[Politics] Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates'

carlzeiss · Sep 10, 2018

Bozza said:
Genuinely interested to know how many of those who always vote Labour regardless, did vote for Blair and/or did celebrate a Labour government finally returning to power.

I would be surprised if many of them didn't, although some may now pretend they didn't, although I'm not sure why as the unravelling of Blair happened long after he triumphantly entered Number 10 for the first time.

In short, I think many of the blinkered Labour sorts we have on here are very much guilty of after-timing, to borrow the phrase of one of them, with regard to their current views on Blair.

I will put my hands up to voting for Blair in 97 and always for labour before . Now I realize I was a complete plank .

Machiavelli · Sep 10, 2018

spring hall convert said:
I'm not sure it's a totally fair comparison. In '97 The Tories had a completely ineffective leader, were being torn apart by Europe and couldn't go a week without someone having to resign for some scandal or other. They were pretty much unelectable.

Oh, I think I get your point.....

For '97 read '18

Machiavelli · Sep 10, 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/populists-rise-progressives-radical-right

The Gem · Sep 10, 2018

Biscuit said:
What a deeply unpleasant post. The tired 'war criminal' line is to be expected: it's an easy 'go-to' for those who don't understand the legalities and aren't intelligent enough to enter a reasoned debate. But wishing a former-PM dead says far more about you than it does Blair. I can only presume you felt as strongly towards Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons on his own people?

As it goes yes I did, and its the same feeing feeling for anyone who does that to their own people.

What does it say about me?? It's says that I would rather Tony Blair was dead rather than the 100's of soldiers who entered a war being told that they had WMD's when all along it was a pack of lies.

For the record I do understand the legalities and am intelligent enough to enter a reasoned debate.

The facts are: We were told as a nation there were WMD's, when there were not, we were told our boys are fighting a just cause when they were not, our boys were killed in an unnecessary war. We should never have gone in. There is nothing you can say to change the fact that Blair lied to his own party, the house of commons and the UK people.

Yes he has got blood on his hands, and always will, would I rather he was dead than some of my friends brothers,and fathers?? you're to damn right I would !!

drew · Sep 10, 2018

The Gem said:
As it goes yes I did, and its the same feeing feeling for anyone who does that to their own people.

What does it say about me?? It's says that I would rather Tony Blair was dead rather than the 100's of soldiers who entered a war being told that they had WMD's when all along it was a pack of lies.

For the record I do understand the legalities and am intelligent enough to enter a reasoned debate.

The facts are: We were told as a nation there were WMD's, when there were not, we were told our boys are fighting a just cause when they were not, our boys were killed in an unnecessary war. We should never have gone in. There is nothing you can say to change the fact that Blair lied to his own party, the house of commons and the UK people.

Yes he has got blood on his hands, and always will, would I rather he was dead than some of my friends brothers,and fathers?? you're to damn right I would !!

We didn't know there weren't any WMDs. There were inspections that had been hindered by Hussein and you could argue that had they continued it might have proven that there weren't WMD but you cannot say as fact that we knew that at the start of the campaign. With regard to numbers, you keep referring to hundreds of our soldiers but the records show we lost 179. We don't want to lose one but you do yourself no favours by constantly exaggerating the facts.

Gwylan · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
We didn't know there weren't any WMDs. There were inspections that had been hindered by Hussein and you could argue that had they continued it might have proven that there weren't WMD but you cannot say as fact that we knew that at the start of the campaign.

That's a fantastic bit of history rewriting there. There were several hundred inspections of weapons site by Hans Blix and no trace of any WMDs had been found. As for being hindered, Blix's report to the UN said "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." He also observed that "I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

Of course, you could say that he hadn't inspected every square inch of Iraq so he couldn't have said for sure that there were no WMDs but that's a bit like saying we don't know that there aren't such things as unicorns as they could be hiding in some remote area.

The UN knew there were no WMDs, the US and the UK governments knew there were no WMDs and thousands of lives were lost on a lie.

drew · Sep 10, 2018

Gwylan said:
That's a fantastic bit of history rewriting there. There were several hundred inspections of weapons site by Hans Blix and no trace of any WMDs had been found. As for being hindered, Blix's report to the UN said "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." He also observed that "I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

Of course, you could say that he hadn't inspected every square inch of Iraq so he couldn't have said for sure that there were no WMDs but that's a bit like saying we don't know that there aren't such things as unicorns as they could be hiding in some remote area.

The UN knew there were no WMDs, the US and the UK governments knew there were no WMDs and thousands of lives were lost on a lie.

You want to provide links that support your last statement?

From this bbc link: - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239

He stressed that Tony Blair never put any "pressure" on him over his search for weapons in Iraq and did not question that the prime minister and President Bush believed in "good faith" that Iraq was a serious threat.

"I certainly felt that he [Tony Blair] was absolutely sincere in his belief.

"What I question was the good judgement, particularly of President Bush but also in Tony Blair's judgement."

Inspection timetable
Critics of the war believe that had inspectors been allowed to continue their work they would have proved beyond doubt that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction capability - as was discovered after the invasion.

An extract from Blix's report to the UN.
How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented

So whilst you might like to think the UN knew, Blix's report does not state categorically there were none. There were missing weapons for which there was documentation and further in the report they talk about commencing monitoring mobile movements

It is our intention to examine the possibilities for surveying ground movements, notably by trucks. In the face of persistent intelligence reports for instance about mobile biological weapons production units, such measures could well increase the effectiveness of inspections.

Full text of his report
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1

Now you might read that differently but no way does it advise the UN that there are no WMD. Inspections may well have been heading towards reaching that conclusion but the war started less than a month after this report.

Wardy's twin · Sep 10, 2018

pastafarian said:
Electable yes, certainly agree, but at what expense to those who would class themselves as old school Labour. I really can see a split happening. Like it or not Brexit after we have left the EU is still going to play a big part in politics. Tory split is about 40-60 IN/OUT, Labour split 65-35 IN/OUT, Lib Dems split 70-30 IN/OUT.
Im sure someone is calculating the numbers and realising there is scope for a New Labour party along Blairite thinking, that is centrist and pro close alignment with Europe that could pick up numbers from the lib dems and some Tories as well like Blair did, and comfortably sit themselves in the mix, quite where this leaves the left along Corbyn lines is anyones guess, would those ex blairites that now embrace Corbyn stay with him or jump ship back to more of a middle position.
There is also the matter of the damage a split would do initially, some voters could be put off all together with both split sections, at least until the turmoil died down.
Perhaps a split and a re positioning of the electorate is just what the country needs to actually settle the country down with less in party fighting and more of a focus back to policy.

drew said:
Bastardised is one word, another is electable! I would however agree that there should be a split. Not sure the electorate are split along party lines as rigidly as they were 40 years ago.

Old school labour represents a smallish minority of people, times have changed and conditions improved greatly for most people. It is time the large bunch of centralists join together ditching the old left with its unelectable ideas and also get the moderate Tories to break away from the 60-80 right wing/very privileged Mps who have nothing in common with the vast majority of people.

GT49er · Sep 10, 2018

nwgull said:
There is also a bizarre region at 100K - 123.7K where your personal allowance is eroded by £1 for every £2 earned, meaning that the effective tax rate is 60%. I imagine that that's quite a dissinsentive to work much harder if you're fortunate enough to be at the £100K threshold.

Lead me to these sunny uplands of £100K to £123.7 then - sounds like paradise to me!

Gwylan · Sep 10, 2018

drew said:
Now you might read that differently but no way does it advise the UN that there are no WMD. Inspections may well have been heading towards reaching that conclusion but the war started less than a month after this report.

Isn't that the point though? There was no evidence for any WMDs and he continued to inspect various sites but found nothing.

I also note that you don't address the other point I raised: the issue of interference and obstruction by Iraq. He states quite categorically that all his requests were met and there was no such obstruction.

drew · Sep 10, 2018

Gwylan said:
Isn't that the point though? There was no evidence for any WMDs and he continued to inspect various sites but found nothing.

I also note that you don't address the other point I raised: the issue of interference and obstruction by Iraq. He states quite categorically that all his requests were met and there was no such obstruction.

Really? You're making a supposition that suits your view point. Read the report. There was evidence of 1000 tonnes of a chemical agent which was unaccounted for! It may or may not have been destroyed by Iraq but they needed to provide evidence that it had been destroyed. Why was he suggesting checking mobile movements if they were entirely convinced there were no WMDs?

With regard to your second point, where does Blix say that? Another extract from the report: -

In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply.

With reference to the phrase in italics, why would you make reference like that if you were getting the full cooperation required by the resolution? I'll stand to be corrected if you provide the quote that 'categorically' states there was no obstruction. There is this extract 'All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly.'

So, almost always provided promptly which is not quite what you are claiming.

The Gem · Sep 11, 2018

drew said:
We didn't know there weren't any WMDs. There were inspections that had been hindered by Hussein and you could argue that had they continued it might have proven that there weren't WMD but you cannot say as fact that we knew that at the start of the campaign. With regard to numbers, you keep referring to hundreds of our soldiers but the records show we lost 179. We don't want to lose one but you do yourself no favours by constantly exaggerating the facts.

Of course we knew there were no WMD's, as per @gwlan s' point below, there were plenty of inspections and they all came out empty handed, at the end of the day, Blair gambled and lost, he even said during the 1st phase of the war that they would be found, he already knew then that they would not.

As far as the amount of soldiers that were lost, invading in the first place changed the course of history for our troops, there may have been 179 lost in the initial battle, but this invasion has led to a wider problem for our boy's, and thus the war has cost us 100's of soldiers in situations that arose because of this invasion. I am not trying to exaggerate any of my points, this phoney war had and still has far reaching implications for the locals as well as our soldiers. 1000's of civilians have lost their lives because we and the USA went in.

Gwylan said:
That's a fantastic bit of history rewriting there. There were several hundred inspections of weapons site by Hans Blix and no trace of any WMDs had been found. As for being hindered, Blix's report to the UN said "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." He also observed that "I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

Of course, you could say that he hadn't inspected every square inch of Iraq so he couldn't have said for sure that there were no WMDs but that's a bit like saying we don't know that there aren't such things as unicorns as they could be hiding in some remote area.

The UN knew there were no WMDs, the US and the UK governments knew there were no WMDs and thousands of lives were lost on a lie.

And the truth shall set you free. Thank you.

drew · Sep 11, 2018

The Gem said:
Of course we knew there were no WMD's, as per @gwlan s' point below, there were plenty of inspections and they all came out empty handed, at the end of the day, Blair gambled and lost, he even said during the 1st phase of the war that they would be found, he already knew then that they would not.

As far as the amount of soldiers that were lost, invading in the first place changed the course of history for our troops, there may have been 179 lost in the initial battle, but this invasion has led to a wider problem for our boy's, and thus the war has cost us 100's of soldiers in situations that arose because of this invasion. I am not trying to exaggerate any of my points, this phoney war had and still has far reaching implications for the locals as well as our soldiers. 1000's of civilians have lost their lives because we and the USA went in.

And the truth shall set you free. Thank you.

Not sure you read the report!! If you knew there were no WMD then perhaps you could have confirmed this to the international community and provided the evidence of this. Blix reported to the UN on the 14th Feb 2003 and he didn't confirm that there were no WMD and he, unlike you, had been involved in the inspection programme. If he knew there were no WMD why did he want to continue with the programme of inspections and start including monitoring mobile ground movements.

Read the following extract. It clearly states there is evidence of weapons but they have disappeared! Or do you read that and see something different.

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a documench Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Blix was almost certainly aware of the move towards military action so he could have prevented that by declaring no WMD existed. He didn't because he couldn't confirm that at that stage. So, your claim and that of Gwlan is a load of tosh! You need to be able to differentiate between what is proven fact and what is just a belief!

With regard to the fatalities, what incidents are you referring to in terms of the increased number of death? In the last five years there have been 11 deaths from hostile action!

https://assets.publishing.service.g...80327_UK_Deaths_National_Statistic_2018_O.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g...70330_UK_Deaths_National_Statistic_2017_O.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g...31_UK_AF_Deaths_National_Statistic_2016-O.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._UK_AF_Deaths_National_Statistic_2015_-_O.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g...40327_UKAF_deaths_National_Statistic_2013.pdf

I'm not arguing with you or Gwlan whether or not we should have gone to war but about the facts upon which the decision was made.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates'

More options

carlzeiss

Well-known member

Machiavelli

Well-known member

Machiavelli

Well-known member

The Gem

New member

drew

Drew

Gwylan

Well-known member

drew

Drew

Wardy's twin

Well-known member

GT49er

Well-known member

Gwylan

Well-known member

drew

Drew

The Gem

New member

drew

Drew

Share this page

Forum statistics

Online statistics

Newest members

Share this page