Talk:Tony Blair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Tony Blair is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article is a former featured article removal candidate. Please see the archive to see why its featured status was upheld.

Tony Blair is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Tony Blair appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2005.

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details. "U.K.'s Blair Might Risk Revisiting Euro Question: Mark Gilbert" (September 9, 2004). Bloomberg News. [1].

This article was externally reviewed on February 12, 2006 by The Independent. "It is opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view." -Note that this peer review referred to something like this version which was indeed POV, but that the POV was soon removed. David

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
Archive 1 (May 04, 2003 to Jan 16, 2005) Archive 2 (Feb 07, 2005 to Nov 04, 2005) Archive 3 (Jan 23, 2006 to Jul 30, 2006)

Contents 1 Terrorist 2 No principles 3 A mistake 4 Strange goings on... 5 Family related stuff 6 Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry 7 Terms? 8 Overall how's Mr Blair done? 9 This article needs a timeline of Tony Blair's life 10 New section: Criticism over his departure 11 Blair is soo Cute!!! 12 Criticism section 13 Poodle? 14 Blair's Departure Date 15 Approval ratings 16 Family Background 17 Domestic Policy: Impeachment 18 Blair a 33rd degree Freemason 19 Addition of widespread support from Americans might be worthwhile to the topic 20 Row over Muslim women wearing veils 21 Order of precedence 22 Portrayals in fiction 23 Blair's predecessor as Labour leader - Smith or Beckett? 24 Impeachment 25 David Reed 26 Article written to date quickly: requires much revision to wording 27 Length

[edit] Terrorist

"accountable to God" Anyone making this claim, that they are accountable to god, not to those that elected them, should be detained indefinately in a secure psychiatric facility. This is what needs to happed to Blair.

The man is an utterly degenerate parasite and has destroyed the UK with his offensive social marxism over the past 10 years. I would be willing to bet that if we polled the electorate, the vast majority would quite happily see his head mounted on a spike outside the tower of London, rather then suffer another term of office with him as PM.

1. Substantially removed the neutrality of the second chamber (Lords) and replaced it with a cabal of his own cronies.

2. Uses the Parliament act when even these appointed Labour lapdogs won't back his crazy social marxist plans.

3. Wants to change the law so that he can 'veto or amend' any existing legislation on the statute book without parliamentary oversight. (Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill)

Britain is walking into a stalinist style dictatorship and the people seem too naive or apathic to notice.

Give it 20 years and the UK will either be under soviet style control or will be an Islamic caliphate because of unchecked immigration.82.21.53.210 09:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it was not Marxism. Not Stalinism either. Nor Soviet Islamicism. The reference to unchecked immigration rather gives you away, Mr Anonymous. Nice Mister Tony is just another tool of the very rich people. He may know it, and he may not, but he's a Christian and stupid with it, so he may well imagine he is thinking for himself. Whichever it is he has done as much damage as his monstrous predecessor, Mrs Thatchescu. Cheers The Real Walrus 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To the first guy what are you smoking? To Walrus, 1 Blair isn't as conservative as Thatcher as you'd like to imagine, 2 Thatcher wasn't THAT bad and 3 Ceauşescu deserves better he didn't work so hard to be that evil and selfish to be compared to a mild conservative.

What's Ceauşescu got to do with it? Tony Blair isn't leading Britain into a dictatorship as he is a tool as Walrus said. elevenzeroone 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion merely shows how if you have power you will be the target of other people's frustration. To claim he "has destroyed the UK" is to give him far too much importance as well as being blatantly untrue, Hitler destroyed Germany by Spring 45, you cant com[pare the Britain of 06 to that, lol, SqueakBox 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No principles

That needs to go down as a criticism. From the right there is the old Hague quote: "In more than 20 years in politics, he has betrayed every cause he believed in, contradicted every statement he has made, broken every promise he has given and breached every agreement that he has entered into... There is a lifetime of U-turns, errors and sell-outs. All those hon. Members who sit behind the Prime Minister and wonder whether they stand for anything any longer, or whether they defend any point of principle, know who has led them to that sorry state. "

And, from the left, we have an equally bitter part of the Morning Star on Friday, 16th June, 2006[2]. "As the ham actor that he is, he affects sincerity and professes whatever ideas are in fashion. His only philosophy is lick upwards and kick downwards. In the early 1980s, that meant sucking up to Labour Party leader Michael Foot, wearing a CND badge and running around Hackney urging support for Tony Benn's deputy leadership. A decade or so later, it meant praising Margaret Thatcher and putting the boot into the trade unions. He told Mr Foot that radical socialist policies were needed at a time when the US was 'in the grip of the same economic madness Mrs Thatcher visits upon us.' Now, he is obsessed with those same neoliberal policies and describes those who press for a radical socialist alternative as living in the past."212.159.30.47 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he's much worse than that. The Real Walrus 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake

It's such a major article I assume I must be missing something in the following sentence or somebody would have pointed it out before me:

a development partly supported by the reform socialist think tank

It doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it should read "by the socialist think tank Reform" but Reform isn't socialist. I changed thinktank to think tank too. --Lo2u 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get it, the Fabian Society isn't a separate item. Still shouldn't that read "pro-reform" or "reforming" or something? Reform isn't an adjective. --Lo2u 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange goings on...

There appears to have been an anachronistic vandal revert by user:Tobes00. Dont know how it happened but it was done with WP:VPRF, so maybe theres as bug in it? Ive tried to undo the minor chaos it caused (most edits since where partial reverts) - my appologies if ive messed up anyone elses edits [the situation got quite confusing!]. Poobarb 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What the? There is strange things going on! Listen to this portion:

Opinion polls however show that ASBOs remain popular with the public leading some to suggest that criticism of them comes mainly from the chattering classes who do not regularly experience anti-social behaviour.[citation needed] It could be argued that Blair's crime policies are popular with the majority of the public for their populist, commonsense approach."

The "chatting classes" apparently is the British version of "Liberal Elite", both words seemingly invented by media smart politicians in the 1980s to change the perception of certain groups through language. This statement is definitely not NPOV, that is for sure, and it doesn't look like the Liberal Elite page is either. Someone is twisting the facts on this page, and I don't like it. ≈Superbeatles™ 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We know who twists the facts on this page. The labour government is not famous for 'perception management' for nothing. It is laughable to claim that this page is NPOV. It has a startling cognitive dissonance with 'the truth'. If, in the modern world, we can even talk about 'the truth'...lies upon lies upon lies and legions of people willing, desperate to believe in these sickly untruths. {chas}

[edit] Family related stuff

This edit removed a few paragraphs of stuff relating to Blair's family, but I'm not entirely conviced - all of it, whilst talking about Blair's family, was in relation to Blair himself. The could easily go under the titles:

• Blair and the MMR vaccine
• The effect of Catholocism on Blair
• Blair and antisocial behavior
• Critisim Of Blair's manipulation of the media.

[Note: I'm not advocating putting them under these titles, just making the point that they are relivant]. I think it should be reinstated. Any thoughts? Poobarb 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Blair's wish to wish to shield their children from the media, and the political controversy over Euan and Nicky's education, both under 'Family Background'. Countersubject 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry

The article claims, " He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it." Tony Blair has done more to undermine the British way of life than anyone else who has ever lived! Olborne 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for people to express their own prejudices about the subject of the article. David | Talk 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides it isnt a fair criticism. If Blair said this there is nothing wrong with including it and if we were each to add our own opinions to or analyze this statement for ourselves it wouldnt be an encyclopedia article. No serious critic believes Blair has undermined the British way of life, ridiculous critiques of Blair merely weaken the validity of the actual criticisms of his time in Number Ten, which of course do have a place in the article. People are saying he has lost his grip, the government have lost their way, the sleaze is worse than during Major's time etc but they are not saying he has undermined the British way of life, or if people are saying this please indicate where exactly, SqueakBox 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not help noticing that "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" is an anagram for "Scottish person who acts exactly like that monster Thatchescu". Am I the only one to have spotted this astounding coincidence? The Real Walrus 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blair compared to Thatcher? You flatter him, SqueakBox 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms?

The article is structured around so-called "terms" of his premiership. Isn't this a bit misleading, given that PMs don't serve specific "terms". Surely a PM stays in power til he/she resigns or dies (though they are obliged to resign if they can no longer command a majority). Terms sounds too much like US presidents! Bluewave 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional to this, at the start of a term it talks about the Queen asking Blair to form a Government. As far as I am aware that only happened after the 1997 election. The two elections following he was simply speaking to the Queen, confirming that he could remain in office.

[edit] Overall how's Mr Blair done?

Well? Badly?87.113.13.57 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Badly? He's the worst prime minister in British history; criminally incompetent. Rcpaterson 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No way he's one of the worst, far from it but by no means good, just mediocre. Doesn't Neville Chamberlain come to mind?

Actually, no; Neville Chamberlain was a decent man trying to do his best in impossible circumstances. He was been judged by 'Appeasement', generally reckoned a failure; but Britain was simply not ready for war in 1938 and appeasement at least brought the country time. By the spring of 1939 even Chamberlain was aware what kind of man Hitler truly was, and the country was put on a war footing. But if Chamberlain had one grand foreign policy failure Blair's foreign policy is nothing but failure; so lacking in independence, so unwilling to be out of step with George Bush that he had neither the courage nor the independence of mind to call for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Our army is badly over-streched, our credibility is diminishing, we have become a Trojan Horse for terrorism-all of these and more are the responsibility of Blair and his ghastly government. Rcpaterson 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to agree. Blaire's foreign adventurism has been nothing but a disaster for Britain. Just try to fly somewhere, if you are searching for evidence of this.Sandpiper 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Blair has been one of this country's most successful Prime Ministers. It is wrong to say that the PM should be judged by how popular he is. The more accurate standing is that we should judge him by how his actions have shaped our lives. It is necessary to do what is right, not what is immediately popular with the electorate. I think we should cut him some slack. --CityGuy88 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't how "good" or "bad" a prime minister is subjective? So it's always going to be POV if it's added to the article. Maybe you can cite a particlar source, "He was voted by XXX readers and being a bad PM". But it isn't really good to include this in the article of the current prime minister.

If this discussion isn't intended to result in changes to the article then this talk page isn't really the place to have it. JRawle (Talk) 12:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think this comment is precisely intended to effect change in the tone of the article. I havn't read it through today, but overall it is quite favourable to Blair. This is not unreasonable, as many things he did were a welcome change to the country from the previous administration. His enormous mistake was to embark on the war in Iraq. For me, the pivotal moment was when he asked the country to 'trust me' that the war was essential, and would have beneficial results. History has shown that the war was entirely avoidable, and there is still no clear parth whereby it will have a good outcome. Blair asked us to take the war on trust, and we did. he set the test, and has been judged by it. His whole term of office since then has been fighting damage control and delaying tactics to avoid having to resign. This is not reflected by the article. The point has now been reached when labour politicians are increasingly panicking, publically, that it will be impossible for the labour party to recover any credibility while he remains as leader.Sandpiper 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does everything on here have to be so black and white? I love Wikipedia but I feel that in trying to protect it, you are actually turning it into a closed shop. What's wrong with a little discussion?--CityGuy88 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. The articles have to contain facts not opinions. I don't know if you're referring to the article or the talk page. If it's the latter, it's not so important, although again this isn't a political discussion forum. If there's too much chatter on the talk page it makes it hard for those working to take the article forward to find the relevant information. JRawle (Talk) 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but the topics to be disucced here should be those most obviously addressing the shortcomings of the article. Which is a big silence on his anticipated departure and declining popularity, which has been a matter of record for years.Sandpiper 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a timeline of Tony Blair's life

Yes?No?87.113.24.112 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not in other bios so why do it for TB? User:Green01 2:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

You have to start somewhere and why not start with one of the most important people in the world?87.112.87.100 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A timeline sounds like a good idea.Mushimight 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section: Criticism over his departure

Ecki added some information regarding additional speculation over his departure. I removed the copyright violations that they had introduced, but retained the core reference addition (after pestering for the original source). However I felt that a discussion over the criticism Blair has recieved may well be in order, so created the above titled new section in the correct place. It does however need more references adding, and ideally any of the counterpoints being flung about. LinaMishima 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair is soo Cute!!!

I love TB he is my favourite political man. I just want to hug him and hug him and hug and hug him until his cute little button eyes explodes. BBOOOMM!!! Giggles... 80.175.134.141 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct, I checked the picture of Tony Blair and he is indeed "Cute"jkm 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm I think you'll find he looks sinister and menacing not cute. Timrollpickering 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But what about Gordy Brownie?jkm 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a serious point in that. As everyone knows in British politics the cutest politician usually wins in a general election. Gordon "Hear me ROOAR!!!" Brown is not as cute as Blair or David Cameron for that matterTimrollpickering 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Gordon can be quite cute. But then again I am slightly insane.- Amorwikipedia 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I never, ever thought I'd hear someone call Gordon Brown cute.

I may not agree with all his politics, but I must admit the Tone's a looker when he's not stressed out. Which is not often these days.

Marialadouce | parlami 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yuk. Countersubject 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I have dramatically decreased the size of the criticism section as it was getting far too large. The initial paragraphs of each subsection have been left as a summary but there is probably much more tidying required. Criticism of Tony Blair has the full content of what used to be that section and also needs work (mainly on references). violet/riga (t) 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poodle?

I'm surprised to find no reference to the commonly expressed metaphor of Blair being 'poodle' to Bush. Is anyone able to mention it with approprtate neutrality? Richard Allen 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair's Departure Date

In regards to when Blair will leave, or when he wants to leave - I think there're a few fairly obvious dates that he'd still like to be in office. Its been discussed above about Blair perhaps outlasting Margaret Thatcher, which appears unlikely in light of the recent leadership speculation - though I guess not entirely improbable if Gordon Brown implodes. Obviously there's the 10th anniversary in power he'd like to achieve, which is due to happen at the start of May 2007, which also happens to coincide with the ending of Jacques Chirac's political career - also in May 2007. I have little doubt that Tony Blair would be secretly delighted to get to welcome a new French president to the UK, Segolene Royal or Nicholas Sarkozy, effectively by outlasting the great obstructionist (on Iraq of course), and also to attend the G8 summit in Germany, which is due to occur in June 2007. I would expect Blair's thinking to be looking towards some time between June-July-August 2007, depending upon political conditions at the time. I'm willing to bet on this if anyone is game. Anyone? jkm 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware the Ides of March. White Guard 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference right at the top to him being the "outgoing Prime Minister". The thing that makes Blair notable is that he is the Prime Minister, not that he is to leave within 12 months. Strictly speaking, he is the outgoing Prime Minister in between the time he tells the Queen of his intention to stand down (when Labour's election contest will begin) and the time a new Labour leader is appointed PM.

I replaced the reference to his promise to set out a timetable to his promise to name a date at some point. Personally I suspect he will do what other PMs have done and just tell his party he is resigning on the same day he tells the Queen. I could be wrong, but we don't know. A direct quote of what he actually said seems safest.

I also put in a short quote from Blair at the recent (Sept 2006) Labour conference, just to keep the section on his departure date current. Hobson 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Approval ratings

A couple of months ago Blair was reported to have slipped to such a low personal approval rating that he had the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a post-war Labour Prime Minister, lower even that Callaghan's during the Winter of Discontent or Wilson's after devaluation. The only prime ministers to have got lower ratings since WWII were Thatcher (around the time of the poll tax riots) and Major in the mid-90s. Surely this is worthy of mention in the article? He achieved the lowest approval rating of any post-war Labour PM after previously attaining the highest approval ratings of any PM in the months after his election victory in 1997. If he were a US president, certainly it would be mentioned in the article. 195.93.21.101 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He also has the highest approval rating this century. Shall we record that? AJD 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that he had the highest approval rating early on and yes that should be mentioned as well. But the fact is that he is the most unpopular Labour Prime Minister of modern times according to approval ratings and that is more than worthy of mention in his biography, it's a notable historical fact. That Thatcher registered record low approval is mentioned in her biography, quite rightly, so the same should be mentioned in Blair's. 195.93.21.101 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The highest approval ratings this century? Well that's hardly an achivement given the only British PM this century is himself.

[edit] Family Background

Quote from the article... "His biographer Rentoul records that, according to his lawyer friends, Blair voiced much less concern regarding party affiliation than to his aim of becoming Prime Minister." Is this fair? I thought both Blair and Cherie were very into Labour from early on, and Blair told people he was a Christian Socialist before he joined the party. Has anyone read Rentoul enough to check this, I don't have a copy to hand. Sounds like a POV fake insertion. MarkThomas 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It dosen't sound so implausible that he may have said that at some point. Cherie has always been Labour and to the left of her husband, but it's less clear with Blair. He has told a story of knowing he wanted to enter politics but being unsure of which of the two major parties to join until he read a book on socialism (I forget which) at University which converted him to Labour. It's not impossible that, prior to this, he may have expressed to his friends a desire to become Prime Minister but no preference as to which party. Even so, somebody should check it out and make sure that Rentoul actually says this in his book, or find another reliable source for the same claim, otherwise it should be left out. 195.93.21.101 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic Policy: Impeachment

The para on the proposed impeachment of Blair I think gives a misleading impression to a casual reader, esp. from the US - this was never a serious possibility and was speedily dismissed in the House. I'm even thinking of deleting it altogether, or drastically shortening it, like many paras in this page it seems distinctly POV and anti-Blair from an ultra-left or Islamist perspective. Opinions? MarkThomas 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather mystified as to why you think that paragraph sounds as though it was written from an 'ultra-left' or still less an 'Islamist' perspective. It dosen't strike me as remotely POV, there is no opinion offered and no particular anti-Blair tone. It's simply a few factual statments regarding a group of MPs and others supporting his impeachment. There is no suggestion that impeachment is warranted or otherwise. Which words or phrases sound to you as though they were written by an ultra-leftist?

Regardless, I certainly think it should stay in the article. As far as I am aware, Blair is the only PM in recent history to even be considered for impeachment and to be the subject of such a campaign. That in itself is relevant to Blair's career and is worthy of mention, as is the number of MPs who proposed it and the name of the document spelling out the supposed case against him, which interested readers can go and out and find if they wish. There was a fairly well publicised campaign involving a small but significant band of MPs, media personalities and so on, so I think it should be given mention in his biography. That 'it was never a serious possibility' is an assumption and quite possibly false (and POV) - most of us were doubtful it would happen but had there been a large enough number of MPs prepared to vote in favour of impeachment on the grounds of Blair's alleged misleading of Parliament, then it might well have happened. He may not have been found guilty and removed from office - I suspect he would not - but that is a different matter, he would still have been impeached and found innocent, same as Clinton.

The only part of the paragraph that I think maybe should be removed is the part about Corin Redgrave and Frederick Forsyth. I don't think that they supported the campaign is especially notable. I do take your point that the paragraph could be misleading as it could give the impression that impeachment was a more serious prospect than it was, perhaps the paragraph should be amended to point out that the campaign never recieved sufficent support from MPs to make impeachment a realistic possibility and that there was some disagreement as to whether or not the archaic impeachment law could actually be invoked. 195.93.21.101 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a piece of deliberate misinformation introduced to give American readers the false impression that a US-like impeachment process was underway at a casual read. No realistic chance of impeachment existed. You speak of "had there been a large enough number of MPs" - no commentator at the time other than perhaps the SWP seriously thought this could happen. I suspect motives here, but I'm not serious about deleting the whole para as I accept the historicity of it, just this long rambling para seems intended to draw a particular impression. MarkThomas 06:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see any misinformation, there's nothing inaccurate there. Whether the paragraph could give a 'misleading impression' is quite a different thing from 'misinformation' which implies half-truths or untruths and the paragraph has neither. I have no idea how you know the motives of whoever wrote the paragraph but I can't see any evidence of deliberate intent to spread misinformation since the paragraph is nothing but a series of hard facts. That there was 'no realistic chance of impeachment' is POV and irrelevant - the paragraph dosen't claim that Blair came close to being impeached. With regards to the "number of MPs" statement, I didn't say anything about who thought this might happen or what the likelyhood was, I was simply stating what would have been required for Blair to be impeached and technically it was a possibility if highly unlikely to happen. As I said, the paragraph should probably be amended to make clear that the level of support within Parliament for impeachment to actually happen was never close to being achieved and so impeachment never became a serious possibility, which would clear up any misunderstanding on the part of any reader. I seriously doubt that the paragraph was written to 'create a certain impression' - I suppose depending on your point of view you could detect propagandistic intent in almost any paragraph in the article. In any case, if those or similar changes are made, then I think the prospect of any U.S. reader thinking Blair came close to being in the same position of Clinton would be reduced. 195.93.21.101 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd to include so much information about something that not only did not happen, but never had any chance of happening.

Most importantly, what does "invoking a Parliamentary procedure" mean? Impeachment proceedings did not begin. What actually happened to my knowledge was that 23 MPs signed an Early Day Motion calling for Tony Blair to be impeached. There have been 2656 Early Day Motions since May 2005, many of them strongly critical of the Government and most of them signed by more than 23 MPs. Laying down an Early Day Motion is itself a Parliamentary procedure I suppose, but this sentence seems to suggest that impeachment proceedings were invoked.

The motion itself no longer appears on the House of Commons website, as it expired (with the election of a new House of Commons in May 2005), so I cannot check the number of signees or the exact text without further research.

According to Merriam-Webster Online, "invoke" means: 1 a : to petition for help or support b : to appeal to or cite as authority 2 : to call forth by incantation : CONJURE 3 : to make an earnest request for : SOLICIT 4 : to put into effect or operation : IMPLEMENT 5 : BRING ABOUT, CAUSE

(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=invoke)

I suppose in this case definition 3 is accurate, as some MPs did request impeachment proceedings, but there is a danger that readers would understand the text to mean "invoke" in the sense of definition 4 or 5, which would be innacurate.

I will have a go at re-wording this section slightly in a few days, but on this topic it seems to me sensible to raise it on the talk page before making changes. Hobson 00:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it, and I think it is accurate and properly referenced, not rambling at all. I would strongly resist its removal. --Guinnog 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that impeachment proceedings were invoked, which is what the article seems to say. It is, at least, potentially misleading. Could the reference to "invoking a Parliamentary procedure" be made clearer?

I'm also still not sure why this particular example of opposition MPs criticising Blair is more noteworthy than the many others, although perhaps it is worth including one solid example of Parliamentary opposition to the Iraq war rather than just saying there was lots of it.

May I suggest the following: "On 25 August 2004 Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced that he would attempt to impeach Blair, [16] hoping to invoke a Parliamentary procedure that has lain dormant for 150 years but has never been abolished." Hobson 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I think you answered your own question re notability very well. It needs to be there, but of course you can reword it. --Guinnog 00:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting there with it; I've made it sounds slightly less like a glorious possible victory over the ghastly criminal Blair and slightly more like what it actually was; a PR exercize by the anti-war movement. MarkThomas 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored your deletion as I thought it went too far. Can you please discuss in detail here before deleting it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 10:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you say why it went too far - I explained my change, now please explain your revert. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair a 33rd degree Freemason

I think this should be on his bio as i think people should know of his association with freemasonry ,Gerhard schroeder is also a 33rd degree as is Jesse Jackson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.23.28 (talk • contribs).

Any evidence of this? What is the source of this information, and is it reliable? David | Talk 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly reliable but this suggestion is made here. BlueValour 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If Blair is a 33rd degree Mason it is certainly worthy of mention in the article (or for that matter a Freemason of any degree, although obviously 33rd degree would be extremely noteworthy). I have read that Blair is a Mason on numerous websites but they are all dubious conspiracy websites which often list Prince Charles as a Mason, which is absolutely false (Charles has caused considerable controversy and a serious rift with his father by refusing to join the Freemasons on principle, making the claims of these sites rather laughable and demonstrating that they are making it up as they go along). While the site you linked to does not repeat the same false claims about Charles and does not, as far as I can tell, list any individuals as being Masons are who not, clearly the silliness about various people being members of the "Illuminati" rather rules out the site as a reliable source. However if a more realible source for Blair's membership of the Freemasons can be found, certainly it should be included. --195.93.21.101 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of widespread support from Americans might be worthwhile to the topic

12. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Tony Blair, or have you never heard of him?

BASED ON 506 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A

   Favorable       Unfavorable     Never heard of  No opinion

2006 Jan 20-22 67 9 9 15

Copy and pasted from http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-23-poll.htm

Good luck.

[edit] Row over Muslim women wearing veils

This is an interesting issue and has been a high profile story in Britain in recent weeks, but in six months time it won't be seen as one of the most notable things Tony Blair has been involved in. We could equally have sections on the row over fox hunting, foundation hospitals, Bernie Ecclestone, laws against religious hatred etc . . . all issues which have dominated the British news agenda in the past, and in which Blair was involved. I don't object to this section being in the entry or the content of it, but in general terms I think we need to resist the temptation to add sections on the hot issue of the day unless it is so significant that we can be pretty sure it will still seem notable (and more notable than the 101 other controversies any Prime Minister gets involved in during his career) in the future. Hobson 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of precedence

Can anyone explain this,

Other Offices
Preceded by: John Sentamu	Order of precedence in England and Wales Gentlemen	Succeeded by: Michael Martin
Preceded by: Alan McDonald	Order of precedence in Scotland

As far as I can tell Tony Blair is still in the order of precedence in England and Wales as well as in Scotland and so is Michael Martin, so in what sense is he succeeded by him. Also on the Michael Martin page he is succeeded by Jack Straw but all three Tony, Michael and Jack are in the Order of precedence in England and Wales! What am I not understanding. Also why do these not have dates? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no dates because it's not a succession of date, but a succession of precedence. Personally I think the use of a succession box for the Order of Precedence is totally misleading for this reason alone. It also really doesn't matter today; almost no-one cares. I suggest removing it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've done it. Those particular boxes ought to be removed on sight. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrayals in fiction

I've not edited an FA before, so I've come here first to discuss changes. First of all, should Robert Lindsay's performance as Blair in 'A Very Social Secretary' be mentioned in the portrayals in fiction section? And what about representations by impressionists such as Rory Bremner or Jon Culshaw in the pop culture references section? Hammer Raccoon 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair's predecessor as Labour leader - Smith or Beckett?

The info box has Margaret Beckett as Blair's predecessor for both Leader of the Opposition and Labour leader. However Beckett was only acting leader between the death of John Smith and a new leader being elected. So I would say his true predecessor was Smith. What do other people think? MFlet1 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a somewhat controversial issue. The Labour Party constitution is however clear: in the event that the Leader is suddenly incapacitated, the Deputy Leader becomes the Leader. Not the Acting Leader, the Leader:

When the party is in opposition and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy leader shall automatically become party leader on a pro-tem basis.

(Labour Party rule book, rule 4B.2e (iv)). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. But the article itself refers to John Smith being Blair's predecessor so it is a bit inconsistent. Also Beckett is not included in the list of leaders in the Labour Party article. MFlet1 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment

As discussed above, at the moment this paragraph gives a very misleading and incorrect overall impression that Blair's impeachment was a serious possibility. The House of Commons has never impeached a British Prime Minister and the chances of it happening with Blair's huge majority were effectively nil. The Plaid Cymru action on it was therefore effectively a PR stunt joined in with by a handful of Tory and other MPs. I think we should make this clear. A proposal to do so above agreed by a number of editors was thwarted by reverts from one editor. Can we focus on this please - at the moment it gives a clearly wrong impression of the facts, particularly to US readers who may project the US impeachment process (real and actual) onto the British H-of-C (historical instrument never used). MarkThomas 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it to make it more objective - anyone reverting should justify given the discussion above. At the moment this para begins The political fallout from the Iraq War continued to dog Blair's premiership after the Butler Review - the alleged impeachment attempt is hardly the best example of the political fallout from the war, which has been far more extensive, and which is not mentioned. This whole section needs revising. MarkThomas 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that the section needs revising, your edit removed factual comments i.e. the number of MPs from each party to have supported the move, and replace with an opinion of the likeliness of this occuring. I think you are right in your conclusion, but I think it should be supported by a ref and be in addition to (not instead of) the details you removed. I would also doubt that the term "huge majority" can really be used to describe Tony Blair's position since the 2005 General Election. WJBscribe 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Have come up with a better wording. See what you think. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fys I think that is much better. I would however argue that the details of SNP support and the number of Conservative/ LibDem MPs who supported the move are relevant and should be included as well. What do others think? WJBscribe 10:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporters seem to have come and gone over the two years since this was proposed which makes it difficult to say. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current edit better, but still over-hypes the significance of what was effectively a stunt. MarkThomas 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I regard it as a stunt, but the problem is that the people behind it were adamant that it wasn't - and given that impeachment is technically still feasible (even if it is impractical) we can easily get into deep WP:NPOV problems. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia entry specifically about the attempt to impeach Blairm here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach_Blair_campaign. I think there is a serious POV issue with giving so much space in this article to something that did not happen. The attempt to impeach Blair is over - the motion has expired. There is no room for debate about the likelihood of it occuring, it seems to me - it could have happened if MPs had supported it, however they didn't. The factual point is that only a small minority of MPs supported the idea of seeing whether or not there were grounds to impeach him. The rest is "what if" history. At the moment impeachment it is not technically feasible as the motion expired with the recent opening of Parliament. In theory any MP could sponsor a new motion, but they have not (in theory MPs could do all sorts of things - they could pass a vote of no confidence in Blair or pass a motion declaring that he was right in every way, but surely the article should be about what has happened and currently is happening). I have cut down the section drastically and I am sure some people will object but please consider that to be accurate, any statement about what "could have happened" or "in theory" should read "if MPs had chosen to do so but they didn't". Don't assume that I am a supporter of Blair or the Iraq war as I am not. Hobson 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Edit - by the way, as you will see, I have re-inserted the figures, which are that of 640 MPs in the House of Commons only 23 backed the Commons motion (calling for a panel to consider whether or not there were grounds for impeachment).

I didn't see that the page existed. Thanks for pointing it out. I have created a link to it in the relevant section so that those interested can find it easily. I've moved the section Hobson deleted to the talk page of that article so that any material (esp. references) not already incorporated into it are not lost. WJBscribe 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Reed

Was his predeceasor as MP for Sedgefield, before it was abolished in 1974. Dovea 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

David Reed was the last person to be "Member of Parliament for Sedgefield", but he wasn't Blair's immediate predecessor. No constituency called Sedgefield existed between 1974 and 1983. The constituency of Sedgefield created in 1983 came from Durham (41.4%), North West Durham (23.9%), Easington (19.0%) and Bishop Auckland (15.7%). So Blair's predecessors were Mark Hughes, Ernest Armstrong, Jack Dormand and Derek Foster. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article written to date quickly: requires much revision to wording

Commonsense, and the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, require that encyclopedia articles should be written as for a work of reference, not a newspaper. Obviously articles need updating as events happen, but the wording of the text should be valid whenever it is read.

The Tony Blair article is written very much for today's newspaper. We shouldn't say that he "is" PM, but that the Queen asked him to be her PM on <date>. If the article doesn't say he ceased to be PM, the two forms of wording effectively mean the same, but the latter does not need to be updated. And so on, throughout the article. When I raised this point regarding George W Bush, one response was that the article was updated so frequently that Wikipedia guidelines should be ignored; but even in that heavily-trafficked article there was a reference (in late November) to a report "due to be published in September".

I raise the issue here, as when I edited the Bush article to meet the guideline there was much upheaval until I established that there was a very explicit guideline, and no reason to ignore it. Pol098 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Is this article too long?? Could other bits be spun off into separate articles?? Just a thought. --SunStar Net^talk 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is shorter than the George W Bush article... WJBscribe 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)