2007-02-04 06:05:45 · 32 answers · asked by Bob M 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
IThe only problem with Blair's legacy is the War on Terror and given the information he was given, he made the right decision, history will say otherwise and hindsight is always 20/20.
Otherwise in his 10 years of power he has kept the economy growing at a good rate, secured the United Kingdom's place in the world structure, kept close to America and kept Europe at arm's length and kept all the important veto's.
It is a shame his legacy will be spoilt by Iraq et al and it is a huge blot on his copybook but at the time, given the evidence put in front of him, it wasn't a terrible decision.
His decade long stint at PM has brought no resessions and only minimal economic slowdown at sparse points. The world with Blair and Clinton in charge was in safe hands and that world was the most powerful 1-2 combination we'll see for a long time.
2007-02-04 08:39:53 · answer #1 · answered by NM 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. Churchill change into an rather good guy and a stunning good chief. Blair is a non secular fanatic who change into responsible for starting to be a member of Bush in an unlawful invasion that value the lives of one million human beings. He should be tried as a war criminal.
2016-11-02 07:32:37 · answer #2 · answered by gilbert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I still think Margaret had a bit of backbone.
I tend to agree that Blair is/was the most POPULAR since Churchill though. Can't see why, personally.
2007-02-04 06:09:55 · answer #3 · answered by Not Ecky Boy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't Margaret Thatcher even in the running? She would have been my choice.
I like Tony Blair, but my English friends and relatives all think he falls short on domestic issues and think his wife is so far left she risks falling off the edge of the earth.
2007-02-04 06:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by Suzianne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid I don't agree and, what's more, I cannot think of a worse PM over the last 200 years. Even Eden, who was disgraced over Suez was a better PM generally speaking.
2007-02-04 09:59:43 · answer #5 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. Wasting millions trying to get us to join the euro, letting in loads of illegal immigrants, destroying the NHS, making Britain a very dangerous place to live in, pledging much-needed cash to the war on terror, sucking up to Bush - if that's your idea of the "Best PM", then you really have had your head in the sand for the past decade.
2007-02-04 07:11:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your joking aren't you ?don't you know that hes a war monger like him in the states ? wats his name oh yeah Bush .
If Blair had been pm during the 2nd war we would have still been fighting the hunns .
2007-02-04 06:23:00 · answer #7 · answered by rudd_linda 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No i think Tony Blair and his wife are completely false, they both have lying smiles.
2007-02-04 07:01:59 · answer #8 · answered by Jazzybee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because Churchill went to war for a legit reason and Blair went to war with no real reason.
2007-02-04 06:09:27 · answer #9 · answered by tonytucks 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If you are serious then I would pack up your overnight bag because a couple of people in white overcoats, carrying a straight jacket are about to pay you a visit!
2007-02-04 11:39:16 · answer #10 · answered by The Trainer 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋