Blair - He's got alot to answer for......

[Fyldewhite]

Hospitals and Schools we now can't afford to run because of New Labour's Private Finance Initiatives! They got their shiny new buildings for reasons of political popularity, but left the tab for future Governments to sort out! :angry:

PFI was inherited from the Tories......but you keep believing what you read Del.

 

[delc]

PFI was inherited from the Tories......but you keep believing what you read Del.

Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Struggling to reconcile even a small part of the OP with reality tbh. Yes, he got the call on Iraq wrong....or maybe right, but for the wrong reasons. Other than that, look around you, hospitals with new buildings, schools with new buildings, both after a generation of decay and neglect. Minimum wage (which will never work and cripple the country), massively reduced hospital waiting times etc etc. I could go on but people quickly forget the stuff that never really makes the headlines. Some of the replies on here are just ill informed rantings but hardly surprising. Dare I mention the Daily Mail???

I see that there is no mention of the deficit in your post.

All the things you mention, and many others, are very desirable and worthy but insufficient thought was given to how they were to be paid for.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Nothing to force them to use the PFI

That's true....but they were a long way down that road and after all Blair/Brown were Tories in disguise!! It's a shame politics are so polarised in this county at the moment tbh and I do wonder where it's all leading whoever is in charge.

 

[doublebogey7]

Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot!

Oh how some have taken in the line spun by Osborne that the world financial crash was all labours fault and it would of been any . different under the Tories see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

As well as the errors over Iraq the other error the Blair/Brown Government made was to belief that it was possible to get rid of boom and bust during a time when the world economy was booming. But as the article in the link shows they were not the only ones.

Otherwise I agree the last Government was generally a force for good both at home and abroad.

 

[Fyldewhite]

I see that there is no mention of the deficit in your post.

All the things you mention, and many others, are very desirable and worthy but insufficient thought was given to how they were to be paid for.

Well, no. but there again I was just trying to inject a little balance to the rantings in the OP. Not justify everything Blair ever did. Personally I think he did a pretty good job overall. Peace (however fragile) in Northern Ireland being another significant achievement and one where much blood has been saved.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Well, no. but there again I was just trying to inject a little balance to the rantings in the OP. Not justify everything Blair ever did. Personally I think he did a pretty good job overall. Peace (however fragile) in Northern Ireland being another significant achievement and one where much blood has been saved.

^^^agree - and don't forget that it was Blair who brought in the National Minimum Wage - something the Tories would never have countenanced - and a pretty pickle we'd be in today with zero hours contracts combined with no minimum wage.

 

[JamPal]

B Liar should be pulled apart by chimpanzees.

 

[delc]

B Liar should be pulled apart by chimpanzees.

Unfair on the chimps! :mmm:

 

[Val]

Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot!

3 elected terms would suggest it was better than what was on offer elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I was one of the millions of anti-war protesters back in 2003. I thought the war against Iraq was illegal and unjustified, not to mention too expensive for a small European country like the UK (hence the huge National debt the last Labour government ran up). Above all it was unlikely to solve anything and would lead to more Islamic terrorism. And boy were we proved right! Saddam Hussain was a pussycat compared with the Islamic State!

In my opinion, rather than making a fortune for himself, Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal at The Hague and then strung up, but unfortunately i can"t see this happening. :angry:

Tell that to the tens of thousand of northern Kurds in Halabja !!

Was is 6500 who died from his chemical attack and another 20 thousand odd effected

 

[delc]

Tell that to the tens of thousand of northern Kurds in Halabja !!

Was is 6500 who died from his chemical attack and another 20 thousand odd effected

Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups. The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats. A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences!

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups. The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats. A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences!

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!

Where Bin Laden was born was irrelevent

And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people

 

[delc]

Where Bin Laden was born was irrelevent

And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people

And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?

 

[Foxholer]

And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?

And will continue to do so, or have greatly shortened/restricted lives caused by the DU warheads used in it.

Some (gruesome) pics of its effects here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...GBJKPsQS514HoBA&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=653

 

[Old Skier]

And will continue to do so, or have greatly shortened/restricted lives caused by the DU warheads used

Without going into another late night Most of the DU were tank rounds/shells. Very effective for penetrating other armour and we were told we wouldn't glow in the dark having them on board. They did do a marvelous job. They were also used in Kuwait and I find it strange that little evidence of the same kind of thing happening there is around.

 

[Foxholer]

And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people

Indeed he did!

But, at the time, he was actually being supported by US and other Western powers in his war against Iran - during which there was plenty of Chemical weapons used and Security Council condemnations of them! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Rather hypocritical to subsequently bring those up as a reason to oust him!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?

Depends whose deaths we are talking about ? The Republican Guards or Iraq Army who were the foot soldiers for Saddams mass murdering

 

[Foxholer]

Without going into another late night Most of the DU were tank rounds/shells. Very effective for penetrating other armour and we were told we wouldn't glow in the dark having them on board. They did do a marvelous job. They were also used in Kuwait and I find it strange that little evidence of the same kind of thing happening there is around.

That's probably because of the relative small number and location of the action involving DU armaments in Desert Storm - predominantly far away from large civilian population - whereas Operation Iraqi Freedom was conducted closer to where populations.

Over 3 weeks in 2003, over 1000 tons of DU Munitions were estimated to have been used

Here's something that might cause concern..
The DU armor on the M1A1 tanks proved effective in protecting tank crews from enemy fire, although the tank crews were continually irradiated by their own armor and DU rounds for the months many of them lived with their tanks. For example, a tank driver receives a radiation dose of 0.13 mrem/hr to his head from overhead DU armor.20 After just 32 continuous days, or 64 twelve-hour days, the amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation.21 Unfortunately, U.S. tank crews were not monitored for radiation exposure during the Persian Gulf War.

It's not so much the actual radioctivity that is the concern (that's normally folks first thoughts though), but the effect of inhalation of the 'Heavy Metal Dust' on the body.

Here's an article that summarises it reasonably well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

All related, but slightly off-topic, so back to condemnation or praise of Blair!

 

[Val]

Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups. The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats. A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences!

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!

If that was the case why did it take 18 months to do so and why did they do it after the US went to Afghanistan?