I get this, I really do. But I can’t help but feel that Blair’s only human and the fact that he, his politics and his achievements are SO loathed within the party means that he almost has a unique right to reply. It’s worth noting that it’s only because of Brexit he’s been reaching for the MSM megaphone a bit more recently. He’s been pretty quiet all in post-2007 and, if not for Brexit, I assume he’d have maintained his distance. As much as he’s probably the last person capable of steering us away from it all, he’s still a powerful articulator of what we all know is essentially true but we collectively stick our fingers in our ears and scream IRAQ above all else. I dunno.
I mean Iraq does sort of suggest his dogma for international liberalism is blind to y’know… reason.
I think Brexit’s a major driver in Blair’s return but I agree with @Ruffers that his disapproval of the direction of the party under Corbyn has also motivated him - he wound up Windrush and whatever the other one was called at the end of the leadership contest. Either way I think he new realises how completely dysfunctional his political tradition is at the moment and he’s trying to help as best he can. But as you pointed out he can’t read the new political landscape clearly enough to recognise where he fits in now, and that’s the final detail for me. I think Iraq defines the general view of him but I think his inability to process that that is in danger of making him genuinely irrelevant.
And what’s more he’s conceded this point himself. He’s said “I look across the political landscape and I’m not sure I understand it” and furthered this up at the weekend by saying “I feel like a student of politics again”. All very noble but it sits slightly askance with then going “…but, by the way I still know best.”.
just wondering when the next election will be, we really know no more than we did on 9th June
tories are screwed but in power, labour are rising up but have no way right now to capitalise on their momentum
tis strange isn’t it
Just want to make clear that New Labour trying to create a distinction between ‘good migrants’ and ‘dirty awful asylum seekers’ and pushing this line heavily to the press was hugely counter-productive and did absolutely nothing to curtail racism in this country.
Let’s not pretend Tony Blair has any principles. He’s a war criminal who craves power, all he’s been doing for the last few years is defending the bases upon which his power was built.
The term “war criminal” is thrown around far too lightly in relation to Tony Blair. Pretty extreme accusation. Look at the definition.
FIne but whatever the definition, I’d hardly call it a slur. His deeply irresponsible and almost certainly nefarious actions have been responsible for the deaths of an uncountable number of people.
Very long way from making him a war criminal.
Didn’t follow the UN charter for condition of a “legal” war though, and cabinet memos from 2002 showed an intention on behalf of the US to engage Saddam militarily before diplomacy was even offered, and then later memos have shown Blair was informed the war was illegal. So I wouldn’t call it a stretch.
Is this really the hill you want to die on?
I think it’s a pretty big slur on anyone to accuse them of being a war criminal. Individual responsibility for something that constitutes a war crime (as opposed to, say, a crime against peace) is not something to ascribe lightly.
as big a scumbag as he was, milosevic was arrested and tried for far less (in terms of evidence and crimes). the definition of war criminal probably needs tweaking.
“The charges on which Milošević was indicted were: genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.”
What on earth are you accusing Tony Blair of?!
i guess you could swing illegal invasion of a sovereign country, lying to obtain military goals, illegal occupation, facilitating mass murder, destroying an entire nation state forever, complicity in torture, executions, facilitating ethnic cleansing, genocide, kidnapping, circumvention of due process, human rights abuses, rape, torture, murder of civilians, destruction of public and private property, destruction of hospitals, schools, religious places of worship etc…i mean, what are you guilty of if your war caused all that to happen and many of your soldiers were directly involved in it?
is destabilisation of the world a war crime? put him down for destabilisation of the world too. he’s a dick. fuck him. change the definition of a war criminal so it doesn’t only apply to leaders from poor countries we don’t like.
imagine being milosevic and having all that on your cv. even barclays wouldn’t hire you.
You can’t say you weren’t warned. Some people are proper mental about this stuff.
how is any of that mental? it all happened and is still happening. is there some parallel universe where he caused a horrible war for the right reasons?
uhmmmm fuck off?