It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
bbc news
Tony Blair has been warned by a top union leader not to repeat the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying on too long as prime minister.
Tony Woodley, head of the Transport and General Workers Union, urged an end to the uncertainty about Mr Blair's plans.
His appeal came as Labour MPs voiced anger and frustration at Mr Blair's refusal to use this month's Labour conference to give an exit timetable.
Mr Blair has told his critics: "Let me get on with the job."
And in a briefing with journalists in Scotland, he shrugged off comparisons with Mrs Thatcher's declaration to go "on and on", saying: "You pays your money and you takes your choice."
He said the last general election had only taken place 15 months ago and he wanted speculation about his future to end.
Mr Blair has already said he will step down before the next election but there is mounting pressure for him to go further and end speculation about his departure date.
Originally posted by dj howls
Have you seen Blair recently?
He looks like a broken man
The public has (in the Brit way of without actually doing anything about it!) turned aginst him over the war in Iraq but he does not have the balls to stand up to the USA over the War against Iran
Blair is too concerned about his legacy and history will not treat him kindly.
Image is all to New Labour
He does not command the respect that Thatcher had, (personally: loathed her policy, admired the politician)
you respected her either way
and she stood up to the USA on many occasion (Greneda Falklands etc)
but who to replace him??
Originally posted by dj howls
I think if memory serves correctly US wanted UK assistance in Greneda and Thatch said no
The invasion was opposed by the British government, because Grenada was part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Queen Elizabeth was head of state as Queen of Grenada.
Grenada requested help from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was against any possible US invasion and her Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, announced to the House of Commons on the day before the invasion that he had no knowledge of any possible US intervention.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, assured her that an invasion was not contemplated.
Reagan later said "She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun".
After the invasion, Prime Minister Thatcher wrote to President Reagan:
This action will be seen as intervention by a western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication.
Also was under US pressure to give Falklands back (or at least sign some kind of agreement to in the future)
Again she said no. When Argentina invaded she went to war against Reagans wishes
Not huge in the grand scheme of things but at least a little more than we have now
Time Trumpet may turn out to be the new Spitting Image(of sorts) made me chortle all the way thru last Thursday
- This kind of comment amuses me.
Tony Blair will already leave a legacy and go down in history for the ground-breaking things he and this Labour government have accomplished already.
The idea that he is so desperately and obsessively concerned about something he is already assured of is not very credible IMO and really just indicative of the political slant of those writing or parroting this kind of stuff.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Alot of people in this country will look back at his Legacy and say the lies he told to everyone over Iraq
Is his Legacy, agree or disagree, all the other things he has acclompished over his term as the Prime Minister is over shadowed by His failures in Iraq.
Like it ir not but that is His Legacy.
bbc
Tony Blair has faced a wave of resignations by junior members of his government over his refusal to name a date for resignation as Labour leader.
He branded ex-junior minister Tom Watson, the most senior person to quit, "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for signing a letter urging him to go.
The resignations came as Mr Blair faces growing pressure to name a departure date or even quit now.
Gordon Brown backers say assurances he will go by May are "not good enough".
'Great sadness'
Mr Watson and the six parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) - who are unpaid ministerial aides at the bottom rung of the government ladder - were among 17 normally loyal Labour MPs who signed a letter calling on Mr Blair to quit.
But I think you'll find history shows us that others will tend to be more generous.
Some will agree that he took a difficult decision on the basis of flawed intel (which was hardly unique to the UK) and others will simply say that they did not agree with the decision taken, an honest disagreement.
It happens.
Dear Tony,
The Labour Party has been my life since I was 15 years old.
I have served the Party at every conceivable level and your own leadership since 1994 in a dozen different capacities, latterly as MP for West Bromwich East, a Government Whip, and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence.
My loyalty to you personally, as well as to the Party and the values we stand for, has been absolute and unswerving.
The struggle to fashion the kind of credible, convincing, effective Labour Party you now lead has been the preoccupation of my adult years.
My pride in what our government has achieved under your leadership is beyond expression.
We have revolutionised the lives and expectations of millions of our citizens, combining social justice with prosperity in a way which is unprecedented in the history of our country.
Your leadership has been visionary and remarkable.
The party and the nation owes you an incalculable debt.
So it is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country.
How and why this situation has arisen no longer matters.
I share the view of the overwhelming majority of the party and the country that the only way the Party and the Government can renew itself in office is urgently to renew its leadership.
For the sake of the legacy you have long said is the only one that matters - a renewed Labour party re-elected at the next general election - I urge you to reconsider your determination to remain in office.
As you know, I had a conversation with the Chief Whip last night, in which she asked me to withdraw my support from the 2001 intake's letter calling on you to stand down, or my position would be untenable as a government minister.
I have reflected on this overnight.
I cannot withdraw my name, and therefore I accept her judgement.
I do not believe that statements so far give us the clarity necessary to progress over the next year.
Nor do I believe that newspaper reports of potential dates which may have appeared since I signed the 2001 intake's letter can provide the clarity the party and the country so desperately need.
It is with the greatest regret, therefore, that I must leave the Government.
Yours ever,
Tom Watson MP
West Bromwich East
Whether you like it or not the fact is that the allegation that the government deliberately misled the people and Parliament has not been substantiated despite 4 formal enquiries into the matter.
But it's quite clear that those obsessed and determined to take a one-dimensional view over this issue will no matter what is said (cos despite the various enquiries - read in total bu how many? - they all suddenly imagine themselves to be expert in the matter, graced as they are by 20/20 hindsight).
It might also be worth pointing out that the decisions on whether or not to go to war Iraq are dead as an issue here.
The fact that Parliament had a free vote (a first and an extension of democracy and also a rolling back
Seriously, whilst I have my own criticism of this government and people within it this kind of petty quibbling over non-issues, small jibes and generally feeble 'points' - so typical of the opposition and their media friends since Labour came to power in 1997 - are really the hallmarks of why Labour has been so successful - out in the country with the actual electorate - to date.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
And whether you like it or not the Government lied not only to the MP'S of Parliement, they the gov also lied to rest of the country.
I suppose the resgnations of those ex-ministers had nothing to do with Blair and co lying in the first place.
And you yourself seem to think your insight is better than anyone elses on this thread.
most of those enquries indicated that the Gov was at fault for misleading Parliement and also the British Population.
Oh and I suppose you have experience in this too eh?
According to you it is dead is it? Where is hre? you mean ATS or the UK. It is not from where I am from Iraq is constantly being raised to politicians, as well as Afghanistan, and the amount of troops who are being killed everyday.
And the fact remains alot of those MP's who had a free vote on Iraq, have turn round and agreed they were mislead and lied to by the Gov, if they had toi make the decision again they would have voted against going to war with Iraq.
That is a matter of opinion, they way they are going about things right now, a former Minister has warned that it will take years for the Labour party to be as it once was be cause of all the speculation and in fighting on what dates or days T. Blair will be leaving office.
I think the truth is that the public never were especially enthused about Iraq (mainly because 'we' could see and couldn't stand the whole - repeated - Bush fraud).
I don't think there has been too much 'turning against' when they were never particularly for it.
Given the choice most people would have liked it both ways.
'With' the USA in terms of meaningful alliances but just not actually doing anything practical about it.
Blair simply did not have that luxury in a 'with us or against us' climate.
the fact remains that to have not taken this course TB would have weakened the UK's political leverage
I did once read that in addition to the various financial deals the UK and US did during WW1 & WW2 there were several binding and wholly legal secret political protocols entered into which went towards 'paying' for those victories.
The actual fact of the matter is that being in government and being able to implement your program for government is all to Labour
- No they didn't.
Being mistaken and wrong is not the same a lying.
Conservative leader Michael Howard says Mr Blair lied over the war. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy says that "there is no doubt that we were misled" with regard to "the threat that we were under as a country" and "the true aims of government policy" and has called for an independent inquiry.
It added: "Language in the dossier and used by the prime minister may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case."
But the report said it had no evidence of deliberate distortion of the intelligence
With hindsight, everyone agrees that much of the intelligence that the UK (and US) government published to justify their case for war against Iraq was unreliable.
If you'd specify which resignations you are referring to we could look at their resignation speeches and see?
Originally posted by Liberal1984
From the sounds of it, although he has been democratically given the authority to do what he did, he has long lacked a democratic mandate (in the form of popular support).
It’s one thing to make the wrong decision, doing it without popular support is surely a definition of “bad leadership”?
Oh yeah and what would it have lost us?
Actually I think we are weaker than ever.
recently sealed by our total support for Israelis war against Lebanon-the Lebanese
Well if their secret maybe the public won’t mind if we forget about them? Even so, very good point.
they don’t have a great reputation for giving straight answers.
An almost intangible riddle of words which somehow leaves you thinking the question has been answered only you’ve been too stupid to ether understand or concentrate.
But if I were him I certainly would be!
I mean historians are going to have a great time studying the way the government was cleared by “independent inquiry” of sexing the war in Iraq up. Whether Blair knew Iraq had no WMD’s and countless other things.
But his social spending programmes haven’t been nearly as radical as the last socialist governments.
It’s a scary combination isn’t it? Let’s hope we don’t have too many leaders quite like him?
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
That proves without a doubt that they mislead and lied to readers, i.e. the public over the reasoning of going to War in Iraq in the first place.
Claire Short - Overseas Minister Resigned
Robin Cook Foreign Secretary Resigned, Robin Cook was the first minister to resign over the Iraq War.
Clair Short followed him a week later.
Now dont tell that their resignations were irelevant. It was relevent to the Iraq War.
Britain has, and continues to have, very good links with the 'Arab World', actually.
The real reason why critics complain about Labour being adept with managing their image and their media presence is because they're good at it.
Simple as.
are kind of expected and are already paling into insignificance (in terms of public consciousness) compared with the first three things I said (war, pioneering propaganda, and draconian protest legislation). So you see it’s not just my POV (and hence the problems for Blair’s “sad” legacy).
the minimum wage, the child-care tax credits, the huge boost in overseas aid, the huge reduction in unemployment and the tandem record levels of employment, record living standards and record home-ownership etc etc.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
1. What you call “crass populism” is what I call “democracy in action”.
if the arguments for going to war in Iraq were so strong, and if Blair is a good communicator then he should have been able to convince the public that war was a good thing without resorting to untruths (WMD’s and Saddam the friend of Al Qaeda, for instance).
why doesn’t he have the public behind him?
Making decisions that the public doesn’t like is ok to if the public comes round to liking them. That’s undeniably strong leadership.
Making decisions the public never likes is poor leadership.
They convince the public by misleading them; and if things don’t go well they just mislead them again. Trouble is that misleading isn’t my kind of leadership
As for us being in Frances position it would mean that 118 of our soldiers killed in Iraq would still be alive (and many more without truly horrific injuries; like a guy missing one and a half legs I met about 4 months ago)
what really seemed to have annoyed the U.S public the most is that they thought France had backed out of the war at the last minute
But regarding being in U.S good books all you have to do is send a couple of hundred troops as peacekeepers to Lebanon; and suddenly wow!! You’re in their good books again.
I disagree with you when you “fortunately we are not in a position to find out”.
what are you referring too? The dictatorship of Saudi Arabia?
Egypt
You seem to think that cutting of arms sales to Israel until they at least stooped bombing “terrorist” power stations and international airlines would do nothing.
we can give them a conscience
And we’re within our rights to dislike the ideological empty, morally empty, soulless political model which all three political parties seem to aspire to.
Finally there’s no 30 or 100 year rule covering the knowledge that Iraq had no WMD’s or Saddam hated Al Qaeda.
You might not like it but every PM since Churchill has been remembered most for the bad things they have done.
With Blair there is peace with Northern Ireland; however the peace process was already under way in Major’s final years
many would argue it was the previous years of violence, the changing attitudes of Americans to towards Irish Republicanism (particularly after 9/11) which really nailed the final nail in the IRA’s coffin (far more than anything Blair actually did.
Theare kind of expected
the minimum wage, the child-care tax credits, the huge boost in overseas aid, the huge reduction in unemployment and the tandem record levels of employment, record living standards and record home-ownership etc etc.
So you see it’s not just my POV (and hence the problems for Blair’s “sad” legacy).