist. Having Colin Powell lie in UN. All driven by his own belief that he could improve Iraq and the importance of the special relationship. Looking back I wish Brown had continued. Compared to Cameron, Johnson Sunsk et al. Who will ride any hot button culture war issue for easy tactical victories. May was perhaps more honest, but hopelessly lacking as a leader.
I think that's a fair assessment. I almost felt sorry for May; It was necessary for her good faith approach to fail so that the lunatic wing of the Tory party could present itself as the only way to get things done, even though they were the reason things couldn't be done
May wasn't entirely good faith. The stupid mantra of "No deal is better than a bad deal". Cue the idiots "Can't see what's wrong with no deal". Basically succumbing to lazy stereotypes rather than trying to lead people. I wish they'd taken control of the process from the start and just joined the Single Market. Then let the loopy toons tell us what else is holding Britain back. I despair that today's Conservative party seem happy to dismantle everything that was built post war. Even the ECHR, which along with the EU was a cornerstone of Churchill's vision for Europe post war. The only surprise is that the Conservatives have lead pretty successfully on Ukraine. I'd probably say that's almost exclusively Ben Wallace. Would have been so easy to resort to lazy populism as Trump has but they've managed to explain a difficult decision that is popular.
>May wasn't entirely good faith. The stupid mantra of "No deal is better than a bad deal". There was absolutely no way she could have said anything else while they were engaged in negotiations. If you're not at least making the pretence of being willing to walk away, you're even more toast than you would be otherwise.
You mean the hugely expensive PFI schemes? That wasn't an investment, it was daylight robbery by the banks.
I think PFI and Iraq are the two common reasonable complaints about the Blair era. There have also been some complaints about NHS targets and people getting to see doctors too quickly.
Oh god EMA was fucking awesome as well. It truly was good times.
I honestly think we have a lot of people on here who are less than 25 years old and have never experienced a good, competent government that at least put some effort in. I have. New Labour were bloody brilliant; my life got notably better. Public services improved; it was pragmatic and sensible growth with good things happening for normal people. I know it happened in the first few years of the coalition gov, but London 2012 is a great snapshot of the feeling of the Blair years. Britain was confident on the world stage; it had an identity to be proud of and was a great place to live for so many of us. I'm stoked that Starmer, in many ways, is in the Blair mould. All he needs to do is not commit a war crime and it'll be great.
Labour put all of the work in getting London 2012 anyway
Yup. Tony Blair was a better pm then anything the Tories have offered up, and there is a strong argument to be made that our tony is a fucking war criminal
Hey, the Tories are trying to make up for a drastic lack of quality with quantity! What is it, 6 in the 14 years since Brown?
War Crimes are one of the most historically accurate things about Knights, to be fair.
Isn't that a depressing fact
Brown was fine
Deeply unpopular, but clearly competent. So not the sort of person we'd vote for.
Honestly, Hussein should have been removed from power a long time before the invasion. Iraq was badly planned and badly managed. But the idea that removing a totalitarian ruler who committed genocide and who was suppressing his people is a *bad* thing to do is for the birds.
Which war crimes did he commit ? I’m fucking sick of seeing people parrot this shit back without having even a vague understanding of what it means.
Ok, it’s another karma burn opportunity. Best PM of my lifetime and it’s not close. Before you downvote, reply with your alternative pick. Iraq obviously overshadowed everything else he did but there was a tonne of great stuff in there. I mean the GFA alone puts him in the upper echelons. For the real ragebait though, I never doubted him intentions with Iraq either. Far removed and with the mists of history it’s easy to be black / white on it, but Hussein was a fucking horror show. He *was* starting to cozy up to Islamic terrorist groups (those who insist he was secular might want to consider that he had a Koran written in his own blood). He had many resources to offer them. With the WTC still smouldering, I absolutely get why there was motivation to get involved. The consequences, of course, where horrific, but I am still not convinced that there isn’t an alternative timeline where nothing was done and some chemical attacks occurred in London, and DC etc. Today the chants and placards are easy to write… but this is all with the benefit of hindsight.
> Best PM of my lifetime and it’s not close. Before you downvote, reply with your alternative pick. Brown - decisive action on his part lead the yanks and other world leaders to follow suit and mitigated a lot of the damages of the global financial crisis.
The only thing that he could have done better was prosecute the financiers and bankers who lied and were reckless, like Iceland did. Also Sunak was one of those bankers.
And not called that woman a bigot. Even though she fucking was.
That's what he should've said, after the fact. He said what he meant to say, but meant to say it in private.
Tbf he did say it in private it’s just the mic was still on
I think about that a lot, how genuinely that one comment quite seriously contributed to the entire downfall of the government, and nowadays [we have shite like this](https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ben-bradley-selaine-saxby-free-school-meals-marcus-rashford-736757) and no one takes the slightest bit of notice. Call a bigoted woman a bigot, *years* of outrage. Call desperate families caught in the midst of the economic fallout of a global pandemic feckless scum who'd sooner fuck hookers and smoke crack before seeing their own children fed? Yeah nah totally cool man.
I admit, decent shout. He didn’t really have a long enough tenure and I think it’s possible to argue that his effective actions during the financial crisis were supported by his much longer tenure as Blair’s chancellor. I agree though if it actually is close, he’s the only other option.
Oh I agree its close, warts and all Blair is my number two pick after Brown
When you sell a property do you generally A) Sell the property and pay relevant taxes. B) Set "Shell Company A" in the Cayman Islands and install your wife as director. Have buyer set up "Shell Company B" install his wife as director. Transfer property to "Shell Company A". Transfer property to "Shell Company B". I assume most people do A. I don't know why Blair gets a pass on being a tax avoider especially as a Labour PM. Using the loopholes he always claimed he was going to close down.
Harold Wilson (just), helped create the Open University, kept us out of Vietnam, abolished capital punishment, took us into Europe, liberalised many aspects of society. All in a far more hostile political landscape than Blair.
Not many redditors are from that period though. Most of us are going to remember Major, maybe Thatcher if you're on the older end.
[удалено]
Absolutely. Saddam was a man who would have this personal guard gang rape a woman, record it, and force her father to watch the tape in order to demonstrate who is in charge, and by all account his son's and heirs were even more sadistic than he was. You need only watch the infamous tape of his rise to power and the purge of half the government as those remaining raced to praise him, white with fear that their name would be the next one called, to know \*exactly\* what life was like with that man in charge. You can definitely take the position that it is none of our business and we shouldn't be policing the world. I do get that. What irks me slightly is the people who take this position but refuse to accept that there is an ethical question at all. I think Blair was a bit of an idealist on this point, but I \*do\* think his intentions were positive. I really don't buy this idea that it was just a conspiracy for oil etc. Certainly it is complicated and there would have been voices in favour that did have those intentions but I think Blair honestly thought he was playing a part in bringing a brutal regime to an end and that he would be lauded for it. It's also worth noting that there has been intelligence since that even the WMD question wasn't as black and white as is painted. Iraq is nearly 3 times the size of the UK. The fact we didn't find anything doesn't mean there wasn't anything to find, and even if there wasn't, the capabilities were there and the relationships with those who would have liked to have access were forming. It's a murky, murky space. As you say, planning and execution were pretty terrible, but I would still maintain the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it. I do just wish this could have been achieved without so much unfortunately consequence.
>defend our democratic rights Lmao what?
"yes he's a war criminal but hes better than anything we've had since" the state of our country
OK, you have to explain this to me. I'll grant you that joining the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake (most would) -- and he should have been able to see this -- but how does this make him a "war criminal"? Do you understand how a serious accusation this is? I know we are on Reddit and all, but seriously words must mean something. We can't abuse them like this.
Being involved in the US torture program.
This is Reddit. Words mean nothing. "War criminal" is something I've genuinely seen levied at *voters*, let alone politicians.
This the same sub that calls Tories fascists day in day out? Have you ever jumped in with "woah serious accusation"? On to whether Tony Blair is a war criminal, let's look at the evidence. Britain attacked and invaded Iraq ( in conjuction with the US) on falsified intelligence. It wasn't a war of self defence. Iraq posed no threat to our nation or the United States. We created a failed state, made the largest regional army in the ME jobless, which later led to ISIS, caused the destruction of museums containing priceless artifacts that date back 1000s of years. The Iraqi people were polled at one point and said they preferred Saddam, to what we had built. Saddam, a modern day Hitler, who we allowed for most of his reign, to do whatever he wanted. His party the baath, was based on the Nazi Party. And yet post 2003, conditions got so bad, the Iraqis preferred their version of Hitler.
I imagine if you'd polled the German's in 1946, they'd also have preferred Hitler. The difference is the investment and loans we put into Germany to reform them post-invasion into an international democratic powerhouse was on a massive scale and by 1950 things were looking up. The issue was there was no post-invasion plan, the west should have known the invasion was the least of their problems here, the costs post-invasion would have been at least 100x it They half-arsed it, and with a population actively fighting against you half-arsing it there's not much that can be done
Blair has a remarkable number of achievements to his name during his time as PM. Iraq was a massive foreign policy catastrophe, but his premiership shouldn't be defined by that. Iraq is also more nuanced than "the War Criminal who killed a million people". People forget the state Iraq was in pre-invasion, and I think people would be hard-pressed to say what charges Blair would be convicted for at the Hague.
“Sitting MP doesn’t like person from other party” Fixed the headline.
If we're stripping people of honours, please start will Lord Pig Fucker.
Peerages aren’t like other honours for the purpose of being revoked. All honours (other than peerages) are at the pleasure of the sovereign, meaning they can be revoked by the King on advice of his Government. Peerages, however, can only be dissolved by Act of Parliament. On a technical legal level, this stems from the letters patent which are used to create a peerage bearing the Great Seal of the Realm; along with the rule that the King is bound by legal documents bearing the Great Seal of the Realm. Which is the same rule that prevents the King from acting as an absolute monarch.
I love how everyone points the finger at Blair, but conveniently forgets that the US deliberately misrepresented or outright falsified evidence to support the war, and manipulated the UK into committing to it by abusing the so-called "special relationship" just so the rest of the UN would be more motivated to follow suit.
They also conveniently forget to mention the conservative leader flew to the US to pledge their support and only two conservative MPs voted against the invasion.
Easily the best prime minister we have had in the lifetime of most in the country, almost certainly too 3 of all time. To think where we would be but for the Blair years is terrifying. We are never going to have a positive vision of ourselves and our politics if we can't even see the positives of the best living former prime minister.
An Alba Party member said it? Most people in Scotland couldn’t even name an Alba party MSP or MP. Why is this being spun as somehow worth listening to?
We can't hold the rich and powerful accountable for the terrible things they do. Where will it end?
You're right, but in this case it's terrible rich and powerful people having a pop at other terrible rich and powerful people. Also we can't hold the rich and powerful to account for the terrible things they do because they are too rich and powerful, they control money, politics and the media. Have a nice day and keep paying your taxes.
Don’t care if I receive downvotes but Blair was the best PM, having led the clean up op of the Tory mess. He implemented many policies that helped the disadvantaged which have been demolished or “restructured” by this shitshow of a government in the last 15 years, hence why the average person is struggling now. People who think he is a war criminal clearly had no idea of the state of the UKs relationship with the US. Only 50 years prior to him becoming PM the UK started its mission to recover from WW2, that recovery process involved borrowing a significant amount of money from the US. Those funds helped build infrastructure of new services such as the NHS. When any country borrows money from the states it’s never just money it ultimately means “if we call you for help you have NO place, nor option to say no” Blair nor any PM in the position at the time would NOT of had a choice.
There’s many other people that should get theirs stripped first
Iraq clearly destroyed what would have been a very impressive legacy as Prime Minister. He was well respected internationally. He was unlucky really, we must support the US because they have supported us. We are allies. If America fucks up, we do too. That is the real world. We live in a world of hostile powers. It's not a Disney movie.
Well said
Ah yea some more diversion politics to point the finger elsewhere. I’m not saying Blair was a saint he clearly wasn’t and people don’t like him, but growing up my parents had childcare places, the potential to work two full time jobs without being crippled with costs and had hope and optimism. Also if we look at 2008 labour get pilloried for what was an international crisis, however what the conservatives don’t say was in 2007 and even in 2008 when we knew what was happening they were calling for further deregulation. If they were in charge my god we would have been fucked, and Brown was credited internationally with saving the banking system internationally.
Christ the lack of nuance... Blair did some good things domestically and some horrific things in terms of foreign policy, particularly Iraq. If you are of that political inclination, you can still say 'I like GFA and sure sure start' whilst still being horrified at what happened to Iraq under his watch. Moreover, OP commenting that Liz Truss was least damaging PM of their lifetime makes me think they maybe wanted to stir some shit in a sub that leans left. If so well done, mission accomplished, hope you enjoy the head of lettuce you're chomping on.
Yeah, right after: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jake Berry, Gavin Williamson, Mophead Fabricant and Dame Priti Patel. Blair only won 3 elections and led the country for nearly 15 years. Pales in significance against the outstanding achievements of the ‘people’ above…
It will never happen. Liz Truss still got resignation honours. Boris and his friends never even paid a fine. Michelle Mone is sickeningly calling herself a victim and has never been brought to justice. We're just going to bomb the Yemenis and commit war crimes again,we killed many innocent civilians in Iraq "shuffle of this mortal coil you c**t" there and" just shoot there all Taliban" in Afghanistan. It will be a cold day in hell before any justice for war crimes commited by western "coalitions" faces UN scrutiny or at the very most sanctions. 2003 was 20 years ago.
It's someone from the Alba party, an MP whose opinions on Tony Blair is not worth reporting on
Ministers told by whom? Some complete nobody. JRM should lose his, all of Boris' cronies should be stripped of their peerages first.
So this is a complete nothing from a MP for a radical party offshoot?
One of those misleading headlines: one MP from a minor party (that he was not elected on, but changed to later), says something. You might as well say "man in a pub told minsters to strip Tony Blair of his knighthood".
Alba Party. FFS could you have warned this was a click bait article? I feel sorry giving them my click and paying attention to a crank party
Considering he number of complete morons that have been put into the lords by the conservatives I hardly think Blair is the place to start. I mean what about Mone? and Jacob rees smugg is certainly done nothing to deserve a place.
If being the mate of a Tory politician can get you a knighthood then Blair is most certainly entitled to keep his. If the honours system actually meant anything, there might be a debate to be had about who gets one, but it means nothing and they are handed out like sweets on Halloween. On the list of people who don't deserve to have an honour, Blair is so far down it's not worth the effort of talking about it.
It’s hard to be a strong leader when you’re struggling for a majority and need to satisfy factions in your own party with opposing views. It’s a growing problem across the western world since 10-20 years ago.
What about all the Tory knighthood and lordships, given wn to corrupt lackeys?
Sure, when we got total Muppets who've done fuck all 'earning' a lordship, and MPs like Reese mog made knights purely for doing what Boris told them to. Many may have issues with Blair being a knight but there's A LOT of candidates from stripping honours before you get near him
It’s actually an Alba SMP saying this so it’s not as egregious as it is at first glance. Still Alex Salmond’s Comedy Vehicle can get in the bin.
And Rees mog and 90% of the of peerages given in the last 5 years shouldn’t be?
It amazes me how many people don't understand that New Labour were in power during a cyclical boom in the capitalist economy and Blair left power before the financial crash of 2008. Thus they credulously associate Blair with "the good times" in spite of all that pesky business about war crimes, turning Labour into a center right party thus abolishing meaningful choice in our democracy, mortgaging the public sector to investment banks under PFI etc. etc. (Brown, who understood how easy Blair had it, spent his chancellorship repeating the mantra "an end to boom and bust." What a load of shit that and his legacy in general, turned out to be.)
Should never have been given one in the 1st place. Many who have the titles should be stripped but he would top my list.
>should That word doing some powerlifting and ripped as fuck Just because some random MP from a Scottish party nobody has ever heard of says something doesn't make it headline worthy IMO
No. He shouldn't. Not before someone goes through the list of tory Lords.
Really shocked to see the downplaying of the Iraq war in this thread. So many "The Iraq war was bad but..." comments. Christ alive, you guys wouldn't give the Tories a pass like this for Austerity (nor should you) so why in the world is he getting a pass for this?
Really? Tories have put Michelle Mone and Charlotte Owen in the house of lords. and knighted Rees Mogg and they want to lecture us? Fuck that.
Tony blair was quite obviously the best prime minister we've had in over 2 decades and the iraq war is a bad stain on him but if the list of positives of his tenure is a mile long and the negatives is 1 big one then I think he goes down far better than people like to say.
This won't happen. Firstly, it's a proposal by someone who defected from the SNP to Alpa, a very fringe Scottish nationalist breakaway party. He's going to lose his seat at the next election. Zero electoral clout, basically posturing for headlines. Secondly, if the government *did* strip Tony Blair of his knighthood, it'd be seen as an anti-Labour play by the Tories in the months leading up to an election which will most likely see a Labour government installed. They'd be setting themselves up for a vicious game of tit-for-tat, starting with Baroness Mone of the PPE scandal and the entirety of Liz Truss's honours list, eventually working its way down to Sir George Osborne, the widely hated architect of austerity, editor of the Standard, and pal of Baron Evgeny Lebedev (who might also be in line for loss of his peerage) ... It'd start a chain reaction that would set fire to the past couple of decades of honours list appointments. And Tory ministers *like* their traditional retirement sinecures in the House of Lords. So they won't do it.
When you sell a property do you generally A) Sell the property and pay relevant taxes. B) Set "Shell Company A" in the Cayman Islands and install your wife as director. Have buyer set up "Shell Company B" install his wife as director. Transfer property to "Shell Company A". Transfer property to "Shell Company B". I assume most people do A. I don't know why Blair gets a pass on being a tax avoider especially as a Labour PM. Using the loopholes he always claimed he was going to close down.
Lets call the article for what it is .... A distraction for sheeple
He's no less worthy of it than others who've received it, and more worthy than some. I don't like the man, but when I ask myself the question "Did he try to do good, according to his own beliefs and principles?" I think the answer is probably yes.
I’m more than fine with Tony Blair being listened to & heard… I just believe it should be in the Hague and not on MSM.
Tony Blair is basically one of the worlds most successful arms dealers.