Have to say, reading the headlines from Chilcot is both satisfying and disappointing. It is most satisfying that it is not a whitewash and that the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner, as is the failure to ensure that there was an effective plan for the peace after the war.
However, it is disappointing that Chilcot did not resist the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to second guess other policy issues, particularly whether peaceful disarmament options were exhausted (from the frontline I can tell you that they did indeed seem pretty exhausted) and that 'containment' could be continued for some time longer (it was already well and truly falling apart with the Russians and French sending large trade delegations to Baghdad and wanting to find ways to get their debt paid, while the oil for food programme was being used to refill Saddam's government and personal coffers).
And don't get me started on the idea that 'containment' is even a policy - it is not. It is a holding pattern until you come up with a policy, and it comes with the massive civilian price of sanctions.
MTimT, given your background, I will be fascinated to hear your take on Chilcot once the detail in two and a half million words has been burrowed into somewhat.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
The noticeable thing about all the worst governmental mistakes in the last 30 years is that they're all supported by both government and opposition.
I'm not sure if that's because opposition makes the government sharper so they don't bollocks things up so badly, or because in fact most government decisions are actually bi-partisan, although we mostly hear about the controversial stuff.
The "worst mistakes" are when they get caught. The reason the "mistakes" are supported by both sides is because extremely rich interests don't allow themselves to get irritated by party political stuff that happens 100 floors beneath them. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the opposition says; sometimes they've got to be on board because they'll soon be in office, or because they need not to cause trouble in committees.
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Rail privatisation was another "mistake", hur hur - getting five times as much public money when privatised as when it was state owned. Not a "mistake" for the City advisers, the "experts" in privatising railway systems.
Most big "mistakes" are to do with corruption. How much money was "spent" on the flop called the London Olympics, I wonder? Hardly anyone came, so they had to bus in youngsters from youth clubs and fill other seats with soldiers in civvies.
Which isn't to say some "mistakes" aren't actual mistakes. They completely fucked up the EU referendum. All they should have done was pay the leading Leavers to come up with a single plan that would go to the people. Then ask whether people are for the plan ("Yes") or against it ("No"). It would have got kicked into touch. "No" could easily have won by a 30% margin. Especially when it became obvious that both sides supported mass immigration.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
I'm not so sure – much of the Labour vote is tribal up north, and he could pick up seats in marginal SE areas.
Like it was in Scotland?
Sure, UKIP has nothing like the ground troops that the SNP does, in number or in motivation, but the idea that Labour's vote is tribal has never stood up to reality wherever it's been challenged. Look at Plaid making inroads in the Valleys, at Labour's losses to the Lib Dems under Blair and Brown in cities like Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. Sure, the Lib Dems lost them again in the coalition but that's not the point; the point is that they were proved not to be rock-solid Labour.
Areas like that are fertile, and voters easily detached from Labour, if someone turns up who genuinely shows an interest in the area, builds a team, represents people effectively and gets the work done. Simon Hughes in Bermondsey would be the classic case study. The problems are that the amount of work thrown up is huge, the task of dealing with it is onerous, and the type of people with the necessary skills to pull it off generally don't choose to live in the sort of communities where it is most needed.
The scandal of our neglected (in every sense) safe seats is the true condemnation of our broken voting system. It is simply less obvious in the Tory equivalents because the people there have the resources not to need the same degree of assistance.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
Give us the name of the book
(FX: nips upstairs)
"Saddam's Secrets: the hunt for Iraq's Hidden Weapons"
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Blair nor his government did not invent PFI.
Too many negatives in that sentence.
Neither Blair nor his government invented PFI?
They didn't invent PFI. Design-Build-Finance-Operate and various variants of it predated Blair by a decade or more (from memory).
What they did was extend its implementation to projects where it did no fit. A PFI / DBFO on a 'simple' road project makes sense. On a school or hospital ... less so.
Some of the projects used for PFI - the risk to the contractor so utterly mind bogglingly minimal - remember the British Gov't has never ever defaulted on a debt, yet almost short term bridging loan rates of interest and effective return. I actually think it isn't a bad idea in theory but the risk adjusted rate of return on some of the projects has been absolubtely phenominal.
And now we expect our brightest and best in Gov't to get decent trade deals with the rest of the world >.>
So Blair may have been reckless, arrogant, foolhardy, naive, ill-informed, incompetent and negligent. But he didn't act in bad faith and that's all that matters. If he thought God wanted him to invade Iraq what else could he be expected to do?
Have to say, reading the headlines from Chilcot is both satisfying and disappointing. It is most satisfying that it is not a whitewash and that the 'sexing up' of the intelligence to make the case for war stronger is rightly condemned in the clearest and most outright manner, as is the failure to ensure that there was an effective plan for the peace after the war.
However, it is disappointing that Chilcot did not resist the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to second guess other policy issues, particularly whether peaceful disarmament options were exhausted (from the frontline I can tell you that they did indeed seem pretty exhausted) and that 'containment' could be continued for some time longer (it was already well and truly falling apart with the Russians and French sending large trade delegations to Baghdad and wanting to find ways to get their debt paid, while the oil for food programme was being used to refill Saddam's government and personal coffers).
And don't get me started on the idea that 'containment' is even a policy - it is not. It is a holding pattern until you come up with a policy, and it comes with the massive civilian price of sanctions.
MTimT, given your background, I will be fascinated to hear your take on Chilcot once the detail in two and a half million words has been burrowed into somewhat.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
Indeed. Last year I read MTimT's book that touched more than a little on the build-up to the war; although it was published well before the second invasion. Thoroughly recommended.
Give us the name of the book
(FX: nips upstairs)
"Saddam's Secrets: the hunt for Iraq's Hidden Weapons"
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 9m9 minutes ago David Cameron will announce at 12.30pm that he's agreed to LD Tom Brake request for 2 day Commons debate on #ChilcotReport
Perhaps they could have one on Libya too. I still don't understand why the UK chose to get involved in that.
Not get involved in, Mr. Dave. The UK and France kicked off outside involvement and then went so far over the UN mandate as to be participants in a civil war. A war which is still going on (and having adverse effects on Italy and Europe), not least because there was once again no plan for what happened afterwards.
My view for the little it is worth is that our involvement Libya, with its brazen over-stepping of the UN mandate, set the seal on the lessons Russia and China could draw from Iraq 2003. That is to say if you have the might you can do anything and the international system, especially the UN, matters not at all. Georgia, The Ukraine, the Crimea, the South China Sea are the result.
The world not just the West will be paying for Cameron's folly for many years to come.
Russia and China did not care what happened in Libya - they would have vetoed it if they did, as the idea the mandate would be exceeded was raised (and the mandate was for more than air strikes, IIRC). They did not veto it and thus implicitly accepted that it would result in regime change, while keeping their hands clean. Gaddafi of all the others in trouble was allowed to fall and the area to chaos as he had no powerful allies willing to prevent it. Pure politics.
My memory is not what it was, I grant you, but there again it was once superb. However, the memory I have is that the UN motion gave permission to enforce a no-fly zone. What we, and the Frogs, did was become the airforce of the rebels with the clear intent of bringing the government down, the government which only a few years ago our own prime minister had been hobnobbing with and UK institutions such as the LSE were keen to take contributions from.
What cannot be disputed is that there was no plan. We were content to bomb the Libyan government out of existence but had no plan for what should replace it or what its collapse might mean to us and our European allies.
What cannot also be denied is that the Anglo-French alliance greatly exceeded the UN mandate. We went much further than enforcing a no-fly zone. That Russia and China noticed this is evident even from press reports in the Telegraph at the time.
That the effects on Italy and our European allies have been bad can be seen by the boats full of illegal migrants now leaving the shores of a Libya that has no government.
Thirteen years after the start of Britain's most recent losing war against Iraq, "Sir John" Chilcot decides that "The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified."
No shit, Sherlock!
If anyone remembers, the semi-retarded US president of the time was openly taking the piss out of the US line that the British government slavishly followed. He pretended to look for "weapons of mass destruction" under his desk!
Later, when Blair was asked whether he'd just said "yes sir" to the US, he scoffed "It's worse than that", and went on to boast that had the US been lukewarm, he'd have fired them up to invade.
They're laughing at us. So is Chilcot.
This is how these sickos relate to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Theresa May looking tired on the front bench .... almost nodding off.
Has she the energy? Mind you Amber Rudd conspicuously yawning when the Tory MP for Torbay was talking abot 100 job losses with the closure of BHS in his constituency was worse.
The Chilcott Report is going to make Corbyn very hard to shift. Nick Palmer mentioned last night that a deal was being negotiated whereby Corbyn would step down at an agreed point in the future before the next GE. Can't recall which year he suggested. If 2017 I think they should shake on it. 2018 probably. 2019 - no.
Thirteen years after the start of Britain's most recent losing war against Iraq, "Sir John" Chilcot decides that "The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified."
No shit, Sherlock!
If we can't jail Blair, we can at least ask Sir John Scarlett to give his knighthood back
Theresa May looking tired on the front bench .... almost nodding off.
Has she the energy? Mind you Amber Rudd conspicuously yawning when the Tory MP for Torbay was talking abot 100 job losses with the closure of BHS in his constituency was worse.
I imagine May had a long night considering how best to secure the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Corbyn is not basing himself on Chilcott at all, he is just saying it is too long to read, so here is what I've said all along anyway; rant rant rant. This more than anything else exposes him as a lightweight.
Has she the energy? Mind you Amber Rudd conspicuously yawning when the Tory MP for Torbay was talking abot 100 job losses with the closure of BHS in his constituency was worse.
I've just heard Theresa May was up all night sharpening the M15 pencils for tomorrows vote whereas Michael Gove was sharpening his knives and Andrea Leadsom was sharpening her wits for the 1922 Committee CV grilling at 5:00pm.
The noticeable thing about all the worst governmental mistakes in the last 30 years is that they're all supported by both government and opposition.
I'm not sure if that's because opposition makes the government sharper so they don't bollocks things up so badly, or because in fact most government decisions are actually bi-partisan, although we mostly hear about the controversial stuff.
The "worst mistakes" are when they get caught. The reason the "mistakes" are supported by both sides is because extremely rich interests don't allow themselves to get irritated by party political stuff that happens 100 floors beneath them. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the opposition says; sometimes they've got to be on board because they'll soon be in office, or because they need not to cause trouble in committees.
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
And the other point is that there is a momentum about most ideas and projects, even small ones, that mean they are almost impossible to stop once they have got going. Even at local government level once a whole bunch of officials have started working on something, they are immune to common sense challenges and the only way they get stopped is if the person right at the top issues a direct instruction.
Your first example makes me recall a cross-London local government meeting I was at, back in the 1990s, receiving a presentation about the Dome. One of the slides was an analysis, which some consultant had been paid to do, of the projected visitor numbers, which had been assessed in detail for every local authority in the country. These fed directly into the income side of the financial case for the whole project. When I saw the figures I could see immediately that they were nonsense - the proportions of residents it was assumed would visit, even from places many miles from east London, were high to the point of being incredible (well over half the population in some cases). Being an awkward sod I put my hand up and made my point; there was some awkward shuffling of papers and then someone said that some people would visit more than once, and the meeting continued as if I hadn't spoken.
Has she the energy? Mind you Amber Rudd conspicuously yawning when the Tory MP for Torbay was talking abot 100 job losses with the closure of BHS in his constituency was worse.
I've just heard Theresa May was up all night sharpening the M15 pencils for tomorrows vote whereas Michael Gove was sharpening his knifes and Andrea leadsom was sharpening her wits for the 1922 Committee CV grilling at 5:00pm.
Has she the energy? Mind you Amber Rudd conspicuously yawning when the Tory MP for Torbay was talking abot 100 job losses with the closure of BHS in his constituency was worse.
I've just heard Theresa May was up all night sharpening the M15 pencils for tomorrows vote whereas Michael Gove was sharpening his knifes and Andrea leadsom was sharpening her wits for the 1922 Committee CV grilling at 5:00pm.
Andrea supporters better use pens when voting.....
So basically after almost a decade, huge costs and lawyers fees Chilcot has concluded the basis on which we went to war was not entirely accurate and the war may not have been absolutely necessary, which a five year old could have told you in 1 minute. Blair will get a rap on the knuckles and then move onto his next lucrative speaking engagement, Corbyn will call him a war criminal which he would have done regardless and on we move to the Tory second ballot tomorrow and the next news story
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
id agree that it will be incredibly difficult for those who worked alongside Brown or Blair to lead the party. This can only be a boost to those backing Owen Smith for next leader too. Umunna is a serious candidate but would be an absolute disaster fro Labour outside of metropolitan areas.
I'm not so sure – much of the Labour vote is tribal up north, and he could pick up seats in marginal SE areas.
Indeed Owen Smith would have zero appeal in Middle England seats like Worcester Labour needs to win, Umunna might but May will probably win the next election regardless, it is 2025 he should be aiming for
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome? [snip]
The Dome is fine as a building and I’m quite happy with its present usage which has been a great success. However the £billion price tag at its opening was outrageous and the PC twaddle that filled it rightly rejected by the public at large.
Well, Blairism and any future variation is surely utterly discredited within the Labour Party for ever. Despite his fine achievements (late-night pub openings) Tony will be seen as demonic and any future moderate will be identically tarred. Fully and squarely, Corbyn and the hard-left now own the Labour brand.
I don't think Blair is a 'moderate'. Surely moderates include people like Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins or others with similar SDP-type views; i.e., mixed economy.
The Blair government:
invented PFI (now causing financial problems to councils or health trusts who must not only pay to occupy these badly-built hospitals or schools but must often pay for repairs) continued to run the shambolic privatised railways it inherited privatised air traffic control.
Plus other policies; e.g., tried to abolish jury trial , tried to introduce ID cards.
Blair was a careerist who seems to have got heavily into politics at the behest of his wife.
Blair nor his government did not invent PFI.
Too many negatives in that sentence.
Neither Blair nor his government invented PFI?
They didn't invent PFI. Design-Build-Finance-Operate and various variants of it predated Blair by a decade or more (from memory).
What they did was extend its implementation to projects where it did no fit. A PFI / DBFO on a 'simple' road project makes sense. On a school or hospital ... less so.
Some of the projects used for PFI - the risk to the contractor so utterly mind bogglingly minimal - remember the British Gov't has never ever defaulted on a debt, yet almost short term bridging loan rates of interest and effective return. I actually think it isn't a bad idea in theory but the risk adjusted rate of return on some of the projects has been absolubtely phenominal.
And now we expect our brightest and best in Gov't to get decent trade deals with the rest of the world >.>
Someone is having a giraffe
Indeed: it was the projects PFI was applied to, and the terms of the contracts, that caused the problems IMO (but I am not an expert).
I might be being overly cynical, but I get the impression from Private Eye and elsewhere that some of the people working on the setting up and rewarding of contracts ended up working for the winning bidders soon afterwards ...
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
You are not alone. After I visited it I came to the conclusion that the negativity about the Dome was caused by keeping hundreds of “great and good”, including journaists waiting at Stratford (?) station on Dec 31st 1999. They didn’t like that experience and wrote down the whole thing.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
The O2 though has been a huge commercial success in a way the Dome wasn't and is now one of the premier concert venues in the world even if the Dome was not as bas as portrayed
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
You are not alone. After I visited it I came to the conclusion thatn the hegativity about the Dome was caused by keeping hundreds of “great and good”, including journalists waiting at Stratford (?) station on Dec 31st 1999. They didn’t like that experience and wrote down the whole thing.
The Millenium Dome was not a success but the O2 arena has been...
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Indeed but Eagle could be Howard to Umunna's Cameron, Labour needs an experienced hand to get an honourable defeat at the next election they have no chance for victory until the election after next due to the Corbyn shambles
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome? [snip]
The Dome is fine as a building and I’m quite happy with its present usage which has been a great success. However the £billion price tag at its opening was outrageous and the PC twaddle that filled it rightly rejected by the public at large.
I just remember some giant intestines, not sure what was PC (or not) about that...
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Indeed but Eagle could be Howard to Umunna's Cameron, Labour needs an experienced hand to get an honourable defeat at the next election they have no chance for victory until the election after next due to the Corbyn shambles
Ed Miliband would be good for that role. Except he was monstered by the Murdoch press and not sure Labour want to step back to him. I rate him ALOT higher than his brother, mind.
Councillors saying the same as I'm seeing among members. Very few want Gove and May beats Leadsom by 2:1 or better. I expect a lot of leave voters who are undecided will break for May as well in the classic "shy Tory" fashion.
Is there anything about the second Blair term that hasn't turned into a complete car crash?
Happily, I sat on my hands and didn't vote for Blair in 2001.
I did vote for him in 1997, but by 2001 the warning signs were clearly there for all to see (the "forces of Conservatism" speech in 1999 was the first sign he was already starting to go mad) So this was the one general election were I stayed away from the polling booth.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
PFI - Why borrow at 3 or 4 % when you can do a deal at 8 or 9 ?
That was Ken Livingstone's argument. You may recall when he first became mayor, he fought a losing battle with Gordon Brown. Ken wanted TfL to use the bonds market but was forced to use PFI (or public-private partnership) at a higher rate.
Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will go quietly after all, once he's led Labour's response to the Chilcot report. Like General Wolfe, he can then die in peace.
I doubt it, but Angela Eagle's attempts to dethrone him are probably finished. No Labour MP who voted for the Iraq War is ever going to get near to the leadership.
I don't agree- the MP's were fundamentally misled by Blair, as much as the Tories who voted pro. Blair didn't even consult his cabinet so how can we blame the MP's. Vote war MP's would be wise to put the boot in on Blair and ask for a legal view on a prosecution. He deserves it.
They are not supposed to be sheep, did they not think to ask why he was keeping it all to himself.
It was obvious - like OBVIOUS that the case for war - or rather the MILITARY case for war - was pants. The Daily Telegraph published a detailed review of the Iraqi military strengths- tanks, planes , missiles, artillery etc.. from its military correspondents and their connections. In ALL case, the summary was: out of date, badly maintained and sanctions have hit the availability of parts so badly that barely 50% of the nominal strength was effective.
So the idea that Iraq could deliver sophisticated missile attacks using WMD was risible. My wife and I discussed this - stand up row. As she said "what you are saying is that the Government and PM are liars,," Big row. We don't discuss it any more!
If I could see that, any MP worth his salary could if he/she had an open mind. Bear in mind it was printed in the DT!!!
With hindsight what should have been a red flag (which I missed) was that Hurd, Hogg and Howell (the three Tories with experience of foreign affairs) all voted against the war.
Electoral Commission We have published details of around £4.5 million in donations and loans to registered campaigners at the EU Ref: https://t.co/cvdFTAYbov
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Except for the dog in a man suit business.
I hope Chuka is able to move beyond his personal issues and (re)gain the composure needed to challenge for the leadership effectively.
Regarding Theresa May's record, this is what I posted a couple of days ago:
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Qatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.
superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!
Well he is a Cameron cheerleader - that sets the bar pretty low.
'Being nice to the french' now apparently counts as a major political achievement. There was everyone thinking that was just standard ministerial behaviour.
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
Me too - he didn't mention Tony or Saddam at all. I've forgotten it already.
So let me get this right, all those years at the heart of Stop The War, his number one issue, the stuff he lives and breathes for... someone puts the goal down right in front of him, paints it dayglo yellow and put the ball six inches from the goal line and says "go on my son, take your time"... and he misses it ?
Me too - he didn't mention Tony or Saddam at all. I've forgotten it already.
So let me get this right, all those years at the heart of Stop The War, his number one issue, the stuff he lives and breathes for... someone puts the goal down right in front of him, paints it dayglo yellow and put the ball six inches from the goal line and says "go on my son, take your time"... and he misses it ?
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
Is there anything about the second Blair term that hasn't turned into a complete car crash?
Happily, I sat on my hands and didn't vote for Blair in 2001.
I did vote for him in 1997, but by 2001 the warning signs were clearly there for all to see (the "forces of Conservatism" speech in 1999 was the first sign he was already starting to go mad) So this was the one general election were I stayed away from the polling booth.
Pleased I did.
Lucky you. I voted for Blair in 2001, having believed what he'd done on sound finances would continue, and thinking Hague was still too young and inexperienced to be PM. Mistake.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Indeed but Eagle could be Howard to Umunna's Cameron, Labour needs an experienced hand to get an honourable defeat at the next election they have no chance for victory until the election after next due to the Corbyn shambles
Ed Miliband would be good for that role. Except he was monstered by the Murdoch press and not sure Labour want to step back to him. I rate him ALOT higher than his brother, mind.
Ed Miliband was trounced in 2015, I don't think Labour going backing to the electorate and asking them to reconsider him would be met with anything other than a repeat result, it would be like Hague rather than Howard leading the Tories again in 2005
Labour's plan for mass immigration. Some of the quotes are priceless, in light of our leaving the EU:
"Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote"
"I remember coming away from some discussions [on mass migration] with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
OH
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it [mass migration]. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's in Sunderland."
AH.
It seems that Sunderland decided to have a word with Labour, instead.
IIRC Boston in Lincs has the lowest wages, and the highest Leave vote.
Regarding Theresa May's record, this is what I posted a couple of days ago:
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Qatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.
superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!
Well he is a Cameron cheerleader - that sets the bar pretty low.
'Being nice to the french' now apparently counts as a major political achievement. There was everyone thinking that was just standard ministerial behaviour.
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
She hasn't. The policy is the same, that their status here is dependent on the status of our overseas citizens. Both must be guaranteed simultaneously. It's just worded differently.
Me too - he didn't mention Tony or Saddam at all. I've forgotten it already.
So let me get this right, all those years at the heart of Stop The War, his number one issue, the stuff he lives and breathes for... someone puts the goal down right in front of him, paints it dayglo yellow and put the ball six inches from the goal line and says "go on my son, take your time"... and he misses it ?
Is there anything about the second Blair term that hasn't turned into a complete car crash?
Happily, I sat on my hands and didn't vote for Blair in 2001.
I did vote for him in 1997, but by 2001 the warning signs were clearly there for all to see (the "forces of Conservatism" speech in 1999 was the first sign he was already starting to go mad) So this was the one general election were I stayed away from the polling booth.
Pleased I did.
Lucky you. I voted for Blair in 2001, having believed what he'd done on sound finances would continue, and thinking Hague was still too young and inexperienced to be PM. Mistake.
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
No, but if you post a link I'll be delighted to give my view.
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
The Dome was absolutely fucking awful. Indescribably shit. And I went on a free press ticket.
I remember the faces of the families wandering around, quite stunned that they'd paid good money to see something so trite, inane, overblown and vacuous. A kind of numbed despair as they went from exhibit to exhibit, desperately seeking something - anything - of interest. They failed. I didn't see one person smiling. Not one.
Recall the Faith Zone. Let it stand for all.
It was essentially a series of observations pinned to a wall, describing different religions. One of them went like this: "Jesus Christ was the son of a carpenter, who died tragically young".
Shame the Tories didn't get to do it.
They should have simply made it a huge auditorium from the start, done an 'Edinburgh Royal Military Tattoo' in there for a couple of months - helicoptors, brass bands, pyrotechnics, acrobatics - sold a shitload of tickets, then sold it on as the arena it is now for a huge sum.
That Dome was a huge warning about how craptacular New Labour really were.
Benn on the other hand still thinks it was right because Saddam was a nasty man and WMD were not that important FFS
Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson are on the wrong side of history (and of Chilcott) in defending the Blair position. Corbyn is on the right side. Chilcott has strengthened Corbyn's position as LOTO.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Except for the dog in a man suit business.
I hope Chuka is able to move beyond his personal issues and (re)gain the composure needed to challenge for the leadership effectively.
I suspect he's over-worrying about those. Everyone knows he enjoyed the high life, I really don't think that matters much these days.
Regarding Theresa May's record, this is what I posted a couple of days ago:
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Qatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.
superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!
Well he is a Cameron cheerleader - that sets the bar pretty low.
'Being nice to the french' now apparently counts as a major political achievement. There was everyone thinking that was just standard ministerial behaviour.
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
She hasn't. The policy is the same, that their status here is dependent on the status of our overseas citizens. Both must be guaranteed simultaneously. It's just worded differently.
ITV will have to rebrand their crappy series "Benidorm" as "Skeggy". The characters can spend their days picking veg in the Lincolnshire countryside for the minimum wage before returning to the coast for a cup of Bovril.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
He was only 25 years of age at the time – was he even known to oppose the war?
Me too - he didn't mention Tony or Saddam at all. I've forgotten it already.
So let me get this right, all those years at the heart of Stop The War, his number one issue, the stuff he lives and breathes for... someone puts the goal down right in front of him, paints it dayglo yellow and put the ball six inches from the goal line and says "go on my son, take your time"... and he misses it ?
Yep
He didn't. He said it was an illegal war and much more. He'll have more to say in the two day debate including a formal apology on behalf of the Labour Party.
You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.
Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite
Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.
Except for the dog in a man suit business.
I hope Chuka is able to move beyond his personal issues and (re)gain the composure needed to challenge for the leadership effectively.
I suspect he's over-worrying about those. Everyone knows he enjoyed the high life, I really don't think that matters much these days.
I do wonder if the current crop of metropolitan Labour MPs might lose the will to fight once we leave the EU. Their identity as politicians and people seemed a lot more dependent on the EU than most. Someone like Chuka may decide to give up on political life in 2020 and take up a lucrative partnership at a law firm.
I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.
Labour's plan for mass immigration. Some of the quotes are priceless, in light of our leaving the EU:
"Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote"
"I remember coming away from some discussions [on mass migration] with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
OH
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it [mass migration]. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's in Sunderland."
AH.
It seems that Sunderland decided to have a word with Labour, instead.
IIRC Boston in Lincs has the lowest wages, and the highest Leave vote.
Is that not because there are many agricultural workers there carrying out labour intensive, low paid work by EU workers. "They're taking our jobs" is the cry - yeah...they're taking the jobs you won't do !
I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.
That may have had something to do with it. Detoxification of Labour's poor foreign policy and defence credibility. Didn't really work out though.
I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.
Fair point. The Falklands had arguably lost Labour power in the previous decade. It was still a raw wound.
But that just makes Blair's actions all the worse - acting for naked party advantage.
Me too - he didn't mention Tony or Saddam at all. I've forgotten it already.
So let me get this right, all those years at the heart of Stop The War, his number one issue, the stuff he lives and breathes for... someone puts the goal down right in front of him, paints it dayglo yellow and put the ball six inches from the goal line and says "go on my son, take your time"... and he misses it ?
He'd clearly written the speech before reading the report, complained he hadn't seen the report until this morning and then continued for ten minutes, but saying nothing he wouldn't have said ten years ago.
Some of us were expecting him to make accusations against certain people involved which could only be said in the Chamber, but no, just another boring anti-war speech.
Is there anything about the second Blair term that hasn't turned into a complete car crash?
Happily, I sat on my hands and didn't vote for Blair in 2001.
I did vote for him in 1997, but by 2001 the warning signs were clearly there for all to see (the "forces of Conservatism" speech in 1999 was the first sign he was already starting to go mad) So this was the one general election were I stayed away from the polling booth.
Pleased I did.
Lucky you. I voted for Blair in 2001, having believed what he'd done on sound finances would continue, and thinking Hague was still too young and inexperienced to be PM. Mistake.
Well that's why I didn't vote. Hague was clearly a non-starter but the power mad tendencies of Blair were already very evident by this point (I think the Balkan intervention in March 1999 was the turning point with him)
I remember turning on the news on that morning after the 2001 election and seeing Blair had roughly the same majority he had in 1997, and feeling a huge sense of trepidation as to what he'd do with that much unchecked power.
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
The Dome was absolutely fucking awful. Indescribably shit. And I went on a free press ticket.
I remember the faces of the families wandering around, quite stunned that they'd paid good money to see something so trite, inane, overblown and vacuous. A kind of numbed despair as they went from exhibit to exhibit, desperately seeking something - anything - of interest. They failed. I didn't see one person smiling. Not one.
Recall the Faith Zone. Let it stand for all.
It was essentially a series of observations pinned to a wall, describing different religions. One of them went like this: "Jesus Christ was the son of a carpenter, who died tragically young".
Shame the Tories didn't get to do it.
They should have simply made it a huge auditorium from the start, done an 'Edinburgh Royal Military Tattoo' in there for a couple of months - helicoptors, brass bands, pyrotechnics, acrobatics - sold a shitload of tickets, then sold it on as the arena it is now for a huge sum.
That Dome was a huge warning about how craptacular New Labour really were.
One of my BFFs was on the Dome delivery team for BT - one of the big sponsors. His reports from the frontline were just soul destroying. All PC nonsense, decision by committee, no organisation, dancing round big issues - like zip content, precious ministers who'd no idea what the point was, bugger all planning or realistic forecasts on ticket sales.
We all felt sorry for him having to endure it. That it was crap was no surprise at all. The best thing was the fire sale of assets at the end. My hubby bought still boxed PCs, TV screens and other assets for a total song.
I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.
That may have had something to do with it. Detoxification of Labour's poor foreign policy and defence credibility. Didn't really work out though.
I think that was John Rentoul's thesis. The US had always looked askance at Labour administrations on defence matters. This was Blair's chance to show that Labour could do the Special Relationship thang.
Mr. T, well, quite. It worked as well as Blair's plan to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead.
I'm not much inclined to dispense charity to Blair but he didn't really have a choice on that one.
And tbf it wasn't much more damaging to the Union than the Tories' habit of reneging on vague promises of devolution & sticking their fingers in their ears while hoping those ghastly Jocks would just shut up.
I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.
Good point. I remember Tone sounding chuffed to blazes when he spoke about his relationship with George W, and he could barely stop himself gloating about how jealous it made the Tories.
The Chilcott Report is going to make Corbyn very hard to shift. Nick Palmer mentioned last night that a deal was being negotiated whereby Corbyn would step down at an agreed point in the future before the next GE. Can't recall which year he suggested. If 2017 I think they should shake on it. 2018 probably. 2019 - no.
***** Betting Post *****
Ladbrokes have a market on "Corbyn Labour Leader Exit Date", where the current odds are as follows:
2016 ................................. 1.67 2020 or later ..................... 4.5 2017 ....................... .......... 5.0 2018 ................................ 17.0 2019 ................................ 21.0
Those of a nervous disposition might like to combine 2 or more years to produce a consisrent overall return. For example, staking 65.27% at 5.0 on 2017, 19.19% at 17.0 on 2018 and 15.54% at 21 on 2019 produces a winning return of 3.26 (or 9/4), should Jezza case to be leader over this 3 year period. DYOR
Labour's plan for mass immigration. Some of the quotes are priceless, in light of our leaving the EU:
"Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote"
"I remember coming away from some discussions [on mass migration] with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
OH
"But ministers wouldn't talk about it [mass migration]. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's in Sunderland."
AH.
It seems that Sunderland decided to have a word with Labour, instead.
IIRC Boston in Lincs has the lowest wages, and the highest Leave vote.
Is that not because there are many agricultural workers there carrying out labour intensive, low paid work by EU workers. "They're taking our jobs" is the cry - yeah...they're taking the jobs you won't do !
Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.
I posted the chart yesterday: average and median disposable income has been pretty much flat for the last twelve years. That's a step change from the 70s, 80s and 90s.
I'm not defending the natives, or excoriating the immigrants. But people seldom get pissed off without there being something in it.
Thanks for sharing the Robin Cook speech. One of the great what-ifs of recent political history is what if Robin had lived. He would have challenged Brown and may well have won. It would have been a better contest and the last 10 years would have been very different.
Comments
A good example is the Millennium Dome. Oh it was going to be a magnet for visitors from all around the world, like Venice. For the next 1000 years! In the end they had an opening ceremony to please Prince Charles, showing some wacky shit to do with fire people and ice people at the creation of the world, and they played tape loops at the top of the main construction, showing Rowan Atkinson putting on a funny nose. Maybe if they'd used a Benny Hill tape they'd have got 200 visitors rather than 150. It was a major scam, and to look exclusively at who lost money (we the people did!) can detract from who made money. It now belongs (at least a 999-year lease does) to Trinity College, Cambridge. You couldn't make this shit up.
Rail privatisation was another "mistake", hur hur - getting five times as much public money when privatised as when it was state owned. Not a "mistake" for the City advisers, the "experts" in privatising railway systems.
Most big "mistakes" are to do with corruption. How much money was "spent" on the flop called the London Olympics, I wonder? Hardly anyone came, so they had to bus in youngsters from youth clubs and fill other seats with soldiers in civvies.
Which isn't to say some "mistakes" aren't actual mistakes. They completely fucked up the EU referendum. All they should have done was pay the leading Leavers to come up with a single plan that would go to the people. Then ask whether people are for the plan ("Yes") or against it ("No"). It would have got kicked into touch. "No" could easily have won by a 30% margin. Especially when it became obvious that both sides supported mass immigration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm
It was prescient in almost every way.
The scandal of our neglected (in every sense) safe seats is the true condemnation of our broken voting system. It is simply less obvious in the Tory equivalents because the people there have the resources not to need the same degree of assistance.
"Saddam's Secrets: the hunt for Iraq's Hidden Weapons"
https://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Iraqs-Hidden-Weapons/dp/000653113X
Sadly quite hard to get: my copy came from Canada.
And now we expect our brightest and best in Gov't to get decent trade deals with the rest of the world >.>
Someone is having a giraffe
This is what Jeremy Corbyn was doing in the run up to the Iraq War. #JustSaying https://t.co/uZSHnd8Cbh
What cannot be disputed is that there was no plan. We were content to bomb the Libyan government out of existence but had no plan for what should replace it or what its collapse might mean to us and our European allies.
What cannot also be denied is that the Anglo-French alliance greatly exceeded the UN mandate. We went much further than enforcing a no-fly zone. That Russia and China noticed this is evident even from press reports in the Telegraph at the time.
That the effects on Italy and our European allies have been bad can be seen by the boats full of illegal migrants now leaving the shores of a Libya that has no government.
Cameron's folly indeed.
No shit, Sherlock!
If anyone remembers, the semi-retarded US president of the time was openly taking the piss out of the US line that the British government slavishly followed. He pretended to look for "weapons of mass destruction" under his desk!
Later, when Blair was asked whether he'd just said "yes sir" to the US, he scoffed "It's worse than that", and went on to boast that had the US been lukewarm, he'd have fired them up to invade.
They're laughing at us. So is Chilcot.
This is how these sickos relate to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Your first example makes me recall a cross-London local government meeting I was at, back in the 1990s, receiving a presentation about the Dome. One of the slides was an analysis, which some consultant had been paid to do, of the projected visitor numbers, which had been assessed in detail for every local authority in the country. These fed directly into the income side of the financial case for the whole project. When I saw the figures I could see immediately that they were nonsense - the proportions of residents it was assumed would visit, even from places many miles from east London, were high to the point of being incredible (well over half the population in some cases). Being an awkward sod I put my hand up and made my point; there was some awkward shuffling of papers and then someone said that some people would visit more than once, and the meeting continued as if I hadn't spoken.
May v Leadsom. Survation Poll - Con Cllrs
May 50%
Leadsom 26%
Undecided/refused 24%
May v Leadsom (excl undecided)
May 66%
Leadsom 34%
Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?
For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,
Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good design, with little artistic quirks here and there.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and would've appreciated another visit or two to see everything I had to skim over due to a lack of time - which of course I couldn't bloody well do, because the place was closing for good the next day.
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living museum for people to visit in 2016. I'm sure perceptions would've changed over time.
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).
Long live the Dome!
I might be being overly cynical, but I get the impression from Private Eye and elsewhere that some of the people working on the setting up and rewarding of contracts ended up working for the winning bidders soon afterwards ...
Edited for spelling error.
Tables are online.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Final-Con-Cllrs-Tables-1c0d6h2.pdf
https://youtu.be/O0vHZqVn-io
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE
I did vote for him in 1997, but by 2001 the warning signs were clearly there for all to see (the "forces of Conservatism" speech in 1999 was the first sign he was already starting to go mad) So this was the one general election were I stayed away from the polling booth.
Pleased I did.
Or is it far too late for that?
We have published details of around £4.5 million in donations and loans to
registered campaigners at the EU Ref: https://t.co/cvdFTAYbov
'Being nice to the french' now apparently counts as a major political achievement. There was everyone thinking that was just standard ministerial behaviour.
Has @Richard_Nabavi told us his opinion of Theresa May confirming the right of current EU migrants to remain in the country, reversing her initial verdict that he so strongly approved of?
They should have simply made it a huge auditorium from the start, done an 'Edinburgh Royal Military Tattoo' in there for a couple of months - helicoptors, brass bands, pyrotechnics, acrobatics - sold a shitload of tickets, then sold it on as the arena it is now for a huge sum.
That Dome was a huge warning about how craptacular New Labour really were.
He was only 25 years of age at the time – was he even known to oppose the war?
But that just makes Blair's actions all the worse - acting for naked party advantage.
Some of us were expecting him to make accusations against certain people involved which could only be said in the Chamber, but no, just another boring anti-war speech.
I remember turning on the news on that morning after the 2001 election and seeing Blair had roughly the same majority he had in 1997, and feeling a huge sense of trepidation as to what he'd do with that much unchecked power.
We all felt sorry for him having to endure it. That it was crap was no surprise at all. The best thing was the fire sale of assets at the end. My hubby bought still boxed PCs, TV screens and other assets for a total song.
Step forward Angela Eagle and Tom Watson. Now is your moment.
And tbf it wasn't much more damaging to the Union than the Tories' habit of reneging on vague promises of devolution & sticking their fingers in their ears while hoping those ghastly Jocks would just shut up.
Ladbrokes have a market on "Corbyn Labour Leader Exit Date", where the current odds are as follows:
2016 ................................. 1.67
2020 or later ..................... 4.5
2017 ....................... .......... 5.0
2018 ................................ 17.0
2019 ................................ 21.0
Those of a nervous disposition might like to combine 2 or more years to produce a consisrent overall return.
For example, staking 65.27% at 5.0 on 2017, 19.19% at 17.0 on 2018 and 15.54% at 21 on 2019 produces a winning return of 3.26 (or 9/4), should Jezza case to be leader over this 3 year period.
DYOR
I posted the chart yesterday: average and median disposable income has been pretty much flat for the last twelve years. That's a step change from the 70s, 80s and 90s.
I'm not defending the natives, or excoriating the immigrants. But people seldom get pissed off without there being something in it.