Skip to main content

The Telegraph:

Tony Blair promised yesterday that he would stand down as Prime Minister "in the next few weeks".

The announcement was a late attempt to avert a large protest vote against Labour in tomorrow's mid-term elections.

He is planning to announce next Wednesday or Thursday that he is resigning as Labour leader. The decision should see Gordon Brown succeed him in Downing Street by July 2.

Bush's war, and Bush himself, will define Blair's legacy:

As the Prime Minister prepares to announce his resignation next week, the survey by CommunicateResearch reveals that 69 per cent of the British public believe he will be remembered most for the Iraq war. Remarkably, his next highest "legacy rating" - just 9 per cent - is for his relationship with the American President, George Bush.

Four years after the US-led invasion, Iraq still dwarfs all other issues. Only 6 per cent of voters believe Mr Blair will be remembered most for the Northern Ireland peace process, which he will hail as an important part of his legacy when self-government is restored in the province a week today. - Belfast Telegraph

Unlike Bush, though, Blair retains the respect of a majority of his constituents:

But there is some positive news for Mr Blair. Despite public hostility over Iraq, 61 per cent of people believe that he has been a good Prime Minister overall, with only 36 per cent thinking he has been a bad one.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:45 PM PDT.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tony Blair is a lot like... (22+ / 0-)

    Benedict Arnold.

    If Benedict had died at Saratoga (and he almost did) he'd be a hero.

    If Blair had retired in 2001, he'd be a hero.

    Instead Blair is going to cause significant damage to his party.

    And speaking of hanging on too long, wasn't it almost a full year ago he announced his intention to resign?

    Good riddance poodle, don't let the door hit you.

    •  Announcing an intention to resign (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck, sabishi, TDE

      a premiership isn't the same as saying "Well, here I go."  There's no surprise that Blair has stayed this long.

       Those of us who were against the war from the start have lots to hold against Blair, there's more to judge Tony Blair for than the Iraq mess.  You get the feeling some folks will be surprised to learn that Blair actually did some things as Prime Minister which weren't connected to US foreign policy.

       This guy showed that there was alternative to the Conservative Party monopolizing power in the UK. Blair pushed devolution and the Northern Irish peace plan. Lots of anti-war Americans were complaining a few years ago that his party had won the general election again, but the alternative to a Labour government would have a government much, much cosier with and obedient to Bush.

       Iraq'll be a stain on his record and nobody should forgive him for it, but for those inside the UK, there was a lot more to the Blair years than Iraq.

      •  Yeah, the abandonment of Labour. (6+ / 0-)

        He and his cohort did to Labour what the DLC did to the Democrats.

        -5.88, -7.49 Edwards in '08

        by cjallen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:22:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Much Like Clinton... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, ek hornbeck, Eikyu Saha

          ....a number of his signature efforts didn't bear fruit.

          He came in promising House of Lords reform.  The first round of this proved disappointing. The second round appears to be going nowhere.

          New Labour was supposed to better integrate the UK into Europe.  But the UK is no closer to accepting the Euro, and is just as skeptical of Brussels as it was when Blair took office.

          Scottish devolution was carefully calibrated to work against Scottish Nationalist control of Scotland, as the SNP might try to lead Scotland out of the UK.  Now Scotland is facing elections (this week I think) that might sweep the SNP to power. This will also make Brown's PMship more difficult, as Brown is a Scot representing a Scottish constituency.  Since devolution, many in England have questioned whether Scots MPs should even vote on matters that concern only England (e.g. education).  Now a Scot will be controlling such policies.  

          For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

          by GreenSooner on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:18:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And thats how he got elected... (4+ / 0-)

          three times.

          He brought Labour back from the brink of Socialist obscurity. Their sucess has caused the British conservatives to fully embrace the NHS, go green and acept equal rights for homosexuals, just so they stand a chance of being competitive.

          But Blair was very wrong on Bush and Iraq and should have resigned a year ago.

          The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

          by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:41:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh yeah, nothing wrong with the neoliberal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ek hornbeck


            -5.88, -7.49 Edwards in '08

            by cjallen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:20:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Free health care for all... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck

              without the prospect of a right wing government coming along and privatising it.

              Snark all you like. Its an achievement for the progressive cause.

              The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

              by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:26:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No longer free education. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ek hornbeck

                -5.88, -7.49 Edwards in '08

                by cjallen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:52:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It may not be free... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ek hornbeck

                  but its working better than ever.

                  New figures show more people have applied to go to university than ever before. In England, 19,000 more people applied than by this point last year – an increase of 7.1 percent.

                  "These highest ever figures show that tuition fees are not putting students off applying to University as many predicted.  The critics of the new system are being proved emphatically wrong"

                  Thats just one year on year comparison. A university education is available to anyone in Britain. I'll take more university graduates with debt (only to be paid back once a certain income level is reached) over many fewer graduates with grants. The loans are not in any way exclusive.

                  The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

                  by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nice, using Labour's own promotion (0+ / 0-)

                    of their policy to support their policy.  I'll bet that's objective.

                    -5.88, -7.49 Edwards in '08

                    by cjallen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If its inaccurate information... (0+ / 0-)

                      please be sure to point that out.

                      But maybe you are right, maybe it has been all bad news with nothing worthwhile achieved. From your comments one could assume you would have rather that Labour stayed true to their unelectable socialist policies and that the UK suffered a continuation of the ruinous Thatcherism that Blair defeated.

                      Or maybe three terms of a center left government has been a good thing...

                      The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

                      by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Not unlike Bush. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck

      If Bush let the winner of the 2000 election assume office, America wouldn't hate his guts. Ok, maybe it is a little different.

      "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." George W. Bush 12/7/06

      by kitebro on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:15:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what is it with these people? they face defeat, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck

      shame and loss of confidence and yet you need a divine intervention to get them out of office? wolfie, olmert, and fredo hang on for dear life. you know, it isn't much fun being where they are anymore. so what's the point? pride? naw, they have none. stupidity? in some cases, i would say at least lack of insight. beats me! i know blair had this fixation about being the longest acting prime minister, but i would say blair's actions are foolish in light of the danger to his party and the continued decline of any sort of progress in iraq. but it's all about blair and bushie. always has been!

  •  We should be so lucky (11+ / 0-)

    to have the Shrub resign.  Along with Cheney, of course.

    Those Brits get all the good stuff!

  •  England and Iraq (4+ / 0-)
    1. Will England now completely pull out of Iraq
    1. Does this tie back to Prince's plans to go to Iraq

    Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:43:30 PM PDT

    •  I don't think... (8+ / 0-)

      they can do it before Harry's deployment.  It's a matter of weeks.

      And what the heck does that boy think he's doing except endangering everyone around him?  It's McCain in the Market all over again.

      •  Somehow I doubt he asked to go to Iraq n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ek hornbeck, JML9999
        •  Actually, he did (5+ / 0-)

          He didn't want to leave his unit; and from that is where all the brouhaha is coming. If he didn't want to go, there would be no public controversy.

          - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google. - 11/7 changed everything.

          by Jon Meltzer on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:53:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the monarchy is in bad trouble (0+ / 0-)

            I'd like to see it go forever, but Charles is a joke, and if there isn't a popular successor in sight a Labour government could easily get rid of it forever at the next scandal...there's a lot of $ in it for Harry to make himself look like a war hero and a worthy successor.

            •  Harry is not in direct line of succession (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, World Patriot, TDE

              William would succeed Charles unless there was some kind of disaster or constitutional crisis. Harry is like his Uncle Andrew, the second son who went off to war. In Andrew's case he was playing decoy for Argentine cruise missiles in his helicopter.

            •  Its just not the case. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              World Patriot, Dave Kamper

              I can't begin to describe how fondly the monarchy is thought of by the vast majority of British people. They have their ups and downs, but the positives far outweigh the negatives, most Brits see this. It is such a huge part of the national heritage that unless the Queen tries to dissolve a parliament or order the Army not to fight in a war (or some other drastic exercise of power) they will stay.

              And they pay for themselves three times over.

              Its worth noting I'm not a monarchist, there is just lots of good common sense reasons to keep them as long as they don't meddle in the democratic process.

              The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

              by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:50:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's interesting (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                i believe you...i guess i have a skewed sample of British friends but being on the left that's not surprising...i'd prefer to see all noble titles everywhere on earth abolished myself, as they're an affront to the very idea of a shared humanity.

                Also, I suppose my OP could be wrong. It may be Harry's ideas about manhood or service or any of a number of things that make him want to do this.

                •  Harry... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  World Patriot

                  joined the Army, its his duty to go to Iraq if that's where his regiment is deployed. The royals have a good history in this regard.

                  However the Queen is visiting the US any day now, and it may make her meeting with Bush somewhat more awkward than it was already going to be. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that.

                  i guess i have a skewed sample of British friends but being on the left that's not surprising

                  Its very understandable, I'm on the left of things myself but I don't think we need to tear down the palaces for equality. That point of view has led to many well intended arguments :)

                  The Pendulum "All movements go too far" - Bertrand Russell

                  by TDE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:04:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Constitutional monarchy (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                World Patriot, TDE

                Speaking as a (small 'r') republican, there is but one solid reason to retain the monarchy, which is to ensure a constitutional head of state with no powers and a purely ceremonial role. Other than that I'd rather they took the route of many European royals and became low-key private citizens.

          •  In defense of royalty (0+ / 0-)

            Somehow I doubt he asked to go to Iraq

            Actually, he did . . .  He didn't want to leave his unit

            Very true.  I don't want to sound like some sort of unreconstructed Royalist (in Vermont we chased most of those up to Canada way back when) but it is a fact that the Royal Family has a very long tradition of sending it members into wars. 

            In the old days the King and others of his family were expected to be conspicuously present near the front lines and many died that way.  Somehow this tradition seems to have been lost in our version of democracy.

            I am sure that his grandmother is not pleased about this, but she and the rest of the Royals must understand that Harry needs to do this.

              When articles appeared in the British press saying that insurgents were distributing pictures like this in the areas where the small armored unit Harry is to command will operate.  And even claiming that insurgents had made offers of "dead or alive" rewards and threats that the Prince would be returned to his grandmother "without his ears," it looked like a good reason to yank him, but now the brass has said "no". Though they did promise to watch the situation with care.

            •  Grandmother not pleased? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fred in Vermont, snazzzybird

              I think this unlikely. I'm sure Nana is worried; who wouldn't be? But duty runs through her like a stick of Brighton rock and I'm sure she knows the score. Her husband Phil the Greek would be all for it. He's been to war and can't abide lily-liveredness.

              •  If only our royals were like that (0+ / 0-)

                But duty runs through her like a stick of Brighton rock and I'm sure she knows the score.

                Too bad we don't have someone that in our own royalty.  Suppose that Momma Bush were expecting that her granddaughters should go to Iraq.  That might have an interesting effect on Bush's decisions.

          •  Totally different (0+ / 0-)

            Wanting to stay with his unit doesn't eqaul wanting his unit to go to Iraq.

      •  It's his job (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        potty p, ek hornbeck, JML9999

        It's Harry's job to go where he's posted and fight. We'd think less of him if he didn't go. He signed up for a perilous career, as did the men around him.

    •  Some of England is Scotland, in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      UK really.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:03:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's Britain, not England (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fred in Vermont, berith, JML9999, TDE

      Though we'll allow you to use the proper title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      Britain will eventially pull out of Iraq, though not instantly. There will be a gradual withdrawal over the next year to two years. This may be accelerated depending on changes to US policy.

      •  Thanks and My apologies (0+ / 0-)

        I was tired and I wasn't sure spell check was working. I proceeded under the assumption that I was less likely to offend by using England then misspelling Britain.

        Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

        by JML9999 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:23:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I just don't get Britain on this (0+ / 0-)

        There will be a gradual withdrawal over the next year to two years. This may be accelerated depending on changes to US policy.

        I have to admit that I just don't understand why the British public has so much patience with this war.  All I can think of is that many see it as a relatively cheap way to keep their nation up there playing with the big boys.  But don't they see what most Americans do at this point about what a disaster this is?  How come there was not a back benchers' revolt in Labour to force  new elections?

        I mean finally Blair is going to make his graceful exit, but it all seems so slow and stately.  I just don't get it.

        •  The Good Old Cause (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fred in Vermont, TDE

          We do not rush to rid ourselves of leaders. The last time we did that we ended up with a theocratically-tinged dictatorship.

          •  pre-1776 thinking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            We do not rush to rid ourselves of leaders.

            That sounds like pre-1776 thinking.  ;- )

            •  More like post 1658 thinking... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fred in Vermont, TDE

              At least I like to think so.

              •  Thanks for the history lesson (0+ / 0-)

                More like post 1658 thinking...

                I have to admit that American education in history being what it is I had to resort to the Wikipedia to understand the reference to the death of Cromwell.

                In 1658 he [Cromewell] was struck by a sudden bout of malarial fever, followed directly by an attack of urinary/kidney symptoms. . . . He died at Whitehall on 3 September 1658, the anniversary of his great victories at Dunbar and Worcester.[62]

                He was succeeded as Lord Protector by his son Richard. Although Richard was not entirely without ability, he had no power base in either Parliament or the Army, and was forced to resign in the spring of 1659, bringing the Protectorate to an end. In the period immediately following his abdication the head of the army, George Monck, took power for less than a year, at which point Parliament restored Charles II as king.

                In 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution. Symbolically, this took place on January 30; the same date that Charles I had been executed. His body was hung in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Abbey until 1685.

                Wow.  I had never known that.  Just picture displaying the head of the one time head of state on a pole for two dozen years.   That must have made anyone who challenged the monarchy think twice in the following centuries.


  •  1 down, 1 to go. (4+ / 0-)

    -5.88, -7.49 Edwards in '08

    by cjallen on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:45:24 PM PDT

  •  wooooot! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ek hornbeck, Indy1776

    "That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming."-Glenn Beck 5/1/07

    by Krush on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:45:35 PM PDT

  •  Downing Street Memo (9+ / 0-)

    Hopefully he'll pull a Tenent, and confess to the truth of that meeting in 2011.

    I can't wait!

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:46:44 PM PDT

  •  Wow! (10+ / 0-)

    He resigning because he would otherwise single-handedly bring down his party?

    First, the flip comment: take notes, Bush.

    Serious comment: This is amazing news.  I hope some Kossaks across the pond chime in soon.

    "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

    by LithiumCola on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:47:28 PM PDT

    •  The Kossacks Across the Pond... (5+ / 0-)

      The Kossacks across the pond are still in-fighting about this morning's re-enactment of the Battle of Poitiers.

      No seriously, Google tricks aside, there seems to be a stronger influence of party members on their leader.

      It's almost like Bushes' base consists of neophyte sycophants hand-selected for their complaisance, and proclivity towards incompetence.  The fools that consist of Bushes' base - at least the religious and the warmongering - do not seem to know how to turn off the gushing love machine they built for Reagan!  They cannot veto him.

      LOL, I just noticed, I, too, gave a flip then a serious comment.

      •  lol, I made a similar comment (0+ / 0-)

        as in the battle of Agincourt revisited with arrows flying!

        The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it. -Bertolt Brecht

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:10:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Presidential system vs. Parlementry one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, Bluesee

        there seems to be a stronger influence of party members on their leader.

        Well of course.  That is one of the big difference between a parliamentary system and our system of direct presidential election with term limits.  There is nothing to prevent Bush from pushing on to justify his "legacy" notwithstanding any negative effects on his party.

    •  Bush would love (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to have this approval rating. In his dreams only..LOL!

      But there is some positive news for Mr Blair. Despite public hostility over Iraq, 61 per cent of people believe that he has been a good Prime Minister overall, with only 36 per cent thinking he has been a bad one.

      Dream on Bushie, ain't happenin for you.

      In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.- H. L. Mencken

      by wishingwell on Wed May 02, 2007 at 01:02:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sad... (11+ / 0-)

    Blair had so much promise... and he put his neck out on the line to side with us when things went bad...

    But, he got roped into Bush' lies, and now he, his party, and all the UK will pay a huge price for his mistake.



  •  Scottland (8+ / 0-)

    The 2007 Scottish Parliament Election is on Thursday.

    Opinion polls suggest that Labour will lose its majority within the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has promised to put a referendum for Independence & the devolution of the United Kingdom before the people of Scottland, is currently leading in by a clear margin in most opinion polls.

    Whether they will win enough seats to get a majority or have to form a coalition is still an open question.

    •  Would They Get Control of Their Regiments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Black Watch, Royal Scots etc. who are/have-been in Iraq?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:05:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Independent Scotland = another progressive nation (6+ / 0-)

      another voice for progressive attitudes and policies that support people over corporations.

      Years ago I lived in Glasgow for a year. One of the strongest convictions I returned to America with was that Scotland should be a free and independent nation.

      The world needs to hear the voice of an independent Scotland.

      Freedom for Scotland.

      by denniswine on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:45:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Couldn't agree with you more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Independent and proudly so.  It is about time.

      •  Ain't gonna happen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        at least any time soon.  If the SNP are elected to government (either in coalition or on their lonesome) they have promised a referendum on independence.  Polls are running for the SNP but against independence (go figure, the Scots are a quixotic bunch).

        I agree with what you say about the progressive attitude of Scotland though.  I've lived here for 6 years and love the socially aware attitude of most Scots.  It's pretty much a conservative free zone.

        -7.75 -6.46 grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. ~ Carl Sagan

        by andrewinscotland on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:01:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The West Lothian Question (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I believe many Scots follow the money and know that full independance would impoverish the country. They are, for now, content to suck at the English teat.

          •  The Adam Smith Institute (0+ / 0-)

            no less, recently published a study which suggested that Scotland would race away from England after independence.

            It's England that would suffer, because the removal of the left-leaning Scottish and Welsh MPs from Parliament would guarantee a permanent Tory majority.  

            "Be kind" - is that a religion?

            by ThatBritGuy on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:56:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did you actually read the Adam Smith report? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If you did you'd realize that it was based on Thatcherite magical thinking, a Scotland in which tax cuts and spending cuts would fuel huge growth. It's premised on a return to '80s economics, sold by free-market conservatives.

          •  Excuse me (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andrewinscotland, berith

            I'm not sure if you realize just how offensively that comes across. Do you think because this is an American site that this bigoted sounding point will sink in as fact, unchallenged?  Looking down at your later, more thoughtful, posts it appears as though you understand that it’s never as easy as black and white, the situation is always more complex, so why do you apply a condescending blanket assumption to Scotland?

            From my experience I would say any generalisation of Scottish sentiment would constitute a mixture of apathy, anti-Englishness, and resentment that somehow England were shortchanging us!  Certainly not the other way round.

            I’m no economist and can’t comment on the intricacies of the UK economy and each countries input, but your statement implies that any benefit is one way.  I would hope that regardless of money, you would believe that the cultural, technological and educational contribution of Scotland (and Wales and NI) were of value.

            The West Lothian question is a whole other argument besides my point and worthy of discussion.

            PS – Ironic my first post after many years of lurking is on a non-American topic, when 99% of what I read is on American politics!  Hello, Daily Kos!

            •  The State of the Union (0+ / 0-)

              I’m no economist and can’t comment on the intricacies of the UK economy and each countries input, but your statement implies that any benefit is one way.

              It implied no such thing. It simply recognized that Scotland benefits more from the exchange than England. If you wish to dispute this, I'm happy to hear your evidence.

              •  I guess you are aware then (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Your earlier phrasing does not communicate this new, more nuanced position that "Scotland benefits more" than England.

                Saying Scotland sucks at the English teat is an emotive and derogatory sounding statement.  Your use of language is mainly what I am commenting on, although as I’ve said I feel that even if Scotland were somehow demanding disproportionate cash from the UK economy, we contribute to the Union in many ways.  Although probably not through our football ;)

                I’m not looking to dispute this (somewhat off-topic tangent) as you are, I was hoping that I could make you aware of how the way you spoke was offensive and consider another point of view.


                •  The Flowers of the Forest (0+ / 0-)

                  Dule and wae for the order sent our lads to the Border;
                  The English, for ance, by guile wan the day:
                  The Flowers of the Forest, that foucht aye the foremost,
                  The prime o' our land are cauld in the clay.

                  We'll hae nae mair lilting, at the yowe-milking,
                  Women and bairns are dowie and wae.
                  Sighing and moaning, on ilka green loaning,
                  The Flowers of the forest are all wede away.

          •  As part of the EU, Scotland will be fine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            They will have access to capital and markets and an educated English-speaking labor force, everything they need to have a competitive economy. The only question I would have for our European cousins would be whether EU politics would get in the way of admitting Scotland as an EU member.

            "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison

            by berith on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:19:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well, It's Nice To Know That Cognitive Dissonance (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    azale, LordMike, Bluesee, Spathiphyllum, TomP

    Is Alive And Well In Britain

    Most remembered for the Iraq War and being Bush's poodle, but 61 percent think he's been a good prime minister overall?  Well, I guess we know where America got it's taste for cognitive dissonance from.

    Or maybe not.  Maybe it's our taste for low expectations in our leadership?

    Or both?

  •  Poodle Legacy (4+ / 0-)

    I always thought Blair to be a good, honest man; intelligent and capable.

    Bush was an albatrossaround his neck.  How apropos is that, hehe.

    History shall put Blair in the same box as Powell.  Poor guys.

  •  Blair was great, then lost his mind (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanspray, wishingwell, fatdave, GoldnI

    I deeply admired Tony for leading his country to a rejection of the nightmare that was Thatherism.

    Then he apparently went crazy, and married himself to Bush. The Labour party wantonly embracing imperialism? I can't believe it happened, but it did.

    Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S. Truman

    by jgoodfri on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:58:39 PM PDT

  •  Blair could have been a great PM (10+ / 0-)

    The problem is that BushCo's values are deeply anti-American at heart and run counter to all that is best in our country and it's long relationship with England. Blair hitched his tenure in office to the wrong ship, and sank along with it.

    The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:00:49 AM PDT

    •  The Big Money's In Aristocracy-- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, madgranny

      During the runup to Diana's funeral we saw the British live 3-4 days as psychological republic with no such conceptual thing as a Queen.

      I wonder some nights if Britain will lose the monarchy before America finally creates one.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:07:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've been waiting for this day (5+ / 0-)

    IIRC, last summer when he made the announcement he said he was leaving in May.  Today I woke up thinking, "It's May fool!  Why you still around?"  It would be a truly happy day if the idiots partying in the WH would do the same.

    I don't have to fake anything I feel, because we both know every word is real. - HBMS

    by fabooj on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:06:00 AM PDT

  •  I would have loved to be (7+ / 0-)

    a fly on the wall for the private conversations that took place between Bush and Blair.

    •  Bush and Blair pray together (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In a revealing interview with Jeremy Paxman, Blair was cajoled into reluctantly admitting that he prays with Bush. That's not something you divulge lightly in Britain. We prefer our pols to be both moderate and subdued about their faith. God-botherers, of which Tony is clearly one, are viewed with deep suspicion in this country.

      I have no doubt he will take the Mass the moment he is out of office. His Catholic leanings were another thing he wisely kept silent on while in power.

  •  Headlined as: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plutonium Page

    Lapdog Announces He'll Go AWOL!

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:08:44 AM PDT

  •  Damn... Brit showoffs... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, munky, Spathiphyllum, begone, TomP

    Nice of him to wait until "Mission Accomplished Day" was over...

    George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

    by ThatSinger on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:24:42 AM PDT

  •  London Calling (8+ / 0-)

    The view from the ground here in Britain is complex. Scratch any Briton and you will discover a mixture of responses to Blair. For all of his ills he has not been as divisive a figure as, say, Thatcher was. Much as he has let me down as an elector, I have no plans to piss on his grave, whereas I know I shall be in a long queue to water Maggie's final resting place.

    Yes, Blair has acted like Bush's poodle over Iraq, but he has clearly been at odds with much of his party. Loyalties, in this country, still cleave to the party, not cults of personality.

    Yes, Blair is perceived as a master of spin and surface, but it is hard to deny that he is sincere, a man with a strong moral compass. Some of that personable likeability lingers.

    Yes, Blair moved his party to the centre, to become the party of governance and business. If you squint hard enough, New Labour has morphed into Tory Party II: This Time it's Personal!, complete with Tory sleaze. However, domestically he has poured money into the health service, re-nationalised Railtrack, dismantled the Lords and initiated popular law and order changes, such as the introduction of anti-social behaviour laws. The failures in many of areas of domestic policy are Brown's not Blair's, the product of Brownite creative accountancy and the desire to keep certain figures off the public spending. (I shall save my fears about a Brown Prime Ministership for another post or diary, but I shall leave you pondering three letters: P.F.I.)

    So all in all I'm unsurprised if 60% of the polity decide Blair isn't so bad. The Blair era hasn't been so harsh on most of the country. It has been stable and relatively prosperous. Some social services are better than they were under the Tories. And Iraq, much as it is resented, is a distant concern almost on another side of the world.

    I think it will take a while to form a view on Tony's legacy. When the bill for P.F.I. comes home to roost, his part in promoting it will be closely examined. The handing out of key public services to management consultants will also be criticized.  But I suspect Blair will not be judged too harshly on anything except, possibly, Iraq. And by then we will have long left that debacle behind us.

    •  Blair and Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timbuk the Second

      I'd like to add that I don't believe Iraq hurts Blair too badly. The war has not been the divisive, toxic issue in Britain that it appears to have been in the US. Opposition crosses party lines. As the consensus is largely against the war, it is easy to compartmentalize that as one (albeit large) strike against the man to be balanced out by the positives.

    •  Fine post (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timbuk the Second

      Let me just add that I too had high hopes when New Labour rode the bitch outta town  and feel slightly let down...mostly of course because of Iraq...Britain's minor involvement (relatively speaking) was and still is, a strategical blunder and am still at a loss why an intelligent man as Blair let himself, and his country be used for a war the Brits themselves felt proof was lacking (see the Downing Street notes).  Here's hoping those flies on the wall had their notepads with them...really wanna know how Tony was snookered like that.  

      The war would have gone ahead also without his support but Blair gave it much more legitimacy especially going in...but it brought Britain only scorn, alienated itself even more from its friends on the European mainland and invited the London busbombings.
      Totally innocent folks paid there for the mistake of Mr Tony Blair.

      •  Tony's Iraq motives (7+ / 0-)

        Well, New Labour rode John Major out of town. An important distinction. Major was the diseased appendix of Thatcherism rather than the woman herself. But let's not forget that the Labour of 1992 was unelectable. John Smith turned that around but died before he could fight an election.

        After Smith, Blair was elected to the leadership and began a sea change. Sadly, that change has seen the death of pluralism in Britain. Like Clinton, Tony triangulated. The width of a cigarette paper now separates Tory and Labour policy today.

        Blair's motives for the Iraq invasion aren't entirely clear, but I believe (and I could be wrong) that he was motivated by the desire to topple a savage dictator, no more, no less. This has, after all, been the dream of many vaguely lefty radicals. How many of us, had we the opportunity and power, have gleefully toppled a Pinochet or a Mugabe or a Mobutu Sese Seko? I reckon Tony sincerely believed this was a moral imperative.

        I suspect he also believed he could moderate American excess, until he found he could not and that he had become trapped into partnership with Bush. But I'm speculating. We shall parse his memoirs carefully for clues when they appear.

        •  That's interesting, the dream motive (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cream Puff

          I guess I could see that, like the Euston Manifesto perspective. Still, takes a big blind spot to throw in with Bush on that basis.

          hazardous gymnastics...

          by hhex65 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:58:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Blair, a victim of projection (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            berith, SkiBumLee, Cream Puff

            There's a tendency of statesmen to believe that other world leaders are rational actors, or at least that democratic checks and balances restrain them from excessive or unhinged behaviour. In this regard Blair may have been the victim of projection. He may not have comprehended how inept or how difficult to control BushCo would turn out to be.

            Bush is a unique animal. I mean, even for the best of us, the magnitude of his failures still beggars belief!

          •  The seduction of power (0+ / 0-)

            It's hard not to be seduced by idea that the judicious use of force, exercised as an intervention endorsed by the international community, can be a powerful force for good. If I could pick up a 'phone today and give the order to topple Mugabe, or the Burmese junta, I'd be sorely tempted to use that power. I might find ways to turn a blind eye to the shortcuts, ethical compromises and warnings about the consequences. It would take a better man than me to resist.

            In part, this is the dream that seduced the neo-cons, though their plans were far more grandiose than picking off dictators. They wanted to reshape the world. But I can see how it might tempt a man like Blair, particularly someone who may have felt he was guided by a higher power.

            •  Judicious use, international community (0+ / 0-)

              Although I'd just as easily believe that Blair figured Iraq was a runaway train that he could either get aboard or be run over by. I'm reminded of that scene in The Queen where Blair lashes out at Alastair Campbell for sarcastically needling the royal family once too often. Like there's a side of him that believed all those in power have come to that position by divine agency. That suspicion probably lurks in all of us.

              hazardous gymnastics...

              by hhex65 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:12:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The divine right of Kings (0+ / 0-)

                Like there's a side of him that believed all those in power have come to that position by divine agency.

                That rings true, when I think of Blair. At the risk of appearing oxymoronic he was, before his invention of a 'third way', a quite conservative socialist.

    •  New faces (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The world is like a game of Scrabble when the tiles all suck so bad you throw them back and start fresh. Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, maybe Segelene Royal, maybe Edwards or Obama, maybe (big maybe) Putin leaves willingly - the world stage is going to have new leaders in short order. Olmert is probably history soon as well.

    •  The damage done by the poodle (0+ / 0-)

      Blair did a lot of damage by supporting Bush's war. Blair's support gave Bush's war a credibility in the eyes of some in the US that it would not otherwise have had. It was a vital piece in the propaganda puzzle, for without Blair the news networks could never have spoken of the `coalition'. Blair being Labour helped to soften the extremism of the proposed belligerence by making it appear non-ideological.

      I have no idea why Blair supported this stupid war, although I imagine at the bottom the motivations are like those in the US - contracts to cronies, giving a hand to starving defence contractors, and the like - but his support should not be pardoned.

      •  Blair's Motives (0+ / 0-)

        I give my views on Blair's motivations above. Unlike Thatcher, who was crony culture personified, I believe Blair's motives, in this one instance at least, to be more high-minded. But yes, he made an unforgiveable error.

  •  Blair should have listened to Lawrence of Arabia (4+ / 0-)

    "The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia (Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster." -- Lt. Col. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in his article published in the Sunday Times (London), Aug. 22, 1920

    "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." - Abe Lincoln

    by munky on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:56:56 AM PDT

  •  king george has touched (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, FarEasterner

    Blair, but unlike the fabled King Midas Touch he turned Blair not unto gold, but unto shit.  Like all things that george touches, it turns to shit.  I fell sorry for Tony, and wonder was he duped, or did he think really that the spolied failed son of a rich man who has failed at every single thing he has done in his life was going to finally get something right?

    By resigning he shows a certain class that this country will yern for many years to come.

    God, there are days I could just weep for what this great country has lost.

    •  Shakespeare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      should come back from the dead to do a play about Tony Blair. One of the most articulate and seemingly most intelligent world leaders of the last 50 years whose legacy is an unmitigated disaster for the world and himself. He was once my idol in politics (except for the lapse into piousness at times) and now I see him as the very essence of human tragedy bordering on pathetic.

      We have only just begun and none too soon.

      by global citizen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:15:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  good (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    riddance. hope brown can pick up the pieces before the next election.

  •  "poured money into the health service" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UK eye

    The problem is, he kept pouring the same money in. He would say that he was increasing the budget by 300 million, for instance. Then, having not actually done anything for a year, he would say the same thing again, effectively promising to deliver without actually doing so. In that respect, he much resembles the neocons, to whom I suspect he has married his ideology.

  •  Not a surprise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk the Second

    This has been in the news for awhile.

    The world is watching, and they are waiting for us. And they are waiting to see what we're made of." John Edwards

    by benny05 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 01:17:22 AM PDT

  •  blair was still a great guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk the Second

    i still feel that was a very good prime minister overall. it's a shame he had to take his country to war in iraq.

  •  Blair is a self deluded fool (0+ / 0-)

    with a god complex.  If he believes it's the right thing to do then it's the right thing to do because he couldn't possibly have bad intentions.  No doubting his sincerity though, just his sanity.

    -7.75 -6.46 grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. ~ Carl Sagan

    by andrewinscotland on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:07:47 AM PDT

    •  No, he is not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliMorf, TDE

      Blair is not insane, nor is he a fool. However, he can make grave errors of judgement, and this is what he did. He has led this country down an unfortunate path, led by a strong moral compass and a willingness to overlook illegal shortcuts that get him to his goal.

      •  One of these things is not like the other: (0+ / 0-)

        led by a strong moral compass and a willingness to overlook illegal shortcuts

        That said, my husband and I like to watch Blair on television when he meets with Parliment.  Not necessarily because we agree with him, or even knew anything about the issues they are discussing, but because it is so refreshing to watch a leader intelligently debate in such a coherent fashion.  As opposed to our own dim witted president.  ugh.

        ...each day the dread of learning who has fallen, who will not return from this terrible war.

        by althea in il on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:37:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A strong moral compass? (0+ / 0-)

        Not sure about that. He once declared:

        Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing. If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

        Citing history as a vindicating force is one of the usual traps intellectuals fall into. I do not believe history would "forgive" anything. God may, if Blair would have a chance to see Him.

  •  Peter Morgan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is writing a play about Bush and Blair, I heard. Morgan wrote The Queen, The Deal, The Last King of Scotland, and Frost/Nixon. When that thing comes out I hope it'll help me understand why Blair aligned with Bush-Moronism so intensely. I really do not understand it.

    hazardous gymnastics...

    by hhex65 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:12:33 AM PDT

  •  I crack me up. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Made this in photoshop.

    Too big to embed.

    He who lives in the present, has no knowledge of the past nor vision for the future.

    by DeanDemocrat on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:28:07 AM PDT

    •  Doh! Just realized (0+ / 0-)

      I forgot the E in requested. GRRR never sleep-photoshop people. They should make a "The More you Know" public service announcement about that.

      He who lives in the present, has no knowledge of the past nor vision for the future.

      by DeanDemocrat on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:29:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think history will judge Blair harshly... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanspray, jfdunphy, FarEasterner

    ...In addition to Iraq (no need to expand here), he has, in my opinion, squandered the future of England by encouraging short-termist economic policies (cash in now, fuck the future) instead of investing at a time when North Sea oil and gas are running out.  

    Also, Blair has been the most ardent mole of the American neocons in Europe and has systematically sabotaged European power; the failure of the ratification of the constitution is (again in my opinion) due in great part to changes Blair demanded -- and got.

    Blair, even more so than Thatcher, has tied the UK to the sinking ship of the US, instead of displaying  forward-thinking vision.

    Again, these are only my views, but I think, 10 or 20 years from now, historians will be very critical of Blair, even more so because he showed so much promise.


    by Lupin on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:37:15 AM PDT

  •  Another British guy out of a job... (0+ / 0-) that's big fucking news, all of the sudden.

    (Sorry, but people here told me I had to participate in comment threads more or I'd be suspect.)

    Bill Prendergast also posts his stupid satire at the Stillwater Tribune

    by Bill Prendergast on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:01:16 AM PDT

  •  Trying very hard to be positive (0+ / 0-)

    Let's all give thanks for the good old U.S.A., where we have not one, not two, but three politicians ready to step in after our lieing, warmongering, torturing, criminally incompetent "leader" leaves. While the U.K. really has no one.

  •  Such a tragedy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stodghie, Cream Puff

    I had always thought of Blair as a really phenomenal leader, and it was my respect for him (and Powell at the time) that led me to grudgingly support the invasion of Iraq - yep, I was one of those.  Unfortunately, he really was too much of Bush's lapdog over these past years for that respect to hold much anymore.  Now I see him as more missed potential than anything else.  Like I said, a tragedy.

    If you don't understand someone, consider that the problem may not lie with that person, but rather with your own understanding.

    by Aethern on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:56:14 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the ROYAL screwing George (0+ / 0-)

    You could have at least used some lube...

    From the Book of Horrible Questions , Would you push a red button for $10 million but 100 random people would die of natural causes, Survey said 55% would ?

    by FAUX GOP DEATH TV on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:12:51 AM PDT

  •  Now he can take his rightful position (0+ / 0-)

    as a member of the Carlisle Group.

    The firing of 8 US attorneys is about laying the groundwork for stealing the 2008 election.

    by lecsmith on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:26:49 AM PDT

  •  Blair's real legacy (3+ / 0-)

    has been to turn UK government into Theocracy Lite and a slime-filled appendix to the War on Terra.

    Far too few people have noticed that Blair has developed prominent Christian (actually Catholic) sympathies in office, and surrounded himself with like-minded closet theocrats.

    For example education minister Ruth Kelly is a member of Opus Dei, a notable extremist Catholic organisation.

    Blair's wife, also a Catholic, has reportedly put pressure on him. Home Secretary John Reid, notorious for his pit-bull policies against terror and against the badly behaved poor - policies which make a lot of noise, but are often embarrassingly clumsy and counterproductive - is also a Catholic.

    Rupert Murdoch has apparently offered Tony a seat of the board of News Corp. And while Murdoch isn't officially a Catholic, he has expressed an interested in converting at some point in the future.

    Does this matter? Yes, it does. Aside from the poodling buy-in to the Iraq nonsense, Blair has also been responsible for two quiet initiatives which have sown the seeds of ruin in the UK.

    The first allows the creation of faith schools, which are allowed to set their own curriculum. This means if teachers want to teach creationism instead of evolution, they can do this with minimal government oversight.

    The second is the beginnings of deregulation of religious broadcasting, which may bring US-style TV evangelism to UK viewers. A recent consultation suggested that religious broadcasting would be allowed to solicit for donations.

    The North of England is already seeing smaller versions of mega-churches appearing, with the traditional noxious brew of 'family values' and closet racism - which is particularly dangerous when these areas also have the UK's largest Muslim populations.

    So it's more than just Iraq. The Christianist infiltration of the Labour party hasn't shown its full effects yet, but unless the next government reverses the changes, the UK has now been set up to allow a bible-bothering Christofascist tendency to take root.

    "Be kind" - is that a religion?

    by ThatBritGuy on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:08:43 AM PDT

    •  it reads like a grocery list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      • lies about the incomplete report (illegal) that led to the invasion
      • privatisation of social schemes
      • doomed PFI scams, er, schemes
      • a decaying NHS bloated with overpaid consultants hellbent on meeting usless targets
      • run-away home prices and interest rates
      • outlawing the right to protest in front of parliament and/or without a police permit
      • knee-jerk, empty sound bites to quell the masses
      • a massive PR department unprecedented in size at no. 10
      • lies about tackling C02 emissions which have increased dramatically since 1997
      • selling out every corner of the nation to the highest bidder
      • allowing megacorporations to build and hire here but hold their bank accounts offshore

      oh i could go on and on.

      good bloody riddance and none to soon. thatcher in a sharp suit. third way my invisible left bollock.

      vini... vidi... vaya con dios! see you in 2008.

      by UK eye on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:44:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thatcher in a sharp suit... (0+ / 0-)

        I fear that Brown will not prove much of an improvement. Many of the worst excesses of the Blair government itemized in your shopping list were overseen by the Right Honourable Member for Dunfermline East. He has been, too often, the substance to Blair's spin. I recommend Private Eye's series on PFI, as these make for grim reading.

        •  yep, brown sucks (pardon my outburst) (0+ / 0-)

          i knew someone would remind me it's gordo for most of what i cite... he's a numbers man and a control freak in all the wrong ways, obsessed with the bottom line. guess i can't help but see them as a two-headed beast. personally i want a labour run off but he won't be in office for long anyway. the punters are lining up for a neo-tory PM i fear.

          i adore private eye, and follow their PFI tales closely, as well as brussels sprouts, HP sauce, down on the farm.... laugh til it hurts, as they say. hislop (and co) is (are) brilliant.

          vini... vidi... vaya con dios! see you in 2008.

          by UK eye on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:07:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Good leaders (0+ / 0-)

    But there is some positive news for Mr Blair. Despite public hostility over Iraq, 61 per cent of people believe that he has been a good Prime Minister overall, with only 36 per cent thinking he has been a bad one.

    See, good leaders QUIT when it's obvious the people have had enough of them.

    On a different, lighter note... don't you love the way those Irish speak?

    when self-government is restored in the province a week today. (emphasis mine)

    So efficient, yet hauntingly lyrical.



    McCain caused 9/11

  •  With Prince Harry going to Iraq... (0+ / 0-)

    Blair probably figured now was a good time to get out of Dodge. I'm sure he doesn't want to be around if the Prince gets his ass blown up in Mr. Bush's war.

  •  Oh noooooo...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Bush is going to lose his poodle!  I hope his replacement will be anti-Bush, I would love to see that, have a new PM telling Bush to shove it.  Yeeeaaa!

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:43:29 AM PDT

  •  Browne Out at BP (0+ / 0-)

    John Browne, chief executive of British energy giant BP, unexpectedly resigned on Tuesday after a newspaper group won a legal battle to publish details of his relationship with another man.

    He was scheduled to retire in July. Very tight with Blair.  

  •  Ah, they finally made room at Carlyle for him. (0+ / 0-)


    Many men pleasure the president. Yet he has two wives.

    by voltayre on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:00:27 AM PDT

  •  Go away, foul Poodle! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Tony Blair failed the United Kingdom and failed the United States by supporting terrible policies merely because Bush was the American President.

    Blair truly believed that he and Bush could establish the type of relationship that Reagan & Thatcher enjoyed.

    Problem is, Bush based polices on how best to re-elect Republicans in 2002, not to cement and strenghten any alliances.  "Old Europe" afterall is scorned, not valued, by neo-conservatives.

    Away foul poodle, we shall miss you, NOT!

    "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." --Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

    by walja on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM PDT

  •  What I want to know is... (0+ / 0-) with Brown deal with Bush?

  •  And the nearly 1 million Iraqis killed as a resul (0+ / 0-)

    t of his policy regret that they had no representation as Tony perpertrated war crimes against them and their kids ....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site