Forum Topic

New Years Honours

Sir Tony Blair !!!!🤬

Sue Hammond ● 1261d61 Comments

I thought this article looked interesting until I read it - I'm not sure it really provides much solid information on Blair as opposed to those around him. Even if the memo had been destroyed I'm sure others (such as the memo's author) would have had copies - and it seems to be disputed anyway. A bit "he said, she said" by a disgruntled ex-cabinet minister? I wonder if at the time the Queen agreed Blair was acting in the UK's national interest? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/05/geoff-hoon-told-to-burn-memo-that-said-iraq-invasion-could-be I agree a solid mandate from the UN would have been far preferable but I wonder if this is a legal matter where different lawyers cash come to different opinions depending on which points they emphasize? Interestingly, Starmmer didn't indicate whether he thought Blair was a good (or bad) PM but suggested Blair should get the gong for his long service as PM? Perhaps more "lawyer speak"? Of course that's sort of hindsight as that's the only wat of knowing how long Blair served as PM ...

Michael Ixer ● 1257d

Morning Ed I'm not an habitual Guardian reader😉so thanks for posting that article. From a personal pov it just proves what I think of Smarmer; nothing but a political opportunist who doesn't have any steadfast beliefs of his own and will jump on any passing bandwagon to curry favour.  However he has become expert at using the benefit of hindsight ...

Sue Hammond ● 1257d

Well I agree with Starmer 2003. Not sure what happened to that chap?https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/foreignpolicy.iraq1

Ed Robinson ● 1258d

Yes Michael, although all the Royal Palaces are definitely worth a visit, I would prefer Hampton Court if there is a room going :)

Ed Robinson ● 1258d

To my knowledge the UK has no lèse-majesté law so all on this site should be safe from being marched off  to the Tower. Although a quick Google indicates the Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy but although it's still on the statute book apparently the law is no longer enforced. So everyone will be pleased that so Jeremy Corbyn is safe as well!

Michael Ixer ● 1258d

At for myself, I was agreeing with Alexander MacLeod's post.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1258d

Ed: The words I used were "sailing pretty close to lese majeste".

Alexander MacLeod ● 1258d

Alexander, if Starmer can express a view on who should or should not get this honour then anyone can. To suggest lese majeste is ridiculous.Clifford you seem to be trying to rewrite the Chilcot report! The UN was created post war -  there is such a thing as international law too (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/31/tony-blair-prosecution-over-iraq-war-blocked-by-judges).But on another note the UK did not sell arms to Hitler as far as I am aware (https://www.ft.com/content/52add2c4-30b4-11e1-9436-00144feabdc0)

Ed Robinson ● 1258d

Ed: So what is your point?

Alexander MacLeod ● 1258d

Wars are never legal or illegal - they just are, and the Iraq war had to happen - the country was being ruled by a murderous despot and his sons and had to be removed. Well done I say - it sometimes takes a certain courage to lead and TB certainly did. So much whimpering was also expressed in the lead up to WW2 - what would have happened if the naysayers allowed Hitler to succeed - ask any Israeli if in any doubt of the answer.

Clifford Cowell ● 1258d

Wars are never legal or illegal - they just are, and the Iraq war had to happen - the country was being ruled by a murderous despot and his sons and had to be removed. Well done I say - it sometimes takes a certain courage to lead and TB certainly did. So much whimpering was also expressed in the lead up to WW2 - what would have happened if the naysayers allowed Hitler to succeed - ask any Israeli if in any doubt of the answer.

Clifford Cowell ● 1258d

What are people agreeing with, lese majeste?There are countries where people can not question any aspect of the monarchy directly or indirectly for fear of death, imprisonment or disappearing.Thankfully that is not the UK.

Ed Robinson ● 1258d

I wholeheartedly agree with you Alexander.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1258d

Well said, Alexander.

Jane Carter ● 1258d

(1) The Queen has an absolute right to confer the Garter on Blair.(2) While Blair was Prime Minister the Queen met him weekly – 500 times, give or take. She therefore knows more about him and his record than anyone, except possibly Cheri Blair – certainly more than anyone on this site.(3) Blair, by wide consent, made a very serious error over Iraq, but he also did a lot of good things, e.g. the Good Friday Agreement and devolved powers for Scotland, Wales and (of course) London. He also dug her out of a hole concerning how to respond to the death of Diana.(4) The Queen, also by wide consent, has a record of being an extremely sharp lady. There is no evidence (a) that anyone influenced her decision re conferring the Garter on Blair, or (b) that she is incapable of clear thinking and decision-making.Those who question her powers re the Blair knighthood are sailing pretty close to lese majeste (an offense violating the dignity of a ruler as the representative of a sovereign power)--  unless they are willing to come clean and say flat out that she should be stripped of those powers.It seems to me that much of the comment on this site regarding Blair and his gong is rooted in tunnel vision (particularly over Iraq) laced with more than a modicum of vitriol.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1258d

His recognition in the Honours system is long overdue.  Tony Blair is one of only two Prime Ministers in living memory to have won three consecutive elections and is one of our longest serving Prime Ministers.  There will inevitably be debate about every Prime Minister's legacy but there are numerous examples of progressive change which benefitted millions in the UK which stand to Tony Blair's and his Government's credit.  No doubt people will focus on the Iraq War and the alleged "illegal" nature of that war.  Yet its illegality is a matter of opinion rather than something proved in a court of law.  The UN definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction includes biological and chemical weapons.  We know that Saddam Hussein had indeed been in posession of these when he used them against the Khurdish civilian population in Iraq, and during the Iran-Iraq War of the early 1980s.  We also know that Saddam Hussein had been in defiance of UN resolutions dating back to the end of the 1991 Gulf War by obstructing access to UN weapons inspectors.  If he did not have a WMD programme, why did Saddam Hussein continue to continue such obstruction right up to the elevelnth hour in 2002? Not only was the regime of Saddam Hussein and his two sons a barbaric and murderous dictatorship but Saddam Hussein had a long history of posing a threat to other countries in the region.  The honours system is not for one political party to monopolise but is there to show recognision across the political spectrum and beyond.  As such, it is entirely appropriate that the only person alive to have won an election for the Labour Party is rightly recognised.

David Beeney ● 1258d

Interesting take as this has now become political. Over half a million is a lot of voters.The smart thing would be to be consistent and state it is the Queen's choice surely? By making such a comment on who should or shouldn't he undermining the Queen's authority.With some shadow ministers apparently  having called for trials in the past now congratulating Blair have they opened a can of worms for themselves.Should we now ask MP's how they would vote today for the war, the inquiry and the honour?"Asked whether Johnson should receive the same honour, Starmer said it had not been earned. “I don’t think that this prime minister has earned the right to have an honour. I do think Tony Blair has,” he said."https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/04/uk-government-urged-to-rescind-tony-blair-knighthood

Ed Robinson ● 1258d

Fine, though experience is showing us a thing or two about Brexit....But 7 million signatures is incredibly enormous amount compared to just under 500,000, would you not agree?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

@Ivonne 10.33Of course I didn't agree with it! The Brexit result was achieved in a democratic process and voted in by 17.4 million people so why would I agree with a bad loser petition lol?

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

The petition of course will not succeed but it will register the repulsive of many people across the political spectrum that have not forgotten and who reject as have the many reports and inquiries, the same falsehoods and excuses wheeled out in his defence.The most shocking thing is not honouring Blair but those that would have no hesitation in voting for him again!

Ed Robinson ● 1259d

From recent experience, anything could happen!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

Another former Prime Minister who got the Garter was Winston Churchill. He was First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Dardanelles or Gallipoli campaign (1915), of which he was the most passionate advocate, cost the lives of 132,000 British, French, Australian, New Zealand and Indian troops. Like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the Dardanelles campaign fizzled out and was a failure. Anyone prepared to start a petition to strip Churchill of the honour? Just asking.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1259d

I mentioned Boris, Sue.As I mentioned in my previous post, many honours are proposed by 10 Downing Street.The Order of the Garter, however, is bestowed solely by the Queen.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

I also believe that if enough people sign this petition on Change.org, then the Honour will be tainted. Nobody will forget the opposition to this Knighthood.

Martine Guy ● 1259d

Ivonne, I do not think the Petition will get Blair stripped of his Knighthood, unfortunately.  However, I do not think he should be given this Honour without him being made aware of how upset people are by this.  He probably wasn’t expecting a Petition like this. re petitions, as far as have seen from the signatures so far, there have not been any signatures from the Pope, Vatican City or M Mouse, London N1, as there were on the Remain petition, I seem to remember.

Martine Guy ● 1259d

Hello Ed,I remember distinctly that many people criticised George Bush Sr for not "finishing" Saddam off after the first war with Iraq. My boss at the time, a lovely Australian man who fought during WWII as a pilot, maintained that that mistake would be paid dearly in years to come.  I think he was right.I always had the impression that the second invasion of Iraq was to complete unfinished business of the first one, particularly for GW Bush.  Of course, the attack against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon provided the perfect basis because an excuse it was not. Let us not forget that Saddam was a horrific character that used chemical weapons against his own people.The "sexed-up" dossier was quite something and the statement of the 45 minutes window for an attack on the UK questionable.  As was the death of Dr David Kelly.The Cash-for-Honours was a scandal indeed, as was the Cash-for-Questions and currently, the donations to the Tory party which result in donors being elevated to the HoL.  All in all, I think the politicians of late in the UK seem to have perfected sleaze as well as dishonesty and integrity has gone out of the window.Apologies for transgressing.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

Who mentioned Boris?  There are plenty of politically motivated high ranking civil servants who wield a lot of influence in the honours system Ivonne.  I expect Campbell has been moved up the queue now.  The whole honours system stinks of corruption and needs drastic reform.

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

The petition I saw seemed to be petitioning the PM requesting him, in turn, to petition the Queen. Perhaps the petition should have been directly to her? Anyway, I suspect like most other petitions it will just be ignored?I wonder if the citizens of Iraq care about Blair's knighthood, or know what one is? Are they more likely to be concerned about whether their aid from the UK is likely  to be cut?https://www.devex.com/news/uk-ends-bilateral-aid-to-more-than-100-countries-territories-100087

Michael Ixer ● 1259d

Michael devil's advocate is probably an accurate term but I take your point. However the problem with the Blair's legacy is not that the war over shadowed his achievements, it is that his other wrong doings are often ignored leading to a war versus his achievements only evaluation.HoL reform  is often quoted for example without mentioning the Cash for Honours scandal:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-Honours_scandalThe war did not exist in a vacuum it was a product of those that were in government at the time.If discussing his achievements we need to look very carefully, openly and honestly at them as most if not all have serious caveats.

Ed Robinson ● 1259d

Let us see how it progresses.I recall very distinctly that you did not agree with petitions.  The one that particularly comes to mind is the petition signed by over 7 million people against Brexit....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

But Mel C received an MBE and these are recommendations from 10 Downing Street without a shadow of a doubt. The same applies to OBEs, MBE, BEM, knighthoods, damehoods. Many of these are also put forward by members of the public.The Order of the Garter is a completely different thing. Can you really envisage Johnson putting Blair's name forward for any award/honour?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

@Sue, what I've been trying to highlight is that unlike most of the honours (as in your example, Mel C's) which are selected by the honours committee, usually on political recommendations by the PM or leader of the opposition (or not recommended in the case of John Bercowe) the Order of the Garter is one specifically awarded by the Queen outside of the normal honours committee process.To quote the BBC: "Tony Blair is knighted, being appointed to the Order of the Garter. Unlike the main New Year Honours list, which is advised on by the prime minister's office, the Order of the Garter is a royal appointment. The former prime minister said it was "an immense honour" and he was "deeply grateful to Her Majesty the Queen".https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59809682And 'The appointments are the personal choice of the Queen, who has up to 24 "knight and lady companions"':https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59841419So, I don't think it's me being naive as I was trying to point out this was different to the other honours and I was interested that the Queen saw it appropriate to give Blair this honour. I don't think I'm being disingenuous either: I declared I wasn't interested if Blair got an honour our not as I think the system's tainted anyway; perhaps just cynical about it? After all, it's a good mechanism for either party to stuff the HoL with their chums? Continuing with my cynicism, I suppose it's possible that the Queen, or one of her close advisers, thought it might push Andrew out of the headlines now his friend Ms Maxwell has been confirmed to be a criminal?

Michael Ixer ● 1259d

More than 350,000 have signed the petition now!Tony Blair's knighthood is a 'kick in the teeth' to the people of Iraqhttps://mol.im/a/10362159

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

I have Ivonne and a big pinch of salt required in my opinion.  I can't get my head round the thought of the Queen bopping around Buck House to Mel C's warblings either.

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

Good morning Sue,Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the Order of the Garter.  Please read the second paragraph.  Thank you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

@Michael 00.16Good morning Michael. You keep banging on about it being the Queen's wish to honour Blair and I find your stance on this either naive or disingenuous. It was widely reported at the time that the Queen was most displeased with Blair over his speech when Diana died, which incidentally was written by his lying partner in crime Alastair Campbell. The Queen has also honoured Mel C so do you think she did it because she's a covert Spice Girls fan? Of course not!Whoever in the establishment put Blair forward for this Knighthood has opened up a can of worms and it will unfortunately reflect badly on the Queen for granting it.

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

Ed. I'd agree war is appalling and best avoided. If I play devil's advocate further, should those who instigated the Falklands war and the first Iraq war be castigated as well? Or would you consider there was a justification for those because of the aggression from Galtieri and Hussein?In the early nineties I discussed the first Iraqi war with an Iraqi friend. (He was living in the UK having fled from Iraq during the 1980s to avoid prison and possible death.) He was annoyed that having massacred many troops of the Iraqi army the US troops involved were just stopped and left Sadam Hussein in power to continue his dictatorship over the Iraqi people. Again, no real long term plan just a tactical war to push Hussein back from Kuwait and put him in his place? Or perhaps the West's interest in the oil in that region was the motivation?

Michael Ixer ● 1259d

You hear it again and again concerning war be it WWI, WWII or later wars and conflicts. Those that returned did not mention the horrors of war. They protected our innocence from knowing what people can be truly capable of and the true price paid by what is now called collateral damage.However there is enough documented evidence on war for us to know the truth. There is no excuse to think a bill in parliament equals the value of lives lost or damaged. Children blown apart in pieces for their parents to pick up. Limbs lost, organs destroyed and damaged, skin melted. Refuges, chaos, loss of law and order. Rape, piledge and murder in the lawlessness that follows.To unleash the horrors of war for self serving political reasons is simply unforgivable but to do so without a follow up plan is simply unimaginable!

Ed Robinson ● 1259d

Ed.  Read my post: I said I wasn't supporting Blair's actions. I was wondering why the Queen believes it's ok to honour him.

Michael Ixer ● 1259d

Your right Michael, Shipman was a serial killer the scale of victims of the wars and the victims is almost unimaginable and still growing.Are you suggesting that Blair acted for the good of the UK?Remember it is not just the wars but the cover ups that followed. The votes against investigations and the delays.If it wasn't for plane spotters and wikileaks we would not know the extent the UK took part in illegal activities.Democracy cannot exist without transparency and the rule of law. What ever you are giving Blair credit for it is certainly not democracy!

Ed Robinson ● 1259d

Ed. I'm not supporting Blair's actions regarding Iraq, etc. However, I don't think that's a good analogy: I doubt Shipman ever thought he acted for the good of the NHS's future whereas however misguided Blair was he may well have believed (or convinced himself) his actions were correct - I don't know, but as has been said he's never apologised. I wouldn't like to assess how he'll be judged long term. It would seem in a bad light, but of course things change with time: after all, the actions of  many who were previously considered heroes are now being reassessed. I just find it interesting that the Queen has seen it fit to give Blair this knighthood so I'm wondering if there's something we don't know? Or is there a suggestion her judgment is slipping - but then one would think a close adviser would intervene?

Michael Ixer ● 1259d

What did Bliar really know about the 7/7 bombings?

Michael Brown ● 1259d

To say Blair contributed to democracy is like saying Harold Shipman made a positive contribution to the NHS.It doesn't appear that he considered the human rights of all those that lost their lives and those that still dying and suffering today and will do tomorrow and possibly for future decades.

Ed Robinson ● 1259d

The Guardian!!!!!!????????????

Ivonne Holliday ● 1259d

@Ivonne & MichaelI have to agree that Blair was a successful PM because he served three terms but his legacy will always be the Iraq war and that abomination overshadows everything else that he did. He has never admitted he was wrong even though the Chilcot report was very damming with regard to him and his motives for taking our country into what in effect was an illegal war which resulted in many hundred of 1000's deaths including 457 UK armed forces personnel. The following article from the Guardian although published some years ago is just as relevant now:Don't be nostalgic about Tony Blair. His effect on Britain and beyond was toxic | Tony Blair | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/blairism-britain-iraq-war-tony-blair

Sue Hammond ● 1259d

Aside from his contribution to the NI Agreement he also initiated some legislation to attempt to make the UK more of a modern democracy, namely:* Passed the Human Rights Act 1998 making it unnecessary to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights consolidating the UK's adherence to the European Convention of Human Rights  (not to be confused with European Court of Justice, an EU institution)
* Enacted the House of Lords Act 1999 to reform the House of Lords reducing the power of unelected hereditary members
* Set up the Jenkins Commission into electoral reform which proposed the alternative vote system as an alternative (although thus was rejected in the 2011 referendum during the Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition)One might argue that he didn't go far enough with some of these and could have done them better but at least they were steps in the right direction. But, yes, Iraq is a major blot and I fail to understand why he didn't wait for UN approval foir any intervention.As Andy says, this knighthood is being conferred by the Queen so she must have her reasons. (I guess we'll never know what they discussed in private about the Iraqi war during her and Blair's weekly meetings?) Still, if someone like Frost is made a lord and is prepared to risk jeopardising the NI Agreement and Dido Harding is a Baroness given her record looking after her customers' data and being allowed to splash tax payers' money on an ineffective test and trace system (just to name a couple of examples) I think the honours system is so devalued I'm not sure I care if Blair is knighted or not :-(

Michael Ixer ● 1260d

Tony Blair may not be a saint of my devotion (the spin doctors were unbearable!), but I also think he did quite a few positive things for the UK.   I know there will be many complaints, but thought this would be a "fair" balance?  I am copy-pasting from a post on FB, but it is quite something!  

Ivonne Holliday ● 1260d

Unfortunately due to it being a personal honour bestowed by the monarch a petition will serve little purpose.

Andy Pike ● 1260d

signed. for the love of god why are we honouring war criminals?

Matt Palmer ● 1260d

82,759 - going up every secondhttps://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-tony-blair-to-have-his-knight-companion-of-the-most-noble-order-of-the-garter-rescinded

Ed Robinson ● 1260d

Just signed and it's over 79,000 now. Thanks Martine. x

Sue Hammond ● 1260d

There seems to be more than one petition.  The one that is getting the most signatures, over 62,000 at the moment is “Tony Blair to have his Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter Rescinded”.

Martine Guy ● 1260d

I’ve just signed the petition on Change.org to strip Blair of his knighthood.

Martine Guy ● 1261d

Blair is a sycophantic waste of space I think.  I've had it suggested Prince Philip wouldn't allow it in his lifetime...

Jenny Featherstone ● 1261d

I don't think any ex PM deserves an automatic knighthood.  Blair deserves a long prison sentence.

Sue Hammond ● 1261d

Let's hope Bojo is made to wait a lot longer for his

Sean Hodges ● 1261d

Bliar has long been a major player in the committing of crimes against humanity on behalf of the establishment, the most recent being disguised as a public health benefit. That's why.

Michael Brown ● 1261d

What has changed? Why now??Perhaps they think he has served his time in the Breakfast TV wilderness. Or perhaps he has been loyal in making sure the UK does not deviate from its current position!Putting aside politics and the whole empire thing - should these positions just simply be auctioned??

Ed Robinson ● 1261d

It's interesting because this is a royal order apparently made on the personal choice of the Queen. So one assumes no quid pro quo in this instance? More likely after two years of meeting with a blustering, bluffering Johnson that polite, incisive Mr Blair seemed to seem so charming and nice ... personal choice or not, and joking aside, I'm sure her advisers must have concurred with her decision?Still, yes, agreed, Ed, it's all part of having a hereditary monarchy. 

Michael Ixer ● 1261d

Happy New Year!When you live in a Kingdom you can't pick and choose who gets honours - well unless you pay that is.Honours were however more affordable under a Labour government. The inflationary cost of the HoL being a good example.

Ed Robinson ● 1261d

It's even worse than I thought !!!🤬🤬🤬"But from today he is Sir Tony after being appointed a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter - an ultra-exclusive group that can only ever have 24 living non-royal members.Sir Tony, who held the keys to Number 10 between 1997 and 2007, will be appointed to the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry - knighting him with the highest possible ranking."

Sue Hammond ● 1261d