Here's what I don't get about the whole Blair hatred thing from the left

[Burney]

As I recall, everyone knew that Blair's justifications for war were *******s at the time and loudly said so. No-one was seriously misled or thought Saddam posed any real threat to the UK.

And yet, despite us all knowing this, many of the same people who marched against the war went out and re-elected the ****er two years later. Where was their outrage then? And why hasn't this rank hypocrisy stopped them from now lining up to wag their fingers at him?

[Ash]

The thing is, that you have absolutely no way of connecting the people who went out and opposed the war to the cross they made on their ballot paper.

Also, as there is no anti-interventionist party among the three main candidates, whoever you vote for is likely to do this stuff.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Given the amount Bernie doesn't understand, it's a wonder he posts on politics at all.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Given the amount Bernie doesn't understand, it's a wonder he posts on politics at all.

The only thing Berni doesn't understand is why anyone would hold an opinion that differed to his.

[SWv2]

The only thing Berni doesn't understand is why anyone would hold an opinion that differed to his.

R.I.P. Jorge

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

R.I.P. Jorge

Why did Jorge do a Fash?

[SWv2]

Why did Jorge do a Fash?

Berni was mean to him.

[Burney]

The thing is, that you have absolutely no way of connecting the people who went out and opposed the war to the cross they made on their ballot paper.

Also, as there is no anti-interventionist party among the three main candidates, whoever you vote for is likely to do this stuff.

No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.

[Pokster]

No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.

That would be true if the war in Iraq was the only election point in 2005.. it wasn't, the economy wtc will have been up there. So it isn't a shock that Labour voters still voted Labour as the economy was still doing well then, and we hadn't had the "boom and bust" that we had through the 80's and early 90's

[Burney]

That would be true if the war in Iraq was the only election point in 2005.. it wasn't, the economy wtc will have been up there. So it isn't a shock that Labour voters still voted Labour as the economy was still doing well then, and we hadn't had the "boom and bust" that we had through the 80's and early 90's

Of course it wasn't the only issue, but the fact that people were clearly prepared to overlook the small matter of Blair having dragged the country into what they believe was an illegal and unnecessary war for which our military was clearly unprepared and which caused the deaths of thousands simply because they felt the economy was doing well rather gives the lie to their outrage and apparent hatred of him, doesn't it?

[SWv2]

Of course it wasn't the only issue, but the fact that people were clearly prepared to overlook the small matter of Blair having dragged the country into what they believe was an illegal and unnecessary war for which our military was clearly unprepared and which caused the deaths of thousands simply because they felt the economy was doing well rather gives the lie to their outrage and apparent hatred of him, doesn't it?

I would imagine a lot of people are so ingrained in a political party (or belief?) that election after election they will just tick the same box.

You can disagree with or hate Blair but still be a Labour supporter, you are after all really voting for a local MP.

[Burney]

I would imagine a lot of people are so ingrained in a political party (or belief?) that election after election they will just tick the same box.

You can disagree with or hate Blair but still be a Labour supporter, you are after all really voting for a local MP.

That's true, but it's only getting people who voted for him off on a technicality, isn't it? Everyone will have been aware that, by ticking the box next to their Labour candidate, they were in effect putting someone they considered a war criminal back into Number 10. I find that fact hard to reconcile with their apparent implacable contempt for said war criminal. :shrug:

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

That's true, but it's only getting people who voted for him off on a technicality, isn't it? Everyone will have been aware that, by ticking the box next to their Labour candidate, they were in effect putting someone they considered a war criminal back into Number 10. I find that fact hard to reconcile with their apparent implacable contempt for said war criminal. :shrug:

Your unique ability for utterly facile argument is well demonstrated here.

[Ash]

No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.

Fair point about the Lib Dems in that election. They did say "Iraq War: Never again" in their manifesto and their share of the vote went up 4% from 2001 and got 10 more seats. New Labour's share went down 5.5%. Tories vote was about the same. So it looks like significant numbers did move away from Blair to the Lib Dems (and Greens).

I think a more relevant criticism is not of members of the public who may have voted Labour despite opposing the war, (and as you will agree, people vote on a package of policies) but of the political class who went with it at the time, and are now hiding behing the cartoonish image of Blair the Monster. It's not as if he invoked the Royal Prerogative like in 99. He won a vote in the commons, despite the case being so obviously bull****. Are all the MPs who backed him going to get a public thrashing too?

[Burney]

Your unique ability for utterly facile argument is well demonstrated here.

Merely pointing out the left's apparently limitless capacity for self-serving humbug, hypocrisy and sanctimony as ever, doc. :thumbup:

[Ash]

edit: never mind

[Pokster]

Merely pointing out the left's apparently limitless capacity for self-serving humbug, hypocrisy and sanctimony as ever, doc. :thumbup:

So when May wins the Tory leadership as a Remainer that won't be hypocrisy by Tory members at all?

[Burney]

Fair point about the Lib Dems in that election. They did say "Iraq War: Never again" in their manifesto and their share of the vote went up 4% from 2001 and got 10 more seats. New Labour's share went down 5.5%. Tories vote was about the same. So it looks like significant numbers did move away from Blair to the Lib Dems (and Greens).

I think a more relevant criticism is not of members of the public who may have voted Labour despite opposing the war, (and as you will agree, people vote on a package of policies) but of the political class who went with it at the time, and are now hiding behing the cartoonish image of Blair the Monster. It's not as if he invoked the Royal Prerogative like in 99. He won a vote in the commons, despite the case being so obviously bull****. Are all the MPs who backed him going to get a public thrashing too?

Of course not. He was the figurehead and the leader, so he takes the thrashing. The rest can say they were following orders.

I'm not disputing that some people did move away from Labour, I'm pointing out that many more didn't and wondering how they can reconcile that fact (of putting Blair back in office) with their moral conscience. Of course people vote on a package of policies, but it seems reasonable to me to expect that someone who feels as strongly about this issue as many of those now lining up to kick Blair profess to would then refuse to vote him back in. Now I have no issue with people voting for their interests, the economy or any number of other issues, but I do take the view that once you do so in favour of someone like Blair, you are essentially placing those things over and above your moral objections to the war he started and do ever so slightly lose the moral high ground when it comes to criticising him later.

[Pokster]

I would imagine a lot of people are so ingrained in a political party (or belief?) that election after election they will just tick the same box.

You can disagree with or hate Blair but still be a Labour supporter, you are after all really voting for a local MP.

Michael Howard was the Tory leader at the time and he was ****ing useless...

[Burney]

Michael Howard was the Tory leader at the time and he was ****ing useless...

He wasn't, actually. He got the Tory party back into some semblance of order after the Hague/Duncan Smith omnishambles years. He was never really meant to win an election, though, I'll grant you.

[Sir C]

He wasn't, actually. He got the Tory party back into some semblance of order after the Hague/Duncan Smith omnishambles years. He was never really meant to win an election, though, I'll grant you.

Plus he used to say 'people' the best way evs. 'Pipool', he would say. Pipool :cloud9:

[Burney]

So when May wins the Tory leadership as a Remainer that won't be hypocrisy by Tory members at all?

You seem to be assuming that all Tory members were pro-Leave, which simply isn't the case - not by a long chalk. Tory members will be given a choice of two candidates and will elect the one they think best able to win the next election. I see no hypocrisy in that :shrug:

If May wins, it will in part be because she was never a committed Remainer and is therefore an acceptable compromise for the two halves of the party to get behind. Again, no hypocrisy.

[Dr Headgear - Wannabe viking]

Merely pointing out the left's apparently limitless capacity for self-serving humbug, hypocrisy and sanctimony as ever, doc. :thumbup:

No, you're just being a cock.

[Burney]

Plus he used to say 'people' the best way evs. 'Pipool', he would say. Pipool :cloud9:

I was reminded horribly yesterday just how much the way Blair says 'wunt' when he means 'want' grinds my ****ing gears. I'd put him on trial in the Hague just for that. :furious:

[Sir C]

I was reminded horribly yesterday just how much the way Blair says 'wunt' when he means 'want' grinds my ****ing gears. I'd put him on trial in the Hague just for that. :furious:

Lord yes, that did used to wind me up.

Fair play to him yesterday for standing up and giving his side. I might have been tempted to go and hide.

[Burney]

Lord yes, that did used to wind me up.

Fair play to him yesterday for standing up and giving his side. I might have been tempted to go and hide.

Yes, but you do have to bear in mind that he is actually a true believer in his own righteousness with a messianic streak a mile wide. He is a bit of a mad, if I'm any judge.

I ****ing hate the Swiss, btw. I had a very stressful journey from Friedrichshafen to Zurich airport that culminated in me handing a Turkish taxi driver a wedge of currency and shouting "Flughafen - Schnell! Schnell!" and only just catching my plane.

[Sir C]

Yes, but you do have to bear in mind that he is actually a true believer in his own righteousness with a messianic streak a mile wide. He is a bit of a mad, if I'm any judge.

I ****ing hate the Swiss, btw. I had a very stressful journey from Friedrichshafen to Zurich airport that culminated in me handing a Turkish taxi driver a wedge of currency and shouting "Flughafen - Schnell! Schnell!" and only just catching my plane.

At least you're still allowed to travel. Pretty soon we won't be able to leave the country. Or something like that.

[Burney]

At least you're still allowed to travel. Pretty soon we won't be able to leave the country. Or something like that.

It was my own fault for taking the PR girl's advice and taking a coach. It arrived half an hour late, the driver seemed obsessed with stopping at empty stops and then, just to put the tin ****ing lid on it, we got pulled over by Swiss Grenzkontrolle, who were extremely Swiss about everything and took ****ing ages.

[Ash]

Of course not. He was the figurehead and the leader, so he takes the thrashing. The rest can say they were following orders.

He wasn't leader of the 139 Tory MPs. Or the leader of the 557 MPs who voted to smash up Libya in another disastrous intervention years later.


I'm not disputing that some people did move away from Labour, I'm pointing out that many more didn't and wondering how they can reconcile that fact (of putting Blair back in office) with their moral conscience. Of course people vote on a package of policies, but it seems reasonable to me to expect that someone who feels as strongly about this issue as many of those now lining up to kick Blair profess to would then refuse to vote him back in. Now I have no issue with people voting for their interests, the economy or any number of other issues, but I do take the view that once you do so in favour of someone like Blair, you are essentially placing those things over and above your moral objections to the war he started and do ever so slightly lose the moral high ground when it comes to criticising him later.

Well, personally I resolved never to vote for him after he did a similar thing in '99. I would gladly have voted for the anti-NATO SNP given the chance, but that's just me. I do think your critique would be better applied to the political and media classes who have for the most part, gone along with the doctrine of humanitarian intervention for two decades now, and are now taking turns to stick the knife in, on, it seems, the basis of technical failures than principled ones.

[Burney]

He wasn't leader of the 139 Tory MPs. Or the leader of the 557 MPs who voted to smash up Libya in another disastrous intervention years later.



Well, personally I resolved never to vote for him after he did a similar thing in '99. I would gladly have voted for the anti-NATO SNP given the chance, but that's just me. I do think your critique would be better applied to the political and media classes who have for the most part, gone along with the doctrine of humanitarian intervention for two decades now, and are now taking turns to stick the knife in, on, it seems, the basis of technical failures than principled ones.

He was the leader of the country and those Tory MPs could quite legitimately claim they felt that they should have had a right to trust the PM's judgement on such a matter. Equally, he didn't actually need a Commons vote to commit troops. As Prime Minister, he absolutely had the right to do it regardless (as he did in 99), so trying to spread the blame doesn't really wash.

I'm not sure your criticism of the media is entirely fair. I seem to remember quite a lot of questioning from all sides of the political spectrum.

Of course, the big joke is that, had Iraq been successful in its aims (whatever they were), Chilcott would never have happened. It would have simply been a 'the ends justify the means' job and tiresome details such as legality and honesty would have been ignored. In other words, what Blair is really being condemned for isn't starting a war, but starting a war we didn't win.

[Ash]

He was the leader of the country and those Tory MPs could quite legitimately claim they felt that they should have had a right to trust the PM's judgement on such a matter. Equally, he didn't actually need a Commons vote to commit troops. As Prime Minister, he absolutely had the right to do it regardless (as he did in 99), so trying to spread the blame doesn't really wash.

I'm not sure your criticism of the media is entirely fair. I seem to remember quite a lot of questioning from all sides of the political spectrum.

Of course, the big joke is that, had Iraq been successful in its aims (whatever they were), Chilcott would never have happened. It would have simply been a 'the ends justify the means' job and tiresome details such as legality and honesty would have been ignored. In other words, what Blair is really being condemned for isn't starting a war, but starting a war we didn't win.

The more important the matter, the more important to excercise critical judgement, and if they trusted him they were mugs, given that he was so obviously bull****ting, and believing in his own messiah-like infalibility.

And yes, there was opposition within the political and media classes to the Iraq war, but largely of a technical and legal nature. If it was the wrong thing to do, then obtaining a UN-mandate wouldn't have made it right.