Wednesday, 27 January 2010

To Blair: How Much Money Have You Made Since You Were PM?

Kelvin Mackenzie was just asked on the Sky News paper review what question he wants to be put to Blair when he faces Chilcot. He was absolutely fuming - as I seem permanently to be these days when it comes to Liebour generally - and came up with a real doozy. He said he wanted to cut through all the non-oath, lawyerless BS and get to heart of things. The question, he said, should be: "How much money have you [Blair] made since you were Prime Minister?"

Last thing I read about this, it was something like £15 million - and still rapidly rising (and it's a figure that doesn't take into account his various nefarious business arrangements or his truly massive international property portfolio). He's the wealthiest ex-PM in modern history and he made that money simply because he fooled enough people into voting for him - three times. Exploitation of office? Personal agendas? Utter corruption? You get it all with Tony Blair - and all who supported (and still support) him. Alastair "David Kelly" Campbell, for one.

But Blair's clearly been well-rewarded for being Bush's Wormtongue. Lying to the British people and to parliament about some mythical need for "regime change" in Iraq was all he had to do. And he went about the task with truly nauseating alacrity.

Whatever millions Blair, in his insatiable greed, has scammed since being pushed out by his even-worse, long-term rival, Brown, every single penny of it is blood money. And the blood is the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of brave British soldiers. All sacrificed on the altar of an evil Labour leader's vanity, greed and megalomania. (With Brown, of course, I suppose you can omit the greed, but not the vanity and megalomania.) But, as a Conservative-voting relative of mine said to me just the other day, "It's really very simple...Blair is a war criminal."

The other upshot is that not-only Blair, but the entire rotten edifice that is the Labour party must never, ever be let off the hook for this terrible evil that their leader(s) perpetrated, and virtually all of them went along with. All the way to the first bombing raid and beyond.

It won't be forgotten or forgiven by an abused, humiliated and exploited British people for decades to come, that's for certain. And rightly so.


  1. Just to nit-pick: Blair is not a war criminal. War criminals are people who break the Geneva Convention. It is dangerous to blur the distinction between the concept of being a "war criminal" (e.g. deliberately killing civilians, or executing captives) and the fatuous concept of an "illegal" war.

  2. "It won't be forgotten or forgiven by an abused, humiliated and exploited British people"

    er - the same ones who:

    - re-elected Blair?

    - have stood by and watched the destruction of civil liberties?

    - just rolled over when tuition fees were introduced - by the government that had "legislated to prevent" their introduction?

    Them? New Labour knows the lesson of "never give a sucker and even break" so it will not even ask the British people for forgiveness, rather just let them forget in peace. It could give them an apology apparently, but it did not even do that - no need you see.

  3. Cardinel Richelieu: check your figures and your cynicism, old boy. The majority of Britons never voted for Blair, for one thing, and for another, just like the Tories in parliament, an awful lot of people, honest folk that they are, were happy to take him at his word, and not just over Iraq. So for you to hold the British people responsible for his mendacity and Labour's authoritarianism and incompetence is, frankly, weird.

    If you are that jaded, then I strongly suggest you become an expat. (Perhaps you already are - in which case you should just keep schtum.)

  4. Adam: if you say so, old boy. But I am afraid that we disagree. The term 'war criminal', for one thing, has a far wider definition than you seem to realise. You mention the Geneva Convention. Fine. How about this: allowing Basra to descend into anarchy by failing to provide adequate security provision (200 troops for a city of 1.5million?!) during a period of occupation following the conclusion of hostilities is in itself a war crime. More than merely technically, Blair was responsible for the militia death squads being permitted to run amok for three years, and hold the population to ransom, often literally. That alone would be enough to prosecute him, uncomfortable as that might be for all of us. So I don't make the charge lightly - and you shouldn't dismiss it so readily...

  5. cont...

    As for the 'fatuous' concept of an illegal war - hmmm, then what would you call a war of aggression waged against a sovereign nation (however much of a pariah it might be) based on a lie? Unfortunate? Or do you think that we British just don't do that sort of thing? We do, but only when it suits us, apparently. (So Robert Mugabe can rest easy, I suppose.)

    I was not 'for' the war at the time because I simply did not believe Blair (not that that mattered) and strongly felt that it was the 'wrong war' anyway (which it was). But don't imagine that I am some anti-war nutter baying for Blair's head. The first Gulf War, for instance, was entirely justified and I was an ardent supporter of it - indeed, I felt we should have toppled Saddam there and then, and sent him to The Hague to face the music. Blair's war was a fait accompli by early 2002 - the causus belli was sorted out afterwards. Now it might, in some people's minds, be possible to judge this action by the 'happy' outcome of Saddam's eventual execution. However, I would have thought that travelling down that particular road (Blair's road) is what is really 'dangerous' (you know, the ends justifying the means road). I wonder, is that where you are going here? If so, I respectfully urge you to think again - and change direction.

  6. I am not, contrary to your suggestion, holding the "British people responsible for his[Blair's] mendacity and Labour's authoritarianism and incompetence" although I do say they are responsible for allowing such to flourish.

    My point is precisely that they should not have been "happy to take him at his word" - by Iraq there was ample evidence to suggest this was unwise. But they did - and even allowing "honest folk" the benefit if their generous-hearted gullibility, history shows that in the face of the truth being available to them, they still rolled-over and accepted the consequences of believing Blair's lies, time and again.

    If figures concern you, note the majority of Britons have not voted for most of the governments we have had.

  7. 'My point is precisely that they should not have been "happy to take him at his word"'

    So, with the crystal clear hindsight, you continue to condemn vast numbers of British people for not doing what they "should" have done, that they "should" have known the "truth". And that's your point? Seems to me you are asking an awful (way too much, actually) in your marginally meaningful counterfactual. (I didn't take Blair at his word, of course - never have. But that's neither here nor there. You dig?)

    "If figures concern you, note the majority of Britons have not voted for most of the governments we have had."

    What is the relevance of this remark? I was merely reminding you that you "should" remember that, right or wrong, Blair was handed power by a minority of the voting population, meaning that you "shouldn't" make wild generalisations. And, in point of fact, his last election victory was achieved with the smallest proportion of the popular vote in history. So that lets even more people off your hindsight hook, doesn't it?

    So have faith, my good Cardinal. People are basically good - even British people. But they don't like to be made fools of and they (we) will have satisfaction - (on May 6th, if the bookies are right). And God willing.

    Have a better one :)

  8. But the “crystal clear hindsight” is now and was at the time of rewarding Blair with another term available to the British people and either by voting for his party or failing to vote against it, they allowed him to flourish.

    So if your premise is correct, that the British people have been “abused, humiliated and exploited”, then they have colluded in this and they have accepted it to the point where New Labour did not need to be as seriously concerned as decency and right suggests they should have been. And yet you say “it won't be forgotten or forgiven”. I say it has been. I do, though, earnestly hope for a reawakening but you are quite right, I am too jaded to believe the British people will rise up and smite the wrong doers now. It is tragic to reflect that people do get the governments they deserve.

  9. I've clearly gone too far, Your Eminence, and just because I love a good row. Please forgive me for slightly overplaying my hand, such as it is.

    What you said in that latest comment of yours, especially this bit: "It is tragic to reflect that people do get the governments they deserve" is just, plainly, painfully true. I'm not saying you're right, but you are right about that.

    I'm pretty jaded too, if truth be told. But it's my own fault that I always, relentlessly (foolishly?) prefer hope over resignation. After all, that's why I try to maintain such a sunny outlook, particularly when it comes to the idea of what one might call a British political renaissance.

    There's no harm in that, though, is there?

    (I still your logic's a bit dodgy though. "...rewarding Blair with another term available to the British people and either by voting for his party or failing to vote against it, they allowed him to flourish.
    if your premise is correct..."

    Not my premise, old chap. I think they call that chestnut a straw man. But I do take your point, if I've decoded it correctly. And it's a fairly fair one.)


Any thoughts?