Tony Blair. Should he have been knighted?

[TwoYellas]

I voted that he should not have a Knighthood, I took 45 minutes to arrive at that decision.

I put it to you that this 45 minutes claim is a lie!

 

[brad465]

Here's what The Daily Star have to say about this tomorrow:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

 

[Class465pacer]

Thanks to the Iraq War which left hundreds of thousands of people dead, an easy no from me

 

[Meole]

Blair introduced the National Minimum Wage which the Tories completely opposed as it would devastate many parts of the economy which arguably it has. the care sector, NHS support staff etc all being paid far more than the country can afford, perhaps a greater reason ?

 

[GusB]

Blair introduced the National Minimum Wage which the Tories completely opposed as it would devastate many parts of the economy which arguably it has. the care sector, NHS support staff etc all being paid far more than the country can afford, perhaps a greater reason ?

The idea that the minimum wage has devastated the economy is utter nonsense. If anything, it needs to be increased. It made a huge difference to the lives of people who were on poverty wages. I'm no fan of Blair, but that was one of his best policies.

I'd like to see you go into a care home and tell staff that they're paid too much! Low pay is one of the reasons for there being such a shortage of people in that sector.

 

[Typhoon]

Blair introduced the National Minimum Wage which the Tories completely opposed as it would devastate many parts of the economy which arguably it has. the care sector, NHS support staff etc all being paid far more than the country can afford, perhaps a greater reason ?

@GusB - more succinct than me!

When the Minimum Wage was introduced in 1999 it was £3.60 an hour. If employees in this country couldn't afford to pay employees £3.60 an hour then they shouldn't be in business. We had relied for too long on paying people in the caring sector less than their job is worth - hoping that they will keep doing it for pin money because of the benefit they give to the cared for. What is did do is to give the poorly paid a voice at the negotiating table, a voice that they had previously lacked, the government (actually the Low Pay Commission). This may have been Margaret Beckett's finest hour.
It was £5.80 an hour when Labour left office. It has steadily increased under both the coalition and the Conservatives partly to avoid increases in the benefit budget. Whether that is a good or bad thing is open to debate but to blame Blair for the minimum wage appears perverse given the other obvious deficiencies in his premiership.

 

[tbtc]

I'd like to see you go into a care home and tell staff that they're paid too much! Low pay is one of the reasons for there being such a shortage of people in that sector.

Precisely - the reason we have all of these unfilled vacancies isn't because the wages are too high!

A lot of the other complaints about Blair seem to fall into three categories:

1. Iraq - I was against it at the time, I still think it was the wrong decision now, but it'd have happened regardless of Blair - George W Bush wanted to avenge what he felt was his father's biggest issue, and was surrounded by "Hawks" who wanted to take the US into foreign wars, especially if there was profit to be made for the likes of Haliburton - you can blame Blair for the lives of the British troops that were lost, but it's naive to think that the whole war rested on him persuading the UK to join Bush's crusade

2. People who complain about how "Blair privatised X and didn't nationalise Y". Such people seem wedded to the political methodology rather than results. I can accept argument that "privatising X made the service worse/ pushed up prices/ destroyed jobs", but I'm not obsessed about the ownership. As I think some people are slowly understanding when it comes to GBR, having government control over things doesn't solve all of the things that they were complaining about when decisions were taken by the private sector. I'd rather assess industries/ provision on the basis of what works rather than fixate about the ownership

3. People who project their own "issues" onto other people, e.g. Corbynites who accuse anyone defending Blair of "loving" him, as if supporting Blair was a cult. I don't think Blair was perfect (though I think he certainly did more good than harm), I don't know anyone who voted for him at the time who thought he was perfect, I think that Blair himself would admit to mistakes that were made... but I can't be bothered with people from other camps assuming that Blair-fans are just as blind to a leader as they are - it says more about you than it does about Blair, trust me

 

[YorkshireBear]

I mean not knighting him because he brought in national minimum wage is one of the funniest comments I have seen on the matter. Social media has been excellent quality for the last few days.

Completely agree with tbtc's post above mine. Particularly 3, which is still what will stop Labour winning an election in my eyes.

 

[TwoYellas]

. Iraq - I was against it at the time, I still think it was the wrong decision now, but it'd have happened regardless of Blair - George W Bush wanted to avenge what he felt was his father's biggest issue, and was surrounded by "Hawks" who wanted to take the US into foreign wars, especially if there was profit to be made for the likes of Haliburton - you can blame Blair for the lives of the British troops that were lost, but it's naive to think that the whole war rested on him persuading the UK to join Bush's crusade

I think it's naive to think that Blair didn't think there was profit in it for UK companies as well. Unfortunately, wars are often fought for profit and not "bringing freedom and democracy".

I'm sure a few years ago Blair secured a very lucrative job with JP Morgan who were set to make billions in Iraq (sorry - not clever enough to link article but easily checked on google). I think he's done very nicely indeed.

So in a nutshell I think it was all for profit. Yes the driving force was Bush and the neo-cons but I'd prefer it if we had our own, more independent and ethical foreign policy (yes I realise this is naive on my part to an extent - as the world is a cynical place).

I know opposing Blair poses an interesting question for left leaning people like myself, as he was extremely successful in winning elections. I'll put my cards on the table and say that I did vote for Mr Corbyn in the last election as I supported the social democratic policies he advocated and he has always been consistent in foreign policy. For example, he was campaigning against arming Saddam when the West were selling him arms in the 80's (the time he committed his worst atrocities against his own people) - that's another reason why the Iraq War was full of hypocrisy. I think Corbyn had faults (but not the ones that the media generally aimed at him), one of them not defending himself against the attacks from the said media and instead just preaching to the adoring "oh Jeremy Corbyn" crowds.

Going back to the dilemma Blair sets for myself and maybe others. Do you back a more Blairite candidate who may sell his soul to the big corporations but gets in power or a more left wing candidate who maybe purer in principles but doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of getting in and then ending up with the Tories (in the Iraq War vote they all voted for it) and ending up with worse. Sometimes, you've got to just vote for the least worst option, I think.

So just to conclude, many marched and there were many dissenting voices against the war and the consequences - they were ignored. I myself knew this was extremely dodgy so why couldn't Blair and those MPs that voted for military action see this? I applaud those that voted 'no' - they were correct. I feel that first and foremost the interests of the Iraqi people should be taken into account (there was a sobering documentary, called 'Once Upon a Time in Iraq' on BBC 2), but alas they were not.

I know many won't agree with me but just respectfully giving my honest views and not wanting an argument with anyone.

 

[High Dyke]

Medieval knights were little better though. Most were mercenaries and warlords who made their money from warfare, pillage and the exploitation of serfdom.

So very little has changed then?

Now if the sword happened to slip whilst carrying out the investiture...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Blair with his huge majority failed to neutralise the establishment no wonder they want him as one of their own.

 

[DarloRich]

Blair with his huge majority failed to neutralise the establishment no wonder they want him as one of their own.

What does that even mean?