Something for Blair to be proud of?

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
As TB fast approaches the end of his decade in power, the inevitable discussion of his 'legacy' (and the equally inevitable sniggering and tirades of abuse) begins. From the left, there's criticism of his eagerness to cooperate with big business, his devotion to PFI, the erosion of civil liberties, his puppyish obedience to GWB and, out-stinking all of this, The Iraq Thing. From the right, there's criticism of a barrage of 'stealth taxes' crippling middle-income families (although that can perhaps be more attributed to Brown), apparent laxness on lawnorder and immigration, accusations of failing to do more to prevent terror attacks and even frustration that the Iraq war, despite being justified in theory, has been a shambles in practice.

So, what can Blair be proud of? This: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6634373.stm ?

If so, how much of this is due to him (as opposed to Mandelson, Mowlam and politicians in the province)? Would it have happened anyway under any not-totally-disasterous PM? Or should he be applauded for the political courage to allow the early release of Republican prisoners for the greater long-term good of NI?

Over to you...
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Ireland would top any list of dramatic achievements, but it's not the only thing. There have been profound shifts in the political culture in everything from minimum wage to the end of clause 28 (both policies even the tories now support). There's been a lot of shit too, from public money squandered on management consultants to PFI to lucrative contracts dished out to party donors, but on things that really matter, specifically the NHS, they've done well.

His legacy may be defined by Iraq, and since that's the mother of all fuck-ups he can't grumble about that. I won't miss him personally, but I will miss the sense of electoral security he gave Labour over the blue bastards.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Just realised this is actually about Ireland rather than Blair's legacy :eek:

Blair deserves great personal credit for NI peace process but I don't think you can really separate Mowlam/Mandelson's achievements from his.


Or should he be applauded for the political courage to allow the early release of Republican prisoners for the greater long-term good of NI?

And loyalists too, don't forget. Yes, definitely. Sod the principles of it, NI is now more peaceful than it has been for decades. The downside is that UUP and SDLP, parties who've neither engaged nor flirted with paramilitaries, are now totally marginalised. But that's a small price to pay IMO.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, sure, I know a lot of loyalists got released early, too: by 'political courage' I was referring to the stranglehold exerted on the political opinions of much of the country (the UK, I mean) by the Tory press, and the inevitable outcry over IRA men being set free.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Oh, sure, I know a lot of loyalists got released early, too: by 'political courage' I was referring to the stranglehold exerted on the political opinions of much of the country (the UK, I mean) by the Tory press, and the inevitable outcry over IRA men being set free.

Ah, right. And of course some of the Loyalists were so addicted to their top - or even mad - dog lifestyle that they went straight back in again :)
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Ah, right. And of course some of the Loyalists were so addicted to their top - or even mad - dog lifestyle that they went straight back in again :)

Well, quite - many of them were just your standard smack-dealing thugs using a 'political' cause as an pretext for violence and gangsterism.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Well, quite - many of them were just your standard smack-dealing thugs using a 'political' cause as an pretext for violence and gangsterism.

I'm curious to know to what extent this is true of both sides. In the 80s the consensus view was that the IRA didn't dabble in drugs and actually acted as vigilantes against Catholic dealers. Some NI Catholics I knew c1990 told me this was all bollocks and both were "just as bad as each other".
 
In reference to smack, I doubt many (if any) paras have sold heroin. Blow, E's, Coke, Speed, Valium- yes... but even they know that heroin would be a step too far, the paras need to have at least some degree of support to survive, perhaps unlike most criminals.

I think it was in the late 80's/ early 90's that some loyalists started selling E's & speed. Prior to this dope was pretty much the only thing around (and even then not half as plentiful as in Britain). I suspect that the paras may have turned a blind eye to ordinary people selling it. In the 90's some prominent UDA figures like Johnny Adair started making a fair bit of money from dealing pretty much all the drugs listed above (except H).

The Loyalists have always had a culture of profiteering; not all of them liked it but they accepted it. Drugs were relatively slow to arrive in Northern Ireland though. Johnny Adair in particular despised some of the loyalist drug dealers. His attitude was that he was off the hook as his unit were very busy assassinating, a 'work hard play hard' sort of attitude. The UDA had many drug dealers until recently, including 4 of their 7 'brigadiers', the leaders whom were sometimes celebrity cokeheads. The slightly smaller and more disciplined UVF had a largely anti dealing leadership, but had many members involved in it. The very small LVF was probably 95% drug dealing and 5% murder in the last 10 years.

Now the Loyalist paramillitary's are cleaning up their act, and in some areas people caught selling drugs (including paramillitaries) will recieve punishment beatings. Now you have the strange situation where in South Belfast no one has 'permission' to sell drugs, yet extortion is tolerated. In other areas drug dealing has continued, but extortion is outlawed. But you do get the feeling that Loyalist criminality is being wound down. At the moment a feud may spill out between anti drugs UDA men and pro in suburban Belfast.

On the republican side it's probably more confusing. There was a time (and no so long ago either) when an IRA member caught profiteering would be expelled from the organisation, maybe even punished. Drugs would have probably resulted in a kneecapping. Some people were killed for selling drugs, and a republican splinter group was crushed by the IRA in the early 90's soley because they dabbled in dealing. At some point this has obviously changed.

I get the feeling that when the Good friday agreement came about, the IRA stopped making an effort to curb drug dealing, especially in their own ranks. I would assume that many Republicans took the chance to get a slice of the drug dealing pie instantly, but it's hard to comprehend their confidence given how against drugs and profiteering the leadership were the second before peace. I doubt the IRA leadership are involved in drugs (though the sophisticated Northern Bank Robbery must have been approved/instigated), and I would assume that most of those involved are more or less renegades albeit ones who very much use their past IRA credentials to remain in control.

I suppose that one of the things about paramillitaries is that those with a criminal record have few job prospects, and so crime is a very easy option. I would hazard a guess this is one of the reasons why the IRA leadership reversed their anti profiteering policy. The IRA dont seem to be doing anything to stop drug dealing at the moment, but as they have more or less disbanded and probably have stopped meting out 'restorative justice', this isnt too surprising. The Loyalists in some areas have done a lot to curb dealing (effectively denying themselves of good revenue), but then they by and large still have their organisations in place and wont get in too much trouble with the govt if they are seen to be dealing with their own criminals.

In some cases in post ceasefire Northern Ireland, ex loyalists & republicans have been known to do a bit of dealing amongst themselves.
 
Call me a conspiracy nut but I can't help wondering as Tony thrashed about trying to secure his "legacy" - something positive to go out on instead the Iraq fiasco.... what promises / threats were made to make sure the powers that be in NI played along and created some positive headlines for Tone in the week he announced his departure date?

I hope I am being needlessly cynical and that things will continue in a positive direction in NI but I can't help but marvel at the timing and wonder how deeply the hatchet has been buried on this occassion....
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Call me a conspiracy nut but I can't help wondering as Tony thrashed about trying to secure his "legacy" - something positive to go out on instead the Iraq fiasco.... what promises / threats were made to make sure the powers that be in NI played along and created some positive headlines for Tone in the week he announced his departure date?

I hope I am being needlessly cynical and that things will continue in a positive direction in NI but I can't help but marvel at the timing and wonder how deeply the hatchet has been buried on this occassion....

Okay, you're a conspiracy nut.

The Easter deadline was set ages ago, when Blair was still hoping to serve his "full term". And even if it got jigged about for him to out on a high, who cares? NI got the right result and that's what matters innit.

Owen G
Thanks for all that. Very informative, very interesting.
 
Tea said:

That accolade has long since been appropriated by the opportunistic Bill Clinton, whom the Irish, both North and South, mistakenly treat as Kennedy-like Royalty, whereas their attitude to Blair is more like "take thee to the Hague, oh Bush junior partner in war crimes":

One War Criminal Down, A Fistful to Go , Paul Craig Roberts

Many wonder why Blair destroyed his reputation and that of his country, put himself at risk of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, and squandered his time as prime minister providing cover for George Bush's war of aggression. The answer must be money. We will see which US corporate boards take Blair as a director and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches.

Is it any wonder his spin-the-spin successor Brown models himself after yet another Dead Kennedy?

The Kennedy Myth Rises Again , By John Pilger

John Pilger recalls the night Robert Kennedy was shot in his presence and the myths that followed his untimely death. Having elevated Kennedy to be one of his heroes, Prime Minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown describes him as the pinnacle of "morality" - when this myth really tells us about Brown himself and his political twin, Tony Blair.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Many wonder why Blair destroyed his reputation and that of his country, put himself at risk of being hauled before the International Criminal Court, and squandered his time as prime minister providing cover for George Bush's war of aggression. The answer must be money. We will see which US corporate boards take Blair as a director and which groups pay him six-figure honorariums for speeches.
You know, I don't think that's true - I really do think he's being honest when he says "I thought it was the right thing to do at the time".
That's the thing about Blair, he's got this messianic self-image - even if he knew he was lying over the WMD claim, he must have convinced himself it was 'for the greater good' in the long run. And to suggest he'd help start a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives simply to provide a comfortable pension for himself is just a tad over-the-top...
 
Last edited:

sufi

lala
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=600

Commentators have already leapt to define his time in office, but few have noted one of his legacies that will likely last at least a generation. Namely, Blair leaves behind an immigration system that has been fundamentally reshaped: migration is now "managed" to favor migrants coming for work and study.

...

This rate of lawmaking surpasses that of every other social policy area. In addition, legislation has been supplemented by a number of major policy proposals and plans (see Table 1). Labour has also developed policy in often controversial directions, such as the decision to allow nationals of new European Union (EU) Member States in Eastern Europe to work in the UK.

...

Blair only tacitly encouraged such change; he himself was much more closely associated with a stronger, more restrictive approach to asylum and security and, eventually, to a more "community approach" to integration.

In making such changes, he has faced only a limited political challenge. The Conservatives (as the opposition party) have supported Labour's legislation and have generally limited their attacks to competence rather than policy direction.

His most ardent critics have expressed themselves in the media and in civil society. Rights advocates have been particularly dismayed at changes to the asylum system while the right-leaning media have made immigration an ever-present feature of the front pages, typically criticizing the volume and ability to "control" the flow.

In spite of the opposition, Blair leaves the UK a new set of immigration policies, which will form the bedrock of policies for at least as long as he was in power.
 
Last edited:
Top