Ooops…double post.

deadlydarcy – Member

Why?

Because she should have let the Argies have them. The Malvinas are theirs after all.

No they're not and they never were.

They were Brit administered and populated exclusively by Brits before Argentina even existed. There was no native population.

We'll negotiate terms with Spain (who have a claim to a certain extent) once the last of Argentina's caucasian population jumps on a boat back to Spain, Italy, Ireland and various other European countries.

Because she should have let the Argies have them. The Malvinas are theirs after all.

Never mind that she deliberately created the impression to the Argies that she wouldn't try and defend them.

A certain kind of tribal Labour voter would have far preferred that we lost the war.

I'd hardly even heard of the Labour party. Still shouted for the Argies though. If only they were as good at fighting as they were at football 🙂

deadlydarcy – Member
I had hardly even heard of the Labour party – still shouted for the Argies though. If only they were as good at fighting as football.

Well that's the tragedy of the republican mindset. An identity principally defined by hatred of Britain rather than pride in Ireland.

Maybe one day you'll get over it.

I had hardly even heard of the Labour party – still shouted for the Argies though. If only they were as good at fighting as football.

that's fair enough. I was cheering for the paras in NI.
If only the Irish were as good at fighting as they are at hurling.

Well that's the tragedy of the republican mindset

Steady.

backhander – Member
that's fair enough. I was cheering for the paras in NI.
If only the Irish were as good at fighting as they are at hurling.

Oh that's hardly fair backhander.

PIRA were awesome at killing catholics, far better than the security forces or the loyalist paramilitaries 😉

My work here is done. It never takes much to scratch the surface with you two. Happy biting. 🙂

Why would anyone want to read anything written by a deceitful unrepentant liar ? 😕
It's hardly as if you can trust anything he says.

I note that in the book he apparently says, when talking about Iraq, "I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded"

Well there was no need to "guess" anything. Just the need to listen to what everyone, including your generals, was saying……you arrogant little ****. Everyone with half a brain predicted that it would be a "nightmare".

And his "biggest regrets" is the ban on fox hunting [FFS] and Freedom of Information Act……..well I guess if you are dishonest lying ****, then you might regret that becoming law.
.

binners – Member

I think I hate him even more than I hate Thatcher.

I have never hated Thatcher. She simply did what she could to serve the best interests of the wealthy class which she married into. And she was in the Tory Party after all.

On the other hand, I have always hated that deceitful lying self-serving cheating phoney fraudster and charlatan.

Everybody on the radio today has been going on about Blair's "drinking problem". A stiff G&T before dinner and maybe half a bottle of wine with the meal.

Most people I know would limit themselves to that if they knew they were going out for a bevvy afterwards.

Blair will get plenty from this book, including indirect money.

His ego will be fed. His face will be saved.

By 'donating' to the British Legion, loads of people who would otherwise have protested by NOT buying this book will now feel it is 'patriotic' to the troops to do so. Most will not make a direct donation to the charity instead, as they will want something solid in return for their money and they no longer have to feel guilty about curiosity.

I cant see Tony coping ego wise with selling less books than Mandelson. Problem now solved!

The publicity over his donation has given him more TV and Newspaper time than he could possibly have got otherwise. More ego fulfillment plus the image of a generous hero and man of the people.

The more publicity he gets the more people will pay him for talks, dinner speeches etc when surely by now this source of money must have been drying up. He has done nothing interesting or useful at all other than line his pockets on the back of a load of peoples deaths and shamed the UK in the process.

He has supposedly just paid £1 million in cash for a little 1st house for his daughter. Can you do this? I think he can afford to loose the odd 4 million or so balanced against his property empire, his new banking venture and the additional revenue obtained indirectly from the book.

All round he cant possibly loose by 'giving stuff away' – money and ego fulfillment both on a plate plus another stab at securing a more positive 'legacy'.

You're such a cynic Midnighthour.

And undoubtedly absolutely correct.

Not to mention the fact that he is married to a very wealthy and successful lawyer that has earned far more than him!! Perhaps she bought the house for her daughter. We pay our politicians peanuts and then whinge about them making money after they have left office. It may be that the £4.5 million pounds that the RBL is only a small part of his wealth. But it is lot more than virtually every other politician (including those with inherited wealth) have given to the RBL.

We pay our politicians peanuts and then whinge about them making money after they have left office.

The prime minister salary is £194,250.

And Tony Blair is entitled to half of that, index-linked against inflation for the rest of his life.

.

But it is lot more than virtually every other politician (including those with inherited wealth) have given to the RBL.

But there aren't many politicians who are directly linked to illegal wars. Nor are there many politicians who not only have to wrestle with their conscience, but also know that there is a chance one day there might be an international warrant issued for their arrest.

You're right though, the size of his donation to the RBL is unprecedented……….and it speaks absolute volumes.

Why would anyone want to read anything written by a deceitful unrepentant liar ?

So it's a work of fiction? I read plenty of those.

I note even you are capable of quoting lines out of it, ernie – that implies you have at least a passing interest (and are rather more bothered than me). The lady doth protest too much, methinks 😉

The prime minister salary is £194,250.

Not an insignificant amount of money. But I'm sure Blair (and every other "top" politician) spends alot of there time thinking "If I'd gone into business, I'd be on 3 times this money, specially since they tightened up the expenses….."

Compared to a similar role (CEO of large multi-national) the PM is lowly paid.

I suspect anyone could have won the election of '97 if they had been a labour leader.

That's what we thought in 1992!

His latter years are dominated by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The legality of both are dubious but we are helped with hindsight. The biggest crime with Iraq was the total lack of planning for after the invasion. However we were always going to join in the war after Bush Snr. and Thatcher had stopped at the gates of Baghdad in Gulf War I. Both major parties supported the war – and given that we the public had voted them in – we get what we deserve.

The illegality of the Iraq war was clear at the time. Legality is not something that you find out only by doing something. The argument for war was based on lies and distortion, the execution of the war was militarily fine, and the de-Ba'athification process and subsequent occupation was a complete and utter disaster mired in cynicism and ignorance.

I also doubt whether your argument for popular assent of the war through MPs stands much scrutiny – compare the adult population to the electoral roll to turnout to wasted votes. In any case, you can't claim a popular mandate for a war which was (obviously) not a manifesto issue and when there was massive public opposition to it.

I'm sure Blair (and every other "top" politician) spends alot of there time thinking "If I'd gone into business, I'd be on 3 times this money, specially since they tightened up the expenses….."

Nonsense – being ex-PM is a job for life – it's rock and roll for ugly people.

Not only do you get paid tons of money as pension but you also get to flog your memoirs in hardcopy and mp3, you can score as many non-executive director posts as you can handle, and the public speaking fees are enormous.

Plus you can spend your time swanning around the place to your heart's content meeting people who constantly tell you how wonderful you are and inflating your ego. It's like being Madonna or Diana Krall without even the pressure of having to record any new songs, ever. CEOs have to go through the tedious business of actually managing companies, worrying about the falling price of grommets, SEC disclosure, deciding on M&As, dealing with bitchy institutional shareholders and extortionist activist shareholders.

Plus if you're ex-PM with pretensions, you can pick up meaningless envoy and IGO jobs. HOW'S THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS GOING SINCE YOU BECAME QUARTET ENVOY, TONY, YOU ****???

I'll be buying it.
My kids need a step up to get to the toilet, and it has the added bonus of spare sheets should they run out of loo paper.

"Middle East Peace Envoy"? Don't make me laugh. The guy won't even go there as it's too f***ing dangerous. Arsehole.

aracer – Member

I note even you are capable of quoting lines out of it, ernie – that implies you have at least a passing interest (and are rather more bothered than me). The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Of course I have a 'passing interest' ……….Tony Blair is an extremely significant person in British politics *rolls eyes*

The prime minister salary is £194,250.

Not to quibble about the odd £60k or so, but in 2010/11 the Prime Minister’s ministerial salary entitlement is £132,923. That's the bit he gets 50% of. Any additional amount is his MP's salary. Final salary and index linking applies to that, but it's based on length of service.

So he won't get half of £194,250.

I know it's Singletrack, and I should be Fighting The Man or some such other old guff, but I'll definitely be buying and reading it.

Not sure I'll agree with his view of the world – in many cases, I definitely won't – but we've lived through a fascinating time in politics, and watching the implosion of the Labour power trio (quartet if you include Campbell), the jealousies and pettiness is riveting stuff as far as I'm concerned.

The Campbell and Mandelson books were great reads, and I'm sure the Blair one will be less interesting and a bit more 'worthy'; that said, does anyone really think that any of the current Labour contenders could hold a candle to Blair in his prime? He made a lot of gaffes, and I'll always despise his Iraq deception, but he was an absolute game-changer.

We do not know how much Blair is worth since he hides his finances behind many secret companies, or rather companies who are not required to submit accounts. All we know is how much his many houses are worth in the UK.

Ding!

If he were "a regular kind of guy" as he claimed, he wouldn't be hiding his wealth in a complex network of companies. Nor would he be worth £millions so soon after standing down as PM. I'm forced to wonder if all his consultancy fees are in fact deferred payment for services rendered.

I just can't see how a man who was PM, but has now retired from politics and be so useful to a business in any capacity that I regard as honest and compatible with democracy.

I would not buy it, why would I want to line that to$$ers pocket!

does anyone really think that any of the current Labour contenders could hold a candle to Blair in his prime? He made a lot of gaffes, and I'll always despise his Iraq deception, but he was an absolute game-changer.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here – 'yeah so he's a war criminal but he's a bit more of a celebrity than anyone else so that's got to be a good thing'?

Grum – nothing to do with celebrity, I'm saying that he changed Britain, probably as much as Thatcher did. People may gripe and groan, but if you look at the achievements of the Blair government(s), you'll see some remarkable successes. And I'm also saying that as a political leader he stood/stands head and shoulders above the new Labour crop.

Was he a war criminal? Dunno, I'm not qualified to judge, though I certainly disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, and the disinformation around that was disgraceful. That said, I'd argue that pretty much every PM has blood on his/her hands, and that questionable moral judgements are part of the territory. Politics is a deeply unpleasant business, and no-one tends to come out of it well.

I recognise that this might be a controversial view on here 😉 but I can't argue against anything that I don't know about.

I'll be reading it.

Not to quibble about the odd £60k or so, but in 2010/11 the Prime Minister’s ministerial salary entitlement is £132,923. That's the bit he gets 50% of

So he is going to have to struggle by on just shy of £66,500. My heart bleeds, it really f***ing does.

Probably wait until I can get a copy from Oxfam (other charity shops exist), but I will read it just to confirm why I have lost my belief in Labour – New or Old, not at Full RRP tho

Anyone bought it yet, or going to buy the sunday paper with a story about Wiliam Hague and the twin room, and his freind.

Bought it today.

Why?
Because she should have let the Argies have them. The Malvinas are theirs after all.

From the World Factbook:

Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

My statement was merely to provoke what followed. 🙂

Didn't really provoke much though did it?
Not even a swear word.

Didn't really provoke much though did it?
Not even a swear word.

Got what I wanted anyway. And, you two are way above swearing.

Thank you.

Today TB was in Dublin, and the locals as a sign of appreciation to him coming to see them in the rain, threw shoes, and eggs to him,as gifts as he is now poor since he donated all the money from the book to the poor old injured soldiers, he didnt even have the decency to say thankyou or pick them up, what an ignorant man he is.

TB= tony bliar, the ex politician, not some sort of contagious disease that kills people.

What a mess he left our country in nevermind foreign countries. There were many warnings about credit/housing market years ago but he knew it'd cause a recession earlier.

I wonder why he really handed over power.