Why is Tony Blair so unpopular?

[YankeePorker]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33849764

The article talks about his political influence pushing labour to the right alienating the lefties, public disapproval of his active support of Bush and the subsequent screwing up of Iraq, his post PM lifestyle of private jets and lots of wonga, but seems to overlook the biggest issue - he's a lying and will forever be remembered as one!

[YankeePorker]

ash73 said:

I'd love to know what was going through his head when he took us into Iraq. His biggest failing is he still believes he was right.

That still rankles for me. At the time I lived in France, so was surrounded with friends and colleagues suffering the whole "cheese eating surrender monkeys" treatment in the English speaking press. The diplomatic tensions during the build up to the invasion of Iraq were the subject of many wine soaked soirees of discussion, with me generally defending the British stance.

Naively, in retrospect, I was convinced that an intelligent (for he is at least that!) man like Blair could not take such a weighty decision lightly, and had to be sitting on some prime intelligence info that justified committing British forces to the action. A bit of a deception then when it all turned out to be hot air, bull st and lies! What a lying .

[YankeePorker]

At a personal level the only positive things about Blair's term in office were:
- the schadenfreude of seeing lefty friends who elected him as the new messiah having to eat their words a few years later;
- the long term damage done to to the image of the Labour Party by Phoney Tony and Winky.

Doesn't make up for the damage done by waging an unjustified war and the years of blowing the national budget out of the water, but we have to seek satisfaction where we can find it!

He's a lying fker and I'm surprised that he dares show his face in public.

[YankeePorker]

yellowtang said:

Cameron wanted to go to war with Syria and was only really prevented from doing so by Labour.

That was a victory for democracy as far as I'm concerned, and lead to Obummer and Flamby (Hollande) backing down, then allowing Putin to play a great game of chess with the whole chemical weapons thing. But you're right, I was disappointed with Cameron's apparent desire to be part of the Assad butt kicking team, despite the fact that Assad's enemies are also, in part, our enemies too!

In an ideal world Blair's gung-ho desire to support Bush and kick the hell out of Saddam would have been voted down by parliament, but I guess they were just as hoodwinked as the general public.

[YankeePorker]

audidoody said:

He had the (almost) entire Conservative Party behind him because he was claiming in Parliament that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an existential threat to the UK (WMD in 45-minutes). The Conservative Parry quaintly thought that they would not be lied to in the Palace of Westminster.

Also presumably busy whips (in the political sense!) and toeing the party line. Much noise was being made in the press about Britain's "special" relationship with the USA (i.e. lapdog!).

And when people say that these events are all about oil, that doesn't always seem to be the case. An example, prior to the deposition of Gadafi, BP had a drilling campaign and investments in Libya which obviously went to ratst in the subsequent national meltdown.

[YankeePorker]

BJG1 said:

I think Blair and New Labour did a lot of good which often gets overlooked because of their obvious failings. I don't think he was great on balance, but he deserves credit for the excellent work he did in Northern Ireland, introducing the minimum wage, devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, getting rid of most hereditary peers in the HoL and huge cuts in hospital wait times.

Here's a really good, balanced article: http://www.economist.com/node/16004271

Yeah, The Economist was right behind him for the Iraq war too. And replacing the hereditary peers in the HoL with cronies was not exactly a major advance in my opinion.

[YankeePorker]

ash73 said:

10 seconds of stunned silence when confronted by a journalist about blood on his hands. His indecision reminds me of Bush when he was told about the planes going into the twin towers while he was reading a children's book. It's amazing to see those pictures of a million people marching in protest against the war in Iraq. What a terrible legacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ksL7fkBNM

While it in no way excuses the lying for taking us into the Iraq war on false premises, it is probably fair to say that at the time the West had not yet understood that the power vacuum left once a Middle East dictator is taken out just leads to tribalism, religious persecution and a bloody clusterfk. Blair probably believed that things would be better for the Iraqis and Kurds once Saddam was gone.

After seeing the aftermaths of Iraq, Libya and the Arab spring I think we've got that message now!

[YankeePorker]

AJS- said:

The thing is they did understand this the first time around, and it was one of the reasons they didn't get rid of him after Desert Storm.

Maybe. I understood that the halting of Desert Storm was more to do with the original coalition mandate, to kick the Iraqi occupiers out of Kuweit rather than regime change. With that comprehensively achieved there was limited political support to go further.

As for why Bush wanted to go back and hit Iraq again, who knows? Maybe Bush senior expressed regret that he hadn't been allowed to finish the job and Bush junior said "I'll do for you Pa". But he did have advisers telling him that it wasn't a great idea - Colin Powell was quoted as having said "If you go in and break it then it's your mess to deal with afterwards". Wise words from a sensible man who then completely (under orders) discredited himself by misrepresenting the WOMD stuff to the UN/NATO.

Still don't know what Blair did it for, maybe just megalomania as others have suggested. tt.

[YankeePorker]

MC Bodge said:

is is this the most consensual thread ever?

Yes, we all seem to agree on at one major issue!

He's a lying .

[YankeePorker]

ash73 said:

Robin Cook's resignation speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Thanks, hadn't heard that. He really nailed it didn't he - a weak Iraqi army, no weapons of mass destruction, extensive civilian casualties, regime change. Depressing really, voices of reason just couldn't be listened to because the US war machine was already mobilised. Blair you lying !