Blair knighthood

[Mummyrowland]

Nearly half a million people have signed a petition over his knighthood in 48 hours.

It should be removed and he shouldn't be awarded it.

After all what did he do that was good?

What about all the squaddies he sent to their deaths over the supposed wmds?

High ranking members of the armed forces are threatening resignation if his award isn't reconsider

Are you unable to see that 50% of school leavers eventually translates into 50% of the population? Seriously?

Lol clutching at straws there! it would take many decades and what exactly is wrong with a well educated workforce?

I voted for Blair and was ecstatic when he came to power but his higher education policy was deeply flawed and smacks of my generation (I’m exactly the same age as Blair) benefitting from free higher education and then pulling the ladder up behind us. I can completely see why subsequent generations are so angry with us

Me an you both!
But i also saw the waste and dropouts from a totally free system, many students just didn't treat further education seriously.

£9k as a contribution toward either FE or HE is reasonable, considering the costs of technology and having to attract extra teaching staff and space BUT that is a far cry from £50,000 which is what a 3 year degree costs and years of v high interest rates.

@madisonbridges

As many have said, do people seriously think had the Tories been in power they would have said no go George W Bush? Of course they wouldn't. Thatcher did in fact go to war against Iraq with HW Bush. But she didn't create a false dossier of incorrect intel to justify it.

Well she didn't have too, they were in Kuwait for all to see.

But she did sink the Belgrano, a WW2 battleship, as it sailed away from the Falklands and out of the exclusion zone, guaranteeing conflict which she gambled we would win.

She cared nothing for the conscripted Argentinian forces nor our own soldiers and sailors.

She was the UK's most unpopular PM before the Falklands and highly popular afterwards, war suited her political aims.

@Alexandra2001. Why are you so hung up on defending Tony Blair and labour's every move? Im not saying anything unheard of, I've only repeated what is on public record. I never said Blair shouldn't have gone to war, I said that Blair was totally immoral for falsifying information so that he could justify going to war.
I'm not debating Margaret Thatchers actions. I mentioned her name in response to another poster who talked about the uk agreeing to go to war with the US. But if you want to talk about her, Thatcher sent troops to the Falklands and Saudi Arabia to defend the islands and Kuwait. In both cases we could see the invasion. Because she only sent troops when there was a clear case for it (whether you agree with those cases or not). She wasn't getting her press secretary staff to scroll through the Internet to come up with a cut and paste job of dodgy info.
You're right that she was popular after the war. Conversely Blair was one of the most unpopular PMs after. That's what happens when you are dishonest about serving up army personnel lives for your personal aggrandisement.

He should get one for his work on the GFA.

Oh Ffs what good is this present fat arse we have now 🙄

Are you that deluded you don't think what ever Tory was in power we'd have had the same.
Look at the Gulf war crow about that

@mynamesnotMa

Are you that deluded you don't think what ever Tory was in power we'd have had the same. Look at the Gulf war crow about that

We might have gone to war. But would any other leader, eg Brown, May, Major, have falsified Intel to do so?

@Tanith

Same old suspects trying to re-write history and blame Labour (and Blair) for all evils while carefully whitewashing the Conservative governments 🙄

This petition is highly suspect, coming as it does during a drop in popularity for Johnson. Blair has been a useful hate figure for the Conservatives ever since their "demon eyes" poster was banned.

I'm surprised people are still falling for it.

The poor behavior of the heirs to Blair doesn't excuse Blair's crimes.

None of them - Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson - deserve an honour.

What we have today is the consequence of Blair. It's his toxic legacy.

All you ve done over your last few posts is blame Blair for things that the Tories did either before 1997 or during austerity.

@Alexandra2001
You must be confusing me with another poster.

Both sides of the political divide attacked the vulnerable. But, as explained in the Independent article I linked (reposted for your convenience) it was Blair who began the war on the disabled. His heirs, i.e. Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, simply continued down the path he set us on.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-stopped-believing-in-the-benefits-due-to-tony-blair-researchers-claim-9753824.html

As for Starmer, if you look back at my posts over previous months I was one his lone defenders. I had reasonable hopes for him - was willing to look past his history with Blair. Afterall we all make mistakes. I was deeply disappointed when he decided to defend the indefensible. Warmongering aside, it doesn't bode well for society's most vulnerable - the disabled. The unfortunate victims of Blair.

And again. It was Blair who changed the Department of Social Security to the (intentionally) disabled erasing Department of Work and Pensions.

Signed it. There appears to be two on Change. I found the one with the highest signatories

Tealightsandd

That article doesn't explain or prove anything. It just gives a brief outline of someone's research/theory into the matter - it's not the definitive word on it. Fwiw, my ex-sil is severely disabled and gets massively pissed off with people banging on about Blair. The person she blames for the shit she has had to deal with from the government is IDS. What she wants is a Labour government and she feels people banging on about Blair are standing in the way of this and it does her head in. She has always said voting Lib Dems to teach Labour a lesson in 2010 (because of Iraq) is the biggest regret of her life.

Saying Starmer should speak against this knighthood is absolutely ridiculous. Blair led Labour to victory three times, the only Labour leader to have done so (and once after Iraq). To say he shouldn't get a knighthood would be like saying Labour didn't deserve those victories and they didn't benefit the country, and that would absolutely be the line the questioning would go down if Starmer said that in an interview. Labour need to be shouting more about the good things they did achieve when in power, not allowing this anti-Blair drivel to drive the 'debate' , because all that does is ensure the bloody Tories stay in for ever more, and if you think that will benefit the disabled or anyone else vulnerable you are in for a nasty shock.

@Tealightsandd Regardless of what Blair did or didn't do, this idea that without his policies the Tories from 2010 wouldn't have slashed help for the poor / disabled and increased Tuition fees is for the fairies.

Look what they did with the NHS? Blair spent 4% of GDP on the NHS over his time in office, the Tories have spent 1.1% over the last 11 years.
Driven EU health staff from the UK, removed the bursary and destroyed the social care system.

We are all now paying for our voting choices.

@coffeerevelsrock

Your SIL either wasn't around in 1997 (too young), wasn't disabled at the time, or is in a minority.

Several people I personally know suffered directly as a consequence of Blair's war on the disabled.

Disabled rights groups at the time fought hard to stop Blair's attack on them but sadly lost the battle.

It was widely reported at the time. Easy to find old articles (not just the Independent link above) if you don't believe me/remember.

Blair's heirs simply continued further down the road he set us on. He didn't just open the door. He took it right off its hinges.

Blair and Brown's part privatisation of the NHS and PFI has had long-term negative consequences.

Blair (and Brown's) policies were about extreme short-termism. The equivalent of a parent blowing the family's life savings on a flashy holiday....and then living in poverty for the rest of time.

Talking of poverty - and relevant to the NHS. Blair (and Brown's) major role in creating today's public health housing and homelessness emergency impacts on the NHS. Substandard and insecure housing directly affects health - physical and mental.

Aside from their attack on welfare - causing increasing numbers of landlords to reject low income tenants - Blair pushed the scheme that he got rich off. His family personally profiteered to the tune of millions out of buy to let. He heavily plugged it to any old Tom, Dick, and Harry (dodgy criminals included). This drastically reduced the pool of affordable homes for first time buyers who had to compete with investors snapping up (often multiple homes) and pushing house prices up.

In 1997, when Blair got in, it wasn't too late to repair the damage of right to buy. It was impossible to claim ignorance of the human misery and suffering it had led to. What did Blair do? End it? Oh no. He very enthusiastically continued it. Brown too (who went further in the attack on the low waged and too ill to work, by cutting housing benefits).

Blair significantly reduced the availability of affordable housing with his mass immigrantion policy. A policy that would have been fine - had he funded the additional infrastructure and housing necessary for millions of new arrivals. He didn't. Instead he took advantage of them to pursue a policy of enriching slum landlords and exploitative cheap labour employers.

That Independent articles explains it very well. You mutter about IDS and Cameron and Osborne, and co.

The vitally important point is this. Blair manipulated and changed public attitudes. He made it appear socially acceptable to attack the vulnerable, including the disabled, and to view them as 'scroungers'. That is why his heirs - those who came after him (including Brown) - were able to get away with the further attacks on the vulnerable and disabled.

Blair intentionlly erased disability when he changed the government department name. Social Security is inclusive of disability and illness. Work and Pensions isn't.

if you think that will benefit the disabled or anyone else vulnerable you are in for a nasty shock.

There are no illusions about the lot in power right now. True heirs to Blair. That doesn't mean the current alternative would do anything better.

In fact so far they've indicated they wouldn't. Starmer disappointed recently by giving Blair like disabled erasing speeches on "hardworking families". Aside from suggesting yet more misery for already hard pressed individuals on single incomes, this doesn't bode well for anyone too ill or disabled to work.

Let's just hope that Starmer rethinks his direction. He's done some good things including tackling Labour's serious racism problems. I thought he had potential. Perhaps there's still time for him to reassess. He really needs to distance himself from Blair if he wants to get anywhere though. Take a leaf out of Andy Burnham's book there (the distancing from Blair, not the stoking regional division cheap ploy).

01:08madisonbridges

mynamesnotMa

Are you that deluded you don't think what ever Tory was in power we'd have had the same.
Look at the Gulf war crow about that

We might have gone to war. But would any other leader, eg Brown, May, Major, have falsified Intel to do so?

No he didn't link to your source reference Chilcott

@Tealightsandd

That Independent articles explains it very well. You mutter about IDS and Cameron and Osborne, and co.

The vitally important point is this. Blair manipulated and changed public attitudes. He made it appear socially acceptable to attack the vulnerable, including the disabled, and to view them as 'scroungers'. That is why his heirs - those who came after him (including Brown) - were able to get away with the further attacks on the vulnerable and disabled.

Blair intentionlly erased disability when he changed the government department name. Social Security is inclusive of disability and illness. Work and Pensions isn't.

Are you saying that because Blair changed our view of the disabled a bit it is fine for those who came after him - mostly Tories- are fine to destroy any quality of life the disabled might have had?

28jgw1

Tealightsandd

That Independent articles explains it very well. You mutter about IDS and Cameron and Osborne, and co.

The vitally important point is this. Thatcher manipulated and changed public attitudes. SHe made it appear socially acceptable to attack the vulnerable, including the disabled, an

Think you need to review your narrative you seem to be swapping the names.

It's interesting how many are scared of Blair. He very nearly rebalanced society and made it fairer for all. Sadly many are terrified of this

Nope. Changing public attitudes is on Blair.

I not only lived through the Blair years and witnessed it firsthand, it's also backed up by well researched studies. As referenced in the Independent article I linked.

Again. It was Blair that changed the name of the Department of Social Security to the disabled erasing Department of Work and Pensions.

I care not one ounce what Chilcott thought. Campbells staff trawled the Internet and found a thesis which they then plagiarised and put in the dossier as fact. Blair and the Americans then presented that doctored thesis as reliable Intel. Chilcote can say that wasn't Blair lying but what else can it be? Maybe there's some legal nicety to describe what he did but where I come from, it's called a lie.
I'm not terrified of Tony Blair. Why would I be? He's had his time and commands little respect amongst most people. I just feel that whether they agree with the war or not, people should acknowledge that Blair, Campbell and Powell were far from honest in their dealings in the run up to the war.

Blair and the Americans

I agree with your post but just this. It wasn't the Americans. It was Bush. He misled Americans just as Blair misled the British.

Good post though.

Returning to Blair's war on the disabled.

Yes Thatcher did bad things too. Not least introducing the devastating right to buy. But Blair didn't reverse it. He took all her worse policies, continued them, and then went way further than she'd ever gone.

Yes Thatcher did bad things too. Not least introducing the devastating right to buy. But Blair didn't reverse it

It doesn't work like that though, does it? Politicians can't come along and reverse what has gone before and turn back the clock - the overton window and all that. Just like the Tories would never have set up the NHS or introduced the minimum wage but once these things are in place they can't whip them away.

I also lived through the Blair years and certainly didn't agree with everything he did, including re housing, but life was a damn sight better for most than it had been before and is now and I firmly believe that his overall intention was to make things better but he knew that to do that, Labour had to get elected. Maybe that was what influenced the change of name of the dwp, I don't know. After all, it was Thatcher who not only implemented certain policies but came out with the 'no such thing as society' line, which encapsulated a way of thinking that was dominant in the 80s.

Blair is hated by all but none more so than the left of the Labour party, so if they get their way we can look forward to at least another 5 years of the Tories after 2024.