Talk:Premiership of Tony Blair
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
This large page on Tony Blair's service as Prime Minister should not be re-introduced into his biographical page. His biograpy is 52kb long as it its and this page 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 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely this page should be titled "Premiership of Tony Blair" ?? 220.127.116.11 16:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is "premiership" an official description? In any event it's better than "prime ministry".--ukexpat 14:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The comments on the EU constitution are NPOV.
Blair gave a manifesto commitment and numerous pledges to hold a referendum. This was a device to side step eurosceptic support for the Conservatives as a mechanism. The referendum gave a democratic alternative, to be able to reject EU integration but still vote for the Labour party.
The section is incorrect to state that the constitution must be brought forward through unanimity. The constitution continues by default until a certain percentage of members reject it. It is continuing now, and the EU is proposing to restate the key proposals in a more limited document. It was proven not to be a 'tidying up exercise', but contained significant new powers.
If the United Kingdom had rejected the constitution it would prevent such measures as a unified foreign policy, an EU president and the centralisation of the powers of the member states into the European commision bureaucracy.
The failure of the UK to hold a referendum has enabled the continuation of these policies. The failure to hold a referendum means that the democratic will of the people has been thwarted and the measures will continue to be reintroduced until they become law.
It is a failure to hold a promise, a commitment and a deliberate EU-integrationist measure which deliberately subverts the will of the people. 18.104.22.168 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The effects of immigration and emigration must be discussed.
The levels of emigration have reached unprecedented levels in the modern age representing 5% of the UK population in his tenure.
The levels of immigration, numbering several million in the past few years, has ruthlessly supressed the wage earning potential of unskilled labour in the UK. Thus, the 'minimum wage' cannot be hailed as an achievement.
The UK has also seen an unprecedented increase in the difference between rich and poor.
Further, how can there be a discussion of Blair without issues such as the newSupreme Court of England, or the change in habeas corpus, in the level of guilt, in the idea of trial once, in the DNA database, in the total surveillance society, in the increase of civil fines, of ASBOs and disproportionate punishment or any number of other civil rights abuses.
Surely, the corrupt use of consultants, the wage increases of government, the devious apportionment of government contracts, the death of doctor kelly, the dismissal of the electoral commission as it criticised the government for orchestrating widespread vote rigging, the new media controls, the purge of the BBC and it prevention of reporting government malfeasence must all be issues.
This article is dangerously NPOV. 22.214.171.124 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What is dangerously neutral? Call a Code Beige! Including controversies in the article is normal, but it's supposed to be neutral, not a tirade against the Blair 'premiership.'126.96.36.199 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ministry of Blair
"Premiership" is not the correct word to use; I get sick of hearing the word all too often, as it has recently been taken up by the press. Tony Blair is not a "Premier": as a Prime Minister, his term of office should definitely be referred to as a ministry. In fact, I don't even know if the word existed in politics at all before they thus named the Premier League. Poojean 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but "Ministry of Tony Blair" has religious overtones. "Tony Blair as Prime Minister"? "Prime Ministership of Tony Blair"? Totnesmartin 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- OED says " 1. a. The position or office of premier; (now esp.) the office or position of a Prime Minister or other head of government." The quotations suggest that it's not something the press just coined up either. Pasi 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be called the Ministry of Tony Blair, that is the correct term. It does not have relgious overtones. It may sound as though it does but that is because the term ministry can be used in more than one context.Variousvarious (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. No prime minister has ever been a premier. But it should be called Prime Minisrty of Tony Blair, which not only is more correct but removes anybodies worries about "religious overtones". Ministry would be applicable if the article referred to his actions as Minister for the Civil Service (as he was never a minister in government before becoming prime minister). Kae1is (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any need for the words "Blair Foundation" to appear in bold? 188.8.131.52 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article is probably long enough, but if we were to consider merging Blair-Brown government the bulk of the information would have to be included here as it generally relates to the time Blair was in office. So perhaps not such a good idea. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not enough bases covered
Sorry to be a whiny unconstructive a-hole, but there's absolutely no mention of the word "Libya" on this page. Considering Blair supposedly spearheaded the rapprochement of Libya during his Premiership, this is a fairly gaping hole in the article. -- yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think some of the statistics, such as soldiers in Iraq (at the end of the Iraq War section) and of the NHS deficit (at the beginning of following section on domestic politics) ought to be updated to more recent figures, if available. HarryBrad (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)