Hang on, are you suggesting that it's the fault of another party that labours leader turned out to be a f***ing warmonger?
Get a grip of yourself man.

Hang on, are you suggesting that it's the fault of another party that labours leader turned out to be a f***ing warmonger?
Get a grip of yourself man

No – I'm suggesting that both the main parties were equally guilty

ernie_lynch Fair points you have there, but I do have an underlying hatred of Labour, who have stooped to a new low level of sleaze lies based on a legacy left by Blair. I have had many disagreements with my mother-in-law who votes Labour from some misguided family loyalty even though their policies have affected her family to their detriment. I pains me to see Brown with that ugly smile of his supposedly out in Afghanistan to support our troops. Ha what rot he just wanted to be the first PM since Churchill to sleep abroad in a warzone. 😈

I'm neither a liberal nor a tory, but it's plain for me to see that the blame for iraq lies squarely with the labour party and the people who voted them into power.
F*** all to do with the tories.
Their opinion of the decision was irrelevant as they weren't in power, they didn't push the button and so cannot be held accountable.
To say that they are is a bit pathetic. They shouldn't try to shift blame to others, just put their hand up and say "yup, we dropped a b0llock-sorry about that". At least they might salvage some kind of dignity.

I've certainly no love for Brown but perhaps some of the more vociferous anti-labour voices on here could explain how "call me" Dave and "gorgeous" George will make things better.*
.
.
.
Excepting benefitting their chums of course.

Not shifting the blame at all – merely saying that the Tories were complicit – they probably could have turned the vote if they'd wanted to

Iain Duncan Smith [who's he?] on the eve of the vote to his MPs

Saddam Hussein had "the means, mentality and motive" to threaten Britain's national security

Both parties have dirty hands on this one

This doen't apply to me. I don't dislike labour or the tories. At this moment in time, I do not think that labour or Brown has anything to offer us and they should not be let off for Iraq. I simply cannot see how they could do much worse.

The tories, iirc, supported the call to war. They had to take what they were being told in good faith – otherwise it undermines the whole game. They can't, as we would have all done, said 'prove it'. There's more to this still: the opposition were complicit in this and I dare say we'll never know the truth. What we're being told is like an onion – as one lair of lies is removed, another one is exposed. <Tin-foil hat on>

Oh, & +1 on David Kelly being assassinated.

I found the whole kelly thing quite upsetting.
I doubt he got into science with the intention of being caught up in all of that sh1t.

many more labourites voted for him than tories did.

Well that's hardly surprising is it ? ……… unlike traditional Tory voters, traditional Labour voters didn't exactly have a lot of choice about who to vote for.

Which is precisely what New Labour relied on. And what initially, made them so electorally successful, and why they had such huge majorities.

Had Sun/Daily Mail/Telegraph readers not gone out in their droves to vote for Blair and given him such a huge majority, then opposition within his own party would have been much more critical for him. As it was, he was able to comfortably ignore the dozen or so principled Labour MPs who opposed him – including his drive for war.

Keeping Daily Mail readers sweet, was Blair's first priority.

Of course it has all started going pear-shaped for New Labour in recent years as more and more traditional Labour voters decide that they would rather stay and at home than go out and vote for a bunch of lying lowlifes. And suddenly traditional Tory voters are coming home – hence in the June '09 EU elections, Labour received 15.7% of the vote in 34.7% turnout. Their worst result ever.

I've certainly no love for Brown but perhaps some of the more vociferous anti-Labour voices on here could explain how "call me" Dave and "gorgeous" George will make things better.*
.
.
.
Excepting benefiting their chums of course.

Don't remember anyone saying they would, in fact all the party lack a pair of balls to make a decision on pulling our troops out and putting there energies into sorting our own borders and immigration problems and routing out any would be threats to our security on our turf. I don't see how invading Iraq made us any safer, I think it did the opposite same goes for Afghanistan. Its Iran & Pakistan that are the biggest threat, with the amount of extremists whipping up there hatred for the US & UK as a result of our POlicies.

Ernie, I don't disagree with you. In fact you're probably right; the additional voters had to come from somewhere. However, that doesn't mean that the tories are as responsible for the whole mess as labour are.

ernie – whilst it's true that some of the emptiness of the New Labour project arguably stems from the need to have a broad appeal (but then, no government gets elected by only appealing to their core voters do they?), Blair's foreign policy of going to war constantly (Desert Fox, Sierra Leone, bombing Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq) seems to have something to do with his belief that things could be made better by interfering rather than not getting involved. I don't think that aspect of his policy had anything to do with appeasing Daily Mail readers.

porterclough, while I agree with your sentiments; please don't include sierra leone in that list.
Seeing kids knocking around with their arms lopped off will stay with me forever.

Anyone who thinks a Tory government wouldn't have supported George Bush's war in Iraq, is clearly living with the fairies. But that's not the point ….. I, and millions of others, would have expected better from a Labour government.

Having said that, I'm sure that a Tory Prime minister such as Thatcher would have stood up more to the Yanks and voiced her generals concerns – unlike the spineless Blair. And of course had we had a Tory government, then there is little doubt that more or less the entire Parliamentary Labour Party would have been opposed to the war. Coupled with the millions throughout Britain who were opposed to war from the start, a Tory government would have had far more difficulty in committing Britain to war than Blair ever had. We would have been better off with a Tory government 😐

Flippinheckler I couldn't agree with you more. I also agree that Bumblebore is making a right mess of things. However the dynamic duo from the New Nazi Conservative party worry me far more.

Anyone who thinks a Tory government wouldn't have supported George Bush's war in Iraq, is clearly living with the fairies. But that's not the point ….. I, and millions of others, would have expected better from a Labour government.

Why? They've been a disaster every time they've been in power. Give them a choice and not only will they pick the wrong one but they'll **** it up as well.

no government gets elected by only appealing to their core voters do they?

The traditional way to win opposition voters over, is through the power of your argument – not by saying "I'm a Tory/Socialist like you".

New Labour is discovering to their cost that, that sort of support is very soft, unreliable, and will quickly abandon you. Still they probably knew that but were far too hungry for power to worry about such things.

Ernie, that's conjecture isn't it?
It's a bit optimistic to try to assume what would have happened under another party. Maybe Haigh/Duncan Smith would have said "George you can f*** right off". Maybe labour would have wholeheartedly supported the war (quite likely; they suggested it in the first place and implemented it) Maybe not, but we'll never know.

it still pained me though, to see a "Labour" government so enthusiastic to go to war.

But the policy was one of liberal intervention – i.e., it came from a social democratic perspective, an idealistic belief in using military power to make the world better. A pity that Blair never seems to have read The Quiet American.

I think Ernie is right on this one.

had a Tory Govt been in power and been pushing hard for war the Labour line would have been instinctively to stand in opposition. Whether that would have been for peaceful and altruistic reasons or simply the chance to stuff the Tories in front of the Americans wouldn't really have mattered. That opposition alongside the many, many Britons who opposed the war would have scuppered the Tories.
Remember, Blair took power with a HUGE majority, the Tories would never have gathered that sort of broad support because the Labour traditionalists could never have been persuaded to change their vote & the Tories would never have swung left enough to appeal to them.
Blair sacrificed the trad Labour core for the middle-ground conservatives and it was this that gave him his majority.

In fact, if/when the Tories are returned with a huge majority it will be BECAUSE of Blair & Co's appropriation of the middle-ground conservatives and their eventual disgust with him.

Both parties have dirty hands in this affair but it was the Cabal of Blairites behind the Cabinet that hold the responsibility, without their lies Parliament would most likely have rejected Blairs warmongering.

it came from a social democratic perspective, an idealistic belief in using military power to make the world better.

I know of no social-democratic tradition of going to war in pursuit of an idealistic aim.

Indeed it runs totally contrary to the aims of social-democracy, which as I have always understood, can be summed up in the words : "peace and social justice"

EDIT : BTW, there is no way that New Labour can be described as "social-democratic". One of the prerequisites for a social-democracy, is a "mixed economy". New labour has no such commitment. Unlike the post-war Tory governments which could fairly be described as "social-democratic".

had a Tory Govt been in power and been pushing hard for war the Labour line would have been instinctively to stand in opposition

Unless you can prove this (which you can't), then don't say it. How the **** does anyone know what would have happened?
Let us not forget that labour and nobody else were the ones to send troops into Iraq. That is just a fact.

Many here are under the impression that Bush pressurised Blair to go into Iraq. He actually told Blair a couple of weeks before it began that if it was giving him too many problems he could back out and the US would go it alone.

I agree with Ernie the Tories would probably have done the same.

Anyone who thought at the time that we went into Iraq because of WMDs was being incredibly naive. There seems to have been some sort of unspoken collusion amongst Labour and Tory MPs along the lines of "We know this WMD thing is a crock of shit Tony but we'll go along with you and get British companies some nice reconstruction and oil contracts and if there aren't any WMDs well we can just blame you or British Intelligence for misleading us. We can let the yanks do most of the work and anyway it'll be a quick in and out job" Didn't exactly work out like that.

Backhander – i can say it because opposition to Tory policies is at the heart of the Labour traditionalist – i am one!
Remember that 'old' Labour was inherently anti-war, if they were in opposition i would surmise that more of the trad Labour MP's would have been present rather than Blairs opportunistic followers although that is only my conjecture.
Labour members would have been in opposition to the war – many of the rank and file were after all – and that combined with the chance to embarrass a sitting Tory PM would have been too good a chance to pass up.

Both the Parliamentary Labour Party & the Parliamentary Conservative Party (along with the rest) were hoodwinked into lending their support to Blairs cabal through lies and coercion. Parliament would have been a lot harder to convince (whatever their political colour) had Blair not been able to pull the WMD stunt & that was only possible with American collaberation.

Why? They've [labour government] been a disaster every time they've been in power

I know that bloody NHS what did that ever achieve eh?
oh and Ernie is correct Tories at fault for Labour sucess – it does sound daft if you just read thw soundbite bit the extended argument is sound- and they would have gone to war as well.
OT Blair is still a ****t

How the **** does anyone know what would have happened?

Well it's not exactly rocket science to work out how Labour would have behaved in opposition.

For example, Labour in opposition opposed every single Tory privatisation – not one single privatisation did they support – they opposed all of them – and that includes Tony Blair btw. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that had they not won the election in '97, then they would have continued to oppose Tory plans for further privatisation – despite the fact that in the last 10 year or so they have enthusiastically embraced privatisation themselves. It therefore is also perfectly reasonable to assume that Labour in opposition would have opposed a Tory government foreign policies – specially when there was such widespread public opposition.

.

Let us not forget that labour and nobody else were the ones to send troops into Iraq. That is just a fact.

That is not true. "Parliament" send the troops into Iraq, and apart for a few exceptions, that includes the Tory Party. The LibDems and Plaid Cymru opposed it though.

Tony Blair was in an impossible position, he was facing a tyrant in Saddam who had more UN resolutions against him that anybody else ever, and I genuinely believe he did what he thought was right.

His only error was to go along with Bush, without insisting they formulated a proper endgame scenario.

So are we assuming also that "new" labour would have reverted to "old" if they hadn't have won a second(or third?) term. That's a lot of assumption.
If you're suggesting that had labour not got into power and remained traditional then yes, you're probably correct. I'm afraid that the old labour is loooong gone now.

FFS NO other party can be blamed for labours policy on war. It really is that simple. The tories might not have opposed it, but that's an entirely different thing from proposing and implementing it.

So are we assuming also that "new" labour would have reverted to "old" if they hadn't have won a second(or third?) term. That's a lot of assumption.

And yet you don't appear to be having much trouble in assuming that a Tory government would have opposed George Bush's war in Iraq 😕

NO other party can be blamed for labours policy on war.

But the Tory Party can be blamed for their policy on war……why didn't they vote with the LibDems and oppose it ?

I have suggested a scenario, not implied that it was my belief. In the same way that you're guessing what the political masters would have done based in what ifs with the exception that I'm not pretending to be able to predict occurances in alternative universes. 😯

Not 'opposing' a policy is a tacit approval of that policy. If the Tories had been in opposition to the war as a matter of policy they would have been most vehemently vocal about it.

As for the old-Vs-new argument about Labour i would submit that yes, if the New labour experiment had failed to convince the electorate then the traditionalists in the Party would have once more been in the ascendant and would most probably have reverted to the old positions of being anti-war, anti-privatisation etc.

It's not exactly a great leap to see that if New Labour had fallen at the polls the old guard would have wrestled back control, after all that is EXACTLY what happened with the Tories when they lost – they reverted back to a position of the old right anti-European policies once more.

Just as the defeated Conservative Party leant further to the right because New Labour held the middle ground then a defeated Labour Party would have leant back to the left because the winning Tories would have held the centre.
It's simple politics.

tyrant in Saddam who had more UN resolutions against him that anybody else ever

Israel has had the most resolutions against it and the most vetoed by the USA – who have also vetoed the most resolutions – when do we invade?

In the same way that you're guessing what the political masters would have done based in what ifs with the exception that I'm not pretending to be able to predict occurances in alternative universes.

So no one is able to predict how this government will behave until the next general election then ? No one can predict how a Labour government will behave if they win another election ? And no one can predict how a Tory government will behave ?

I have to say, this "politics" malarkey is all very difficult ……. I don't know how anybody is able to decide who to vote for once they've been given their voting slip and they're standing in the polling booth 😕

So no one is able to predict how this government will behave until the next general election then ? No one can predict how a Labour government will behave if they win another election ? And no one can predict how a Tory government will behave ?

That's pretty much the size of it, what with us not having the ability to see into the future and everything. Who would have predicted that labour would have sent us into 2 major wars? If people has predicted this as you're suggesting that they should have then they wouldn't have been elected. So, no we cannot predict the outcome of anything, we can only guess. We vote for the party who has the most policies that we agree with and hope that they don't **** things up too badly. Ooops.

So, no we cannot predict the outcome of anything, we can only guess.

What do you base your "guessing" on then ?