New Tory Leader

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

I think whoever gets in will be another IDS, neither of them have the ability to get us out of the mess were in, the Tory MP's will panic and they'll re-instate Johnson as party leader to fight the next election.

 

[horsefly 4,315]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not trying to distract attention away from Johnson. But Johnson has resigned, and his own party brought it about, albeit reluctantly,  whereas the Labour Party establishment has always refused to condemn Blair, especially when it mattered while he was still in office. There's a legitimate comparison to be drawn pointing out the failure of Labour to hold itself to any standards while it was in power, reluctantly or otherwise. 

I fully supported the Iraq War, based on what we were told at the time. Unlike Brexit, there was no other side to fact check and point out inaccuracies in the argument; we were dependent on government being trustworthy and Blair abused that trust in the worst way possible by not just lying, but recruiting the civil service into producing evidence that was misleading. 

Blair had the full facts, and he chose to enable the US invasion and finessed those facts to make the case appear stronger than it was. Had he presented the intelligence as it was presented to him, there's every reason to believe that we wouldn't have followed the US into Iraq. 

Don't forget we were the only supporters of the US operation. Had we not supported the US, there's every reason to believe that the US might have stopped short of a completely unilateral invasion and international law wouldn't have been so brutally undermined. 

In conclusion, I'm not interested in which was 'worse'. I'm interested in the fact Blair never resigned and never lost the support of his party, but that's all water under the bridge for the people who apparently still consider Johnson 'worse' even after he has resigned!

 

The Iraq war was a bit more nuanced than you're suggesting, although I certainly agree there was considerable manipulation of evidence to support the case. Other nations did support the invasion (e.g. Bulgaria, Spain), and the case for war was made in accordance with several UN resolutions. International law specialists still argue whether those resolutions justified the war. That Saddam had previously stockpiled chemical weapons was not in doubt; he had used them against Iran and against his own people, killing thousands. It was a bizarre move by Saddam not to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors more clearly to prove the case against the US view that he still had such weapons.

I think there are several big differences between Blair and Johnson that show why the latter is far more egregious. Blair was guilty of looking for evidence and exaggerating its importance in order to justify the Iraq invasion, in order to remove an evil human rights abusing dictator. Perhaps his previous much lauded interventions in the Sierra Leone and Yugoslav civil wars went to his head somewhat. I fail to see any evidence that he personally gained from the Iraq war. Blair's reign as PM saw many improvements in a whole range of areas crucial to the lives of ordinary people, including the economy, education, and health care. He came into politics with a genuine motivation to improve the lot of ordinary people, and achieved that in no small measure. He may have developed something of a Messiah complex in thinking he could solve the world's problems, but he was very different in his motivations from those of Johnson. I suspect that was precisely why the Iraq war issues didn't bring him down.

Johnson has only ever had his own self-interests as his primary purpose, and has been willing to lie directly in parliament and elsewhere to get what he wants. He has brought our democracy into disrepute with the naked use of his position as PM to serve his own interests before all else. Blair may have ultimately succumbed to the corrupting influences of power, Johnson brought his deep seated corruption to power. That is a massively important difference.

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The Iraq war was a bit more nuanced than you're suggesting, although I certainly agree there was considerable manipulation of evidence to support the case. Other nations did support the invasion (e.g. Bulgaria, Spain), and the case for war was made in accordance with several UN resolutions. International law specialists still argue whether those resolutions justified the war. That Saddam had previously stockpiled chemical weapons was not in doubt; he had used them against Iran and against his own people, killing thousands. It was a bizarre move by Saddam not to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors more clearly to prove the case against the US view that he still had such weapons.

I think there are several big differences between Blair and Johnson that show why the latter is far more egregious. Blair was guilty of looking for evidence and exaggerating its importance in order to justify the Iraq invasion, in order to remove an evil human rights abusing dictator. Perhaps his previous much lauded interventions in the Sierra Leone and Yugoslav civil wars went to his head somewhat. I fail to see any evidence that he personally gained from the Iraq war. Blair's reign as PM saw many improvements in a whole range of areas crucial to the lives of ordinary people, including the economy, education, and health care. He came into politics with a genuine motivation to improve the lot of ordinary people, and achieved that in no small measure. He may have developed something of a Messiah complex in thinking he could solve the world's problems, but he was very different in his motivations from those of Johnson. I suspect that was precisely why the Iraq war issues didn't bring him down.

Johnson has only ever had his own self-interests as his primary purpose, and has been willing to lie directly in parliament and elsewhere to get what he wants. He has brought our democracy into disrepute with the naked use of his position as PM to serve his own interests before all else. Blair may have ultimately succumbed to the corrupting influences of power, Johnson brought his deep seated corruption to power. That is a massively important difference.

Yes, that is very fair. Blair has been damned for one mistake. Johnson had no redeeming features. Three specific points about the lead-up to the Iraq war. 

Dr David Kelley was supposedly the UK expert on this. He went to Iraq and was told by people there he knew from before that the chemical weapons had all been destroyed. They were right, but he simply did not believe them.

The head of the UN mission said that to establish the truth he needed weeks rather than months, but the US decided it didn’t want to wait that long.

it was naive of Blair, but I believe he thought that if he went along with a war that was going to happen anyway, with or without the UK, then he would then have some leverage with Bush over the wider question of the Middle East.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

10 hours ago, Herman said:

😂😂 I think that a couple of the salient points that good ole Steve is completely missing are that Truss is as thick as two short planks and like Johnson has no moral compass or beliefs either other than than the egotistic delusion than she deserves high office.

So I'm afraid Steve is going to be sorely disappointed if he thinks that the rest of us are going to follow in her footsteps along her 'journey'.  😂😂

 

[Nuff Said 5,178]

16 hours ago, horsefly said:

Just a little reminder of the reality of Johnson's legacy as mayor of London: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/it-s-been-a-disaster-how-boris-johnson-s-docklands-business-hub-turned-into-a-ghost-town/ar-AAZMfVe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a1309a2ec7ff478789e6518ba7d5e222

Fascinating, I almost fancy visiting.

[TheGunnShow 6,006]

8 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

😂😂 I think that a couple of the salient points that good ole Steve is completely missing are that Truss is as thick as two short planks and like Johnson has no moral compass or beliefs either other than than the egotistic delusion than she deserves high office.

So I'm afraid Steve is going to be sorely disappointed if he thinks that the rest of us are going to follow in her footsteps along her 'journey'.  😂😂

 

I'm guessing Truss's journey will be in this, right?

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

8 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

😂😂 I think that a couple of the salient points that good ole Steve is completely missing are that Truss is as thick as two short planks and like Johnson has no moral compass or beliefs either other than than the egotistic delusion than she deserves high office.

So I'm afraid Steve is going to be sorely disappointed if he thinks that the rest of us are going to follow in her footsteps along her 'journey'.  😂😂

 

And her ‘journey’ will include betraying Steve and the rest of the ERG in an instant if she thinks that will get her into 10 Downing Street…

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

The Iraq war was a bit more nuanced than you're suggesting, although I certainly agree there was considerable manipulation of evidence to support the case. Other nations did support the invasion (e.g. Bulgaria, Spain), and the case for war was made in accordance with several UN resolutions. International law specialists still argue whether those resolutions justified the war. That Saddam had previously stockpiled chemical weapons was not in doubt; he had used them against Iran and against his own people, killing thousands. It was a bizarre move by Saddam not to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors more clearly to prove the case against the US view that he still had such weapons.

I think there are several big differences between Blair and Johnson that show why the latter is far more egregious. Blair was guilty of looking for evidence and exaggerating its importance in order to justify the Iraq invasion, in order to remove an evil human rights abusing dictator. Perhaps his previous much lauded interventions in the Sierra Leone and Yugoslav civil wars went to his head somewhat. I fail to see any evidence that he personally gained from the Iraq war. Blair's reign as PM saw many improvements in a whole range of areas crucial to the lives of ordinary people, including the economy, education, and health care. He came into politics with a genuine motivation to improve the lot of ordinary people, and achieved that in no small measure. He may have developed something of a Messiah complex in thinking he could solve the world's problems, but he was very different in his motivations from those of Johnson. I suspect that was precisely why the Iraq war issues didn't bring him down.

Johnson has only ever had his own self-interests as his primary purpose, and has been willing to lie directly in parliament and elsewhere to get what he wants. He has brought our democracy into disrepute with the naked use of his position as PM to serve his own interests before all else. Blair may have ultimately succumbed to the corrupting influences of power, Johnson brought his deep seated corruption to power. That is a massively important difference.

The Iraq War was complicated and I should be clear that I am playing devil's advocate here to a fair extent. Ironically, I probably have more respect for Blair than some of the people who may dislike the comparison I'm making. For his part, he did stand up  and take responsibility in 2016 in response to Chilcott. None of that detracts from the fact that he should have taken responsibility for his decisions and resigned the day David Kelly committed suicide as a result of the government hanging him out to dry for being a whistleblower. 

Everyone has their own opinoins and that's fine, but what I really don't like as far as the way Johnson is handled is how incredibly personal people get. He may have been lazy, he may have cut corners, he may have misled parliament and the Queen to get his way (shock horror: a politician being disingenuous. whatever next?), but equally in some areas he has done good things: vaccine acquisition, furlough, and other support for the public during the pandemic, the response to the invasion of Ukraine all spring to mind as positives in his tenure. The comparisons between him and Trump, a man who actually encouraged a violent insurrection at the capitol in what can only be described as an attempted coup, also go completely over the top, as is the determination to double down on painting him as such if anyone dares suggest anything less. 

Sonyc refrained from making a comparison over who was 'worse' and it's a distraction from the point I'm making that part of people having confidence in standards in public life is that people actually apply standards even-handedly. Johnson has been held to account. Labour demanded that he was held to account in the most scathing manner possible. As the opposition, it's right and proper that they do so, but doing so while still failing to acknowledge that it, as an institution, it failed the public by refusing to apply the standards to itself that it demands of the Conservatives. Labour as an institution should apologise for the damage it did to the UK by choosing to protect itself instead of protecting confidence in public life in the 2000s. The fact that, even now, the Labour Party refuses to acknowledge any wrongs in how it acted, even after Chilcott, even after Blair himself acknowledged his mistakes over Iraq following Chilcott, and even after the Conservative party has actually disposed of the leader they called on to resign, just tells me that Labour hasn't learnt anything since it lost power. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

49 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, that is very fair. Blair has been damned for one mistake. Johnson had no redeeming features. Three specific points about the lead-up to the Iraq war. 

Dr David Kelley was supposedly the UK expert on this. He went to Iraq and was told by people there he knew from before that the chemical weapons had all been destroyed. They were right, but he simply did not believe them.

The head of the UN mission said that to establish the truth he needed weeks rather than months, but the US decided it didn’t want to wait that long.

it was naive of Blair, but I believe he thought that if he went along with a war that was going to happen anyway, with or without the UK, then he would then have some leverage with Bush over the wider question of the Middle East.

One ENORMOUS mistake that it doubled down on to protect itself over, resulting in a whistleblower's death by suicide. Blair should have gone, the Labour party should have made it happen like the Conservatives have made happen with Johnson, however reluctantly .

Edited July 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 hours ago, sonyc said:

That was America's fight and one we should have stayed out of. It was very sad too about Kelly.

I won't compare Blair and Johnson though as I don't think it's straightforward to do so and in a way, a bit pointless. I didn't vote for either of them. I think they can be judged in their own right. History will certainly do so. 

I think you will find it was **** Cheney's fight.

[TheGunnShow 6,006]

Blair's problem was that Sierra Leone and particularly Kosovo went very well as far as military engagement went. It meant he thought he could leverage military capacity for what he considered good... and then blindly followed Bush into getting rid of Hussein.

The lesson that never got learned is this: disposing of despots through military force is often the easy bit. The resulting power vacuum and unsavoury characters that are unleashed, particularly in developing countries that do not have proper rule of law or solid institutions in place, can be particularly toxic and have terrible consequences for years afterwards.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh hated... what a fantastic degree of accountability that is. There are countless perfectly decent politicians who haven't done anything on the scale who get more held to account than that.

2003 the Iraq dossier was published. 2003 the Iraq war was launched. May 2003 the Gilligan report was published. 2003 Blair gave the go ahead to name Kelly if he was revealed as the source. Funnily enough, Kelly's name came out. 2003 the Hutton Whitewash was launched.

2003 the Labour party started calling for his resignation. Oh wait. No they didn't. Labour circled the wagons and protected him, and the whole Labour party rallied to get reelected with him as leader in 2005, to succeed in winning another landslide. But, you know, all this time he was hated... 

At the end of the day, your personal values are that finessed intelligence to parliament and the public to justify a war that we initiated and hanging out the whistleblower out to dry, causing the whistleblower's death in the process, is not as big a deal. You'll use the fact that some people hate him as a fig leaf. Bottom line though, is that Labour stuck by him to get reelected and let him carry on to 2007 after all of that. Labour has no business whatsoever talking about standards when it was the Labour party that summarily killed them. 

I'm actually genuinely shocked that you're 'more disgusted' by Johnson even though, in the end, he has resigned, while Blair carried on in place with the full support of his party. 

 

 

I think you will find it was the Labour Parliamentary Party not the Party itself. I among others was one of mass resignations from the Party at that time because what Blair was advocating and what he had treacherously done. And many of us rejoined under Corbyn. And have now resigned under SKS.

People can have an opinion on our beliefs and tell us where we are going wrong etc but many of us still believe in a Labour Party that truly represents what it meant in its conception. Rather than just support policies that get us elected, we would rather be in opposition than end up becoming a hybrid Tory Party.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

The lesson that never got learned is this: disposing of despots through military force is often the easy bit. The resulting power vacuum and unsavoury characters that are unleashed, particularly in developing countries that do not have proper rule of law or solid institutions in place, can be particularly toxic and have terrible consequences for years afterwards.

This. 

I get really fed up with those wishing to denigrate Blair for Iraq. Yes mistakes were made and admitted too - but I think there have been is it 6 public and other inquiries into Iraq and none have found Blair (or indeed the government of the time)  guilty of deliberately misleading or lying. The error was in the interpretation of the data (a mistake easily made give Saddam's history of the use of WMD & continued bluster).

The larger error was in not planning adequately for post invasion Iraq.

[TheGunnShow 6,006]

I actually find it amusing, if not actually a little touching, that "Tonibler" became a Kosovan boy's name in commemoration of Blair's intervention.

Meet the Kosovan Albanians who named their sons after Tony Blair | Tony Blair | The Guardian

[sonyc 5,541]

15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think you will find it was the Labour Parliamentary Party not the Party itself. I among others was one of mass resignations from the Party at that time because what Blair was advocating and what he had treacherously done. And many of us rejoined under Corbyn. And have now resigned under SKS.

People can have an opinion on our beliefs and tell us where we are going wrong etc but many of us still believe in a Labour Party that truly represents what it meant in its conception. Rather than just support policies that get us elected, we would rather be in opposition than end up becoming a hybrid Tory Party.

That about sums my views too KG. I want to see progressive policies (and whilst I thought Corbyn was better suited to being a union leader in a polytechnic he did appeal to many voters - young people were reinvigorated for a good while. I also felt Corbyn just couldn't unite his party because of many stances he took in his past). My point in not comparing Johnson and Blair is that it is pointless. Even if I argued (which I feel I could) that Johnson is the worst, and my argument won, then 'so what'! 

The Labour Party of today too might not support a Blair type request to join the US in a war against Iraq. 

Different time periods, different contexts. You can not really then castigate a party for its actions in 2005 with today. It serves no purpose really apart from getting you wound up about the past. You can only adapt to it. Otherwise we would still believe every German is a N*zi. 

I think a lesson may have been learned. Maybe not - but I believe in 2022 this Labour party would not support that kind of thing again. I was appalled at the time of it happening and respected Short and Cook.

That was my point about moving on. And also judging what is happening TODAY, in the context of the present. And in the context of today Johnson is a lying, self-serving narcissist. His fall will come and many more stories will emerge.

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by sonyc

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This. 

I get really fed up with those wishing to denigrate Blair for Iraq. Yes mistakes were made and admitted too - but I think there have been is it 6 public and other inquiries into Iraq and none have found Blair (or indeed the government of the time)  guilty of deliberately misleading or lying. The error was in the interpretation of the data (a mistake easily made give Saddam's history of the use of WMD & continued bluster).

The larger error was in not planning adequately for post invasion Iraq.

That's very much sugar coating it. The Hutton inquiry was far more preoccupied with censuring the BBC for embarrassing the government than it was holding the government to account. 

Ultimately, you're missing the point in looking at the details of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war; the point is maintaining confidence in democratic processes means upholding standards and being seen to uphold standards. Labour did the exact opposite by covering up and circling the wagons to protect itself and to protect Blair, even after their decision to do so and the manner they went about it caused a man acting as a whistleblower to kill himself. 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,315]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Iraq War was complicated and I should be clear that I am playing devil's advocate here to a fair extent. Ironically, I probably have more respect for Blair than some of the people who may dislike the comparison I'm making. For his part, he did stand up  and take responsibility in 2016 in response to Chilcott. None of that detracts from the fact that he should have taken responsibility for his decisions and resigned the day David Kelly committed suicide as a result of the government hanging him out to dry for being a whistleblower. 

Everyone has their own opinoins and that's fine, but what I really don't like as far as the way Johnson is handled is how incredibly personal people get. He may have been lazy, he may have cut corners, he may have misled parliament and the Queen to get his way (shock horror: a politician being disingenuous. whatever next?), but equally in some areas he has done good things: vaccine acquisition, furlough, and other support for the public during the pandemic, the response to the invasion of Ukraine all spring to mind as positives in his tenure. The comparisons between him and Trump, a man who actually encouraged a violent insurrection at the capitol in what can only be described as an attempted coup, also go completely over the top, as is the determination to double down on painting him as such if anyone dares suggest anything less. 

Sonyc refrained from making a comparison over who was 'worse' and it's a distraction from the point I'm making that part of people having confidence in standards in public life is that people actually apply standards even-handedly. Johnson has been held to account. Labour demanded that he was held to account in the most scathing manner possible. As the opposition, it's right and proper that they do so, but doing so while still failing to acknowledge that it, as an institution, it failed the public by refusing to apply the standards to itself that it demands of the Conservatives. Labour as an institution should apologise for the damage it did to the UK by choosing to protect itself instead of protecting confidence in public life in the 2000s. The fact that, even now, the Labour Party refuses to acknowledge any wrongs in how it acted, even after Chilcott, even after Blair himself acknowledged his mistakes over Iraq following Chilcott, and even after the Conservative party has actually disposed of the leader they called on to resign, just tells me that Labour hasn't learnt anything since it lost power. 

I still find your comparison between the two situations unconvincing. The things you find in Johnson's favour are hardly down to him. It was an exceptionally easy decision to go for vaccine purchases (the actual acquisition and roll out had nothing to do with him). Far more relevant is his dreadful delay in acting when the rest of Europe was two or three weeks ahead of us in the pandemic spread, and yelling at us to do something before it hit here. Similar delays in further lockdowns lead to many unnecessary deaths. Furlough was hardly a choice either, it would have been impossible not to fund such a scheme. The corrupt allocation of PPE contracts saw many Tory chums make millions out of an extremely dodgy tax payer funded process lacking any transparency, and the depravity he facilitated at No.10 while ordinary people suffered the often heart-breaking rigours of lockdown far outweigh any "good" he achieved during the pandemic. The man even tried to change the rules on lobbying to get his mate off the hook for multiple breaches of those rules. Similarly, supporting the Ukrainian government against the Russian invasion was about as easy as a decision could get for Johnson. Any other Tory leader would have done likewise, and so would Starmer. The man is irredeemably corrupt and has seriously tainted our parliament and system of democracy with the stench of his corruption. He may have lacked the loony supporters Trump has available to foment an insurrection, but we should be in little doubt that he has done many things previously considered unthinkable in attacking some of the fundamental principles underlying our parliamentary democracy. 

Plenty of people within the Labour Party have acknowledged the mistakes made regarding the Iraq war. I'm not really sure what you currently expect of them to show in further acknowledgement of those mistakes. I don't see anyone claiming there is any evidence that a Labour politician benefitted personally from the Iraq war. Compare that to the multitude of corrupt decisions Johnson has made.

 

[Nuff Said 5,178]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Iraq War was complicated and I should be clear that I am playing devil's advocate here to a fair extent. Ironically, I probably have more respect for Blair than some of the people who may dislike the comparison I'm making. For his part, he did stand up  and take responsibility in 2016 in response to Chilcott. None of that detracts from the fact that he should have taken responsibility for his decisions and resigned the day David Kelly committed suicide as a result of the government hanging him out to dry for being a whistleblower. 

Everyone has their own opinoins and that's fine, but what I really don't like as far as the way Johnson is handled is how incredibly personal people get. He may have been lazy, he may have cut corners, he may have misled parliament and the Queen to get his way (shock horror: a politician being disingenuous. whatever next?), but equally in some areas he has done good things: vaccine acquisition, furlough, and other support for the public during the pandemic, the response to the invasion of Ukraine all spring to mind as positives in his tenure. The comparisons between him and Trump, a man who actually encouraged a violent insurrection at the capitol in what can only be described as an attempted coup, also go completely over the top, as is the determination to double down on painting him as such if anyone dares suggest anything less. 

Sonyc refrained from making a comparison over who was 'worse' and it's a distraction from the point I'm making that part of people having confidence in standards in public life is that people actually apply standards even-handedly. Johnson has been held to account. Labour demanded that he was held to account in the most scathing manner possible. As the opposition, it's right and proper that they do so, but doing so while still failing to acknowledge that it, as an institution, it failed the public by refusing to apply the standards to itself that it demands of the Conservatives. Labour as an institution should apologise for the damage it did to the UK by choosing to protect itself instead of protecting confidence in public life in the 2000s. The fact that, even now, the Labour Party refuses to acknowledge any wrongs in how it acted, even after Chilcott, even after Blair himself acknowledged his mistakes over Iraq following Chilcott, and even after the Conservative party has actually disposed of the leader they called on to resign, just tells me that Labour hasn't learnt anything since it lost power. 

You can take even-handedness too far though. The period of Labour government under Blair and Brown did a *lot* of good for this country and since they came to power the Tories’ main achievements have been to salami slice most of that away in the name of “necessary” austerity. When you add the economic self-harm of Brexit on the grounds of the idiot ideology of sovereignty, their record is appalling.
 

The Iraq war was 19 years ago and the climate emergency and the cost of living crisis are happening now. While you sit in an ivory tower judging the Labour Party, we have had (summarised excellently by @horsefly) the country’s worst ever prime minister. You list his “achievements” but how many of these would have happened regardless of who was in charge? I would argue most (and any benefits from the early vaccine acquisition you include - which is often held up by Johnson supporters - have since been lost if you compare us to the majority of similar European countries). As @Herman says, it looks a lot like whataboutery. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I still find your comparison between the two situations unconvincing. The things you find in Johnson's favour are hardly down to him. It was an exceptionally easy decision to go for vaccine purchases (the actual acquisition and roll out had nothing to do with him). Far more relevant is his dreadful delay in acting when the rest of Europe was two or three weeks ahead of us in the pandemic spread, and yelling at us to do something before it hit here. Similar delays in further lockdowns lead to many unnecessary deaths. Furlough was hardly a choice either, it would have been impossible not to fund such a scheme. The corrupt allocation of PPE contracts saw many Tory chums make millions out of an extremely dodgy tax payer funded process lacking any transparency, and the depravity he facilitated at No.10 while ordinary people suffered the often heart-breaking rigours of lockdown far outweigh any "good" he achieved during the pandemic. The man even tried to change the rules on lobbying to get his mate off the hook for multiple breaches of those rules. Similarly, supporting the Ukrainian government against the Russian invasion was about as easy as a decision could get for Johnson. Any other Tory leader would have done likewise, and so would Starmer. The man is irredeemably corrupt and has seriously tainted our parliament and system of democracy with the stench of his corruption. He may have lacked the loony supporters Trump has available to foment an insurrection, but we should be in little doubt that he has done many things previously considered unthinkable in attacking some of the fundamental principles underlying our parliamentary democracy. 

Plenty of people within the Labour Party have acknowledged the mistakes made regarding the Iraq war. I'm not really sure what you currently expect of them to show in further acknowledgement of those mistakes. I don't see anyone claiming there is any evidence that a Labour politician benefitted personally from the Iraq war. Compare that to the multitude of corrupt decisions Johnson has made.

 

Again, the comparison misses the point. The bottom line is that the Conservatives ultimately buckled, forced him to resign, and he resigned; when confronted with its own scandal, Labour circled the wagons to protect themselves and their leader, killing a man and destroying the BBC to protect itself in the process. 

Individuals in Labour may have acknowledged it, but Labour as an institution has never acknowledged what it did and the damage it did to confidence in public life. That's true even under Corbyn, which in many ways is pretty surprising. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,315]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Again, the comparison misses the point. The bottom line is that the Conservatives ultimately buckled, forced him to resign, and he resigned; when confronted with its own scandal, Labour circled the wagons to protect themselves and their leader, killing a man and destroying the BBC to protect itself in the process. 

I'm afraid the claim that they "killed a man" is simply far-fetched. The cause of David Kelly's suicide is far more complex than you are describing. If you wish to discuss it in detail we certainly can, but I guarantee it won't end up with the conclusion the Labour Party were to blame. Likewise, the idea that the Labour Party "destroyed" the BBC is way over the top. Indeed the two issues are intimately connected because it was the BBC journalist (Andrew Gilligan) who reported on radio 4 an "off the record" conversation in which he claimed Kelly had said Alastair Campbell had insisted on inclusion of false claims about the "45 minute readiness of Iraqi WMDs" in his intelligence report. Kelly absolutely denied he said anything of the sort. It is therefore far more arguable that Gilligan and the BBC bear more responsibility for Kelly's suicide.

Edited July 21, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

29 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

You can take even-handedness too far though. The period of Labour government under Blair and Brown did a *lot* of good for this country and since they came to power the Tories’ main achievements have been to salami slice most of that away in the name of “necessary” austerity. When you add the economic self-harm of Brexit on the grounds of the idiot ideology of sovereignty, their record is appalling.
 

The Iraq war was 19 years ago and the climate emergency and the cost of living crisis are happening now. While you sit in an ivory tower judging the Labour Party, we have had (summarised excellently by @horsefly) the country’s worst ever prime minister. You list his “achievements” but how many of these would have happened regardless of who was in charge? I would argue most (and any benefits from the early vaccine acquisition you include - which is often held up by Johnson supporters - have since been lost if you compare us to the majority of similar European countries). As @Herman says, it looks a lot like whataboutery. 

That's a matter of opinion and part of what people are supposed to base their voting decisions on. Aside from that, either standards in public life matter or they don't. If they matter now, which they clearly do, then they should have mattered to the Labour party then as well. 

 

10 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid the claim that they "killed a man" is simply far-fetched. The cause of David Kelly's suicide is far more complex than you are describing. If you wish to discuss it in detail we certainly can, but I guarantee it won't end up with the conclusion the Labour Party were to blame. Likewise, the idea that the Labour Party "destroyed" the BBC is way over the top. Indeed the two issues are intimately connected because it was the BBC journalist (Andrew Gilligan) who reported on radio 4 an "off the record" conversation in which he claimed Kelly had said Alastair Campbell had insisted on inclusion of false claims about the "45 minute readiness of Iraqi WMDs". Kelly absolutely denied he said anything of the sort. It is therefore far more arguable that Gilligan and the BBC bear more responsibility for Kelly's suicide.

Blair personally decided to name David Kelly if asked to confirm his identity. Kelly was hung out to dry, the government choosing to demolish a whistleblower instead of consider the welfare of a public servant. There's no way out of that, and the fact is that on the day of Kelly's death, Tony Blair knew this and so did the top echelons of the Labour party. I remember seeing Blair on the day of his death, and Blair was white in shock, but they carried on fighting tooth and nail to preserve power anyway. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/aug/24/huttoninquiry.davidkelly

Edited July 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid the claim that they "killed a man" is simply far-fetched. The cause of David Kelly's suicide is far more complex than you are describing. If you wish to discuss it in detail we certainly can, but I guarantee it won't end up with the conclusion the Labour Party were to blame. Likewise, the idea that the Labour Party "destroyed" the BBC is way over the top. Indeed the two issues are intimately connected because it was the BBC journalist (Andrew Gilligan) who reported on radio 4 an "off the record" conversation in which he claimed Kelly had said Alastair Campbell had insisted on inclusion of false claims about the "45 minute readiness of Iraqi WMDs". Kelly absolutely denied he said anything of the sort. It is therefore far more arguable that Gilligan and the BBC bear more responsibility for Kelly's suicide.

This is not a major issue, but Kelly was on a final warning from the MoD about his contacts with journalists when he found out that another unauthorised contact was likely to be revealed. On top of that he by then knew he had been wrong to keep on believing Iraq still had chemical weapons.

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid the claim that they "killed a man" is simply far-fetched. The cause of David Kelly's suicide is far more complex than you are describing. If you wish to discuss it in detail we certainly can, but I guarantee it won't end up with the conclusion the Labour Party were to blame. Likewise, the idea that the Labour Party "destroyed" the BBC is way over the top. Indeed the two issues are intimately connected because it was the BBC journalist (Andrew Gilligan) who reported on radio 4 an "off the record" conversation in which he claimed Kelly had said Alastair Campbell had insisted on inclusion of false claims about the "45 minute readiness of Iraqi WMDs" in his intelligence report. Kelly absolutely denied he said anything of the sort. It is therefore far more arguable that Gilligan and the BBC bear more responsibility for Kelly's suicide.

I continue to find it a little amusing that the (non-centre) left continue to hate Blair more than Johnson.

Is it that he was successful ?

Iraq has been done to death and I'm sure lessons learnt but we all have to accept the result of numerous inquires.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

I continue to find it a little amusing that the (non-centre) left continue to hate Blair more than Johnson.

Is it that he was successful ?

Iraq has been done to death and I'm sure lessons learnt but we all have to accept the result of numerous inquires.

I don't hate Blair. I've quoted him on many occasions on other matters. It doesn't change the fact that Labour's actions to protect itself in response to questions over the Iraq war were corrupt and damaged confidence in public life to an unprecedented level. 

[horsefly 4,315]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's a matter of opinion and part of what people are supposed to base their voting decisions on. Aside from that, either standards in public life matter or they don't. If they matter now, which they clearly do, then they should have mattered to the Labour party then as well. 

 

Blair personally decided to name David Kelly if asked to confirm his identity. Kelly was hung out to dry, the government choosing to demolish a whistleblower instead of consider the welfare of a public servant. There's no way out of that, and the fact is that on the day of Kelly's death, Tony Blair knew this and so did the top echelons of the Labour party. I remember seeing Blair on the day of his death, and Blair was white in shock, but they carried on fighting tooth and nail to preserve power anyway. 

I suggest you read the following very thorough account based on actual evidence and transcripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

Among many things it includes Kelly's expert view immediately prior to war that, "Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use."

Edited July 21, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I suggest you read the following very thorough account based on actual evidence and transcripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

You know what, you're all circling the wagons to protect your precious Labour party instead of acknowledging the damage it did, so there's really no point carrying on. Know that your attitudes are mirrored by those who will stick by Johnson and that you're as guilty of harming democracy by your exceptionalism as they are. 

[Yellow Fever 3,834]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't hate Blair. I've quoted him on many occasions on other matters. It doesn't change the fact that Labour's actions to protect itself in response to questions over the Iraq war were corrupt and damaged confidence in public life to an unprecedented level. 

Some people choose to believe - in your words - that the Blair government was corrupt despite the lack of evidence and lots of inquires. I seem to recall some have even been expensively and successfully sued through the courts for such inaccurate claims.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Some people choose to believe - in your words - that the Blair government was corrupt despite the lack of evidence and lots of inquires. I seem to recall some have even been expensively and successfully sued through the courts for such inaccurate claims.

It was corrupt. Demonstrably so, and I'll give you concrete examples of corruption under Labour. 

Keith Vaz and the Hinduja brothers. 

Labour taking money from Bernie Ecclestone for a tobacco exemption for formula one - that one's institution level corruption, not just individual by the way. 

Stephen 'I'm like a cab for hire - for up to £5,000 a day' Byers

Geoff Hoon. 

The four Labour Lords that were found to be taking cash for questions. 

Taking the Gilligan report on its own and forgetting about the wider questions of the Iraq war, it was absolutely legitimate journalism, with a source acting as a whistleblower and a journalist publishing his allegations in good faith. The government response was to make efforts to reveal Kelly as the source and to use a public inquiry to discredit the BBC for legitimate journalism that.  You would all be screaming in outrage if anything similar was happening now. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,541]

The only point I wanted to make (and amusingly I find myself quoting Wilde for the second time in a week😂) is that "comparisons are odious '

 

 

 

 

Note to self: "sonyc, you'd better actually read a book by Wilde ....  just cannot go on like this 😏")

Edited July 21, 2022 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,315]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It doesn't change the fact that Labour's actions to protect itself in response to questions over the Iraq war were corrupt and damaged confidence in public life to an unprecedented level. 

I find this quite an astonishing claim, is there any actual evidence that the public had their "confidence in public life damaged to an unprecedented level" by the Iraq war fallout? My personal recollection at the time (and subsequently) was nothing remotely of that kind. It was certainly a topic of great debate among those interested in international politics, but I'm not convinced it filtered through to being of much concern to many ordinary voters. Blair certainly lost his lustre as a result but, as you yourself have previously pointed out, he was still re-elected with a considerable majority. Hardly the signs of an "unprecedented" loss of confidence in him, the Labour Party, or public life.