Of course he is upset that Corbyn wants to undo his work.

...The Labour party has just had a disastrous general election, most notably in Scotland, where Jim Murphy's ultra Blairite approach resulted in Labour losing all but one of their seats.

The 3 mainstream candidates (Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall) are all very poor, timid choices either offering more of the aimless drift of the Ed Miliband era or in Kendall's an approach so rabidly right wing that nobody outside of the Tory party can find palatable. So therefore people end up looking to Corbyn as a genuine alternative.

Jeremy Corbyn is a throwback to the Michael Foot era. If he is elected there is a genuine risk of the party splitting and the chances are that he would be booted out after a very short time by a Parliamentary Labour party that is overwhelmingly Blairite. However, he's doing well for a reason. Rather then endless negativity and abuse, the moderate wing of the Labour party need to start engaging with Labour supporters properly rather then treating their own supporter as idiots. They also need to start offering something positive to people. Corbyn has clearly grasped this. The other 3 have not.

I was just looking at it from Blair's point of view.

I can certainly foresee the possibility of a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and I think that you called the likelihood of what may happen quite well.

are the reasons for your party's failure. Maybe if you'd stuck with your party's founding principles and popular opinion you wouldn't be in the toilet right now.

It's like people here warning that we have to have a GOP lite candidate to win elections.
Wrong.

Blair led Labour to 3 successive general election victories. 2 of these were massive landslides.

In the eyes of many Labour folk, this is enough to excuse all his misdeeds while in office.

Blair is such a warmongering prick.

Under Blair the Labour leadership became known for top down control freakery from their central office, then in Millbank Tower. The party grassroots were routinely ignored and the people who have risen in the party since Blair became leader have tended to be bland careerists.

This has left Labour out of touch with voters, lacking the necessary grassroots support to help them connect with voters, and the grassroots supporters that are left pretty annoyed with the way the party is being run. And Blair's control freakery has left the party unable to reform itself and move forward.

thanks for the info.

The Al Jazeera bombing memo is an unpublished memorandum made within the British government which purports to be the minutes of a discussion between United States President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Daily Mirror published a story on its front page on 22 November 2005 claiming that the memo quotes Bush speculating about a U.S. bombing raid on Al Jazeera world headquarters in the Qatari capital Doha and other locations. The story claims that Blair persuaded Bush to take no action.

The five-page memorandum is said by the Mirror to be a record of the meeting between the two leaders which took place on 16 April 2004 at the height of Operation Vigilant Resolve, an assault on Fallujah by U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces. Al Jazeera reporters were in the city providing video footage of the conflict. The day before the meeting, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described Al Jazeera's coverage as "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable."[1] Al Jazeera reporters defended their live broadcasts of the civilian casualties by stating "the pictures do not lie".[1]

The White House has dismissed the allegations made in the article.[2] Given that Qatar is an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom in the Iraq War, many commentators have speculated that even if the reports of the memorandum are accurate, they may simply be recording a statement which the President did not intend to be taken seriously. A White House official told CNN "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," and a Pentagon official called the Daily Mirror report "absolutely absurd."[3] A BBC News correspondent has suggested that if President Bush did indeed make the comments they were intended as "some kind of joke."[4]

Writing in The Independent on 28 November Andreas Whittam Smith countered, observing that "official note takers don't normally record jokes". He also pointed to the alleged leaker's "25 years' experience of tough postings in place such as Islamabad and Khartoum, ... often involved in intelligence work" and concluded that he "must have felt exceptionally troubled by what he was seeing."[5]

According to a report in The Daily Telegraph[6]:

"People who have seen the document say the real reason that it is being suppressed by the Government is because it contains a potentially damaging private discussion between the two leaders about the controversial United States attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah last year."

The report also stated that, when questioned about the matter at the Commonwealth conference in Malta, Blair branded the claims a "conspiracy theory."

David Keogh, a civil servant at the Cabinet Office, and Leo O'Connor, a research assistant to former Labour MP Tony Clarke, were charged under the Official Secrets Act 1989[2] for the unauthorised disclosure of the memo (Keogh under section three, O'Connor under section five). When O'Connor gave the memo to Clarke, Clarke returned it to Downing Street. All news organisations in the United Kingdom have been warned by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith against further publication of information from the leaked memo; Goldsmith has mentioned the possibility of prosecution under section five of the Official Secrets Act 1989 if published details from the memorandum are considered to damage interests of the United Kingdom abroad[7]. On 29 November 2005, Keogh and O'Connor appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court in Central London. Following a 15-minute hearing the case was adjourned until 10 January 2006. (CNN) On 10 May 2007, Keogh was found guilty on two counts of making a "damaging disclosure" by revealing the memo and was sentenced to 6 months in jail. He was also ordered to pay £5,000 in costs to the prosecution. O'Connor was sentenced to 3 months in jail. (Reuters)

<snip>

Previous U.S. bombings of Al Jazeera offices

Al Jazeera's offices have previously been hit by United States weaponry. On 13 November 2001 a U.S. missile hit Al Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, during the U.S. invasion of that country. Although no Al Jazeera staff were hurt in the attack, the building was destroyed and some employees' homes were damaged. At the time, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, managing editor, said that the coordinates of the office were well known to everyone including the Americans.[12]

When former British Home Secretary David Blunkett published his memoirs in late 2006, it was revealed he had advised Prime Minister Tony Blair in late March 2003 to bomb the Al Jazeera television transmitter in Baghdad. "There wasn't a worry from me because I believed that this was a war and in a war you wouldn't allow the broadcast to continue taking place", Blunkett said.[3][4][5]

On 8 April 2003 a U.S. missile hit an electricity generator at Al Jazeera's office in Baghdad. The resulting fire killed reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounded another staff member.[13] On 24 February, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali had sent a letter with the coordinates of the offices to Victoria Clarke, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs[14] (the location had not been officially requested by the U.S. government). This incident, which occurred during the U.S. assault on Baghdad and after criticism of Al Jazeera's coverage from those supportive of the war aims of the United States forces, gave rise to suspicions that the network had been targeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo

This is one that particularly strike out to me

must've sent him a thousand thank you notes by now.

The reason that Labour lost is because the Tories LIED.....and LOOK children - LOOK what Cameron is doing - Down with Unions..I am so sick of austerity - it ain't workin' - who the hell is listening to this bloc anyway! - Oh that's right - the elite..warmongers greedy sob's..boy, the UK sure was snookered....

The electorate in England went with Cameron because there wasn't much difference between the two parties. Bliar also ignores the dissatisfaction in the electorate, shown by the high polling for UKIP and the SNP. The SNP is further left than the Labour Party is as a whole and if Scotland had gone completely Labour, this election would have been completely different. Bliar has his head in the sand.

"renationalise the railways and utilities, the party would officially support nuclear disarmament, the reunification of Ireland, a radical shift in foreign policy and a radical redistribution of tax."

1978, Ladies and Gentlemen !

the only thing missing is Arthur Scargill and the power cuts...

Certainly not nuclear disarmament or the reunification of Ireland (an independent Scotland is much more of an imminent possibility).

I would love to have someone undo Thatcherism, which in my opinion was the worst disaster to hit Britain since the war.

Unfortunately, Corbyn is not the likely person for the job. He is not one of nature's politicians (a good MP for a safe Labour seat, yes; a power-winner in a complex Machiavellian game, no) , and I don't think he even really wants power; he entered the race so that the left-wing cause would be presented, not because he really wanted to win. This makes him a good man, but not a likely Prime Minister. In some ways he's like a much LESS politically savvy version of Michael Foot; and the media and the Thatcherites crushed Foot.

He is popular among many people just because he's the anti-Blair; the sincere principled non-politician. But sadly, so much so that he ultimately won't win in our present situation.

Comparisons are sometimes made to Bernie Sanders, but while I cannot comment from the UK on Sanders' presidential chances, he has already shown considerable political skill by becoming first a Representative, and then a Senator, for seats that had been previously consistently won by (admittedly moderate) Republicans, and had never in recent history been won by Democrats, let alone left-wing Independents. Corbyn does not have this record for political success.

had just been hollowed out by Thatcher and "shed the load" once the bubble burst

having three Thatcherite parties/party leaderships just feeds the Tories more and more

Blair might be Satan personified, but he did win three elections out of three, while his 'i'm not tony blair' successors have lost two out of two.

to quote the man - 'power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile'. he's right, Corbyn might be the lefts' wet dream, but its not the left that has to vote Labour to get Labour into a position where those principles mean more than the cat shit on my lawn, and 'middle england' - the people who made the conservatives the 'party of government'through the 80's and then gave that mantle to Labour under Blair, and then removed it again under Brown and Miliband, won't vote for Corbyn. ever.

he will be a fantastic leader of the opposition, he will get Labour to 40%+, he'll put a real crimp in the SNP's stranglehold of the traditional labour areas of Scotland - but he'll leave 300+ constituancies in England utterly cold, and without them Labour is just yelling at the moon. he's also an anathema to the traditional, working class Labour voter - he's north london, tea with the IRA, get rid of nukes labour, that plays well to the activists and those who've left to join TUSC or the Green or whatever, but it goes down like cold sick in white van land.

the white van land Blair won, and Brown and Miliband lost.

Corbyn will be great fun to watch, but he's electoral suicide. car crash tv.

For all the Blairite theorising, the 3 mainstream candidates don't look capable of beating the Tories in a general election either!

Corbyn has many faults, but he's the only one vying to be leader who's even trying to be positive, and not just spouting mealy mouthed platitudes. Hence why he's doing well and the other 3 are faltering.

But the bottom line for me is this. Other than insufferable gloating Tory/UKIP twats, I haven't come across anyone, in real life or online who is in any way happy with the way that the Labour leadership contest has gone.

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

There was no other way to end that conflict(the republican movement was and is driven by legitimate grievances and ending republicanism through force was always impossible) so who would still be offended by calls for dialogue? What other choice was there? Not talking to Sinn Fein would have meant "The Troubles" would have gone on forever.

And there was plenty of working-class support for the anti-nuclear movement in its day(the Bomb never did a damn bit of good for , working-class people and the Cold War only benefited the rich-the USSR was never going to take over the UK or Western Europe, given that it was all they could do to hold onto Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland).

From your tone, I doubt you have ever voted Labour or ever would.

....be it newspaper columnists, current and former politicians or Labour bloggers is if anything far worse, which only serves to drive more people into the arms of Corbyn.

The same mentality that drove Scottish voters into the arms of the SNP.

the stranglehold will be 'crimped' so easily.

This is one of the greatest OPs I ever read here.

Hey, guys. Commiserations. I have some observations for you from Scotland...

I wonder if you will find this interesting.

The Scottish National Party(SNP) in Scotland is poised to wipe out Labour (the major UK left party)at the next general election. Why?

Because the SNP is further left than the Labour party now.

Also, the behaviour of some of the Labour activists during the independence referendum campaign was so foul that a vast number of diehard Labour supporters switched over to the SNP in disgust. The SNP's party membership is now 80,000 and rising (I realise that's small beans compared to the US, but for our country it's big, it's now larger than the other UK "third party", the Liberals, it's now the third largest party in the UK). The SNP has been in power for 7 years and proved that its primary interest is Scotland and its people. The Labour party's primary interest is the Labour party. Alex Salmond, First Minister and SNP leader (soon to step down) was basically the only major political leader in the UK that condemned the Iraq War from the start. He started winning and kept winning because he told the truth.

After Thatcher the right wing Tories were utterly obliterated from Scottish politics. Currently they hold one seat in Scotland. It's beginning to look like Labour is about to go the same way. Current projections suggest that they may end up with as few as four seats.

There is this thing that happens in Scotland when a political party does something we don't like.

We DESTROY THEM.

Why should we live under the rule of a body that does not represent us?

One of the results of this long term trend is that we now have our own Parliament. Labour gave it to us so as to buy our votes. Other developments that indicate our highly non-tactical and highly successful voting strategy include the recent referendum - Holyrood (Scottish Parliament) was set up as STV (single transferable vote) so that the SNP couldn't ever get in with an overall majority and take Scotland out of the UK. This has failed totally, the SNP gained an overall majority at Holyrood and is going to expand that majority at the next GE.

Scotland has free university education. Scotland has a properly NON-privatised Health Service. The SNP is protecting this. Labour, across the UK, is trying to fuck it all over. They are hypnotised by the right and are desperately copying them as much as possible. It's going to be a disaster for them. They've abandoned the working man, and the working man can see this perfectly well for himself.

Perpetual triangulation has cost Labour it's ace - Scotland. Labour used to be able to rely on at least 45 MPs from Scotland every general election and could concentrate their strategy on England. Taking Scotland for granted has destroyed them.

Labour's self-absorption and corruption were as plain as day. Everyone could see for themselves that these people were career politicians and wanted nothing to do with them. The new guy who is about to take over as the Scottish Labour leader (you can tell that it's going to be him because despite the fact that there are two other candidates for the leadership thy are getting absolutely no coverage at all in stark contrast to articles all over the "lefty" press about the Golden Child) is called Jim Murphy and he is already regarded as a buffoon by the Scottish electorate as he ran up an expenses bill of £1mil over junk and spent 9 years at uni without ever getting a degree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764711 -- there is more that should be definitely be read plus sibelian bolds and italics in all the right places.

WAS 'tea with the IRA' (and a number of other people too, ranging from Paisley to Clinton); and that it led to the Good Friday agreement and an end to years of near-and sometimes actual civil war.

So I don't think he can attack Corbyn on that in particular!

Blair needs to shut up. I think that he actually does not want Labour to win under the leadership of anyone but himself or those who have his imprimatur, and that this contributed to his successors' defeats; though there were many factors involved, and Miliband undoubtedly ran a weak campaign.

Rather hilarious article

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-last-thing-labour-needs-is-a-leader-like-jeremy-corbyn-who-people-want-to-vote-for-10411466.html

I predict it will be called the Progress Party.

David Miliband and Chuka Umunna will probably join them as the new Gang of Four. Maybe Nick Clegg as well(he's got plenty of free time and nowhere else to go.

BTW...I've heard that Blair's hatred of the Labour Left goes back to the early Eighties and his being denied selection as a parliamentary candidate in a constituency he felt entitled to. Do you know of any of that history?

That Blair joined Labour because it was easier to get into Parliament with them then it was with the Tories.

I just don't know where to start with all the horseshit in this article. It'll probably end up driving more people towards Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/12/even-if-hate-me-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair

1979-1997, Thatcher and the Conservatives took power when the "Looney Left" was seen as having too much influence in the Labour Party.

....that the Labour party has been in decline since their second landslide in 2001. I remember that Labour has been destroyed in Scotland by the SNP attacking Labour from the left. I remember how negative and timid Labour has become in recent times, offering less and less to voters and simply relying on the "vote for us or it's the Tories" argument.

I can see quite clearly that the 3 mainstream candidates are running poor campaigns and don't look all that electable either (albeit for different reasons). I can see a good many issues with Corbyn, but I can see why he's become the frontrunner.

Gosh, everyone knows they CAN'T win. I mean, EVERYONE in the establishment...

Not quite an endorsement for Corbyn, and has a glaring typo. But nonetheless, if even Rupert Murdoch can see why it's happening...

https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/634252269706317824

We shall see.