Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] His Legacy?

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Seems appropriate.

Bliar's legacy? One word. Iraq.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

/*blinks* You again?

That's your opinion - 10 years as MP he has achived and fucked up a lot more than just one issue

[edit] Profession: Barrister?

Should Tony Blair's profession really be listed as "Barrister"?

Yes, certainly, that was his original training and short-lived profession, but he hasn't practised as a barrister for 20 years! He has been a full time Member of Parliament for Sedgefield since 1983, was a Shadow Cabinet Minister for several years up until 1994, Leader of the Labour Party since 1994 and Prime Minister from 1997-2007. He also intends to continue as a backbench MP until the next General Election, probably in 2009.

And, suffice to say he will not be returning to working as a barrister afterwards!

I recomend that his profession by reclassified as "Full Time Politician"; or "Member of Parliament"; or even "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" (for now anyway).

Perhaps we ought to include a new category for politicians. That is to say, have both a "Political Profession" listing and a "Pre-Political Profession".

After all, almost all leading politicians are full-time politicians in the UK, with full-time salaries!

Suggestions on ammendments very much welcome...

[edit] New Photograph Request

Is there someone who can provide a more flattering photograph of Mr. Blair for the top of the article? The lighting is terrible in the present one; he looks like a vampire. Candent shlimazel 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the piteous desperation that peers out of his black eyes is rather appropriate Harecourt 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He looks stressed. Perhaps we should wait till June 27 and then replace it with him looking happy and relieved, SqueakBox 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed! ladyPolitik 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Every picture of him since Iraq has him looking stressed. It's not unflattering if that's how he actually looks!--Ruddyell 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a very severe picture, is there no offical photo to use? 131.111.200.200 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony_Blair_cropped_from_defenselink.jpg)? Nevare 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Nooo- he looks gaunt and is baring his bad tooth. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scandals

Where is all the information about the scandles involving this fool? 45minute weapons, cash for peerages - this page has clearly either been written by tony himself or by someone expecting a knighthood without needing the ££££. By the way, i'm homosexual, just if anyone wants to know....

This page is usually written by Labour politicians. 'Perception management - it's the way of the world. Nuff said. 194.112.59.170 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely there should be some comment on his enormous wealth? He has become a multui-millionaire at the expense of the public during a period when the very poorest people have become just a little bit poorer yet.

Surely Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral? This article should provide factual dispassionate information, not unconfirmed (and potentially libellous) allegations such as cash for peerages - which we must remember is still the subject of a police inquiry. Referring to Blair as a "fool" isn't a good example of enyclopedic neutrality!

[edit] Merge

It has been suggested that Tony Blair's biographical page, that is called i am a real idiot, and the sub-topic article on his service as Prime Minister should be merged. However, this would create a huge article. His biography is 52kb long as it its and his Prme Minister article alone is another 49, almost the same length. Many articles have split their pages into more specific, sub-topic related pages and Tony Blair should be no different. I supoort keeping the arangement the way things are.Rougher07 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcherite Blair

The arguments which suggest that Blair is a margeret Thatcher in discuise are compelling indeed. Put aside all of the Third Way rhetoric and examine the facts. Blair's approach towards the economy is in the Thatcherite tradition of free market laissez-faire. Whilst Blair has placed great emphasis on improving the standard of education and health, his favoured methods also derive from Thatcherism - use of market forces and business "expertise", creeping privatisation, centralised control and targets. Mrs T invented all of these. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the two leaders are exactly alike, because they are not. But they are more similar than different, in the same way that Gaitskell and Macmillan, Wilson and Heath were different yet the same in their policies, at end of the day.

(88.111.238.2 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Thatcher didn't create centralised control and targets, this has always been a left wing policy more than a right wing one. While I accept a lot of your points, he has picked up more than one trick from Thatcher, they fundamentally differ in that Margaret Thatcher's strongest belief was in a smaller state and lower taxation, whereas Blair has always believed that increasing taxation is okay to pay for the NHS, public services etc.Lager7 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Using market forces and business expertise is hardly Thatcherite doctrine. Thatcher made some fundamental changes to the UK economy in a way I dont think anyone had done since Atlee and Bevin, and I would say its far more accurate to describe Blair as a bevanite than as a Thatcherite. He's a typical left winger and the consequences of that are very clear in modern British society with its politically correct surveillance society. Brown is worse so I think the idea that Blair is presiding over a shift to the right is exactly the opposite of what is happening, SqueakBox 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is Blair "a typical left winger" ? He follows Thatcherite taxation schemes, Thatcherite education plans, Thatcherite economics, Thatcherite schemes for the NHS and has led Britain into a war with Iraq despite mass opposition. Okay so he doesn't wear a blue twin suit or carry a handbag but that's about all the differences between him and Thatcher. SmokeyTheCat 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth does his invading Iraq make him right wing. Do you think only right-wingers follow such aggressive policies. He is a classic leftie who wants to control people and pour money into socially equalising projects like the NHS and state education. How is he different from Bevin is the question I would ask. Though Brown today has shown himself to be a little more inspired. tax cuts, now that is more right wing though probably more inspired by greed for power than genuine right wing beliefs, SqueakBox 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blair believes in everything, and I mean everything, that Thatcher believed in. How is he different from Bevin? Doh, PRIVATISATION!? Bevin created the NHS, Blair is busy destroying it by privatisation.SmokeyTheCat 11:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair and Lord Levy - Cash for Peerages

Whether there's a prosecution to follow or not, I am surprised that no mention of Lord Levy and his current difficulties in connection with activities on behalf of the PM is made in the article after the Labour Lawyers for Israel section. Why not? Do we hang fire until after the DPP makes his decision and not mention the material that is already in the public domain despite the injunctions sought by Lord Goldsmith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jatrius (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

It is mentioned in other articles. The cash for honours issue is certainly notable, but so is a huge amount of other things which are not in the article. I've just looked at this after not checking up on it for some time and there's been some excellent work in my v humble opinion in getting this main article down to a manageable size and creating sub articles with lots of detail. Hobson 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit wanted

On the section "Blair and Gordon Brown" I think the first mention of Gordon Brown (and also John Smith) should be hyperlinked. Uberdude85 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Gordon Brown added by Omeganumber 00:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Its completely locked and it would be bad form for an admin to edit in this state. I do suggest that somebody search using the term Bliar on a regular basis and will try to myself as ti was only by running a search that I dioscovered the vandalsim that may have gone undetected for a long time, SqueakBox 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted it a couple of times especially this one where the info box had been gone awhile. I couldn't find any instances of the misspelling Bliar just now.--Paloma Walker 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed not as I checked it and removed them all (in another programme) and Guinnog locked the article minutes later, SqueakBox 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So is this article locked against all changes for ever, or should I raise some kind of 'unlock request'? It seems to me that my proposed change is small, uncontroversial and beneficial. I appreciate this page will be the target of much vandalism, but the whole spirit of wikipedia seems to be defeated if we can't improve it. Uberdude85 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} According to the page log, available from the history list, this page will automatically become unprotected on 27 Mar. The two names are already linked the first time they are used. I will resolve the editprotected tag. If you wish to have the protection removed, ask User:Guinnog who made the page protected. It might be worthwhile to just wait a few days; there are lots of articles to work on besides this one. CMummert · talk 05:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is why an admin has made a POV edit in the mean time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=117446926&oldid=116630309 here. This is completely unacceptable admin abuse on the part of Cntrx. I am appalled at such a cavalier attitude, SqueakBox 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting what I thought was vandalism that had occurred after I unprotected the article, i.e. the undetected removal of an entire section. Perhaps you should not jump to wild conclusions. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As it turns out, it was vandalism that caused the removal of that section, specifically an incomplete revert that left this and then a later removal, rather than revert, of the vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was confused not jumping to wild conclusions. Thanks for the explanation, obviously a genuine vandalism revert is a good reason to unlock and relock the article but I couldnt make sense of your edit summary as I couldnt see how you were reverting to yourself, SqueakBox 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That entire section needs rewriting. There are no confirmed arguments between Brown and Blair, and much as I dislike Labour, Wikipedia should be better than that!

[edit] Les Huckfield and 1983 sedgefield selection

i noticed the refrence to Les Huckfield who may have been shortlisted by Sedgefield CLP in 1983. However i fail to see his relivance, he may have been the sitting MP for Nuneaton but might i point out that Nuneaton is over 150 miles from Sedgefield and therefore of little relevance.

I'm sure that the Sedgefield CLP selection meetings in 1983 would have been very interesting places to be, i'm not so sure that the good people of Sedgefield would have been that impressed by a sitting MP from Warwickshire who has lost any chance of a midlands seat and was looking north. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keirstitt (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] religion

the section on religion was removed several years ago because of Blairs New age beliefs, including the Mexican rebirthing ceremony, his support of his wifes' new age guru Carole Caplin and his alleged habit of holding a sacred scroll in his pocket (cosmic ordering) according to a former aid (something Scott).

My good advise to Mr. Tony Blair to study more about Islam. That will give more peace to your mind. By an Indian Fan of Mr. Tony Blair.

Further, we should add the Catholic Churches' criticisms of Blair for taking mass when he is not a Catholic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.112.59.170 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

He's after a Nobel Peace Prize, so is pretending to be interested in becoming a Catholic, as the Pope exerts very heavy influence over its award - not a lot of people know that!

Knowing the Pope's strong opposition to the Iraq War that won't help him much. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Fleet Street, Blair is set to convert to Roman Catholicism, finally, sometime very soon after he hands over power to Brown. Be prepared to alter his page accordingly. --216.73.249.238 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Further speculation on his possible conversion following his private audience with the Pope 23 June 2007 [1]. However, there is a conflict between catholicism and Blair's introduction of civil partnerships for gay couples. Should these be inserted into the Religion section? 194.74.200.66 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction?

He is considered by some members to be a liability, by giving the example of Labour's erratic political poll ratings. These ratings have however improved since the 2007 budget, Labour's support among the C2 social group, credited with keeping Margaret Thatcher in power, has risen from 23 per cent to 32 per cent.

I don't think this belongs in the introduction. Seems more like commentary on current events rather than contributing to an overview of the subject of the article. Recurring dreams 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. TJ 07:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Recurring dreams 07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mother

in this it says his mother was catholic but on his fathers page it says she was protestant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.50.224.66 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

That was due to a user adding an incorrect citation from the Independent newspaper- his mother was very much protestant (her father was a member of the Orange order). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blair on youtube after Nicolas Sarkozy won the election

should we mention in the artical that Blair has appeared on youtube to support Sarkozy and to calm down the riots in france?--Lerdthenerd 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong Blair? Recurring dreams 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

no i'm sure it was our primeminster Tony blair, although i've never heard him speak in french before.--Lerdthenerd 08:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the video. BTW, Sarkozy made a remarkable lapsus one day, calling Blair "one of us" albeit he's left-wing... Arronax · talk 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, left-wing... He made a similar appearance in a (cringeworthy) party political for Fianna Fáil during Ireland's election campaign. [1] Should we mention that? Or would it be better placced in Bertie Ahern's article? Odd that he didn't appear in the Irish Labour Party's PPB instead, as they're supposed to be comrades. I wonder why Pat Rabbitte didn't complain.--Dub8lad1 09:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent defining portrait of Blair

The press did use this picture with the gesture airbrushed out. This is a very good portrait of Blair, as he is, in himself.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387466-details/Young+Blair's+obscene+gesture/article.do

Sorry now I'm getting confused lol. You are writing on the right page. Recurring dreams 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please add critism of the authoritarian policies

Can someone please add a critism about the 'authoritarian and survelance state' Blair has developed. It is a very overlooked problem with Blair's government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.139.225 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Done, on 20 May, although a great deal more needs to be said. Rubywine 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stepping down as Leader

Why is this in the "criticism" section? - The Daddy 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Marvolo Blair

Does his resignation mean Harry Potter 7 or parts of it will have to be re-written the last minute? I mean the british PM was featured in HP6.

No: the events told in HP7 have happened (or are supposed to have) in 1997-1998. See Chronology of the Harry Potter stories. Keriluamox 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Resignation"

The article states that Tony Blair has "tendered his resignation to the Queen " in May 2007, wheras he actually stated that "he will resign" on June 27th. Also the statement that this was due to "his unpopularity" is unfairly worded. His forthcoming resgination is due to a number of reasons, with unpopulairty perhaps one of them, but not the only reason. The citation of the Iraq war is as a reason is an inference and not a substaniated fact.

Continuing on with the resignation theme, I want specific reasons he has cited for his stepping down. We need to distill the concepts down to a few sentences. Gautam Discuss 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the word "immediately" from the intro, which said he announced today (May 10) that he would resign as Labour leader immediately. In fact he will resign as leader on June 27 as well, although he obviously made the announcement today. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6633989.stm Hobson 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also (although this already seems to have been removed from the article), I don't believe he has tendered any resignation to The Queen today. Hobson 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If he'd resigned today the country would have had no PM and the Labour Party no leader. If he'd submitted his resignation it would have created a constitutional crisis as the only way the Queen could have fopund a successor would have been to demand a general election, SqueakBox 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to put in the infobox the term end date as "June 27, 2007 (anticipated)"? Dovea 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So obviously he HASN'T tendered his resignation. We still need to add in the specific reasons for his stepping down, if someone has not already added that in. Gautam Discuss 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed a reference to Blair "falsifying" intelligence to "exaggerating" in the intro. I don't believe anyone has accused him of falsifying the intelligence. The criticism which is aired sometimes is that the intelligence "was hedged with qualifications, caveats, warnings, which he translated into certainty" (to quote Michael Howard http://www.newstatesman.com/200410040021). However I am not pushing for the sentence to stay in the intro at all, as it currently reads. I don't think it is backed up by the reference given, either before or after my edit.Hobson 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Gordon Brown is to be declared Labour leader by the NEC at a special Labour conference on 24 June 2007 as the only successfully nominated candidate. If the Prime Minister keeps his pledge to tender his resignation as Prime Minister on 27 June 2007, then the Monarch will seek for a new Prime Minister, and although not binding on the monarch, the convention has been to ask the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons to form a new government unless there is a hung parliament in which case it is normally whoever is thought to be most likely to be able to form a government.[2][2] Although technically the successor to Tony Blair as Labour leader is almost certain to be the next Prime Minister, under UK law this is not a legal requirement, although the new government does have to the approval of a majority in the House of Commons, but the Monarch can quite legally ask anyone who is an MP or a Lord, and she can create Lords using the Royal Prerogative providing they are of age, not a bankrupt, not a felon and they swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Technically saying that the next Labour leader will be the next Prime Minister is speculation.--Lord of the Isles 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Labour NEC report from 20 March 2007 regarding the election of a new leader and Deputy Leader--Lord of the Isles 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair and Gordon Brown

The supposed dialogue from The Deal should be removed. At best it's an educated guess and at worst total fiction. As neither men have yet confirmed the details of their meeting at the Granita restaurant, wikipedia shouldn't be hosting this unverified speculation. Yorkshiresky 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if its well sourced we can. We have to stick with what is perc3eived as the truth not the actual truth (outside of scientific articles, SqueakBox 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The Deal was never presented as an accurate historical account but rather a work of fiction based on a real event, and a work of fiction can never be a reliable source for the persons or events it depicts. To take an extreme example, Jerry Springer: The Opera should not be used as a source in the article on Jesus of Nazareth to claim that Jesus was "a little bit gay". Discussion of The Deal may be appropriate in the "Portrayals in film" section of this article, but not in the main historical section. Grover cleveland 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Prime Minister

How does the new Prime Minister get appointed?--69.113.131.124 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Labour Party elect him and then Blair goes to the Queen, resigns and says Brown (or whoever is elected) should be the next PM and the Queen agrees, SqueakBox 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the Queen is entitled to reject Brown as Prime Minister and invite someone else to form an executive? However it would never happen. Mark83 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The Queen's constitutional responsibility is to appoint a Prime Minister who commands the support of Parliament. Normally this is the leader of the majority party. If no party has a majority, she would invite the leader of the largest party to try to form a coalition, then the leader of the next largest party if he fails to do so, etc. If the identity of the leader of the party is not clear (as in the case of Alec Douglas Home) then the Queen can use her discretion to find someone to appoint -- she would normally take the advice of her outgoing minister of other leading establishment figures in this case. If Tony Blair were to recommend someone other than the next leader of the Labour Party as Prime Minister (e.g. David Cameron), I think the Queen would reject his advice. Grover cleveland 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Who is PM from 27 June - 2 July? Rutld001 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't a clear replacement for Blair as of 27 June the Queen would probably ask him to stay on as PM until a new leader is elected. I think that the leadership election should be over by then, however. Grover cleveland 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
On the same theme, if there was a general election and no party gained an overall majority (thus creating a hung parliament) and the existing governing party was not the largest party would the new largest party or the existing government be invited to form a new government by the Queen? 81.111.216.65 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
81.111.216.65 With regards to that question, best refer to the February 1974 election. Ted Heath had more votes than seats, Labour vice-versa. After an election a government can remain in office unless its programme for government is voted down after a State Opening of Parliament. Up until the late 19 Century this was the practice. Afterall the Prime Minister still holds the Queen's commission to form a government. Should the PM tender his resignation, the Queen will informally ask whom she should send for. There are three responses to the Queen's question about forming a government: 1) immediate acceptance as they know they command a majority in the House of Commons; 2) will hold a temporary commission to see if they could command a majority; 3) refuse the commission as they couldn't command a majority.

(Stephennarmstrong 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Quality of this article

I think this page could use some polishing, considering it's a featured article and supposed to represent WP's finest work. I counted eleven citation needed tags (certainly too much for a FA), and having a whole section as a bulletin list (Portrayals) is debatable, I think it should be turned into prose and cut down, especially the last two points seem very trivial to me. The references could use some work as well and need a uniform style in accordance with WP:CITE. -- EnemyOfTheState 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Does anyone know when he started styling himself "Tony" (instead of his real first name, Anthony)? I know he began his political career as Anthony, and that he was plain "Tony" by the time of the Labour leadership election in 1994, but I don't know when he made the switch. 217.155.20.163 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did he begin his career as Anthony? I thought he was Tony at the Beaconsfield by-election and its the sort of name you get as a teenager, SqueakBox 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right (I've now seen his election literature from the 1983 general election, and he was Tony on that). I guess I was misled by reading too much into Peter Hitchens's columns - he often makes a big deal of the Anthony/Tony thing, as if to suggest Blair is denying his roots, or similar. 217.155.20.163 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number 10 press conference

A small point, but I propose changing the sentence "Blair has held monthly press conferences, at which he fields questions in a less confrontational manner than in the Commons" to "Blair has held monthly press conferences, at which he fields questions from journalists". It's a reasonable point of view that the press conferences are less confrontational than PM's Questions in the Commons. It's not my view, having watched some of those press conferences. It's not attributed to anyone. What worries me though is the context - this sentence comes immediately after a reference to claims by critics that he has changed Parliamentary procedure to make PM's Question's easier for him. (By the way, shouldn't that be "critics have claimed" not "critics have noted"?). The effect at the moment is to suggest the Number 10 press conferences are part of a trend towards making it harder for people to ask him difficult questions. That's a point of view - another might be "Blair has held monthly press conferences, making him the first Prime Minister to allow the media to quiz him on such a regular basis." I suggest a very straight phrasing is better - he has a press conference, journalists ask him questions, full stop. Hobson 23:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, SqueakBox 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leader of the British Labour Party and Prime Minister

Shouldn't both of those things at the bottom be updated to indicate that Gordon Brown will succeed him? Jonathan D Milne 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland and other European Nations

I have moved a sentence about the Northern Ireland Peace Process (His contribution towards assisting the Northern Ireland Peace Process by helping to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement after 30 years of conflict is widely recognised. + sources) to what I hope is a more appropriate place. It was under "relationships with other European nations" while Northern Ireland is for better or worse, I make no comment, part of the UK. Arguably this has also had an impact on the UK's relationship with Ireland, but the paragraph makes no reference to that. Hobson 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely for the better, seriously what country would you rather be a part of: the United Kingdom which is a REAL country, has a population of over 60 million, has a glorious history surpassed by no other, is a nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN security council, is a great world power, has 14 overseas territories etc, or a breakaway province of the UK that is most famous for a potato famine, terrorism supporters both IRA & muslim, refusing to fight against Hitler out of contempt for the UK during World War II & a rabid hatred for their fellow British islanders? Btw, Northern Ireland is not a nation but part of one and there wouldn't be a United Kingdom without it. It is an ESSENTIAL part of the United Kingdom! YourPTR! 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox flag

I see we have a little Scotland flag there, presumably to underline what is meant by Blair's birthplace being "Edinburgh, Scotland". I propose removing it per WP:FLAGCRUFT; this is a classic example of how flags can be misleading. Blair is no more of a Scot than John Major, even though he was born there. The flag oversimplifies the complexity of national origin, as they so often do. Please, can we remove it? --Guinnog 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Especially when you notice that something is in contravention of a wikipolicy † DBD 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Normally I would, but on an article like this people are liable to have strong feelings about flags (one reason I am in general often against them). WP:FLAGCRUFT is not (yet) a policy either, but I will take your advice and go for it. No information will be lost in removing it. --Guinnog 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation at school

There is a claim in the Background and Family Life section that Blair was regarded as conspicuously "cool" amongst fellow pupils at Fettes. I have been unable to find any confirming evidence for this, in fact quite the reverse. This comment crops up all over the web, but it appears that this article is the primary source for it. Rubywine 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this unless it can be sourced. --Guinnog 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political position

  • Ignorant American question: if Blair is in the Dem-Socialist party, why is he allied with USA's conservative President?
He says he doesn't believe in left and right- only the third way. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Blair became leader of the Labour Party after it had started shifting towards the right, and he oversaw the completion of that shift. Labour is no longer viewed as a left wing party. It's effectively centre-right. It still has many socialist members, but they have little or no influence on its policies. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are well to the left of Labour. Having said all that, the question remains why someone so conspicuously conservative as Tony Blair did not join the Tories. Perhaps he thought he'd have a better chance of making his place in history by remodelling the Labour Party. Rubywine 11:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the Labour party served his identity. The Tories were seen as stuffy toffy nosed people stuck in the past. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I expect you're right, because of course he joined back in 1975. Ever since Thatcher, who took a flamethrower to the political landscape, I sometimes find it hard to remember that a lot of Tories were and are simply conservative with a small C. Rubywine 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a sentence on this in the section "relationship with the United States" with reference to one of Blair's speeches. A portion of the speech (which followed Bush's re-election in 2004) is: "Such is the strength of the United States, that the election of the President is an event of genuine significance right around the world. It is of particular significance to Britain, not least because America and the United Kingdom have a unique bond through our shared history and traditions, and above all, through our shared belief in the values of freedom and democracy. It is an important part of our own British national interest that the British Prime Minister protects and strengthens the bond between our two countries. I sought to do that first with President Clinton, and then with President Bush, and I look forward to continuing that strong relationship in President Bush's second term."Hobson 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Labour as centre right is pure original research as it is clearly a very left wing party. And since when were the left not militaristic? and not supporting of the US? there were good reasons not to invade Iraq but being left wing wasnt one of them, SqueakBox 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Harold Wilson did not support the Vietnam war did he. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That Labour is "clearly a very left wing party" is clear only to SqueakBox.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
We cant draw any conclusions from that one case. The communists were originally in favour of waging war against the rest of the world to impose their left wing ideology, while the Labour Party certainly supported the waging of the second world war, SqueakBox 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on you can't compare Vietnam a totally pointless war with World War II which was clearly justified. Was it right for US industrialists to finance the nazi regime because Hitler opposed communism? Frankly the meddling of the US has caused a lot more harm in the world than good. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And just look at what who else the US supported- Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, the mujahidin in Afghanistan against the Russians which gave us the Taliban, etc. etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And of course the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Castro put his soldiers in southern Africa etc. All I am saying is the right doesnt have a monopoly on violence, its politicians who make wars not right wing politicians, SqueakBox 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree that both Vietnam and Iraq were bad and unnecessary wars, where I disagree with you is that I dont think you can call Blair right wing for supporting the Iraq war, or for any other reason, SqueakBox 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what wing he is and I don't think he does either. His arrogance and callous indifference to the consequences of his actions strongly make me suspect that either (i) he is psychotic or (ii) completely blinded by "religion" (or some combination of the two). There was an excellent attack on Blair's distrastrous policies in last Sundays Sunday Times link here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Certainly makes Thatcher seem completely reasonable, thanks for the link. I think most politicians are more trouble than they are worth and Blair and his cabinet are a good example of this, SqueakBox 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And then we here from Blair today that it was OK to pay a billion pounds (2 billion dollars) to a Prince of the House of Saud, authoritarian dictators who hate freedom and torture thousands of their own people... oh.. wait... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes well, I think we are agreed about Blair, SqueakBox 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not making stupid POV remarks. Conval 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Conval I think I'll add some of this excellent criticism to the article. Thanks Again! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Please remain civil if you want to contribute here, SqueakBox 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Read WP policy on the proper use of a Discussion Page. Conval 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Blair is just as Right-wing as Thatcher was. He agrees with all of her policies.SmokeyTheCat 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see everyone remained civil here. It is not uncivilised, dear user SqueakBox, if somebody doesn't agree with your views! Please, @ all, don't react in such an over-sensitive way. --Maxl 12:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was Conval who was being uncivil and acting in an oversensitive way... 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Prime Ministerial Career and Honours

It has been reported that, in the long-standing tradition of awarding prime ministers honours on their retirement, Blair will be appointed Knight of the Garter[76] (or possibly Knight of the Thistle[77]), so will be styled The Rt Hon Sir Tony Blair KG (or KT) MP.

Many things can be reported in the media as what might happen in the future, but they're just as much speculation as anything a Wikipedia editor might speculate about. The fact that such speculation has been published doesn't alter the fact that it's speculation; and we have policies about not speculating in our articles. In any case, he may refuse any offer of a knighthood. Also, he may be offered a peerage - and either accept it (in which case he forfeits his Commons seat and moves to the Lords), or reject it. I'm removing this paragraph for the above reasons. -- JackofOz 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this source

....that is used to site the statement in the lead that his early departure is due to the war, among other things, doesn't appear to be as phrased as the line which it cites, is it possible that the statement ought to be reviewed slightly to bring it more into line with the source that it cites? Always keeping in mind that the source cited is a news article. SGGH speak! 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source reports on comments some MPs made two years before he announced his resignation. The way the article is currently phrased, using that source, seems to imply that those comments in some way led to or explain his decision to resign. That seems unlikely to me. Hobson 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the reference with a new one, which is a media commentator who does speculate that Blair quit because of Iraq. I have done this because the sentence currently reads "Media commentators have speculated that Blair resigned earlier than he intended because of the unpopularity of his decision to lead the UK into war with Iraq" - and yet the refreence used to support this was not a media commentator who speculated that he resigned earlier than he intended because of his decision to lead the United Kingdom to war with Iraq but a news report (not commentary) on something that happened in 2005. It contained no speculation about why he resigned, and couldn't have done as it was written two years before the resignation. The article I linked to was written by Polly Toynbee which I accept might not be considered the best source (although she is a commentator in the media). I will try to find a better one - it's surprisingly hard - and if anyone else finds one before me, please use that. But the idea that the events described in this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4526435.stm - proves that Blair resigned two years later because the Iraq war was unpopular is OR in my view. It certainly says nothing about why he chose to resign.Hobson 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last call on the Featured article review

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Tony_Blair. Looks to go unless a saviour appears. Think of the poor man's feelings, losing his FA star after being run from office. Marskell 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Reed

It is highly misleading to describe David Reed as Tony Blair's predecessor as MP for Sedgefield. Reed represented a constituency called Sedgefield from 1970 to 1974, when it was dismembered in boundary changes; Blair was elected for the new constituency of Sedgefield in 1983 when a constituency of the same name was created. The point of listing the predecessor is to show who influenced the politician and something of the stamp of the local party; it is unlikely that David Reed had any influence on anyone in Sedgefield in 1983. Sam Blacketer 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence succession box

I see Astrotrain has reverted my removal of the succession box for the 'order of precedence in England'. Quite frankly I do not see the point of this box. It gives no useful information because, unless readers happen to be organising a major state dinner and are anxious to keep to this outdated aspect of protocol, it simply makes no difference. I am certain that only a tiny minority of people even in Britain know what the Order of Precedence is, and that among this tiny minority, the vast majority do not care anything about it.

Including an order of precedence succession box therefore breaks Neutral point of view policy by wrongly suggesting that it is an important aspect of British society. It is an uninformative addition to the article and I propose it should be removed. Sam Blacketer 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sam Blackster. Politics rule 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

American officials articles have an order of precedence box on most of those pages. --myselfalso 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - whilst seeming insignificant to most people, even in the UK, there are still a number who do find this information useful, even if only from a historical perspective, and I don't believe that its inclusion does, as suggested, gives the impression that it is an important aspect of British society. Regards, Lynbarn 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full term?

"....the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term." I think this is a contentious point, since Blair's first two terms were only four years each and therefore not "full terms" (which would be five years). MFlet1 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, as a "full term" means one term of Parliament, however long it is.--Richj1209 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP

He is still an MP at the moment so stop trying to remove MP from his name in the infobox. Also he will always continue to be styled The Rt Hon because he will continue to be a privy councillor, so don't delete this (see John Major). Abc30 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says Tony Blair is a former MP. --myselfalso 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be changed. See Resignation from the British House of Commons. One cannot simply "resign" as an MP, but must be appointed to one of two crown offices. Nothing indicates that Blair as been appointed yet. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is indeed still an MP and this should be altered bloody quickly. It won't last long, of course, but he still is. At the moment, two parts (the intro vs. the piece about his standing down) directly contradict each other on this front.--Breadandcheese 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair has quit as MP. See [3]. --myselfalso 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That article you linked to does not say he has quit yet. It says "it was announced he was to quit as a member of parliament." Richard75 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair ceased to be a Member of Parliament when he was appointed Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds about 5 PM this afternoon. Sam Blacketer 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well why didn't someone say so. Abc30 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Here is a link: [4] Richard75 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Tony Blair should still be named Rt. Hon (or at least have PC after his name.) As mentioned above

[edit] Edit summaries

As this article is being updated ever couple of minutes, it is particularly important to use edit summaries for every edit. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's vandalism above his picture - someone who knows what they're doing fix it aha.

[edit] Trivia?

hello. I read a report by AP about a mother in Kosovo naming her son Tonibler (Albanian pronunciation of Tony Blair) to honor Blair and his role during Kosovo war. I think we should include this some where. Link: http://news.aol.co.uk/kosovan-boy-named-after-blair/article/20070511070409990001 --Noah30 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was also mentioned recently on the BBC (Radio 4 - probably either the "Today" program, or "PM") although I can't remember when I heard it. Lynbarn 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time in office

Should the intro say something about this? I think he was the longest-serving Labour prime minister ever. Also he must have served one of the longest single terms as prime minister. Surely notable? Bluewave 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quibble re religion section

I had to read the following sentence very carefully to make sure I understood it... "His wife Cherie Booth is a practising Roman Catholic, and Blair has attended Catholic Masses at Westminster Cathedral, while on holiday in Italy, and with his family at Number 10 Downing Street."

To someone who is not familiar with English landmarks, this line could be read as if it were trying to say that Westmister Cathedral is in Italy (ie that Blair attended Mass at Westminster Cathedral during his holiday in Italy). It takes careful reading to see that it is actually part of a list of three places where Blair attenced Catholic Mass)... I know the sentence is gramatically correct, but perhaps it could be re-phraised to avoid this confusion? 38.105.193.11 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chiltern Hundreds succession box

I have just reverted for a second time the addition of a succession box for TB as the holder of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. The editor who reinserted the box said "we include noble titles and this is worthy of inclusion", but the comparison is a poor one.

The Chiltern Hundreds is not really an appointment at all: it is a type of legal fiction, a non-existent post to which an MP may be briefly appointed to allow them to leave Parliament, because it is not techically posible to resign, only to be disqualified by accepting an "office of profit under the Crown".

Nobody will ever be announced at any gathering or in any list of career achievements as the "Steward of the Chiltern Hunreds". In a biographical article, the holding of that nominal post deserves a minor footnote, or at most a brief mention, but listing it in a succesion box gives a misleading impression that holding this post is a notable matter of power or achievement or rank. It is none of the above; it's just a glorified resignation letter.

The Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is a quaint and ancient tradition, and I would personally hate to see it being "rationalised" out of existence. But while its appropriate to note it, we shouldn't hype it ... and that's the effect of giving it a succesion box. It is mentioned in the article, and TB is in the List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds. Can we leave it at that, without the box? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree to the removal of this 'succession boxcruft'. There really is no real world sense in which Tony Blair has followed Terry Davis in any duty, responsibility, or significance. The office is a pure legal fiction and holders don't actually even get any profit, neither from the Crown nor from anyone else. And I'm going to remove the 'Order of Precedence' succession box from Gordon Brown now too. Sam Blacketer 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

You need to address the points highlighted on the main page before this can be considered for GA status - e.g. images listed for deletion, trivia list. Verisimilus T 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy

Tony Blair's impact on the Royal Navy (he's been described as "scuttling" it) should be covered. - MSTCrow 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)