Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

28th January 2012

DEMOCRACY THREATENS

If you think international affairs do and, for that matter should impact on decisions made by western leaders, you need to watch the ongoing ‘Putin, Russia & the West’ series on BBC2.

Also at BBC website – for 3 more weeks (UK only) – Part 2 of “Putin, Russia and the west ‘Democracy Threatens‘

“BANG TO RIGHTS” for PLANKERS … er… PLONKERS

The bang-to-rights excerpt was shown on Thursday’s programme.

Can I tell you something? Are you sure now? You won’t get upset? Can you cope with this? OK. I’ll take your word for it.

If you think Jonathan Powell’s bang-to-rights phrase on the spy rock OR showing us that British spies CAN be found out is of more value than the rest of this excellent programme, you’re as thick as two short planks.

In fact if you’re under 21, and eligible to become a Russian citizen, you’d likely fit in well here with Hitl … Putin’s Youth -

In case you missed the real spy-rock story – Putin used the spy-rock to justify a new law drastically restricting the work of non-government organisations – NGOs.  Many had to shut down.

Scroll to 54 mins to see what Putin had to say about the murder of the leading reporter of human rights abuses in Chechnya.

“The journalist was a sharp critic of the Russian government. Journalists should know,  as experts are fully aware, that her influence on political life in Russia was totally insignificant.”

Like her death? Journalists should know.

The second episode includes an extraordinary interview with former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, who was widely thought to be responsible for murder, corruption and sanctions-busting. He tells how, in the 2004 election, he set about getting his chosen successor elected president – with the help of Putin and his Kremlin advisers. The opposition candidate, Victor Yushchenko, tells what it was like to be poisoned during the election campaign. It won him many voters and exit polls gave him a clear lead, but the Putin/Kuchma-backed candidate was still declared the winner. This result sparked the Orange Revolution.

Kremlin officials tell how they made sure that Putin would not face a similar revolution at home. It is claimed critics of Putin, including the British ambassador, were intimidated and some were even murdered. Tens of thousands of young Russians were mobilised to fight the threat of democracy.

__________

RELATED

Part 1 of 4 of Putin, Russia and the West – ‘Taking Control‘. (3 weeks left to view, UK only) – Watch it here Whole programme is also viewable on YouTube here

ETCETERA

1. The present Russian President, Medvedev is asked - “Are you ready to die like Saddam?”

Excerpt:

“An acute, revolutionary situation is now brewing in the country. Are you ready to face responsibility?” journalism student Vladimir Polyakov demanded.

“Do you realise that you could even be condemned to death? Are you ready to take it bravely just like Saddam Hussein did or will you emigrate to friendly North Korea?”

Read rest of above article on the upcoming Russian elections and candidates, or former candidates.

2. BBC News – Syria crisis: UN Security Council mulls Assad measures

The UN Security Council has met to consider a draft resolution against Syria’s government.

Activists and the Arab League urged the UN to take stronger action after an upsurge in violence this week in which dozens of people have died.

The UK, France and Germany drafted a resolution with Arab states supporting the League’s call for President Bashar al-Assad to hand power to a deputy.

Russia, an ally of Mr Assad, has indicated it would not back the text.

Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin told reporters after the meeting in New York that the draft resolution was unacceptable in parts, but Moscow was ready to engage in talks about it, according to Reuters news agency.

Russia and China vetoed a previous draft resolution against Syria late last year.

Over to you, China.

By the way, I hope you’re still remembering -

TONY BLAIR WAS RIGHT

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

26th January 2012

TONY BLAIR WAS RIGHT

[Continued from previous post]

Put out of your mind this part of the narrative.

[At 35:00] “A few days after the Bushes and the Putins Russian soldiers in Chechnya carried out a routine raid on a village [...] Russia’s overwhelming force drove the Chechens to suicide bombings and terror attacks“.

It is BBC western liberal parlance on Chechen Moscow Theatre terrorism (emboldened). It is the usual morally equivalent excuse from the “we made ‘em do it – all our fault” brigade. Apart from a few minor flaws like that the programme was insightful.

But were France and Germany really determined to flummox UNSC support for Bush & Blair?

Enough to sign up to Putin’s manoeuvering? Putin, who had already by then shown himself to be not exactly trustworthy? It certainly seems so.

I realise it is arguable that the “proviso” mentioned in the programme’s narrative gave Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder wiggle room.

Putin wanted Chirac’s word that he would vote against the war unless there was hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The joint position was agreed. If there was a vote without these conditions we would both veto it.

It is arguable. But only just. In realpolitik both had already made it clear to Tony Blair that they did not support the US and British leaders in their quest for a new UN resolution.

Putin, Schroder, Chirac. (We'll wipe the smile off laughing-boy Blair's face)

After forming their newly found mutually helpful relationship with Putin, imagine either the French or  German leader suddenly agreeing to support the UNSC resolution on Iraq.  Acceptable “hard evidence” or not, it would not have happened.

Blair was right.  Putin’s advances to Chirac were simply using the French President’s already public position against the Iraq invasion.

REMEMBER THE HISTORY

Chirac to Blair - "Leo will not thank you ..."

In October 2002, at a crucial EU summit, as Blair and US President George W Bush were becoming increasingly isolated, Chirac privately urged caution, even using the Prime Minister’s then-infant son to bolster his argument, saying - ‘Leo will not thank you if you take Britain into war.’ (See Guardian)

It was also reported in the Guardian article, quoting Stephen Wall, that Blair and Alastair Campbell had decided to place the blame for deadlock squarely on Chirac, following a breakdown of diplomatic efforts to get a second Security Council resolution that could have delayed an invasion.

‘I recall the moment,’ Wall says in the documentary, ‘because I happened to be in the corridor in Number 10 when he and Alastair Campbell were walking down the corridor and they decided effectively to play the anti-French card. They’d been given an opportunity to do so because President Chirac had given a broadcast interview the previous day in which he said that, as of that moment, France would veto a resolution authorising war.’

[NOTE the last sentence above. "They'd been given an opportunity ... Chirac ... veto"]

Wall also says it was clear that Chirac had not ruled out the possibility of future French support for such a compromise.

Ah oui, mes petits. Peut-être.

Mr Wall did not have to make the decisions.

_____

Part 1 of 4 of Putin, Russia and the West – ‘Taking Control‘. (Four weeks left to view, UK only) – Watch it here.  Whole programme is also viewable on YouTube here

“Putin, Russia & the West”, Part 1 of 4  is also reviewed here at The Telegraph.

Back to top

Or – Tweet this post

_____

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm June 6-8 2007, shortly before Blair left office.

24th January 2012

Tony Blair’s testimony to Chilcot’s Iraq Inquiry and to every other questioner on the issue of France blocking a new UN resolution was accurate. France’s Chirac really was determined to scupper the allies’ drive to secure UN backing for war.

According to BBC 2′s Putin, Russia and the West it us hard to come to any other conclusion than this one:

Tony Blair was right.

France and Germany, fair-weather friends of Britain and the USA, were in it together in order to foil US/UK attempts to secure UN backing for war against Saddam’s Iraq.

“BANG TO RIGHTS” – THE RUSSIANS

So, did you switch over to BBC2 last Thursday evening hoping to see the bit about how British spydom was simply dumb? Me too.  It was all over the media, including the BBC. The Russians were “bang to rights” said Jonathan Powell, Blair’s former aide. Since we Brits just LOVE to hear how the bad guys are the good guys and we Brits and Americans, as we all know, are really the bad guys, I had to make sure I didn’t miss it.  I even let the laptop cool down for an hour or so!

Know your enemy, as they say.

I dutifully switched to the BBC and it seems the use of “bang to rights” was no more than a sprat to catch a mackerel. We read all about the “bang to” and “rights” bit on the Russians. Just as we haven’t read all about this interesting excerpt that – let me repeat for the hard of understanding of political intrigue and ally skewering:

TONY BLAIR WAS RIGHT

If you did watch the programme you might have been (temporarily) disappointed.

No stone was left unturned in my efforts to catch the up turning of the “spy rock“.  It didn’t show up; not in a Moscow street, park or anywhere else. This Thursday, it seems.

However, last Thursday’s episode was not to be missed.

Part 1 of 4 of Putin, Russia and the West – ‘Taking Control‘. (Four weeks left to view, UK only) – Watch it here

Update: Whole programme is also viewable on YouTube here

RELATED

Putin, Russia & the West is also reviewed here at The Telegraph by David Blair (no relation, as far as I know.)

To be continued in next post. (That’s enough of a shock for the Blair haters for one day.) Just remember -

TONY BLAIR WAS RIGHT

AU REVOIR DIT CHIRAC ET SES BONS AMIS – PUTIN ET SCHRODER

Chirac, Putin & Schroder agreed to veto ANY US resolution at UN to attack Iraq. Principled or political?

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

17th January 2012

I told my fellow tweeps earlier that there was a constellation that looked like a “T” – Great Dog (in green, at bottom of chart.)

Bottom of chart - Great Dog Constellation - in shape of a "T"

To be honest (and aren’t I always?) I was only messing around. I had no idea.

It just seemed appropriate with all the goings-on today over Luke Bozier a strong Blairite defecting from Labour to the Conservatives; the Blair-less Labour party doing nasty things to the popular Glasgow MP Tom Harris (also a Blairite) over a spoof Hitler/Alex Salmond video he’d  uploaded to YouTube thus getting booted out of his job – see ‘Tom Harris Downfall’; and Unite’s Len McCluskey up to some old Union divide-and-rule tricks. In Mr McCluskey’s case it seemed Ed Miliband was embracing “discredited Blairism” (yes, yes, I know!) so McCluskey said they had to sort him out.  Else, he would be really sorted out by the er… Blairites (the “discredited” losers y’know) who would then claim the party for their evil little selves.

I’m still trying to get my head around all of this.

So in this stargazing week it seemed just the time to say something about TB and the stars.

I told fellow tweeps that I thought I’d go and take a look for a constellation in the shape of a “B”.  As if – thought I! Great constellations! I didn’t even know the “T” existed then, if truth be told!

Lo and behold, miracle of miracles, there it was. To the upper right of the “T”, just as I had hoped for.

After “Great Dog” “T” there was “B” -”Hunter” constellation.

Hunter constellation, to right above Great Dog("T") in shape of a "B"

The whole thing is so coincidental, so … er weird.  If I was the type, I’d be yelling – ‘there you go – it’s written in the stars.’

OK, I will anyway…..

TB = Great Dog/Hunter – it’s written in the stars!

Even the names are good. Not a Swan or an Aiden or a River or a Chained Princess – but a Great Dog/Hunter.

I’m almost speechless. Wonder what Brian Cox makes of this? I have to go and lie down.

Of course there is always the chance it’s referring to Tony Benn – as this tweep suggested to me. Or to Tony Booth, Cherie Blair’s father or …

But I think I’ll stay with my interpretation.

Go here to download the AstroViewer.

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

13th January 2012

It seems the Telegraph has received this statement from Tony Blair’s office. I’m not sure when – today or days ago.  But it is worth noting and keeping an eye out. Let’s see if and when the Telegraph retracts any of its ‘story‘ in the light of this. As soon as I notice they have published an apology I promise I’ll post it here. On that you can really ‘count’!

__________

Friday, Jan 13, 2012 in Office of Tony Blair

On 8th January, the Sunday Telegraph ran a story under the headline, Tony Blair and the £8million tax ‘mystery’. The following statement from the Office of Tony Blair was sent to the newspaper following publication of that story:

“Even by the standards of the Sunday Telegraph campaign on Tony Blair’s post Prime Minister career, your story was a shocker.

“Mr Blair does not only pay £315,000 in tax. The tax you refer to is not Mr Blair’s personal tax but that of the company through which he administers the costs of his different activities worldwide. There was a surplus in the company at the end of the accounting year of just over £1m. It paid £315,000 tax on this. That has nothing whatever to do with Mr Blair’s income, nor his personal tax, nor the profits or revenues of his business.

“The £12.005m you refer to are not his earnings, nor the earnings from his business. It is the money allocated to cover the costs of administering all the various things he does in the world. So to elide costs with earnings and then use a tax figure that has nothing to do with Mr Blair’s earnings, and implying it is all Mr Blair pays personally in tax is completely misleading.

“For the record, on Mr Blair’s actual earnings he is a 50% top rate taxpayer and his businesses pay full UK corporation tax.

“He also supports, from his earnings, the charities he has established as well as making other donations. There are more than 120 people working on all his activities around the world. He actually spends the majority of his time on unpaid pro bono work in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.”

__________

Original source - ‘Statement from the Office of Tony Blair on last week’s Sunday Telegraph story’

__________

Related

Harry Langford also mentions this, and says to his fellow Labour party members:

” Shame on the members of The Labour Party that use false stories put out by The Sunday Telegraph and other papers of a similar political nature to discredit the most successful Labour leader ever.”

Well said, Harry. As I think I may have mentioned before – we should recognise our friends, so that we may better identify our enemies.

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

5th January 2012

This is a crosspost (very cross) from The Jewish Chronicle Online (original source)

I’ll let the article speak for itself.  With sincere thanks to Martin Bright

__________

The social networking site, Twitter, has provoked fury after refusing to act against a user responsible for a stream of death threats and antisemitic abuse.

Shereef Abdallah, who advertises himself as an Ed Miliband lookalike and claims to have worked on the Labour leader’s election campaign, began by targeting people identified as supporters of Tony Blair. He has since widened his online attacks to anyone who challenges him.

As the violence of his language escalated, Mr Abdallah turned his fire on a young British Israeli woman, “Rachel”, who had criticised his description of his opponents as Nazis.

Using often explicit pornographic language, Mr Abdallah made direct threats such as: “I will hunt you down & fight you min by min. hr by hr. day by day. wk by wk. month by month. year by year for the rest of yr life.”

He later threatened to beat her to death, noting that this was “a promise” he would carry out. The police have now taken up the case after a former Labour Party press officer intervened – only to be threatened with having his throat cut.

Mr Abdallah, who has worked as a volunteer at the office of Glenda Jackson and blogged for the Labour Party affiliate organisation Young Fabians, started his campaign with attacks on “Julia”, a young woman who runs the Blairite blog Julie’s Think Tank. The JC has been advised not to reveal the identity of the women involved as there is a risk that Mr Abdallah may turn his violent, often sexual fantasies into real acts of violence. Many of his tweets end with the sign-off “R.I.P.”

The probation officers’ union, Napo, which is running a campaign to toughen up the laws on stalking, referred the tweets to a psychological profiler who helps the police identify violent offenders. She concluded that there was a 30 per cent chance that Mr Abdallah would turn his threats into real acts of violence.

When a Twitter user known as @blairsupporter reported the abuse received from Mr Abdallah, Twitter responded: “We have investigated the reported account and have found that it’s not in violation of the Twitter rules at this time. We have a policy against violent threats, but the content of this account lacks the specificity to meet the criteria of an actionable threat.”

A spokeswoman from Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” department suggested contacting dealing with the matter locally. She continued: “Websites do not have the ability to investigate and assess a threat, bring charges or prosecute individuals.”

But the Community Security Trust spokesman, Mark Gardner, said Twitter’s position set a dangerous precedent: “These tweets are a clear example of racist intimidation and threats. We cannot have a situation where modern media is exempt from basic legal protocol.”

Harry Fletcher, who is running Napo’s campaign on stalking law reform, said: “The threat to these women is real, frightening and could escalate. Social media companies need to wake up to their responsibilities and deal with this as a matter of urgency.”

John Mann MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: “Individuals continue to peddle hate online. This highlights the ever-emerging problem with Twitter and it is very troubling that they refuse to act.”

Mr Abdallah, who has used the names @Sheik74k and @LFCSheikKD on Twitter, bombarded “Julia” with messages such as: “Your nightmare is just starting, Julia, it will only get worse for you every day 24/7 till you leave twitter”; “Zionists can’t save you, Julia, the only way to stop it is to leave twitter. Racist tory anti Islamic scum”; “I fear nothing not even death so will fight you and your ilk to my last breath.” Most chilling of all was the message: “… are you still alive FFS? You will be next after I end [Rachel]…. that’s a promise. sleep tight”.

The young blogger became seriously concerned when Mr Abdallah turned up at her university.

To “Rachel”, he wrote in capital letters: “I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH… R.I.P; THIS IS NOT A THREAT… THAT IS A PROMISE.”

The Fabian Society said Mr Abdallah had falsely claimed to be a member of the Young Fabians when he posted as a blogger on its website. His post was subsequently removed.

Mr Abdallah refused to answer the JC’s questions.

● A Jerusalem-based lawyer has claimed that Twitter is providing services to groups such as Hizbollah.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who specialises in cases against terror groups, said that the company could be violating US law.

Although Hizbollah does not have an official Twitter account, that of the Al-Manar TV network, which Hizbollah controls, has 7,500 followers.

● Twitter users in Israel are only able to select “Palestinian Territories” when listing their location.

Users can choose a location using their mobile phones. But anyone wanting to choose Israel finds a drop-down menu which offers only “Palestinian Territories”.

Twitter says: “We list countries where we’ve launched SMS with at least one operator. We’ve been in touch with operators in Israel but haven’t yet been able to launch SMS there. So it’s not included on the list.”

__________

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

2nd January 2012

Happy New Year to all! Let’s hope it’s better than the old one.

London's world-famous clock tower, commonly known as Big Ben, seems to explode in a blaze of fireworks. Guy Fawkes would have been proud.

The oddly timed news (rather leak – the broadcaster itself didn’t tell us) that the hallowed  BBC was doing interviews ready for Tony Blair’s eventual obituary  (yes he’ll have to go one day like the rest of us – no way out of that way out) raised a few eyebrows when it broke at The Sun.

Tony Blair at an event in London, beginning of December, 2011

For the record I saw Mr Blair in recent weeks and he didn’t look at all as though he was even approaching death’s door.  But questionably untimely as is this scour around to record snips from presumably the usual suspects  – in case they pop off before he does – it has some rhyme and reason. Quentin Letts’s reasons for his atrocious piece of work are far less excusable.

Let’s do Letts later, as it were.

The BBC MUST be prepared.  After all their broadcasting outfit is a near monopoly and bears a lot of responsibility for being right up there with the latest, so to speak. The BBC is the largest broadcaster in the world with the world’s largest broadcast news organisation and a reach in Britain of more than all the other British media outlets put together.

Aside : Despite this my request several weeks ago to the Leveson “Press” Inquiry as to whether or not broadcasters too are being looked into remains unanswered.

Since 73% get their news from TV, with the BBC supplying 70% of all TV news, the Beeb certainly has some responsibility; and some power.

It would never do if in say 20/30/40 years time when the time comes to remind us all about Tony Blair and the life and reasons for (successes & not to mention failings of the then late lamented) to find such as Tam Dalyell, Tony Benn, Clare Short and George Galloway had already popped their clogs.  Oh tragedy – true, utter, real tragedy! Not one of them to be found opining liberally on the Commons grassy bits .

The horror! Bereft indeed!

Dig out the archives, replay the video clips. Find SOMEthing … ANYthing to remind the waiting, wailing punters of… you know the rest.

__________

Just a little background aside or three on some likely interviewees. Come back to the below later if you prefer.

ORDER! ORDER!

• Watch Commons Speaker Martin eject Tam Dalyell from Commons over his insistent “point of order” over an Iraq debate, 2003. There WAS a debate and a vote in the Commons and Tony Blair won it easily. First time EVER a British PM has asked for a Parliamentary vote to go to war.
• Watch George Galloway: “And I told Saddam “YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF WHAT YOU’VE GOT” (yes, that’s what GG said to his pal the Indefatigable Saddam in this Big Brother clip. (just before GG donned his pussy cat persona.)
• Tony Blair saved drunk and cop abusing Clare Short from arrest

__________

ALAS, POOR YORICK TONY! I KNEW HIM …

So the usual suspects and perhaps even a few sensible types have got their er… tributes in first.  In the can; on the record; ready for the big day when we can all find out how and why the most electorally successful Labour leader ever was such a … what’s the word …  oh yes, failure.

I DO realise that this writing up of early obituaries is common practice, just in case.  Since Mr Blair is just 58 it may be a decade or several premature.  I discount immediately perceived “threats” to him as suggested by someone here. The BBC may be at times illiberal with the verity but it is not a  killer setup regardless of Jeremy Paxman’s cross-media article (let’s pretend it’s about his fave pic) inadvertently I’m sure, rousing would-be assassin types who hang out at the rough corners of the Guardian of the TROOF.  As if, eh?

But nor do I imagine this BBC obituary will be a quick two-minute snip mourning a senior statesman’s demise.  Instead it will be a programme-length exhortation – or perhaps a series – as to what NOT to do with power. While of course explaining in no unbiased terms as to why exactly Mr Blair was such a ‘disappointment’ (to some.)

BBC ANTI-BLAIR BIAS

Why, I hear you ask, don’t I completely trust the BBC’s motives in recording, collecting, editing and collating ‘alas poor Tony! …’ wails from the affected…  er… effected?

It’s very simple.

I have watched over many years as the BBC’s anti-Blair/anti-Iraq war bias has shone through almost every news item: analysis pouring knowledgeably from the lips of assuredly informed Today broadcasters; echoed and chiming in a cacophony of  Newnights; muddling through middle-class mumblings at Any Questions masterclasses; chattering classily through quirky Question Times; not to mention Panoramically looking to let’s-put-things-right oh so liberally-leftily in that self-important overseeing seewetoldyou way.

All BBC gems undimmed in their omniscience due usually to the orchestrated absence of the airing of balancing countervailing arguments from any not quite liberal intelligentsia types among us.

‘I KNOW I KNEW HIM NOW. BUT WILL I KNOW HIM THEN?‘

Put aside that it is clear that despite often being accused by the political right of being too “left” the BBC and its commenters and broadcasters are, with a few honourable exceptions, against the Iraq war. Thus it follows anti-Blair.  Beseeching us for understanding, as though they had mistakenly cheerled for Hitler, they have the humility – nay – lofty self-flagellation and deserved meekness to make it clear they can’t apologise enough. Especially because he won’t.

Pumpkins.

Thing is, even if Blair is/was of “the left”, his having been a Labour PM actually makes it so much easier for them to put on their earnest lefty luvvie tones – ‘sorry we didn’t realise/he seemed so nice’.

Has the BBC considered there is an issue in recording opinions on a late lamented who isn’t yet late even if, by some, seriously lamented?  The man himself might outlive many of them. There may well be far more to be said about him than that he joined in on a war they did not like. On second thoughts – they clearly have considered that.

En passant – it’s been reported that a 24 year-old former drugs-dealing gang member has just been awarded an OBE in the News Years Honours List. For turning round his life in an acceptable way he has been rewarded.  How on earth does that compare to the work already being done by Tony Blair all over the world through his Faith Foundation, Climate Group, African Governance Initiative to name but some? Not that I think he’s looking for a gong, but where is Tony Blair’s award?  Where is his recognition for decades spent in public service?

And in decades to come will today’s OB units filming GG’s words REALLY do the man justice?

I conclude not.

There is one issue which is harder still to get one’s innocent head around.

How can such as Tam Dalyell (if indeed he is one with a starring role) talk today about a future deceased Mr Blair in tones which will have any pertinence when that sad day comes? After all it’s a different thing to talk today of someone yet warm than it may be on that cold distant morn. So how?

Only, might I suggest to Dalyell/Galloway clones, by being asked about matters they feel strongly about today: Iraq, in other words.  And who knows how the world and even today’s MPs will feel about Iraq in 20/30/40 years time?

So, yes I am suspicious about the filming of MPs re Tony Blair’s inevitable, eventual televised obituary.  Not because I think they expect him to die any time soon, but because I think they expect him NOT to.  They can’t dare allow him and the passing of time here and in Iraq to change perceptions. Not when such as Gorgeous George are still around to “balance” things by reminding us how evil was the man. (Not Saddam, silly, but Tony Blair the remover of that ‘indefatigability‘.)

Look – I’m fed up with this already. And I’ve hardly touched on Letts. Cant imagine how YOU feel!

I’ll write on Letts later, if he hasn’t by then been found dead in a “small shed” somewhere. Methane accruement in his particular case should take about ten minutes.

In which case, I suppose I’ll have to do an obituary.

What a stinker.

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

29th December 2011

Matthew Parris: “This is now Blair’s Britain: a trite phrase, I know, but the world did change. […) This Mr Blair has done with a deftness, with a sensitivity to national mood that has been unequalled by any British politician I can remember. And the result has been good.”

Before you dwell deeper on the joys of Blair’s Britain through the 2006 eyes of Matthew Parris – the erstwhile (self-confessed) “failed” Tory MP but nonetheless talented writer – let me give you this by way of background and introduction.

For some time I had searched fruitlessly online for the article below by Mr Parris. It had stuck in my mind as I had recently become a Blairite when it was published, and I recalled it had been a good read.  Or rather I had at that time recently realised that I had been a Blairite for some time.  Yet all that I was currently reading from Matthew Parris indicated that he would never, could never have written such a thing. Or such a LOT of GOOD things about Blair and “Blair’s Britain”.

I tweeted on my search for it, and a kind friend came up with it for me:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article1737544.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

You may be taken to the £ page rather than directly to the article.  But, never to be beaten by mere formalities, it has been copied and pasted below, in all its glory.

Don’t thank me, Mr Parris – thank YOU.

__________

I’m no fan of the man, but I do love Blair’s Britain

Page 1

A year ago a friend laid down a challenge. “Why don’t you try something new?

“Lie down in a darkened room, and try to think positively about the Prime Minister. Take a fair-minded look at what his near-decade in Downing Street has done for Britain that is right and good. Write a column which sets this out without sarcasm or facetiousness, and does not damn with faint praise. Before the year is out, see if you can.”

I’ve thought hard about that challenge. The truth is that there is just one good thing I can say about this Prime Minister, but that it is a very big thing indeed.

Britain is a nicer place than when he entered Downing Street nearly ten years ago.

His premiership has helped to make it so. Tony Blair has placed his personal stamp on a genuinely new era for Britain -an altered culture, a permanent change in our national mood.

Without any shadow of doubt, Mr Blair will leave a happier country than he found.

Something tolerant, something amiable, something humorous, some lightness of spirit in his own nature, has marked his premiership and left its mark on British life.

Around the turn of the century the buzz-phrase “cool Britannia” was much mocked, and Downing Street probably deserved the mockery; but there was truth in the phrase, there was a real idea there, and the man himself embodied it. This Prime Minister was cool in a way that no predecessor in that office ever had been.

Though evanescent, the quality was not without meaning or impact.

And it was him, him personally. Not Gordon Brown -leaden, sullen, brooding. Not Peter Mandelson -tense, brittle, troubled and strangely trapped by the 20th century. Certainly not John Prescott. “New” Labour may have had some fitful association with central policy changes, but timidity has characterised the flagship policies. The association of new Labour, however, with what we might call the spirit of the age has been very strong. Head and shoulders above the rest of his administration, Tony Blair, the man himself, in himself, has embodied the modernity.

Concrete examples -the way this has been translated in politics -are as slight and individually as seemingly trivial as they are legion. You would expect me to mention civil partnerships, the scrapping of the “section 28″ prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality in schools, the equalising of the age of consent, and the ending of the ban on gays in the Armed Forces; but this programme of repeals, though bringing big changes for the minority of which I am part, is more significant for the small changes it has reinforced in the attitudes of the majority.

The minimum wage (towards which I was at first sceptical) is another big change for a minority that signals a small civilising of majority attitudes. Many of us now feel quietly pleased to live in a country that cares -and takes legislative measures to show it -about the poorest paid. Childcare provision, the “social inclusion agenda”, relaxations on licensing hours, the reclassification of cannabis, a relentless campaign of oratory and example on religious tolerance, and a brave opening of the doors to Eastern European labour from the new EU members, are all further examples of a phenomenon for which the term “raft” of measures has become a dreadful cliche, but which has meaning here. I like this raft. I like its drift. I like its rainbow flag.

Page 2 -

And there has been, as gradual as it is signal and (I hope) permanent, a steady reduction in the level of general censoriousness in public life. In its way this is every bit as health-giving as a reduction in the volume of noxious gases in the atmosphere, and it is clear to me that Mr Blair himself has helped to lead it.

Whether or not he “does” God (as Alastair Campbell put it), this Prime Minister does not do preaching, moralising or finger-wagging. The news media, even the red-top tabloids, have followed suit. Look at the sympathetic way the victims of the Suffolk murders have been treated by the press and broadcasters in recent weeks.

Those who know John Major know very well that the “nation at ease with itself” of which the former Prime Minister often spoke was a truer expression of what Mr Major hoped to achieve than the “Back to Basics” campaign that became his label.

In ways that have been little noticed, Majorism -the Citizen’s Charter, the National Lottery and its good causes, the emphasis on the public as customers rather than lucky beneficiaries of public services -can be seen a Tory attempt to reaccommodate itself to a changed, kinder, gentler Britain, as well as a reflection of John Major’s own nature. But he never quite found his voice, his parliamentary majority, or his stride. You could even say that Majorism was proto-Blairism, which went off half-cock. Mr Blair followed, and got it right.

A defining moment for me was the union of Elton John and David Furnish. A Blair Government had both anticipated and helped to reinforce the astonishing public sympathy for the ceremony. Again, Mr Blair got that right.

The next prime minister -discounting, as perhaps we may, an imminent unhappy interlude with Mr Brown -will be David Cameron. Mr Cameron’s bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party a year ago came close to skidding off the road before it started. The reason for that near-disaster was a story about drugs and youthful indiscretion. Had Mr Cameron taken drugs as a younger man, or had he not?

Mr Cameron’s response was neither yea nor nay, but that it didn’t really matter and it was none of our business. Fleet Street was on a knife edge, undecided which way to tip.

Mr Cameron stuck to his guns. Our news media sniffed the wind, assessed the public mood, and tipped Mr Cameron’s way. The story died. When Sunday newspapers published photographs of George Osborne, the Tory Shadow Chancellor, flanked in late-night circumstances by a black lady, and on the table a trace of what we must suppose to have been salt, the story never really got going.

Why? You remember it too. Why do you think? I cannot quite put my finger on it but recall, borne on the early 21st-century wind, a weary sense of “Oh do let’s grow up. This is all so 20th-century. Can’t we just move on?” We did. In Thatcher’s Britain, Mr Cameron would have crashed; in Blair’s Britain he stayed on the road.

As Blairism owes its economic life in part to Thatcherism, Cameronism will owe its cultural validity -and Mr Cameron his job -in part to Mr Blair.

This is now Blair’s Britain: a trite phrase, I know, but the world did change. Mr Blair is associated with that change, but more than associated with it: as our Prime Minister he has been a presiding mind, a presiding imagination. By no means has he created the new mood but he has caught the mood and run with it, and in running with it, validated it.

Call it weakness or call it a strength, but people without any dominating idea of their own but with the emotional intelligence to sense the spirit of the age and let it inhabit them like a ghost, to interpret it, to give it words and gestures, even to clothe it with theory and statute -these people are changemakers every bit as revolutionary as a Thatcher, but in a different way. You can grab an era by the lapels, as she did, or you can let an era grab you by the lapels and guide it, as he has; both are creative forces in politics.

In democratic politics it is no small thing to catch a changed wind early, to let it fill your sails, and to help steer the spirit of a nation into different waters. This Mr Blair has done with a deftness, with a sensitivity to national mood that has been unequalled by any British politician I can remember. And the result has been good. That at least is a legacy of which he should be proud.

__________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

28th December 2011

Tony Blair’s BBC Desert Island Discs, November 1996

Sue Lawley’s castaway this week is the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Honourable Tony Blair. He will be describing his beliefs, both political and religious, and revealing the man behind the sound bites.

[Taken from the original programme material for this archive edition of Desert Island Discs]

Find another castaway here

• Castaway Archive & Podcasts
  

  Desert Island Discs – Find every castaway from 1942 to the present day, plus over 500 programmes available to download.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

12th December 2011

Like most politicians Tony Blair prefers, understandably, to keep his family out of the limelight.

Unusually he has broken with this in order to donate a Father & Baby photograph to the Royal Academy of Arts New Art Exhibition. Every donated item will be sold to raise funds for the Royal Academy Schools.  It is a beautiful photograph of the former prime minister with his newborn son Leo in 2000.  Many, if not most of us can identify with it.

Story is here at the Metro, pasted below:

Tony Blair and baby Leo a picture of happiness at new art exhibition

Former prime minister Tony Blair looks lovingly at his newborn son Leo in one of the exhibits at a new Royal Academy of Arts show called Happiness.

The Labour PM, who became the first occupant of No.10 to father a child for more than 50 years, sent a picture of him and baby Leo soon after his birth in May 2000.

Mr Blair said: ‘This captures a sheer, uncomplicated moment of contentment when nothing else mattered for either of us.’

Others to contribute from the worlds of art, fashion and culture include David Bailey, Sienna Miller, Vivienne Westwood, Manolo Blahnik and Bella Freud, with items ranging from children’s shoes and old records to paintings and clothing.

The free exhibition, created by champagne company Krug, runs from tomorrow until December 20.

All items will be sold on a first offer basis. The money raised from the sales of exhibits will go towards the Royal Academy Schools.

All that needs to be said has been said in The Metro. A father and son. Albeit a famous father. It is a lovely family picture which will be treasured and passed down generations.

So what does the disgraceful Guardian do with this?

They surround it with their own choice of words. Yes, The Guardian of The Truth’s puerile juvenilia takes some beating. They then have the utter gall to put this under the picture -

Photograph: Krug Happiness exhibition / Royal Academy of Arts

If I were a member of the Krug Happiness Exhibition or The Royal Academy of Arts I’d sue the nasty-minded Guardian for misrepresentation.

The writer/journalist/twisted soul (you choose) – someone called Tom Meltzer – someone of low values, little integrity, no human empathy – (I choose ALL) – says this:

In order to help any Guardianistos compelled to comment and who feel commenting in this mode is a fine, upstanding thing to do, Meltzer provides a sampler as to what he’s looking for.  This is his idea of a caption -

“Happiness is – spending time with someone who has never heard of Fallujah”.

Fallujah? Was this Meltzer man born an idiot or did he have to work for the Guardian for a bit to attain that hallowed state?

Fallujah was FOUR years ahead of the day this picture was taken.  Even Tony Blair had likely never heard of Fallujah when little Leo was born.

It is an utter disgrace that a baby’s earliest picture should be attached in such a thoughtless, idle way to this kind of determined propaganda against the Iraq war and the man who led our country into it.

Even if The Guardian thinks it knows all there is to know about Iraq, it would do well to ponder that the “sins of the father” do not sit comfortably or deservedly on the head of his infant child.

How low can The Guardian go?

Don’t ask. Far, far lower.

BROADSHEETERY

We now discover that the Guardian’s determination to do away with the News of The World meant that it was content to announce to the innocent and gullible that a NoW journo had hacked into AND deleted messages from the phone of the missing teenager Milly Dowler. You will recall that, utterly reprehensible as hacking is, there was widespread acceptance that it was often done and had been widely done by many newspapers for years.  No-one was all that surprised.  What really stiffened spines against the News of The World was the Guardian’s insistence that they knew a NoW journalist had also deleted messages from Milly’s mobile so giving her parents false hope that she was still alive.

As we empathise today with the father & baby picture above we empathised then with the parents of Milly Dowler.

It now transpires that the Guardian was wrong – or as they choose to put it in their apology for an apology – were informed wrongly. The NoW journalist Glenn Mulcaire did NOT delete any messages from Milly Dowler’s mobile phone.

Yet THAT suggestion was at least part of what got the Leveson Inquiry off the blocks and killed the News of The World at the same time.

The Guardian is a shameful piece of pompous, deceitful, high-horsed broadsheetery.

Its behaviour almost makes me want to call for the return of the News of The World, and if it comes back I might even buy a copy.  That’ll be two I’ll have ever bought.

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

10th December 2011

Julie is now to be found here on Twitter – MsIntervention  and, I think, still at her old Twitter account – Julie’s ThinkTank.  And still, at her now Blairless blog with “That’s it. The End”

Tony Blair is to be found here – Faith Shorts Event Tuesday 6th December. Oh, and here – Office of the Quartet Representative.  As well as here – AGI, Africa Governance Initiative, and quite a few other places.  All operating out of here.

Last but not least, for MsIntervention followers, Mr Blair is to be found here – 1999 Doctrine of the International Community

WHO SAID I PRATTLE ON TOO MUCH IN MY BLOG POSTS?

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

26th November, 2011

At 2:05am this morning, just as I was thinking of nodding off, the BBC World Service’s HARDTalk caught my ear. Especially so since I recall suggesting something similar recently (within the bounds of my admitted economic ignorance!) I was informed that it is unworkable to generate cash in order to give the people £1,000,000 each to sort out their own messes (where applicable) and as a consequence that of our economy(ies) by business-building and simply by buying again.

It may well be unworkable.  The devil is always in the detail. However, in Keen’s suggestion there certainly seems to be some unacceptable uniform “socialist” (communist) inferences which would not go down well with those against increased state power, i.e. most “liberals”.

I thought the BBC’s Sarah Montague asked some useful questions, by the way.  All in all, a very good interview.

Australian Steve Keen, the ‘Merchant of Gloom’ gives his take on avoiding the economic depression

His blog is here with comments on his HARDTalk interview – some for, some not.

I’ve taken some excerpts from HARDTalk programme -

“We’re already in a depression … best we can hope for is a lost two decades … lost generation only has one outlet – that’s frustration and violence … Hitler rose to prominence due to despair over last Great Depression … Occupy Wall Street broad-based … heartening because they’ve had their trust in society betrayed, not socialists … I’m opposed to capitalism parasiting itself … politicians are reactive individuals, not leaders, most of them … too interconnected to do it in the old-fashioned way of a jubilee … negative when we borrow money to gamble on assets … caused a bubble in house prices … [Asked - "write off mortgages of even people who can afford to pay? "]…  Yes [more or less!?]  … fundamentally households did not make the bad decisions. The bad decisions were made by the banks to lend in the first place … a systemic process by which we reduce the level of debt-financed money in the economy and increase the amount of government created money … give money to debtors rather than the creditors … bizarre, ineffective [as given  to banks thus far] … system has failed, not the individuals in it … everybody gets a boost … trying to eliminate a 40-year mistake, the debts build-up to simply unsustainable scales … won’t be repaid so … have to work out how we DON’T repay them [debts]… banks make money by creating debt … the meaning of ‘mortgage’ is ‘death contract’, in Latin … only reason we take on more debt than we need is because we get persuaded that we can make a gain out of it by leverage speculation … you have to prevent the possibility of asset bubbles being financed by leverage, again … back to a private debt bubble … economists have a mythical view of how money is created … that basically sees banking as being an intermediary between people who are patient and therefore save money and people who are impatient and therefore want to spend money and all you’re doing is transferring spending power from the patient to the impatient so you can forget about the aggregate level of debt … unfortunately I can’t see anybody [a politician] on the horizon right now [to implement this].”

My observation on Steve Keen’s last remarks, for what it’s worth –

- mainly because it would need a worldwide agreement? There is no One World Government, despite some telling us there is, and that it is run by the banks.

Hmmm. Back to the drawing board?

Another observation. Agree with him or not we certainly cannot accuse Mr Keen of tinkering around the edges of this worldwide economic problem.  Nor of simplistically and WRONGLY accusing the country’s (and world’s) debts of being all the doing of the previous (British) government.

Grown-up economics, at last. The present Conservative/Liberal Democrat government – do take note.

Listen here

Synopsis of programme

Another Great Depression is all but inevitable’ – that’s the view of Steve Keen. No wonder he’s been called the ‘Merchant of Gloom’.

But then Keen is one of the few economists to have predicted the global financial crisis.

And while he used to be a lone voice challenging the economic consensus, more and more people are now listening to him.

His way of avoiding depression? Write off the debt, bankrupt the banks, nationalize the financial system, and start all over again.

Listen to Hard Talk (for next 7 days)

RELATED

Larry Elliott blog on Keen on HARDTalk

____________________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Comment samples follow from the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

1. I completely agree with everything that has been said on this website. As Prime Minister, Tony Blair worked tirelessly and selflessly in the interests of the people, and continues to do so today. He is primarily a humanitarian, and doesn’t deserve any of the vitriol that has been levelled at him. He was a great Prime Minister, is a thoroughly decent man; and should in my opinion, be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work. – David Miliband (New Labour’s heir) for the next PM!

2. Best politician in Britain by a long way.

3. Fully support the petition. The criticism of Mr Blair has gone way beyond anything acceptable and seems to be carried out mainly by those who are looking to wash their hands of any involvement in supporting the Iraq war at the time. It is very easy to be ‘wise after the event’ and to make assumptions about how much Mr Blair knew or did not know before the war. In these people’s eyes, the former PM is guilty whatever the evidence.

4. An excellent petition this for a very undervalued PM. A PM who is not only the best in my lifetime but my parents lifetime too!

• See full signature list
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

25th November, 2011

ONE’s Claire Hazelgrove recently interviewed Tony Blair on issues near to his heart:  Africa and its governance (AGI)

[Emphases below as in original article]

Tony Blair: “This is not the moment to give up on aid but to believe in it”

Next week will be the first time in years we see former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair taking to the international stage and attending a high level forum with world leaders. The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea will review the progress made on former commitments to aid effectiveness, and showcase commitments that set a new agenda for development. Certainly one to watch.

Last week, ONE spoke to Tony Blair about his message to leaders as he prepares to attend the forum in Busan.  We also took the opportunity to talk to him about some of the issues we’ve been calling for change on at ONE, and about how his Africa Governance Initiative plays a part in this.

So, why is he attending the Busan conference on aid effectiveness, and how can it be made a success?

“I think the most important thing is to show people this is a developing debate around an area where, believe it or not, things can change. I mean I happen to think with Africa, I think Africa is a continent on the move.”

Blair believes it vital that we show the progress made in Africa, and give people “a sense of the potential,” as many African countries “have come a long way in the past decade partly as a result of imaginative development policy.” He also points to the momentum that he hopes will be seen at Busan with so many leaders attending, including Hillary Clinton.

He also levelled a challenge at them, sending his message ahead of the conference: “We’re about to enter a whole new decade of really exciting innovation and development in the aid space. And so this is not the moment to give up on it but to believe in it.”

With 10 years of experience of international summits as UK Prime Minister, we asked how, following on from the recent meeting of world leaders in Cannes, the G20 should follow through on their warm words and break the cycle of famine by delivering long-term agricultural solutions , and how we at ONE, with over 400,000 voices, can help hold them to account for their promises.

Blair argues that there are two things we all need to do. The first is to challenge critics and “show people that aid really does work because the concept of aid being basically a waste of money is just not right.” His second challenge is for people in the aid community to show that they are also evolving their policies towards aid and aren’t “just stuck in the past. On the contrary there’s a lot of innovation, a lot of exciting things happening.”

But he also emphasises that a big part of convincing political leaders comes down to activists like us getting behind these issues, and that ONE members should carry on putting pressure on them “to show them that they would have support if they do the right thing.” And this is why our campaign on agriculture and food security is carrying on next year – to get real commitments to ending famine, and for all of the people who do not get enough food each day.

ONE’s next global campaign is being launched in the run up to World AIDS Day (December 1st ). We’re campaigning for the beginning of the end of AIDS by 2015. There is still a way to go but we know great results are possible.  10 years ago, just 100,000 people had access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to counter AIDS, and now 6.6 million people are able to take them. “Right, that’s amazing. I think on that, it’s a little bit like with the malaria campaign, you can really say it’s not true it’s all hopeless. Because otherwise what happens is that people get to the point with a lot of these campaigns where they think ‘well you know, they’re always asking me for money and they’re always telling me it’s all very difficult.’ There you’ve got a great story to tell.”

What about aiming to see 15 million people onto antiretroviral drugs, and ending mother to child transmission of the virus, both by 2015? “It can be done if people have the will to do it. And you can see that from what’s been done in the last 10 years.” As Hillary Clinton recently said, we really could be welcoming in an ‘AIDS free generation’.

While much has been achieved in Africa, in part thanks to aid coupled with strong African leadership, 400 million people still live in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The work isn’t complete. But with government cutbacks, and the Eurozone crisis, we’re hearing more voices saying we should be cutting back on aid too. What’s the former Prime Minister’s take on this, as someone with the rare experience of having felt some of the pressures that face our current government?

“This area of policy, uniquely in my experience of politics, is one of which you can literally measure in lives the difference you can make for the better. And, I think when people talk about the aid budget, they might sort of say ‘well I’ve got all these problems at home, do I care if it’s cut or not?’ but I think when you tell them what the money is spent on… you get their support”.

He went on to talk proudly of the UK Department for International Development (DFID)’s work ; “And you know after all DFID, for example, in our case is now a very, very effective development agency, perhaps the most effective of government departments in the world. You know I see round the world projects they do they really make a difference.”

Interestingly, when it comes to development, Blair believes that this is unlike talking to people about other issue areas “in a curious way, for once you get their support in particular more than you do in general.” By focusing on how many lives could be saved, how many communities stabilised, and how, Blair is confident that as a focused movement against extreme poverty we can bring others with us.

After leaving office, Tony Blair could have chosen any number of paths. But by setting up and being Patron of the (now 4-year-old) Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative, Blair signalled that development was and remains one of the most important areas to him. But why this route; why Africa?

“When I’m seeing these African leaders struggle with their challenges… often the single most difficult thing for them is to get anything done.”

But, seeing the potential for change, Blair notes that “if they can get say, basic infrastructure done – energy, electricity, roads – if they can put the right framework in place to attract the right type of transparent investment into their country, they can probably make a go of it.“

African leaders often “pull a lever, nothing happens. And so that’s why we focus on this, because what I learnt when I was in government is that aid is not enough. I didn’t learn that aid was a bad thing; I just learned it wasn’t enough. And that, for these countries, in the end they need to govern themselves, but to govern themselves they need to show that normal politics, in the sense of getting things done, can deliver for people.”

While there are lots of challenges ahead, Blair’s message throughout this interview was that when you see just how much has been achieved through effective aid, now is absolutely not the time to cut back, but to believe in it, and do what we can to convince world leaders to keep changing lives, and continue our fight to end extreme poverty.

We’re certainly up for that challenge. Are you?

____________________

RELATED

Tony Blair writes at The Washington Post – “The End of Foreign Aid” – Quote: “This, writ small, is the Korean miracle — the transformation of a country from aid-dependent to aid donor.”

Also see – Q & A With Tony Blair: “Giving Aid to End Aid” by Amy Enright

And here -  Tony Blair is interviewed at See Africa Differently

Excerpt: ‘Tony Blair speaks exclusively to Gary Nunn from the See Africa Differently team about what he thinks of the campaign to portray the modern, progressive Africa. [Gary Nunn (GN): See Africa Differently is a campaign to showcase the under-reported progress from Africa. Why is it we're not hearing good news stories about Africa?']

History of DfiD – Launched in May 1997 within weeks of Tony Blair’s first term in government.

Excerpt: ‘When the Department for International Development (DFID) was set up in 1997, it made fighting world poverty its top priority. This marked a turning point for Britain’s aid programme, which until then had mainly involved [sic]economic development. ‘

ETCETERA

Judge a man by his enemies? – Mugabe calls David Cameron Satanic for backing gay rights

As I re-tweeted in response to this  earlier – that’s two British PMs, probably three if you count Gordon Brown, that Robert Mugabe thinks highly of.  Oh, to be as good, honest, fair-minded, balanced and democratic as Mugabe.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Comment samples follow from the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

1. I completely agree with everything that has been said on this website. As Prime Minister, Tony Blair worked tirelessly and selflessly in the interests of the people, and continues to do so today. He is primarily a humanitarian, and doesn’t deserve any of the vitriol that has been levelled at him. He was a great Prime Minister, is a thoroughly decent man; and should in my opinion, be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work. – David Miliband (New Labour’s heir) for the next PM!

2. Best politician in Britain by a long way.

3. Fully support the petition. The criticism of Mr Blair has gone way beyond anything acceptable and seems to be carried out mainly by those who are looking to wash their hands of any involvement in supporting the Iraq war at the time. It is very easy to be ‘wise after the event’ and to make assumptions about how much Mr Blair knew or did not know before the war. In these people’s eyes, the former PM is guilty whatever the evidence.

4. An excellent petition this for a very undervalued PM. A PM who is not only the best in my lifetime but my parents lifetime too!

• See full signature list
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

22nd November, 2011

I can’t recall coming across this article before.  It was written in January 2010 just before Tony Blair ‘s first appearance at the Iraq Inquiry. (Here is one of my posts on his 2010 evidence session, which I attended. I was also present at his January 2011 evidence session.)

In the light of a certain kangaroo court leaping about in surprised astonishment at its having come to its pre-determined conclusion – (they know who they are) – I thought this well-argued post deserved re-airing.

It is a line-by-line, sometimes word-by-word breakdown of arguments regarding the elements, their importance and  otherwise, around the decision to invade Iraq.

It is legally learned and written with useful links and backup for arguments. References and comparisons to the “legality” positions of such as the ‘anti’ 2003 invasion – Robin Cook and Ming Campbell on the legality of the 1998 bombing of Iraq -  are noteworthy. As are the comparison of seemingly contradictory opinions held by Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

Not  something one is reminded of too often from the antis who frequently proclaim Cook, Campbell and Wilmshurst as ‘anti’ heroes.  Equally it is not hard to fathom why one is not often reminded.

Even the comments at this article are readable and thoughtful, both in agreement or otherwise. It makes a pleasant and informative change.

The article below was published two days prior to Tony Blair’s evidence session at the Iraq Inquiry on January 29th 2010. (Another of my posts)

I have reproduced it in full below.

____________________

The invasion of Iraq was lawful (original source)

This blog didn’t exist when US and British forces, with others, invaded Iraq in 2003. I’ve never written directly about the legality of the war. But with Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst having given evidence to the Iraq inquiry yesterday, and Lord Goldsmith due to appear today, I think it’s time for me to address the issue.

Let me begin with a declaration. I worked at the Attorney General’s Office under Lord Goldsmith from 2005-7, well after the invasion itself; I did not advise him on international law except to the extent that it arose as part of my EU law, human rights and domestic advice. Some might say I have a natural inclination to defend him and his views. Maybe. I also want to make clear that I was not involved in any respect in the government’s internal legal discussions about the Iraq war, and have no inside knowledge of it whatever. I share no responsibility for the advice that was given, and have no personal stake in it that I have to defend.

My final preliminary: far too often this issue is discussed by a pure appeal to authority. Philippe Sands QC says the war was unlawful, we’re told by some anti-war campaigners; therefore it must be. Most international lawyers agree, it’s often said. Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst advised that the war was unlawful. The Dutch inquiry has concluded so. All these are worthy of respect of course. But the fact they see the war as unlawful does not mean it was unlawful, any more than Lord Goldsmith’s view means it was lawful. An appeal to authority is quite inadequate. We must form our own view on the legal merits and must judge the views of others based purely on their content. That’s what I’m trying to do.

I accept that the invasion was not clearly and unambiguously lawful. Far from it: the UN Security Council had plainly not expressly said that members could use all necessary means to enforce Iraqi disarmament and compliance with UN inspection and verification, which was a condition of the ceasefire at the end of the 1991 war over Kuwait. But equally, the invasion was not clearly and unambiguously unlawful because of the absence of a resolution including those express authorising words. I disagree with that commonly held view.

I think it’s important to see the 2003 invasion in historical context. The UN had authorised force in UNSCR 678 in order to free Kuwait and restore peace and security in the region; UNSCR 687 recalled and affirmed that resolution and imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq as one of the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the region. By August 1991, the UN had determined that Iraq was in material breach of those obligations. It reaffirmed them and demanded compliance again in 1994 and in 1996. There were three further UNSCRs about Iraqi non-compliance in 1997, and three more in 1998, culminating in November 1998 in UNSCR 1205, condemning an Iraqi decision to stop cooperating with UN inspectors.

At this point it’s important to note that in December 1998, the US and Britain bombed Iraq so as to “degrade” its WMD capability. That action was defended in Parliament by the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who said

The action has been taken with the full authority of repeated Security Council resolutions, supported by all members of the Security Council

although none of the 1998 UNSCRs spoke of taking all necessary means. The legality of that action was justified on the basis of the “revival theory”, that UNSCR 678 still governed and overshadowed the entire process. Ming Campbell said this at the time:

Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.

We know from Lord Goldsmith’s published advice on the Iraq war that the Attorney General in 1998, Lord Morris, must have advised that the bombing was lawful based on this theory. We also now know that Elizabeth Wilmshurst agreed with that advice at the time (see page 30, line 16) although she now thinks it was a “strained” view. I agree with it, too.

Tony Benn, to be fair, said it was unlawful because not expressly authorised. Fair enough. Perhaps in the interests of complete fairness, it’s worth remembering that Tony Benn also called the war in Kosovo a “war of aggression”. It was not authorised by the UN either, but is now widely considered lawful because of what international lawyers now recognise is an “emerging” international law doctrine that it’s lawful to intervene to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.

That’s the background to the 2002-2003 crisis. UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq following the now famous UNSCR 1441. In its preamble the UNSC recalled

that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area;

The key operating provisions were OP4, in which the UNSC

Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

and OPs 12 and 13 in which it

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

This website allows you to consult the post-adoption statements by each of the permanent five UNSC members. The US took the view that the resolution did not preclude military action, though everyone agrees it provided for a “two-stage” process involving further consideration by the UNSC; no one says a further resolution is required. Jack Straw’s analysis of resolution 1441 is, to me, persuasive. The text represents a clear compromise between the three members who opposed action and wanted to tie the US into needing further express authorisation, and the US, who thought action necessary, and wanted immediate authorisation. It clearly rejects “automaticity”: no one could use it in itself as a legal basis for war in late 2002. But it also makes provision only for further consideration by the Security Council; not for any further decision or resolution. It was of course followed by the discovery of Iraqi missiles held in breach of the UN’s resolutions, and by, in the view of Dr. David Kelly, further non-cooperation from Iraq.

Bearing all that in mind, I agree with Lord Goldsmith’s advice of 7 March 2003, first that the safer course would be to seek a second resolution authorising force; the UK did that, of course, and failed; and second, that the “revival” argument, that further material breach by Iraq would revive the authorisation of force in UNSCR 678, is a reasonable one.

I’d go further, in fact: I agree with what Lord Goldsmith seems to have concluded a few days later – that the “revival” theory is the better view, to be preferred to the alternative put forward by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, that resolution 1441 clearly required a further decision by the Security Council. She told the Chilcot Inquiry that the wording of resolution 1441 had this effect (see page 30, line 7 of the transcript) – that was what made the position different from 1998, when as I’ve said she had agreed with the revival theory (though she now thinks it was “strained” even then). I find it difficult, looking at UNSCR 1441, to find the language that she says excludes the revival theory she supported in 1998, and reserves to the Security Council alone the sole competence to act subsequently, in the sense that its inaction should preclude action by others.

It follows that I agree with what Lord Goldsmith said was the legal justification for war. Member States were always authorised to use all necessary means to restore peace and security in Iraq. The authorisation was suspended; but on condition Iraq verifiably disarm. Its repeated material breach and failure to take its final opportunity meant it was lawful for Member States to use force on the basis of UNSCR 678. Any other approach seems to me to build far too much on words such as assessment in OP4 and consider in OP12; and to empty of all practical meaning the threat of serious consequences in OP13.

In any event, the fact that Elizabeth Wilmshurst’s change of approach since 1998 turns on a detailed construction of 1441 shows the question is not an easy or obviously one-sided one. The fact that two views are possible is enough, in my view, to reject wild, overblown and rhetorical claims that Tony Blair is a “war criminal”, for example.

I’ve already said I prefer the revival argument. But finally I must deal with Elizabeth Wilmshurst’s further point, that in circumstances like those of 2003, government should adopt the legally safest course and only use military action where it is legally uncontroversial. That’s a policy argument rather than a legal one, but it has some force. On the face of it, it seems to be the internationalist position, the one that favours multilateralism and the UN. But it isn’t, in truth.

After the Berlin wall fell, the UN was suddenly free of the shackles of the cold war: it found it could unite and act against Iraq in 1990 and 1991. The first president Bush could speak of a “new world order”. But through the 1990s, the UN’s authority was systematically undermined by Iraq – and it began to lose its unity and its will. By 2003, the question was whether its authority meant anything or whether its orders could be safely defied for ever. It was the determination of the US to confront Iraq and enforce UN resolutions, not the French and Russian reluctance to do so, that represented the old idealism of collective security against aggression.

Had the Security Council united to give Iraq a clear ultimatum in a “second” resolution (there were many resolutions about Iraq’s disarmament in truth), as Britain wanted it to, then the UN’s authority might have been upheld without political division – maybe even without war. Of course it didn’t unite, and didn’t agree to do anything, primarily because of the unwillingness of France, Russia and China. In judging the subsequent actions of countries like the US, Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Holland, Poland, Denmark, Japan and South Korea among others, I prefer to read the background UN resolutions in a way that favours the enforcement of international disarmament obligations – and permits their multilateral action; it is surely a mistake, and arguably even a betrayal of the UN ideal, to read them in a way that requires minimum respect from aggressors for the UN’s united will, and maximum respect from members for its culpable inaction.

____________________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Comment samples follow from the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

1. I completely agree with everything that has been said on this website. As Prime Minister, Tony Blair worked tirelessly and selflessly in the interests of the people, and continues to do so today. He is primarily a humanitarian, and doesn’t deserve any of the vitriol that has been levelled at him. He was a great Prime Minister, is a thoroughly decent man; and should in my opinion, be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work. – David Miliband (New Labour’s heir) for the next PM!

2. Best politician in Britain by a long way.

3. Fully support the petition. The criticism of Mr Blair has gone way beyond anything acceptable and seems to be carried out mainly by those who are looking to wash their hands of any involvement in supporting the Iraq war at the time. It is very easy to be ‘wise after the event’ and to make assumptions about how much Mr Blair knew or did not know before the war. In these people’s eyes, the former PM is guilty whatever the evidence.

4. An excellent petition this for a very undervalued PM. A PM who is not only the best in my lifetime but my parents lifetime too!

• See full signature list
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

22nd November 2011

BBC one o’clock news 20th October 1987 interview with Tony Blair

This is most intriguing.

Tony Blair is saying in this interview exactly what we all now know to be true – 24 years on!

The world’s economies are so intrinsically linked together that repercussions from any fallout from Wall Street affects all of us.

Hardly surprising that he is chief amongst those proclaiming that the euro must survive.

__________