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 In ALL case, the summary was: out of date, badly maintained and sanctions have hit the availability of parts so badly that barely 50% of the nominal strength was effective.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.
Yup - and IDS?
He's a trusting sort, with a naive belief in the veracity of Prime Ministers
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
Best line of the day so far goes to Mark Durkin, SDLP, "this is not a day for soundbites, but doesn't the Prime Minister think that today the hand of history should be feeling somebody's collar?"
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
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 !
They are taking the jobs you won't do AT THE WAGE BEING OFFERED
Perhaps management should be less greedy and offer better terms?
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
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.
I think it was more personal than that. Recall who was Labour's candidate in the Beaconsfield bye election in May 1982....
Ouch. That really should hurt. She is very fortunate not to have been charged.
Definitely something dodgy about this. Put yourself in FBI's boots. You have a presidential candidate who will almost certainly become the next president if you do not charge her. Or will lose everything if you do. Surely you could get a pretty sweet deal out of it if you played your cards right... Genuinely intrigued to see what FBI's budget is gonna be like in the coming years
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
In an alternate universe, Hague aged 44 in 2005 would have been a good choice for Tory leader, in the way that Hague aged 36 in 1997 certainly wasn't.
The British public have given their opinion of Ed Miliband once, asking them again will give only an amplified version of the same result.
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 !
They are taking the jobs you won't do AT THE WAGE BEING OFFERED
Perhaps management should be less greedy and offer better terms?
Trouble is the supermarkets are in a drive to the bottom in food prices and care not how they get there.
Best line of the day so far goes to Mark Durkin, SDLP, "this is not a day for soundbites, but doesn't the Prime Minister think that today the hand of history should be feeling somebody's collar?"
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
In an alternate universe, Hague aged 44 in 2005 would have been a good choice for Tory leader, in the way that Hague aged 36 in 1997 certainly wasn't.
The British public have given their opinion of Ed Miliband once, asking them again will give only an amplified version of the same result.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
I remember thinking at the time, Blair has a strong hand here. Britain was America's only friend in 2003, and if we'd walked away they would have been in very serious do-do.
And yet when Blair saw the Whitehouse, he just melted.
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.
Up to a point. What people tend to forget is that by then we'd already had half a dozen or so military interventions, most of which were successful on their own terms. Sierra Leone springs to mind. These must have played a part in the Prime Minister's thinking.
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.
And franked the idea that weird looking, Scotch coves can be pm.
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
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.
Chilcott has confirmed my view that Blair was more guilty of the 'Planning for War' Indictment lodged against the Nazis tried at Nuremburg - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
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.
Up to a point. What people tend to forget is that by then we'd already had half a dozen or so military interventions, most of which were successful on their own terms. Sierra Leone springs to mind. These must have played a part in the Prime Minister's thinking.
IIRC, Sierra Leone was often a freelance operation by our military chaps on the ground.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
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.
I don't think the tail wagged the dog in that particular respect, though I'm sure it was one more plus point for Blair.
I read the dossier in full at the time and, far from being sexed up, I remember feeling the technical detail on Iraq's known capabilities by the point was so generic that you might equally well have accused Aston University of having weapons of mass destruction.
Thus, I felt from the start that the true reason for going to war was hidden but, as a mere voter, I reserved judgement and gave the benefit of the doubt as to the real reasons and did not actively oppose the action. I hope I would have followed up some more on the detail has I been in any way involved in a position of responsibility.
My pet theories at the time were twofold - that the government had been so spooked by the Fuel Price Protests in 2000, and the possibility the UK could be brought to a standstill, that more active management of oil supply plus toppling Saddam (and doing it well) was irresistible; or that the UK had some idea that Uday or Qusay's ideas were so much more pro-actively anti-Western that succession could not be contemplated. No evidence ever came to light for the second, but I'm sure the first was a factor.
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.
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 The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living 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 inned 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.
To be fair I think people learned from the gross mistakes of the Dome. e.g. don't have big projects designed by effete committees. If you want something persuasive, you have to hand it over to one moody genius, and trust they come up with the goods
Which is what they did with Danny Boyle, at the Olympics - and it worked.
I remember Stephen Bayley saying exactly this when he resigned the board of the Millennium Dome in 1998 - that they should just hand it over to one artist. No one listened to him.
I've been to the Dome three times in its new guise as the O2 Arena:
Twice to see Depeche Mode play (2009 and 2013) Once to see the ATP Tennis Tour finals (2014).
I think it's been rather successful as an arena/concert venue.
G'-Live: - In the Commons Jeremy Corbyn was heckled by the Labour MP Ian Austin when he was delivering his statement about the Chilcot report. Austin shouted:
Sit down and shut up. You’re a disgrace.
This has outraged some Corbyn supporters, but Austin does not seem to bothered. He has retweeted this.
"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.
The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.
The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."
Noxious Bluff - highly apposite for the central character in today's report?
"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.
The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."
Having walked amongst penguin colonies in the South Atlantic, I doubt they'd notice. #whiffy
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.
The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."
Noxious Bluff - highly apposite for the central character in today's report?
I wonder if Mount Curry was named by a former Prime Minister?
Why did Ian Austin heckle Corbyn when he was delivering his Chilcot speech ? Of all the times...
The Conservatives can and will do anything for the sake of power. The Parliamentary Labour party can and will do anything for the sake of pointless grandstanding.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Blair looks like a very rich sad old man.. and to think he was PM.. I hope all his money that he has gained over the last 10 yrs is lost in defending himself. The state should not help him one iota of the way.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
I've worked in the tech sector for pretty much the entirety of my adult life and I've been waiting for WTO-style protests to flick over to the various tech sector trade shows. Frankly I'm deeply surprised it's not yet happened.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Which brings us back to the point I was highlighting a month or so ago. What does a person that essentially can't make progress as school and leaves with few or no qualifications do for their career, especially if they are not up to pursuing a skilled trade. The future of semi-skilled and unskilled labour in a first world economy, with permeable if not open borders, is pretty bleak. The idea that they should spend their lives on benefits should be anathema to any politician because of the social divisions it causes, and the waste of lives it implies.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.
This is an astonishing speech in more ways than one from what looks like an utterly shattered and broken man.
I genuinely believe he did what he thought was right, in good faith, and in the best interests of the country. But it will haunt him, and clearly does haunt him, during his every waking moment.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
I'm not sure that's the case. Blair had been talking about Iraq with Democratic president Clinton, and there is no reason to think that Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan to 'get' al Qaeda after 9/11.
As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
The UK is run by accountants Mr L who fail to understand the effects of robotics are cumulative.
The dont go on strike, they produce consistent quality , they can work 24/7, they dont ask for annual pay rises. Over time the 2-3% they give you each year begins to mount up, but FDs looking for 3 year returns prefer cheap labour.
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
I'm not sure that's the case. Blair had been talking about Iraq with Democratic president Clinton, and there is no reason to think that Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan to 'get' al Qaeda after 9/11.
As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?
Interesting questions.
Not convinced. Given the character of Bush Jnr it is more likely that a large part of his motivation was to teach SH a lesson for laughing at the US after the failure of Bush Snr to press Iraq 1 home. No other president would have had the same personal motivation to finish what his father had started. 9/11 was just a pretext and never anything to do with Iraq as others have said.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
The UK is run by accountants Mr L who fail to understand the effects of robotics are cumulative.
The dont go on strike, they produce consistent quality , they can work 24/7, they dont ask for annual pay rises. Over time the 2-3% they give you each year begins to mount up, but FDs looking for 3 year returns prefer cheap labour.
They also prefer not to be lynched in the press for job losses.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
There was a good example of this discussed here last week. Car washes.
The UK decided some 30 years ago that automated car washes were cheaper and more efficient than hand car washes, yet in the last five years that trend has reversed - purely due to cheap immigrant labour.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.
Hmm. He looks sincere to me. He's not that good an actor. This is genuine fear and anxiety - and shame.
What has he to fear? He knows he won't be prosecuted over this, and eventually will all die down so he can make a few more millions.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.
Hmm. He looks sincere to me. He's not that good an actor. This is genuine fear and anxiety - and shame.
Don't be such a big girl's blouse, Mr. T., as has already been pointed out he has had advance copies of the report for a long time. A con-man of his skill will have been preparing his response for months. Just showmanship, that is taking you in.
If ever you think about feeling sorry for this man, just remember that for political reasons he stopped the MoD buying the kit that was needed for troops in the invasion. He didn't care that people would die or be maimed because of that decision, only the politics mattered.
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.
Or buy a machine.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.
Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.
Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
Robotics sounds like the worst kind of dystopian Sci-Fi to me. Imagine a world in which humans are just couch potatoes, devoid of strength, virtue, or intelligence, because robots are doing everything. Why would the robots want to keep such drones alive?
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
I'm not sure that's the case. Blair had been talking about Iraq with Democratic president Clinton, and there is no reason to think that Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan to 'get' al Qaeda after 9/11.
As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?
Interesting questions.
Gore would undoubtedly have invaded Afghanistan, and would have been right to do so. I very much doubt that he'd have gone into Iraq. In so doing, he might have saved two nations: Iraq, for obvious reasons, but also Afghanistan, from which the coalition became fatally distracted in 2003 and which suffered afterwards by association.
The tricky question is whether Gore could have continued to contain Saddam. France and others were putting pressure on to wind down sanctions.
Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.
It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.
Hmm. He looks sincere to me. He's not that good an actor. This is genuine fear and anxiety - and shame.
What has he to fear? He knows he won't be prosecuted over this, and eventually will all die down so he can make a few more millions.
I know the ICC can't deal with the matter and I don't think the British courts can, but if he were charged in another European jurisdiction could he be pinched under a European arrest warrant? Does anybody know?
''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. ''
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.
What a disaster he was, in all respects.
Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.
A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.
I'm not sure that's the case. Blair had been talking about Iraq with Democratic president Clinton, and there is no reason to think that Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan to 'get' al Qaeda after 9/11.
As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?
Interesting questions.
Not convinced. Given the character of Bush Jnr it is more likely that a large part of his motivation was to teach SH a lesson for laughing at the US after the failure of Bush Snr to press Iraq 1 home. No other president would have had the same personal motivation to finish what his father had started. 9/11 was just a pretext and never anything to do with Iraq as others have said.
Possibly.
But we should not forget the shock the US (and to a lesser extent the world) felt about 9/11, and Iraq's repeated, deliberate noncompliance with, and obstruction of, the weapons inspectors, and what Iraq was telling the rest of the world.
Bush or Gore, the mood music in the US would have been roughly the same. AlQaeda tweaked the tail of a tiger, and sadly the tiger attacked anyone it saw as a threat.
This is an astonishing speech in more ways than one from what looks like an utterly shattered and broken man.
I genuinely believe he did what he thought was right, in good faith, and in the best interests of the country. But it will haunt him, and clearly does haunt him, during his every waking moment.
Good, then he can give the huge fortune he has made to veterans charities and live the remainder of his life on a minimum wage doing charity work. Or will he be haunted as he supervises he property empire and his multi-million pound fortune?
So, in summary, Blair opens by saying "I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse", and then spends half an hour (so far) making excuses.
Comments
Interesting. Never heard of them.
I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.
A complete hoe for power.
Perhaps management should be less greedy and offer better terms?
Is there anything of real substantive content in this 12 volume spew-out that we didn't already know or had concluded already?
The British public have given their opinion of Ed Miliband once, asking them again will give only an amplified version of the same result.
I remember thinking at the time, Blair has a strong hand here. Britain was America's only friend in 2003, and if we'd walked away they would have been in very serious do-do.
And yet when Blair saw the Whitehouse, he just melted.
Not that Gove is fit to lace RC's boots.
Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/
I read the dossier in full at the time and, far from being sexed up, I remember feeling the technical detail on Iraq's known capabilities by the point was so generic that you might equally well have accused Aston University of having weapons of mass destruction.
Thus, I felt from the start that the true reason for going to war was hidden but, as a mere voter, I reserved judgement and gave the benefit of the doubt as to the real reasons and did not actively oppose the action. I hope I would have followed up some more on the detail has I been in any way involved in a position of responsibility.
My pet theories at the time were twofold - that the government had been so spooked by the Fuel Price Protests in 2000, and the possibility the UK could be brought to a standstill, that more active management of oil supply plus toppling Saddam (and doing it well) was irresistible; or that the UK had some idea that Uday or Qusay's ideas were so much more pro-actively anti-Western that succession could not be contemplated. No evidence ever came to light for the second, but I'm sure the first was a factor.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
Twice to see Depeche Mode play (2009 and 2013)
Once to see the ATP Tennis Tour finals (2014).
I think it's been rather successful as an arena/concert venue.
Sit down and shut up. You’re a disgrace.
This has outraged some Corbyn supporters, but Austin does not seem to bothered. He has retweeted this.
Adrie the immigrant @adrievdm
@frankthetank622 @AMoveToTheLeft - If you witnessed @IanAustinMP heckle Jeremy & are upset plz report him to rosie.winterton.mp@parliament.uk
"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.
The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."
Same as he was the other Friday.
Cabinet government was indeed dead.
LOL
The Conservatives can and will do anything for the sake of power.
The Parliamentary Labour party can and will do anything for the sake of pointless grandstanding.
Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.
Blair's jail will not be one with iron bars at the Hague but the lifetime imprisonment of the contempt of a nation.
I genuinely believe he did what he thought was right, in good faith, and in the best interests of the country. But it will haunt him, and clearly does haunt him, during his every waking moment.
Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.
As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?
Interesting questions.
The dont go on strike, they produce consistent quality , they can work 24/7, they dont ask for annual pay rises. Over time the 2-3% they give you each year begins to mount up, but FDs looking for 3 year returns prefer cheap labour.
You don't see the problem with the way that article (and particularly the headline) is written?
When it came to Blair, they had been right all along.
It's like the wibble wibble wibble of Charlie Brown's teacher.
FT/DE trying to talk it down as much as possible!
The UK decided some 30 years ago that automated car washes were cheaper and more efficient than hand car washes, yet in the last five years that trend has reversed - purely due to cheap immigrant labour.
If ever you think about feeling sorry for this man, just remember that for political reasons he stopped the MoD buying the kit that was needed for troops in the invasion. He didn't care that people would die or be maimed because of that decision, only the politics mattered.
At what point will the Leavers throw in their cards? $1.15, $1.00 $0.75?
British losses in Iraq = 179 dead + 315 wounded
The tricky question is whether Gore could have continued to contain Saddam. France and others were putting pressure on to wind down sanctions.
The Financial Times now to blame for the pound hitting $1.15.
You read it here first, folks.
But we should not forget the shock the US (and to a lesser extent the world) felt about 9/11, and Iraq's repeated, deliberate noncompliance with, and obstruction of, the weapons inspectors, and what Iraq was telling the rest of the world.
Bush or Gore, the mood music in the US would have been roughly the same. AlQaeda tweaked the tail of a tiger, and sadly the tiger attacked anyone it saw as a threat.
New non-Chilcot thread