Skip to main content

Tony Blair has no plans to invade Iran

Tony Blair said previously:

"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."

and that Labour had "no plans" to increase National Insurance.


Bob Piper said…
Absolutely untrustworthy. The man is a true bounder. He is about to win his third general election. His popularity rating is nearly twice the level of the other party leaders when people are asked who would make the best prime minister. Cheap-shot Charlie is supported by only 23% of respondents. Asked about Lib Dem taxation policies, only 14% support the Lib Dems, on their economic policies a mere 9% of respondents support them. Interestingly, 62% of respondents think Labour will put up taxes. Don't give up the day job John... go back to your constituencies and... prepare to shaft your leader.
PoliticalHack said…
Can anyone remember which party attacked the Tories for being in coalition with the Labour party in Birmingham? I seem to recall that this party thought that the Tories couldn't be trusted and that they had betrayed the citizens of Birmingham.

Where's that party got to now?
john said…
That party campaigned on the basis of getting rid of Labour and did so.
PoliticalHack said…
..and the party that nationally supports congestion charging

...except where it might affect their local vote, so is deemed suitable for local reasons in Edinburgh or Bristol.

Charlie Kennedy couldn't name one city where they want to bring in congestion charging. Can you?
Simon said…
Interesting that none of the Labour-supporting comments here mention Iran. So let's get back on topic, shall we?

First, read this report in Saturday's Guardian - "Lib Dems challenge Blair to spell out Iran plans".

Next, to find out how serious are the USA's plans to invade Iran, take a look at these articles, all from sane and authoritative commentators:

Scott Ritter article (Al Jazeera, 30 March 2005)

Scott Ritter speech (18 February 2005)

Dan Plesch article (Open Democracy, 21 March 2005)

Seymour Hersch article (New Yorker, 24 January 2005)

If, having read these, you want to do something about it, support the Our World Our Say campaign, which aims to extract commitments from all the party leaders that they would not support a new war.

Memo to Bob Piper: If Blair refuses to disassociate himself from Bush's next move, he may win this election but, when the tanks roll in, his 'popularity rating' will go right down the toilet.
Bob Piper said…
Let me be clear: I was and remain, totally opposed to the war in Iraq... and for that matter, Iran. I also believe that the mass opposition to the war in Iraq, together with the absence of WMD (which given the level of internal opposition, thank God, Iraq never possessed by the time of the war), means a war against Iran will not be supported by the government. My point was, and it is emphasised by all the opinion polls, the electorate trust a man they think had lied about Iraq, twice as much as they support smarmy Howard or the useless Charles Kennedy. I repeat... go back to your constituencies and kick out this wet!
Bob Piper said…
...and presumably Charles Kennedy has "no plans to form a government." Another one of those Lib Dem pledges they will be able to keep.
PoliticalHack said…
Whatever human rights arguments existed for Iraq, they do not apply in the same way to Iran, which is a country modernising in its own way. A British and European policy of engagement with Iran is working. Like Bob, I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, although I accept that we now owe the Iraqis our best efforts to reconstruct their country. I am convinced that the Americans dropped the ball when it came to the immediate post-war period and their mismanagement and lack of planning following their straightforward conquest has caused the problems in the country today. I am equally certain that Blair will not join in any Iranian adventures because he will probably resign before that comes up, because the UK military is in a process of regeneration following the Iraqi campaign and does not have the resources to conduct another attack and because Blair knows how unpopular the war was. He won't go through that again.

However, asking a PM (any PM) to rule out future military action isn't ever likely to get a definite answer. He has no way of knowing what events lie around the corner that might possibly justify action against Iran, but as things currently stand, whatever Shrub might do in Iran will not involve British forces.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…