Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Do we a) need the section in brackets? Anyone wanting to know what the CH are will go to the CH page. b) that is such a small part of the Blair story/life/whatever should it feature so promintly at the top of the page? Wouldn't something like "Blair stood down as PM and as an MP on June 27th and was appointed as..." read better?

Where is all the information about the scandles involving this fool? 45minute weapons, cash for peerages - this page has clearly either been written by tony himself or by someone expecting a knighthood without needing the ££££. By the way, i'm homosexual, just if anyone wants to know....

This page is usually written by Labour politicians. 'Perception management - it's the way of the world. Nuff said. 194.112.59.170 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Tony Blair's biographical page, that is called i am a real idiot, and the sub-topic article on his service as Prime Minister should be merged. However, this would create a huge article. His biography is 52kb long as it its and his Prme Minister article alone is another 49, almost the same length. Many articles have split their pages into more specific, sub-topic related pages and Tony Blair should be no different. I supoort keeping the arangement the way things are.Rougher07 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very possible that the public flogging of Blair over Iraq was in part retribution from the Bristish Left for Blair's sweeping reform of the Labour party platform-- The fact that Blair moved Labour from essentially a socialist position to a Center-Left position put him in the ideological crosshairs of the old gaurd Left, both in Labour and at major Left-dominated media outlets like the BBC.

Many saw Blair as pressing a maturaltion of Labour from an unrealist and unworkable socialist agenda to a more workable and Center-Left market-oriented one; but many others held a deep reserve of anger against him for going against the Labours traditionally Socialist grain. The power of the currently Left-dominated BBC can not be underestimated in this either.

Blair's mistakes in Iraq became ripe opportunity for this retribution. And although the overall situation in Iraq is a difficult one, and gives pause for concern, that story has been further soured and manipulated at every turn by the BBC and Left-Politicians, who tapped surging British nationalism during the Euro / American post-Cold War rift to exploit the Iraq situation in order to take vengeance on Blair for his domestic policies.

Blair had said that history will be kind to him. His mistakes in Iraq may not be completely forgotten, but as the British far-Left slowly dies out due to it's inneffectuality in economic life, and also eventually loses it's iron grip on the BBC, Blair may be to some extent proven correct.

Sean7phil 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments which suggest that Blair is a margeret Thatcher in discuise are compelling indeed. Put aside all of the Third Way rhetoric and examine the facts. Blair's approach towards the economy is in the Thatcherite tradition of free market laissez-faire. Whilst Blair has placed great emphasis on improving the standard of education and health, his favoured methods also derive from Thatcherism - use of market forces and business "expertise", creeping privatisation, centralised control and targets. Mrs T invented all of these. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the two leaders are exactly alike, because they are not. But they are more similar than different, in the same way that Gaitskell and Macmillan, Wilson and Heath were different yet the same in their policies, at end of the day.

(88.111.238.2 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Thatcher didn't create centralised control and targets, this has always been a left wing policy more than a right wing one. While I accept a lot of your points, he has picked up more than one trick from Thatcher, they fundamentally differ in that Margaret Thatcher's strongest belief was in a smaller state and lower taxation, whereas Blair has always believed that increasing taxation is okay to pay for the NHS, public services etc.Lager7 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Using market forces and business expertise is hardly Thatcherite doctrine. Thatcher made some fundamental changes to the UK economy in a way I dont think anyone had done since Atlee and Bevin, and I would say its far more accurate to describe Blair as a bevanite than as a Thatcherite. He's a typical left winger and the consequences of that are very clear in modern British society with its politically correct surveillance society. Brown is worse so I think the idea that Blair is presiding over a shift to the right is exactly the opposite of what is happening, SqueakBox 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is Blair "a typical left winger" ? He follows Thatcherite taxation schemes, Thatcherite education plans, Thatcherite economics, Thatcherite schemes for the NHS and has led Britain into a war with Iraq despite mass opposition. Okay so he doesn't wear a blue twin suit or carry a handbag but that's about all the differences between him and Thatcher. SmokeyTheCat 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth does his invading Iraq make him right wing. Do you think only right-wingers follow such aggressive policies. He is a classic leftie who wants to control people and pour money into socially equalising projects like the NHS and state education. How is he different from Bevin is the question I would ask. Though Brown today has shown himself to be a little more inspired. tax cuts, now that is more right wing though probably more inspired by greed for power than genuine right wing beliefs, SqueakBox 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blair believes in everything, and I mean everything, that Thatcher believed in. How is he different from Bevin? Doh, PRIVATISATION!? Bevin created the NHS, Blair is busy destroying it by privatisation.SmokeyTheCat 11:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish. Thanks, SqueakBox 11:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

squeakbox, how can yu call him a classic leftie, and say that he has pumped oney into the nhs? these are lies, he is the one who cut out the block votes of the trade unions, he is one who got rid of clause 4 all of which are classic labour policies. when talking about blair and the nhs how dare you say that he put mney into it, he did nothing of the sort, cutting corners at ever opportuinity, he has systimaticly stripped the nhs of funding and resources as well as advocating the use of market forces and privitisation, all of which i hope you know arnt left wing policies. therefore the idea that blair is a thatcherite is correct and i think it should be added to the wiki on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.113 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether there's a prosecution to follow or not, I am surprised that no mention of Lord Levy and his current difficulties in connection with activities on behalf of the PM is made in the article after the Labour Lawyers for Israel section. Why not? Do we hang fire until after the DPP makes his decision and not mention the material that is already in the public domain despite the injunctions sought by Lord Goldsmith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jatrius (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

It is mentioned in other articles. The cash for honours issue is certainly notable, but so is a huge amount of other things which are not in the article. I've just looked at this after not checking up on it for some time and there's been some excellent work in my v humble opinion in getting this main article down to a manageable size and creating sub articles with lots of detail. Hobson 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the section "Blair and Gordon Brown" I think the first mention of Gordon Brown (and also John Smith) should be hyperlinked. Uberdude85 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Gordon Brown added by Omeganumber 00:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Its completely locked and it would be bad form for an admin to edit in this state. I do suggest that somebody search using the term Bliar on a regular basis and will try to myself as ti was only by running a search that I dioscovered the vandalsim that may have gone undetected for a long time, SqueakBox 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it a couple of times especially this one where the info box had been gone awhile. I couldn't find any instances of the misspelling Bliar just now.--Paloma Walker 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not as I checked it and removed them all (in another programme) and Guinnog locked the article minutes later, SqueakBox 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So is this article locked against all changes for ever, or should I raise some kind of 'unlock request'? It seems to me that my proposed change is small, uncontroversial and beneficial. I appreciate this page will be the target of much vandalism, but the whole spirit of wikipedia seems to be defeated if we can't improve it. Uberdude85 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} According to the page log, available from the history list, this page will automatically become unprotected on 27 Mar. The two names are already linked the first time they are used. I will resolve the editprotected tag. If you wish to have the protection removed, ask User:Guinnog who made the page protected. It might be worthwhile to just wait a few days; there are lots of articles to work on besides this one. CMummert · talk 05:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is why an admin has made a POV edit in the mean time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=117446926&oldid=116630309 here. This is completely unacceptable admin abuse on the part of Cntrx. I am appalled at such a cavalier attitude, SqueakBox 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting what I thought was vandalism that had occurred after I unprotected the article, i.e. the undetected removal of an entire section. Perhaps you should not jump to wild conclusions. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, it was vandalism that caused the removal of that section, specifically an incomplete revert that left this and then a later removal, rather than revert, of the vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was confused not jumping to wild conclusions. Thanks for the explanation, obviously a genuine vandalism revert is a good reason to unlock and relock the article but I couldnt make sense of your edit summary as I couldnt see how you were reverting to yourself, SqueakBox 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That entire section needs rewriting. There are no confirmed arguments between Brown and Blair, and much as I dislike Labour, Wikipedia should be better than that!

i noticed the refrence to Les Huckfield who may have been shortlisted by Sedgefield CLP in 1983. However i fail to see his relivance, he may have been the sitting MP for Nuneaton but might i point out that Nuneaton is over 150 miles from Sedgefield and therefore of little relevance.

I'm sure that the Sedgefield CLP selection meetings in 1983 would have been very interesting places to be, i'm not so sure that the good people of Sedgefield would have been that impressed by a sitting MP from Warwickshire who has lost any chance of a midlands seat and was looking north. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keirstitt (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

the section on religion was removed several years ago because of Blairs New age beliefs, including the Mexican rebirthing ceremony, his support of his wifes' new age guru Carole Caplin and his alleged habit of holding a sacred scroll in his pocket (cosmic ordering) according to a former aid (something Scott).

My good advise to Mr. Tony Blair to study more about Islam. That will give more peace to your mind. By an Indian Fan of Mr. Tony Blair.

Further, we should add the Catholic Churches' criticisms of Blair for taking mass when he is not a Catholic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.112.59.170 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

He's after a Nobel Peace Prize, so is pretending to be interested in becoming a Catholic, as the Pope exerts very heavy influence over its award - not a lot of people know that!

Knowing the Pope's strong opposition to the Iraq War that won't help him much. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Fleet Street, Blair is set to convert to Roman Catholicism, finally, sometime very soon after he hands over power to Brown. Be prepared to alter his page accordingly. --216.73.249.238 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Further speculation on his possible conversion following his private audience with the Pope 23 June 2007 ^[1]. However, there is a conflict between catholicism and Blair's introduction of civil partnerships for gay couples. Should these be inserted into the Religion section? 194.74.200.66 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

According to [[1]] article on TIME.com, it would appear that Mr. Blair has formally converted to Catholicism.jr98664 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Blair had attended Catholic Masses at Westminster Cathedral while on holiday in Italy" Now, how can he have done that. Last time I checked Westmister Cathedral was still located in Westminster/London, UK (and hasn't been sold and transported to Italy like London Bridge has been exported to the USA). I assume, that there is just a comma missing in this sentence (between Cathedral and while), but since I'm not sure that this is the mistake, I leave it to the original author to correct the glitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.110.173 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible for an Anglican to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic mass.All that's jeanne (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)required is a dispensation from the bishop of the diocese.

Should Tony Blair's profession really be listed as "Barrister"?

Yes, certainly, that was his original training and short-lived profession, but he hasn't practised as a barrister for 20 years! He has been a full time Member of Parliament for Sedgefield since 1983, was a Shadow Cabinet Minister for several years up until 1994, Leader of the Labour Party since 1994 and Prime Minister from 1997-2007. He also intends to continue as a backbench MP until the next General Election, probably in 2009.

And, suffice to say he will not be returning to working as a barrister afterwards!

I recomend that his profession by reclassified as "Full Time Politician"; or "Member of Parliament"; or even "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" (for now anyway).

Perhaps we ought to include a new category for politicians. That is to say, have both a "Political Profession" listing and a "Pre-Political Profession".

After all, almost all leading politicians are full-time politicians in the UK, with full-time salaries!

Suggestions on ammendments very much welcome...

Is there someone who can provide a more flattering photograph of Mr. Blair for the top of the article? The lighting is terrible in the present one; he looks like a vampire. Candent shlimazel 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the piteous desperation that peers out of his black eyes is rather appropriate Harecourt 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He looks stressed. Perhaps we should wait till June 27 and then replace it with him looking happy and relieved, SqueakBox 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! ladyPolitik 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Every picture of him since Iraq has him looking stressed. It's not unflattering if that's how he actually looks!--Ruddyell 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very severe picture, is there no offical photo to use? 131.111.200.200 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony_Blair_cropped_from_defenselink.jpg)? Nevare 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nooo- he looks gaunt and is baring his bad tooth. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He is considered by some members to be a liability, by giving the example of Labour's erratic political poll ratings. These ratings have however improved since the 2007 budget, Labour's support among the C2 social group, credited with keeping Margaret Thatcher in power, has risen from 23 per cent to 32 per cent.

I don't think this belongs in the introduction. Seems more like commentary on current events rather than contributing to an overview of the subject of the article. Recurring dreams 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. TJ 07:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Recurring dreams 07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

in this it says his mother was catholic but on his fathers page it says she was protestant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.50.224.66 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

That was due to a user adding an incorrect citation from the Independent newspaper- his mother was very much protestant (her father was a member of the Orange order). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

should we mention in the artical that Blair has appeared on youtube to support Sarkozy and to calm down the riots in france?--Lerdthenerd 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong Blair? Recurring dreams 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

no i'm sure it was our primeminster Tony blair, although i've never heard him speak in french before.--Lerdthenerd 08:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the video. BTW, Sarkozy made a remarkable lapsus one day, calling Blair "one of us" albeit he's left-wing... Arronax · ^talk 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, left-wing... He made a similar appearance in a (cringeworthy) party political for Fianna Fáil during Ireland's election campaign. [2] Should we mention that? Or would it be better placced in Bertie Ahern's article? Odd that he didn't appear in the Irish Labour Party's PPB instead, as they're supposed to be comrades. I wonder why Pat Rabbitte didn't complain.--Dub8lad1 09:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

left wing? when was the last time anyone heard tony blair sing the internationale? scrap that, when was the last time you herd anyone in the labour party sing he internaionale (not including tony benn...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.113 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The press did use this picture with the gesture airbrushed out. This is a very good portrait of Blair, as he is, in himself.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387466-details/Young+Blair's+obscene+gesture/article.do

Sorry now I'm getting confused lol. You are writing on the right page. Recurring dreams 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add a critism about the 'authoritarian and survelance state' Blair has developed. It is a very overlooked problem with Blair's government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.139.225 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Done, on 20 May, although a great deal more needs to be said. Rubywine 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the "criticism" section? - The Daddy 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Does his resignation mean Harry Potter 7 or parts of it will have to be re-written the last minute? I mean the british PM was featured in HP6.

No: the events told in HP7 have happened (or are supposed to have) in 1997-1998. See Chronology of the Harry Potter stories. Keriluamox 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Tony Blair has "tendered his resignation to the Queen " in May 2007, wheras he actually stated that "he will resign" on June 27th. Also the statement that this was due to "his unpopularity" is unfairly worded. His forthcoming resgination is due to a number of reasons, with unpopulairty perhaps one of them, but not the only reason. The citation of the Iraq war is as a reason is an inference and not a substaniated fact.

Continuing on with the resignation theme, I want specific reasons he has cited for his stepping down. We need to distill the concepts down to a few sentences. Gautam ^Discuss 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the word "immediately" from the intro, which said he announced today (May 10) that he would resign as Labour leader immediately. In fact he will resign as leader on June 27 as well, although he obviously made the announcement today. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6633989.stm Hobson 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also (although this already seems to have been removed from the article), I don't believe he has tendered any resignation to The Queen today. Hobson 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If he'd resigned today the country would have had no PM and the Labour Party no leader. If he'd submitted his resignation it would have created a constitutional crisis as the only way the Queen could have fopund a successor would have been to demand a general election, SqueakBox 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to put in the infobox the term end date as "June 27, 2007 (anticipated)"? Dovea 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So obviously he HASN'T tendered his resignation. We still need to add in the specific reasons for his stepping down, if someone has not already added that in. Gautam ^Discuss 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed a reference to Blair "falsifying" intelligence to "exaggerating" in the intro. I don't believe anyone has accused him of falsifying the intelligence. The criticism which is aired sometimes is that the intelligence "was hedged with qualifications, caveats, warnings, which he translated into certainty" (to quote Michael Howard http://www.newstatesman.com/200410040021). However I am not pushing for the sentence to stay in the intro at all, as it currently reads. I don't think it is backed up by the reference given, either before or after my edit.Hobson 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is to be declared Labour leader by the NEC at a special Labour conference on 24 June 2007 as the only successfully nominated candidate. If the Prime Minister keeps his pledge to tender his resignation as Prime Minister on 27 June 2007, then the Monarch will seek for a new Prime Minister, and although not binding on the monarch, the convention has been to ask the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons to form a new government unless there is a hung parliament in which case it is normally whoever is thought to be most likely to be able to form a government.^[2][3] Although technically the successor to Tony Blair as Labour leader is almost certain to be the next Prime Minister, under UK law this is not a legal requirement, although the new government does have to the approval of a majority in the House of Commons, but the Monarch can quite legally ask anyone who is an MP or a Lord, and she can create Lords using the Royal Prerogative providing they are of age, not a bankrupt, not a felon and they swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Technically saying that the next Labour leader will be the next Prime Minister is speculation.--Lord of the Isles 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Labour NEC report from 20 March 2007 regarding the election of a new leader and Deputy Leader--Lord of the Isles 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The supposed dialogue from The Deal should be removed. At best it's an educated guess and at worst total fiction. As neither men have yet confirmed the details of their meeting at the Granita restaurant, wikipedia shouldn't be hosting this unverified speculation. Yorkshiresky 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if its well sourced we can. We have to stick with what is perc3eived as the truth not the actual truth (outside of scientific articles, SqueakBox 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Deal was never presented as an accurate historical account but rather a work of fiction based on a real event, and a work of fiction can never be a reliable source for the persons or events it depicts. To take an extreme example, Jerry Springer: The Opera should not be used as a source in the article on Jesus of Nazareth to claim that Jesus was "a little bit gay". Discussion of The Deal may be appropriate in the "Portrayals in film" section of this article, but not in the main historical section. Grover cleveland 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How does the new Prime Minister get appointed?--69.113.131.124 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Labour Party elect him and then Blair goes to the Queen, resigns and says Brown (or whoever is elected) should be the next PM and the Queen agrees, SqueakBox 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Queen is entitled to reject Brown as Prime Minister and invite someone else to form an executive? However it would never happen. Mark83 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen's constitutional responsibility is to appoint a Prime Minister who commands the support of Parliament. Normally this is the leader of the majority party. If no party has a majority, she would invite the leader of the largest party to try to form a coalition, then the leader of the next largest party if he fails to do so, etc. If the identity of the leader of the party is not clear (as in the case of Alec Douglas Home) then the Queen can use her discretion to find someone to appoint -- she would normally take the advice of her outgoing minister of other leading establishment figures in this case. If Tony Blair were to recommend someone other than the next leader of the Labour Party as Prime Minister (e.g. David Cameron), I think the Queen would reject his advice. Grover cleveland 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is PM from 27 June - 2 July? Rutld001 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a clear replacement for Blair as of 27 June the Queen would probably ask him to stay on as PM until a new leader is elected. I think that the leadership election should be over by then, however. Grover cleveland 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On the same theme, if there was a general election and no party gained an overall majority (thus creating a hung parliament) and the existing governing party was not the largest party would the new largest party or the existing government be invited to form a new government by the Queen? 81.111.216.65 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

81.111.216.65 With regards to that question, best refer to the February 1974 election. Ted Heath had more votes than seats, Labour vice-versa. After an election a government can remain in office unless its programme for government is voted down after a State Opening of Parliament. Up until the late 19 Century this was the practice. Afterall the Prime Minister still holds the Queen's commission to form a government. Should the PM tender his resignation, the Queen will informally ask whom she should send for. There are three responses to the Queen's question about forming a government: 1) immediate acceptance as they know they command a majority in the House of Commons; 2) will hold a temporary commission to see if they could command a majority; 3) refuse the commission as they couldn't command a majority.

(Stephennarmstrong 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I think this page could use some polishing, considering it's a featured article and supposed to represent WP's finest work. I counted eleven citation needed tags (certainly too much for a FA), and having a whole section as a bulletin list (Portrayals) is debatable, I think it should be turned into prose and cut down, especially the last two points seem very trivial to me. The references could use some work as well and need a uniform style in accordance with WP:CITE. -- EnemyOfTheState 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know when he started styling himself "Tony" (instead of his real first name, Anthony)? I know he began his political career as Anthony, and that he was plain "Tony" by the time of the Labour leadership election in 1994, but I don't know when he made the switch. 217.155.20.163 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did he begin his career as Anthony? I thought he was Tony at the Beaconsfield by-election and its the sort of name you get as a teenager, SqueakBox 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right (I've now seen his election literature from the 1983 general election, and he was Tony on that). I guess I was misled by reading too much into Peter Hitchens's columns - he often makes a big deal of the Anthony/Tony thing, as if to suggest Blair is denying his roots, or similar. 217.155.20.163 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There was also a bit of this when Labour ran "Dave the Chameleon" party political broadcasts last year attacking David Cameron - in there the Chameleon "David" decides he wants people to "call him Dave" as one of the alleged changes. Naturally Conservatives were quick to point out that Blair equally uses a contracted form of his name! Timrollpickering 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only place in which Tony Blair has ever been referred to as 'Anthony Blair' in a political context was in a few articles on the subject of employment law which he wrote for the New Statesman in the early 1980s. Later articles were as 'Tony'. Tony Blair has always been called Tony among friends, long before he went into politics; there is simply no reason to accuse him of adopting a more informal first name as a political strategy.

David Cameron is slightly different in that he is normally known as 'David' in all formal contexts including political life, but some close friends and family call him 'Dave'. Were he to desire more people to call him 'Dave' in contexts where he had previously used David, and there is evidence that he has done so, then it is legitimate to presume a political motive. He is therefore in quite a different situation to Tony Blair. More fool him because David is such a nice name and Dave is an abbreviation that some holders of it find entirely inappropriate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it true he changed his name to 'Linton ' in honour of his favourite Black Poet, Linton Kwesi Johnson, to win more Ethnic votes?

No. 'Lynton' is his middle name and it is a family name - the original surname of Leo Blair, whose father was Jimmy Lynton. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jimmy Lynton was his stage name - Charles Parsons was the real name of Blair's grandfather. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A small point, but I propose changing the sentence "Blair has held monthly press conferences, at which he fields questions in a less confrontational manner than in the Commons" to "Blair has held monthly press conferences, at which he fields questions from journalists". It's a reasonable point of view that the press conferences are less confrontational than PM's Questions in the Commons. It's not my view, having watched some of those press conferences. It's not attributed to anyone. What worries me though is the context - this sentence comes immediately after a reference to claims by critics that he has changed Parliamentary procedure to make PM's Question's easier for him. (By the way, shouldn't that be "critics have claimed" not "critics have noted"?). The effect at the moment is to suggest the Number 10 press conferences are part of a trend towards making it harder for people to ask him difficult questions. That's a point of view - another might be "Blair has held monthly press conferences, making him the first Prime Minister to allow the media to quiz him on such a regular basis." I suggest a very straight phrasing is better - he has a press conference, journalists ask him questions, full stop. Hobson 23:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, SqueakBox 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't both of those things at the bottom be updated to indicate that Gordon Brown will succeed him? Jonathan D Milne 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved a sentence about the Northern Ireland Peace Process (His contribution towards assisting the Northern Ireland Peace Process by helping to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement after 30 years of conflict is widely recognised. + sources) to what I hope is a more appropriate place. It was under "relationships with other European nations" while Northern Ireland is for better or worse, I make no comment, part of the UK. Arguably this has also had an impact on the UK's relationship with Ireland, but the paragraph makes no reference to that. Hobson 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely for the better, seriously what country would you rather be a part of: the United Kingdom which is a REAL country, has a population of over 60 million, has a glorious history surpassed by no other, is a nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN security council, is a great world power, has 14 overseas territories etc, or a breakaway province of the UK that is most famous for a potato famine, terrorism supporters both IRA & muslim, refusing to fight against Hitler out of contempt for the UK during World War II & a rabid hatred for their fellow British islanders? Btw, Northern Ireland is not a nation but part of one and there wouldn't be a United Kingdom without it. It is an ESSENTIAL part of the United Kingdom! YourPTR! 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How unpleasant. 81.157.125.245 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove this bigots comments? I'm Irish and find his comments about my home island offensive. ==UserYourPTR,the Republic of Ireland IS NOT A BREAKAWAY PROVINCE OF THE UK.Most Irish people do not hate the English nor do they support terrorism.In fact, the majority of the victims during the period known as "The Troubles" were Irish (Catholic and Protestant).I really don't care to debate the issue as to whether NI should remain part of the UK or be united with the ROI.It's up to the people of NI to decide.But please do not insult the nation that produced the decent,honourable man who was my father.The potato famine,by the way,was caused by the British government(notice I say GOVERNMENT not people).What I really want to say here is that the article neglected to mention the Omagh bombing and Tony Blair's subsequent visit to the town.It should have been commented on.jeanne (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see we have a little Scotland flag there, presumably to underline what is meant by Blair's birthplace being "Edinburgh, Scotland". I propose removing it per WP:FLAGCRUFT; this is a classic example of how flags can be misleading. Blair is no more of a Scot than John Major, even though he was born there. The flag oversimplifies the complexity of national origin, as they so often do. Please, can we remove it? --Guinnog 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Especially when you notice that something is in contravention of a wikipolicy DBD 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Normally I would, but on an article like this people are liable to have strong feelings about flags (one reason I am in general often against them). WP:FLAGCRUFT is not (yet) a policy either, but I will take your advice and go for it. No information will be lost in removing it. --Guinnog 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a claim in the Background and Family Life section that Blair was regarded as conspicuously "cool" amongst fellow pupils at Fettes. I have been unable to find any confirming evidence for this, in fact quite the reverse. This comment crops up all over the web, but it appears that this article is the primary source for it. Rubywine 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this unless it can be sourced. --Guinnog 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ignorant American question: if Blair is in the Dem-Socialist party, why is he allied with USA's conservative President?

He says he doesn't believe in left and right- only the third way. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blair became leader of the Labour Party after it had started shifting towards the right, and he oversaw the completion of that shift. Labour is no longer viewed as a left wing party. It's effectively centre-right. It still has many socialist members, but they have little or no influence on its policies. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are well to the left of Labour. Having said all that, the question remains why someone so conspicuously conservative as Tony Blair did not join the Tories. Perhaps he thought he'd have a better chance of making his place in history by remodelling the Labour Party. Rubywine 11:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Labour party served his identity. The Tories were seen as stuffy toffy nosed people stuck in the past. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I expect you're right, because of course he joined back in 1975. Ever since Thatcher, who took a flamethrower to the political landscape, I sometimes find it hard to remember that a lot of Tories were and are simply conservative with a small C. Rubywine 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - although would the party of Ted Heath (or even Thatcher in her first few months) have been so off putting for Blair for that reason? I've seen it written that Cherie is the more socialist of the Blairs and was often regarded as the one most likely to go far in the party - but both their articles suggest they met after he'd joined the party. 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on this in the section "relationship with the United States" with reference to one of Blair's speeches. A portion of the speech (which followed Bush's re-election in 2004) is: "Such is the strength of the United States, that the election of the President is an event of genuine significance right around the world. It is of particular significance to Britain, not least because America and the United Kingdom have a unique bond through our shared history and traditions, and above all, through our shared belief in the values of freedom and democracy. It is an important part of our own British national interest that the British Prime Minister protects and strengthens the bond between our two countries. I sought to do that first with President Clinton, and then with President Bush, and I look forward to continuing that strong relationship in President Bush's second term."Hobson 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Labour as centre right is pure original research as it is clearly a very left wing party. And since when were the left not militaristic? and not supporting of the US? there were good reasons not to invade Iraq but being left wing wasnt one of them, SqueakBox 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Harold Wilson did not support the Vietnam war did he. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That Labour is "clearly a very left wing party" is clear only to SqueakBox.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We cant draw any conclusions from that one case. The communists were originally in favour of waging war against the rest of the world to impose their left wing ideology, while the Labour Party certainly supported the waging of the second world war, SqueakBox 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on you can't compare Vietnam a totally pointless war with World War II which was clearly justified. Was it right for US industrialists to finance the nazi regime because Hitler opposed communism? Frankly the meddling of the US has caused a lot more harm in the world than good. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And just look at what who else the US supported- Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, the mujahidin in Afghanistan against the Russians which gave us the Taliban, etc. etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Castro put his soldiers in southern Africa etc. All I am saying is the right doesnt have a monopoly on violence, its politicians who make wars not right wing politicians, SqueakBox 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree that both Vietnam and Iraq were bad and unnecessary wars, where I disagree with you is that I dont think you can call Blair right wing for supporting the Iraq war, or for any other reason, SqueakBox 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what wing he is and I don't think he does either. His arrogance and callous indifference to the consequences of his actions strongly make me suspect that either (i) he is psychotic or (ii) completely blinded by "religion" (or some combination of the two). There was an excellent attack on Blair's distrastrous policies in last Sundays Sunday Times link here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly makes Thatcher seem completely reasonable, thanks for the link. I think most politicians are more trouble than they are worth and Blair and his cabinet are a good example of this, SqueakBox 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And then we here from Blair today that it was OK to pay a billion pounds (2 billion dollars) to a Prince of the House of Saud, authoritarian dictators who hate freedom and torture thousands of their own people... oh.. wait... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes well, I think we are agreed about Blair, SqueakBox 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not making stupid POV remarks. Conval 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Conval I think I'll add some of this excellent criticism to the article. Thanks Again! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Please remain civil if you want to contribute here, SqueakBox 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read WP policy on the proper use of a Discussion Page. Conval 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair is just as Right-wing as Thatcher was. He agrees with all of her policies.SmokeyTheCat 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see everyone remained civil here. It is not uncivilised, dear user SqueakBox, if somebody doesn't agree with your views! Please, @ all, don't react in such an over-sensitive way. --Maxl 12:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Conval who was being uncivil and acting in an oversensitive way... 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Seems appropriate.

Bliar's legacy? One word. Iraq.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

/*blinks* You again?

That's your opinion - 10 years as MP he has achived and fucked up a lot more than just one issue

It has been reported that, in the long-standing tradition of awarding prime ministers honours on their retirement, Blair will be appointed Knight of the Garter[76] (or possibly Knight of the Thistle[77]), so will be styled The Rt Hon Sir Tony Blair KG (or KT) MP.

Many things can be reported in the media as what might happen in the future, but they're just as much speculation as anything a Wikipedia editor might speculate about. The fact that such speculation has been published doesn't alter the fact that it's speculation; and we have policies about not speculating in our articles. In any case, he may refuse any offer of a knighthood. Also, he may be offered a peerage - and either accept it (in which case he forfeits his Commons seat and moves to the Lords), or reject it. I'm removing this paragraph for the above reasons. -- JackofOz 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

....that is used to site the statement in the lead that his early departure is due to the war, among other things, doesn't appear to be as phrased as the line which it cites, is it possible that the statement ought to be reviewed slightly to bring it more into line with the source that it cites? Always keeping in mind that the source cited is a news article. SGGH ^speak! 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source reports on comments some MPs made two years before he announced his resignation. The way the article is currently phrased, using that source, seems to imply that those comments in some way led to or explain his decision to resign. That seems unlikely to me. Hobson 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference with a new one, which is a media commentator who does speculate that Blair quit because of Iraq. I have done this because the sentence currently reads "Media commentators have speculated that Blair resigned earlier than he intended because of the unpopularity of his decision to lead the UK into war with Iraq" - and yet the refreence used to support this was not a media commentator who speculated that he resigned earlier than he intended because of his decision to lead the United Kingdom to war with Iraq but a news report (not commentary) on something that happened in 2005. It contained no speculation about why he resigned, and couldn't have done as it was written two years before the resignation. The article I linked to was written by Polly Toynbee which I accept might not be considered the best source (although she is a commentator in the media). I will try to find a better one - it's surprisingly hard - and if anyone else finds one before me, please use that. But the idea that the events described in this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4526435.stm - proves that Blair resigned two years later because the Iraq war was unpopular is OR in my view. It certainly says nothing about why he chose to resign.Hobson 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Tony_Blair. Looks to go unless a saviour appears. Think of the poor man's feelings, losing his FA star after being run from office. Marskell 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to describe David Reed as Tony Blair's predecessor as MP for Sedgefield. Reed represented a constituency called Sedgefield from 1970 to 1974, when it was dismembered in boundary changes; Blair was elected for the new constituency of Sedgefield in 1983 when a constituency of the same name was created. The point of listing the predecessor is to show who influenced the politician and something of the stamp of the local party; it is unlikely that David Reed had any influence on anyone in Sedgefield in 1983. Sam Blacketer 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Astrotrain has reverted my removal of the succession box for the 'order of precedence in England'. Quite frankly I do not see the point of this box. It gives no useful information because, unless readers happen to be organising a major state dinner and are anxious to keep to this outdated aspect of protocol, it simply makes no difference. I am certain that only a tiny minority of people even in Britain know what the Order of Precedence is, and that among this tiny minority, the vast majority do not care anything about it.

Including an order of precedence succession box therefore breaks Neutral point of view policy by wrongly suggesting that it is an important aspect of British society. It is an uninformative addition to the article and I propose it should be removed. Sam Blacketer 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sam Blackster. Politics rule 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

American officials articles have an order of precedence box on most of those pages. --myselfalso 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - whilst seeming insignificant to most people, even in the UK, there are still a number who do find this information useful, even if only from a historical perspective, and I don't believe that its inclusion does, as suggested, gives the impression that it is an important aspect of British society. Regards, Lynbarn 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment answer
Please reproduce this succession box. I never heard of it and may be unqualified to comment. I am curious as to what it is. Plumbing 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Coming from the RFC page): If this is verifiable information, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. I don't know that it warrants a box template, though. A precedence succession box would presumably be next to his political succession boxes, implying an importance on-par with those offices. That doesn't seem reasonable, at least from this Yank's perspective. Cmprince 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"....the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term." I think this is a contentious point, since Blair's first two terms were only four years each and therefore not "full terms" (which would be five years). MFlet1 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, as a "full term" means one term of Parliament, however long it is.--Richj1209 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is still an MP at the moment so stop trying to remove MP from his name in the infobox. Also he will always continue to be styled The Rt Hon because he will continue to be a privy councillor, so don't delete this (see John Major). Abc30 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says Tony Blair is a former MP. --myselfalso 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be changed. See Resignation from the British House of Commons. One cannot simply "resign" as an MP, but must be appointed to one of two crown offices. Nothing indicates that Blair as been appointed yet. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is indeed still an MP and this should be altered bloody quickly. It won't last long, of course, but he still is. At the moment, two parts (the intro vs. the piece about his standing down) directly contradict each other on this front.--Breadandcheese 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair has quit as MP. See [4]. --myselfalso 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That article you linked to does not say he has quit yet. It says "it was announced he was to quit as a member of parliament." Richard75 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair ceased to be a Member of Parliament when he was appointed Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds about 5 PM this afternoon. Sam Blacketer 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well why didn't someone say so. Abc30 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link: [5] Richard75 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair should still be named Rt. Hon (or at least have PC after his name.) As mentioned above

The PC is only given for members of the House of Lords who are members of the Privy Council, as being a lord give you the Rt. Hon title. Tony should have the starting title though

Not so sure about the PC aspect, as Sir John Major is styled PC, I think it is just down to personal preference and not cluttering honours that go before someones name. But on a broader point are all references to Rt Hon. being removed from all MP's in the main body of text? It seems that it is only referenced in the infobox?

The correct use of postnominals has nothing to do with personal preference. If John Major has PC after his name, it should be removed. His membership of the Privy Council is denoted by "The Rt Hon", as is Tony Blair's. -- JackofOz 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looking around the pages of other privy councillers it seems that the correct usage is somewhat inconsistent. Perhaps this indicates a broader (although minor) problem. Are there any links about that may confirm the correct usage of PC/Rt. Hon.?

The correct usage is not inconsistent, the rules are plain, simple and unavoidable – i.e. that every privy counsellor shall bear the honorific prefix of The Rt Hon, but those who hold this, or a higher, prefix, from another position (such as a peerage), should use the postnominal PC. Those are the rules. There is no matter of choice, and we should clean up our 'paedia if it suggests otherwise. DBD 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As this article is being updated ever couple of minutes, it is particularly important to use edit summaries for every edit. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's vandalism above his picture - someone who knows what they're doing fix it aha.

hello. I read a report by AP about a mother in Kosovo naming her son Tonibler (Albanian pronunciation of Tony Blair) to honor Blair and his role during Kosovo war. I think we should include this some where. Link: http://news.aol.co.uk/kosovan-boy-named-after-blair/article/20070511070409990001 --Noah30 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was also mentioned recently on the BBC (Radio 4 - probably either the "Today" program, or "PM") although I can't remember when I heard it. Lynbarn 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the intro say something about this? I think he was the longest-serving Labour prime minister ever. Also he must have served one of the longest single terms as prime minister. Surely notable? Bluewave 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Lord Liverpool, only Margaret Thatcher has served longer as PM than Tony Blair; he served as PM longer than any other Labour leader ever and longer than any Liberal leader since William Gladstone. He served a longer continual term as PM than any Non-Conservative PM (including their forerunner the Tory Party as being Conservative) since Sir Robert Walpole for the Whig Party in the 18th Century.--Lord of the Isles 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was I believe, the longest serving Chancellor of Germany - is it really what we remember him for? How about 'First Prime Minister to enter Britain into an illegal war'? Or 'Prime Minister who pressed a button that killed more women and children than any other'? 'First PM to get paid for advertising Calvin Klein boxer shorts'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.225.208.16 (talk • contribs).

I think you'll find that Winston Churchill initiated (rightly or wrongly, as women and children die in wars that in many circumstances are vastly better than the alternative - including in my opinion both Wars in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan; the point you raise though is a strictly factual one of number of deaths) actions that resulted in far more deaths of women and children especially given that many of the weapons of the time were very crude - hundreds of thousands of civilians died in conventional bombing in Germany in the early 1940s alone; how about colonial actions in the 18th and 19th centuries. Vast numbers of people would almost certainly have died if the Iraqi Ba'athist regime had remained and power and without prospect of an end to it in sight, Iraq actually has a government with broader support than any Iraqi government since the state was formed in 1923. With regard to legality of the war, the Iraqi regime were clearly in breach of the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement and of UN Resolution 1441 and subsequent resolution - they were required to co-operate unconditionally with weapons inspections which they were not doing, and weapons inspectors discovered missiles with new guidance systems banned under those documents and also exceeding the 150km limit set under the aforesaid UN resolutions and Ceasefire Agreement - breaching a Ceasefire Agreement is a de facto resumption of War. And another point is that you're assertion has no relevance to his length of time in office.--Lord of the Isles 16:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Otto von Bismarck, so please check your facts before trying to be clever. And although it would be nice if Blair was the first PM to take Britain into a so-called "illegal war", I think British history is littered with ignoble conflicts against other nations. Of course the length of Blair's time in office is highly noteworthy. Richardhearnden 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point the liberation of Iraq was plainly not illegal, whatever you may think of whether it was the right thing to do. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the liberation of Iraq hasnt happened so I am unsure where that came from but its true that we arent here to pursue our own political views while his length of time in office compared to others is certainly relevant, SqueakBox 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I had to read the following sentence very carefully to make sure I understood it... "His wife Cherie Booth is a practising Roman Catholic, and Blair has attended Catholic Masses at Westminster Cathedral, while on holiday in Italy, and with his family at Number 10 Downing Street."

To someone who is not familiar with English landmarks, this line could be read as if it were trying to say that Westmister Cathedral is in Italy (ie that Blair attended Mass at Westminster Cathedral during his holiday in Italy). It takes careful reading to see that it is actually part of a list of three places where Blair attenced Catholic Mass)... I know the sentence is gramatically correct, but perhaps it could be re-phraised to avoid this confusion? 38.105.193.11 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted for a second time the addition of a succession box for TB as the holder of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. The editor who reinserted the box said "we include noble titles and this is worthy of inclusion", but the comparison is a poor one.

The Chiltern Hundreds is not really an appointment at all: it is a type of legal fiction, a non-existent post to which an MP may be briefly appointed to allow them to leave Parliament, because it is not techically posible to resign, only to be disqualified by accepting an "office of profit under the Crown".

Nobody will ever be announced at any gathering or in any list of career achievements as the "Steward of the Chiltern Hunreds". In a biographical article, the holding of that nominal post deserves a minor footnote, or at most a brief mention, but listing it in a succesion box gives a misleading impression that holding this post is a notable matter of power or achievement or rank. It is none of the above; it's just a glorified resignation letter.

The Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is a quaint and ancient tradition, and I would personally hate to see it being "rationalised" out of existence. But while its appropriate to note it, we shouldn't hype it ... and that's the effect of giving it a succesion box. It is mentioned in the article, and TB is in the List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds. Can we leave it at that, without the box? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree to the removal of this 'succession boxcruft'. There really is no real world sense in which Tony Blair has followed Terry Davis in any duty, responsibility, or significance. The office is a pure legal fiction and holders don't actually even get any profit, neither from the Crown nor from anyone else. And I'm going to remove the 'Order of Precedence' succession box from Gordon Brown now too. Sam Blacketer 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to address the points highlighted on the main page before this can be considered for GA status - e.g. images listed for deletion, trivia list. Verisimilus T 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair's impact on the Royal Navy (he's been described as "scuttling" it) should be covered. - MSTCrow 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As he is no longer an MP, surely he isn't the Right Hon Tony Blair anymore? 90.192.92.21 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That title derives from him being a Privy Councillor, not from being a Member of Parliament. He remains a Privy Councillor (it's a lifetime appointment). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you can be stripped of the title, but he hasn't, so he remains the Rt Hon. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Still reviewing, could be quick failed but I won't do that yet; Image:Labour manifesto 97.jpg needs fair use and you have a wikify tag under portrayals (convert to prose maybe). These are also a lack of citations in some areas if you want to check those through. Like I said though, still reviewing. - J Logan ^t/_c: 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify now on citations, areas such as criticism are well covered, although you are missing a lot in the rest of the article, for example Blair in the media, in opposition and some areas of his background. In addition, some sources are deadlinks, the No.10 bio for instance - could easily be corrected. - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've but this on hold now, I've looked through and it seems okay in most areas, some are too small though like Relationship with Rupert Murdoch and Relationship with other European nations. I suggest someone at least starts to fix some of these things if you want this to pass. - J Logan ^t/_c: 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Have no seen any real improvement so far or any desire to address the problems. Failing GA.- J Logan ^t/_c: 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere Tony Blair was a Freemason, is this true or not? 24.128.144.74 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it given his now public declaration of the Roman Catholic faith.SECisek 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this true? It's been widely speculated that he's about to convert, but I've seen no reports that he has in fact adopted Catholicism. -- JackofOz 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Repoorted as such: [6]SECisek 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, not quite. That article refers to a "prediction" that Blair will soon declare himself a Catholic. He hasn't done so yet. And even if he does, it seems he still won't be going through the formal protocols to become a fully-fledged Catholic. Let's wait and see what actually happens. -- JackofOz 06:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a Roman Catholic does not stop you from becoming a Freemason. The Vatican have condemned Freemasonary in the past and seem to still be opposed to it, they still advise Catholics not to become masons and call it 'incompatible' with Christianity, but some Catholics chose to ignore this and become masons in any case. Freemasonry itself has no problem admitting Catholics and a number of high-profile Catholics have become masons over the years. They were not thrown out of the Catholic church. Besides, if Blair were a mason, he would presumably have joined many years back, long before his conversion to Catholicism.

As for Blair himself, he is rumoured to be in the lodge, but it's not clear what the truth is. The Grand Lodge in London have said Blair isn't a Freemason and his name apparently is not on their register. However, some members of Winston Churchill's old lodge (I forget the name of it) have supposedly said Blair is a Freemason and that he was initiated there a few years after becoming PM, and that he still attends Lodge meetings there regularly. In addition, he has supposedly been seen going into this lodge and on occasion is supposed have given civil servants and certain diplomats the phone number for the lodge if they needed to contact him on a certain evening. If he is a mason, he must somehow have had his name removed from Grand Lodge's register and got them to lie on his behalf, and quite why he would feel the need to keep his membership so secret - even from other masons looking at the register - is somewhat odd. On the other hand, it may be just be rumours put about by newspapers and conspiracy theorists, there's no real way of knowing (unless you'd like to go and apply to join Churchill's old lodge, and then you'll find out). I'm not sure if it's really that significant anyway, there are important issues related to possible corruption and conflicts of interest regarding Freemasonry and public officials, but the notion of Freemasonry being a secret conspiracy trying to take over the world is a bit silly. My uncle's a mason and I don't think he's instested in world domination. Regardless, if Blair is actually a mason, it wouldn't surprise me, it seems like the kind of thing that would appeal to him, being an semi-secret organisation that practice pseudo-mystical rituals and claims to be able to help you find enlightenment and the "the path to God", all while helping you find some desirable social/business contacts. MarkB79 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This man has three nipples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.154.135 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really true that Tony Blair´s paternal grandparents were "English"? If so, why was his father adopted in Glasgow? Shulgi 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The story is quite odd. His father's mother Mary Augusta "Gussie" Ridgway Bridson aka Celia Ridgeway was a singer and dancer and the father Charles Parsons aka Jimmy Lynton was a comedian and escapologist. They had a fling resulting in the birth of Blair's father in 1923 (although the mother was still married to a photographer Hugh Alexander Wilson). They met Mary Blair, a socialist and communist sympathiser whilst on tour (presumably in Glasgow) and obviously decided that she was a nice lady who would look after their baby for them. She only fostered the baby at first but later adopted him. Leo's real mother Gussie Bridson had had two daughters Pauline and Jenefee by her first husband Cyril Wolferstan Tordiffe (they divorced in 1913, she married Hugh Alexander Wilson in 1915). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking his grandmother was probably more Manx than english as her mother Maria Montford was born in Douglas Isle of Man, and the Bridson family also originated there. There is more info on these pages [7], [8]. From the latter article it appears that Leo Blair's real parents married c. 1935 and tried to regain custody of him but Mary Blair refused and also that Leo was denied inheritance from the Bridson's by Mary Blair. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that the "Criticism" section is two-and-a-half times as long as that on "Blair as Prime Minister". The importance of the subject derives from the fact that he was Prime Minister, not the fact that he attracted criticism – and no article which displays such obvious imbalance should ever be treated as a serious candidate for GA status. There are "main articles" for both Premiership of Tony Blair and Criticism of Tony Blair; it should therefore be possible to re-balance the article without entirely deleting significant material. Vilĉjo 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The page is not too long so merely expand the "Blair as Prime Minister" section if you think it is too short. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi this was posted on the World Economic Forum article and i wanted to know if the editors on this page knew this to be true or false, and even better had a source.

"Its highest governance body is the Foundation Board consisting of 20 members including former British Prime Minsiter Tony Blair"

Thanks for your work ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless and until it comes into the mainstream [press etc that he is Catholic to oput that in the infobox is vandalsim and will be treated as such, SqueakBox 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomhatton1 is five minutes ahead of you by reverting Blair's religion to Anglican!Phase4 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, it was Tom who noticed it not me and I was commenting on his revert, SqueakBox 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to [[9]] article on TIME.com, it would appear that Mr. Blair has formally converted to Catholicism.jr98664 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there hardly any mention of Blairs role in the Iraq war here? Is there some kind of attempt to whitewash his past? Damburger 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think there should be more on that topic. I doubt there is a "whitewash" but more likely a tendency to avoid/bury controversial aspects of Western political leadership by most contributors who seem to equate western political controversy with non-importance. It results in bias by omission but does seem to be the accepted course of article construction. You won't find the same reluctance to publish the controversial behavior of non-western regimes. Now that the article is locked it's doubtful anything can be done because the habitual contributors will simply ignore your point. Mr.grantevans 13:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's substance in this criticism, because the editorial decision was taken to fork the mass of detail about government actions during Blair's time as Prime Minister to a separate article on Premiership of Tony Blair. There is detailed discussion of Blair's policy on Iraq in that article; here, the article is summarised and Iraq is mentioned in the summary. Almost everything that Blair did in relation to Iraq was done in his official role as Prime Minister. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,that explains it. Would it be possible to put a noticable link to Premiership of Tony Blair in this article? Mr.grantevans 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Where should a reference to his attendance in 1993 go?

[10] Mr.grantevans 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere, because it's almost entirely uninteresting. Wikipedia does not endorse the Bilderberg conspiracy theory; almost all leading politicians in the major Western democracies have attended at one stage, so it's hardly surprising that Blair went. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's vaguely interesting as I remember reading back in the 90's that Blair told the House of Commons, in response to a MP's question, that nobody from his cabinet had ever attented a Bilderberg conference (he was asked how many members of his cabinet had ever attended Bilderberg, and he responded "none" and left it at that). Now you could be generous and assume he was referring to members of the cabinet not including himself (he wasn't asked whether he personally had ever attended) but his response was still a lie in any case as Mandelson had attended. Why Blair chose to deny his and Mandelson's attendance at Bilderberg is a mystery, especially given that his own attendance was already public knowledge (it having been mentioned in a national newspaper in '93, though he may not have been aware of that I suppose) and he must surely have known Mandelson's attendance could easily come to light, which it did. Lying about it naturally created a huge amount of suspicion and not surprisingly fed the conspiracy theories. I am not aware of any other world leader lying about their involvement with Bilderberg, most are reasonably open about it. If nothing else, it's a cast-iron example of Blair lying to parliament. I agree however that it isn't really worthy of mention on Blair's page, though it may be worth mentioning briefly on the Bilderberg page, as I say he is the only senior politican I know of who has openly lied about his and his associate's involvement with Bilderberg. MarkB79 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in talking about conspiracy theories. What I am saying is that his involvement with a powerful group of aristocrats,businessmen and politicians deserves at least the same mention as the fact he plays the guitar. Mr.grantevans 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't say you were talking about conspiracy theories but many people will assume that as soon as you mention Bilderberg. I'm not discussing any conspiracy theories, just pointing out that Blair's involvement in Bilderberg is notable for his decision (unlike other British politicians involved with Bilderburg such as Kenneth Clarke and Denis Healey) to try and hide his and Mandelson's conference attendance, to the point of openely lying about it in Parliament. That has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories (although it understandably feeds suspicion). If you want to add a brief sentence about his attendance at Bilderberg you can try and add it under 'Early Career' I suppose but I suspect it will be removed by others. Incidentally, Blair's involvement with Bilderberg, as far as is known, consists of only one conference attendance in 1993, before he became Labour leader. There is a rumour he attended in 1999 but this is unproven. He was never a regular attendee, unlike Mandelson, so his involvement with Bilderberg was quite limited. MarkB79 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,my comment was directed towards Fys. “Ta fys aym”. Mr.grantevans2 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I apologise as I forgot to sign in initially when I responded to you. In any case, as I say try adding it under 'Early Career' (which is were it would belong, as his attendance at Bilderberg was prior to him becoming leader of the Labour Party) but I strongly suspect someone will remove it. MarkB79 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly more notable than his guitar playing. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll add something in. Mr.grantevans2 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Blair didn't lie (at least, not about this). Asked if he had attended since 1997, he said he hadn't; asked if his cabinet colleagues had attended, he said that those records are not kept centrally. He was responding to questions asked in July 2006, and two minutes' search of Hansard will find it for you. Nwhyte 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not talking about that question, that is an entirely different parliamentary question from many years later. I'm referring to a question Blair was asked by MP Christopher Gill in March 1998. Asked which members of his government had attended Bilderberg conferences he simply responded "none" and to put it bluntly it was a flat-out lie as both and he and Mandelson had attended. In fact it's been mentioned in newspapers a number of times as a cast-iron example of Blair lying to parliament. The hansard source is here: [11]. MarkB79 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good sourcing. Mr.grantevans2 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that we follow NPOV, and ban OR. If you think it merits mentioning, find a proper source (better, two) for the claim that Blair lied in his response. Don't go claiming it yourself, nor stating it as fact.

James F. (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken.Thanks. Mr.grantevans2 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your paragraph is broken because the Prime Minister is not responsible in Parliament for his actions when in Opposition. The answer in 1998 refers to his time in government and not to 1993. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking he was responsible for any of his actions as an MP and any other actions that might affect him in his official capacities, being an MP is an official position and the position of Leader of the Opposition is also a salaried statutory position. So far as the quote goes it is referring to what members of the government did at a time before Labour was elected and most were MPs at the time. People get asked all kinds of things in parliament including what they did in their schooldays and what they said at such and such a time in the past and how that relates to more recent positions. As for whether Tony Blair lied or not, maybe he forgot. At this moment I have no opinion on whether a reference should be included or not, but thought I would make some observations on it.--Lord of the Isles 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely wrong. The Prime Minister is only responsible for what he does as Prime Minister. He is not responsible for going back to when he was Leader of the Opposition, even if the post is salaried, and in any case Tony Blair was not Leader of the Opposition in 1993. This paragraph is total bollocks and degrades the quality of the encyclopaedia and it must go. Now. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He attended it and he said none in the government had, matter of fact - whether it is considered of sufficent importance to include it in this article is another matter, the whole attendance of the conference seems a fairly trivial matter to me. It may be he interpreted the question to refer to when he was in government. In fact so long as he didn't actually lie he could have said anything or nothing at all, if it is PMQ's questions can be about anything in relation to any public roles he has although there is no requirement to answer, the PM can also choose to answer questions that strictly speaking are not permitted because they don't relate to things he has responsibility for. If someone wants to ask the PM what way they tie their shoes and how this compares to how they used to tie their shoes this would be permissable under House of Commons conventions. This article also is about Tony Blair, not only what Tony Blair did as Prime Minister and even if it was what he did or said as Prime Minister inevitably gets compared with what he did before and if the question is considered wholly innapropriate it can be struck out of Hansard and this was not.--Lord of the Isles 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't a clue what you're writing about. You've never filled in a Written Question form in the House of Commons nor have you ever had the Table Office refusing a question. I have. A question about the PM's sartorial choices would be inadmissible. The fact is the PM only answers questions about their time as Prime Minister. PS your total lack of knowledge is shown by your reference to Hansard; it's nothing to do with Hansard, the Department of the Official Report does not screen questions for appropriateness. The Table Office does that, and if they don't like a question, it doesn't even appear on the Order Paper. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a question in some way relates to government policy or attitudes about government policy then it gets accepted, even if it is apparently trivial and inane, which actually would be the reason for removing the reference about it because things said in the House of Commons can be trivial and inane and this is not Hansard. On many occasions Tony Blair has been asked about government policies and his positions on various matters and his attendance at this or that and issues have been raised in relation to things he has done in the past - naturally if there is a difference then it may be used to subtly question the consistency of the PM and other government ministers on such matters. If for example a question had been put down asking if current government ministers had ever been to a Communist Party conference or had been members of the Communist Party then it could be considered to have implications for the way they viewed the world, people who had been members of the BNP equally - the question though appears to have been badly put in that it left a bit of a loophole for Tony Blair to interpret it as referring to during the time in government, if it had said at any time in the past then the answer he gave certainly would not have been true.--Lord of the Isles 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How many of your questions has the Table Office rejected then? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following (at least temporarily) from the lead section:

Despite the powerful office Blair occupied, he has never once been listed as one of the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine

The reference given for this is an article in The Independent dated April, 2004: Exclusive: Time 100 list; Revealed: the world's 100 most influential

What concerns me here is that by placing it in the lead we make The Independent's editorial policy our own. Undoubtedly Time Magazine is considered, at least by its readers, to be influential and perhaps authoritative. The Independent's writers agree, apparently. But how far does this go? The editor of Time magazine himself put this into perspective in the same article:

"Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac are not there either...This is a worldwide list. There are no Western European political leaders on it because they are not that powerful or influential at this time."

This rings true, at least in the sense that it illuminates the thinking of Time Magazine's editors, who compiled the list. Other British people who are listed include Simon Cowell, who is not particularly powerful but is influential (Time magazine draws a distinction between the two and includes a mix of power mongers and influence-mongers).

It is interesting that the current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the 2005 Time 100 list, and George W. Bush, still US President, didn't make it in 2007. But the decision of one editorial panel of one popular news magazine isn't "lead section" material. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement with the above statements. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it there because it's extremely notable. Time magazine is the most influential magazine in the world so their opinion on who has influence is extremely relevant. If it were any other magazine I would agree it's not lead material, but Time is the ultimate cultural authority. Also it's more than one editorial panel since he's failed to make the list every year. Slackergeneration 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Placing a minor TV pundit on a reality show ie Simon Cowell over the prime minister immediately shows the level of BS they are talking. 2)It is not appropriate to discribe the entirity of Blairs time in office with its three wars, 20billion off african debt, the creation of a living minimum wage (labour policy for 20 years hedid it) and winning 3 elections in a row (a first for a labour party leader) and only one of two people to do that in the 20th century in britain with "oh he did not make it into an arbitary list somewhere" 3)The list shows the amero-centerism of TIME and its editors/readers not anything usful or more important of ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE. This should not be in the article full stop, let alone in the lead. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS as for "Time magazine is the most influential magazine in the world" try the lancet or Jane's Defence Weekly. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Advanced warning: the image Image:Blair at the European Parliament 26-10-05.jpg is to be wiped fromm the Commons. I suggest editors work to replace the image before it is removed. - J Logan ^t: 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current image (as of today, 21 September 2007) is dreadful and looks very amateurish with that cut-out white background. Can we put up a photo that doesn't look like it was Photoshopped by a seven-year-old?--216.73.249.184 19:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please. Plus he looks like he got his front tooth knocked out. Reginmund 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He does actually have a discoloured front tooth. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I don't have the best photoshopping skills, but I do think that that image would be the best choice if someone else could make it better, like put a colour in the background and maybe change the contrast a little, all of the photos we have of Blair are quite crap tbh, at least this one is high res and can be edited--Ruddyell 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what about a crop of Image:Blair Heiligendamm G8 2007 002.jpg it seems good enough?--Ruddyell 11:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a crop of a similar one Image:Blair_Heiligendamm_G8_2007_006.jpg. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add the change that Tony Blair went to the same school as Rowan Atkinson. Prefrebably in the current sentence where it states his primary shcool years.

Davohughes 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blair can't ever have been associated with someone like Rowan Atkinson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.41.240 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In the November 10/11 2007 Financial Times Magazine (Lunch with the FT: Clarissa Dickson Wright, Rahul Jacob), the interviewee reveals that Blair was nick-named Miranda at university. Is this notable enough for inclusion? JonStrines 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that Blair has resigned from being PM.

Is he still a politician now? Is he still the regular MP in the House of Commons? Or has he really left the political life behind him and now living in retirement? Shin-chan01 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the article. --ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shin-chan01 you are a moron --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.57 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you change the following text from: ... Rossnowlagh, a beach resort near Hazel's hometown of Ballyshannon which is the venue of the main Orange order parade in the Republic of Ireland.[10]

to: ... Rossnowlagh, a beach resort near Hazel's hometown of Ballyshannon in south County Donegal, Ireland.

Reason: relevance. Tony Blairs family holidays in Rossnowlagh had nothing to do with the one-day Orange Order parade. They were there for the beach, the ice-cream, the sandcastles and the sun, when it shone!

194.46.244.9 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: do any of the Editors of this page care to comment/respond on this issue? It was entered on 30th November 2007 and so far no response/overlooked. Its all dandy having pages locked and only accesible to responsible editors, I fully applaud that, but with that comes a responsibility to look at entry requests in a timely manner? Thanks. 194.46.171.161 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently not protected. {{sofixit}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tony Blair signature.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An item in your article on Tony Blair reports, "For his unwavering support in the security of the United States, Mr. Blair was honored with the Congressional Medal of Honor on July 18th, 2003."

This is a factual error. The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded, as I understand it, for bravery to serving members of the U.S. Military. Tony Blair's name is not listed on a Medal of Honor website (specifically, www.cmohs.org) that provides the names of all recipients for that award. Blair's name, however, is listed on the official website for the "Congressional Gold Medal," (www.congressionalgoldmedal.com). According to that website, the medal was awarded to Blair in 2003, which squares with the date in the Wikipedia article. The Congressional Gold Medal, however, is not the same award as the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I hope this is helpful.

Follow-up, December 14, 2007. The undersigned made this change himself to the Tony Blair article on this date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwuliger (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Wuliger

Gregwuliger (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention to his alliance with conservative former president of Spain José María Aznar and the meeting with him and George Bush in the Azores island in 2003. Isn't it important in the first moments of Iraq War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.155.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so TB had a lot of opponents, but criticism sections are discouraged under MOS guidelines. We should just merge negative opinions and criticism into the main body of the article. "Dubya's" article has the same, obvious problem...his page is criticism and nothing more. We need to be fair and balanced...remember that Manual of Style people...remember it. Does anyone else have any input on this? Because I find it unfair to have criticism sections for some political figures but not others. This way we are merely displaying POV and every politician should be treated with impartiality, especially on what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that that picture of Blair is appropriately frightening. Good job to whoever posted that one! → ɧʒЖχ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ) 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Tony Blair is now a Roman Catholic. It's all over the BBC News channels!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks.--Alf ^melmac 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what his grandfather George Corscadden, a proud Orangeman would have thought of that? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it still illegal for a Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister? Bluewave (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the prohibition on a Roman Catholic succeeding to the throne (see Act of Settlement 1701). Catholics have been able to enter parliament since 1828. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I don't think there ever has been a Catholic PM though, has there? Also, doesn't the PM appoint the bishops of the CofE, which would be a bit strange if he was a Catholic. Bluewave (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

       He wasn't catholic as PM he converted shortly after.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.1.32 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 

The Prime Minister makes recommendations to the Monarch. While in practice the recommendation will be accepted, there is still a distinction between "appointing" and "recommending". Whitstable (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been other non-Anglican PMs and I think the practice is for another senior minister who is an Anglican to take on this bit of the job. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For some time I've wondered why we have a religion field in userboxes about politicians. Britain is basically a secular state, so Blair's religion in office (and I think it's obvious that he was functionally Roman Catholic well before May, 1997), while of some interest, probably shouldn't be in the infobox at all, so I've been bold and removed it. We should probably remove that field from all politician infoboxes.

The controversy about Blair's conversion to Catholicism should be covered in the article, of course, and quite prominently. The issue with the infobox is quite separate from that. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As this information appears on the information box itself (and therefore on Edward Heath's article etc.), making the change to the information box itself would be the right solution. Doing it here, without 'treating the root' leaves it open to being reverted, if it hasn't been by the time I've finished this, I'll be surprised.--Alf ^melmac 17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was "obvious that he was functionally Roman Catholic well before 1997" to everyone but Roman Catholics, in as much as he doesn't hold much truck with most of the Church's positions on social issues. (Anton) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.104.222 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a 19 year old girl who is not notable independent of her father (notability is not inherited.) Her article consists of comments about the cost of her education, which would not be worthy of comment at all if her father was not a Labour politician, and that party usually disagreeing in principle with people receiving other than the state education everyone else gets. In essence, the article is just a criticism/comment about Tony Blair and so should be merged here if it all isn't already mentioned here, in which case it should be just a redirect (I've not looked yet if it's covered in the Tony article.)Merkinsmum 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, not notable at all and therefore I have redirected the page, please feel free to merge any content, I couldn't find any worth merging myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the best, we can now draw a line under her attempted suicide, etc, as that's what the talk page of that article had become all about. Whitstable (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This was enough of a press secret to be public knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.174.10 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rt Hon and PC both denote privy council membership. You must use one or the other, not both. Should one be removed?

Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it should be PC - this is only used by peers in the Privy Council as they are already "The Right Honourable" by virtue of their peerages. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not *strictly* the case. Its down to the individual, if they are not peers, to choose. If Blair didn't want to be called The Right Hon. Tony Blair he would be perfectly within his rights to style himself "Tony Blair PC" so not strictly clear cut that it "should" be the PC that is dropped but that is the standard way of doing things... Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn Blair attempted suicide.

The senate of the University of Prishtina, Kosova, has decided to award the title of Doktor Honoris Causa to Tony Blair on 22.1.2008. See http://www.rtklive.com/?newsId=17052&PHPSESSID=dbf650ee66976fa2af6f1a69c5c38ef5&PHPSESSID=7e2f92e7857230a644e056165bfdc35b .Rajubi kosova (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to avoid the passive voice when repeating reports which are likely to be considered controversial. To say Carole Caplin "is credited" with introducing Cherie Blair to magic pendants and bio-electric shields might suggest that she is widely credited with this, or credited by just about everyone with this, when the source seems to be an Observer story which quotes a Daily Mail story and adds that Downing Street never denied it so it's probably true. In a similar way "it is claimed" that she took part in "New Age sexual techniques" is a bit strong when the claim seems to come from a single source, a book by someone called Paul Scott, as paraphrased by the Daily Mail. From my brief search on the interweb, Paul Scott appears to be another Daily Mail reporter. The Daily Mail is a perfectly reasonable source to use but I think even its greatest admirers would agree it represents a particular point of view, especially on the topic of Ms Blair.Hobson (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, please read Nick Cohen's Observer article closely. He makes it clear that he is citing the Daily Mail, and adds: "This can't possibly be true, I thought. I phoned Downing Street and asked if they denied the story. The press officer promised to call back, but never did. I checked if the Mail had received a complaint. The paper hadn't heard a squeak of protest. I think we can take the silence as a confirmation." If I am reverted again I am not going to revert back but I would ask editors again to avoid using the passive voice for something like this (attribute it to Cohen if you really think that's justified, but not "is credited").Hobson (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The death of Blair's mother Hazel in 1975 is said to have greatly affected him and prompted his renewed spiritual commitment whilst at Oxford.

Is there any source for this?

I am interested who has been/is considered blairs close aides, specifically unelected advisor type characters. so far (please add to and correct list):

• Jonathan Powell
• Ruth Turner (political advisor)
• Anji Hunter
• Sally Morgan, Baroness Morgan of Huyton
• Michael Levy, Baron Levy
• Jeremy Heywood
• Anthony Giddens (Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Infobox should point out that he did not convert until after leaving office. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever go anywhere? I agree and I'm tempted to do it myself, but if it's already been done and reverted, then there's not much point without discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A debate over the inclusion of the monarch in the infoboxes of Canadian prime ministers, similar to what is done here and at all other British PM articles, has re-emerged at Talk:Stephen Harper#Re-open discussion: Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. Opinions on the matter are welcome, if not necessary! --G2bambino (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The monarch part of the infobox looks quite confusing as well, looks like John Prescott is Monarch? can someone please fix 86.134.179.94 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at this and notice the same is true with other Prime Minister articles, such as Margaret Thatcher and John Major. I would think most people would know that John Prescott isn't the British monarch, but I gues it might confuse some. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix the problem. Perhaps someone will look at it? Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask me my three priorites? Education, Iraq's Oil, Regime change because i'm Bush's lap dog File:Tony Blair signature.svg 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: this article (24th april 2008) in it it has been reported that tony blair exposed himself to a pool of secretaries. "it wasn't what he'd done but how long he remained there" a credible witness said (reported through here wikipedia:tony blair). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.68.83 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned somewhere? LONDON: Former British prime minister Tony Blair was left red-faced when he was caught travelling on a train without a ticket and said he had no cash to pay the fare. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23590518-29677,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The former prime minister's official portrait by Phil Hale was last night unveiled at the Houses of Parliament (25th april 2008)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/04/tony_blair_portrait.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.238.109 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Respectfully i would like to say you rspectfully that now a days i am doing research on this hot issue.I did 95% of my research i have fruitfull result and solution in the light of my research.I am waiting for your reply after that i will send you mail in detail.

thankyou,

Yours sincerly,

Tariq Munir

rana_lhr@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.176.107 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He is a war criminal, and one day will be tried for what he has done. Every Iraqi children who has been killed by American and British bombs since 1990 are still growing up and he cannot help it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.108.144 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to be mostly uninformed speculation. What will most likely happen is that Blair will be made a Knight of the Garter as soon as a vacancy appears, and recieve a life peerage as Baron Blair after the next general election. An earldom is unlikely as Thatcher, who is the most similar prime minister to Blair in terms of length of service, did not recieve a hereditary peerage. It is possible that Tony Blair, in addition to an honour and a peerage might be granted a baronetency, to allow him to pass on a minor title to his son, as Thatcher did. However, neither Brown nor Cameron, the only people likely to become Prime Minister are likely to admire Blair sufficiently, as Major supposedly admired Thatcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.238.54 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Section removed due to Wikipedia not being a crystal ball and original research. George The Dragon (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

George, you were quite right to remove it: WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity I wondered if it did, and it did, and I'm guessing it shouldn't? Don't know how to sort it myself or I would. Ta 82.19.66.183 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. The man may be completely insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.178.41 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who was he? Who was this man? Did he really care about politics?

Who was he. That photograph is him ... right?

were we ever such fools?

what is the ultimate game of politics if true that man got to govern england? why?

is that him is that really him? (blair 1986)

DAMN

we are such fools —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.51.136 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

http://michaelgreenwell.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/young_tony_blair.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.51.136 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they Blairs invention? Apologies, I am researching for an article on Blairs 'academies'. I cannot find an answer and was directed here. Can anyone answer this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.1.32 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.255.28 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely Tony Blair was not called Esq from birth? I remember addressing letters to adult males in the 1960s to "so-and-so Esq." but I think as a child in the 1950s and 60s he would have been Master Tony Blair. I think the presence of the term Esq here arises from a confusion with the American usage of Esquire which is unknown in the UK. Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience even the adult/minor distinction is nowadays ignored and Esq. is used so freely that it's almost irrelevant to one's style. There may have been traditional style guides but many people don't look at them for their use and I wouldn't be surprised if there are references to "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Esq" before 1971/4. Timrollpickering (talk)

Can somebody elaborate not just on Blairs promise to dissolve class structures but also on his own perceived "class" and how it looks now. Blair regarded himself as "upper class" and often in conversation he would refer to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.59.76 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at just how long this current talk page is getting, and also how most arguments/discussions seem to be going no wear, i strongly recommend this current talk page for archives. (88.109.100.65 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC))