jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (5 posts)

This question is for people who are somewhat knowlegeable about British politics

  1. wingedcentaur profile image82
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago

    This question is for people who are somewhat knowlegeable about British politics. Did Tony Blair...

    and his 'New' Labour Party pay any political price for his 'shoulder-to-shoulder' support for the the U.S. invasion of Iraq and 'War on Terror?'

  2. EmpressFelicity profile image73
    EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago

    Given that Mr Blair was given a lucrative consultancy job with JP Morgan after he left office, and has since earned shedloads of money as a public speaker, I'd have to say the answer is "no".

  3. roncitrus profile image57
    roncitrusposted 7 years ago

    With the blood still drying on his hands, he was appointed a middle -east peace envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU. One can only assume that the phrase "peace envoy" was designed to amuse fans of Orwell.

  4. Poeticjazztice profile image60
    Poeticjazzticeposted 6 years ago

    I can see the point of view of the writers who have previously responded to this question. However, I think they are missing one critical detail: the question asks if Blair and his party paid any "political"  price.

    The previous answers seem concerned mainly with the views of corporate types and politicians of Blair and "New Labour". They certainly represent a significant section of the UK's body politic, but I think the opinions of the British masses should be our main concern when answering this question.

    On that basis, I would say that the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror have cost Blair and New Labour more than may at first appear, though not quite as much as one might think, given the derision commonly heaped on Blair.

    I believe Blair has definitely loss the gloss that he had prior to Iraq and the war on terror, but he also seems to retain a significant amount of goodwill among Brits.

    I think this retention of goodwill is significant as it points to an essential conservatism of the British public.

  5. profile image0
    Oliver Pendleposted 6 years ago

    Actually, they did - but it wasn't anything glaringly obvious. Tony Blair upset quite a lot of people when he decided to go to war - he had already been trying to steer his prime ministerial role closer to a presidential one and saw his position as "Commander-in-chief" a very important one. Iraq saw a massive protest in Britain which, although didn't damage the Labour party, damaged Blair's reputation as a whole; not the least with his cabinet, who, although were all allies to blair and held collective cabinet responsibility, felt Blair had made a bad mistake and soon raised a stink about it.
    In the long term, Blair would have the Iraq war on his head, it would be a label that many British people would stamp on him. Blair had promised to give British people more direct democracy, which he had done so with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Human Right's act (Supposedly) and devolution in Scotland and Wales. He had failed to achieve any electoral reform and was criticised for his reforms on the House of Lords, which some say didn't go far enough. After the invasion of Iraq, there was a definate change in the wind in opinion towards Blair and even though he was never voted out, he was soon voted as one of Britain's worst Prime Ministers - as according to several polls.
    Although we may never see Tony Blair found a war-criminal, it was certainly damaging to him to have been put on an inquest. It is ironic that he is now peace ambassador for the middle east - but nevertheless, Tony Blair is one of the leading prime ministers in history - in that he is well known and either loved or hated - but the Iraq war is a universally controversal objective which will loom over the history of Blair's premiership indefinitly.