Bottom Feeder or Good Guy
Nip, my point was that when ministers voted for Iraq action, it was a free vote and public opinion hadn't been canvassed by referendum so they could vote the way they wanted.
For the Brexit votes, many MPs might not have voted the way they did but had to honour the 'will of the people' in their constituencies.
For the Brexit votes, many MPs might not have voted the way they did but had to honour the 'will of the people' in their constituencies.
Sometimes the sites on this forum get me interested enough to comment and this thread is one of them.
The comments above seem to me to reflect the growing sense that politics has become tribal. There have been a number of interesting discussions on radio and in the newspapers expressing this view. It seems that people now believe that their side is the right side, and that the ‘others’ are totally wrong in their opinions. Compromise and give and take are now very dirty words, a situation I would suggest that has been brought about by ‘social media’.
I hold no candle for Tony Blair. He had his good points and his bad, and I think that most of us would fall into that category. However lets go back to before social media, to 1979 to 1990; the Thatcher years.
If some pretty silly decisions had not been made by the MoD, Treasury, and the Foreign Office, I think that it is unlikely the Falklands War would have happened.
In addition some interesting decisions made on exchange rates, and the way to spend the tax revenues from North Sea Oil resulted in the devastation of our industrial base. Sure union power needed to be curtailed, but something should also have been done about the appalling quality of management at the same time.
Now the reason that I mention all this, is that if I were to ask practically any of my friends and relatives in the north if Maggie should have got an honour after leaving office, then I have no doubt what the answer would have been. If there had been a petition available to ask if she should have got an honour on leaving office then I would suggest that there would have been a dam sight more that a million signatures on it, even if most of them would have been from people living north of Milton Keynes.
What I am trying to say, is live and let live. Have a bit of ‘give and take’ for the other side, and a bit less of ‘disgusted from Tunbridge Wells’.
My opinion on the honours system. Most of it should be scrapped. Buying Knighthoods and a seat in the House of Lords, getting Knighthoods as part of the job spec., stinks. By all means lets give out gongs for bravery but as for the rest.......
The comments above seem to me to reflect the growing sense that politics has become tribal. There have been a number of interesting discussions on radio and in the newspapers expressing this view. It seems that people now believe that their side is the right side, and that the ‘others’ are totally wrong in their opinions. Compromise and give and take are now very dirty words, a situation I would suggest that has been brought about by ‘social media’.
I hold no candle for Tony Blair. He had his good points and his bad, and I think that most of us would fall into that category. However lets go back to before social media, to 1979 to 1990; the Thatcher years.
If some pretty silly decisions had not been made by the MoD, Treasury, and the Foreign Office, I think that it is unlikely the Falklands War would have happened.
In addition some interesting decisions made on exchange rates, and the way to spend the tax revenues from North Sea Oil resulted in the devastation of our industrial base. Sure union power needed to be curtailed, but something should also have been done about the appalling quality of management at the same time.
Now the reason that I mention all this, is that if I were to ask practically any of my friends and relatives in the north if Maggie should have got an honour after leaving office, then I have no doubt what the answer would have been. If there had been a petition available to ask if she should have got an honour on leaving office then I would suggest that there would have been a dam sight more that a million signatures on it, even if most of them would have been from people living north of Milton Keynes.
What I am trying to say, is live and let live. Have a bit of ‘give and take’ for the other side, and a bit less of ‘disgusted from Tunbridge Wells’.
My opinion on the honours system. Most of it should be scrapped. Buying Knighthoods and a seat in the House of Lords, getting Knighthoods as part of the job spec., stinks. By all means lets give out gongs for bravery but as for the rest.......
Last edited by staircase; 4th Jan 2022 at 09:43.
Gentleman Aviator
Leaving aside the validity of the Honours system as a whole, one oddity/anomaly has always struck me.
The wife of Sir Joe Bloggs becomes Lady Bloggs, while the husband of Dame Joanna Bloggs remains Mr Bloggs. And of course these days one must also consider the husband of Sir Joe or the wife of Dame Joanna.
What would suitable “titles by association” be, or should we just settle for Sir Joe and Mrs Bloggs - which sounds a bit strange……..
The wife of Sir Joe Bloggs becomes Lady Bloggs, while the husband of Dame Joanna Bloggs remains Mr Bloggs. And of course these days one must also consider the husband of Sir Joe or the wife of Dame Joanna.
What would suitable “titles by association” be, or should we just settle for Sir Joe and Mrs Bloggs - which sounds a bit strange……..
Staircase - absolutely right and I was just trying to bring a little balance to the 'We hate Bliar' brigade.
You could also have mentioned the parlous state of MoD MQs that the next Tory PM, John Major, brought upon us 1996, selling them off to Annington Homes.
You could also have mentioned the parlous state of MoD MQs that the next Tory PM, John Major, brought upon us 1996, selling them off to Annington Homes.
Oh yes TB was such a bad PM.............just keep a sense of balance
O.K. the I will put another spin on it.
The reasons we went to war were, to say the least open to debate. However, it was not just some on this side of the Atlantic that bought into it. I remember a UN session by a very famous General.
What I would say to ExAscoteer is that anyone who joined any of the three services joins, if not to go to war, then they know that there is a reasonable chance that they may have to go to war.
Was anyone in the military therefore not pleased (if apprehensive) to go and have their training and their 'mettle' tested? We all knew the implications of military service when we took the oath, and knew the risks, even if it was flying your aeroplane into a hill training for war. 85 RAF aircrew died during the brief period of peace (Northern Ireland not counting) that I served.
Sure, Toni B declared war, but does anyone think that the senior ranks of the MoD at the time were really against it?
War is an extension (failure?) of politics. You can blame politicians for going to war, but subsequent deaths in battle can't just be laid at their door. You might as well blame Bae Systems for providing the weapons to make it possible, or the Generals to say what is proposed is achievable, or the foot soldiers for wanting to have the 'chance to do the job we trained for ' offered.
To blame a politician for the deaths of your friends is perhaps unfair.
As for a knight hood; which will come Boris's way as a result of this breaking of the presumed honours for ex PMs log jam. Try this for size:
What would the Daily Mail/ Telegraph headline have been, if a 57 year old twice divorced lady of Caribbean heritage, with unknown children, who had been sacked a couple of times from jobs for lying, had move her toyboy into Downing Street as our PM?
Mods - feel free to delete the last para!
The reasons we went to war were, to say the least open to debate. However, it was not just some on this side of the Atlantic that bought into it. I remember a UN session by a very famous General.
What I would say to ExAscoteer is that anyone who joined any of the three services joins, if not to go to war, then they know that there is a reasonable chance that they may have to go to war.
Was anyone in the military therefore not pleased (if apprehensive) to go and have their training and their 'mettle' tested? We all knew the implications of military service when we took the oath, and knew the risks, even if it was flying your aeroplane into a hill training for war. 85 RAF aircrew died during the brief period of peace (Northern Ireland not counting) that I served.
Sure, Toni B declared war, but does anyone think that the senior ranks of the MoD at the time were really against it?
War is an extension (failure?) of politics. You can blame politicians for going to war, but subsequent deaths in battle can't just be laid at their door. You might as well blame Bae Systems for providing the weapons to make it possible, or the Generals to say what is proposed is achievable, or the foot soldiers for wanting to have the 'chance to do the job we trained for ' offered.
To blame a politician for the deaths of your friends is perhaps unfair.
As for a knight hood; which will come Boris's way as a result of this breaking of the presumed honours for ex PMs log jam. Try this for size:
What would the Daily Mail/ Telegraph headline have been, if a 57 year old twice divorced lady of Caribbean heritage, with unknown children, who had been sacked a couple of times from jobs for lying, had move her toyboy into Downing Street as our PM?
Mods - feel free to delete the last para!
Mods - feel free to delete the last para!
I was, for many years, a typical Service voter - Tory every time as they were the ones who looked after the military, right?
In the past 10 years, I have come to see the Conservatives for what they really are, selfish, arrogant and self-serving, happy to sell off the family silver to get votes. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn, the looney left still don't understand that 100-year old politics don't work nowadays and the the great Communist experiment failed pathetically.
TB did take us to war and, as we approach to 40th anniversary of the Falkland conflict- so did Maggie, also in a war that didn't need fighting and also at the cost of hundreds of British and Argentine servicemen.
It's all about balance and those who don't have any will doubtless take us into the next conflict.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
From the Independent
Tony Blair’s ex-defence chief ‘told to burn memo saying Iraq invasion could be illegal’
Tony Blair’s former defence secretary Geoff Hoon has claimed he was told by Downing Street to “burn” a memo that suggested the invasion of Iraq could be illegal.
The ex-Labour minister said his own adviser was told “in no uncertain terms” to get rid of a memo written by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
Details of Mr Hoon’s claims, which appear in his recently-published memoir See How They Run, comes as the former prime minister faces a campaign to block his knighthood.
More than 680,000 people have signed a petition to rescind the gong, and a YouGov poll indicated that 63 per cent of Britons are against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony.
Mr Hoon claimed the order to burn the legal memo came from Jonathan Powell, Sir Tony’s then-chief of staff at No 10, according to details published in the Daily Mail. Mr Powell denies the allegation.
The former Labour minister said he was sent a copy of Lord Goldsmith’s memo “under conditions of considerable secrecy” and told he should “not discuss its contents with anyone else”.
He wrote: “I read the opinion several times; it was not an easy read. Eventually I came to the view that the attorney general had decided that invading Iraq would be lawful if the Prime Minister believed that it was in the UK’s national interest to do so. It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Chief of the Defence Staff was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him.”
Mr Hoon added: “Moreover, when my Principal Private Secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”
The former defence secretary said he and principal private secretary decided the memo should be locked in a safe at the Ministry of Defence rather than destroy it.
Sir Tony’s office described the allegation that the memo was ordered to be burned as “nonsense” when it first emerged in 2015.
Mr Powell denied telling Mr Hoon to burn the memo. He told the Daily Mail that Mr Hoon had been sent copies of a separate “minute” on the legality of the invasion months earlier. He had asked Mr Hoon, at the request of Lord Goldsmith, to “destroy the minute – not burn it – and the attorney general’s advice came later”.
Human rights lawyer and academic Philippe Sands said Mr Hoon’s claims offered “further confirmation of what has long been known – ministers, parliament and the public were misled by Mr Blair into supporting a war that was seen by many as unlawful and a crime”.
He added: “In modern Britain, it seems, such a manifest act of wrongdoing does not preclude the offering of a high-level gong.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came out in support of Sir Tony’s knighthood on Tuesday, saying: “I think he deserves the honour.”
Questioned about the strength of feeling about the Blair government’s invasion of Iraq, Sir Keir said: “I understand there are strong views on the Iraq war, there were back at the time and there still are.”
He added: “But that does not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”
The Independent has contacted the office of Tony Blair and the office of Jonathan Powell for comment.
Tony Blair’s former defence secretary Geoff Hoon has claimed he was told by Downing Street to “burn” a memo that suggested the invasion of Iraq could be illegal.
The ex-Labour minister said his own adviser was told “in no uncertain terms” to get rid of a memo written by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
Details of Mr Hoon’s claims, which appear in his recently-published memoir See How They Run, comes as the former prime minister faces a campaign to block his knighthood.
More than 680,000 people have signed a petition to rescind the gong, and a YouGov poll indicated that 63 per cent of Britons are against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony.
Mr Hoon claimed the order to burn the legal memo came from Jonathan Powell, Sir Tony’s then-chief of staff at No 10, according to details published in the Daily Mail. Mr Powell denies the allegation.
The former Labour minister said he was sent a copy of Lord Goldsmith’s memo “under conditions of considerable secrecy” and told he should “not discuss its contents with anyone else”.
He wrote: “I read the opinion several times; it was not an easy read. Eventually I came to the view that the attorney general had decided that invading Iraq would be lawful if the Prime Minister believed that it was in the UK’s national interest to do so. It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Chief of the Defence Staff was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him.”
Mr Hoon added: “Moreover, when my Principal Private Secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”
The former defence secretary said he and principal private secretary decided the memo should be locked in a safe at the Ministry of Defence rather than destroy it.
Sir Tony’s office described the allegation that the memo was ordered to be burned as “nonsense” when it first emerged in 2015.
Mr Powell denied telling Mr Hoon to burn the memo. He told the Daily Mail that Mr Hoon had been sent copies of a separate “minute” on the legality of the invasion months earlier. He had asked Mr Hoon, at the request of Lord Goldsmith, to “destroy the minute – not burn it – and the attorney general’s advice came later”.
Human rights lawyer and academic Philippe Sands said Mr Hoon’s claims offered “further confirmation of what has long been known – ministers, parliament and the public were misled by Mr Blair into supporting a war that was seen by many as unlawful and a crime”.
He added: “In modern Britain, it seems, such a manifest act of wrongdoing does not preclude the offering of a high-level gong.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came out in support of Sir Tony’s knighthood on Tuesday, saying: “I think he deserves the honour.”
Questioned about the strength of feeling about the Blair government’s invasion of Iraq, Sir Keir said: “I understand there are strong views on the Iraq war, there were back at the time and there still are.”
He added: “But that does not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”
The Independent has contacted the office of Tony Blair and the office of Jonathan Powell for comment.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I think it should stand as should the rest of your post.
In the past 10 years, I have come to see the Conservatives for what they really are, selfish, arrogant and self-serving, happy to sell off the family silver to get votes. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn, the looney left still don't understand that 100-year old politics don't work nowadays and the the great Communist experiment failed pathetically.
In the past 10 years, I have come to see the Conservatives for what they really are, selfish, arrogant and self-serving, happy to sell off the family silver to get votes. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn, the looney left still don't understand that 100-year old politics don't work nowadays and the the great Communist experiment failed pathetically.
Not much to chose between any of the major parties
and I certainly do not have time for the Tories any more
Yes I did see that reported comment from Hoon this morning, and it just reinforced my opinion, once endorsed by a departing BBC political correspondent, who thought that just to get selected as an MP, never mind elected, one had to be a pretty duplicitous sort of character.
I mentioned earlier that I hold no great esteem for T Blair and I post only to try and demonstrate balance. As a counter to the reports of burning the document perhaps I could offer this. When Boris prorogued Parliament, the Law Lords found it illegal with a unanimous vote. It was reported in the law reports that the reason for their decision was that the government could find no one, either politician or Civil Servant, willing to sign their statement to the Law Lords. It was suggested that the reason no one would sign was that they all knew it was false and that they may lay themselves open to a charge of perjury. The Law Lords therefore found against the government. The press responded with the ‘Enemies of the People’ headlines.
Anyone got a bucket of tar? We could all use the same brush on them.
As for who to vote for? There is a feeling that we are going into a situation where democracy is broken. If you don't see your MP and his government representing your opinion, yet you get it anyway with a vote of 33% on a turnout of less than 70% then next time why bother to vote?
You will note that the % voting at each election goes down.
Another gem you may like to ponder. Most floating voters are it seems the ladies. If they had not been given the vote, then it is estimated by a well know Polling organisation that we would have had Labour governments since 1945. I think the Tories are as bad as crab suggests but Dear oh Dear .....the left since 1945!
Lastly to much thread creep do you think?
I mentioned earlier that I hold no great esteem for T Blair and I post only to try and demonstrate balance. As a counter to the reports of burning the document perhaps I could offer this. When Boris prorogued Parliament, the Law Lords found it illegal with a unanimous vote. It was reported in the law reports that the reason for their decision was that the government could find no one, either politician or Civil Servant, willing to sign their statement to the Law Lords. It was suggested that the reason no one would sign was that they all knew it was false and that they may lay themselves open to a charge of perjury. The Law Lords therefore found against the government. The press responded with the ‘Enemies of the People’ headlines.
Anyone got a bucket of tar? We could all use the same brush on them.
As for who to vote for? There is a feeling that we are going into a situation where democracy is broken. If you don't see your MP and his government representing your opinion, yet you get it anyway with a vote of 33% on a turnout of less than 70% then next time why bother to vote?
You will note that the % voting at each election goes down.
Another gem you may like to ponder. Most floating voters are it seems the ladies. If they had not been given the vote, then it is estimated by a well know Polling organisation that we would have had Labour governments since 1945. I think the Tories are as bad as crab suggests but Dear oh Dear .....the left since 1945!
Lastly to much thread creep do you think?
The thread responses just serve to emphasise the (slightly belated) assessment by the OP.
The 'tribal' element of UK politics has been the basis for the voters as long as I can remember. For the politicians, it has become more so with the advent of the 'professional' PPE graduate/ SPAD cohorts replacing those who entered politics from working experience, especially ex -Service. Hilda's uncontested baronetcy was balanced by the refusal by Oxford to award an Honorary Degree. Hilda and Bliar both manage to attract and repel with 'extra strength' - the Tom Bower version of Bliar's stewardship (Broken Vows) puts even the Buffoon's unceasing idiocy into near perspective !
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be very strange, since current political influence would run against it
The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ? 
The 'tribal' element of UK politics has been the basis for the voters as long as I can remember. For the politicians, it has become more so with the advent of the 'professional' PPE graduate/ SPAD cohorts replacing those who entered politics from working experience, especially ex -Service. Hilda's uncontested baronetcy was balanced by the refusal by Oxford to award an Honorary Degree. Hilda and Bliar both manage to attract and repel with 'extra strength' - the Tom Bower version of Bliar's stewardship (Broken Vows) puts even the Buffoon's unceasing idiocy into near perspective !
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be very strange, since current political influence would run against it
The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be very strange, since current political influence would run against it The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ?
The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ?
Auntie Betty's personal endorsement, I find to be verystrange, since current political influence would run against it The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ?
The 'Westminster Mafia' will, no doubt, ignore the present outbreak of anger - after all, one wouldn't want to set a precedent of that sort, would one ?
QUOTE: TB did take us to war and, as we approach to 40th anniversary of the Falkland conflict- so did Maggie, also in a war that didn't need fighting and also at the cost of hundreds of British and Argentine servicemen.
That is to equate apples and pears. Surely the Falklands was a "just war"? And even if not, surely if the "will of the people" means anything, the people were very very dubious about the one, but not the other.
That is to equate apples and pears. Surely the Falklands was a "just war"? And even if not, surely if the "will of the people" means anything, the people were very very dubious about the one, but not the other.
That is to equate apples and pears. Surely the Falklands was a "just war"? And even if not, surely if the "will of the people" means anything, the people were very very dubious about the one, but not the other.
How was the Falklands a 'just war'? The history of the Islands has been disputed since the 1600's and neither country has an overwhelming legal claim to it.
I've been enough times, walked the ground and flown the areas - frankly never worth fighting and dying for.
It was a weakness of two Govts, each looking to bolster flagging support in their own countries - hardly a 'Just war'.
I am not qualified to judge Bliar on the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Subsequent events in Iraq have demonstrated clearly that there was one outstanding reason not to go to war - the absence of any realistic plan for what to do following a certain victory. The resultant death toll on both sides since the war ended is horrendous.
Ah, there we have the Iraq problem in a nut shell. No plan afterwards, and no appreciation of the local politics reference Sunni and Shia. Of the obvious opportunities that Iran would take to open up a ‘road’ to Syria and then to Lebanon.
To disband the Iraqi army and send a shed load of trained and angry soldiers home with their weapons to unemployment and loss of face. A desperate failure of politics and intelligence, or a surfeit of arrogance?
Throw in a mentality that thought it was cheaper to sub contract security to the likes of Blackwater and you get a recipe for the disaster that followed. I remember one critique of what happened in Iraq after the war. One pundit actually said that putting a relatively junior 3STAR in charge was not a good idea.
As (ex)military blokes think on those words – a JUNIOR 3 star!
This gents, will be my last posting on this thread.
To disband the Iraqi army and send a shed load of trained and angry soldiers home with their weapons to unemployment and loss of face. A desperate failure of politics and intelligence, or a surfeit of arrogance?
Throw in a mentality that thought it was cheaper to sub contract security to the likes of Blackwater and you get a recipe for the disaster that followed. I remember one critique of what happened in Iraq after the war. One pundit actually said that putting a relatively junior 3STAR in charge was not a good idea.
As (ex)military blokes think on those words – a JUNIOR 3 star!
This gents, will be my last posting on this thread.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Oh yes TB was such a bad PM.............just keep a sense of balance
Mr Staircase
What a succinct summary. I was involved one way or other from 1990 to 2020 in all the wars against terrorism/ ideology/ extremism. What started out as the right thing to do got usurped by politics and hidden agendas. Kabul in 2002 made me feel proud of the West, Kabul 2021 not so.
What a succinct summary. I was involved one way or other from 1990 to 2020 in all the wars against terrorism/ ideology/ extremism. What started out as the right thing to do got usurped by politics and hidden agendas. Kabul in 2002 made me feel proud of the West, Kabul 2021 not so.