lol

My opinion is as follows:

Mr Blair was not a ‘leader’; he was a smooth talking, smiling and effective communicator with controlling tendencies and possibly having a lust for power. He regularly showed himself to be devoid of wisdom and that he had limited knowledge of anything outside law and politics. He surrounded himself with others from the same narrow fields and who were equally devoid of wisdom and understanding. His government team proposed many, many policies that could only have been taken seriously in a comedic satire TV series. Many of those proposals were laughed into oblivion, but some became law.

In government he did not lead, he dictated. He undermined the role of the cabinet (the group of senior ministers). His approach to solving problems invariably involved more government control and more legislation. His government started the process of introducing compulsory ID cards for all people, reduced civil liberties, and generally adopted a far more authoritarian approach to governance. It was under Mr Blair that the UK government introduced indefinite detention without trial (eventually overturned by the courts), and that a political protestor doing nothing more offensive than heckling was arrested using newly introduced, ill conceived and widely criticised “anti-terrorism” laws. Mr Blair also subscribed fully to the “war on terror”; like many other people he apparently failed to understand that it is impossible to wage war against an emotion. He completely failed to recognise that the conflict was ideological and that the enemy was not terror (an emotion) or terrorism (a tactic) but simply Islam in all of its forms.

His government rode roughshod over the democratic process and consistently ignored public opinion. In the first few years of his government he and his colleagues did much to bring the whole political process into greater disrepute with their attempt to manage the news, stifle debate and generally treat governance as game to be played between themselves and journalists. “Spin” is a word that will forever be associated with Mr Blair and his colleages. In many cases that “spin” was outright deliberate deceit in order to push through destructive legislation that would never be accepted if debated openly.

Mr Blair was consistently in favour of greater integration with Europe and resisted debate despite massive public opposition. In this, as in many other things, his attitude always seemed to be along the lines of “I know best what is good for you”.

As noted earlier in this thread, he did not restrict Islamic immigration. Indeed he encouraged it, having utterly failed to understand either Islam in isolation, its ideological relationship to the ideas and principles of the free world, or the impact on UK society of attempting to accomodate people who had no intention of integrating. Mr Blair proclaimed that he read the Koran each night and had found Islam to be a peaceful religion. Mr Blair was also a supporter of the Turkish bid to join the EU in the never explained belief that bringing a predominantly Muslim nation into the EU would somehow be a good thing.

Economically he was naive and had no background in commerce, manufacturing or production. He left Mr Gordon Brown (now Prime Minister) in charge of finance for ten years even though they had a very poor working relationship, sometimes not even speaking. Mr Brown’s widely touted and lauded economic prowess and success is considered by some to be principally a matter of luck (he held the reigns at a time when the world economy was stable and low cost imports allowed Britons to live affluently, cheaply). In any case Mr Brown made several well known major mistakes.

The government of Mr Blair brought the United Kingdom closer to dissolution with the establishment of regional assemblies for Scotland, Ulster and Wales. Instead of increasing harmony, he managed to magnify the divisions and extend the fracture lines.

Some things did improve during the years that Mr Blair was in office, but not all of those improvements are directly attributable to government policy or action. Many things that the government intended to focus on have shown no meaningful improvement at all.

His government attained power in the first place and then retained it through a further two elections, not because of their own brilliance but because the principal opposition party (the Conservative Party) threw itself into a orgy of self-destructive infighting that has left it unfit for any useful purpose for over a decade.

Mr Blair resigned after ten years at the top. My own view is that he was getting tired of the job and also realised that things would only get worse. By leaving at that moment he got himself the distinction of holding office for a full decade but assured that he would not be in charge to get the blame when things strated unravelling, thus giving hinself a chance at having a ‘legacy’ that might help him get some senior political job elsewhere (in the EU or the UN). Please note however that this is merely speculation on my part.

Mr Blair obviously has some good points and was far from being a Stalin or a Mao. However I cannot even for one moment think that this self-serving egotist was a good leader, or even a useful ruler. He knew how to play and win the game of politics, but I do not believe that the UK is better or stronger for his tenure at the top. His policies were consistently guided by socialist ideology and a desire to stay in control of everything, rather than any true understanding of society. A great many Britons are still in a state of shock, despair and disbelief about how much damage was either deliberately done, or allowed to occur, to the social fabric and legal structure of the nation in the Blair years (and continuing now under Mr Brown).

In my opinion Mr Blair was not a ‘leader’; he was a smooth talking, smiling and effective communicator with controlling tendencies and possibly having a lust for power. He regularly showed himself to be devoid of wisdom and that he had limited knowledge of anything outside law and politics. He surrounded himself with others from the same narrow fields and who were equally devoid of wisdom and understanding. His government team proposed many, many policies that could only have been taken seriously in a comedic satire TV series. Many of those proposals were laughed into oblivion, but some became law.

In government he did not lead, he dictated. He undermined the role of the cabinet (the group of senior ministers). His approach to solving problems invariably involved more government control and more legislation. His government started the process of introducing compulsory ID cards for all people, reduced civil liberties, and generally adopted a far more authoritarian approach to governance. It was under Mr Blair that the UK government introduced indefinite detention without trial (eventually overturned by the courts), and that a political protestor doing nothing more offensive than heckling was arrested at the labour party conference using newly introduced, ill conceived and widely criticised “anti-terrorism” laws. Mr Blair also subscribed fully to the “war on terror”; like many other people he apparently lacked the wisdom to understand that it is impossible to wage war against an emotion. He completely failed to recognise that the conflict was ideological and that the enemy was not terror (an emotion) or terrorism (a tactic) but simply Islam in all of its forms.

His government rode roughshod over the democratic process and consistently ignored public opinion.

In the first few years of his government he and his colleagues did much to bring the whole political process into greater disrepute with their attempt to manage the news, stifle debate and generally treat governance as game to be played between themselves and journalists. “Spin” is a word that will forever be associated with Mr Blair and his colleages. In many cases that “spin” was outright deliberate deceit in order to push through destructive legislation that would never be accepted if debated openly.

Mr Blair was consistently in favour of greater integration with Europe, despite massive public opposition. In this, as in many other things, his attitude was always something along the lines of “I know best what is good for you”.

As has been noted earlier in this thread, he failed completely to do anything about Islamic immigration. Indeed he encouraged it, having utterly failed to understand either Islam in isolation, its ideological relationship to the ideas and principles of the free world, or the impact on UK society of attempting to accomodate people who had no intention of integrating. Mr Blair proclaimed that he read the Koran each night and had found Islam to be a peaceful religion. His wife (also a lawyer) was involved in a major case where she was supporting Muslims in the separationist dreams. Mr Blair was also a major supporter for the Turkish bid to join the EU, in the never explained belief that bringing a predominantly Muslim nation into the EU would somehow be a good thing.

In Britain the Church of England still has some connection with government and hence Mr Blair had the opportunity to influence the choice of leader. His preference was the present Mr Rowan Williams, a man who is certainly an intellectual but, like Mr Blair, hardly a leader or a uniter.

Economically he was naive and had no background in commerce, manufacturing or production. He left Mr Gordon Brown (now Prime Minister) in charge of finance for ten years even though they had a very poor working relationship, sometimes not even speaking. Mr Brown’s widely touted and lauded economic prowess and success is considered by some to be principally a matter of luck (he held the reigns at a time when the world economy was stable and low cost imports allowed Britons to live affluently, cheaply). In any case, even ignoring the recent turbulence, the UK economy is not looking strong in the long term and Mr Brown made several well known major mistakes.

The government of Mr Blair brought the United Kingdom closer to dissolution with the establishment of regional assemblies for Scotland, Ulster and Wales. Instead of increasing harmony, he managed to magnify the divisions and extend the fracture lines.

Some things did improve during the years that Mr Blair was in office, but not all of those improvements are directly attributable to government policy or action. Many things that the government intended to focus on have shown no meaningful improvement at all.

His government attained power in the first place and then retained through a further two elections, not because of their own brilliance but because the principal opposition party (the Conservative Party) threw itself into a orgy of self-destructive infighting that has left it unfit for any useful purpose for over a decade.

Mr Blair resigned after ten years at the top. My own view is that he was getting tired of the job and also realised that things would only get worse. By leaving at that moment he got himself the distinction of holding office for a full decade but assured that he would not be in charge to get the blame when things strated unravelling, thus giving hinself a chance at having a ‘legacy’ that might help him get some senior political job elsewhere (in the EU or the UN). Please note however that this is merely speculation on my part.

Mr Blair obviously has some good points and was far from being a Stalin or a Mao. However I cannot even for one moment think that this self-serving egotist was a good leader, or even a useful ruler. He knew how to play and win the game of politics, but I do not believe that the UK is better or stronger for his tenure at the top. His policies were consistently guided by socialist ideology and a desire to stay in control of everything, rather than any true understanding of society. A great many Britons are still in a state of shock, despair and disbelief about how much damage was either deliberately done, or allowed to occur, to the social fabric and legal structure of the nation in the Blair years (and continuing now under Mr Brown).

Claiming that jon Stewart should treat him with respect
due to his office is right.Now can you all remember that next time Jimmy Carter/Al Gore comes up, because it is bad manners and i will make you all sit on the naughty step.

The problem i and others have had with tony blair can be summed up by a poster here.

Markabinva,thanks Blair and W for not having had a catastrophic terrorist attack in 7 years.

Did the London bombings on 7/7 not get reported in your land? Is it because we are ‘overthere’ and not ‘here.’

who should have their own tv show?

That’s the usual–we see it with trolls who start shouting personal attacks when faced with the emptiness of their arguments.

Really? So now you admit you think you’re part of the government of this nation simply because you have a TV show? That’s refreshingly honest.

zmrzlina on September 20, 2008 at 7:01 AM

Like many posted last night Jon Stewart did make fun of Obama once (that I can think of) and Allah did post it. Stewart has made fun of the way the media has covered Obama but I don’t count that as actually mocking him.

Aren’t we all just sick and tired of watching these smarmy, know-it-all, pseudo-intellectual ass-clowns like Stewart needle and berate honest and dutiful people like George W. Bush and Tony Blair? Why did Blair agree to do this rotten show? It’s been a lib love-fest ever since Craig Kilborn left.

Even if there *are* examples, it is plainly obvious that Bush, McCain and Republicans are the targets of Stewart and Colbert 99% of the time. Jay Leno plays it down the middle as policy, which is why he is head and shoulders above the rest.

Hmmm..so kicking out the guy who led your country into war, & replacing him with someone who was against the war, is not a good thing to do? Hmmm…

jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Blair was not kicked out of office, there was no election. Blair resigned in the middle of his term as Prime Minister and Brown replaced him.

Janos Hunyadi on September 20, 2008 at 12:30 AM

Oh, okay. No problem.

Trendy smugness looked a lot like bad mannered presumptiveness to me.

MsDollie on September 20, 2008 at 1:50 AM

Here too. It is sooo tedious watching Stewart constantly interrupt Blair. Just shut up for a minute, man. Let him finish a thought or two.

And which country did America invade? Iran.

NO – WAIT WAIT WAIT!

Take a look at a map.

See where Iraq is?
See where Afghanistan is?
What’s between them?

Stewart constantly interrupted with a pretense of intellect, as if fearful that his audience may get a credible, alternative perspective.

And then loudly brayed like a mule at his own comment. Sheesh, how embarrassing.

Stewart may have worked close to 9/11, but he doesn’t appear to have learned anything from it – he’s still living in the world before.

Merovign on September 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Yes, the part about Hamas, Hezbolla, etc. being only interested in local problems is pretty funny. And it shows what Bush is up against. How do you lead people who are just convinced they no more than you do about the thing you are the world expert on?

But Stewart and his wife are just raising their kids to be sad!
That’s probably true:)

In many ways this was an amazing meeting. I want to take a class from Tony Blair! Wow! I had a few pretty cool profs who were known in their field. But Wow! I wonder if having Tony Blair teaching at Harvard will change it’s focus to being a little more down to earth than all the liberalism.

I wonder if Tony Blair really understands how much liberals really hate America. I bet he doesn’t hate America. I hope he can make a difference in how the history will be written.

no insult intended