Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not understand the Tony Blair hatred thing

325 replies

smashedinductionhob · 25/03/2017 16:00

I remember Tony Blair being very popular in his day and recall him doing reasonably good things.

I do remember very clearly the run up to the Iraq war and saying to my husband that I did not agree with it as there was no actual plan and the US public seemed to think Saddam Hussain was connected to 9/11 which he wasn't.

I remember passionate supporters of ethnic minorities in Iraq supporting him and only a few brave clever people like Obama calling it as a mistake.

I failed to demonstrate. The dossier was identified in Parliament (by a small minority) as dodgy before the war started but most of us went along with it.

It was clear to me at the time that the PM was supporting the US as a matter of principle (a lousy principle but fairly obvious).

How did we get from there to TB as hate figure? Is he just a scapegoat?

OP posts:
HoldBackTheRain · 26/03/2017 09:25

valentine agree with all your posts.

I think OP has an essay to write on BLIAR snd is too lazy to do it herself so has posted here to get mumsnetters to do it for her.

Happy mothers day all hope its a good one for you!

Original poster
smashedinductionhob · 26/03/2017 09:43

Thanks everyone

I did look up the definition of war criminal and he falls outsid that.
But I understand better now why folk dislike him.

OP posts:
Firesuit · 26/03/2017 11:01

Context: I didn't like him, but wouldn't have voted for a Labour leader even if I did.

My memory of the time is that, prior to Iraq, he repeatedly involved us in military action, on the side of good, with successful outcomes. I think maybe the repeated successes went to his head a little and made him a little too keen to sign up for Iraq.

The epitome of his successes was probably Sierra Leone. How often does a first world leader send their own troops into danger in an African country, where there is no reason to get involved, other than humanitarian concern?

I was bemused during the build-up to Iraq, because I really couldn't see the urgent need for war, even though I wasn't particularly opposed to action to get rid of Saddam. I remember him being repeatedly cross-examined in a TV interview, and in the end sort of giving up selling the WMD justification, and just saying something like, look, Saddam is a bad man, the world will be better without him. On the premise that Saddam could be overthrown at reasonable cost, which seemed reasonable at the time, that seemed like a reasonable justification. Apart from the fact that it violated a principal that I had understood to exist all my life, that governments should be allowed to commit murder, torture and genocide, and as long as it all took place within their own borders, it was no-one else's business. I was slightly Hmm to realise that such a consequential rule could arbitrarily be abandoned, but as I wasn't a huge fan of it, I wasn't going to object to the change.

Moussemoose · 26/03/2017 12:11

I won't say he was good. He was, however, a lot better than the Tory alternative.
The level of vitriol directed his way is way out of proportion.

unlucky83 · 26/03/2017 13:37

Saddam is a bad man, the world will be better without him.
it was never as simple as 'lets get rid of a bad man'
Under Sadam Iraq was one of the better places to live in that area - a secular society, good healthcare, minimum crime.
You could argue better than Saudi and we aren't rushing in to change that regime (and a lot of extreme islamist teaching is coming out and being funded from there - causing problems throughout the world)
Anyone with even a minimum understanding of Iraq would know that removing that one bad man would enable the leaders of various fractions, more intolerant of other beliefs than Sadam, to be just as brutal and cruel.
If Blair really thought it was that simple he was criminally stupid.

lottieandmia · 26/03/2017 14:15

The idea that Saddam was being removed because he was bad and regime change was necessary is really so unbelievable that I struggle to see how anyone could believe it.

Can you imagine that being a reason put forward to meddle in North Korea? A country whose citizens are in abject poverty and are treated appallingly? Absolutely not because of how risky the outcome would be.

exLtEveDallas · 26/03/2017 15:01

Under Sadam Iraq was one of the better places to live in that area - a secular society, good healthcare, minimum crime

Tell that to the Kurds. Or the 1.2million dead. Or the million still missing but unable to be confirmed dead.

wickerlampshade · 26/03/2017 15:15

He also shoe-horned the private sector into the NHS on hugely favourable contracts and is a big part of the reason why the NHS is in such a state today.

Moussemoose · 26/03/2017 15:18

Under Sadam Iraq was one of the better places to live in that area - a secular society, good healthcare, minimum crime

Not sure the Marsh Arabs saw Sadam like that.

mygorgeousmilo · 26/03/2017 15:33

Dunno... the whole being a warmongering bastard thing, just isn't my bag.

Crumbs1 · 26/03/2017 15:58

NHS was better under him, with higher funding and shorter waits coupled with improved patient outcomes. NHS is in a state because of Tory underfunding of both health and social care. In real terms there have been cuts to every public sector budget such that services are being stopped let alone cut back. It's nothing to do with Tony Blair.

wickerlampshade · 26/03/2017 16:26

crumbs1 that's very naive. He brought in the private sector on very favourable contracts which looked great in the short term but screwed up the NHS long term.

Crumbs1 · 26/03/2017 17:49

I'm not naive - healthcare politics are my bread and butter. The issues were not favourable contracts to private sector although the then government did allow outsourcing to meet increased demand. Real problems came about with reconfiguration to CCGs who have truly screwed up the tendering and contracts process. Complete waste of money and totally inefficient. That with unfunded increase in demand as population ages without concurrent increase in provision, recruitment or premises is real problem.
The other problem is that the government and media are spinning more unfavourable stories about an NHS that is mainly efficient, effective, safe and providing close to best service in world for least percentage of GDP.

BakeOffBiscuits · 26/03/2017 18:47

To answer your question OP it's because he's a lying, narsassitic cunt who should be deeply ashamed of himself.
Just a few things......

David Kelly
Iraq war
Nothing done to ease the housing situation
Nothing done to help replace the mining and manufacturing jobs which disappeared.
Allowed unlimited immigration, when he didn't HAVE to. This imo is the main reason for BREXIT.

Though of course he would never admit that any of the above were in any way to do with him.Hmm

birdsdestiny · 26/03/2017 18:53

Brexit would not have happened under Blair as Labour leader. Not a chance. You need to look at the current Labour leadership for culpability with regard to Brexit.

woodhill · 26/03/2017 19:01

TB's politics may have influencedpeople supporting Brexit. He didn't have to allow work permits for EU members in 2003. France and Germany didn't.

GertyTheGert · 26/03/2017 19:17

Also, rumour has it he only licked up to the USA so that on his retirement he could grab all the money he could doing speeches for thousands of pounds, give business "advice" (raking in more dosh) and of course going to "war" as an American puppet (do what we say, Bliar) helped give him something to spout off about in all the speeches. How DID he have so many millions of pounds that he and Cherie Amour could build up a massive property portfolio? He also stopped Govt Depts issuing work permits for folk from abroad and said "let the employers" do the checks - errrrrrr did they? Nah. I could never work out that decision because it led quite often to illegal working, hence MORE work for Govt depts........But the worst was the war and hence deaths.

GertyTheGert · 26/03/2017 19:30

David Kelly. He said there are no WMD. No doubt I will be found dead in the woods. He was. Records protected until we are all dead. So, what happened there then? Certainly if the death was suicide, why "protect" the records for another (50?) years? Bliar was Prime Minister and he said there ARE WMD.............

Crumbs1 · 26/03/2017 19:37

How did he develop a property portfolio? They bought young and wisely. Cherie and he were both high earners with family support for childcare. They bought, rented and bought more. Same as lots of people. There portfolio is good but hardly in the Branson or Phillip Green league.
Cherie was a founder of her chambers and has set up several successful companies. She is rich in her own right, by her own hard work and intellect. They do huge amounts of charity work and are incredibly hard working.
Rumours are just that. Rumours.

burdog · 26/03/2017 20:07

I think all the good he did is overshadowed by the war on Iraq.

VanillaSugar · 26/03/2017 20:12

And the NI peace agreement is fragile at best. Yes, he did some good but like burdog says, Iraq has ruined him.

Moussemoose · 26/03/2017 20:23

He was not brilliant. Iraq was a massive mistake. He is after lining his own pockets. But he is not a Tory. Why the hatred?
He didn't repeal anti Trade Union legislation, but he didn't make it worse. So why the hatred?
I am disappointed, I see it as a missed opportunity, but it was better than a Tory government. Look around, Grammar schools anyone?

Vegansnake · 26/03/2017 20:26

If I h ad a g n...good job I haven't.i hate that man with a loathing I can't begin to e plain..I would happily do bird if it meant he was no more

Original poster
smashedinductionhob · 26/03/2017 20:26

Yes, the good he did was overshadowed.

I suppose the question is, is that fair?

I don't know.

OP posts:
unlucky83 · 26/03/2017 20:36

Under Sadam Iraq was one of the better places to live in that area - a secular society, good healthcare, minimum crime
I am not saying Sadam was a good person - he was a cruel brutal dictator...and using chemical weapons -or any weapons - against civilians can and should never be excused.
But the Kurds are not living a safe and peaceful life now - not only do they (and lots of Iraqis) live under daily threat of terrorism and sectarian violence - car bombs etc- and in parts have been occupied by Isis - who were formed as a result of the 2003 invasion...
Meanwhile Human rights watch say that the Kurdish Regional Government have been destroying Arab homes in areas that were freed from Isis control....
I know about the Marsh Arabs and the massacres after the uprisings in the early 90s. I blame Bush in part for that too- he encouraged them (and other factions) to try and overthrow Sadam after the first Gulf war and then didn't back them up. But if anything that should have been a good indication that just removing Sadam wasn't going to lead to peace - as part of the reason the uprisings failed is that the factions couldn't work together...too many opposing views, too many individuals who were power hungry...
And those are controlling parts of Iraqi now...fine if you are part of their faction - not so good if you are a member of another faction...
It is like taking a lion out of a pen of antelopes and replacing it with a pack of wild dogs.
I think the Iraqi's would have eventually got rid of Sadam in their own time -in their own way - without instilling any negative feeling towards the West ...which has helped groups like Isis...
crumbs his property portfolio is then obviously another reason he wasn't in a hurry to control house price inflation....

Swipe left for the next trending thread