Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The last days of Blair?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The last days of Blair?



    He is in deep doo dah with this cash for honours lark. I think we are (hopefully) seeing his last days. However uncharasmatic Brown is, I fundamentally believe he will be more honest and less "spin"driven than Blair.
    <H1>Blair quizzed again as cash for honours consumes Labour</H1>




    · Police imposed news blackout on PM interview
    · Questions linked to Levy and perversion of justice

    Patrick Wintour, political editor
    Friday February 2, 2007
    The Guardian





    Detectives investigating the cash for honours affair demanded that the prime minister maintain total secrecy over their decision to conduct a second interview with him to see if they could expose Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, giving misleading or contradictory evidence.


    Mr Blair was interviewed as a witness for 45 minutes last Friday, four days before Lord Levy was arrested and questioned on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. No 10 only revealed yesterday that Mr Blair had also been seen again, 24 hours after police gave it clearance to do so.


    The demand for secrecy reveals the degree to which trust between No 10 - and its allies - and the Metropolitan police has eroded. It also suggests the police believe it is possible to pin charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice against some of Mr Blair's closest allies.


    Relations between Mr Blair and Lord Levy are said at Westminster to be "up and down". Neither Lord Levy, Downing Street nor the police would comment last night on a BBC report that the peer was quizzed about notes of meetings with senior No 10 staff when honours were discussed.


    Mr Blair was told last Friday that he must not divulge either the fact of the interview or its details to anyone but his tightest circle. His chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and his director of government relations, Ruth Turner, both the subject of police inquiries, were not told.


    A police statement said yesterday : "The prime minister has been interviewed briefly to clarify points emerging from the ongoing investigation. He was interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect, and cooperated fully."


    With senior cabinet members still expecting that the prime minister will not be charged, there is as yet no high-level ministerial, or senior backbench call for Mr Blair to stand down. However, both Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears expressed concern that it was harming the government's relationship with voters. Ms Blears said in an interview on BBC2's Newsnight: "Inevitably, when you have this kind of thing going on for months and months, it does have a corrosive effect. This whole affair has overshadowed our domestic agenda: it is quite difficult to get your message across."


    Ms Harman told BBC1's Question Time: "It has eroded trust and it's been an unfortunate, to say the least, situation."


    The Conservative leader, David Cameron, said Mr Blair needed to realise "it is over". He added: "I look along the front bench and I see the health secretary and I wonder is she thinking about the current crisis facing our health service or is she wondering if she will have a job in four months' time?


    "I think about our defence secretary, who should be concerned with the current problems facing our troops in Iraq, but is he wondering whether he will have a job when Gordon Brown takes office?"


    No 10 is desperate for the investigation to end, one way or another, and for a decision to be made by the Crown Prosecution Service on whether charges should be brought. But it is possible the police will not close their inquiry until March, dragging the damaging affair into the Scottish, W
    Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

    #2
    Ironically as far asN.I is concerned, he was by far the best british PM ever. What a deeply corrupt man though. He made Charles Haughey look like Nelson Mandela.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again (like picking Gordon D'Arcy) and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein

    Comment


      #3


      Originally posted by Mcork
      Ironically as far asN.I is concerned, he was by far the best british PM ever. What a deeply corrupt man though. He made Charles Haughey look like Nelson Mandela.

      Do you understand the meaning of the word 'corrupt'?


      I can suggest a good on-line dictionary if you need further help.


      Comment


        #4


        So he wasn't corrupt then? Care to explain?



        <TABLE =luna-Ent>
        <T>
        <TR>
        <TD vAlign=top>


        Corrupt :


        1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: @@@@SPAN =ital-inline>a corrupt judge. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
        <TABLE =luna-Ent>
        <T>
        <TR>
        <TD =dn vAlign=top>2.</TD>
        <TD vAlign=top>debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: @@@@SPAN =ital-inline>a corrupt society. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
        <TABLE =luna-Ent>
        <T>
        <TR>
        <TD =dn vAlign=top>3.</TD>
        <TD vAlign=top>made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text. </TD></TR></T></TABLE>
        <TABLE =luna-Ent>
        <T>
        <TR>
        <TD =dn vAlign=top>4.</TD>
        <TD vAlign=top>infected; tainted. </TD></TR></T></TABLE>
        <TABLE =luna-Ent>
        <T>
        <TR>
        <TD =dn vAlign=top>5.</TD>
        <TD vAlign=top>decayed; putrid. </TD></TR></T></TABLE>
        Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again (like picking Gordon D'Arcy) and expecting different results.
        Albert Einstein

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Mcork


          So he wasn't corrupt then? Care to explain?



          <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T>
          <T>
          <TR>
          <TD vAlign=top>


          Corrupt :


          1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: @@@@SPAN ="ital-inline">a corrupt judge. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
          <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T>
          <T>
          <TR>
          <TD vAlign=top ="dn">2.</TD>
          <TD vAlign=top>debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: @@@@SPAN ="ital-inline">a corrupt society. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
          <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T>
          <T>
          <TR>
          <TD vAlign=top ="dn">3.</TD>
          <TD vAlign=top>made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text. </TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
          <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T>
          <T>
          <TR>
          <TD vAlign=top ="dn">4.</TD>
          <TD vAlign=top>infected; tainted. </TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>
          <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T>
          <T>
          <TR>
          <TD vAlign=top ="dn">5.</TD>
          <TD vAlign=top>decayed; putrid. </TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>


          Charles Haughey = guilty of all of the above.


          Now, can you please point out an example that indicts blair? C'mon McCork, for someone living in France you should be adept at spotting examples of political corruption.

          Comment


            #6


            From the Irish Indo


            Blair 'honours for cash' questioning worries party

            08:06 Friday February 2nd 2007


            Senior figures in the British Labour Party are voicing their fears after police investigating allegations of cash for honours questioned Tony Blair for a second time.
            Justice minister Harriet Harman said that public trust has been eroded.


            Party chair Hazel Blears has warned of the affair's corrosive effect.


            And ex-leader Neil Kinnock predicted that it would take years for the reputation of the political system to recover.


            Excellence is hard to keep quite - Sherrie Coale

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by dobbs
              Originally posted by Mcork


              So he wasn't corrupt then? Care to explain?



              <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T><T><T>
              <T>
              <TR>
              <TD vAlign=top>


              Corrupt :


              1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: @@@@SPAN ="ital-inline">a corrupt judge. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></T></T></T></TABLE>
              <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T><T><T>
              <T>
              <TR>
              <TD vAlign=top ="dn">2.</TD>
              <TD vAlign=top>debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: @@@@SPAN ="ital-inline">a corrupt society. @@@@/SPAN></TD></TR></T></T></T></T></TABLE>
              <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T><T><T>
              <T>
              <TR>
              <TD vAlign=top ="dn">3.</TD>
              <TD vAlign=top>made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text. </TD></TR></T></T></T></T></TABLE>
              <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T><T><T>
              <T>
              <TR>
              <TD vAlign=top ="dn">4.</TD>
              <TD vAlign=top>infected; tainted. </TD></TR></T></T></T></T></TABLE>
              <TABLE ="luna-Ent"><T><T><T>
              <T>
              <TR>
              <TD vAlign=top ="dn">5.</TD>
              <TD vAlign=top>decayed; putrid. </TD></TR></T></T></T></T></TABLE>


              Charles Haughey = guilty of all of the above.


              Now, can you please point out an example that indicts blair? C'mon McCork, for someone living in France you should be adept at spotting examples of political corruption.


              WMD, 45 mins claim, Uranium from Niger claim, War on Iraq, War in Lebanon, War on terror, misleading his cabinet, misleading the british public, David kelly &amp;now the far less serious affair (relatively) of honours for cash etc etc etc etc. I could go &amp; on &amp; on but I'm not certain you'd take any of it onboard.


              These Corrupt practices have been directly or indirectly related to the deaths of perhaps 100's of thousands of people.


              Haughey while certainly corrupt had clearly (for the intelligent anyway) nowhere near as much blood on his hands. Thus the comparison I made. Unless of course you see the shop assistant who takes money from the till as corrupt as those Enron execs who made themselves rich by defrauding their investors. I dont.
              Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again (like picking Gordon D'Arcy) and expecting different results.
              Albert Einstein

              Comment


                #8


                Ah, so its corruption (in a very loose definition of the word)in your opinion. I see. You are quite right.


                Do you own a PLO scarf?


                Comment


                  #9
                  That's a very childish remark. Should you be in school now? I suggest we end our "definition of corrupt" argument now before its starts to show us both in a bad light.
                  Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again (like picking Gordon D'Arcy) and expecting different results.
                  Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                    #10


                    Dont think he is/was corrupt per se





                    Just guilty of lying to the British people on Iraq (WMD and 45 minutes etc)


                    Being Bushs lapdog ("Yo Blair") to preserve that "special" relationship


                    Falling for his own supposed charisma (It'll get you so far ...)


                    Believing the Tory/Lib Dem ineptitude meant he was popular


                    Covering up sleazy business practise on the basis it was a National Security issue (BAE)


                    History may not be kind to Tony despite his record term in office .....


                    "I've got lots of potatos that need peeling and manure that needs shovelling" -M. Burns

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Which SP is the definition of corrupt. One does not need to accept money in order to be corrupt, financial corruption is only one form of corruption. The reasons for his extreme dishonesty are &amp; have been widely debated. What is not in doubt is his dishonestyon matters far far more impt than mere financial corruption.
                      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again (like picking Gordon D'Arcy) and expecting different results.
                      Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                        #12


                        Originally posted by Mcork
                        Which SP is the definition of corrupt. One does not need to accept money in order to be corrupt, financial corruption is only one form of corruption. The reasons for his extreme dishonesty are &amp; have been widely debated. What is not in doubt is his dishonestyon matters far far more impt than mere financial corruption.

                        Agreed (that is why i used the words "per se" in reference to the widely accepted defn of corruption
                        "I've got lots of potatos that need peeling and manure that needs shovelling" -M. Burns

                        Comment


                          #13


                          MCork, Blair may have been wrong on WMD but it doesn't mean he lied, after all even France, Germany and Russia agreed about WMD, they disagreed with military action though. Where has Blair lied on the War on Terror? No doubt you will claim he has exaggerated the terrorist threat but there have been enough terrible events to suggest that in fact there is amajor terrorist threat to the UK. Where did Blair lie on the war in Lebanon, he took a position that you did not agree with (or me for that matter) it doesn't mean he is corrupt, it just means you disagree with him.


                          Comment


                            #14


                            MCork, make up your mind, is it corruption or dishonesty? FFS!!


                            Blair and his longed for 'legacy' will always be tarnished by his decision to side with Bush in the decision to go to war in Iraq. A phenomenal blunder by a politician of his abilities.


                            But history may be kinder than you think. Blair has presided over a period of increased prosperity, impressive social gains as well as pushing the agenda on the issues such as climate change and looming energy shortage. He might just get away with it, you know.


                            Edit: Thats even before mentioning his achievements with the Labour Party.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Thought he was a good PM, excellent work in the North, Good decision on going into Iraq and deposing a corrupt dictator. Smart moves if you ask me
                              Im here to spread the word..common sense is not just for animals

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X