To Bring back Tony Blair As PM ?

[Swirlythingy2025]

basically His experience could be valuable in navigating the current complex geopolitical challenges especially at the moment.

Howard whipped his MPs to vote with the government.

Possibly because he trusted what Blair had told him?

As far as I am concerned, because politicians are able to get away with lying on the scale which they do, we don’t have a democracy. If we truly valued democracy, we would hold politicians’ feet to the fire to make sure they showed the very highest standards of truth and integrity; and if they didn’t, they would have to resign on the shame alone. The fact that Johnson kept going for as long as he did, and that when the first Partygate revelations came about, he didn’t admit it, apologise immediately, and offer his resignation; it got to the point that he had to be dragged out, and to this day, neither he nor Blair believe that that they did anything wrong. Is it a democracy when we have people like that in charge?

Why don’t you just read the article I linked to instead of making stuff up? I’ll save you the trouble:

Michael Howard was put on the defensive over Iraq today after saying he would have gone to war even if Saddam Hussein had no weapons arsenal.

The Conservative leader came under fire when he said "regime change" should have been the main reason to oust the dictator, rather than alleged weapons of mass destruction

Per earlier comment, saying you would do something if you were in the position and actually doing it are not the same thing. Many say they would do a thing, but when actually tested don't actually do it.

Blair was in the chair, so to speak, he did it. What anyone else might have done, or might not have done, said they would have done, or said they would not have done is largely irrelevant. Blair did it. To line his own pockets.

Why would the Leader of the Opposition say he would have done the same thing for the same reason when it was highly controversial and the entire country was criticising it? Why would he whip his MPs to support it? The UK would have fought that war whoever was “in the chair”. I’ve never seen anyone so intent on being right despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is a discussion forum. It's my opinion. You don't have to agree.

As it happens, I've seen many leaders of the opposition say they'll do something, and then not do it. Whether he would have or not? We'll never know.

It’s not a matter of opinion. You’re arguing with facts.

I consider myself knowledgeable about politics on everything bar foreign policy. Can someone explain to me why they knew Saddam didn't actually have WMDs? Did Tony actually think there were WMDs and he happened to be wrong? Did he just invade even if there weren't WMDs? Wasn't removing a bad dictator a good reason?

Fuck no!

It's all a bit I said and he said kind of stuff really so no one really knows and the investigations conveniently didn't look very closely. The Butler Review of 2004 is interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review

And

\https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36701854

So there is nothing of substance about what was and what was not known at the time. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I fully understand how it comes about when this is what we have in the public domain already

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! 😱

It isn't a fact. What someone says they'd do is potentially different to what they'd actually do. In fact, in the same article you linked, he says he was expressing his own view and that it would be a matter for the cabinet to decide, so definitely not guaranteed that they would have done as Blair did.

I'll save you the trouble:
Mr Howard, who made the comments on the BBC's Question Time yesterday, was forced to clarify his position today, saying he was expressing his own view on the issue, and any decision would be for a Conservative Cabinet to decide.

Why were Conservative MPs whipped to vote with the government then? The opposition supported Blair.

The opposition did not have access to the same information that Blair had, and they trusted him to be telling the truth about such a serious issue, when in fact, he misled parliament (see Chilcot report). If they were in power, they would have had access to all the information, and may well have made different decisions.

Once again

Michael Howard was put on the defensive over Iraq today after saying he would have gone to war even if Saddam Hussein had no weapons arsenal.

The Conservative leader came under fire when he said "regime change" should have been the main reason to oust the dictator, rather than alleged weapons of mass destruction

We are never going to agree on this. If you trust a politician to actually do what they say they'll do, especially when it has been proved that they are not in possession of all the relevant facts, then you are more optimistic than I.

I don't trust politicians to follow through on statements even when they do have the full facts.

It's very easy to make statements about what one would have or have not done. Being put in the actual decision making position casts a whole different light on it.

What he said is not in dispute. What he actually would have done is. I do not believe he would have despite what he says.

In 2004 Howard stated that Blair should have resigned after failing to ask basic questions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

This contradicts other statements he made which further convinces me he would have acted differently to his words. Nothing is ever straight forward.

I understand that you are of a different view, that's fine. We should just agree to disagree and go and have a glass of something (albeit we will have to wait until the sun is over the yardarm).

Blair is the only man I hate more than Jacob Rees Mogg and Boris.
He should be in prison.

but dealing with information from spooks / military sources is different than someone swapping seats in a car. our leaders are only as effective as the spooks that assist them

This. He definitely went to the dark side a long time ago (very dark) along with his wife.

@Ffvfd
I’ll try and answer your questions as no one else has so far with my take on stuff .

They ( the international inspectors appointed by the UN ) were looking for WMD and never found them , David Harris was leading the team. I remember the morning when the BBC broke with the report that WMD had never existed and the claim that they could hit the West within 45 min being sexed up . The journalist who investigated Andrew Gillifan was vilified and never worked again for the BBC . MI 5 had washed their hands of the “dodgy dossier” but No 10 liked it because it shored up the case for going to war .
A few days later David Harris committed suicide ( or was pushed ) , the BBC castigated -Chair and Director General had to resign ( Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies ) . The Hutton report imo was a stitch up at the time and as time goes on proves to be more and more . I think that the foreign secretary Jack Shaw has as much blood on his hands though as Blair and was dodgy on other stuff such as Lockerbie and sending people to Guantanamo and torturing for information in third countries .

And the Blair Govt supported the Iraq invasion , SOLELY to be in with the US and the “special relationship” . So that some of the gloss given to US presidents at the time on the World stage would rub off onto Blair . Blair was an accolade chaser . Still is . ( see GF agreement too ) Unfortunately Bush junior was an idiot who frequently mixed up Iraq and Iran ( Iran was thought to be mixed in
in 9/11 with the Taliban . ) but Iraq was where his father messed up when they booted Iraq out of Kuwait but stopped at the border 10 years earlier. Hence the confusion in his mind. I honestly think he was more stupid than Trump and that really is saying something !

I think chumming up with Bush junior was Blair’s prime reason for going to war . I don’t think he cared whether there were WMD or not he only cared about that . When something was produced the dodgy dossier that made a case he wasn’t bothered that it was not credible . It made the case and of course they defied the UN too going against them and the resolutions.

Going to war for regime change is not something done on a world stage . Otherwise the thinking goes where does it stop if you don’t agree with a countries internal policy. Would France invade the UK because we now have a labour govet again? - look at the appalling things going on in North Korea or China for example but unless they invade another country or their terrible internal policies spill out into another country eg Afghanistan and 9/11 , no country would try to enforce regime change . No one tried to stop Hitler until he invaded Poland for example . Plenty of bad stuff going on in Germany against Jews snd other minorities ( concentration camps and laws ) before that for years .

Blair is the main reason I continue to support a monarchy in this country . Despite the lacking of skills , and finesse and criminal behaviour by some of the RF . In about 2010 or so there was quite a republican movement going on. At the time I was convinced that if we had a president the great British public would choose Blair ( or Simon Cowell!)

Sorry that’s a bit of a long answer.

Thank you

considering whats happening with iran, what would tony do ?

Whatever America told him to

Oh definitely, he'll find the Ayatollah's nukes in no time at all. And if he doesn't, what does it matter?`He'll say he has, so will the Orange Bastard and hey ho, away we go. Again. And again to no just purpose.