Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Trial of Tony Blair

The link should lead to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Tony_Blair"

Terrorist

"accountable to God" Anyone making this claim, that they are accountable to god, not to those that elected them, should be detained indefinately in a secure psychiatric facility. This is what needs to happed to Blair.

The man is an utterly degenerate parasite and has destroyed the UK with his offensive social marxism over the past 10 years. I would be willing to bet that if we polled the electorate, the vast majority would quite happily see his head mounted on a spike outside the tower of London, rather then suffer another term of office with him as PM.

1. Substantially removed the neutrality of the second chamber (Lords) and replaced it with a cabal of his own cronies.

2. Uses the Parliament act when even these appointed Labour lapdogs won't back his crazy social marxist plans.

3. Wants to change the law so that he can 'veto or amend' any existing legislation on the statute book without parliamentary oversight. (Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill)

Britain is walking into a stalinist style dictatorship and the people seem too naive or apathic to notice.

Give it 20 years and the UK will either be under soviet style control or will be an Islamic caliphate because of unchecked immigration.82.21.53.210 09:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it was not Marxism. Not Stalinism either. Nor Soviet Islamicism. The reference to unchecked immigration rather gives you away, Mr Anonymous. Nice Mister Tony is just another tool of the very rich people. He may know it, and he may not, but he's a Christian and stupid with it, so he may well imagine he is thinking for himself. Whichever it is he has done as much damage as his monstrous predecessor, Mrs Thatchescu. Cheers The Real Walrus 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To the first guy what are you smoking? To Walrus, 1 Blair isn't as conservative as Thatcher as you'd like to imagine, 2 Thatcher wasn't THAT bad and 3 Ceauşescu deserves better he didn't work so hard to be that evil and selfish to be compared to a mild conservative.

What's Ceauşescu got to do with it? Tony Blair isn't leading Britain into a dictatorship as he is a tool as Walrus said. elevenzeroone 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion merely shows how if you have power you will be the target of other people's frustration. To claim he "has destroyed the UK" is to give him far too much importance as well as being blatantly untrue, Hitler destroyed Germany by Spring 45, you cant com[pare the Britain of 06 to that, lol, SqueakBox 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No principles

That needs to go down as a criticism. From the right there is the old Hague quote: "In more than 20 years in politics, he has betrayed every cause he believed in, contradicted every statement he has made, broken every promise he has given and breached every agreement that he has entered into... There is a lifetime of U-turns, errors and sell-outs. All those hon. Members who sit behind the Prime Minister and wonder whether they stand for anything any longer, or whether they defend any point of principle, know who has led them to that sorry state. "

And, from the left, we have an equally bitter part of the Morning Star on Friday, 16th June, 2006[1]. "As the ham actor that he is, he affects sincerity and professes whatever ideas are in fashion. His only philosophy is lick upwards and kick downwards. In the early 1980s, that meant sucking up to Labour Party leader Michael Foot, wearing a CND badge and running around Hackney urging support for Tony Benn's deputy leadership. A decade or so later, it meant praising Margaret Thatcher and putting the boot into the trade unions. He told Mr Foot that radical socialist policies were needed at a time when the US was 'in the grip of the same economic madness Mrs Thatcher visits upon us.' Now, he is obsessed with those same neoliberal policies and describes those who press for a radical socialist alternative as living in the past."212.159.30.47 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he's much worse than that. The Real Walrus 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, he has been steadfast in the war in spite of enormous public opposition. Lack of principles? Are you sure?

67.42.243.184 13:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A mistake

It's such a major article I assume I must be missing something in the following sentence or somebody would have pointed it out before me:

a development partly supported by the reform socialist think tank

It doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it should read "by the socialist think tank Reform" but Reform isn't socialist. I changed thinktank to think tank too. --Lo2u 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get it, the Fabian Society isn't a separate item. Still shouldn't that read "pro-reform" or "reforming" or something? Reform isn't an adjective. --Lo2u 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange goings on...

There appears to have been an anachronistic vandal revert by user:Tobes00. Dont know how it happened but it was done with WP:VPRF, so maybe theres as bug in it? Ive tried to undo the minor chaos it caused (most edits since where partial reverts) - my appologies if ive messed up anyone elses edits [the situation got quite confusing!]. Poobarb 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What the? There is strange things going on! Listen to this portion:

Opinion polls however show that ASBOs remain popular with the public leading some to suggest that criticism of them comes mainly from the chattering classes who do not regularly experience anti-social behaviour.[citation needed] It could be argued that Blair's crime policies are popular with the majority of the public for their populist, commonsense approach."

The "chatting classes" apparently is the British version of "Liberal Elite", both words seemingly invented by media smart politicians in the 1980s to change the perception of certain groups through language. This statement is definitely not NPOV, that is for sure, and it doesn't look like the Liberal Elite page is either. Someone is twisting the facts on this page, and I don't like it. ≈Superbeatles™ 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We know who twists the facts on this page. The labour government is not famous for 'perception management' for nothing. It is laughable to claim that this page is NPOV. It has a startling cognitive dissonance with 'the truth'. If, in the modern world, we can even talk about 'the truth'...lies upon lies upon lies and legions of people willing, desperate to believe in these sickly untruths. {chas}

Family related stuff

This edit removed a few paragraphs of stuff relating to Blair's family, but I'm not entirely conviced - all of it, whilst talking about Blair's family, was in relation to Blair himself. The could easily go under the titles:

• Blair and the MMR vaccine
• The effect of Catholocism on Blair
• Blair and antisocial behavior
• Critisim Of Blair's manipulation of the media.

[Note: I'm not advocating putting them under these titles, just making the point that they are relivant]. I think it should be reinstated. Any thoughts? Poobarb 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Blair's wish to wish to shield their children from the media, and the political controversy over Euan and Nicky's education, both under 'Family Background'. Countersubject 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry

The article claims, " He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it." Tony Blair has done more to undermine the British way of life than anyone else who has ever lived! Olborne 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for people to express their own prejudices about the subject of the article. David | Talk 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides it isnt a fair criticism. If Blair said this there is nothing wrong with including it and if we were each to add our own opinions to or analyze this statement for ourselves it wouldnt be an encyclopedia article. No serious critic believes Blair has undermined the British way of life, ridiculous critiques of Blair merely weaken the validity of the actual criticisms of his time in Number Ten, which of course do have a place in the article. People are saying he has lost his grip, the government have lost their way, the sleaze is worse than during Major's time etc but they are not saying he has undermined the British way of life, or if people are saying this please indicate where exactly, SqueakBox 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not help noticing that "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" is an anagram for "Scottish person who acts exactly like that monster Thatchescu". Am I the only one to have spotted this astounding coincidence? The Real Walrus 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blair compared to Thatcher? You flatter him, SqueakBox 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms?

The article is structured around so-called "terms" of his premiership. Isn't this a bit misleading, given that PMs don't serve specific "terms". Surely a PM stays in power til he/she resigns or dies (though they are obliged to resign if they can no longer command a majority). Terms sounds too much like US presidents! Bluewave 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional to this, at the start of a term it talks about the Queen asking Blair to form a Government. As far as I am aware that only happened after the 1997 election. The two elections following he was simply speaking to the Queen, confirming that he could remain in office.

Overall how's Mr Blair done?

Well? Badly?87.113.13.57 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Badly? He's the worst prime minister in British history; criminally incompetent. Rcpaterson 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No way he's one of the worst, far from it but by no means good, just mediocre. Doesn't Neville Chamberlain come to mind?

Actually, no; Neville Chamberlain was a decent man trying to do his best in impossible circumstances. He was been judged by 'Appeasement', generally reckoned a failure; but Britain was simply not ready for war in 1938 and appeasement at least brought the country time. By the spring of 1939 even Chamberlain was aware what kind of man Hitler truly was, and the country was put on a war footing. But if Chamberlain had one grand foreign policy failure Blair's foreign policy is nothing but failure; so lacking in independence, so unwilling to be out of step with George Bush that he had neither the courage nor the independence of mind to call for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Our army is badly over-streched, our credibility is diminishing, we have become a Trojan Horse for terrorism-all of these and more are the responsibility of Blair and his ghastly government. Rcpaterson 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to agree. Blaire's foreign adventurism has been nothing but a disaster for Britain. Just try to fly somewhere, if you are searching for evidence of this.Sandpiper 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How ironic and revealing that you find Neville Chamberlain forgivable and Tony Blair unforgivable. The story on Iraq isn't over, nor the fact that Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria on the eve of the war, and that this emergency transhippment agreement was widely known of and in effect many years before 2003. I think the real story is about how so many Brits (and Europeans in general) were willing to believe whatever the Left-dominated press would tell them so long as it was a balm for post WW II loss of Euro pre-eminence and the (unjustified on the part of Brits but nevertheless pervasive) feelings of low national self esteem that have festered like a hidden poison for some 60 years since.

The true story is that Europe (and the UK) never got over it's post WW II loss of pre-eminence and the Iraq war (and Tony Blair) became lightning rods for these feelings (finally-- a way to condemn the USA so that WE can feel better). And the rabidly and grossly Left-biased political activist news media seized upon this to tighten it's hold on the British and European mind in order to push a far-Left political agenda (damn Tony Blair who dared to be a successful Center-Left politician who dared to ignore all the failed policies of the old Labor socialists and flirt with Margaret Thatcher). The UK had no reason to feel low self esteem after the loss of it's empire-- but as a whole it did nevertheless and in spades, and in the process proved that widespread low national self regard can make people absolutely psychotic in their willingness to turn their back on grave national threats as they turn inward and cannibalize brave and gifted leaders.

When the first WMD terror attacks finally come (and they will after Al Quaeda has finally milked the last drop of the Left-media's "Iraq teat" for all that it will provide)-- and only then when 911 is made to look like a mild tea party by comparison, perhaps then at last sanity will have returned to British public discourse on foreign policy, although sadly it may well have returned by then too late.

67.42.243.184 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Blair has been one of this country's most successful Prime Ministers. It is wrong to say that the PM should be judged by how popular he is. The more accurate standing is that we should judge him by how his actions have shaped our lives. It is necessary to do what is right, not what is immediately popular with the electorate. I think we should cut him some slack. --CityGuy88 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't how "good" or "bad" a prime minister is subjective? So it's always going to be POV if it's added to the article. Maybe you can cite a particlar source, "He was voted by XXX readers and being a bad PM". But it isn't really good to include this in the article of the current prime minister.

If this discussion isn't intended to result in changes to the article then this talk page isn't really the place to have it. JRawle (Talk) 12:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think this comment is precisely intended to effect change in the tone of the article. I havn't read it through today, but overall it is quite favourable to Blair. This is not unreasonable, as many things he did were a welcome change to the country from the previous administration. His enormous mistake was to embark on the war in Iraq. For me, the pivotal moment was when he asked the country to 'trust me' that the war was essential, and would have beneficial results. History has shown that the war was entirely avoidable, and there is still no clear parth whereby it will have a good outcome. Blair asked us to take the war on trust, and we did. he set the test, and has been judged by it. His whole term of office since then has been fighting damage control and delaying tactics to avoid having to resign. This is not reflected by the article. The point has now been reached when labour politicians are increasingly panicking, publically, that it will be impossible for the labour party to recover any credibility while he remains as leader.Sandpiper 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does everything on here have to be so black and white? I love Wikipedia but I feel that in trying to protect it, you are actually turning it into a closed shop. What's wrong with a little discussion?--CityGuy88 13:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. The articles have to contain facts not opinions. I don't know if you're referring to the article or the talk page. If it's the latter, it's not so important, although again this isn't a political discussion forum. If there's too much chatter on the talk page it makes it hard for those working to take the article forward to find the relevant information. JRawle (Talk) 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but the topics to be disucced here should be those most obviously addressing the shortcomings of the article. Which is a big silence on his anticipated departure and declining popularity, which has been a matter of record for years.Sandpiper 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a timeline of Tony Blair's life

Yes?No?87.113.24.112 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not in other bios so why do it for TB? User:Green01 2:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

You have to start somewhere and why not start with one of the most important people in the world?87.112.87.100 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A timeline sounds like a good idea.Mushimight 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New section: Criticism over his departure

Ecki added some information regarding additional speculation over his departure. I removed the copyright violations that they had introduced, but retained the core reference addition (after pestering for the original source). However I felt that a discussion over the criticism Blair has recieved may well be in order, so created the above titled new section in the correct place. It does however need more references adding, and ideally any of the counterpoints being flung about. LinaMishima 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blair is soo Cute!!!

I love TB he is my favourite political man. I just want to hug him and hug him and hug and hug him until his cute little button eyes explodes. BBOOOMM!!! Giggles... 80.175.134.141 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct, I checked the picture of Tony Blair and he is indeed "Cute"jkm 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm I think you'll find he looks sinister and menacing not cute. Timrollpickering 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But what about Gordy Brownie?jkm 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a serious point in that. As everyone knows in British politics the cutest politician usually wins in a general election. Gordon "Hear me ROOAR!!!" Brown is not as cute as Blair or David Cameron for that matterTimrollpickering 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Gordon can be quite cute. But then again I am slightly insane.- Amorwikipedia 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I never, ever thought I'd hear someone call Gordon Brown cute.

I may not agree with all his politics, but I must admit the Tone's a looker when he's not stressed out. Which is not often these days.

Marialadouce | parlami 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yuk. Countersubject 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have dramatically decreased the size of the criticism section as it was getting far too large. The initial paragraphs of each subsection have been left as a summary but there is probably much more tidying required. Criticism of Tony Blair has the full content of what used to be that section and also needs work (mainly on references). violet/riga (t) 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Poodle?

I'm surprised to find no reference to the commonly expressed metaphor of Blair being 'poodle' to Bush. Is anyone able to mention it with approprtate neutrality? Richard Allen 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blair's Departure Date

In regards to when Blair will leave, or when he wants to leave - I think there're a few fairly obvious dates that he'd still like to be in office. Its been discussed above about Blair perhaps outlasting Margaret Thatcher, which appears unlikely in light of the recent leadership speculation - though I guess not entirely improbable if Gordon Brown implodes. Obviously there's the 10th anniversary in power he'd like to achieve, which is due to happen at the start of May 2007, which also happens to coincide with the ending of Jacques Chirac's political career - also in May 2007. I have little doubt that Tony Blair would be secretly delighted to get to welcome a new French president to the UK, Segolene Royal or Nicholas Sarkozy, effectively by outlasting the great obstructionist (on Iraq of course), and also to attend the G8 summit in Germany, which is due to occur in June 2007. I would expect Blair's thinking to be looking towards some time between June-July-August 2007, depending upon political conditions at the time. I'm willing to bet on this if anyone is game. Anyone? jkm 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware the Ides of March. White Guard 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference right at the top to him being the "outgoing Prime Minister". The thing that makes Blair notable is that he is the Prime Minister, not that he is to leave within 12 months. Strictly speaking, he is the outgoing Prime Minister in between the time he tells the Queen of his intention to stand down (when Labour's election contest will begin) and the time a new Labour leader is appointed PM.

I replaced the reference to his promise to set out a timetable to his promise to name a date at some point. Personally I suspect he will do what other PMs have done and just tell his party he is resigning on the same day he tells the Queen. I could be wrong, but we don't know. A direct quote of what he actually said seems safest.

I also put in a short quote from Blair at the recent (Sept 2006) Labour conference, just to keep the section on his departure date current. Hobson 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Approval ratings

A couple of months ago Blair was reported to have slipped to such a low personal approval rating that he had the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a post-war Labour Prime Minister, lower even that Callaghan's during the Winter of Discontent or Wilson's after devaluation. The only prime ministers to have got lower ratings since WWII were Thatcher (around the time of the poll tax riots) and Major in the mid-90s. Surely this is worthy of mention in the article? He achieved the lowest approval rating of any post-war Labour PM after previously attaining the highest approval ratings of any PM in the months after his election victory in 1997. If he were a US president, certainly it would be mentioned in the article. 195.93.21.101 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He also has the highest approval rating this century. Shall we record that? AJD 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that he had the highest approval rating early on and yes that should be mentioned as well. But the fact is that he is the most unpopular Labour Prime Minister of modern times according to approval ratings and that is more than worthy of mention in his biography, it's a notable historical fact. That Thatcher registered record low approval is mentioned in her biography, quite rightly, so the same should be mentioned in Blair's. 195.93.21.101 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The highest approval ratings this century? Well that's hardly an achivement given the only British PM this century is himself.

Why are the British so cruel to their elected leaders? Even Churchill endured incredible cruelty prior to World War II. How can a nation be led forward when it is so vicously punishing it's own leadership?

67.42.243.184 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Why are the British so cruel to their elected leaders...How can a nation be led forward when it is so vicously punishing it's own leadership?"

Being an elected official SHOULD be a difficult and tiring task. If he hasn't got the stones for it, he can resign any time he likes. When faced with a crisis, some people focus, other people fold. He's got all the choice in the world.

Family Background

Quote from the article... "His biographer Rentoul records that, according to his lawyer friends, Blair voiced much less concern regarding party affiliation than to his aim of becoming Prime Minister." Is this fair? I thought both Blair and Cherie were very into Labour from early on, and Blair told people he was a Christian Socialist before he joined the party. Has anyone read Rentoul enough to check this, I don't have a copy to hand. Sounds like a POV fake insertion. MarkThomas 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It dosen't sound so implausible that he may have said that at some point. Cherie has always been Labour and to the left of her husband, but it's less clear with Blair. He has told a story of knowing he wanted to enter politics but being unsure of which of the two major parties to join until he read a book on socialism (I forget which) at University which converted him to Labour. It's not impossible that, prior to this, he may have expressed to his friends a desire to become Prime Minister but no preference as to which party. Even so, somebody should check it out and make sure that Rentoul actually says this in his book, or find another reliable source for the same claim, otherwise it should be left out. 195.93.21.101 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Policy: Impeachment

The para on the proposed impeachment of Blair I think gives a misleading impression to a casual reader, esp. from the US - this was never a serious possibility and was speedily dismissed in the House. I'm even thinking of deleting it altogether, or drastically shortening it, like many paras in this page it seems distinctly POV and anti-Blair from an ultra-left or Islamist perspective. Opinions? MarkThomas 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather mystified as to why you think that paragraph sounds as though it was written from an 'ultra-left' or still less an 'Islamist' perspective. It dosen't strike me as remotely POV, there is no opinion offered and no particular anti-Blair tone. It's simply a few factual statments regarding a group of MPs and others supporting his impeachment. There is no suggestion that impeachment is warranted or otherwise. Which words or phrases sound to you as though they were written by an ultra-leftist?

Regardless, I certainly think it should stay in the article. As far as I am aware, Blair is the only PM in recent history to even be considered for impeachment and to be the subject of such a campaign. That in itself is relevant to Blair's career and is worthy of mention, as is the number of MPs who proposed it and the name of the document spelling out the supposed case against him, which interested readers can go and out and find if they wish. There was a fairly well publicised campaign involving a small but significant band of MPs, media personalities and so on, so I think it should be given mention in his biography. That 'it was never a serious possibility' is an assumption and quite possibly false (and POV) - most of us were doubtful it would happen but had there been a large enough number of MPs prepared to vote in favour of impeachment on the grounds of Blair's alleged misleading of Parliament, then it might well have happened. He may not have been found guilty and removed from office - I suspect he would not - but that is a different matter, he would still have been impeached and found innocent, same as Clinton.

The only part of the paragraph that I think maybe should be removed is the part about Corin Redgrave and Frederick Forsyth. I don't think that they supported the campaign is especially notable. I do take your point that the paragraph could be misleading as it could give the impression that impeachment was a more serious prospect than it was, perhaps the paragraph should be amended to point out that the campaign never recieved sufficent support from MPs to make impeachment a realistic possibility and that there was some disagreement as to whether or not the archaic impeachment law could actually be invoked. 195.93.21.101 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a piece of deliberate misinformation introduced to give American readers the false impression that a US-like impeachment process was underway at a casual read. No realistic chance of impeachment existed. You speak of "had there been a large enough number of MPs" - no commentator at the time other than perhaps the SWP seriously thought this could happen. I suspect motives here, but I'm not serious about deleting the whole para as I accept the historicity of it, just this long rambling para seems intended to draw a particular impression. MarkThomas 06:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see any misinformation, there's nothing inaccurate there. Whether the paragraph could give a 'misleading impression' is quite a different thing from 'misinformation' which implies half-truths or untruths and the paragraph has neither. I have no idea how you know the motives of whoever wrote the paragraph but I can't see any evidence of deliberate intent to spread misinformation since the paragraph is nothing but a series of hard facts. That there was 'no realistic chance of impeachment' is POV and irrelevant - the paragraph dosen't claim that Blair came close to being impeached. With regards to the "number of MPs" statement, I didn't say anything about who thought this might happen or what the likelyhood was, I was simply stating what would have been required for Blair to be impeached and technically it was a possibility if highly unlikely to happen. As I said, the paragraph should probably be amended to make clear that the level of support within Parliament for impeachment to actually happen was never close to being achieved and so impeachment never became a serious possibility, which would clear up any misunderstanding on the part of any reader. I seriously doubt that the paragraph was written to 'create a certain impression' - I suppose depending on your point of view you could detect propagandistic intent in almost any paragraph in the article. In any case, if those or similar changes are made, then I think the prospect of any U.S. reader thinking Blair came close to being in the same position of Clinton would be reduced. 195.93.21.101 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd to include so much information about something that not only did not happen, but never had any chance of happening.

Most importantly, what does "invoking a Parliamentary procedure" mean? Impeachment proceedings did not begin. What actually happened to my knowledge was that 23 MPs signed an Early Day Motion calling for Tony Blair to be impeached. There have been 2656 Early Day Motions since May 2005, many of them strongly critical of the Government and most of them signed by more than 23 MPs. Laying down an Early Day Motion is itself a Parliamentary procedure I suppose, but this sentence seems to suggest that impeachment proceedings were invoked.

The motion itself no longer appears on the House of Commons website, as it expired (with the election of a new House of Commons in May 2005), so I cannot check the number of signees or the exact text without further research.

According to Merriam-Webster Online, "invoke" means: 1 a : to petition for help or support b : to appeal to or cite as authority 2 : to call forth by incantation : CONJURE 3 : to make an earnest request for : SOLICIT 4 : to put into effect or operation : IMPLEMENT 5 : BRING ABOUT, CAUSE

(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=invoke)

I suppose in this case definition 3 is accurate, as some MPs did request impeachment proceedings, but there is a danger that readers would understand the text to mean "invoke" in the sense of definition 4 or 5, which would be innacurate.

I will have a go at re-wording this section slightly in a few days, but on this topic it seems to me sensible to raise it on the talk page before making changes. Hobson 00:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it, and I think it is accurate and properly referenced, not rambling at all. I would strongly resist its removal. --Guinnog 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that impeachment proceedings were invoked, which is what the article seems to say. It is, at least, potentially misleading. Could the reference to "invoking a Parliamentary procedure" be made clearer?

I'm also still not sure why this particular example of opposition MPs criticising Blair is more noteworthy than the many others, although perhaps it is worth including one solid example of Parliamentary opposition to the Iraq war rather than just saying there was lots of it.

May I suggest the following: "On 25 August 2004 Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced that he would attempt to impeach Blair, [16] hoping to invoke a Parliamentary procedure that has lain dormant for 150 years but has never been abolished." Hobson 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I think you answered your own question re notability very well. It needs to be there, but of course you can reword it. --Guinnog 00:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting there with it; I've made it sounds slightly less like a glorious possible victory over the ghastly criminal Blair and slightly more like what it actually was; a PR exercize by the anti-war movement. MarkThomas 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored your deletion as I thought it went too far. Can you please discuss in detail here before deleting it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 10:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you say why it went too far - I explained my change, now please explain your revert. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Blair a 33rd degree Freemason

I think this should be on his bio as i think people should know of his association with freemasonry ,Gerhard schroeder is also a 33rd degree as is Jesse Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.23.28 (talk • contribs)

Any evidence of this? What is the source of this information, and is it reliable? David | Talk 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly reliable but this suggestion is made here. BlueValour 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If Blair is a 33rd degree Mason it is certainly worthy of mention in the article (or for that matter a Freemason of any degree, although obviously 33rd degree would be extremely noteworthy). I have read that Blair is a Mason on numerous websites but they are all dubious conspiracy websites which often list Prince Charles as a Mason, which is absolutely false (Charles has caused considerable controversy and a serious rift with his father by refusing to join the Freemasons on principle, making the claims of these sites rather laughable and demonstrating that they are making it up as they go along). While the site you linked to does not repeat the same false claims about Charles and does not, as far as I can tell, list any individuals as being Masons are who not, clearly the silliness about various people being members of the "Illuminati" rather rules out the site as a reliable source. However if a more realible source for Blair's membership of the Freemasons can be found, certainly it should be included. --195.93.21.101 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition of widespread support from Americans might be worthwhile to the topic

12. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Tony Blair, or have you never heard of him?

BASED ON 506 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A

 	Favorable 	Unfavorable 	Never heard of 	No opinion

2006 Jan 20-22 67 9 9 15

Copy and pasted from http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-23-poll.htm

Good luck.

Tony Blair is unlikely to be a Mason as he has strong connections with Opus Dei an extreme sect within the Vatican source the Guardian politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1396153,00.html

He has suffered from cardiovascular health problems not to mention the ignominy of being a monorchid.

Row over Muslim women wearing veils

This is an interesting issue and has been a high profile story in Britain in recent weeks, but in six months time it won't be seen as one of the most notable things Tony Blair has been involved in. We could equally have sections on the row over fox hunting, foundation hospitals, Bernie Ecclestone, laws against religious hatred etc . . . all issues which have dominated the British news agenda in the past, and in which Blair was involved. I don't object to this section being in the entry or the content of it, but in general terms I think we need to resist the temptation to add sections on the hot issue of the day unless it is so significant that we can be pretty sure it will still seem notable (and more notable than the 101 other controversies any Prime Minister gets involved in during his career) in the future. Hobson 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of precedence

Can anyone explain this,

As far as I can tell Tony Blair is still in the order of precedence in England and Wales as well as in Scotland and so is Michael Martin, so in what sense is he succeeded by him. Also on the Michael Martin page he is succeeded by Jack Straw but all three Tony, Michael and Jack are in the Order of precedence in England and Wales! What am I not understanding. Also why do these not have dates? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no dates because it's not a succession of date, but a succession of precedence. Personally I think the use of a succession box for the Order of Precedence is totally misleading for this reason alone. It also really doesn't matter today; almost no-one cares. I suggest removing it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've done it. Those particular boxes ought to be removed on sight. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that no-one cares and it is no reason to remove the box. It is still relevant however out of practical use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.18.8 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Portrayals in fiction

I've not edited an FA before, so I've come here first to discuss changes. First of all, should Robert Lindsay's performance as Blair in 'A Very Social Secretary' be mentioned in the portrayals in fiction section? And what about representations by impressionists such as Rory Bremner or Jon Culshaw in the pop culture references section? Hammer Raccoon 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Blair's predecessor as Labour leader - Smith or Beckett?

The info box has Margaret Beckett as Blair's predecessor for both Leader of the Opposition and Labour leader. However Beckett was only acting leader between the death of John Smith and a new leader being elected. So I would say his true predecessor was Smith. What do other people think? MFlet1 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a somewhat controversial issue. The Labour Party constitution is however clear: in the event that the Leader is suddenly incapacitated, the Deputy Leader becomes the Leader. Not the Acting Leader, the Leader:

When the party is in opposition and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy leader shall automatically become party leader on a pro-tem basis.

(Labour Party rule book, rule 4B.2e (iv)). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. But the article itself refers to John Smith being Blair's predecessor so it is a bit inconsistent. Also Beckett is not included in the list of leaders in the Labour Party article. MFlet1 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

As discussed above, at the moment this paragraph gives a very misleading and incorrect overall impression that Blair's impeachment was a serious possibility. The House of Commons has never impeached a British Prime Minister and the chances of it happening with Blair's huge majority were effectively nil. The Plaid Cymru action on it was therefore effectively a PR stunt joined in with by a handful of Tory and other MPs. I think we should make this clear. A proposal to do so above agreed by a number of editors was thwarted by reverts from one editor. Can we focus on this please - at the moment it gives a clearly wrong impression of the facts, particularly to US readers who may project the US impeachment process (real and actual) onto the British H-of-C (historical instrument never used). MarkThomas 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it to make it more objective - anyone reverting should justify given the discussion above. At the moment this para begins The political fallout from the Iraq War continued to dog Blair's premiership after the Butler Review - the alleged impeachment attempt is hardly the best example of the political fallout from the war, which has been far more extensive, and which is not mentioned. This whole section needs revising. MarkThomas 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that the section needs revising, your edit removed factual comments i.e. the number of MPs from each party to have supported the move, and replace with an opinion of the likeliness of this occuring. I think you are right in your conclusion, but I think it should be supported by a ref and be in addition to (not instead of) the details you removed. I would also doubt that the term "huge majority" can really be used to describe Tony Blair's position since the 2005 General Election. WJBscribe 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Have come up with a better wording. See what you think. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fys I think that is much better. I would however argue that the details of SNP support and the number of Conservative/ LibDem MPs who supported the move are relevant and should be included as well. What do others think? WJBscribe 10:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporters seem to have come and gone over the two years since this was proposed which makes it difficult to say. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current edit better, but still over-hypes the significance of what was effectively a stunt. MarkThomas 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I regard it as a stunt, but the problem is that the people behind it were adamant that it wasn't - and given that impeachment is technically still feasible (even if it is impractical) we can easily get into deep WP:NPOV problems. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia entry specifically about the attempt to impeach Blairm here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach_Blair_campaign. I think there is a serious POV issue with giving so much space in this article to something that did not happen. The attempt to impeach Blair is over - the motion has expired. There is no room for debate about the likelihood of it occuring, it seems to me - it could have happened if MPs had supported it, however they didn't. The factual point is that only a small minority of MPs supported the idea of seeing whether or not there were grounds to impeach him. The rest is "what if" history. At the moment impeachment it is not technically feasible as the motion expired with the recent opening of Parliament. In theory any MP could sponsor a new motion, but they have not (in theory MPs could do all sorts of things - they could pass a vote of no confidence in Blair or pass a motion declaring that he was right in every way, but surely the article should be about what has happened and currently is happening). I have cut down the section drastically and I am sure some people will object but please consider that to be accurate, any statement about what "could have happened" or "in theory" should read "if MPs had chosen to do so but they didn't". Don't assume that I am a supporter of Blair or the Iraq war as I am not. Hobson 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Edit - by the way, as you will see, I have re-inserted the figures, which are that of 640 MPs in the House of Commons only 23 backed the Commons motion (calling for a panel to consider whether or not there were grounds for impeachment).

I didn't see that the page existed. Thanks for pointing it out. I have created a link to it in the relevant section so that those interested can find it easily. I've moved the section Hobson deleted to the talk page of that article so that any material (esp. references) not already incorporated into it are not lost. WJBscribe 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

David Reed

Was his predeceasor as MP for Sedgefield, before it was abolished in 1974. Dovea 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

David Reed was the last person to be "Member of Parliament for Sedgefield", but he wasn't Blair's immediate predecessor. No constituency called Sedgefield existed between 1974 and 1983. The constituency of Sedgefield created in 1983 came from Durham (41.4%), North West Durham (23.9%), Easington (19.0%) and Bishop Auckland (15.7%). So Blair's predecessors were Mark Hughes, Ernest Armstrong, Jack Dormand and Derek Foster. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Article written to date quickly: requires much revision to wording

Commonsense, and the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, require that encyclopedia articles should be written as for a work of reference, not a newspaper. Obviously articles need updating as events happen, but the wording of the text should be valid whenever it is read.

The Tony Blair article is written very much for today's newspaper. We shouldn't say that he "is" PM, but that the Queen asked him to be her PM on <date>. If the article doesn't say he ceased to be PM, the two forms of wording effectively mean the same, but the latter does not need to be updated. And so on, throughout the article. When I raised this point regarding George W Bush, one response was that the article was updated so frequently that Wikipedia guidelines should be ignored; but even in that heavily-trafficked article there was a reference (in late November) to a report "due to be published in September".

I raise the issue here, as when I edited the Bush article to meet the guideline there was much upheaval until I established that there was a very explicit guideline, and no reason to ignore it. Pol098 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Length

Is this article too long?? Could other bits be spun off into separate articles?? Just a thought. --SunStar Net^talk 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is shorter than the George W Bush article... WJBscribe 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

View from abroad

Does anyone agree that it would be useful/interesting to know of approval ratings from abroad for TB? I would find it really informative to know how TB is seen from abroad, and to have a separate heading for this seems possible? Such a heading on any leader would be interesting IMO. This could comprise quotes on performance from other leaders or internatonal diplomats for example, and surveys are carried out on foreign leaders by media/news organisations, polling companies etc.

I remember sometime prior to the Iraq war a survey showing that TB was the most respected national leader, I think this was carried out in Australia, obviously things will have changed significantly since then! But such studies are interesting.

Thoughts?

VT VisionTrap 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

We all know Blair's "religious faith" is bogus, and that his use of religion is as cynical as Bush's. Should no mention be made of this?

How exactly do "we all know that" (whoever you are) - have you asked him? Or is this a hunch? Please sign your posts using four tilda characters after the text as well. MarkThomas 15:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The controversy whether he has been praying together with Bush should be mentioned in the article. There are two reasons why it should be mentioned. First, after Blair got this question there was a lot of debate about this topic. This in itself has some importance. Second, the fact that both the leaders of the US and Britain simultaneously are strong believers in God could be seen a little of a trend break and this could have an important historic significance.--Smallchanges 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Landslide?

Labour's "landslide" victory in the 1997 General Election was won on 43.2% of the vote on a turnout of 71%. Thus Labour's "landslide" victory was won with 30% of eligible voters voting for them. This should be on the page!

In terms of representation gained in the Commons, I feel that it's not too emotive to describe it as such Jatrius 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcherite

Blair is on the record as saying he admired Thatcher and it shows. Thatcher made numerous attacks on the British working class, the poor in general and the vulnerable in particular not one of which Blair has reversed. Those of us old enough to remember know that in 1979 there were practically no young homeless in London. Now there are thousands and it seems that nothing can be done about this. Certainly Blair has done and will do nothing. The famous anagram TONY BLAIR PM = I'M TORY PLAN B is totally accurate.SmokeyTheCat 11:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a couple of lines to this effect. Should be uncontroversial enough I would think. SmokeyTheCat 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What opinionated rubbish. Blair is no Thatcher, he is a pure yes man with no iron in his soul. Thatcher had some success breaking the power of corrupt unions but she crertainly failed in breaking the Atlee legacy, a legacy Blair supports. He is an Atlee man not a Thatcher man and you would have to be a left wing exctremeist to believe this stuff, SqueakBox 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course saying he admires her leadership style is quite another thing. I removed it not only as unsourced but itrrelevant, nobody in their right monds would sday his leadership style is remotely like hers and while he may admire her steely determination it doesnt mean he admired her policies, SqueakBox 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the far-Right Burlosconi admires Blair for being a Thatcherite. I have added a link to that effect. SmokeyTheFatCat 11:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attlee nationalised and Thatcher privatised SqueakBox. Which one do you think Blair is closer to? Blair is even worse than Thatcher as he now busy privatising the NHS, something she would never have dared to do. SmokeyTheCat 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some anonymous person has removed the link to Burlosconi admiring Blair for being a Thatcherite so here it is again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2029117.stm SmokeyTheCat 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I imagined it wouldnt last as Berlusconi calling Blair a Thatcherite doesnt make him one. Thatcher did her best to roll back the tide of socialism in the UK but failed. Blair hasnt even tried and Britian continues as a socialist "paradise". Would that Blair did privatise the NHS, abandon all welfare for under 70's, means tested education etc but he wont, SqueakBox 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I'm glad you're not the prime minister. MFlet1 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you haven't been to the UK for a very long time SqueakBox if you think that it is in any way socialist. You must be relying on some very far Right-wing sources for your information. You are very, very far from British mainstream public opinion if you advocate the wholesale demolition of the Welfare State. No serious person in the UK advocates that. Such policies would not gain the support of 1% of the British public and are definitely lunatic fringe. SmokeyTheCat 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Its true I have been outside the UK for some years now though obviously with the internet I am not so far away as I would have once been. Indeed I have been living in a country with no welfare, an appalling NHS, severe lack of police etc so naturally I would think the UK is a socialist paradise but the people who are generally unaware of the third world just dont realise it. Your statement attests to the success of Atlee. Dole in the UK is twice the average weekly wage where I live, so what, all these lefites just want socialiism for the developed world and let the rest rot in hell? For me your statement shows the savage, selfish nature of your average Brit when it comes to politics, SqueakBox 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides which i am not talking about demolishing the welfare state, i think [people over 70 should be means tested for health and housing but get a pension and the health and housing if they are poor. But stinging the rich to pay for welfare is socialism, whether Thatcher or Blair is the boss, SqueakBox 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In which case the medieval church was socialist (tithes, a 10% tax on wealth used to finance "welfare" amongst other things), as well as the Roman Empire, Islamic states (alms are compulsory under Islam), the Victorian Poor Law system (workhouses and free hospitals paid for by poor rates etc), the USA (which despite anti-socialist rhetoric has a substantial welfare and free healthcare system).

Exile 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well abolishing welfare is exactly what you advocated SqueakBox :- "Would that Blair did privatise the NHS, abandon all welfare for under 70's, means tested education etc" your own words. You must be some kind of extreme Right-wing fruit-loop. And I think it's safe to say that Burlosconi knows more about Blair than you.SmokeyTheCat 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil, I am not at all extreme right wiong but nor do i believe British people should be privileged (actually this makes me more of a left winger, SqueakBox 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That Blair has many times expressed admiration for Thatcher is *in the body of the article* (see under 'Relationship with the Labour Party.) So how is my saying the *very same thing* "opinionated rubbish" SqueakBox ? SmokeyTheCat 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly makes him a Thatcherite, SqueakBox 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

speak american!

"Row over Muslim women wearing veils" i think we should change this, because some americans may think are being instructed to run over certain muslim women with their canoes and kayaks.

but seriously. what is the policy on using american english, versus british english? is "row" a form of slang?

• Comment. I've change the word row to debate to avoid confusion. Even if not confusing, row doesn't seem like very encyclopedic language. As to policy about using US English vs. British English, see WP:ENGVAR. WJBscribe 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Debate" gives the controversy a varnish of civilisation which the "row" certainly hadn't. I like "row" - it conveys the fact that more heat than light was generated. "Debate" on the other hand seems unnecessarily genteel. Let's call a spade a shovel and revert to "row" please. Jatrius 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Row is not slang and we definitely need UK english in this article, SqueakBox 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's read by those who speak different kinds of English, so it would be useful to avoid words they don't understand, or which mean something different to them. Spelling's a different matter entirely! Countersubject 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is it involves thousands of articles not just this one. Also how can we know which words Americans dont understand? I am amazed that row would be such a word as it such standard English. Really this issue should be discussed at WP:Village pump and, IMO, the American words nobody else understands should be tackled first as this encyclopedia has a poor record of being overly American centric; but whatever, the place to discuss this is the pump and not this specific article talk page, SqueakBox 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Title in infobox

Does it really need to say "First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service" in the infobox? None of the former PMs have that. Philip Stevens 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest it is the other articles that need correcting. The Prime Minister is those also, which is something that doesn't neccesarily go with PM (but has by tradition for over 100 years). There is a question of whether it's redundant as someone can look up 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' and presumably find that, as it has been the case since 1905. Seen as it's listed on the article in roles he holds, rather than just PM, I am reinistating The18thDoctor 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• My point is that if you add these terms to Blair, you will have to add them to all others who have had these titles. Also, to be accurate, you would need to remove the term "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" from the infoboxs of those who didn't use the term (that's from Robert Walpole to Arthur Balfour). Philip Stevens 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Worst Britons

I have re-added this. I wish whoever's deleting it would stop. It's only an internal link to another Wiki page so can hardly be controversial.SmokeyTheCat 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see no reason to include this. Why do you think it should be included? SqueakBox 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it comes from a reliable source? i kan reed 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well no it doesnt, hundred worst britons is a red link, and even well sourced it would fail notability and be a violation of WP:BLP as a personal attack, SqueakBox 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake 100 Worst BritonsSmokeyTheCat 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) This is program that was watched by millions of people in Britain so it's public domain and hardly a personal attack. SmokeyTheCat 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be notable enough to go into a trivia section at the bottom but I would oppose even that. It certainly isnt notable enough to go into the opening as this is a serious political article, SqueakBox 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an internal link to another Wiki article! How can this be controversial? How Wiki say one thing in one article and that be defamatory elsewhere?SmokeyTheCat 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its fine in the approval ratings section where his approval is discussed. it is not okay in the opening as it really says nothing anyway, the vote of 2005 showed that he is not considered the worst Briton in a fair (ie not rigged) poll, nothing against C4 but people ringing in to express their views or doing so online is absolutely not considered to be an accurate view of how people perceive Blair or any other subject, SqueakBox 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And in 2001, and in 1997... I hate the buggar but I can't say he's not popular. I also note he's listed for being in the hundred worst, but not the hundred best at the same time. Just because something is verifiable does not automatically make it's inclusion in an article NPOV. Saying it should be included as it is non controversial as it is in another article is not correct. Inthe other article there is context, that the reader needs to navigate away from this page to find. This falls foul of Wiki policy : NPOV forks, undue weight (through misrepresentation). Besides all this if it's so important as to be included, then why is it not included in the article Criticism of Tony Blair? Also stating "Signs of increasing public animosity towards him" is either original research or unsourced, as their is no base to increase from and no accurate test of such. Clean it up, balance it, and make sure it's proportional to its significance - then it might be worthy of entry. However, for the moment it is not. The18thDoctor 10:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even at the bottom of the article this isnt acceptable let alone where it was in the opening (and I am no Blair fan either), SqueakBox 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the key point about these umpteen "100 best/worst this or that" TV polls is that they are not scientifically conducted opinion polls or large-scale referenda but TV-land "hour-fillers" - cheap TV of an amusing nature, stitching together cheap clips with a think cover story. I don't think I've ever seen such a poll advertised but presumably they are posted on the C4 website, etc. Hardly notable results. There are dozens mentioned in different articles on Wikipedia and IMO they should all be deleted. MarkThomas 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and had said something pretty similar to Smokey on his talk page. Pre election polls have to follow tight rules whereas a poll like this only contains those who choose to participate. Essentially what we can conclude is that he is the least popular Britain amongst those who watched this programme, and thaty is only meaningful in the article on the programme itself and should indeed be removed from any other article such as this, SqueakBox 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Clause 4

I added a couple sentences mentioning that Blair amended this. Seems important enough historically to merit inclusion in the introduction.SmokeyTheCat

"Middle East policy and Israel" section

While the facts in the two categories on information in this section are generally right, the linking of the two in a single section is a blatantly agenda-led, wildly POV attempt to explain Blair's entire middle east policy in the light of links to Labour fundraisers. This is not up to wiki standard, and the "middle east policy" bit should be combined or followed on from "relationship with george bush / united states" , and "links with Israel" underneath as another section.

Gkj678 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is listed as an American Democrat, although he was lasted elected as an independent and is recorded as such in the senate. I think that this should be adjusted in the article. Please make the change.--Smallchanges 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Senator Lieberman still considers himself a Democrat, and is registered as a Democrat. He is listed in the official Senate records as an Independent Democrat, so that's what he is officially for the Senate's purposes, but for all other he is a Democrat. WBHoenig 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the Queen

I didn't see any article referring to Blair's role during the death of Princess Diana except for the section His role in the Media. I was wondering whether the film The Queen was accurate in the events it portrayed between Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair. Berserkerz Crit 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The film is a work of fiction, not a documentary. It is not a reliable source. AJD 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I surmise as much that it is not a reliable source and that it is a work of fiction but I've read that it is based on anonymous sources the director or producer interviewed and corroborated by the number of those interviewed. Berserkerz Crit 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Queen certainly opened eyes towards Blair's actions and appreciation from the people, and though you can't cite the film, that doesn't mean it wasn't true. I agree with Berserkerz Crit that this information, re his popularity over the royal family for that period of time, is vital, and that other sources should be referenced. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This article is featured, yet far over the suggested limit (32 kb), at 95 kb. As I'm not an editor of the page, I don't want to toy with it, but it seems like it's in need of some grave section breaking; those appear to be the Criticism section (for which there is already a main article) and each of his terms, which might also be combined into one article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Image of Tony Blair

A recent edit by Blanchecart reverted the main picture of Tony to the previous one. I happen to think the image put there by Rangerwave (this revision) is much nicer (and further, Blanchecart's contribs suggest he's not Blair's biggest fan anyway), but I'm reluctant to revert without other peoples' opinions. Thoughts? matt.smart ^talk/contribs 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that the picture of Blair needs to be replaced. The picture by itself shows how beleaguered and defeated Blair is. Wikipedia needs to replace this with a more neutral picture of the PM.

The most recent photo is rather questionable. You could argue it shows him defeated and beleagured, but in the very least it is a bad photograph of him given his facial expression. We tend to opt for more official photographs for politicians, because if we enter the game of allowing embarrassing photos as the main photo for some, inevitably we will have people out there trying it for every politician under the sun. I am replacing it with the more official one on this basis, its just not a game we should get into. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice one; thanks. matt.smart ^talk/contribs 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Tony Blair news conference, G8 Russia, 17 July 2006.jpg

I'm not sure what's so great about the current photo; he looks silly. The image to the right was the main image of the article for many months. While it is not "formal", neither is the present image, and it certainly isn't as odd. It is also of higher quality and resolution. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the imager to the right, mostly cos it looks more recent and it certainly is not negative, it makes him look very serious which is right for a politician, SqueakBox 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add it lower down or whatever, but this is not an appropriate image to have as the main photo for the same reason that the full size image of this would not be appropriate for the main image on Bill Clinton's page. Yes, you could call it a serious photo, but its not the right sort of photo for the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is am matter of opinion and as an experinced editor I disagree with you, SqueakBox 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that you disagree, but lets get down to why. Its a standard that we opt out of using candid photos, especially in the middle of them speaking, as their main photo. This isnt something done preferentially, its tried across the board. Take a gander at Adolf Hitler, even he gets a photo he is posing for rather than a candid one midspeech. When the only thing available is a candid photo, by all means it can be gone with, but when better alternatives out there, such as ones they are posing for (which tend to be official,) those are by far preferable. If we had an official portrait of Blair, and I bet there is one out there, it would be even better. But using this candid photo of him in the middle of saying something is inappropriate. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't use the official photo of Blair since it is protected by Crown Copyright; candid shots are the only images that can be used. As for that Clinton image above, it is totally different when compared to the Blair image to the right and is not helpful for discussion on this issue. The image on the right is candid I suppose, but he doesn't have any strange look on his face except that of seriousness, not a strange smile in an informal and probably unexpected pose with Rice. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When I uploaded the "negative" image I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but now I see your points. The Russian G8 website has loads of decent photos which may be croppable, for example would a crop of[2]--Ruddyell 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Tony Blair with Romano Prodi at G8, cropped to Blair.jpg

I cropped the image from the link above (to the left) and uploaded it to the Commons. Not sure if it is better, though. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Its the same sort of image as the one with Condoleeza, but not as good quality. I think the Condoleezza cropped one is still the best one we have. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the Condolleeza image is better. It looks very impromptu and his eyes don't seem to be fully open. If anyone wants to see what the Prodi image would look like edit it into the page and show preview but don't save, it doesn't look too bad. However I would be tempted to say that both the Condi and Prodi pictures are better than the current one because even though the one we are using is high res, he is obviously in the middle of a speech and it doesn't look very "official". Also any top image which needs a caption that long would be quite a weak top image.--Ruddyell 13:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, either are preferable to the current one. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just changed the top image because I believe it is always better for the subject to be posed for the photo. Also the old image made Blair look quite stressed. If anyone has any objections change it back but please add to the talk page--Ruddyell 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with Rupert Murdoch

I added this section. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

The other Tony Blair is red-linked. Surely the disambiguation page is otiose? Terwilliger 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)