I think he had it coming. Tony Blair I mean. Saying he is NOT going to serve the full term after the May 2005 General Election. That reduces you to a lame-duck PM, and introduces all sorts of uncertainties, distractions and divisions. Tomorrow, Thursday, he will make an announcement as to when he is going to quit as PM, and who will be taking over. Speculation is rife that this might be the Chancellor [Finance Minister] Gordon Brown. As an observer, I would say that Tony Blair has been involved in a bit of scorched earth policy. Leaving as much of a mess as he can get away with, to make it really difficult for his successor.
Tony Blair rode to the dizzy heights of a crushing electoral victory 9 years ago, with a 166 seat majority in the House of Commons. His decline commenced in 2003, when he unequivocally backed US President George W. Bush in his decision to invade Iraq. Ostensibly because the then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was supposed to have nuclear, biological or chemical [NBC] weapons. But underneath to finish off the job his daddy didn't have the guts of finishing back in 1991. After the invasion of Iraq, not a single shred of NBC weaponry has been found in Iraq. Although I gave Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt back in 2003, that he made a genuine mistake, that he genuinely thought Iraq still had the nasty weapons, not many believed him.
I can say that most Labour Party members can now drink Tony Blair's blood, and will be only too glad to see the back of him. If he has any sense, Tony will go at the forthcoming party conference, later this month.
Disclaimer: This piece will be overtaken by events tomorrow, Thursday 7th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tony Blair does not worry me at all... but G. Brown, yes, very much.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the invasion to Iraq, it was not widely known that manyof the terrorist groups trained there..including the taliban, El Quaida etc. I agree with a wider view that suggests that had UK not backed US in the latter war..a division between Europe and US would have resulted...that in the future could lead to one super power pointing its guns at another. You might recall at the time, many European countries were unwilling to fight Iraq, particularly France, 3/4's of their GDP heading into Iraq and similar countries.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the first invasion, another view considered that it was deemed wise to keep Iran and Iraq apart, as had they joined forces...a potentially lethal power would have resulted. Thus..Iraq has always remained on the hit list from the Westerners.
You might guess that one terrorist keeps friends with another hey....as i speak...Gerry Adams formerly IRA Commander is sipping tea with the Syrians......who are best friends with Iran and Hezbollah. As a UK "MP" without portfolio..really makes you wonder....