Sunday, December 20, 2009
Thoughts of a political entrepreneur
Over at the Sunday Times, Tony Blair waxes lyrically about how under-appreciated he is in Britain:
He blamed his negative image in Britain on the press, saying: “They don’t approach me in an objective way. Their first question is how to belittle what I’m doing, knock it down, write something bad about it. It’s not right. It’s not journalism. They don’t get me and they’ve got a score to settle with me. But they are not going to settle it.”
He added: “It’s not true that nobody likes me! Reading the papers in Britain, you’d end up thinking I’d lost three elections rather than won them. There is a completely different atmosphere around me outside the country. People accept the work that you are doing, as it is. They don’t see anything wrong with being successful financially and also doing good work.”
Meanwhile over in the Observer, Mr. Blair's biographer is more critical. The man who once described Blair as a "political colossus" with achievements as least as great as Margaret Thatcher's, has warned that his reputation will be destroyed if he refuses to apologise for his errors over the Iraq war.
Anthony Seldon says Blair possessed a rare gift for understanding the public mood and an ability to speak in a way "that touched the British psyche better than any prime minster since Winston Churchill". But he argues that he "lost it" when he turned from a populist to a conviction politician, driven by his Christian beliefs and a sense of moral purpose that made him sure he was always right.
All of this activity of course is just a prelude to the former Prime Minister's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war in the new year, when critics hope he will face charges of manipulating intelligence. Ken Macdonald, QC, the former director of public prosecutions, accused him last week of “deceit” and “subterfuge”, but Blair said the critics were “doing it more for effect than anything else”.
Seldon argues that the appearance will be the final chance to admit his mistakes.
"Where Blair should accept responsibility is for misleading the British public over the reason for committing British troops to fight," Seldon writes. "While the intelligence was sufficient to convince most insiders across the world that Saddam had powerful weapons, Blair could and should have probed the '45 minutes' thesis more on WMDs, and given far greater weight to the moral case for war over WMDs. If this had failed to sway parliament, then he should have accepted that verdict."
Blair should also apologise, he adds, for failing to extract further concessions from the US and – the gravest error – for lack of postwar planning.
Seldon remains in awe of Blair's record, but warns: "The war and its aftermath continue to stalk him and diminish everything else he achieved. The moral certainty he displays is one side of Christianity; the other is humility. The more we hear of the latter, the quicker the scar of Iraq on his own and on Britain's reputation will begin to heal."
He blamed his negative image in Britain on the press, saying: “They don’t approach me in an objective way. Their first question is how to belittle what I’m doing, knock it down, write something bad about it. It’s not right. It’s not journalism. They don’t get me and they’ve got a score to settle with me. But they are not going to settle it.”
He added: “It’s not true that nobody likes me! Reading the papers in Britain, you’d end up thinking I’d lost three elections rather than won them. There is a completely different atmosphere around me outside the country. People accept the work that you are doing, as it is. They don’t see anything wrong with being successful financially and also doing good work.”
Meanwhile over in the Observer, Mr. Blair's biographer is more critical. The man who once described Blair as a "political colossus" with achievements as least as great as Margaret Thatcher's, has warned that his reputation will be destroyed if he refuses to apologise for his errors over the Iraq war.
Anthony Seldon says Blair possessed a rare gift for understanding the public mood and an ability to speak in a way "that touched the British psyche better than any prime minster since Winston Churchill". But he argues that he "lost it" when he turned from a populist to a conviction politician, driven by his Christian beliefs and a sense of moral purpose that made him sure he was always right.
All of this activity of course is just a prelude to the former Prime Minister's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war in the new year, when critics hope he will face charges of manipulating intelligence. Ken Macdonald, QC, the former director of public prosecutions, accused him last week of “deceit” and “subterfuge”, but Blair said the critics were “doing it more for effect than anything else”.
Seldon argues that the appearance will be the final chance to admit his mistakes.
"Where Blair should accept responsibility is for misleading the British public over the reason for committing British troops to fight," Seldon writes. "While the intelligence was sufficient to convince most insiders across the world that Saddam had powerful weapons, Blair could and should have probed the '45 minutes' thesis more on WMDs, and given far greater weight to the moral case for war over WMDs. If this had failed to sway parliament, then he should have accepted that verdict."
Blair should also apologise, he adds, for failing to extract further concessions from the US and – the gravest error – for lack of postwar planning.
Seldon remains in awe of Blair's record, but warns: "The war and its aftermath continue to stalk him and diminish everything else he achieved. The moral certainty he displays is one side of Christianity; the other is humility. The more we hear of the latter, the quicker the scar of Iraq on his own and on Britain's reputation will begin to heal."
Comments:
<< Home
New labour old problems of lies and two faced politicians who came to power to make themselves rich, Blair is the worse type of politician he knew what he was doing. And he did it and then walked away without finishing it. His bank balance is now enough for this creep to live out his life in style.
New labour is a party with no back bone, it was formed by three people one wanted wealth he has it now but blood on his hands, the other wanted to rule and knew he could not do it without selling his soul Brown, and of course Kinnock is a failed politician who wants to be loved, sadly he is the joke within Politics. So New labour was born it will die with it will die Blair and brown and Kiinock, the people to make anything out of this will be Campbell and Blair
Post a Comment
New labour is a party with no back bone, it was formed by three people one wanted wealth he has it now but blood on his hands, the other wanted to rule and knew he could not do it without selling his soul Brown, and of course Kinnock is a failed politician who wants to be loved, sadly he is the joke within Politics. So New labour was born it will die with it will die Blair and brown and Kiinock, the people to make anything out of this will be Campbell and Blair
# posted by 
: 9:38 AM
: 9:38 AM<< Home
