The Wonderful World Of Tony Blair

[Terse]

He's a filthy product of a grubby system that puts profit and power ahead of peace and prosperity. He should, and will, rot in hell.

I agree with the first sentence - wholeheartedly - but since I don't believe in any afterlife I can only suggest that history will be his ultimate judge and that he (like Thatcher) will be seen for what he truly is.

[P.K.]

For every TB there are another two dozen lining up behind him to follow orders and walk on the world stage for the attention and adulation of the deluded masses. He's a filthy product of a grubby system that puts profit and power ahead of peace and prosperity. He should, and will, rot in hell.

 

A classic Daily Wail rant - how amusing.

 

I love the bit about putting profit and power before peace and prosperity - unfortunately the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks you've got that bit wrong:

 

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies came up with this comparison in its analysis of the households below average income (HBAI) data. It found that anyone in the bottom half of the income distribution saw higher growth in real incomes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown than they did under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Anybody in the top half did better under the Conservatives.

 

During the Thatcher-Major years, real incomes for the richest fifth of the population rose fastest, averaging growth of about 2.5% a year. The next richest quintile did a little less well, the middle 20% a bit less well still, and so on all the way down to the poorest 20% of the population, which saw the smallest real income gains of less than 1% a year."

 

Fancy Devil-Incarnate Blair and his government doing the most for the least fortunate in society - how dare they eh???

[pauld]

He's a filthy product of a grubby system that puts profit and power ahead of peace and prosperity. He should, and will, rot in hell.

I agree with the first sentence - wholeheartedly - but since I don't believe in any afterlife I can only suggest that history will be his ultimate judge and that he (like Thatcher) will be seen for what he truly is.

 

 

I would prefer he were judged in the Hague.

[Norseman]

I would prefer he were judged in the Hague.

A Manx nationalist yearning for international justice for an ex UK Prime Minister?

[Terse]

It appears that anyone who disagrees with you must, therefore, be a reader of Daily Mail. Its very much like AT likening any perceived loss of civil liberties to an Orwellian nightmare. Unfortunately, this makes many of your, otherwise sensible posts, appear to be little short of trolling. The fact that you prefer a newspaper that lost its 'edge' a number of years ago (Guardian) does not automatically confer some kind of superiority of either knowledge or intellect.

The simple fact is that the war in Iraq was illegal. The Hutton inquiry stated that 'the veracity of the intelligence on which the government made its case for war and the failure to uncover evidence that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction were not within my terms of reference.'

Even without that war, however, Blair proved himself to be an empty shell of a man who gained the confidence of the electorate and produced disappointment after disappointment without taking any responsibility for the numerous failings of his party.

In that respect, I rather think history will deal with him even more harshly than the repulsive Thatcher who did, at least, do the damage to the nation that she promised to do.

[Lxxx]

For every TB there are another two dozen lining up behind him to follow orders and walk on the world stage for the attention and adulation of the deluded masses. He's a filthy product of a grubby system that puts profit and power ahead of peace and prosperity. He should, and will, rot in hell.

 

A classic Daily Wail rant - how amusing.

 

I love the bit about putting profit and power before peace and prosperity - unfortunately the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks you've got that bit wrong:

 

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies came up with this comparison in its analysis of the households below average income (HBAI) data. It found that anyone in the bottom half of the income distribution saw higher growth in real incomes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown than they did under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Anybody in the top half did better under the Conservatives.

 

During the Thatcher-Major years, real incomes for the richest fifth of the population rose fastest, averaging growth of about 2.5% a year. The next richest quintile did a little less well, the middle 20% a bit less well still, and so on all the way down to the poorest 20% of the population, which saw the smallest real income gains of less than 1% a year."

 

Fancy Devil-Incarnate Blair and his government doing the most for the least fortunate in society - how dare they eh???

 

 

What a pathetic attempt at an argument. You really have made yourself look like an unintelligent fool with that pretty poor comparison to a similarly poor daily rag.

 

I'm more than welcome to have a discussion on the lying war-mongerer if you can prove you have the intelligence to hold a decent conversation, otherwise I'll ignore your little nuggets of crap in favour of reading the posts of individuals who have a sane grasp of reality.

[Chinahand]

@PK

 

We've discussed this report before P.K.!

 

 

The mean income for Houses Below Average Income increased 2.1% under the Thatcher and Major and 2.0% under Blair and Brown (medians were 1.6 and 1.7).

 

The idea there is some huge difference here is really bunk.

 

Blair and Brown did not reduce the inequality generated under Thatcher - THEY MADE IT WORSE. Gini coeficients went from 0.33 when Major left power to 0.36 when Brown did - higher than any level under Thatcher.

 

 

Poverty is complicated - relative inequality increased under both the Tories and Labour, but if you are worried about absolute poverty all but the poorest 1% saw their incomes grow under Maggie/Major, while Blair/Brown did sightly worse with incomes decreasing in the bottom two centiles with the poorest 1% doing considerably worse than under Maggie/Major.

 

I disagree with alot of the vemon directed at Blair, but he's no saint either!

 

For me one of the reasons he's now pretty reviled by most centre left people is that they've come to the conclusion they were led by a High Tory for a generation.

 

Blair has a sense of entitlement which really jibes with the political class he led.

 

He'll say he's perfectly entitled to his Hotel Suites, entourage and private jets. He'll justify his speaking fees at $500,000 a shot.

 

The centre right isn't as fussed with such things! Though the thing is people like Patten or Major or Lawson who've gone off to sell their wares in either international diplomacy or business have been far more understated than Blair.

 

The man is a master self publicist who will put himself in the spotlight even when it isn't in his own interests!

 

Back when he was New Labour's bright young thing that enabled him to win election after election. Now it brings him hatred as people look at his record - no better than the Tories (in fact worse when it comes to bequeathing an unequal society) - along with death and destruction he brought on such a scale.

 

I feel he's a bit like Clinton - flawed. He had huge opportunities while the sun shined to fixed the leaks which had built up in our society under the Tories. He didn't, he squandered it, leaving war and a burst bubble in his wake.

 

The common people are reaping Blair's inheritance, and when they see the luxury he immerses himself in it sticks in their throats.

 

I'm not surprised he's an unpopular memory and gets jeered at when he's mentioned at the Labour Conference.

 

P.K. your missing something if you can't see that.

 

Blair was one awesome politician - but a rather flawed statesman. As I've said a bit like Clinton - but without the bon homme; and with a taste for Champagne rather than hamburgers.

[P.K.]

Dear Mr Chinahand,

 

I don't like this @Joe Bloggs nonsense.

 

Yes we have been here before. As an avid Grauniad reader (now lapsed weekdays thanks to Turncoat Cleggy and The i) I simply lifted it out of this Grauniad piece. Poverty is tricky but you can't hide the unemployed forever. It does amuse that the ConDems follow the policy of let those with money get more and it'll eventually trickle down when we all know it only trickles in one direction and that's up!

 

I very much take issue with your sweeping glib statement "Blair has a sense of entitlement which really jibes with the political class he led" as it seems you simply can't get a working majority anymore without the votes of the middle ground. In any event who didn't see Prescott as a sop to the old left while Blair moved the rest forward? Incidentally the ONLY thing that will prevent disenfranchised and disillusioned LibDems like me from voting Labour next time will be how much Ed kills Nu Labour in favour of Old Labour. For me the jury is still out on that one.

 

Yes Blair took us to war, rightly in my opinion. The West needs a stable Middle East to function and Saddam invaded two of his neighbours and killed thousands of Kurds and Pasdaran with his WMD programs. Saddam is the reason Iran is now trying it on with WMD's so you could argue that if Saddam had been taken out earlier we might not have the nightmare scenario of a nuclear state of Iran. Worst case the UN withdraws from Iraq, Iran foments Shia-Sunni violence and then uses it as an excuse to help "stabilise" the situation with boots on the ground. God help us all...

 

I have to say I'm getting very bored with the BBB's and their "No WMD's found in Iraq" mantra which is about as worthless as they are. Also the way they expect "Intelligence" to be factual so it's a major issue when it's found to be just "Intelligence" after all. Pathetic.

 

Those who lived through her time at no 10 know that Maggie completely polarised the UK by simply looking out for tory voters and the rest could go hang. Having read Blairs book personally I (obviously) have some admiration for the man for what he set out to change. I would advise anyone of whatever political persuasion to read it if only for the insights it gives of the workings of modern politics in an increasingly globalised scenario.

 

I have to say though Mr C that this made me smile "Blair was one awesome politician - but a rather flawed statesman. As I've said a bit like Clinton - but without the bon homme; and with a taste for Champagne rather than hamburgers." Politicians are only human so EXPECT them to make mistakes. And according to his book Blair is a whiskey and wine imbiber. Never mind...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I love the bit about putting profit and power before peace and prosperity - unfortunately the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks you've got that bit wrong

It's not a 'right wing' view. The functions of these politians is to work in the interests of the British business community. The interests of the public take second place.

 

You support the Iraq War because it removed Saddam, don't you? That's about it right? Won't debate with you about it again, but just to get it clear in my mind.

 

Those who lived through her time at no 10 know that Maggie completely polarised the UK by simply looking out for tory voters and the rest could go hang. Having read Blairs book personally I (obviously) have some admiration for the man for what he set out to change. I would advise anyone of whatever political persuasion to read it if only for the insights it gives of the workings of modern politics in an increasingly globalised scenario.

But do you have admiration for he DID?

[P.K.]

But do you have admiration for he DID?

 

As a LibDem (since stood down by Turncoat Cleggy) I have to have admiration for what Blair and his team achieved.

 

You see us LibDems NEVER expected to form a government. We're very well-meaning and all that but you must understand that when you KNOW your ideas are NEVER going to be tested in the real political world then you can dream up all sorts of warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely policies secure in the knowledge that you'll never ever know if they would have worked. So for years and years not a single LibDem policy has been known to fail...

 

Blair et al took a party that was pretty much unelectable by the scruff of the neck and not only got them into power but kept them there for a record three terms. Sure when they got in the tories were in complete disarray but even so. And then, despite every possible advantage, Cameron et al STILL couldn't win a majority against them.

 

It may well end up that a major legacy of Labour's decade in office is hung parliaments. Can be good in that dogmatic policies are a big no-no. Can be bad when real decisions HAVE to be made. Time will tell - it always does!

[P.K.]

It appears that anyone who disagrees with you must, therefore, be a reader of Daily Mail. Its very much like AT likening any perceived loss of civil liberties to an Orwellian nightmare. Unfortunately, this makes many of your, otherwise sensible posts, appear to be little short of trolling. The fact that you prefer a newspaper that lost its 'edge' a number of years ago (Guardian) does not automatically confer some kind of superiority of either knowledge or intellect.

The simple fact is that the war in Iraq was illegal. The Hutton inquiry stated that 'the veracity of the intelligence on which the government made its case for war and the failure to uncover evidence that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction were not within my terms of reference.'

Even without that war, however, Blair proved himself to be an empty shell of a man who gained the confidence of the electorate and produced disappointment after disappointment without taking any responsibility for the numerous failings of his party.

In that respect, I rather think history will deal with him even more harshly than the repulsive Thatcher who did, at least, do the damage to the nation that she promised to do.

 

Sorry I missed this post. Briefly anyone who sounds off like The Daily Wail get's the contempt I reserve for that predictable load of rabid nonsense they increasingly churn out. As Steven Fry once put it so succinctly "I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathsome and inhumane” - The Daily Wail to a "T" I would say...

 

It seems The Wail has sunk so low that when it deliberately targeted bereft Screws readers they preferred to garner their tits, bums and bonking elsewhere rather than sink as low as the Wail.

 

As I posted earlier if the HoC votes on it then it's legal. The UK buck stops there after all. Sure opinions are like arseholes in that everyone has at least one (I have two if I include my brother-in-law) and if anyone feels the war was somehow illegal that's fine by me. But don't spout off as though your opinions are facts because, for the moment at least, they're not.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't think it was much of an achievement for Labour to come in when they did, as the Conservative did not have a good track record on the economy by the mid-90s. And again though, I think their three terms are testamount to the fact that there were no economic crises for such a long time.

 

I think New Labour did far better with the economy all round than the Tories did in their time in government. But then you have the appalling Labour foreign policy.

[Lxxx]

The fact is that at the moment you could get all three political parties stood on a postage stamp together in relation to their policies at present. That is a sad indictment of how far the political system in the UK has degenerated. Blair, Clegg and Cameron could have all been spawned from the same test tube they are so alike with their NLP mannerisms and fake personas, having never done a proper days work in their life before holding their positions of high office.

No choice = one party state. We're very close to being there at the moment.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There are quite a number of differences. They are not vast though. It is a difficult thing to comment on though when what they stand for and what they do are not the same.

 

Things are desperate over here and in the UK, but we haven't reached the appalling state of the USA yet. That almost is a One Party State.

[Lxxx]

There are quite a number of differences. They are not vast though. It is a difficult thing to comment on though when what they stand for and what they do are not the same.

 

Things are desperate over here and in the UK, but we haven't reached the appalling state of the USA yet. That almost is a One Party State.

 

The US is the Fourth Reich. National Socialism updated for a new century. You wouldn't catch me entering that shithole for love nor money. The American people have been caught asleep at the wheel for the past 50 years, and now it's hitting them square between the eyes they wonder why they didn't see it coming.... I think we're going to see social unrest there on a monumental scale when they wake up and realise their once proud nation has been hijacked by the Nazis.