Bliar - his worshippers and those with a moral compass.

From Ephraim Hardcastle's column in today's (UK) Daily Mail, two wry snippets - one uproariously amusing. (Bear in mind that being a right-wing rag, even when critical, the Mail is wont to confuse the far right in the US with the American people, as they do their counterparts in the UK). They are particularly incensed with Bliar, however, because he so successfully and mendaciously stole their clothes. Nice to see internecine warfare among the far right.

"Law professor Philippe Sands of University College, London, says there's 'real disdain' in his circle for the way Tony Blair is worshipped in America. 'When there was talk about some sort of Tony Blair Institute for International Relations at the London School of Economics, people just killed it, because it was such a joke,' says Sands, adding: 'As someone said to me, it would have been like the Saddam Hussein Institute for Human Rights.'"

Then, in a paragraph below it, Hardcastle adds:

A propos of Tony Blair, who needed four bodyguards while shopping at Armani in London before Christmas, why hasn't he been seen in blood-soaked Gaza, where, as the Middle-East envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia, he is supposed to be brokering a peace settlement? Perhaps he didn't want to miss Armani's 50 percent-off bargains.

Despised and mocked, viewed as a miserable failure.

intelligence as well as empathy, Blair seems to lack the the latter, for all his efforts to appear otherwise, and as regards his intelligence, I think it would be subtantially lower than Brown's or Wilson's or just about any PM since the WWII, for that matter, other than, perhaps, Margaret Thatcher.

However, he did have a low cunning, and as someone pointed out, an impressive gift for cutting down people's options, the hallmark of dictators.

By underachievers I mean those who were placed to to well and do good, but instead fell far short of expectations for whatever reasons. He'll also be forever joined historically to Smirk, a stain I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Bush's elevation was extraordinarily aberrant, and I think even the vice-like, autocratic grip the US has been in, was really Cheney's.

In the positive sense you probably have in mind, Pinochet would have been a dire under-achiever, while having that dictator's skill, but then, when you go far enough to the right in a post-Christian society, madness blots out any and every positive aspiration. Unbridled greed in all its depravity reigns, backed up by the most laughably vapid attempts at some kind of philosophical rationalisation. However even a "gilded youth" such as Nero, for example, had positive achievements of sorts to his credit, as a ruler.

When he came into power in 1997, it was on the back of the widespread revulsion for failed Tory policies, with a mandate to enact major change. At the beginning there, he and his party seemed so full of promise and opportunity (hence the Obama comparison, I am NOT suggesting Obama will go down the same road) and for the first year or so, he got a lot of things right (the repeal of the much despised Section 28, ban on hunting with hounds, reforms to our welfare system that genuinely helped people and a first attempt at getting some legal recognition for gay couples (failed but not his fault)).

And then, somewhere along the line, the wheels came off. It's difficult to say exactly when. Right from the beginning, there were indications that there was something a little odd about Blair; his committment to stick to Tory spending plans for his first term, for example, or the fact that he talked about his faith a little more than we were used to, or that he seemed to want a far closer relationship with the US.

In itself, that last one wasn't necessarily a problem. The British public tend to be, by American standards, left-leaning moderates so when he was marching in lockstep with Clinton, we didn't mind too much. Clinton's policies and Blair's were not dissimilar so it made sense for them to be political allies. It was when W got into power that it became alarming. W was and is vastly to the right of most of the British public so it was baffling when Blair stayed in lockstep with him and became infuriating when Blair seemingly started to see his role as American ambassador to Britain. This was while Britain had big problems of her own and our Prime Minister seemed determined to be a jet-setting celebrity, fiddling in Washington while England burned.

At about the same time, Labour's policies took a hard swing to the right. Whether that was W's influence or whether Blair felt free to indulge himself now is difficult to say, probably a little of both but suddenly, the Labour party (founded as a mid-left party, moved to the centre in the nineties) had swung to the hard-right. Several people, including me, compared them to the neocons and their policies seemed to be about the same. Policies like privatising everything in sight, demonising the unemployed, immigrant bashing, casual corruption and frankly loony tax policies. Blair also started talking about his faith much more. Now, to an American, that probably seems normal but here, faith is regarded overwhelmingly as a deeply private matter to the extent that when the tabloids reported that Blair was toying with converting to Catholicism (which was probably true, he converted shortly after leaving office), the public outrage was directed at the tabloids for poking their nose into something so personal. Don't misunderstand, there are plenty of people of faith here (including myself) but, by and large, it's regarded as something which is best kept between oneself and one's chosen deity. As an example, I never knew Michael Howard (stalwart of Tory Cabinets, one-time leader of the party and potential Prime Minister) was Jewish until he mentioned in an interview after leaving office that he was filling his time by getting involved with his local synagogue. So talking about one's faith a lot is seen here as somewhat suspicious and hinting at fanaticism. After the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Gunpowder Plot, the Papist Plot (either one) and teh Irish Troubles, we've had quite enough of religious zealots.

The party that Blair left behind is now deeply unpopular, to the extent that memories of the Thatcher era are now being romanticised. Gordon Brown's government leaked plans a while back to force the unemployed to work for their welfare money (shades of the workhouse); the Incapacity Benefit system, already weighted against the claimant, has been scrapped entirely and the violent hatred of the unemployed is approaching the level of a social sickness (some blame here must go to the tabloids which constantly present exploiters as average). The education system is absurdly swamped with testing, the NHS is falling apart (having been underfunded for all of Thatcher's admin and most of Blair's), local services are ever on the decline but our taxes still keep rising. In addition, the Labour party seems to have forgotten that we aren't an imperial power anymore, we are a tiny island and we can't afford to keep pumping billions into failed wars. Nor are we taking proper care of our veterans (a lesson we should have learned after the Falklands).

So, that's Blair's legacy. Came in with endless promise and goodwill, pissed it all away and left as a reviled punchline. I think Obama is too bright to go down that road but if he's ever tempted, Blair's fate should be a warning to him.

It seemed like Thatcherism had finally been purged. Sounds like Bliar is just a poodle as everyone calls him, and that The Bush Doctrine's destruction has reached your grand old nation.

I think Cameron's Tories would be even more like Bush's Neocons.

They accept the link between poverty and crime, but their is solution is simply to build more prisons. So they are not well pleased with Brown, who, at least, who is belatedly endeavouring to help the growing ranks of us poorer folk.

Oddly enough, mad Boris, London's current mayor, seems more like a one-nation Tory. But I think it may be too late for the Tory party, as the rest are a feral rabble.

since the Tories are almost certain to win the next election (unless Brown works a miracle bloody quickly) and my beloved LibDems never get a look in.

People are not that politically stupid.

You have a great deal more faith in the general public than I do.

The only hope is that the economy will start picking up a bit (also to be desired for other reasons!!!), and that the Tories will say/do something even stupider than usual.

People are slightly more trusting of Brown and Darling to sort out the current economic mess then the Tories (who don't seem to have too many ideas about that) and that's helped Labour in the polls. And if the Tories don't sort that problem out they could well find the next general election being a lot closer then previously thought.

Mind you, there's still a lot of time to go yet before the next election (or at least there should be!) Things can still change again.

Since they are not in your country, I can assume that your airwaves and newspapers are not filled with Tory propaganda the way we are inundated with right-wing screed here.

Once the feral rabble buy into the destruction of NHS (or are willing to ignore it), you're well on your way to the dustbin of history with Bushland.

We thought it was a brand new day. Pride goeth and all that...

Even if it is the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

It did have articles by Ephraim Hardcastle, but not that day's satirical gossip column, or any past ones, I believe. There were, however, articles written by him, though I'd never noticed them. He's a loony Thatcherite, actually.

...it's a pen name used for a bitchy gossip columm.

They loathe Blair, not for what he is, but because he duped people so much more cleverly than their Tory could.

Why did you ask for a link, since you are so knowledgeable about the column?

Tony Blair went from global village magician to global village idiot during the ten year span from 1997 to 2007. How come?

In understanding what went on in the New Labour revolution, try some cultural influence:



The synopsis, as written at the wikipedia:



I watched it in the 90's (1992, probably), at the time I wasn't very awake, and it was a strange series. As if from another world, for a not very politically interested Norwegian ;-)
This is Michael Palin in a way you usually don't see him: drama acting with little of the Monty Python absurd humor (although Palin acts a partly absurd role; he has a compulsion to stand naked in closets), but it did set a undertow of emotions going in me then, and I have repeatedly thought about it since 2001, when I became political aware. In some sense, this is culture meets politics, as Palin's character Nelson isn't very politically suave, he is no match for the scheming Murray (not to mention the ever-plotting MI5) who just wants it all so much.

In understanding what went on in British politics (and probably other countries) after the Berlin wall fell, this is a good film experience.

however, is that, politically, we have a bad scenario, whichever way we turn. I think MI5 would now prefer any party that could restore some semblance of a Christian ethos to the country, since the feral madness of our youth - 5 schoolboy stabbings a week - and a host of other surreal national disgraces beggar belief.

Economic conservatism and an atheist social fabric leading to moral anarchy under NuLab(c), and under the Tories, economics subject to the law of the jungle, plain and simple - nowadays, with barely a vestige of a Christian ethos, and that, so hypocritical that it would be counterproductive.

There is a certain breakdown of values also in Norway. I'm not impressed by either side of the political spectrum when it comes to efforts to change it, though ;-)

Found some of this series at youtube, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DtWakx0GDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Au0b8gjM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWvHhsnZRUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVi_oCwWVKs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEvgZaVDyNQ

But thanks for taking the trouble to send the clips.