Talk:Tony Blair

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
May 2003 to Jan 2005 Feb 2005 to Nov 2005 Jan 2006 to Jul 2006 Jul 2006 to Feb 2007 Apr 2007 to Jul 2008

Archive

I've put a load of out of date & frankly irrelevant material into a new archive. I'll just issue a reminder that this page is a talk page about Tony Blair, the article, not Tony Blair, the man, and in future any discussion should be focussed on improving the article. Not that I have much support for him myself, but, er, um, this is an encyclopedia here, folks. --Rodhullandemu 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One reference to Mandelson "As a young and telegenic Shadow Cabinet member, Blair was given prominence by the party's Director of Communications, Peter Mandelson". And this is telling the story of Toxic Blair? Who is editing this? The BBC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.108.51 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

War criminal allegations

I've removed the following from the article: On August 1, 2008, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad issued a statement calling Blair a "war criminal" for his role in initiating the war in Iraq. Mahathir said, "I am disgusted that Tony Blair has been invited to Malaysia. This man, to me, is a war criminal. Through instigating the war in Iraq, he has killed more than (former Bosnian Serb leader) Radovan Karadzic and (former Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein."[1] Not only is this inappropriate for "Middle East policy and links with Israel", it's giving far too much weight to the declarations of an ex-politician renowned for odd views. Equating Blair with actual war criminals is going too far. Are there any proceedings against Blair underway in any relevant court? No. So why are we including this rubbish? Criticising Blair for his role in the Iraq war is legitimate, because he copped quite a load of criticism during his career. The article gives sourced criticism about his role in Iraq in several places, and there is an article dedicated to Criticism of Tony Blair (which, I note, does not include Mahathir's outburst). Labelling Blair a war criminal without some solid basis goes beyond what should be found in a reputable encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure whether it is article because it's the view of one person so indeed risks being an WP:UNDUE violation, even if that person is highly noteable so I'm not offering comments on whether it should stay or go. If that comment by Mahathir gained widespread attention, there would be greater call to include it. In any case you're wrong that someone has to actually be charged with war crimes for us to mention that there is a common opinion that they are a war criminal. If there is a common opinion that someone is a war criminal, supported by multiple reliable sources, then it would usually be okay to mention this in the article and indeed I'm sure this is the case for some articles on wikipedia. Note there is a big difference between an opinion someone is a war criminal and presenting someone as a war criminal as fact. Wikipedia articles should generally never present anyone as a war criminal (or terrorist or whatever) as fact even if they have been found guilty of war crimes (not including thigs such as categories perhaps). Rather we should only mention that they were found guilty of war crimes by whatever court. Or, as I mentioned earlier, if there is a widespread opinion that someone is a war criminal, then we should also mention this widespread opinion regardless of whether the person has ever been charged with war crimes. Note also you are incorrect that it was in the wrong section. Mahathir's views were clearly related to Blair's Middle East policy so it was indeed the best section for the comments. As said, I'm still undecided on whether the comment should stay or go but note that your opinion that it is is a baseless opinion or is "going to far" is irrelevant. It is not up to wikipedians to decide if noteable/common opinions are baseless. The key issue here is WP:UNDUE. I would suggest you read up on our policies of WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it seems to me you don't seem to quite understand those parts of policy. (One key point is that wikipedia is not about what you think is the truth, wikipedia is about what other sources say.) BTW, you may want to read up on Mahathir Mohamed. He is an outspoken person who has come under criticism from a variety of sides for a variety of reasons, but as the article illustrates, there is no real evidence he is reknown for his odd views. Many of his views have been criticised by Western sources in particular, but many of the same views have received support or at least not recevied the same level of criticism from developing, Islamic or Asian sources. In other words, it just the opinion of some sources that his views are 'odd' whereas other sources don't find them so odd. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that I know what led to the removal of the information. It can be seen here. Considering it carefully, I might agree with you this may not pass WP:UNDUE test. Docku^Hi 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the text regarding war crimes allegations against Tony Blair appears to be a means to justify the removal of the same text from the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's article. Blocks have occurred because of repeated deletion of the same content on that article. This appears to be an extension of that other dispute. --Lester 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahathir was for many years the head of state of a nation of 25 million, and a international figure in organizations like the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. I bet that if Blair or Howard called Mahathir a war criminal, there would be no debate over inclusion at Wikipedia. --Polly Hedra (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Wingspeed (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahathir was never Malaysia's head of state. Malaysia has a king, who is quite definitely the head of state. Mahathir is now a private citizen, and his comments, while perhaps having more weight than the average Wikipedian, are not in any way official. Not only saying that Tony Blair is a war criminal, but a worse one than Radovan Karadzic, is giving too much weight. I'm saying that this material is a case of WP:UNDUE. Patently Tony Blair is not a war criminal, unless you debase the term so low that any government head is a war criminal. Including this accusation in Wikipedia without any balancing material is also a violation of WP:NPOV as well. In effect, we are giving unqualified support to Mahathir's ludicrous claim. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well one might note that the comment was made in relation if Blair or Howard called Mahathir ... neither of those two are heads of state either. Mahathir bin Mohamad may have retired as PM but it is a pretty active retirement and he is not merely a private citizen. As a prominent Muslim spokesman (see his article for further info) his words carry some weight and I think we all need to think very carefully about the bias we editors bring to the discussion - one person's rants are seen as speaking out on behalf of a significant proportion of the world's population - I don't disagree with balancing views but I would be wary of excluding the views of a significant Muslim spokesman as this almost certainly breaches Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Matilda ^talk 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. Nobody said Blair or Howard were heads of state. I was correcting Polly Hedra above. Getting the facts right is pretty important to me. Saying that Mahathir is a spokesman for "a significant proportion of the world's population" is drawing a very long bow. Presumably you are talking about all Muslim people. This is a bit like saying that the Pope speaks for all Christians. Or the Archbishop of Canterbury likewise. I wouldn't equate Mahathir with any Islamic equivalent. Can we stick to the facts instead of pumping up Mahathir's status to ridiculous heights? On the subject of Mahathir's comments, is he alone in his views? Are any significant Islamic spokesmen supporting him? People at actual official head of government level or official status as religious leaders? Or is it just the voice of one person noted for odd behaviour? --Pete (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that saying Mahathir represents Muslims around the world, is like saying Howard or Blair represents Christians around the world. Do Howard or Blair even represent Christians in their respective countries? --Merbabu (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd behaviour? Well, if it is true and referenced, can be added for balancing. Docku^Hi 01:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• deliberate outdent Let's try Arab news of 2003 (self-described as "The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily" but probably not an insignificant paper which sttes The fact that so many members of the Arab and Islamic diplomatic corps in London, including Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador in London, made the effort to come and listen to Mahathir, underpins his towering reputation among Muslims worldwide. The new York Times [2] . The Jakarta Post thinks his views worth quoting and so quite frankly do most of the world's newsmedia - by airplay alone he is at least as significant and probably moreso than Paris Hilton. Pause for thought - there are various interpretations as to what I could mean by including her from McCain's comparison of Obama with Hilton onwards. However, If Hilton said Blair was ... whatever it would be dismissed although reported, if Mahathir says it, it is reported and moreover much of the world does not dismiss it. Australians might dismiss his comments - as a nation we have had a rather unique relationship with Mahathir and Malaysia [3] and I think Australians would find it hard to say we look at him without bias.--Matilda ^talk 01:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is rather drifting off the point, and merely underscoring my point about pumping Mahathir up to ridiculous heights. Whatever his significance, he seems to be a lone voice expressing a personal view about Blair being a worse war criminal than Radovan Karadzic, and I don't think Wikipedia needs to give him any space at all in this article. Just because newspapers include colourful accusations to sell papers doesn't mean we need include the same extravagant material. If Blair is actually ever the target of official war crimes charges, then it would be a legitimate inclusion. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the discussion above, and after giving time for responses, I see Mahathir's accusations of war crimes as being unsupported by any official agency or government. I see some attempts to puff up Mahathir into a head of state or an important religious leader, but frankly, these failed attempts merely underscore the shallowness of this material. I suggest that those who want to include it in Wikipedia add it to Criticism of Tony Blair, because it doesn't belong in here. I'm removing it as it gives undue weight to a fringe position. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the Criticism article as per my suggestion above. --22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the comments from the editing community (above), the majority were in favour of Mahatir's comment being retained. Then why has it just been deleted from the main Tony Blair article, against overwhelming consensus? The information should be reinstated.--Lester 12:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reinstate it. Criticism doesn't have to be proven in a court of law; it is opinion from notable individuals, and Mahathir is notable. --Polly Hedra (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no "overwhelming consensus". Mahathir, ex-politician, is notable enough to have an article in wikipedia, but his personal opinion on Blair does not seem to represent any large community or official or government view. Mentioning it here gives undue prominence, and again, I am removing it as per WP:UNDO. I quote: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." We shouldn't give fringe views more weight than they deserve, especially not in a biographical article.--Pete (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Mahathir is just one person of 5 billion on this planet, so using your argument we could delete the comment of every world leader from Wikipedia as being the spoken by a minority. I see you have once again deleted the Mahathir text from this article. I do not believe you have managed to convince the other editors of the merits of your arguments, so I ask that you now refrain from further deleting this content.--Lester 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahathir is a leader of world stature. Implicitly he represents many others, which is why he attained that stature. Besides, give me a break here, you think that the Iraq War is generally a very popular one all over the world? --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahathir isn't a leader of anything. He has been out of office for years. His view that Tony Blair is a worse war criminal than Radovan Karadzic is the view of a tiny minority and therefore doesn't belong here. Please address Wikipedia's policy, as expressed in WP:UNDUE and cited by several other editors above.--Pete (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a day now. Has anybody a source showing that this view, that Blair is a worse war criminal than Radovan Karadzic, is held by anyone other than Mahathir? Can anybody address the criticisms already levelled under WP:UNDUE? --Pete (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You ask for sources. As a criterion by which to edit Wikipedia, who-is-worse-than-whom would, I fear, spark an infinite regress, quite apart from constituting a massive impediment to maintenance of a neutral viewpoint. Mahathir is sadly not alone. I suggest you type, as I've just done, Tony Blair war criminal into Google. It yields about 58,000 results. First on the list of accusers is the former veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Second is the Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter. Mahathir only comes in at number 11. Far from being the loony lone voice, there appears to be more than enough material here for a whole separate WP article on the topic should someone care to compile such. I've not got the time to plough through even a few of these links, and I don't suppose you have either. I commend to your attention just this one, which I came across at random: easy to absorb because it's a You Tube clip of a House of Commons news conference earlier this year:

"Officers from Scotland Yard have commenced a criminal investigation into the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Metropolitan Police are acting in response to crimes reported by peace activists from We Are Change UK and The Campaign to Make War History. In an unprecedented step, the case was handed to the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch who are now investigating allegations of 14 criminal offences committed by Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others. The offences are under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which came into effect under English common law, just two days before 9/11."

First clip seems to be dead, but the second is, I assume, either the Labour MP John McDonnell or, more likely, the specialist in international law Chris Coverdale. Watch it and see if he's talking absolute: bollocks Regards Wingspeed (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And the reference to Radovan Karadzic...? Mahathir's view looks like a lone one. As for war crimes in general, that's a slightly more common position, though still one belonging to a fringe minority. Presumably the Scotland Yard investigation came to nothing? --Pete (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Two days and no sources. Mahathir's opinion is his own, according to sources we can use. Scotland Yard investigation? Nothing since January. Presumably rejected. Removing this as per WP:UNDUE. --Pete (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mahathir comment is well enough referenced. Calling for further sources is unnecessary, and a simple Google search will provide countless more articles for verification. It's also irrelevant whether Scotland Yard is investigating or not. The issue is that Mahathir, still a powerful force in Malaysia, made the extraordinary remarks. The minority opinion argument is not relevant, as we are not alleging Blair is a war criminal. We are only quoting Mahathir's comments, and the unanimous majority agree that Mahathir made those comments.--Lester 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lester. The information is well referenced. i restored the information, though i initially thought it could be a case of WP:UNDUE. The argument by majoirty of the editors in favour of inclusion makes me think it may necessarily not be. Docku^Hi 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody, despite my repeated requests, has been able to find a source that Mahathir's views as quoted (that Tony Blair is a worse war criminal than Radovan Karadzic) is supported by anyone other than Mahathir. I'm removing this fringe view under WP:UNDUE. I suggest that rather than edit-warring, anybody who thinks we should be including the views of a tiny minority (i.e. one person) in this biographical article should seek wider comment using the established wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to seek the wp dispute resolution process (if you want to delete contents) because the burden is upon you to convince the majority of us who believe that this referenced opinion from a politician is worth including. Docku^Hi 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The point I make concerns WP:UNDUE. I suggest that you read it rather than edit-warring in defiance of policy. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest you read up the discussion happened above (other than yours), it might help you understand why it might not violate wp:undue. Docku^Hi 02:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The text regarding Mahathir takes up only a small proportion of the article, therefore it is not given undue weight. Considering that the article also contains much more about Blair's achievements than criticism. Apart from Mahathir's criticism of Blair's Iraq excapades, it is unusual that Malaysia's elder statesman basically said Blair is not welcome in Malaysia. It was an extraordinary and unusual situation, worthy of note.--Lester 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Criticism doesn't have represent a majority view to be included. It has to come from a notable person. An extraordinary comment from a notable person is more important to include than a conventional opinion shared by many less-notable persons. However, as I said earlier, the Iraq war is extremely unpopular, and Blair's role in starting it is a matter of record, so I doubt that Mahathir stands alone on this. --Polly Hedra (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my agreement to the three preceding comments. Wingspeed (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout of talk page

The archive box and template telling us the article was used as a source mess up the way the edit links for the previous two threads display in Firefox. This thread will change it a little by spawning a table of contents, but we need to fix the layout. Any suggestions? -Rrius (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace Envoy

This man who supported war with Afghanistan, supported war with Iraq, refused to condemn Israel's invasion of Lebanon and currently supports war with Iran is now a "Peace Envoy" ! Could he have done any more to support war? Anyone else see the hypocrisy?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with an encyclopedia article on Tony Blair? You know full well that your statement is POV and doesn't belong in the article, so why put it on the talk page? 213.121.151.174 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how amusing Tony Blair’s title of “Peace envoy” is. I already had an Admin archive this page for all the irrelevant material it had on it. Please, don’t let it go like that again. CelticMuffin (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant?

He looks like Jason Donovan. Should this be included? I mean, I know Jason's never been accused of any war crimes (despite releasing some positively criminal singles), but the resemblance is just spooky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.92.191 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not relevant. Blair isn't accused of war crimes by any legal institution or law enforcement agency, only by some his over-zealous political opponents with axes to grind. But yes, he does look a bit like Jason Donnovan. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not an over-zealous political opponent, and have no axe to grind at all, but he looks more like a war criminal than Jason Donovan to me "I have legalised robbery, and called it belief, I have run with the money, i have a hill like a thief, re-written history with my armies and my crooks, invented memories, I did burn all the books" Mmmm, Mark Knopfler could have written the lyrics about some other Ageing Drummerboy I guess, but the cap seems to fit- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.27.115 (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of archiving

When Archive 5 was created, it apparently only included some of the contents of the talk page, leaving older threads on the page. Worse, the threads that were added to Archive 5 were not deleted from the talk page. As a result, some of those were updated and all but two were duplicated in Archive 6. I have merged the two threads into Archive 6 and cut and pasted all to Archive 5. Thus, Archive 5 has the most recent archived threads, and Archive 6 is now blank. Should MiszaBot be added here so that confusion over such things doesn't happen anymore? -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Resignation Honours

Blair has not to date issued a list of Resignation Honours; it has been suggested that the list was delayed because of the Cash for Honours investigation by the police. However, that investigation has now ended and no list has been produced; should Blair choose not to issue one he will be the first Prime Minister of the modern era not to do so.

Surely the time has now passed when any Resignation Honours could occur. If he spoke to the Queen and said "Maam, I know I've taken my time over this, but I've now finalised my list of recommendations and here it is", wouldn't she just say "Sorry, Mr Blair, the time for such recommendations was shortly after you resigned. I now take my advice on honours from Mr Brown. Good day". Leaving this para the way it's worded suggests that a Resignation Honours list could still be announced, 15 months after he left Downing Street. Am I wrong about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Issuance of Resignation Honours list would undoubtedly require advice from Gordon Brown after all this time. More to the point, this far on there is almost certainly never going to be one. Saying he did not issue a list would be correct. In the unlikely event such honours are granted in the future, the article can be changed. -Rrius (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found a Telegraph article that says he chose not to issue a list. -Rrius (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, we need to state that. As it stands, "no list has been produced" (rather than "no list was produced") leaves it hanging in the air. And "should Blair choose not to issue one" suggests he still has such a choice, when he hasn't any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mittal affair not mentioned

I was surprised not to see this scandal mentioned here and even more surprised not to find any mention of it either here on the talk page or in any of the talk page archives (It isn't even mentioned in the Criticism of Tony Blair article). Why is it not included? __meco (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Postnominal PC

Re this edit: I believe the PC is out of place. If he had some other honours, e.g. CH and KBE, then he'd be "The Rt Hon Sir Tony Blair CH KBE", not "The Rt Hon Sir Tony Blair CH KBE PC". The fact that he doesn't have any other honours doesn't alter this. And the fact that WP deprecates prenominals such as "The Rt Hon" in lede paras also doesn't alter this. My understanding is that PC is never used as a postnominal, except in the case of people such as certain peers who are already "The Rt Hon" by virtue of their peerage. In those cases, it's necessary to append PC because otherwise there'd be no way of knowing they were members of the Privy Council (if in fact they are). In all other cases, such as people like Tony Blair, "The Rt Hon" is all we need to tell us they are members. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we gather some sources that definitively say that the postnominals are for peers only? The logic that "PC" is only used for peers because they have "Rt Hon" (or higher) before their names would seem not to apply when we refuse to use "Rt Hon" for non-peers. It seems analogous to using "Dr James Smith" or "James Smith, PhD", but not both. Another example is "Mr James Smith" or "James Smith, esq", but not both. Logically, if we refuse to use "Rt Hon" (itself a strange decision), then "PC" is the means of denoting membership in the Privy Council. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council#Rights and privileges of members is well sourced, and it says:

• Though the Privy Council as a whole is "The Most Honourable", individual Privy Counsellors are entitled to the style "The Right Honourable". Peers who are also members of the Privy Council append the post-nominal letters "PC" to indicate membership as they are already entitled to the style "The Right Honourable" (in the case of barons, viscounts and earls) or other higher style (in the case of dukes and marquesses), even when they are not Privy Counsellors. For commoners, on the other hand, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of status as a Privy Counsellor. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources don't provide any significant back-up. The first says Privy Counsellors use "Right Honourable" before their names and note parenthetically that peers use "PC" after their names without even explaining why. The second doesn't even mention postnominals. What I was asking for is some actual proof that "PC" is only for peers, and cannot be used in situations where, as here, we do not use "Rt Hon" for non-peers. -Rrius (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't depend on whether a particular context uses or doesn't use Rt Hon. We have our particular reasons for not using prenominals in lede paras. That has no implications for whether or not to use PC as a postnominal. It's not an "either-or" situation. Yes, it's appropriate to let our readers know that he's a member of the Privy Council, because he certainly is. But suggesting that the postnominal PC is appropriate for him is not the way to do it. I'll see if I can dig up some references that spell it out clearly. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of this alludes to it. It’s a New Zealand site, but it refers to the practice in the UK, and has the Queen’s imprimatur.

This from the Ministry of Justice says that PC is "only to be used as described in the section on Peers who are Privy Counsellors". That section, which was last updated only yesterday, permits PC after a duke’s or a marquess’s name if they’re a privy counsellor. It apparently doesn’t even apply to barons, viscounts or earls, and by implication, it certainly doesn’t apply to any non-peers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, the failure to use "Rt Hon" causes an odd, but not unique, problem of removing the justification for not using "PC" for non-peers. Your bald assertion that it has no implications for the use of PC is both unconvincing and contrary to expectations based on other status that can be shown either pre- or postnominal. For anything else, there is a choice between, say, "Dr" and "PhD". With peers, "Rt Hon" does not distinguish between members and non-members of the Privy Council. As a result, "PC" becomes the only way to distinguish. For non-peers, "Rt Hon" is overwhelmingly the way it is done, but that does not mean "PC" is inappropriate when "Rt Hon" isn't used. You and various others at Wikipedia suggest that it is inappropriate, but I have yet to see a source for that view.

Regarding the sources listed above, the New Zealand site is the same as what I referred to above as the first source. It says that peers use "PC". Nothing more. The MOJ site is specifically discussing how to address correspondence to various people. Incidentally, the point it is making about dukes and marquesses is that, unlike other non-peer counsellors, they do not use "Right Honourable". The MOJ's house style (indeed it seems to be government-wide) does not apply "Right Honourable" to Earls and lower who are not privy counsellors. Thus, for government purposes, it is never necessary to use "PC" for earls, viscounts, and barons. For example, when the government announced the ministers in the new reshuffle, Lord Drayton, who was not a privy counsellor at the time, was referred to as "Lord Drasyon" while Baroness Royall was called "The Right Honourable Baroness Royall of Blaisdon". Since the government's style is not reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is even less useful. In the end, you can show me a hundred sources that say "peer get 'PC' after their names" or that are discussing how to address letters to peers, but it won't matter. What I am looking for is a source that says what to do in a situation where "Rt Hon" is not used, but postnominals for various honours are. In short, any source that assumes you are using "Right Honourable" is worthless. It has been noted elsewhere that some sources do in fact use postnominals for non-peers. One of them, Who's Who, seems pretty persuasive to me. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(I doubt this will satisfy you, but I'm going to say it anyway.) Your stance seems to be along the lines of "Whatever isn't explicitly forbidden is permitted". It's not quite as black-and-white as "Whatever isn't explicitly permitted is forbidden", but it's closer to that end of the spectrum. I think you'll be waiting a long time for the source you seek, because, as I said above, it's not an either-or situation. If PC is considered inappropriate for a certain category of person, you'll never find a source that suddenly deems it appropriate except in a very specific informal context. Consider knights bachelor - sometimes you see "Sir firstname surname, Kt." In some contexts, that might make some sense, to distinguish them from knights with KBE, GCMG etc, or to forestall questions such as "You omitted his postnominals. What order of knighthood was he a member of?". But as a general rule, they have no postnominal at all, and absence of a postnominal is intepreted as knight bachelor, not as the omission of a postnom. Consider also the case of members of the Australian House of Representatives; a long time ago, the Australian government decided that their postnominal is MP. However, it's not uncommon for members to be referred to as Joe Bloggs MHR, and even some members themselves use MHR rather than MP on their letterhead. But you'll never find a trustworthy site that says that MHR is correct, because it's not. Certain publications adopt PC for all members of the Privy Council - they have their house style just as Wikipedia has its. In that case, in respect of non-peers, it's an informal designation, and it has no official authority. On the other side of the coin, there are the contexts where a person is entitled to Rt Hon or PC, or both, but they're not used. When you read about Tony Blair's diplomatic activities in the newspapers, he's not referred to as "the Rt Hon Tony Blair", but simply as "Tony Blair". That doesn't alter his entitlement to Rt Hon in a context where it's appropriate to use honorifics. Wikipedia has decided not to use prenominals in lede paragraphs, but if you were writing to Tony Blair, you'd nevertheless address it to "The Rt Hon Tony Blair". Our decision not to use prenominals did not extend to the dropping of postnominals. But only appropriate postnominals are to be used; the decision to drop prenoms such as Rt Hon does not mean that we can make up postnoms such as PC to sort of compensate. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're only talking about UK practice here. Canada has a different protocol, whereby privy counsellors get both "Rt Hon" and "PC", which is why google searches for these terms bring up a whole swag of Canadian sites first. NZ and Australia conform to UK practice, but our Rt Hons are dwindling fast. None of them are peers, and none of them get PC. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no confusion on this. No one is suggesting non-peers should be listed as "the Rt Hon [X] [Y] PC". -Rrius (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

English politicians | English Roman Catholics ...?

He was born in Edinburgh. That means he's Scottish and British. Why is he referenced as an English politician and an English Roman Catholic? ReggyRaccoon (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with other European nations

How is this a criticism? Is Britain inherently supposed to be enemies with the other European powers? There aren't even any negative quotes in the section. It doesn't even have its own section at the article Criticism of Tony Blair. I am going to be bold and remove it.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the section on his relationship with the Labour Party, seen as John Monks was the critic. Re-write it if you wish.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"implemented redistributive policies" ?

I deleted these three words from the political overview section. I am unaware of any attempt by Blair to reduce inequality. And certainly the rich paid no more income tax under Blair than they did under Major or Thatcher. If anyone feels the need to put these three words back in can they provide a reference please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Those three words can be justified in two: tax credits. Best put them back then. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Taped conversation

I restored this line about the taped conversation at the G8. It think that is revealing about the true nature of the Bush-Blair relationship. Please discus if you want to delete it Rruis. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair ethnicity

Listed in your site as an English politician... perhaps he has been a politician in England, but is surely best known as having been a British politician, or if describing his heritage along with the fact he was a politician; surely he would be Scottish, having been born and educated there, with Scottish parents and grand parents.

George McInnes Haarlem NL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.36.40 (talk) 07:52, December 2, 2008 (UTC)

His GGGgrandfather was a Trinidadian

No, he’s British. Saying he’s English/Scots/Welsh is irrelevant. He was the Prime Minister of Great BritainCeltic Muffin&Co. (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree he is a British politician, but I see at the bottom of the page that he is listed in the category of English Roman Catholics. Surely, given his birth and up-bringing this is confusingly incorrect. He was born and brought up in Glasgow - where sectarianism is relevant - so is a Scottish Roman Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.111.77 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is TB doing about Israel-Gaza ?

It seems a bit strange: as Middle-Eastern Envoy, you would expect TB to be involved with the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Is he doing anything? cojoco (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is highly, highly ironic that Tony Blair is a 'PEace Envoy'. A man who led Britain to 5 wars while PM and caused the deaths of millions of Iraqis!--Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the answer is "no" then; he's a peace envoy in name only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojoco (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New part of intro

Please don't remove this until there is a consensus here:

Blair was largely discredited by his actions over the Iraq War, and has been repeatedly accused of lying to the country about the reasons for war. In 2003, Blair told MPs that he would have resigned had there been any truth to a BBC report that his government had embellished an intelligence dossier on Iraq with dubious information. It was later established that the government did in fact embellish the Iraq Dossier. Blair has been accused of war crimes as a result.

It is sourced, notable and is such an important feature of blair's reputation that it should be in the introduction. Tks --Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

President of Europe

Surely, this statement is rather opinionated: "Public opinion in Europe is strongly against Blair, but the EU is known for its lack of democracy and usually ignores the views of its citizens (see Lisbon Treaty)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanington (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonkers bias!

Woah! "Blair was largely discredited by his actions over the Iraq War,[1] and has been repeatedly accused of lying to the country about the reasons for war."

That is majorly POV! I think 'discredited largely resides on whether Iraq succedds in becoming a stable democracy to which the signs are currently good.'

So you think that if Iraq becomes a stable democracy the lies Blair told and the deaths of over a million in Iraq will be looked on as noble and good? No, Blair will still have been discredited. Even if, which I doubt, people look more favourably on him in the futureJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please could someone change this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the sources which do have to back up such a claim but it seems a valid sentence to me. It is fact that Iraq did the most damage to Tony Blair over his 10 years as Prime Minister. He went from being the most popular to one of the most hated, and it was over the Iraq issue. How Iraq turns out will not change many peoples minds of Blairs handling of the situation. However i do think that entire paragraph should be restructured to be more balanced. It should state some of the positive things he did in the early years before going onto Iraq being the defining issue of his leadership. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been removed, despite the words about the introduction above. I think that there's a difference between "Blair discredited", which seems pretty clear, especially in light of the sexed-up intelligence, and the "Iraq War discredited", which is a completely different argument. Also removed were the comments about Blair's actions in the first 9 days of the Gaza conflict, which seem quite relevant. I can't revert these changes for some reason, so I'll try again later. cojoco (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the material now. I hope we can discuss this before it gets deleted again. cojoco (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you cojoco.

To 213.86.243.150: I in fact posted a topic about this change when I implemented it ( see 'New part of intro' above, requesting that people should not delete without getting a consensus on the talk page.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jp Morgan

Within the period of October-December 2006 (months before Blairs resignation, JP Morgan were awarded £3 billion of contacts by HM Gov. Tony Blair is reliably earning £2,000,000.00 a year from JP Morgan now as a consultant, although he has no office there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Givrnup (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous and prejudiced introduction

I find the following sentence (in the introduction to the article): "Blair was largely discredited by his actions over the Iraq War, and has been repeatedly accused of lying to the country about the reasons for war," to be objectionable, outrageous and clearly partisan.

Has been repeatedly accused of lying? Accused by whom? Isn't this totally subjective? Only those who strongly opposed the war have accused him of lying. And, anyway, which prime minister hasn't been accused of lying?

How do you judge that someone has been "discredited?" Who says he was discredited because of the Iraq war? There were plenty of other controversies with Blair. One source from some "think-tank" doesn't cut it. This is an opinion not fact. Some may consider the Iraq war to be the only honorable action Blair has done.

Of course these points should be discussed later on in the article in a neutral way. But to make them distinctly stand out as matter-of-fact statements in the introduction suggests that the editor clearly considers them to be intrinsic and of fundamental nature to Blair's biography. (As if the mere name Tony Blair is synonymous with being discredited and accused of lying).

Again this is opinion suggesting that all Tony Blair is about is the Iraq war.

It is clear beyond any doubt that this was written from a biased, partisan, anti-Blair and anti-war point of view.

How this has been allowed to stay in an encyclopedia is beyond me. I intend to delete/modify both of these statements.--Josh Is Dead (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)