Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Blair 'gone mad'

127 replies

Lambstales · 16/06/2014 20:57

writes Boris Johnson.

This comment was about Blair's essay about Iraq.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 20/06/2014 11:24

C laig …. ‘modernisers’ eh, this really one of your current buzz words, or have you had a bet with someone that you can use it in every post? Lol

Clearly Labour has had more than their fair (main party) political share of modernizing over the years, going back and forth. The ‘Old’ Labour last in power during the 1970’s seemingly became non electable, but then Labour became stonkingly electable under Blair’s ‘New’ Labour – winning a 1997 landslide majority of over 140 seats from a Conservatives government, arguably not doing too much wrong at the time.

Under Miliband, Labour have drifted back a little to ‘Old’ with State controls over this and that, appearing to believe that in order to seal the deal with Labour core voters, that was all he really needed to do for the 35% of votes in the 2015 general Election Labour needed, that would give him a decent majority - aided of course by the current dodgy electoral boundary lines.

Recent polls etc show Labour with a flatlining lead over the Conservatives of over 2-3%, which would give him a very good majority in parliament, and even though the Conservatives need a 7-8% LEAD in the polls to get a small parliamentary majority in 2015, Labour wonks are worried that their ‘Oldish’ Labour message is not resonating with voters.

So yesterday, Mr Miliband drifted back to ‘Newish’ Labour with clamp downs/reforms on benefits, which will not sit well with the grass roots activists knocking on doors, but he is clearly experimenting how far he has to go back to ‘New’, to ‘seal the 2015 deal’.

The short answer to your question (please feel free to skip to it) is WHO KNOWS how modern the parliamentary Labour Party is, it could drift back and forth until next May, THE QUESTION IMO is would that Labour Party as a whole dare standing in the way of a Blair Impeachment process – before individual Labour MP’s had to both call on their own conscience, and analyse what their personal decision could mean to retaining their individual constituency seat.

Any loyalty to Blair therefore would take third place in the decision process, behind saving their own political bottoms – and maybe, just maybe, he had a whiff of Impeachment and Blair’s recent defence of his Iraq actions, was at least partially aimed at current Labour MPs.

Isitmebut · 25/06/2014 11:26

“Diplomats call on Tony Blair to quit as Middle East peace envoy over Iraq legacy”
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/diplomats-call-on-tony-blair-to-quit-as-middle-east-peace-envoy-over-iraq-legacy-9558299.html

”Tony Blair is facing calls to step down from his role as Middle East envoy after a scathing letter signed by former British ambassadors and politicians that accuses him of trying to “absolve himself” of responsibility for the crisis in Iraq.”

”The letter, with signatories including his former ambassador to Iran Sir Richard Dalton and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone – comes weeks after he published an essay in which he claimed that the 2003 invasion was not to blame for the current crisis.”

”But the letter rejects this, saying: “We believe that Mr Blair, as a vociferous advocate of the invasion, must accept a degree of responsibility for its consequences.”

Blair refuses to accept that he, helped by his personal staff (Alastair Campbell and team) via the now infamous Irag Dossier intentionally put that dossier together as A CASE FOR WAR, not ‘peace’, so has always been wholly unsuitable for the job.

That dossier was cobbled together by trawling the internet to find a sure WMD threat by Saddam Hussein, with a smattering of intelligence forced from MI6 to add authenticity saying nothing of a sort, but whole (key) sentences were ‘cut and pasted’ from an article published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, by a Mr Ibrahim Al-Marishi, an Iraqi-American.

Political spinning is one thing, but for anyone who requested, or compiled the report, they have a lot of Iraqi, allied soldiers and Dr David Kelly (the government whistle blower hounded to commit suicide in suspicious circumstances) blood on their hands. and are not fit for public office, especially a job with 'peace' in the title.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page