Tony Blair Progress conversation with Matt Forde 22. Juli

[@samconran]

Favourite politician, and favourite comedian. This was a great (early) morning and good to re-watch.

[@DC-pn8dp]

Amazing. I could listen to him talk all day.

[@Liz-xr1eq]

Coming back after he was proved completely right in the ge

[@LillianEileenSnape]

omg I love him

[@xfoolsgoldx]

I hate Tony Blair. He is the reason for most big problems is this country.

[@tortozza]

barry hansen Did the daily mail tell you that?

[@xfoolsgoldx]

Yes! So it must be true😉☺

[@xfoolsgoldx]

Only joking☺. This is my opinion from my own experience of this country and government. I no longer buy newspapers😇

[@thxverymuch6962]

Half the fun of going to Blair vids on KZbin is reading through the comments with popcorn laughing at all the ignorant sofa-politicians criticising the Iraq invasion.

[@Secular_Scot]

+Chris Stewart 1/10 for trolling my war mongering red/blue tory friend.

[@Awsomo666]

A comedian a War criminal and an audience. Sounds like a good setup for a joke.

[@anothercynicalbrit6451]

Feral Farrell LMAO

[@HazeyEd1ts]

is the joke on you?

[@REDLEBU]

I like Matt Forde usually, but I find this interview relatively servile and spineless towards Blair. Its also unfair to the 60% of the Labour party who are considering voting for Corbyn. Some level of mutual respect is direly needed, this discourse is childish

[@kw2142]

Matt Forde w*anks daily over pictures of T Blair

[@HomemadeBrownies1]

Yeah. The corbyn project went so well. Those who enabled him totally deserve respect.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

Speaking great sense. The left will ignore this at their peril.

[@KC-dm4jj]

Extremely articulate and insightful.. he should definitely be the speechwriter for whoever is to become the new labour leader....

[@fortuner123]

Then you are stupid sir.

[@harstoft]

+Kavan Choksi Not the speech writer but he should be an adviser. Say what you want about him he won more elections that any other labour leader in story.

[@SuperJslc]

harstoft Lies and deception. Lift the veil please if u want truth.

[@davidparry5310]

harstoft 'he won more elections that any other labour leader in story.' Er, no, he didn't; Harold Wilson also won three elections.

[@samconran]

David Parry Er, no, he didn't; Harold Wilson won two elections ('64 and '74, with Heath's Tory government in from '70-'74). Where is this third term to which you're referring?

[@petersz98]

Arrest war criminal Tony Blair!

[@AppleCiderVinegar77]

Does anyone else find it strange that Blair is actively and mercilessly crucified for Iraq here, but in the states George W. Bush is comparatively given a far easier time, dancing away at the Hurricane Katrina memorial?

[@davids.794]

+Mr James Bush isn't thought of as much better. He left office with a 28% approval rating. The difference is Bush at least has the decency to shut up since leaving office; Blair is still pushing for war.

[@xfoolsgoldx]

I'm Ashamed to say I voted for Tony Blair years ago.

[@xfoolsgoldx]

The Guy interviewing Blair has a brown nose😉😊

[@princeponce201]

Beast.

[@davids.794]

Ugh.....that interviewer sucking up to Blair is nauseating. Blair is smart enough to know he could run roughshod over him. Could only get through the first few minutes of his pontificating.

[@Jamal-Ahmed786]

tony is so clever and wise. labour leaders should learn from his experience? everything he's suggested is just so logical and obviously true. that's because he's spent years 'thinking'.

[@leikfroakies]

The difference between Blair and Corbyn: Corbyn 's gigantic crowds cheer and support him. Blair's gigantic crowds call for him to be arrested

[@0027Mathew]

+Cribsmas Morn. Blair's crowds cheered him in 1997 much more loudly! Being PM is a thankless task, calls for him to be arrested are by idiotic simplistic students who want to tick 'protest' off their little student bucket list and simply don't understand the complexity of certain policies

[@leikfroakies]

+Matt Lennon Complexity? He's a war criminal. Don't be fooled by his nice southern accent, he was a dissapointment to the people who though labour stood for equality of workers and fair distribution of wealth. When they started to realise he was nothing more than a Thatcherite, they became disillusioned with politics so like thatcher, he thought he could get a quick fix in the same way she did in the Falklands by 'saving the world' from the evil weapons of mass destruction. Then, when he realised he'd made a horrible mistake he had the audacity to change a report to say there were WMD there and because he didn't really care about the plight of the country, he pulled out, leaving a power vaccum and starting a gigantic civil war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites that made the east completely uninhabitable and is the cause of the refugee crisis that's going on today. He was the cause of this global humanitarian crisis, the rise of ISIS and the deaths it caused and that is why he and Bush should answer for their crimes

[@0027Mathew]

+Cribsmas Morn. He made it clear while fighting the 1997 election that 'New Labour' was different that the traditional Labour movement of mass government control but at the same time did increase spending hugely in vital services like Education and the NHS... However on the subject of the 2003 invasion it is clear that Iraq as well as many other countries in the region were in internal decline. After 1979 the region took on board populist ideas and what they got in return was many nasty dictators. Iraq is a majority Shia country (around 85% of the population) however was ruled by Saddam (a sunni) he was an evil dictator who suppressed the majority with brute force as well as invading other countries unprovoked such as Kuwait. In fact to keep his own people in line he actually used chemical weapons on them, he had used them and was producing them. When tensions rose he made arrangements to have the evidence removed. On the grounds of refusing weapons inspectors in and also refusing to rule out invading Kuwait a second time there was grounds for an invasion by a G8 country which would have been approved by the UN. When looking at the bigger picture Iraq before Saddam had a economy similar to Portugal and Italy, over years that followed child mortality went up massively, life expectancies dropped hugely, the infrastructure of the country fell in to chaos, tensions with Iran were hotting up and at the same time he was refusing any co-operation with the UN in any way shape or form... By the way i'm not even saying I agree with the decision, I just think it is worth taking on board both sides of the argument

[@leikfroakies]

+Matt Lennon Was it by any chance Blair who told you that Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people? Because the whole disaster of the Iraq war was that he had no chemical weapons and if they really wanted to help, why did they kill Saddam and leave? If they really cared they would've stayed to help bring democracy to the country but all they did was leave behind war and destruction. As for the NHS and education, he didn't help them really. In fact, the NHS was in the same kind of trouble it's in today back in his rule. I do have a lot of respect for the things his government did but it's clear that things like reform of the welfare state was something pushed by Gordon Brown, who Blair didn't really want around probably because get wanted a right leaning cabinate

[@0027Mathew]

+Cribsmas Morn. I've read from a number of sources that he had used them many years before the invasion on his own people. Plus during the invasion documents relating to WMD production were found in many locations which would indicate this. They did find and kill Saddam and the aim was to put in place a more inclusive government. However obviously that is easier said than done and was always going to take time. The problem was with this situation was there was no nice option. Option 1 was to leave Saddam, he wouldn't talk the UN or co-operate with the international community, he would continue to lead is country down the wrong path and suppress a voiceless defenceless majority and eventually I believe as a result the biggest worry could then possibly be heavy tensions between Iran and Iraq (both with WMD) obviously the operation did not go as was wanted and I think it is fair to say it may have strengthened the appeal of fanatics like ISIL but these countries need democracy to move forward, it really is the only way.

[@jgtemperton]

I think we get the fact that the world has changed, but many working class, even middle class people can see its not working for them, hence a significant desire for the Left agenda.

[@patrickjohnstaunton1539]

The odd reference to semantics might conjure the mood. For anyone seeking a credible alternative to the changing face of convenience, the idea that belief were the ideal so inspired, helps me to understand the need for improved mobility. With or without the stragglers.

[@T800System]

At the end of the day this whole idea that it's about being "electable" is just bogus. Blair admits here that he would neither believe in the possibility of nor want a Corbyn-led Labour government. In a way, I give him credit for admitting that. But in admitting that he reveals that his views are not extraordinarily different from those of the soft-right. Labour does not need someone who wants to capitulate to the power of, and indeed agrees with much of the position of, right-wing hegemony. But purely on the basis that Labour needs to win power to govern: he forgets the history of his own party - and forgets that this is a country that bounced between Harold Wilson and Ted Heath. This is a country that elected Clement Attlee. Appealing to middle-class swing voters is one way to win, but he is close-minded to alternatives; why not make a concerted effort to carve out new territory in the form of the young, the poor, the disenfranchised and the 5 million working class who have stopped voting under Blair? In an era where we've seen the meteoric rise of parties like the SNP, UKIP and the Greens - would it really be such a bad idea? Change with the times - isn't that a Blair mantra? Labour needs to set the terms of debate and win the argument. That's what we were doing under Attlee and under Wilson too. In many ways, Corbyn is not that much more radical than Harold Wilson - but he's being ludicrously portrayed as some kind of communist throw-back. Corbyn has the potential to set the agenda more than any other candidate. "Don't underestimate him" - Ken Clarke.

[@MichaelJones-wh9cy]

This country hasn't elected a socialist for 45 years and I can't see it happening soon.

[@Muzikman127]

Jesus Christ is this comment section real?

[@daemonchild1977]

And thus, with his nauseating obsequiousness, Matt Forde - the least funny man in Britain - ensures himself a lucrative broadcasting career

[@hjyigo4759]

I think Blair's raison d'etre has always been about change. Whilst many of the things he says make sense about these changes, especially around technology, he seems utterly incapable of understanding that not only might people not like these changes, but that it is within the power of elected politicians to at least try to represent the wishes of their voting constituents. Blair's position is that change is happening and that there is nothing we can do about it. Brexit and Corbyn's assent have shown how wrong he is.

[@ceefaxballard4961]

It is utterly shameful that this film has taken place. Blaire should be in prison. God willing he will be soon.

[@peppersdog1]

GOOGLE CHARLES LYNTON