Who would believe anything in a Blair book

Apparently a US lawyer is brokering a deal for the Blair memoirs. I'm sure the book would sell, but why?

I cannot see how this book would be anything but spin and deceit to try to paint Blair in a better light than he deserves.

Will the royalties be given to a charity for families of the many servicemen who have died in Iraq as a result of his previous lies? They should be.

About that Standing Ovation

Had I been there yesterday, I would have refused to take part in a standing ovation.

Blair's legacy is that he lied to the House of Commons in order to get his way over Iraq. 156 soldiers have died as a result of that lie, 156 families mourn the loss of loved ones.

The Kelly family also continue to mourn. A man who was named at the behest of Blair's minions because it suited them whatever the consequences.

Politics is worse off as a result of Blair's premiership. That sort of conduct does not deserve a standing ovation.

Blair Gets Right (Well.. a bit right at least)

When he says the press has to change the way that it acts and behaves with regard to politics, making their reporting more practical and less personal Blair had a valid point. However, the big omission in his speech was the failure to acknowledge his own role in this. His endeavours to manipulate the media and to use his own team to participate in whispering campaigns against those that had fallen out of failure with Number 10 (i.e. Mo Mowlem) encouraged and endorsed media campaigns against individuals rather than policies.

Gordon Brown is right for once

Gordon Brown said to day that Tony Blair's record was: "unique, unprecedented and enduring"

I agree with him. Take Iraq for instance, nobody has ever taken this country to war on the basis of a lie before and nobody will ever forget that he did it.

I could give loads of similar instances.

We Won't Win, So We Won't Have One

Tony Blair has decided that we now no longer need a referendum on an EU constitution. He claims this is because the new constitution is not as significant as what was originally proposed. The real reason is that he wouldn't win it.

Why not let us decide whether the changes are fundamental or not?

Why is he making the decision when he is going to announce that he is standing down in a matter of days? Is he trying to get this done and dusted before his successor can out a stop to it as another way of improving the possibility of becoming EU President?

Blair to announce retirement on 2nd May?

Iain Dale has posted this article where he raises the possibility of Blair announcing his retirement on May 2nd. This would be a way of trying to negate the Anti-Blair vote at the local elections the day after.

This is a really interesting thought. We all know that the majority of the grass roots of the Labour Party hate Blair and what he has done for their party; many of their candidates stand reluctantly and even then Labour only manage to find nominations for 61% of seats. We also know that Blair's main focus over the last year or so has not been the best interests of Britain, but about trying to create a legacy. This final (and only) act of kindness to the Party he abused could also serve to leave a less bitter aftertaste about the Blair project from the party membership.

Why No Witch-hunt

I wonder if the reason that Blair has decided there will not be a witch-hunt to find out who was responsible for allowing cheque-book journalism to infiltrate the MoD is because No 10's involvement would be discovered?

Blair's Hypocrisy: Exhibit 6,200,511

Blair said at his monthly yawnfest/press conference this morning that Premiership clubs should lower ticket prices, pointing to rows of empty seats as evidence.

The fact that we have record numbers of bankruptcies is one of many indicators that we are being taxed until the pips squeak, but will he tell the Chancellor we need to cut taxes, no of course not.

Michael Meacher to challenge Brown for Leadership

This bit of breaking news is pretty interesting, although not totally surprising. It has been apparent for the last few weeks that Gordon Brown had to be challenged and last week's ICM poll was probably the final proof.

Michael Meacher would be an interesting leader, he has real Green credentials and is not significantly tainted by the Blair legacy.

Why 17?

Tony Blair has said this morning and yesterday that he is considering lowering the age at which there is a mandatory sentence for possessing handguns from 21 to17?

I can't understand why 17 has been picked, except as a totally arbitrary figure. Why is someone at aged 17 who possesses a hand gun any more of a threat to society than someone at age 13, 14, 15 or 16?

Part of this problem, apparently, stems from drug gangs recruiting teenagers to do their dirty work for them because of the peculiarities of a law, which protects teenagers from prison. Won't an arbitrary age of 17, just force them to use ever-younger people?

Is this the week that is?

With senior Labour figures questioning Blair's position, the media talking openly about a leaderless Government in paralysis and with the story in yesterday's News of the World about an insider squealing and dropping Blair in it over Cash for Peerages, I have a sneaking suspicion that the PM may actually go this week.

My only concern about this is that the Brown camp may just put the dampers on it -it depends on how they view it. There are questions being increasingly asked about the economy, so Brown might be better to force the leadership election now on the basis that the longer he leaves it, the more likely the economic chickens will come home to roost. But on the other hand the investigation by the Charity Commission into the Smith Institute may report during a leadership campaign and put the dampers on his bid.

The flip side of this is the latter issue may give Blair the additional incentive to jump now, on the basis that Brown will be stuffed half-way through his campaign.

Interesting times. But, once again, the interests of New Labour will be put ahead of those of the Country.

What about the 44%?

According to the latest Poll, 56% want Tony Blair to go now.

The first thought that came to my mind was what planet are the other 44% on. What possible reason can their be for thinking Blair should stay on? The only sensible reason I can think of is that they think Gordon Brown would be worse.

It would be interesting if, next time, the pollsters did some analysis of that 44% (although it won't be 44% then).

Let the Man have a Holiday!!!!

I note it is time for the bi-annual slagging off of Tony Blair for having the nerve to go to a friend's house for a holiday. I wish it would stop.

Tony Blair may be a useless Prime Minister, but he works bloody hard at being incompetent and blowing all of our hard earned money. I, for one, do not begrudge him a freebie holiday. Truth be told there can't be many of us would turn down the opportunity of a few free Weeks at a friend's holiday home, and most of us do not have the privacy issues faced by Tony Blair.

One guaranteed blessing for 2007

I have spent the last week or so wondering what on earth the New Year might bring, then today this article reminded me that the one (almost) guaranteed blessing is that we will get rid of the worst and most deceitful Prime Minister in British history.

Apparently Blair might be looking for a role as an International statesman - which is a good thing because he will never have any credibility in this country again.

I wonder if he is also thinking of somewhere quiet where he is guaranteed some privacy to write his memoires?