The trial of Tony Blair

[Plekhanov]

I’m prosecuting Tony Blair in a mock trial at my Uni tomorrow, I’ll be concentrating on two major (but linked) issues:

1. Iraq, lying/misleading the UK population, parliament and the UN to take us to war and failing to plan what to do post Saddam.

2. His unnecessarily close relationship with Bush, and unconditional support for seemingly anything Bush does and the complete lack of any perceivable benefits from this “special relationship” ie. The lack of any preferential trade deals for the UK (as opposed the EU countries which don’t have a “special relationship”), the lack of contracts for UK countries in the reconstruction of Iraq, steel tariffs, Kyoto, Bush’s complete failure to push the roadmap (one of the UK’s conditions for Iraq) and support for Sharon’s annexation of half of the West Bank.

I’ll also be mentioning broken manifesto promises on tax (ie National Insurance hike), the Lords and student fees + government attacks on civil liberties.

Just wondering if anybody has any thoughts, is Blair guilty of any of the above? Is there anything I’ve missed that you would go after him on?

[Admiral Valdemar]

His grin. He needs to have that surgically removed by a 1000-pound bomb.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I'm not sure that the second one is necessarily a crime. It's not like you can indict someone fore being an idiot.

[Plekhanov]

I'm not sure that the second one is necessarily a crime. It's not like you can indict someone fore being an idiot.

I'm not entirely sure just how legalistic its going to be, I’ll be using that angle to accuse him of being unfit to lead Britain and hope people agree with me that is a crime for the Prime Minister.

[El Moose Monstero]

To paraphrase Dead Ringers, on the charge of marrying the Joker from Batman...

[GySgt. Hartman]

Just wondering if anybody has any thoughts, is Blair guilty of any of the above? Is there anything I’ve missed that you would go after him on?

1. Yes, most definitely.
2. Yes, and I would add to that his betrayal of the EU; there should have been some common course of action (but that isn't his fault alone). If Blair hadn't followed Bush, maybe Spain and Poland would have thought about it again. If Spain hadn't went, most of the South American states would have stayed home, too.
Bush would have lost at least half of his allied troops, possibly a lot more. That would have made it harder for him to defend the war to the Americans. the US would have seen that the world views this as unjust, if even their closest ally had opposed them on this.

[Sharp-kun]

I’m prosecuting Tony Blair in a mock trial at my Uni tomorrow, I’ll be concentrating on two major (but linked) issues:

1. Iraq, lying/misleading the UK population, parliament and the UN to take us to war and failing to plan what to do post Saddam.

2. His unnecessarily close relationship with Bush, and unconditional support for seemingly anything Bush does and the complete lack of any perceivable benefits from this “special relationship” ie. The lack of any preferential trade deals for the UK (as opposed the EU countries which don’t have a “special relationship”), the lack of contracts for UK countries in the reconstruction of Iraq, steel tariffs, Kyoto, Bush’s complete failure to push the roadmap (one of the UK’s conditions for Iraq) and support for Sharon’s annexation of half of the West Bank.

I’ll also be mentioning broken manifesto promises on tax (ie National Insurance hike), the Lords and student fees + government attacks on civil liberties.

Just wondering if anybody has any thoughts, is Blair guilty of any of the above? Is there anything I’ve missed that you would go after him on?

1) Yes, though lying might be a bit much. You could definatly get misleading though.

I don't see how 2 is really a crime though, bad judgement yes.

[TheDarkling]

I’m prosecuting Tony Blair in a mock trial at my Uni tomorrow, I’ll be concentrating on two major (but linked) issues:

1. Iraq, lying/misleading the UK population, parliament and the UN to take us to war and failing to plan what to do post Saddam.

He didn't lie he simply played up what he thought to be the truth (everybody assumed there was enough WMD to be able to point at it and say "found it").

2. His unnecessarily close relationship with Bush, and unconditional support for seemingly anything Bush does and the complete lack of any perceivable benefits from this “special relationship” ie. The lack of any preferential trade deals for the UK (as opposed the EU countries which don’t have a “special relationship”), the lack of contracts for UK countries in the reconstruction of Iraq, steel tariffs, Kyoto, Bush’s complete failure to push the roadmap (one of the UK’s conditions for Iraq) and support for Sharon’s annexation of half of the West Bank.

While that is all true you can't really blame Blair for anything that being too trusting, he thought Bush would deliver on the road map, he thought the US would have a sane plan for post-war Iraq, he thought he would have input like he did with Clinton and unfortunately he thought wrong.

I’ll also be mentioning broken manifesto promises on tax (ie National Insurance hike), the Lords and student fees + government attacks on civil liberties.

That is hardly a crime and in some cases it is doing the correct thing.

Just wondering if anybody has any thoughts, is Blair guilty of any of the above? Is there anything I’ve missed that you would go after him on?

You could go after him for getting the NHS in order, you could go after him for finally deciding to fight for the Pro-EU case and you could go after him for bringing crime down but it wouldn't help your case much.

[TheDarkling]

2. Yes, and I would add to that his betrayal of the EU; there should have been some common course of action (but that isn't his fault alone).

Last I checked the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was run from London for the interest of the British people, not from Brussels for the interests of the French.

By UK standards I am a raging Europhile but idiotic statements like this make me cringe, Blair did what he though was the right thing to do, the French did what was in their own conniving interest and I see no reason why Britain should tow the French line when they could just as easily tow ours or does France now set EU foreign policy and I just haven't been informed.

Bush would have lost at least half of his allied troops, possibly a lot more. That would have made it harder for him to defend the war to the Americans. the US would have seen that the world views this as unjust, if even their closest ally had opposed them on this.

The US would have gone anyway and become a completely unilateral beast for the next decade or two, after Bush is gone his successor will have the option to renter the international community and he will only have that option because Blair gave it to him by making sure the already substantial false martyr complex among the US public didn't grow out of control.

[Plekhanov]

Thanks for the input guys I'm off to the trial now, lets hope all those years of watching crappy legal dramas pay off. I’ll let you know how it goes & also defend my points a little when I get back.

[Plekhanov]

Should anybody be interested Blair was found Guilty as hell "of being unfit to lead Britain” by about 30 votes to 8 with around 8 abstentions.

We got him mainly on Iraq and student fees, there was much infighting within the Labour Party guys which was fun to see.

[A Big Flying Fish]

Should anybody be interested Blair was found Guilty as hell "of being unfit to lead Britain” by about 30 votes to 8 with around 8 abstentions.

We got him mainly on Iraq and student fees, there was much infighting within the Labour Party guys which was fun to see.

You mean to tell me you found someone at a university that didn't want to string Blair up? There may be hope for them yet

[Sharp-kun]

We got him mainly on Iraq and student fees, there was much infighting within the Labour Party guys which was fun to see.

What part of student fees? I'm in Scotland so we get it differently.

[Keevan_Colton]

We got him mainly on Iraq and student fees, there was much infighting within the Labour Party guys which was fun to see.

What part of student fees? I'm in Scotland so we get it differently.

Top up fee's I'd guess.

[Sir Sirius]

He didn't lie he simply played up what he thought to be the truth (everybody assumed there was enough WMD to be able to point at it and say "found it").

Hardly, numerous people (even many on this board) were highly sceptical about the claims of Saddams invisible phantom WMD arsenal, some even said outright that those claims were bullshit.

[Sharp-kun]

He didn't lie he simply played up what he thought to be the truth (everybody assumed there was enough WMD to be able to point at it and say "found it").

Hardly, numerous people (even many on this board) were highly sceptical about the claims of Saddams invisible phantom WMD arsenal, some even said outright that those claims were bullshit.

Pity that the governments tended to rely on inteligence sources more than us

[Sharp-kun]

We got him mainly on Iraq and student fees, there was much infighting within the Labour Party guys which was fun to see.

What part of student fees? I'm in Scotland so we get it differently.

Top up fee's I'd guess.

I've never actually seen the real problem with those. Let Uni's charge what they want up to a maximum.

If people can't/won't pay, then the Uni's will lose out and reduce their fees. Supply and Demand.

[Plekhanov]

What part of student fees? I'm in Scotland so we get it differently.

Top up fee's I'd guess.

I've never actually seen the real problem with those. Let Uni's charge what they want up to a maximum.

If people can't/won't pay, then the Uni's will lose out and reduce their fees. Supply and Demand.

Top Up Fees were actually more of a problem for the Labour Party members than the rest of the students and there was a serious argument between 2 members of the Labour committee on the issue. Which I helpfully kicked off by pointing out the Labour Manifesto for the 2001 election stated

We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them

Which meant that when the Government fought a battle against its own back benchers and the NUS to introduce ‘top-up’ fees earlier this year some people (as in everyone who isn’t a kiss ass Blairite) saw it as breaking a manifesto pledge. Bear in mind the new fees won’t affect any current students (ie the people in the room who voted to convict) but those starting in 2 years time so this wasn’t just people sulking.

[Plekhanov]

You mean to tell me you found someone at a university that didn't want to string Blair up? There may be hope for them yet

Amusingly very few of the people who didn’t want “to string Blair up” were in the Labour Party. The speakers for the defence were two guys I know from the debating society, they currently have no party allegiance having debated with them all year it seems pretty clear they are destined to join the Conservatives one day (though they did feel some affinity with Blair though as they both went to boarding school).

There were Labour members in the trial but they obviously didn’t feel able to defend Blair, one of them actually spoke out strongly against Blair both on Iraq and Top Up Fees. Us Lib Dems loved every minute even if I did have to jointly prosecute with a Tory who wasted most of his speech reading out statistics, which I don’t think impressed, too many people.