Tony Blair: The Next Labour Prime Minister?

Sunder Katwala

Well, that would at least be one way to try to make the 2015 or 2020 General Election about the Iraq war of 2003. Blair clearly remains sincerely committed to the judgements he made and argues that case articulately. As he does that, almost everybody who supports or opposes become ever more entrenched in those views!

Surely, the true depth of a Labour crisis would be to despair that only an ex-leader could offer leadership in future.

Martin, you should read an interesting piece by Martin Bright in The Spectator recently, in a Labour's only hope is the next generation polemic.

"The fortysomethings who now dominate the Cabinet have left it far too late to move against the Blair-Brown duumvirate that held the party in thrall for too long".

DeeJay

I would like to think that the next generation of politicians would try and restore the balance between a 'presidential' style of premiership and 'cabinet' government which this country once enjoyed. But it depends largely on the calibre of politicians and whether there is genuine public distaste for the recent Blairite model. And what if the turn-out for the forthcoming general election is hideously low? What sort of mandate would that give the next government? An undemocratic style of leadership, a discredited legislature and an election process prone to abuse by fraud are not an encouraging mixture.

Paul

The next Labour PM - having seen his almost psychopathic (he is definitely living in his own castle in the air) performance yesterday...please God no

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Am I the only person in the UK who thinks Blair was right to go to war? I am not a socialist, dislike the policies of the left and do not personally like Blair. But, anfd this is a huge but, an evil man, Hussein Saddam is no longer alive and gassing thousands of Kurds and slaying Iraqis who did not belong to his 'clan' or sect. All this wailing at what a demon Blair is, by many who do not even know who or what Saddam was makss me sick. Now the 'kind hearted' are speaking of infant mortality in Iraq today, do they not realise that diseased and deformed children are still being born today as a result of the chemical and gas warfare spread by Saddam and his cousin Chemical Ali? It is nonsense to say that the war was not sanctified by the United Nations. On questions of morality and legality, did Saddam agree to any of the requests made to him to allow inspectors to enter? The United Nations is no more reklevant today than the old League of Nations. Why vilify Blair for actually doing something worthwhile, the only thing of value Nu Labour has ever done? Anybody who personally suffered from Saddam's scud attacks in 1991 will hardly select Blair as the Great Devil, that position fits Saddam.

DeeJay

Anne Wotana Kaye 1
Blair thought that United Nation's approval was necessary, the United States did not (and reluctantly sought authority). If "the United Nations is no more relevant today than the old League of Nations" then I assume, therefore, that you would have approved if the UK had taken unilateral action against Saddam. Can you explain the justification for such a position please?

Abandon Ship!

Well said Anne. I am not a Labour supporter, and God knows a number of mistakes were made with regard to Iraq, but Blair was right then and is right now. It is pathetic to hear other members of the Govt and Civil Service at the time speak at the inquiry as though they were made to support the war, or else they were lied to. But Blair has stuck to his guns, and come out the better for it. I am also ashamed at the way the other political parties try to make out that Blair mislead them.

Saddam is gone. Good riddance. Iraq has a better future. Well done Blair.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Dee Jay:
Dear DeJay,
I appreciate your measured response. I seriously wondered if I dared to write my opinion, knowing that it is not the popular one, and people get abusive and nasty (some of them) if you don't follow the crowd.
I would have supported unilateral action, in fact it would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who called Blair Bush's poodle. In the Thirties GREAT Britain went it alone standing up to Hitler. There were many even as late as 1939 who believed diplomacy was the answer. In my opinion, and it's worth little I know, Saddam was on the way to becoming consolidated in his position of Dictator of areas far beyond Bagdad.

Tommy Judd

I agree Blair was right then and right now, but that's not the point of this post. I'd like ho hear Martin's views about the behaviour of senior career civil servants like Meyer, Turnbull, Greenstock and Co. Blair and his cabinet took office with no experience of Whitehall and they probably assumed these people were their confidential advisers and sounding boards. If I were Cameron, I would be bringing in as many trusted political appointees as I could. These people have done more to undermine the independence and and trustworthiness of the civil service than any imagined assaults by politicians.

Beer Moth

If Polly Toynbee states that Blair's reputation has been destroyed, then it's pretty much a knocking bet that he's getting it right, and he did very much kick all the stupidity that has been directed at him, into the long grass.

If Labour do not re-instate him then they are truly ga-ga.

Tony Gee

More likely as a Conservative - bit thin on the ground on the opposition front bench.

Patricia Shaw

There was absolutely no consensus that Blair was a class act. Except by you and Mel.

There was a consensus that the members of the Enquiry gave Blair an easy ride.

The role of Israel in pushing for this invasion, and agitating for a strike on Iran, has yet fully to be uncovered.

Ronnie

Martin, what on earth are you talking about?

HarryG

Patricia,

I was wondering when someone would come up with the nonsense about Israel's involvement in Iraq, given Israel's apparent appointed role of all-purpose demon and scapegoat. Despite the attempt by Walt and Mearsheimer (among others) to make this stick, it is known that Israeli government officials actually considered Iraq a diversion from the main threat, Iran. Israel went along with US policy in public so as not to fall out with their ally.

By the way, I add my voice to Anne's. Blair was right and an evil murderous tyrant has been overthrown.

One need only look at the recent remarks of Iraq's elected president (the first Kurd ever to hold the post) to see this.

Gil

Patricia Shaw has form here with her hysteria against Israel. Ever the conspiracy theorist she says that Israel's role is 'yet to be uncovered'. But of course, PS has no doubt. Slight illogicality PS.

Patricia Shaw

Harry and Gil.

As avowed Truth Refuseniks you may be excused from any objective thought process.

The rest of us might reflect on the intimacy between neocon philosophy and pro Israeli ideology. And ask how the neocon party piece, Iraq, could be distanced from a (hard right view of) Israel's interests?

Track the careers, speeches and policies of every neocon protagonist, from Perle's role as Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute to Wolfowitz's Israeli background and his role as the Bush administration's liaison to AIPAC. Or Feith's award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." Or the paper written by Feith and Perle advising the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process and reoccupy the territories. Wolfie was shouting for Iraqi blood during the Clinton years.

Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies of Israel, but not of the States, or the UK, so in whose interests was Wolfie, Bush and Blair working? And why are all the Neocon Soapboxes like The Times and Tel baying for Iranian blood, and not North Korea's? A much bigger problem for the US, than for Israel.

To pretend that the main item on the Neocons' agenda was displaced from its main philospophical and ideological imperative, Israel, is revisionist and ridiculous.

Gil

Patricia Shaw: Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condi Rice and President George W. Bush are not to my knowledge Jewish. Yet they were the politicians pushing for the invasion of Iraq. If you don't know this then you are clearly batty rather than malicious.

Only you and your ilk could utterly distort the facts and find some Jewish Conspiracy in everything. As a matter of fact, Israel told the US that Iran was more of a threat to the region than Saddam was.

And let me remind you, Patricia, that Iran has its own enemity towards the US and Britain due to events going back to the 50s.

Only a naif like you would advocate taking action against nuclear armed North Korea.

Patricia Shaw

Thank you Gil for your considered epissle which erroneously suggests Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and co. were in some way unsupportive of Israel during their tenure.

It's so sweet the way you undermine the efforts and successes of Israel's foreign lobbies.

Care to indicate when they stood up for Palestinian rights? Or impressed on Israel the need to stop assassinating Hamas leaders and land thefts or end the

- Cheney, who pledged "enduring and unshakable" commitment Israel's security in 2008, also created a split in the administration when he openly supported the (targeted) Nablus sleighing of 5 Hamas leaders (and their families).

- Rumsfeld, who said Israel's illegal settlements were "right on", even though they violated U.S. policy and let alone international law.

- Bush; maybe you're too young to remember Jerry Falwell's valedictory '60 Minutes' interview after organising his 100,000 christian evangelical emails to Bush after the Jenin massacre, in which he said; "I think now we can count on President Bush to do the right thing for Israel every time".

Wasn't it a former Regan NSA Director, General William Oden, who said anout Iraq - "It’s pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what’s good for Israel more than Israel knows."

Why does 'digging', 'stop' and 'hole', come to mind whenever you pipe up?

Gil

Patricia, you really should stop cutting and pasting from the Hanan Ashwari cribsheet for 'Palestinian' (no such people) propagandists. The late General Odom, said what I had said in my previous post if you had bothered to read it:

William Odom said in that interview that 'the war is creating far more dangers for Israeli security than it’s provided improvements for Israeli security'

He also said: 'the U.S. invasion of Iraq is not in our interest, it is in the interest of al-Qaeda and the interest of Iran.'

Quite. So stop your propaganda and remember what Abba Eban once said: The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'.

Patricia Shaw

Would that be the same Palestinian people that don't exist ?

So what's Hanan Ashwari? A spider?

What did the Israeli/Phalangists kill in Sabra and Chatilla in 1982?
1700 squirrels?

What did the IDF bomb a year ago in Gaza ? 1400 camels?

And during the first intifada, what did the IDF break with the thousands of batons they were given and told to use on Palestinian protestors - injuring 23,000 Palestinian children according to the Swedish Save the Children Fund? Or were those particularly boney millipedes?

You remind me of an unsavoury South African at the height of apartheid, referring to blacks as some inferior life form.

Why not take this chance to apologise publicly to any Palestinians reading this for trying to strip them of their identities?

And for fifty years of dispossessions, annexations and massacres, the occupation of the the mandate territory and the violent repression of any resistance.

When you've washed your mouth out, you can
chew on the words of Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):

"Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction".

Everyone except YOU acknowledges that Necocons advocated Iraqi regime change since the late 1990s because it would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.

But then again, in your world, where an entire race doesn't exist, neither it would seem do any other inconvenient truths.