“I think we were bamboozled by the Prime Minister into doing the right thing.”
– Michael Portillo on This Week, BBC1, small hours of today
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Quote unquote: Portillo on BlairJuly 18th, 2003 |
 17 comments to Quote unquote: Portillo on Blair |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I’m not sure if I can think of anything right about Blair, to be honest.
The same thing can be said about Bush.
“I’m not sure if I can think of anything right about Blair, to be honest”
You are too harsh on him.
His position on Iraq stems from deep internal convinction. He stood his ground against fierce opposition, with most of his own party against it.
He did the right thing, because he thought it was right (whatever somebody else might think), and not because he thought it was politically expedient – it wasn’t. He did the right think in face of adversity, and despite the high risks involved. He showed real courage, leadership and statesmanship. I was highly surprised by his stand, as I thought he was a slick and non-substantial, non principled political operator, like Clinton.
And he hapened to be right this time.
Whatever his shortcomings and failures in other areas – his stand on Iraq is something you cannot take away from him, even if you hate the war in Iraq.
Jacob,
It is not the Iraq war. It is domestic issues and, in the end, they are the ones that count in British politics.
David
I suppose all your criticism of domestic policies is correct, still Blair’s satnd on Iraq was good and admirable – and all the domestic blunders won’t erase that.
On the other hand – it seems Blair is under heavy fire from the LEFT wing of his party, complaining he isn’t lefty enough (they might be correct in this).
Surely you don’t want to join this chorus.
No, I don’t. But I would be more than happy to see these troglodytes bring him down. He was right on Iraq but he has a serious blind spot about the EU and this fucking constitution which he is determined to get us signed up to.
For me, that is a very serious issue.
Besides, I do not think Labour can actually survive in power without him for very long.
More
It seems that part of what is going on is political maneuvering of Labor politicians who covet his post. That’s another thing I have no sympathy for.
Not all the enemies of my enemies are my friends.
From the Independent, citing Brown’s friends:
“A Brown government would constantly ask how to reduce poverty and promote equality. “Mr Blair lacks such clarity of purpose, with the result that all sorts of fancy ideas get an airing, without rhyme or reason and usually without result.””
Well, I preffer Blair’s “lack of clarity and purpose… without result”. Don’t you think a Brown premiership until 2005 would be more dangerous than Blair’s ?
“It seems that part of what is going on is political maneuvering of Labor politicians who covet his post.”
True. See post above.
As for Brown being more dangerous, well, in some respects yes because he is more to the left but, on the other hand, the mask of ‘New Labour’ will be off which means the British will want to be rid of them completely before long. (And Brown is not so keen on the ‘Euro’)
David,
I know little about British politics, but it would definitely upset me if Blair lost his job now, over Iraq – possibly the only good, admirable, thing he did.
What kind of message does this send: cross the EU, stand with the Americans, stand for your principles – and you are a dead duck in British politics.
Wouldn’t this prove that Brittain is firmly in the grip of EU-lefties, your valinat efforts notwithstanding ?
Isn’t there a danger that the next Labor PM will recall British troops from Iraq within 6 months ?
“But I would be more than happy to see these troglodytes bring him down”
This seems to me too machiavellian. I am never happy when troglodytes rejoice in victory, I cannot be happy when one is punished over his good deeds, when evil triumphs.
About bringing Labor down – don’t be so sure about it, you might be dissapointed. It’s not a sure thing. I don’t see any attactive personages in the Conservative party that can win an election, they don’t make me overly eager to have them in office.
I don’t think Americans realise just how bad Blair has been for this country, due to (in my Right wing eyes) taking a chainsaw to the constitution, throwing billions of pounds of public money away, signing up fish, hook, line, sinker and pole to EUrope, turning spin into an art form, etc. etc…
What he did in Iraq was good, yes, and I support it.
It also garnered a lot of positive headlines in countries like the US, which is why we have Congressmen giving him standing ovations. No bad thing for the UK.
But, frankly, if you Americans had Blair in control of your country, I can guarantee that you would not like it one little bit.
Fighting a war to back the US up in a noble cause is laudable to me, but he’s annoyed the Righties by throwing public money away and his despicable vandalism of the constitution/EU toadying, and he’s annoyed the Lefties by following the hated Bush around.
He’s toast. My only twinge of compassion is because him doing the right thing could so easily prove to be Blairs version of Mrs Ts poll tax.
A lot of American friends of Blair probably don’t realise that a Conservative PM (had “New” Labour not won the last two elections) would almost certainly have backed the US over Iraq as well.
In fact a Conservative government would have needed to make fewer promises about weapons of mass destruction to buy internal support, so would have done it more cleanly too.
TLT and Mark,
I think you’ve both hit the nail on the head. While an audible number of Americans applaud Mr Blair’s support (and the consequent career sacrifice it may cause him) of the Iraq War, most do not understand how much of a departure from his politics his actions were. Indeed, I think a lot of people singing his praises would be crying for his ouster if he were “in control”. I would also venture to say most of the crowd that are wowed by his speaking prowess do not know what his party affiliation is or what that party stands for.
I say these things in humility and self deprication, because I was one of the great throng until very recently. My reaction to a “good thing” is to find out more about it (him). Upon inspection, and not very close inspection, Mr Blair’s position on supporting the Iraq War (while commendable and deeply appreciated) is not enough to wipe the slate for his other, um …contributions.
I admit ignorance of British politics, still I don’t see how bringing Blair down and replacing him with a more doctrinaire and dogmatic leftish member of the same Labor party will improve things.
If a country has to be bamboozled into doing the right thing, it is obvious the wrong things have been done too long.
Pres. Truman put us into Korea. I still remember my father coming home, the day Truman ordered Task Force Smith into Korea, and saying to me, “Harry Truman saved the U.N.” He seemed so elated. We were protecting someone before rather than later.
Little did I realize one year later I would be drafted and sent to Korea. It was right thing. Fifty two years later I am proud to have a member in the long line of men who have volunteered to protect and save others.
Good Lord stand up and be proud of Blair and your countrymen.
Don’t be asses like the French and Germans
Swing required to lose seat: 15.70%
Why put this in bold? Is this some dire message from Teh Grauniad suggesting to wannabe Stephen Twiggs that they should be out on the streets of dear old K&C harrassing us to vote Labour in the next election?
Labour win Kensington & Chelsea? Maybe when an asbestos-coated snowball can roll through hell.
The problem isn’t his opinion on whether or not to go to war, it’s the allegation that he lied and conned the British people to do so (as the Bush administration did), by fabricating security threats that may well turn out to have been non-existent.
Lying to the electorate, parliament and armed forces so that they will support going to war on false pretences is grounds for immediate dismissal and jail time, not approval.
This has nothing to do with whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do. It is simply a matter of honesty and integrity versus dishonesty and lies. If Blair and co lied to get us into the war, then they should go, even if the war was right.