Tony Blair coming back?

[pErvinalia]

So why did bring up the fact that he was voted in as a counter to the argument that he was subsequently found to be a cunt that nobody likes any more?

[Brian Peacock]

You're still confusing (willfully, I presume) my view as to Blair's psychological unsuitability for high office with bitching.

Sounds like bitching to me.

The fact that he thinks the time is ripe wedge himself into the political debate speaks to his essential narcissistic nature and the blind spot he has as far as his public standing is concerned.

And perhaps he's right. Time, presumably will tell whether he has properly gauged the sentiments of the majority or not. Your opinion of that standing is that of one, and only one person, whereas the last time around, millions of Brits disagreed with you and may well do so again.

Blair was found out for the warmongering liar and pocket lining back-stabber he really is (read the Chilcot report).

That, of course, is merely a matter of opinion, not fact.

Nope. The Chilcot report was entirely factual, being the product of a judicial review of relevant evidences and personal testimony, as was the Hutton enquiry. Both raised questions about Mr Blair's political and personal ethics and his capacities or inclinations to act as an honest agent. Justice Leveson's report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press also raised serious questions about Mr Blair's rather too cosy relationship with the press and with DMG, News International, NewsCorp, and Mr Murdoch personally, relationships that amounted to collusion between his government and the press to misinform the public. I doubt the sincerity of your apparent defence of Blair over this, particularly considering the vehemence you've brought to your denunciations of Hillary Clinton on exactly the same grounds.

The country needs to look forwards at this time, not back, and he needs to move on - right on, right over there, to the secluded Caribbean home which that nice Mr Murdoch gave him.

Or, he can run for public office again and potentially demonstrate that your opinions of his character are of no interest to anyone but you...again.

I'm not motivated by the amount of personal interest I can generate - which by the looks of it is something you're having a bit of trouble with here.

[pErvinalia]

Chilcot was a Marxist, dontchaknow?

[Brian Peacock]

Oh yeah, forgot. All judges are enemies of the people anyway.

[Strontium Dog]

Oh yeah, forgot. All judges are enemies of the people anyway.

I won't have a word said against Judge Judy.

[Brian Peacock]

Of course. She is a fragrant angel - everybody knows that.

[Seth]

You're still confusing (willfully, I presume) my view as to Blair's psychological unsuitability for high office with bitching.

Sounds like bitching to me.

The fact that he thinks the time is ripe wedge himself into the political debate speaks to his essential narcissistic nature and the blind spot he has as far as his public standing is concerned.

And perhaps he's right. Time, presumably will tell whether he has properly gauged the sentiments of the majority or not. Your opinion of that standing is that of one, and only one person, whereas the last time around, millions of Brits disagreed with you and may well do so again.

Blair was found out for the warmongering liar and pocket lining back-stabber he really is (read the Chilcot report).

That, of course, is merely a matter of opinion, not fact.

Nope. The Chilcot report was entirely factual, being the product of a judicial review of relevant evidences and personal testimony, as was the Hutton enquiry.

And you assume that "judicial review" means it ain't biased? What nonsense. Why do you think, for example, people were desperate to get Trump elected? So he can pack the Supreme Court with constitutional conservatives and originalists because it's perfectly clear that people like Sotomayor and Ginsburg are as leftists as they come, and it was always Hillary's intent to appoint leftists to the Supreme Court.

Both raised questions about Mr Blair's political and personal ethics and his capacities or inclinations to act as an honest agent. Justice Leveson's report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press also raised serious questions about Mr Blair's rather too cosy relationship with the press and with DMG, News International, NewsCorp, and Mr Murdoch personally, relationships that amounted to collusion between his government and the press to misinform the public.

The press misinforms the public all on its own.

I doubt the sincerity of your apparent defence of Blair over this, particularly considering the vehemence you've brought to your denunciations of Hillary Clinton on exactly the same grounds.

The difference is that the leftist press being in the bag for Hillary is pure evil, whereas the press being in the bag for Blair was perfectly appropriate. Leftist propaganda must be suppressed at all times, by any means necessary, if at all possible because all Leftists do is lie and produce propaganda designed to advance Marxism, which is even more fundamentally evil than Islam and must be extirpated from existence.

You see, this is not a competition between ideologies that are morally and ethically equal, they aren't. Marxism is evil and this is a war against Marxism in all its forms for the protection of the entire planet and all humanity, and anything that must be done to win that war and destroy leftism is reasonable, appropriate and extremely necessary if mankind is ever to be truly free of the pernicious evil of leftism.

[Strontium Dog]

Of course. She is a fragrant angel - everybody knows that.

We have Judge Rinder here. Imagine Judge Judy if she was a softly-spoken homosexual Englishman.

[DaveDodo007]

"Brian and I", Dave. Let's not debase the language...

Ermm...He's taking Brian and me to the park.

It's right because "Brian and me" are the objects of the sentence (the things being taken) while "he" is the subject (the thing that is taking). After all, "me" is the objective form of the first-person pronoun while "I" is the subjective form.

For an example of proper "I" usage, just flip the subject and object:

Brian and I are taking him to the park.

[DaveDodo007]

"Brian and I", Dave. Let's not debase the language...

Ermm...He's taking Brian and me to the park.

It's right because "Brian and me" are the objects of the sentence (the things being taken) while "he" is the subject (the thing that is taking). After all, "me" is the objective form of the first-person pronoun while "I" is the subjective form.

For an example of proper "I" usage, just flip the subject and object:

Brian and I are taking him to the park.

I only have a GCSE 'C' grade in English though I have an 'A' level in Maths, Biology and Chemistry. Not bad for someone who didn't learn English until he was 15 years old. Though you speak your native language better than me, so that means I'm stupid herpy derp. Bunch of xenophobes.

[pErvinalia]

Irony?

[Forty Two]

Australia had a Prime Minister who said, in the Vietnam war days, "All the way with LBJ"

Soon after, he drowned.

Well, it would have been a different story altogether if, in 1964, Ho Chi Minh organized the crashing of aircraft into the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building....

[Forty Two]

What gives me good feels about Blair, though, was his reaction after 9/11/01. He came right to the side of W, and pledged, not just to help, or do what he could - he pledged to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with the United States. I thought that was great.

Until they all illegally invaded Iraq.

I get the opposition to the invasion, but the "illegal" part requires some explanation. I mean, was the war in Libya illegal? Yemen? How about now in Syria?

Where is the UN authorization? Where are the WMDs? Weird....huh? Lots of wars are just as "illegal" as Iraq, no? Or, no. Maybe not. Go ahead and explain the difference.

[pErvinalia]

Why should I explain any alleged difference? That doesn't change the legality, either in law or morality, of the invasion of Iraq.

[Forty Two]

Blair is the only Labour leader in four decades to actually win an election, whereas the current mob seem to value studenty identity politics and virtue signalling over success. If Blair does make any kind of return to British politics, it won't be with Labour.

Indeed. And although his government made a great show of sticking to Tory spending plans while controlling the news agenda in the end we just couldn't trust him. Sure, he spoke well, but he would literally say and do anything to get his way--including shitting on his closest friends or threatening civil servants. If the serpent in the Garden of Eden had a voice it would sound just like Blair. In many ways he's the UKs version of Hillary - an avatar, no depths, all shallows.

And yet he won election, which means that at least half of the UK thinks you're just a sore loser.

Well, no. The UK is not a democracy, per se, and they don't "elect" Prime Ministers via popular vote. Most UK-ers didn't even cast a ballot for him. Tony Blair was Member of Parliament for Sedgefield.

The head of state in the UK is, as we know, the monarch, who holds his or her position via right of birth. There is no election. No Electoral College. No votes. Just the right two people fucking and giving birth to an heir. It's all quite advanced.

The monarch, in this case the queen, appointed Tony Blair to be "Prime Minister" in 1997. There was no vote. No evil electoral college. Out of custom, and not of legal obligation, the Queen chose Tony Blair because Tony Blair was supported by a coalition of other members of the UK Parliament.

It really cannot be known whether "at least half" of the UK ever thought Blair was the man for the job in the first place. We do know that Tony got a minimum of 24,000 votes in his weakest winning year and about 33,000 votes in his strongest winning year, from the 1980s until 2007. He was "appointed" Prime Minister in 1997, and held that unelected, but most powerful post in the UK government, for a decade. It's all very hush-hush, and whoosh whoosh, ay wut?

That's how a true democracy does it in the western, industrialized, civilized world of educated and socially cognizant citizens.