Schrank: Justice Delayed

Tony, Tony, Tony

Wait, Tony Blair actually admitted to being wrong about something ?  That can't be right, surely ?  That Tone ?  Our Tone ?  That lying corrupt egotistical pile of human excrement ?  Never.

Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.

The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.

Bullshit !  There was more no urgency for devolution specifically in your time than there was for reform of the Lords, and your response to the one was as cack-handed as the other.  As always, you were looking more to your own legacy as the great reformer, seeking to re-make British 'democracy' in your own image than you were thinking through the long-term consequences of your actions.  In the case of the Lords, you could have left things as they were, could have engaged in a long-term review of the options available, could have respected the consistent will of the electorate for an elected House.  But no...Tony knew best as always, and so the great overcrowded House of Political Cronies was born.

If you wanted to a) deflate the movement for independence in Scotland*, and b) address the broader concern of lack of representation across the UK** (including in England) by the ever Home County-centred government in Westminster, you could have come up with a plan for more regional and citywide devolution.  Instead of which, you completely ignored the English question, which has led us today to this EVEL nonsense, whilst you established 'national' assemblies in Scotland and Wales based upon largely arbitrary borders dating back to Norman times.  And then what ?  At best, perhaps you could buy the unionists some time whilst you re-thought a broader strategy...

But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.

You didn't have any strategy, whatsover, did you ?  You created 'national' assemblies, and what, you thought they would tire of power after a few years and beg Westminster to re-absorb their responsibilities ?  That the Scots & Welsh seeing functioning assemblies governing over their respective 'nations' wouldn't beg the obvious question, why not more powers ?  Why draw the line here and not there ?  Why be governed by an unresponsive body tucked away in the furthest regions of Southeastern England at all ?

His admission came after a new poll, published almost a year after the referendum, showed for the first time a majority of Scots would support independence if another vote was staged now.

Don't fuckin' blame 'em !  Especially after how they were treated not just by the increasingly fascistic 'Conservative' party, but also by members of yer so-called 'Labour' party in the last election.

...Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.

Yes, yes it was.  Arsehole.

...Mr Blair said: "I did feel that we made a mistake on devolution. We should have understood that, when you change the system of government so that more power is devolved, you need to have ways of culturally keeping England, Scotland and Wales very much in sync with each other.

“We needed to work even stronger for a sense of UK national identity. But I don't accept the idea that we should never have done devolution. If we had not devolved power, then there would have been a massive demand for separation – as there was back in the 60s and 70s."

Funnily enough, people who are part of the same country, with the same basic culture, speaking the same language, and with a strong shared history, including shared sacrifice in war, tend to develop a pretty decent shared identity...until nationalist radicals seek to divide them, and find their efforts enabled by incompetent overconfident ego-mad politicians.  Politicians have many ways of dividing people, but building up cultural identity artificially from your spindoctors' offices in London...not so easily done.

Aw, feck it !  I wish the eventual independent Republic of Scotland well.  And Wales too, if they go that way.  Blair, Brown, Cameron, and their ilk, on the other hand can go fuck themselves.


* Not that I believe for one moment you respected the absolute right of the Scots to independence if that be their choice.

** Nor that you ever gave a damn about that issue either, given your consistent anti-democratic decisions.

Religious Certitudes

Rowson is frankly a fuckin' god in terms of his visual skills...but he can't be everywhere at once.  And with Bell struggling with that obsession with a certain condom, there may be room for a new number two...somewhere

Dave Brown on Chilcot

Perhaps there's an honourable leaker who could do the right thing.

A Tale of Two Tours

Here's the Indy's latest daily cartoon online:

And the day before:

I don't know if this was a editorial choice or a coincidence, but it is somewhat unfortunate, and doesn't exactly put the more recent publication in a great light.  Both 'toons are themed almost identically, even to the degree of Corbyn turning to his left.  But the earlier work spares us the labels for 'Left' and 'Right', spares us the actual labelling of the bicycle as 'Labour Party', and spares us the cliché of riding off a cliff.  Instead we get the socks up over the trousers & the old-fashioned bike with the basket, versus the Blairites in their spandex.  And yes, we also get a labelled Das Kapital, not that that really hurts the piece overall.  And I'm assuming that's Prescott rooting Jezza on besides an apoplectic Blair.

To juxtapose two such similarly themed, but unequally executed works side-by-side is just cruel really.  Oh right, I just did that myself, didn't I ?  Whoops.

Tone' the Tempter Needs More Souls

Did Tony Blair actually say these words (my reading of the video) ?

I've known Jeremy going back many over many, many years.  I think we both came into Parliament at the same time together.  And it's not about...And it's not about an individual, it's about a platform, that, in the end, wouldn't work for the country.  And I want to stress that.

It's not that it wouldn't win power.  I personally think it's unlikely that we would win power.  But, even if you did, it wouldn't be right.  Because it wouldn't take the country forward, it would take it backwards.  So, that's why it's not the right thing to do.  It's not the right thing to do, because, you know... this is why, when people say, y'know, well my heart says I should really be with that politics...well, get a transplant, because that's just done.

Because that sure as fuck sounds to me like an argument to vote Tory.  Oh, and one thing for all politicians to remember, whether they identify as 'progressive' or not, is that 'forward' movement need have no correlation with actual betterment of one's circumstances whatsoever.  Moving 'forward' is just carrying on in your existing established direction, even if you just accidentally stepped off a cliff.  Or, for that matter, on a landmine.

And as for this question of whether the other contenders for the leadership would serve in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn, well, for myself, not that you probably care, I'd say that right here Liz Kendall just invalidated her case for the leadership bid altogether.  Cooper may have equivocated, but I don't entirely blame her, and Burnham comes across, to me, as the only one perhaps* genuinely concerned with something more than his own political career.

Jeremy and I so fundamentally disagree, with Jeremy's approach, that...And I think it would be disastrous for the party, it would be disastrous for the country, we would be out of power for a generation.  I don't want to be a party of protest.  And I wouldn't be able to stop myself from making that case.

Do you even think about how this sounds, when you say these words as a career politician ?...  I personally do care what happens to the UK, but I'm not that greatly invested in Labour, and I don't give a shit about Liz Kendall, or any of these assholes' personal political careers.

There is, I suppose, an argument to be made, that had New Labour not been in power when it was, that the Tories would have done even more damage even earlier, but there's also the counter-argument to that, that we might be now seeing the reaction against 'Conservative' radicalism, were there an actual mainstream opposition for voters to support, and had Tony Blair not completely sold out generations of non-right-wing-extremists.

One other thing, I don't at all understand is the acquiescence with the stupid Fixed-term Parliaments Act, let alone the idea that the party is somehow married to a particular leader for five years.  Deciding your leadership in the 2015 elections in 2010 and your leadership for the 2020 elections in 2015 is just frankly insane.  By rights, Ed should still be Labour's leader, and they wouldn't have to be worrying about who would take them into the next elections till 2018 at the earliest, were it not for the idiocy of fixed-term parliaments.  At what point did the choice for leadership become some sort of suicide-pact ?


* The eyebrows bewitched me, sorry.

And So Labour Pushes Itself Ever Deeper into Irrelevance

Welfare vote will 'haunt' Labour says SNP

The SNP has said Scottish Labour will pay a heavy price for not voting in greater numbers against planned welfare cuts by the UK government.

The prediction comes after plans to cut £12bn pounds from the welfare budget passed their first hurdle in the Commons on Monday night.

Forty-eight Labour's 232 MPs voted against the package.

SNP MP Hannah Bardell said Labour's position was a ''shambles'' which would "haunt" them at the Holyrood election.

The Commons backed the Welfare Reform and Work Bill by 308 to 124 votes.

The SNP voted firmly against the UK government's controversial proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill.

There were 48 Labour rebels but most, including Scotland's sole Labour MP Ian Murray, abstained on the orders of acting leader Harriet Harman.

Labour leadership hopeful Andy Burnham said his party made "a mess" of its approach and was "crying out for leadership".

He said he had agreed to abstain on the key vote because he was "not prepared to split the party".

...

"Labour have completely abandoned any pretence of being a party of social justice and progress - just as they did when they so shamefully voted to support George Osborne's £30bn more austerity cuts."

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was "sadly not" surprised by the party's decision to abstain.

The SNP leader added: "Labour seem to have lost any sense of purpose or any sense of direction."

"It really does beg a fundamental question, if Labour is not about opposing a Tory government that is waging an ideological assault not on skivers who don't want to work, but on people who are working hard on low incomes, if Labour is not about opposing that, what is Labour for?

"Last night just proves that Labour has lost any sense of purpose and it will be the SNP who increasingly will form the real opposition in the House of Commons."

The SNP really aren't doing themselves any favours in terms of public support or sympathy south of the border, when they partake in childish stunts like this, but they do have something of a point about being the 'real opposition' when the Labour party continually stakes its flag just slightly to the left of wherever the Tories are at any given point in time, and when they keep declining opportunities to actually oppose the Conservatives, begging time and again, what the hell are they for ?  There are other actual leftist parties in the UK, and the Lib Dems can claim to be the party of civil liberties, but Labour ?

Short of a personality to dominate the party, someone with the magician-like qualities to successfully convince the public that they are a centre-left party whilst pushing time-and-again centre-right (at best) policies, there is no future in 'New Labour.'  'New Labour' was Tony Blair, and worked solely because of Tony Blair.  There may or may not be much of a future in a principled 'Old Labour', but 'New Labour' is done, and it is the likes of Harman, Cooper, and Kendall that are clinging to the past, not the new intake of MP's who voted their conscience.

Which leaves us with 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn (who did vote against) and Brave Sir Andy, who really really wanted to oppose the Conservatives, but didn't want 'to split the party and make the job of opposition even harder' and so boldly abstained from voting Aye or No.

He added: "It was a mess, wasn't it? The run-up to this vote was a bit of a mess. It is quite clear that this is a party now that is crying out for leadership and that is what I have shown in recent days."

Um, yes it was.  Yes it does.  And no, you haven't.  Actually, I suspect that this could have been a crucial breakout moment for Burnham had he taken the lead on strongly opposing the Conservatives' plans.  As is, voters in the leadership-contest for Labour, have their Blairite candidates already, have their Old Labour candidate, and then have poor Andy Burnham, who like the party as a whole, stands for what exactly ?, and, whose bold efforts to not split the party will merely undermine his own appeal, whilst doing nothing to prevent the split of the party.

I find myself wondering, what if there were no Labour party ?  What if it were left to the Liberals and the likes of the SNP and the Greens to define the opposition to the Tories, and to provide alternative votes at the ballot-box ?  Would the UK be any worse off if Labour simply ceased to exist ?  But then the hypotheticals of how we might have come to a world without Labour lead me to 'A Wonderful Life'*-style musings about what the world might look like had it never had a Tony Blair.  And so tempting as that line of thought is, I'm not sure I want to go there at the moment.

* à la Fry & Laurie obviously.

Undemocratic Body Undemocratically Appointed Horror

Last week it was revealed that despite a pre-election promise to base the number of appointed peers on party vote share, Mr Cameron is now prevaricating. He said: “I have committed previously to keeping the party peers under review and will, of course, give further consideration to the points you raise when we come to consider recommendations over the course of this parliament.”

But the fact is the Liberal Democrats – who got just 2.4 million votes on May 7th, compared to UKIP’s 3.8 million – are expected to be awarded more peers once again, while UKIP and the Green Party get no further representation in Britain’s upper parliamentary chamber.

Mr Hannan, who is known to be overtly hostile to UKIP, despite long-standing rumours of his defection from the Conservative Party, took to Twitter today to blast the Prime Minister:

Wait, wha...Are you sure about that ?  I haven't paid attention to Hannan for a while, but I'd almost have assumed he was a member of UKIP by now, given the ferocity of his Euroscepticism and his almost career-long stint as an MEP.

The LibDems shouldn't get a single peer until @ukip, @TheGreenParty and others have reached the proportionality demanded by... the LibDems.

— Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) July 16, 2015

Anyways, I just don't understand all this moaning about the composition of the House of Lords. It's as if the critics don't get, or are pretending not to get, the fact that the institution is fundamentally undemocratic...by design. That an institution that stood as a sort of brake on democratic excesses in its more traditional form had been turned into an exercise in pure cronyism by Tony Blair.

It's a bit like the Democrats in the US still whining about Al Gore having won the popular vote in 2000, when they haven't made any serious efforts whatsoever since to abolish the electoral college. Not that the electoral college was intended to subvert democracy, unlike Tone's anti-democratic 'constitutional reforms.'

Play the FPTP game right, and maybe one day you too in UKIP can give your defeated MP's a cushy retirement in the Lords. And you too can stack the body with as many peers as necessary to quash any possibility of dissent. But first of course, you need find victory in an electoral system that is specifically designed to shut out third-party opposition and maintain established power at all costs. Sucks, don't it ?

First Caroline Lucas, now Paddy Ashdown

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, is calling for the progressive forces in British politics not to retreat into post-election tribalism but to work together to try to agree a broad policy agenda for a future non-Tory government.

Ashdown is the most senior politician on the centre-left since the election to call for political cooperation among progressive forces, a move that would effectively end Nick Clegg’s policy of placing the Liberal Democrats politically equidistant between the main two parties.

Ashdown suggests the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens, along with others interested in reform, should set up a convention to discuss a joint progressive agenda. He stressed Labour and the Lib Dems had to maintain their independence, and he was not in favour of electoral pacts on seats, or any kind of formal organisational cooperation.

Ashdown, who was appointed by Clegg to be the Liberal Democrats’ election co-ordinator, said: “I think there is a case for creating a framework before the European referendum where the progressive forces come together.”

He told the Guardian it was time to end the fractures on the left: “As we – all of us on the left and centre-left – survey the wreckage around us after the last election, we should ask ourselves this question: is this the moment for us to retreat into tribalism, as we always do? My answer to that question is ‘no’.

“There is much we disagree about, but there is more that we agree on. The environment, civil liberties, internationalism; how to build a strong economy within the context of a fair society; how to devolve power to our nations and communities in a way which preserves our national unity, not threatens it; the need to tackle the intolerable gap of inequality which will soon threaten our social cohesion as well as our economic success. 

“Above all how, by working sensibly together where we are able to, we can save Britain from a government which, whatever David Cameron’s instincts, is now increasingly driven by its right wing who are hell bent on policies which will threaten our social cohesion, our national unity, our place in Europe and our standing in the wider world.”

Ashdown said he accepted Labour’s first instinct would be to return to tribalism, especially during the current leadership election “but they will soon realise that the old tribalism will not solve their problems”

Will they now ?  Hmm, why am I sceptical ?

Ashdown himself as Liberal Democrat leader in 1995 abandoned political equidistance, putting his party explicitly to the left, but then found his plan for deeper Labour-Liberal Democrat cooperation stalled when Tony Blair won an unexpectedly massive Commons majority in 1997.

There's the rub.  Tony didn't need the Lib-Dems for power, and why would he share it ?  Just as the Tories, who spent the last five years sharing government with Paddy's own party, suddenly want nothing to do with them now they can rule alone.

Because most politicians want power.  Even if they enter politics with the best of intentions, they eventually find themselves tempted to water their principles down in the name of winning power -- just a little here, then a little there -- got to get inside the system if you want to effect real change after all...

Caroline Lucas and Ashdown appear to be talking about principles.  They can afford to, with their parties so far removed from any possibility of actual power for a generation at least.  But Labour's still talking about winning elections.  About learning the lesson, of the electorate apparently not buying what they had on offer in the last bid.  Because that's what it's all about: giving people what they wanttelling people what they want to hear, then screwing them over as soon at the election's over.  It's a business, a retail-outfit.  No principles required.

The lesson Labour learnt from the last election is that the only way for the 'Labour' party to win is Tony's way: to be no kind of Labour Party at all.  The brand's socialist roots are ingrained enough that they still feel they have to pretend...for a little longer anyway...In fact, I almost pity them them the way they have to bend this way and that to try to sell the majority of the country on at best a centre-right agenda whilst still trying to convince loyalists that they're of the left really.

Probably Paddy & Caroline's best bet is to just forget Labour as any kind of potential ally.  Try to win over their left-leaning voters, sure.  Establish a progressive coalition with other parties, sure.  But Labour's done with the left.  Once they're they finished with their leadership-campaign, with Corbyn there purely for the symbolism, purely to be publicly rejected, they'll not be looking back again.  'Red Ed' was likely their last bid at trying to win elections while retaining any shred of their roots.

If fact a generation from now, people may forget the reason they were ever called 'Labour' in the first place.  Could be like the 'Liberal Party' in Australia.  Just a label.  Just a historical holdover.  Can they transform themselves sufficiently in the next five years to win an election, can they sufficiently distance themselves from the 'Red' labels ?  Doubt it.  They have to own the right-wing agenda, have confidence in what they're selling.  For now they still seem to think that they can con their traditional supporters that they're one thing, whilst actually being another entirely.  For that, they need a professional liar as leader -- another Tony Blair in fact -- and they don't have one.

Anyway, who cares ?  Get on with your progressive coalition and forget Labour.  If you're in politics for the principles that is.


* Yes, I know I said I was going to shut up about Labour.  And when I started to write this, I didn't intend to talk about them at all, other than historically vis-à-vis Tony.  But then I got carried away...

Tradition, Tradition, Tradition for Us; Austerity for Ye

So, the Houses of Parliament, are crumbling, and in order to save the British taxpayers a few billion (not to mention several decades) on the repairs, an independent committee has suggested, that either both Houses, or Commons & Lords in turns should temporarily relocate...

...which has inevitably brought about/renewed the question: Why couldn't parliament be relocated...permanently.


But ministers don't want to consider even a temporary move, of course.

Leader of the House Mr Grayling said he was "not warm" to the idea of relocating."My very clear view is this building is an important part of our national heritage and our democracy, and it must remain as such," he said during Business Questions in the Commons.

Can't have change now, can we ?  National heritage !

There must be no “self-indulgent” reforms to parliamentary procedures as part of the expected refurbishment plan for the Palace of Westminster, Sir Alan Duncan has said.

The Conservative former minister told the Times: “What would be catastrophic is if self-indulgent people who know little about parliament say ‘let’s have electronic voting’ or ‘let’s have a semi-circular chamber’. I’m absolutely with Churchill after the place was bombed who said ‘let’s keep the traditions’. The institution is bigger than anybody in it.”

 A report and accompanying statement from the House of Commons Commission will be published tomorrow laying out the options to renovate Parliament.

Tradition is the all-important thing in British government isn't it ?  I mean, sure, there have been some changes over the centuries, but only ever incremental change, and nothing too recent, because, well of the importance of tradition.

---

The function of highest court of appeal now performed by the recently-created 'Supreme Court' traditionally rested with the House of Lords.  But you changed that in 2005.

Membership in the House of Lords was traditionally via hereditary peerage, but, in your desire to further weaken the House and increase the power of the Commons and the Prime Minister, you reformed that in 1999, and brought in mostly political appointees for the Lords.*

The traditional right to Habeas corpus is many centuries old, but you did away with that in the name of 'Terror' back in 2005.

The tradition of fixed-term elections has been around less than four years, dating to the Act in 2011.

The traditional central rule of Scotland from Westminster dates back to 1707, and that of Wales to the 1500's, but you re-established the Scottish parliament and established a National Assembly for Wales in 1998.

---

And these are just some of the changes that come to me off the top of my head.


And for a lot of people, the traditions of the Houses look, frankly, silly, embarrassing even.  See for example the row over the SNP clapping, versus the traditional braying and shouting and jeering.  Never mind how the British people see the daily antics in Parliament, how do you think it looks to people in other countries ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-speech-snp-told-clapping-5772809

And as for the actual buildings themselves, they only date back to the 1840's, which is nothing in the context of British history.  The fact of which wouldn't hurt their repurposing as a tourist-attraction, given the gothic design, and the common assumption that they are far older.

And frankly, I don't see any more reason for Parliament necessarily having to be based in London, than the BBC, large parts of which have been banished to other regions of the country, especially Manchester.  Television Centre is arguably as iconic as the Houses of Parliament (albeit rather newer and a little less well known, especially outside the UK), but you sold that in 2012.  At least you held on to Broadcasting House...

And you keep talking about the fact that the other regions of England, including in the North, are under-represented.  What better way to do something about that than relocating Parliament to Birmingham or Manchester ?  It'll also help with Gideon's notion of a 'Northern Powerhouse'.


In fact, I'm not sure there are any good arguments against relocating Parliament, whether simply to a newer more modern facility more 'fit for purpose' (to use a horrible hackneyed phrase so beloved of British MP's) or to also move the body out of London altogether.  Other than...it's tradition.

Good arguments, that is, as opposed to the self-interest of politicians, who might be inconvenienced by having to move, and who might feel their status diminished by having to work out of Birmingham or Leeds say.  Forcing BBC staff to relocate to Manchester, no problem.  Allowing British jobs to be outsourced to the likes of India, who cares ?  But MP's, Never !  How dare we suggest that they not be allowed to continue to shout and bray in the traditional chamber with 'its magic quality' ?  How dare we deny them their taxpayer-funded second homes in desirable London postcodes ?.  How dare we threaten bringing them into the twenty-first century, one where so many jobs have done away with physical offices and desks altogether ?


In the end, they won't move.  Not permanently at any rate.  And refurbishing the creaky old Victorian edifice will probably cost a lot more than seven billion pounds.  But the more we can have these sorts of conversations the better; and the more chance there may be for some actual change, and change that benefits the people, rather than just the powers that be at that.


* And note that as a result of this, and David Cameron's attempts to stuff the House with so many new peers, that it is now so physically overcrowded that it 'risks the House being unable to do its job'.

** Yes, I am well aware that most of the (fairly radical & questionable) constitutional changes mentioned above happened under Tony Blair's watch.  And ?

*** When I say 'you'  or 'your' above, I am referring to Parliament generally, not specifically to Mister Grayling or Sir Duncan, or even to that fascist fuck Blair.

**** Oh, and 'forty years' !!!  WTF ?!

What a Surprise

The Chilcot report has taken six years and cost £10m but is “unlikely to be published for another year at least”, according to sources close to the inquiry.

The Independent on Sunday understands the inquiry is still asking the Cabinet Office to declassify documents, suggesting that the report into the Iraq war is still being written.

David Cameron is now under pressure to scrap the inquiry.

...

It's never coming out, is it ?

Sir John was appointed by prime minister Gordon Brown to examine British involvement in Iraq, and “to identify lessons that can be learned” in July 2009, when British combat operations in Iraq ended.

Originally expected to report before the 2010 election, the inquiry found itself engaged in a huge task of surveying British foreign policy between 2001 and 2009. It took evidence from witnesses from November 2009 to July 2010, and then in a second round in January and February 2011. Although it has seen all the papers for which it has asked, it was drawn into long negotiations with Sir Gus O’Donnell and his successor as Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, over what documents it could publish. Agreement on editing letters and transcripts of conversations between Mr Blair and George W Bush was only reached less than a year ago.

By the end of this year, the inquiry will have been sitting for longer than British combat troops were deployed to Iraq.

Photo Op by kennardphillipps at Catalyst: Contemporary Art and War exhibition at IWM North Photograph: kennardphillipps/Reuters

Revealed: The true scale of Tony Blair's global business empire (per The Telegraph)

I'm not sure how much there there really is in the Telegraph's latest piece on Tony Blair, but...

...fuck that guy.  Anyways, here's their take.

This MuthaFucka Right Here

Speaking of which, this is the picture, illustrating the Guardian piece in which Tony Blair 'warns against Labour move to the left'.  Not sure why such a warning is needed, as in my entire lifetime, the Labour party has consistently been moving to the Right, but anyways, here's a smug fascistic warmongering asshole:

Shame Catholicism doesn't allocate a specific number of virgins to its culture-warriors.  Given the man-spreading on display, Tone' presumably has massive massive balls, and could presumably father far more children than Cherie has so far managed.  And boy do we ever need more assholes like old Tone' here.

Tone' to the Rescue

So back fresh from all his historic successes as Peace Envoy in the Middle East, the man who gave us the glorious and necessary war in Iraq, and whose devolutionary strategy has been such an unquestionable success in preserving the union in Britain, has his eyes on saving another union.

Goody.  That will be very helpful.  Especially when he wins over the hearts and minds of sceptical voters with statements* like this:

Nationalism is a powerful sentiment.  Let that genie out of the bottle, and it's a Herculean task to put it back in.  And Reason alone, struggles.  The referenda (sic) on Europe carries with it exactly the same risks.

 For that reason, should the Conservatives win, one other thing will be certain: the Prime Minister will be spending more energy, will have more sleepless nights about it, be more focused on it, than literally any other single issue.

 He knows the vastness of the decision.  He knows the penalty of failure.  He knows exit will define his legacy.  And, following the Scottish referendum, he knows one other thing: the perilous fragility of public support, for the sensible choice.

Tony, Tony, aren't you busy enough 'working' as adviser to the likes of JP Morgan Chase and the dictator of Kazakhstan ?

I mean, I know your employers in Wall Street and in the City are worried that their profits (or the obscene magnitude thereof) might be threatened by a British exit from the EU, but sending you out to stump for the pro-EU side will be as useful as having you stump for Ed Miliband at the last minute in the recent election was.

Don't you get it ?  Outside of the United States perhaps, no-one likes you.  No-one trusts you.  Everything you touch turns to shit.  Can't you just retire with your many millions already and leave the other inhabitants of the Earth to get on with the business of cleaning up the messes people like you made ?


* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PvZFyQ3IsE, 5'42-6'40