The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[AlunB]

Tony Blair rues ‘tragedy’ of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: http://bit.ly/1R9u0FJ 

sure to go down well...

Blair has an almost evangelical Christian like view of his time in power - he is blinkered by self belief. Totally delusional for me.

His leadership was a disaster for our country, certainly when it comes to foreign policy.

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

[RickBFA]

Tony Blair rues ‘tragedy’ of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: http://bit.ly/1R9u0FJ  

sure to go down well...

Blair has an almost evangelical Christian like view of his time in power - he is blinkered by self belief. Totally delusional for me.

His leadership was a disaster for our country, certainly when it comes to foreign policy.

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

My judgement is coloured to a point by my natural tendency to be more right wing than left wing when it comes to politics.

I think Iraq was a monumental mistake that has haunted us ever since and will continue to do so.

It created more problems that it solved, killed thousands of innocent people, cost fortunes which could have been spent more wisely, left the region more unstable than before and helped the cause of the likes of Bin Laden and the groups that have followed enormously. They couldn't have asked for a better recruitment sergeant.

What is troubling is Blair's unwillingness to accept that Iraq was a shambles and has cost us dearly. He really is like one of those religious zealots that believe their own narrative even when the truth and reality is staring them in the face.


 

[AlunB]

Tony Blair rues ‘tragedy’ of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: http://bit.ly/1R9u0FJ  

sure to go down well...

Blair has an almost evangelical Christian like view of his time in power - he is blinkered by self belief. Totally delusional for me.

His leadership was a disaster for our country, certainly when it comes to foreign policy.

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

My judgement is coloured to a point by my natural tendency to be more right wing than left wing when it comes to politics.

I think Iraq was a monumental mistake that has haunted us ever since and will continue to do so.

It created more problems that it solved, killed thousands of innocent people, cost fortunes which could have been spent more wisely, left the region more unstable than before and helped the cause of the likes of Bin Laden and the groups that have followed enormously. They couldn't have asked for a better recruitment sergeant.

What is troubling is Blair's unwillingness to accept that Iraq was a shambles and has cost us dearly. He really is like one of those religious zealots that believe their own narrative even when the truth and reality is staring them in the face.

This is true.

Although I don't agree with your religious analogy. To the point of finding it borderline offensive. But I do get where you're coming from with it. To some people the religious person seem misguided and stupid. That doesn't mean they are.

Back to the original point. Blair gets a very bad rap, and quite rightly so for the reasons you said above. But he did have some fairly considerable successes during his tenure. Not least Northern Ireland.

[david3103]

irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.

His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.

[AlunB]

irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.

His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.

Were you for or against the Iraq invasion at the time? Not a troll question, genuinely curious. Most of the country were after all.

[david3103]

irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.

His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.

Were you for or against the Iraq invasion at the time? Not a troll question, genuinely curious. Most of the country were after all.

Against. Seemed to me that the major, or possibly only, winners would be Halliburton.

[The Camel]

irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.

His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.

Were you for or against the Iraq invasion at the time? Not a troll question, genuinely curious. Most of the country were after all.

Against. Seemed to me that the major, or possibly only, winners would be Halliburton.

The West did nothing about Rwanda at roughly the same time.

So why would we interfere in Iraq?

[Doobs]

irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.

His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.

Were you for or against the Iraq invasion at the time? Not a troll question, genuinely curious. Most of the country were after all.

Against. Seemed to me that the major, or possibly only, winners would be Halliburton.

The West did nothing about Rwanda at roughly the same time.

So why would we interfere in Iraq?

Rwanda was 1994, the Iraq war was 2003.   The Iraq invasion of kuwait and the subsequent war was much closer to Rwanda.  Iraq had also invaded Iran about 10 years previously, which we didn't really interfere with, nor did we bother with the Islamist uprising in Syria about that time. 

We spent a lot of time not really intervening in the civil war in former Yugoslavia about the time of Rwanda, though did eventually intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia after several years of doing very little.

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq in 2003, and didn't at the time.  I am pretty sure it was well supported by public opinion at the start (maybe 2/3rds vs 1/3rd?). 

[4KSuited]

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.
[/quote]

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

[Doobs]

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

This is pretty much nonsense, the city deregulation was very much a Thatcher thing.  What happened is that Labour didn't reverse it that much.  The FSA etc had far more teeth than what went before.  The end result of all this deregulation is that we are very much a world leader in finance.  

The immigration has always been mainly from the EU.  It is now and was during Labour's years in power.  

[4KSuited]

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

This is pretty much nonsense, the city deregulation was very much a Thatcher thing.  What happened is that Labour didn't reverse it that much.  The FSA etc had far more teeth than what went before.  The end result of all this deregulation is that we are very much a world leader in finance.  

The immigration has always been mainly from the EU.  It is now and was during Labour's years in power.  

Well I wouldn't expect a Labour supporter to agree, lol.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

[Doobs]

Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.

Yes indeed, that Iraq war is a horrendous stain. It's difficult to overstate the scale of his lying and manipulation of parliament & the public in order to take us into war alongside the US. I can't reconcile his actions with his professed religious beliefs, since they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives - and still counting.

However, in addition, the whole banking crisis was made easier by Blair & Brown's deregulation of city practises. Leaving the economy on the brink of collapse, and a note reading 'all the money's gone'. He also allowed Gordon Brown to carry out his own personal economic & welfare policies - Working Tax Credits was an absolute shambles for several years, with £billions in overpaid benefits written off, whilst there were £billions owed to legitimate claimants that may never have ended up being paid. Even now it's a complicated and cumbersome (& prob inefficient) method of redistributing wealth.

Finally, the Labour Party during Blair's premiership were also guilty of cynically opening the UK's doors to uncontrolled immigration - simply as a means to increase their own vote. Gerrymandering on a national scale. The price for that folly is going to be paid for the rest of our lives and beyond.

This is pretty much nonsense, the city deregulation was very much a Thatcher thing.  What happened is that Labour didn't reverse it that much.  The FSA etc had far more teeth than what went before.  The end result of all this deregulation is that we are very much a world leader in finance.  

The immigration has always been mainly from the EU.  It is now and was during Labour's years in power.  

Well I wouldn't expect a Labour supporter to agree, lol.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

fella writes for the evening standard now, and is selectively quoted in the telegraph.  Even then there seems a lot of speculation and contradiction.

So did he have a clear sense of what was intended by the policy or was it not the main purpose at all?

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose  – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

An early draft mentioned multiculturism, so was that the policy? or was it removed because it wasn't the purpose?  He clearly just speculates.

As I said with 80% of the immigration from the EU, the other 20% is neither here nor there.  The big lie both parties indulge in is the pretence that either party is able to control it at all whilst we are members of the EU.

[MintTrav]

There is so much hypocrisy about the Iraq War - a good example of how repeating half-truths and untruths often enough can change the collective recollection.

The way people write about what happened (and I don't just mean here), you would think that Blair had decided by himself to take the country to war. There was a large majority in the Commons in favour, with quite a few Labour rebels and the Lib Dems against, but hardly any rebels on the Tory side, which IDS was given credit for. It could be said that he was more responsible for the vote in favour than Blair as it was his successful marshalling of virtually all his MPs into the pro-war lobby that won the day, not that they needed a lot of marshalling - I recall a lot of them being pretty keen. As ever, the Tories were more in favour of war than anyone else. IDS even claimed that Iraq had missiles that could reach London, which was false. Why isn't he getting the same treatment as Blair?

As has been said, there was a very large majority of the public in favour at the time, certainly at the start, along with almost all of the media. Although there were anti-war protests, it felt like the country wanted that war. Not doubting anyone on this thread, but most people now claim they were against it whereas, at the time, I found it difficult to find anyone in my then circle of friends or at work who wasn't in favour.

[david3103]

There is so much hypocrisy about the Iraq War - a good example of how repeating half-truths and untruths often enough can change the collective recollection.

The way people write about what happened (and I don't just mean here), you would think that Blair had decided by himself to take the country to war. There was a large majority in the Commons in favour, with quite a few Labour rebels and the Lib Dems against, but hardly any rebels on the Tory side, which IDS was given credit for. It could be said that he was more responsible for the vote in favour than Blair as it was his successful marshalling of virtually all his MPs into the pro-war lobby that won the day, not that they needed a lot of marshalling - I recall a lot of them being pretty keen. As ever, the Tories were more in favour of war than anyone else. IDS even claimed that Iraq had missiles that could reach London, which was false. Why isn't he getting the same treatment as Blair?

As has been said, there was a very large majority of the public in favour at the time, certainly at the start, along with almost all of the media. Although there were anti-war protests, it felt like the country wanted that war. Not doubting anyone on this thread, but most people now claim they were against it whereas, at the time, I found it difficult to find anyone in my then circle of friends or at work who wasn't in favour.

Where were you on Feb 15 2003?

[AdamM]

There's an awful lot I dislike about Tony Blair, but there's no denying the New Labour years were a very good time to be bringing up kids on relatively low incomes. Both me and MrsM were working but not earning a great deal, but the tax credits, child support and later the minimum wage were life savers. I'd hate to be at that stage of our lives under this lot.