Tony Blair’s weak and rather feeble effort to give a tincture of independence to state schools – arguably none, in reality – was only pushed through in the House of Commons last night because of support from the Conservatives, as this BBC report and others have stated. Dozens of Labour MPs, outraged at the very idea of schools loosening any controls from the State, rebelled. The Labour Party, having kept its mouth tightly shut in some ways while Blair sought to pass himself off as a pale Tory, is getting increasingly stroppy. The Iraq war clearly has had something to do with it, but there seems to be a sort of natural life cycle with Prime Ministers. As the years go by, and enemies are made, MPs passed over for promotion, the groupings of malcontents increases. It seems rather odd that Blair should suffer such a blow from his backbenchers on what is in fact hardly a radical education bill.
The irony of course is that Blair continues to be fixated by the career and achievements of Margaret Thatcher, a true radical in some ways with some significant achievements to her credit. Blair talks a good game on radicalism, as they say in sport, but delivery is often way short. His achievement, if we can call it that, has been a sustained and deep assault on the network of checks and balances that constrain State power, in particular, his determined assault on the English Common Law.
My bet is that Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister in 12 months from now. Any takers?
I think it may well be that odious creep Miliband…in which case the Tories will romp home. If not in 12 months, before the election.
1. Chai Patel and others gave “loans” of £1m in the expectation of a Peerage. We know this because Mr Patel says so.
2. This money never found its way to the Labour party. We know this because the Labour party treasurer says so.
3. So where’s the money? And what has it bought / what is it buying?
How much has disappeared into the slush fund? Who disburses it? Mr Blair, presumably. (Brown too?). Does it go on Blair’s property investments and suits (ie, personal corruption), or on buying support (ie, Lyndon Johnson-style political corruption?) And if so, support where? Britain, Africa, EU?
This is Britain’s Watergate. Follow the money, bloggers.
Jonathan,
Forget edukashun for a bit. I think your post makes it very clear that we should have something like the US 2 term limit.
Blair’s big problem is that he has no real legacy beyond “I banned foxhunting (sort of, eventually), I raised taxes and the economy isn’t too bad”. It’s not exactly Disraeli is it?
Look out for some truly weird legislation from the Blairster in the dying days of his premiership because he’s desperate to go down in history as something other than a mediocrity who left a string of broken promises.
Gordon “Neo-Classical Endogenous Growth Theory” Brown as PM. My blood chills. The Torys would do well to keep on with “Cameron might be shite but at least he isn’t a retired solicitor from Fife unlike the other two”.
My bet is on someone other than Gord taking the helm of Labour. I know not who, but not Brown.
Miliband is looking increasingly likely right enough. However, I do wonder if that’s just a smoke screen to present a sham ‘contest’ so they can say it wasn’t a coronation.
I mean, surely no one in their right mind would vote for a party led by such an unctuous toady as Miliband ? Right ?
I have got the popcorn out for today and will be watching events with interest re : ‘the cash for peerage row’.
TimC,
As ever, someone was ahead of me… Is it me, Firefox, or is this site running kinda slow and erratic?
You’d think he’d be gone sooner rather than later but Blair has shown an ability to cling to power like his wife does to a freebie. It shouldn’t even come down to ‘call me Dave’ propping up Blair in the Commons. Yesterday, the government was found guilty of screwing 85,000 pensioners, and it’s response is to stick two fingers up. Yesterday, the Labour Party Treasurer said he didn’t know that Labour had borrowed millions in the form of dodgy loans linked directly to Downing St. An honourable Prim Minister would walk because of either business yet the Parliamentary Labour Party only gets it’s knickers in a twist when the Tories support government policy.
Yep, that Blair is hated by the PLP and surrounded by sleaze and corruption should lead to the conclusion that he’ll soon be gone but he’s long been hated by the PLP and long been surrounded by sleaze and corruption. Given what is known of him it wouldn’t be a surprise if he went back on his decision to step down before the next election. You never know, it may all come down to his wife’s ability to keep paying the interest on their considerable debts.
Miliband won’t be leader. Labour has learned from the Tories’ passage with Michael Howard that British voters do not see certain sorts of politician as potential prime ministers.
Just looked-up Miliband’s website. He’s certainly a sufficient Bertie Blunt to lead the Labour Party. I can see it. Oh Gawd, I can see it!
By the way, while it’s true that the Bill was passed due to Tory support, it’s also the case that this Bill only applies to England, yet was passed with votes from Scottish, Irish and NI MPs, none of whom may vote in education matters in their own countries.
We might compare (from the post above):
With this (from here):
How “determined” does he need to be once that thing passes?
Just thinking out loud…
Dunno about Milliband but I suspect Blair will stitch up Brown one more time – ie will stay on as PM until the next election. He will find some excuse or crisis in order to stay on, he may even simply say he told the electorate he would stay on for this term and thus remain as PM up until election day with a view to passing the baton on to Gordon at the election. This would have the sweetener of giving Brown a ‘mandate’ from day one as PM.
The hilarious part will be Labour not winning the election and thus Brown not becoming PM. One last time Blair will have stitched him up – good and proper and Brown will never be PM.
Should that come to pass I will laugh uncontrollably for weeks, nay months on end.
God I hope that it does go down that way.
I too don’t believe Brown will ever lead the Labour Party. They must know this creepy, incompetent creature is simply unelectable. Physicall repulsive people don’t get elected any more. Voters want the steak plus the sizzle, and Brown is repulsive to look at. I know it’s an odd thing to say, but he looks smelly.
I am another who is confident that Blair will double-cross him and stay on for another election – an election he will lose. Obviously, this will be the moment of Schadenfreude we have all been waiting for – Blair to go out a loser. In a couple of years’ time, if it’s between Blair and Dave, Dave will win and the path of destruction of Britain and liberty will continue.
Verity you are so right, Brown looks smelly. Thats exactly what I’ve been thinking for years. A dirty dishevilled smelly mess. I saw him at Heathrow once many years ago (pre 97), he looked terrible but with an air of smugness and arrogance that made him appear even more unpleasant than on the telly. I can’t speak for his odour as I didn’t get too close, even then I instinctively felt it best to keep well away.
I know I shouldn’t say such things (well I guess it’s not PC anyway) and it may sound petty but hey, it’s how he appears to my eyes.
Damning folk for their physical appearances is pretty schoolboy/girl stuff & does little credit to the posters, I fear. Character is the yardstick….and Brown, in common with many politicos, misses out sorely in that department. Mother Teresa was no Claudia Schiffer.
No mention of the Labour Party’s auditors in all this. How could they have signed-off the accounts?
Dont get me wrong, I damn Brown on his character, his policies, his world view, his bigotry and his obfuscations as well. The physical thing is merely a side issue and a kind of stick to poke probably the ultimate bully with. In truth pretty much everything about him and what he stands for annoys the daylights out of me.
David: Concur
Image not character is what counts most with the voters expat.
Gordon has bags of character, in that he acually believes in socialism unlike Tony, but he has all the charisma of an awkward, gurning dour scots plank.
There must be an election in the Labour party for the next leader, and I would be amazed if Gordon won it.
Even the slow witted British public will be aware by then, that even Gordons safe pair of hands economic policy is in tatters.
You’re right RAB, image does count for so much nowadays unfortunately. You’re also right about Brown, he is an unreconstructed socialist believer – that belief being one one the facets of the man that I despise most.
As for Brown winning a party election as leader rather than simply being crowned, we seem to have little indication as to how the Labour party would vote, the press seem not to be interested in this question. Wonder if there is something they don’t want to let us know or is it simply they feel it is a foregone conclusion?
Permanent expat – Mother Teresa was another shit.
Gordon Brown looks sweaty. He looks as though he has sweaty palms and if you – god forbid! – shook hands with him, you’d come away with a damp palm. He looks grubby and careless. I think most women would find him repulsive, even if he were competent and had a heart of gold.
RAB is right. As I said above, today’s voters don’t just want the steak, they want the sizzle and the sauce. The works. Anyway, it’s moot, because Tony is going to double cross him.
Also, I do not think Brown has an interesting air of brooding, a la Heathcliffe. I think he has a dull-witted air of wondering what the hell to do next.
Actually I think Blair will run again and win. It is becoming increasingly clear that Labour realise if Gordon is at the helm they will not win.
It’s pretty obvious most people on here don’t know many, or any, people in the Labour party if you truly believe what you say. There isn’t anyone near Brown as successor to Blair, like it or not. No-one has any evidence about Blair staying on. What evidence there is seems to suggest he will have had enough and be quite glad to get out of the Labour Party, which he never wanted to be in any way.
As for all of the Brown is smelly stuff….well I used to hear that in nursery school. Perhaps it’s meant to be funny? I think he’s a bit dour and presbyterian, but others on here have referred to him as Heathcliffe – he can’t be one and the same. And women, I think, find him quite attractive, and will do so more and more if he appears next to the rather camp Dave.
Graham Woodford – If you’re going to comment on posts made by others, do get it right.
I said that Brown’s air of brooding was NOT Heathcliffian, but rather looked like dull-witted perplexity.
You say: “It’s pretty obvious most people on here don’t know many, or any, people in the Labour party” Indeed. That is our badge of honour.
“And women, I think, find him quite attractive, and will do so more and more if he appears next to the rather camp Dave.” No offence, but do you live in a cave? Do you know any women? Brown is everything that repels women. Also, here’s a hot secret direct from an actual woman: Women rather like camp men. Dave, however, isn’t camp. Major clues: camp men don’t take paternity leave. Camp men like to be well dressed. They don’t take off their ties and go around in a business shirt with an open neck. Camp men are usually very funny. Dave … what can I say?
If you have a long-term interest-free loan to your party you are under no obligation to declare it as a donation, in the same way that a party is not required to file any overdraft as a ‘loan’ from its bankers. ALL political parties in the UK use this scheme as a method of hiding their very large contributors’ names from scrutiny and the list of vetoed peers included at least one Conservative nomination. Having said that they are obliged to declare any and all interest derived from said loans.
The reason that the MSN are not interested in a leadership election David, is because it spoils the current soap storyline of “two tribes go to war” the battle between Tone and Gordon for the heart of the party.
The reality is more like Andrew said. The Labour party knows full well that it cant win an election with Gordon Brown as a leader.
I pray that they do choose principle over image and go for Gordon, but I’m not that stupid, and nor, I think, are they.
The Labour Party have learnt well, over the last decade, that presentation, rather than results are everything.
The soap will continue until reality barges in.
Old Press adage.
“Given a choice between the myth and the reality— always print the myth”
AKA the Diana syndrome.
Not mad , bad and dangerous to hang out with, but the People’s Princess ! Saint and paragon of virtue!
Do I live in a cave? What do you think?
I appreciate it’s a ‘badge of honour’ (bit like those Blue Peter ones, I presume) that many, I assume not all, people on here know no ‘Labour Party type’ people. Why comment then with such certainty on what the Labour Party is going to do?
We could have a debate on camp, and I do take some of your points, but it does appear that’s how his opponents have chosen to view him, and he does appear as if he will scream and he will scream if he doesn’t get his own way…he’s wimpish camp.
Apologies for misrepresenting you on the Heathcliffe reference, but have you considered you may be the woman marching out of step? Why, I’m married to a woman, and she, and many of her pals quite fancy him. Maybe you just get it wrong like those nutty Bronte sisters.
ISTR that in Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff spends most of his time wrecking the lives of innocents and swindling people out of their property. I can see why this would remind people of Gordon Brown. But if we are comparing Brown to the central character in a literary classic, I’d personally choose this one(Link).
I actually do know a number of Labour party types (I’m constantly arguing heatedly with them – pooer deluded fools), they range from completely prehistoric hard left class warrior idealogues through to more pragmatic modern lefties. To a man they loved Tony Blair back in 97. I recall them being so full of both it and themselves on the morning after the election. Their adoration of Tony stemmed simply from the fact he was the man that got rid of the demonic (in their deluded eyes) Tories.
Since then, to a man they have changed their view around to hating Tone over a number of issues, notably Iraq, ID Cards, his dictatorial nature etc though not over foxhunting, at this they snigger and laugh childishly at the “toffs” – I guess scratch any leftie and you’ll find some class hatred. On some of their points of disagreement with his Toneness I find myself in line with them – a strange feeling I must say given the nature of the years of debates we have had.
Interestingly with the exception of the class warrior, they are of the opinion that Brown should not become PM, rather he should revel in his self appointed title of best Chancellor ever. (How deluded they really are).
Typically they agree that Brown won’t be elected or will at best perhaps win an election shortly after becoming leader but not any more than that. These Labour party types feel he isn’t really the electable face they need.
The Class Warrior interestingly desperately wants Brown as PM because he’s the only one who will “stick it to the middle and upper classes”. His bile and hatred speaks for many within the party from what I understand, but not it seems, for a large proportion of the population as a whole.
That dichotomy of view within the Labour ranks (or at least those ranks that I know well) I think sums up Labour’s dilema.
Graham Woodford and xj – You are both vicious little lefties who want to pull everything down to the sub-basement, where you live. The Bronte sisters – especially Charlotte – were brilliant novelists and ground breakers in their era. That is why their books are still read today. What is the problem with you people?
I repeat, as someone who has been lucky enough to have quite a few gay men in my life, Dave isn’t camp. Tony Blair is camper than Dave, which is why he got voted in. Women like camp men.
I’m not saying no women will think Dave’s attractive. But most will not. They’ll see him as patronising and smug. Taking his tie was was patronising. To talk to “the little people”. Yuck-o-rama. Women like straightforward men like David Davis and William Hague, or camp men. Dave’s a prat.
If you are saying Blair cared about banning foxhunting, I think that’s wrong – he did everything he could to manufacture some sort of compromise, but the delusion that it is was some kind of triumph was too great amongst many MPs (of differing parties).
I should say I have some history with the Labour Party, and have retained connections although I haven’t been a member for a long time. My take on it, and this is through people connected to the party machine, is that Brown is in a powerful position and has a lot of allies in the party. That counts for a lot in the succession to Blair. There may be electoral consequences, but the picture is already changing, and the Cameron honeymoon will soon turn into the ususal tory marriage.
I would have to be considered as similar to your deluded acquaintances, probably as some libertarian lefty (an oxymoron you will say), with features of pragmatism and ancient loyalties. There were not many people I knew who had many delusions about Blair, and what he would achieve. We, and many, were sick of the Tories (their sleaze being on such a grander scale than the relatively petty achievments of the current incumbents); indeed, it was said at the time, we are not going to be disappointed by Blair because there are no expectations…
It was always clear that Blair was a particular type of Tory. He was from that kind of background up here in Co Durham. I am going to admit now that I have met him a few times and found him personable and impressive. At a distance, I can’t stand him. I don’t think any of us had considered that we would have the assault on our basic liberties that successive Blair governments have mounted, and it is in this that I agree with many of the views expressed on here. But remember that many on the right have a very limited view of democracy and freedom. The Guardian yesterday (I think) printed the story on the 30th anniversary of Wilson’s resignation of the plot against the state during his premiership. Remember armies don’t have a good record of defending the right to free speech when they are running the shop. Quite shocking.
Verity – make your mind up, it’s either a basement or a cave.
You have so much rage. I love the Bronte’s even the rubbish one, Anne (?) I think was pretty good. But they were, well, rather strange. Emily was so shy she was overcome with speechlessness when addressed at the dinner table, and Charloote had to reply, though only if she faced away from people. I blame it on t’moors. Wuthering Heights, though a wonderful book, is not the product of a balanced mind.
Some of my best friends are gay. What else would you expect from a ‘vicious’ lefty?
Blairs biggest and most damaging achievement has been devolution.
We now have a democracy that isn’t really a democracy, as Scottish MPs vote on issues they don’t even have power on in Scotland etc. People might argue they hold relatively few votes between them but its the princple.
I don’t think Blair will be going anytime soon unless he is forced out, he believes in himself too much.
Oh dear oh dear, Graham Woodford. Where do we start with you?
If you are saying Blair cared about banning foxhunting, I think that’s wrong – he did everything he could to manufacture some sort of compromise …
He could also have told the class warriors sitting behind him that it’s none of Parliament’s business.
We, and many, were sick of the Tories (their sleaze being on such a grander scale than the relatively petty achievments of the current incumbents) …
You are joking, aren’t you?
indeed, it was said at the time, we are not going to be disappointed by Blair because there are no expectations…
No really, you are joking? You don’t recall statements about being whiter than white? You don’t recall Blair proclaiming to be a ‘pretty straight kinda guy’?
It was always clear that Blair was a particular type of Tory. He was from that kind of background up here in Co Durham.
You mean Scotland, Co Durham? Australia, Co Durham? Or is that Oxbridge, Co Durham?
I don’t think any of us had considered that we would have the assault on our basic liberties that successive Blair governments have mounted …
Speak for yourself.
But remember that many on the right have a very limited view of democracy and freedom.
Well stuff democracy. As for freedom, having been a Labour Party member and voter you are in no position to hand out lectures on that score.
Wot Pete_London sed. Especially,
“I don’t think any of us had considered that we would have the assault on our basic liberties that successive Blair governments have mounted …
“Speak for yourself.”
Some of us saw with great vividness that Tony Blair intended to cause great damage to our country. I saw it so clearly, I left, because I could he see he was like a jaganath and the Tories were so weak that nothing could stop him. Especially after Alastair Campbell gagged the “free” British press.
I don’t think the Brontes were strange. They were isolated in a sense, but they were known and friendly in their village. They may have been shy of strangers. This was before the days of Tracy Emin and Graham Norton. The three of them were talented writers. Wuthering Heights is a work of imagination, not a fevered brain as you would have it. How would you describe Frankenstein? Dracula? Myra Breckenridge?Science fiction? People with imagination and application are what we call “talented”.
The only whacko in the parsonage in Haworth was Bramwell.
And people on here call other people class warriors.
I’m not sure if you do it deliberately, but you misintepret me. I’m not talking about Blair making statements about being whiter than white, and how he promoted himself; I’m talking about my expectations, and those of people I knew. I tend to be a little sceptical of politicians who talk about a ‘new kind of politics’. And no, I’m not joking about tory sleaze, but i presume I am being jabbed by the mighty sword of truth here. You have a short memory. What did the mighty Karl say about people who forget history again?
Stuff democracy? Where have I heard that before? And membership of the Labour Party disqualifies anyone from talking about freedom? Sorry, I forgot, you can only do that of you are a gun owner.
I mean Co. Durham, England (it is in the atlas), where his old fellow practiced and was a member of that small set, the county Durham tories’. I do acknowledge he was sent away to be groomed to be a future leader, as befits all of those who can afford such an education.
Verity,
again I apologise as my last post was not in reply to you.
I think I tried to say that I thought they were talented writers, I would go further and say that Wuthering Heights, is a work of genius. But the Brontes did find it quite hard to live in the outside world, at least partially because (even for the time) they lived quite an isolated and closed life, really exisiting in an imaginary worls that the girls constructed through their childhood years. There is emotional imbalance in their work, which is what makes it an exhilarating ride. Charlotte’s books are about people who feel themselves to be misfits, and madness does feature quite a lot in the work of all three!
If you ask me how I would describe Mary Shelley, I would say whacky but talented. Blake, also, was a complete loon who wrote some of the most beautiful things writtewn in our language. Surprised Mary and Percy B would be in the samiizdat pantheon.
I think I’d better get lost now as a leftie my presence cannot be tolerated on here without some low level abuse, which I can’t be bothered to take. Here’s to Emily!
Shit there goes the Bell.
Double period of Political science coming up.
P.S I’ve been to Haworth. Every day I was woken by the dawn chorus of Japanese tourist buses pulling into the car park behind our cottage.
What is it with the Japanese and the Brontes?
Some Shinto crossover I’m not getting?
Graham Woodford writes:
“What did the mighty Karl say about people who forget history again?”
That would be George “call me Karl” Santayana, would it?
While one fully understands that the lack of a decent education is not just the inevitable product of Labour policies, but is also required to believe in them, I’m afraid that is so close to parody that I momentarily wondered if you were a troll.
On balance, though, it seems more likely that your just another statist dupe, so purblind that, confronted with the most manifestly corrupt government this country has endured for several centuries, you can still twitter about ‘Tory sleaze’, without the slightest sign of irony.
Graham Woodford: “..their [tory] sleaze being on such a grander scale than the relatively petty achievments of the current incumbents.”
You are taking the micky, are you not?
Reform of the house of Lords is one thing. Reform in my book might lead to an fully elected second chamber. Blair is simply gerrymandering, buying votes.
That is sleaze and corruption, on a scale more ambitious than anything the Tories got up to.
The occasional Tory in the last Tory administration might have had their hand in the till. But Labour have done more to even the score than even my wildest dreams fortold.
Peter Mandleson – defrauding a building society.
Peter Mandleson – arranging favours for his ah! chums.
Tony Blair – Taking favours from an Italian prime minister, it looks like his cabinet have taken their cue from him too.
Tony Blair – selling Labour manifesto committments to the Bernie Eccleston.
Blunkett – It is almost more lucrative for Blunkett to resign, considering the golden goodbyes he manages to pick up, then when he is out of office, he gets full use of accomodation which if on the open rental market would set you back several thousand pounds a night, gratis. Is he still there by the way??
Gordon Brown – almost single handedly has destroyed and devalued the pensions of more people in less time than anyone might have imagined in 1997.
Not exactly corruption, perhaps, but stupidity? Certanly.
Gordon Brown – managed to sell off the British gold reserve at the lowest price in gold for thirty years. Now, per ounce, gold is probably on its way to $600.
Meanwhile in the wings, lets not forget about the Kinnock family business, practically his entire family are on the payroll of the European community, that not being enough he has somehow become lord (ha ha) Kinnock.
And while talking about Kinnock is it my imagination or does the stench of nephotism hang like a poluted cloud over this administration? Tessa Jowel, husband is up to his neck in odd dealings with the Italian Prime minister, but convieniently does not keep the same name as his wife, who happens to be something in the cabinet.
Another cabinet minister Harriet Harman consitutional affairs, no less, is married to the treasurer of the Labour party. That only comes out when there is a stink about party finances. Stand by for Harriet and Jack to seperate to spend more time with their bank accounts.
I could go on and on…
APL writes:
“I could go on and on…”
Indeed, you could and one area, usually overlooked, is possibly even more significant than those you have mentioned.
ZaNuLabour has corrupted the membership not only to the House of Lords but QUANGOs throughout the country. In two key areas in particular, health and education, the corruption has run so deep that even the language used by the countless, nameless, ‘advisory bodies’ and God alone knows what else, is the pseudo-management babble you hear dropping from the lips (complete with the mandatory glottal stops) of imbeciles like Jowell, Milliband et al .
Why this matters is because these unelected bodies of Labour apparatchicks are determining the way money is spent and things are done – and they are doing so without the slightest trace of accountability to the electorate.
In harness with government moves to allow ministers to rule by fiat it amounts to the almost complete dismemberment of anything even remotely resembling parliamentary democracy.
People don’t see this and don’t realise it is happening, but it is one of several ways in which this government has stolen Gt. Britain from its owners, while they slept.
APL – Don’t forget Cherie “the law doesn’t apply to me” Blair trading on No 10 Downing St to give paid after-dinner talks, and writing a book about life at No 10. Oh, and allowing herself to be officially referred to in the US as the First Lady of Downing St. (And Mary Wilson turned down a payment of £35 for some poems she’d had published because she thought accepting it would look as though she was trading on her status as the PM’s wife.)
Oh, wait a minute! What was that about forgetting to declare thousands of dollars in gifts of designer clothes (Donna Karen NY)? Inadvertenly going through the Green Channel? Well, it’s easy enough to do … You could forget that a famous NY fashion designer had given you around £5,000 in gifts…. And on another occasion, several thousand pounds worth of jewellry – but slipped right through that Green Channel again. Pretty forgetful for a QC, IMHO.
Dodgy property dealing, too. And both the Blairs accepted a lot of gifts from Berlusconi. And then there’s David Blunkett. Yes, is he still living like a minister? Does he still have a ministerial car at the expense of people who pay taxes?
I wonder if Peter Mandelson is still selling British passports from his digs in Brussels. Whatever happened to Keith Vaz?
The Guardian yesterday (I think) printed the story on the 30th anniversary of Wilson’s resignation of the plot against the state during his premiership. Remember armies don’t have a good record of defending the right to free speech when they are running the shop. Quite shocking.
Well Graham Woodford, I’ve just watched “The Plot Against Harold Wilson” on BBC1. Not shocking at all. When you cut through the hyperbole and filter out the suspense-filled score, what you have is the red BBC ‘exposing’ a plan by the Army and Security Service to prevent a Communist takeover of Great Britain. It may or may not have been the case that ‘toffs’ planned it – and just to let you know they were ‘toffs’ the BBC helpfully adds shots of fox hunts – and Mountbatten may or may not have been the intended head during the interregnum. But let’s be clear; the plan was to protect the Queen and the Constitution. And you know what? That’s one of the jobs of the Armed Forces! This will probably be a surprise to you but the Armed Forces don’t belong to the government. Her Majesty the Queen is Head of the Armed Forces and when She and the Constitution are under threat from foreign forces I’d expect the Armed Forces to deploy.
Sheesh.
Yeah. What Pete_London said. Double sheesh.
I’ve tried to be polite but I see that doesn’t work on here.
There’s nothing like hyperbole. ‘The most corrupt government for centuries’ – and you want to characterise me as a schoolboy in need of an education. You are relaxed about the idea that a communist takeover was imminent in the 70’s led secretly by Wilson, and Mountbatten and the army were just doing their consitutional duty (as advised by nutters in MI5 – not they are paid by the state or anything).
Right wing, delusional fools.
I think this is by no means the most corrupt UK government in centuries. It is perhaps one of the most illiberal since Wilson’s day of grand scale kleptocratic nationalisation but their corruption is fairly small beer. I am far more worried about their legislation, not their corruption. If all they did was line their pockets but basically leave the economy and constitution alone, I would lose little sleep over their antics. I fear their radical utilitarianism and populist authoritarianism, not their corruption.
You are relaxed about the idea that a communist takeover was imminent in the 70’s led secretly by Wilson, and Mountbatten and the army were just doing their consitutional duty …
Well, yes. What do you think the Armed Forces should do in the event of a Communist takeover of Great Britain? Remain in barracks? Do tell.
Graham love.
It never happened!
Doesn’t that tell you anything?
Perry de Haviland writes:
“I think this is by no means the most corrupt UK government in centuries.”
We are defining ‘corruption’ in different ways. I am taking a broader view than mere financial corruption.
If you take that view, I think it would be hard to suggest a British government that has done more to corrupt the constitutional basis of the United Kingdom than this…. for several centuries.
Graham Woodford writes:
“…you want to characterise me as a schoolboy in need of an education. ”
You are the one who breezed in here to show us the perceived error of our ways and then proceeded to commit the most elementary of schoolboy errors (not checking your facts).
Why whine about it? And why on earth be so callow as to take your history, spoon-fed from BBC TV?
Let me guess. If you were even alive during Wilson’s regime, you were playing with Mecanno at the time, weren’t you?
I posited some time ago that Blair had had cheek implants to make himself look younger. It just looked so obvious. People didn’t even bother to pooh-pooh me. Well, I think this (Link) photo exonerates me. Cheek implants. Can you see the little silicone sacks?
It’s the ones in those frontal lobes
that worry me Verity!
No, no, he had the frontal lobes excised. They made him look too middle aged! The front end of Tone’s brain is history.
A tip of the hat
A kiss of the hand
And goodnight!
So Blair had chutzpah implants?Hmm…
I take the line that all such above stated exploits show that Labour have come of age and embraced capitalism. The champagne socialists now drink to capitalism. just rejoice at that news!
Who would you rather Blair hung out with if not Berlus con- e: Chavez?
I am encouraged that Dave is doing everything possible to get himself sacked and David Davis put in as Leader. This is from The Speccie via Melanie Phillips’ Diary:
“During Dr Rice’s recent visit to London, the Secretary of State broke off from her formal engagements to meet Mr [David] Cameron… With Blair firmly in the twilight of his premiership, Washington is keen to establish good relations with his potential successors, and in this spirit Dr Rice was keen to meet the ‘new Tony Blair’. But before securing him a coveted invitation to the Oval Office, she first wanted to establish that he was ‘sound’ on Iraq. ‘But he just didn’t come through, ‘one of Dr Rice’s aides told me shortly after the meeting took place in an anteroom at the Savoy Hotel. ‘We were looking to him to make some kind of conciliatory gesture over Iraq, but he just wanted to sit on the fence. And that is not the kind of place we expect our allies to be.’ ”
The man’s off his head.
‘Scuse me, ‘scuse me, coming through with a quote to lift the spirits … here is the eminently sane, rational, Matthew Parris on Tony Blair in today’s Times. (Link)
Hard to choose a money quote, but try this:
“My ancient doubts are less important than new doubts among new Labour’s friends, but let me put my own opinion delicately. I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional”.
Verity writes:
“My ancient doubts are less important than new doubts among new Labour’s friends, but let me put my own opinion delicately….”
Wow! That in conjunction with the ritual disembowelling of Bliar by Max Hastings (today’s Daily Mail – sadly, I read a borrowed, dead tree version, so no links) is a very significant development.
Bliar has got by, more or less impervious to the assaults of obvious opponents, but neither Parris nor Hastings qualify for rabies shots.
We might just (touch wood) be experiencing the beginning of the end of this little mountebank.
GCooper writes: neither Parris nor Hastings qualify for rabies shots. Correct.
I do think, though, Blair qualifies for much stronger words than “little mountebank”, having destroyed the United Kingdom, English Common Law, our easily defended borders (as an island) and layered on sheds of deranged-mind control (political correctness) to the point where a senior officer of Met can angrily hiss after a terrorist outrage in London in July that the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” cannot go together (sigh, eh, Brian?) … and our ancient civilisation has been criminally undermined, I think the word mountebank is a little … mild. (And why did no member of the press have the stones to ask Ms Paddick to explain his point?)
Blair’s bonkers, of course, but he is still a traitor to his civilisation and should be held accountable. What a deranged individual. He had a personally fitted-up 737 for him, the whizzy grand pandjarandum, and the equally insane Cherie to fly to Singapore in the belief that their star quality would win the Olympics for London. Who OKayed this mad expenditure of wage-earners’ taxes? The pay-offs had already been enough without the presence of the gurning Blairs.
As Parrish says: “I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged.”
Tony Blair’s been unhinged from the day he was born.
I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional.
I’ve always liked Parris. He’s a very civilised man. He’s also not a bad judge of character either.
I think the most corrupt administration over the past 100 years was that of David Lloyd George. And if we go back a bit, the various administrations under Walpole were pretty venal. Edmund Burke, for example, spent much of his political career up until the French Revolution denouncing corruption of various sorts, such as in the East India Company. Let’s get some perspective around here.
I agree with Perry. Corruption by money is far less serious than corruption by power. It is the illiberality, and utter ignorance of the checks and balances necessary to protect liberty, by this government, that is so serious. A few bribes here and there is not something to get oxidised about.
BTW, a journalist friend of mine had to sit next to Brown at some function and can confirm that the man needs to take a shower more often. Make of that what you will.
I knew it! I knew it! The man just looks as though he smells grubby and sour. I’ll bet this grim, humourless son of the manse thinks showers and hot baths are a moral indulgence.
GCooper, could you give us a précis of what Max Hastings said? – as Mail columnists are behind paid subscription?
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“I agree with Perry. Corruption by money is far less serious than corruption by power.”
Was that what he was saying? If so, I apologise for misunderstanding him.
My point, with which I thought he disagreed and you seem to be taking issue with, too, is that this has been the most corrupt of governments for centuries, precisely because you cannot limit the term corruption solely to financial affairs.
As Verity has listed some of the key examples of the way Bliar and his cronies have undermined the very constitution and fabric of this country, there’s no need to repeat them, but they are all examples of corruption in its widest sense – in the sense of rot, leading to the stench of decay.
In the light of which, your admonitioon: ” Let’s get some perspective around here.” is really quite misplaced.
Verity writes:
“GCooper, could you give us a précis of what Max Hastings said?”
Not being a Mail reader, I’m afraid I can’t do any more than quote the headline from the front page, which I have just had one of the paper’s unfortunate buyers read me over the phone.
Ignoring the usual, tiresome, Hastings anti-Americanism, I think it shows an appropriate level of contempt:
“Blair’s secret slush fund conveys a stench that would cause a US congressman to hold his nose. He has forfeited honour, dignity and the right to be believed by anyone. He is no longer fit to hold office.”
GCooper, thanks for “Blair’s secret slush fund conveys a stench that would cause a US congressman to hold his nose. He has forfeited honour, dignity and the right to be believed by anyone. He is no longer fit to hold office.”
But once again, Max Hastings doesn’t have the guts to go all the way, or maybe he really believes what he wrote above. “He is no longer fit to hold office.”
When was Blair ever fit to hold office? He’s been a destructive, stench-laden, corrupt sleaze ever since he slithered in under the door of No 10.
Regarding Dave’s astounding “sitting on the fence” about Iraq when Condoleezza Rice had a meeting with him to see whether he, a possible next prime minister, was sound on Iraq, and, according to her spokesman, “wanted to sit on the fence and that is not where we expect an ally to be” – frankly, he’s another crazy person.
I have absolutely no doubt he imagined he was thrilling them with his famous Eton charm, and all the while they were crossing their eyes and waggling their fingers in their ears behind his back.
For anyone who didn’t read Simon Jenkins’ excellent piece in The Times today, here is a taste. Having referred to the Faustian deal Blair made with the Labour Party, here is a key paragraph (well, actually, they’re all key paragraphs, but this might appeal to the people of this parish who can’t quite take to Dave):
[Referring to Blair] He has met his side of the bargain. Mephistopheles gazes at Faust and beckons his soul forward to damnation. He winks at the Tories’ David Cameron. They are devils in league, the two of them, and the knowledge must strike terror into Gordon Brown’s heart.
GCooper, my admonition was predicated on the point that there have been pretty corrupt, illiberal regimes before, so I do think a bit of perspective helps, if only because of the encouraging thought that such regimes were eventually turfed out. Don’t think I was being pompous. It is so easy to imagine that we are living in a uniquely terrible period, but I would bet that if you went back 200 years or more in time, the pamphlets of Grub Street were full of the same sort of comments as you get on the blogs.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“… I would bet that if you went back 200 years or more in time, the pamphlets of Grub Street were full of the same sort of comments as you get on the blogs. ”
Undoubtedly – and you would probably have had the same types saying much the same things at any time in history.
But none of that shifts me from my belief that this government is almost uniquely corrupt and corrupting – not in the sense that it takes back handers (though, obviously, it does) but because it is corruptng the constitutional basis of the country.
I can think of few others that have done so much damage.
I agree with GCooper. They have cynically and maliciously stolen our country from us. I think that is pretty corrupt.