Sally Bercow and Blairism

Keir loves Sally, he really does, as evinced by the excellently photo shopped picture above. He also loves the way she gets the Tory press's knickers in a twist, "...but, shes, shes a binge drinker, shes, shes, shes, been a naughty girl, shes, shes, shes, too tall" ad infinitum. But, he must use her as an example in discussion of a very strange malaise sweeping certain members of the Labour Party. Some of whom (the lovely Sally not amongst them, obviously), Keir feels, who think that getting involved means a few retweets on Twitter and getting irate now we're in opposition. Where were you at 9pm on Polling Day? Keir knows where he was, and where LetUsFace... was too.

This malaise is centred around this man.

Tony-San looks very, very smug there, as well he might. This is the leader that made Labour electable again. This is the leader that made them a viable, alternative government. This is the man who swept Labour into Downing Street and power with two landslides of epic proportions. This is the leader that while fighting a poorly communicated, politically and publicly unpopular war, he still managed to stuff the Tories so much that even against the most unpopular Prime Minister in history, they still rely on the sandal wearing, muesli munching "...in the national interest" Liberals signing their own death warrants to prop them up.

But his success is not only measured electorally. This is the man that dragged Britain out of the doldrums and into the bright, shining uplands of the 21st Century. This is the man that reformed the NHS, investing in it as never before. This is the man that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. This is the man that helped bring peace to Sierra Leone. This is the man that removed a murderous dictator. This is the man that frankly, realigned British politics so completely that the party of Thatcher are now led by the self described "...heir to Blair."

So what the hell is Sally Bercow, and people with attitudes like this, thinking?

SallyBercow

Night all. Labour tweeps - I ♥ you *all*#evenBlairites. And thx to #fangirls 4 the ♥ lesson#backtohashtagsinthemorningthough

Even Blairites? Oh, OK then, which #leader do you prefer then Sally love? Let us think about the Labour Party's electoral success pre and post Blair. Oh, yes. Harold Wilson? Remember him. Clem Atlee? Ramsey McDonald? Maybe Gordon Brown?

So tell me, do you support the reheated mishmash of policies we fought for last time out? Or maybe the electorally suicidal ones that led to our regular spankings by the Thatch? Keir knows its cool to bash Blair, but come on! Maybe you would prefer to be in opposition forever following wierdy, so called 'left wing' policies and those that advocate them.

Keir's feelings are difficult to sum up really. But ungrateful is one of them. Blairism is popular. Blairism is what got Labour elected, and Blairism is what will get Labour elected again.

While Keir is foaming at the mouth, this is the same sort of people that seem to think "add to the debate" is an essential part of a leadership contest (Yes I am fucking looking at you all you lemmings who endorsed Abbott and McDonnell)

To win, Labour needs to get real. Yes, it's cool to fantasise about your sexy next door neighbour with all her charms: nationalisation of the banks, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the advance of socialism. But fantasy's rarely turn out as good in the flesh. We need the solid, dependable wife. Capitalism with a human face, because that is what the people want, and that is what the country needs. The state blunting the excesses of the market and providing a social safety net.

This wasn't meant to be an endorsement for leader at all. But we don't need Ed Balls, Sally Bercow's chosen candidate. He is the singular most unpopular politician in the UK. We've tried this before, remember. ("But I've met him, he's a really nice guy")It doesn't work. The public don't like him. He's a busted flush.

As stated previously, we don't need to lurch leftwards either, and as much as I like him, we don't need a candidate who so far has only managed to formulate his appeal as being Northern. We need someone with the Everyman ability of Blair, and the only person that comes [very] remotely near to that is David Miliband.

Minor News

Found this on the inside pages somewhere...

Tony Blair wins 2010 Liberty Medal award for work on peace

Still, he's only helped stabilise three nations so we can't expect that to make the headlines really, can we.

Pull yer socks up Tony.

David Davis: Hypocrite, anyone?

An interesting addition to the "Can someone please find a real reason to slaughter Tony Blair" brigade. David Davis MP, the valiant, sefless moral Crusader, lends his voice.

"Blair's concept of war seems pure Hollywood", our learned observer says. I hope the hypocrisy isn't only apparent to me. This from the man who used the equally important issue of civil liberties in a way some may see as rather "Hollywood" too. Thing is, I thought he was quite good to resign and make a point. However, let's be honest, there was no danger of him not being returned to office in the resulting by-election. He knew what he was doing and he used the issue for political gain. That is what politicians do.

I know the examples aren't 100% the same, but I just think it's a little rich. He's hardly Gandhi.

And more on the Blair issue. (I don't want to dwell on it, but it is pretty important. And riling.)

I think there is, ironically, a sense of anti-success from the people on the parts of the political spectrum that have been suggesting Labour's financial reforms have been anti-success. In Davis' article as well as many other examples, including this from Andrew Rawnsley, there is an extreme bitterness that some shock revelation didn't come out that Blair actually had his Cabinet tied up at gunpoint to make them accept that war was the answer.

Could it not be that he was just right? Could it not be that the intelligence was wrong but, hey, we got rid of Saddam and that's all good and rather than moan and bitch about the recovery going wrong, we put our efforts into, hmmm, putting it right?

"[Blair] seems to forget the vast number of innocent casualties", says Davis. Really? Does he? It's not clear whether he means the dead soldiers or the dead civilians. Either way, the extreme efforts made by Blair to fund the recovery show he clearly isn't unaware of the civilian deaths. And letters to soldiers' families along with countless TV and press gigs he did to express his sadness at the deaths of soldiers indicates to me that he is acutely aware of the sadness of those too.

Rawnsley, in his piece, seems devastated that Blair didn't get questioned as if he was on trial. And he seems resentful that Blair responded to questions with gusto and with his head high, instead of apologising in a quivering wreck.

This is, to me, all very strange. The purpose of the inquiry is to try and pin down the truth, see what happened that can be improved upon in future, and move on; is it not? If not, then please correct me. Blair answered the questions. That's all he's there to do.

I'm not going to mention this anymore as I don't even know what point I'm trying to make anymore amongst the endless column inches of drivel being produced in the mainstream media.

Again, viva internationalism!!

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Liberal Hysteria over Iraq is so sad

It really, really is, and that is before you ask them what they would have done instead of supporting the removal of a murderous tyrannical dictator.

What wasn't sad; what was, in fact, very funny, was seeing Sarah Teather demonstrate how ignorant she was on Question Time the other week; interrupting and talking over everybody else.

Anyway, the fuss over Iraq has only intensified with Tony Blair testifying at Chilcott. It is clear that there is only one scenario which will satisfy liberals and Liberal Democrats. It goes something like this.

1. Blair admits that he, Tony Bliar invented, along with Alistair Campbell, the entire intelligence dossier on Iraq and WMD.
2. Blair admits that George W. Bush told him to do this.
3. Blair admits that he withheld funding from our Armed Forces to give the Iraqis a chance.
4. Blair admits that he and George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq the first time they ever met.
5. Blair admits that the reason they did this was for the oodles of oil below Iraq.
6. Blair then begs the British judicial system to punish him, and/or the government send him to the Hague.
7. Blair prostrates himself before a IWCT and begs them to hang him.

Unless that happens then there will be calls for another enquiry, and another, and another and another, until that does actually happen! There is no 'new and compelling evidence' and I doubt there will be, so double jeopardy must apply!

Keir thinks liberals and Liberal Democrats need to get over themselves. Whilst they sing about reform of government, it seems the future PM they want is one that is afraid of making decisions to protect the country in case 5 years down the line a group of the muesli eating unshaven and unwashed decide to bowdlerize his name, and then get every decision made, action taken, examined by a enquiry completely out of context and out of the atmosphere of the time. Hindsight is indeed 20:20.

That is the precedent set by Chilcott; and the commentariat have the gall to call Gordon Brown indecisive! If they're not careful (the entire liberal media who seem intent on painting Blair as satan) then they will create a PM neccessarily indecisive out of a worry for his future freedom of movement!

Sickeningly, Melanie Phillips gets it.