Tony Blair - non-British opinions?

Remove all ads!

Blair's been on the television a lot. He's been in the newspapers a lot. The British press is always covering something about him (which, as he's the PM, is hardly surprising!), and the general consensus seems to be that, since the Iraq war, his popularity has been gradually falling. The Hutton report almost totally exonerated the government, but soon Lord Butler will be publishing his report as to the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war, and this report is apparently going to be more critical.

However, what I'd like to know is how do people in other countries view Tony Blair? Is his close association with George Bush damaging his popularity abroad, as well as domestically? Are the Hutton report and the Butler inquiry reported outside of the UK?

What are your views?

 

In NZ, the main thing that is reported is the fact that his popularity appears to be waning. But that does not sound all that unusual for a political leader's popularity to drop after a reasonable time in office. Then, in about 30 years time, everyone will look back on him fondly again. Look at how everyone seems to love Thatcher, Clinton, and Reagan now.

 

Tony Blair was never popular or unpopular here before the second gulf war, he was just the british prime minister but now for the majority of the people he is a persona non grata. Although, I think that his association with Bush has damaged more the UK image than his. What I mean is that UK was close connected with US since WW1 but it was never seen as an american puppet but as one of the strongest european states even if its empire has collapsed. Now after the events of the last two years many people here see UK not only as an american puppet but as an american troyan horse inside the European Union.

[ July 12, 2004, 00:18: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

I don't particularly like Blair.
He's a liar and a suck-up to the Americans and that ir tarnishing our reputation. He almost seems naive.

But that doesn't bother me too much.

What bothers me is that we have a faltering NHS service. Aducation is poor, student courses are too expensive and leave young people in debt for years. Everything is too expensive, mainly pretol prices. We have an ever increasing immigration problem. We have a pension crisis. We have all sorts of trouble.

The government should be using its funds to help BRITAIN. Instead, we chase silly wars in the names of America's pride and lose millions of pounds on a cause the majority of the public aer strongly against.

Unfortunately (and this is a sad truth). I would rather have Blair in charge than any of the runners for the other main parties.

 

the hutton report was a sham.
how can we trust someone on the pay roll of the government to write an impartial report?

 

Mostly we hear about how Blair's popularity is falling - mostly used as a tool to prop up the position of our politicians who made the opposite decision with regards to supporting the U.S.A. in Iraq.

We occassionally hear some mention of the various reports/investigations but they are not covered in any significant depth - we have plenty of government probes/reports etc. of our own for the media to whine about.

We know that typically nothing significant comes from the results of these report as they are just the governments way of wasting our money so that it looks like they are concerned and/or doing something about an issue.

In my experience, Canadians tend not to think poorly of Blair for supporting Bush - we realize that it is very much one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations. A lot of Canadians were proud that our Prime Minister had the guts to say no regarding sending troops to Iraq however there are many who complain about the negative impact on our economy due to the anti-Canadian backlash that this has caused within the U.S.A.

The question from the Canadian perspective was always should we send Canadians to die in order to keep the Americans happy and buying our exports. I don't know if that is how the British saw the situation but sending people off to war over money is hardly a novel concept.

 

Well, from here the whole WMD 'threat' was shoved down our throats. We were told how dangerous they were, how we could be attacked within forty-five minutes of the order being given, and how we'd be doing the right thing by going in.

Thus was the war justified to the British public.

 

Canadians on the whole just whenever anyone claimed that Iraq might have WMD. Most of us didn't believe Saddam had any and it certainly appears that we were correct.

 

I often wonder about whether or not we would have been able to pull off the Iraq war without the support of Blair, and by extension, England. I realize that most Britons opposed the war, but having Blair as a steadfast ally allowed us to put the "international coalition" label on the adventure. No one in Europe would have signed on - even if only on paper - without England sporting the pom-poms, IMO.

I used to think infinitely more of Blair than I used to. I used to think of him as one of the most brilliant, well-spoken and capable leaders in the world. Though I still keep with the first two, the last 2 years have steadily chipped away at the third.

I think he could go miles with his own people - and the world - if he would come out and admit that mistakes were made, that despite the best intentions he admits the bulk of the justification for the Iraq war was proven false, and that we now have a responsibility to see a positive outcome despite the mistakes that lead us here. Real leaders admit it when they screw up, and until he does, I may continue to slowly lose my respect for him.

 

As a student of policy-making and government rationality, I have to agree. It's a sad thing that so much goes towards vainglorious nationalistic crap when there are greater problems at home. I feel the same way about Australia's current policy (and, sadly, the political situation as well).

On-topic, though, I think Blair is coming off as a real sap, especially after that whole conman thing with him and his wife. I think he values the American dollar and alliance very highly, and I'm not sure why ANY of us went to Iraq. If we wanted to get rid of Saddam, we should have supported the insurrection following the first Gulf War and not stood back while the Shi'ites and Kurds were slaughtered. Of course, that was the "legally correct" course of action. Like it or not, the integrity of any other nation-state must be respected so long as it does not pose a direct threat to others, which undermines the whole justification for attacking Iraq.

In fairness to the guy, though, the world following the destruction of the World Trade Centre (and for Australians, the Bali bombing that killed hundreds) is a very different place. The "enemy" is not a nation or a race or even a religion. It is understandable that you can't be seen to just be doing nothing visibly to protect your citizens, but in the course of that, you will inevitably have some collateral damage. The old methods and rationalisations for actions are no longer valid in dealing with terrorism, but this does not mean that the new approach (including Iraq) is correct. Until I read up on the interim government's members and the security arrangements, I thought the USA's actions were laudable. Blair has a hand in this as well, I'm sure, and has the interests of his nation at heart. Whether that is how he will be remembered or viewed is another matter, particularly with the WMD/intelligence reports being produced at the moment.

AFAIK, at one stage, Saddam did have chemical weapons. The only catch is that they were supplied by the US during the Iran-Iraq War.

 

Blair was seen by the popular press as a decent man since he became the PM of GB.
Now Bush is reviled as a war-monger and Blair, presented as his stooge, has been tarred with the same brush.

There always has been some amount of US bashing going on in India concerning its role during the cold war years. Specially concerning its armament of Pakistan and Afghanistan or its turning a blind eye towards countries which did.
We know what 9/11 (thats actually 9th November here)feels like, there have been bombs going off and on in my city for a decade now. And we sympathised with the people there. We knew there must be a reation coming.

What transpired since however has been unpalatable. Bush has never been a favorite. Now he is persona-non-grata. And we have never seen any leader of a nation be as subservient as Blair. Blair is now seen as a blind man being lead by the deaf. Neither knows about the approaching train.

 

I love Tony Blair! He seems like an honest, upfront guy. Well...that and he IS America's lackey!!