Tony Blair - The Blame Game

[agchristie]

With Labour in turmoil and disarray is it fair that Blair is held responsible for the poor General Election result and the current state of the Party. Prescott was unimpressed too with his old boss saying time to stop the abuse but wasn't Blair just being honest to a party that he has remained loyal to since 2007?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/ross-clark/2015/07/the-hatred-directed-at-tony-blair-shows-just-how-big-labours-problem-is/

[Milvus]

John Prescott was mightily impressive when he was interviewed by John Humphries this week on the leadership battle. JH had to prompt him with names and JP continually referred to his notes to get the names of the candidates. Collapse of party I think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02xtj8h

[Baldric]

You mean Tony Blair the War Criminal?

[DTCwordfan]

Prescott the Twin Jaguars numpty you mean

Blair's the only one talking sense - they would resurrect Neil and Michael if they could.....are we going to see the Lib-Dem-Endeavour Party next when the next Labour party split comes..

[ichkeria]

Tony Blair inspires hatred in a fair number of Tories also: usually the ones who tried voting for him for a while and possibly now feel guilty about it.
I wasn't aware that he was being held responsible for Labour losing the election
As for John Prescott he was good in his day but it sounded as though he was reacting to a misconception of what Blair actually said about labour supporters whose heart was in the far left or whatever getting heart transplants.
Anyway if Labour is in turmoil how is the time for it, with an election a long long way off. Arguably there wasn't enough turmoil last time when there should have been.

[jourdain2]

I am so happy that I looked at Blair's eyes and did not vote for him. Many, swept away by his gift for rhetoric, did - and now bitterly regret it.

He is a driven megalomaniac (I've said this for many years) who lost touch with reality quite a long time ago.

Yes, it's fair to hold him responsible for all sorts of things.

[ichkeria]

After the last comment I rest my case :-)

[jourdain2]

;O) ichkeria

[agchristie]

My main point is to what extent is Labour suffering from the intervention in Iraq and the rise of ISIL which of course is where heads turn to Blair?

Was it this distrust that was a common theme on the 'doorstep'? Is it the blame for the financial crisis? the Brown years? Unelectable Ed?

Seems to me that Blair takes a hammering and made a scapegoat for so many of Labour's ills of today....

[ichkeria]

The reason Labour lost the election has nothing whatever to do with the Iraq War - or am I missing something.
Blame for the financial crisis is more like it. Ed Miliband's biggest problem was not his troubles with bacon sandwiches but, cowed by the "Red Ed" media tag, he did not meet head on the Tory lie about Labour's economic incompetence. So at the final leaders' Question Times, Cameron was still able to swagger on stage with the Liam Byrne letter when that issue should have been put to bed years ago. Too late Ed DID meet the challenge later in the same programme, but made a bacon sandwich of it in the face of the nasty sneering twit in the audience ("I guess I'm not going to convince you" he simpered, when we all knew that what he really meant was: "I'm not going to convince trash like you" - understandable but not the stuff of mould breaking election winning breakthroughs)

Tony Blair has come into the picture now as he's rushed to the aid of the "anyone but Jeremy" campaign, but he was largely irrelevant to what preceded it.

[askyourgran]

The reason Labour lost the election was initially down to Ed Miliband, his simpering self-belief, his looks alone cost him votes. Labour had no strong proposals to offer. The expenses scandal and the historical 'empty coffers' note, and the illegal war from the previous regime still lingered like century old roquefort. They needed some dynamism a complete change to alter the face of the Blair years. But there was nothing new forthcoming. Blair was responsible for losing Labour's credibility, no-one trusts him and most people won't forget him (and Bush) for the Iraq war and more so now for the mass immigration that followed and the ensuing problems in the middle east.

[Quizmonster]

Personally, I blame Tony Blair for the massacre of Glencoe, the fall of Singapore, all of England's poor performances in the World Cup, the crisis in the Eurozone: I could go on but...

[Peter Pedant]

// Personally, I blame Tony Blair for the massacre of Glencoe, the fall of Singapore, all of England's poor performances in the World Cup, the crisis in the Eurozone: I could go on but...//

others may want to:
war in Iraq - failure to govern Iraq once occupied - lying to parliament - having a cat-hating crazy wife - two awful no good children....bit like Obama really

[ichkeria]

The "illegal" Iraq war nowt to do with it: it was, after all, supported by the Tories and look where they are now :-)
The hit for that was taken by T Blair, but he'd have long departed the scene anyway.
Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems opposed the wretched war at the time and look where they are now.
Especially poor old Charles

[jim360]

I find Labour's position on Tony Blair bizarre. He won three elections in a row, after all. There are various aspects of practice at the time (all that focus on spin, the Brown v. Blair tribalism) that should be abandoned but he took Labour into a position where they could win elections. Seems to me that Labour should try and find out why that was and replicate it as far as possible. Instead they are swinging hard left and while that might make some people feel good about themselves, it won't wash with the country as a whole.

[Zacs-Master]

'he took Labour into a position where they could win elections'

All he did was create slightly tweaked conservative policies which appealed to the more left wing middle class voters. The last election result demonstrates that the majority of the British public would rather have the genuine article.

[ichkeria]

As a Labour supporter I actually do understand the anti-Blair feelings in the party, although I regret them. (Having said that the Iraq War is no longer relevant to current elections, that is a major factor in the anti-Blairism, but then that is not confined to Labour) He rode roughshod over the party membership and organisation. Probably necessarily, but you can't blame people for being cross nonetheless. But anti-Blairism should not be confused with a desire to take the party leftward. Some do, some don't Just as in the Tory party some (quite a lot actually, AND they're in Parliament, unlike a lot of the left wing labourites) want to take their party rightward.

[ToraToraTora]

Not at all, Blair made them electable once. Traditional Labour did not win an election in 1997, they copied the Tories and won. Now they have reverted back to socialism and cannot possibly win. They just don't get it, socialism cannot possibly work, they won't accept it, the reds are out from under the bed trying to push their flawed ideology. Thankfully the general public know where it leads.

[ichkeria]

Interestingly, it's only tories and Corbynites who talk about "socialism" these days :-)
What Labour needs is the Corbynite appeal but a modern outlook. The modernists currently look bland. But there is an open goal waiting there: the Tories have ignored the youth in Britain. If they can be moved to actually vote then the political out look will be somewhat different.
The electoral profile is of GB starting to look more and more like that of the latter Soviet Union/early Russia: aging, backward looking and voting for the party that protects their pensions :-)