Why was the Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair who served as the Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007 a Great Prime Minister of Great Britain?
2007-10-28 07:59:28 · 25 answers · asked by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He was for the general public. The majority of the working class folks. A great leader, shame he spoilt it with Iraq but I think he did the right thing considering he was only acting on Americas info.
2007-10-28 08:11:04 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Tony Blair was not a Great Prime Minister, and he will not be remembered for being a Great Prime Minister. Tony Blair was an actor who took his lead from Bill Clinton.
He took the leadership of the labour party after it had been reformed by potentially great men.
His political affiliation was of less importance that his rise to power.
Tony Blair sought greatness in itself, but not the greatness of his position as Prime Minister.
2007-10-28 08:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by sicoll007 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who claims he was? I think the jury is still out on that.
We'll just have to leave it to history to judge in the long term. Certain PM's have been regarded as great because of the effect they had on the country or were in the right place at the right time - Churchill is a great example of the latter; a fantastic war time leader but a dreadful peace time PM.
Personally I think Blair's premiership is one of many disappointments. So much promise, so little in delivery.
2007-10-28 08:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Q: Why Was Tony Blair A Great Prime Minister?
Or rather: Was Tony Blair a good Prime Minister?
Tony Blair, in my personal opinion, is a good, if not great British Prime Minister. It has been said that he looks after and cares for the people of Great Britain and we find this to be true. We've even written to him and have gotten direct responses back from him. Including short position papers as top why he supports America and its Iraq War.
As far as I know PM Tony Blair is a very honest and upright man and good PM if not great, because of his honesty.
I take no position on his position to pursue the Iraq War. The US is a very powerful nation and the Bush administration knows how to manipulate politics. Yet, people (Bush people) are not that smart as others, us folks, Americans, well at least some of us, know when Bush is lying and can speak up against the President and against Congress, when they are wrong.
.
2007-10-28 08:20:07 · answer #4 · answered by peacenegotiator 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
He was not a great Prime Minister but a man of reasonable intellect who exercised power to his benefit and took advantage of ineffectual oposition from the conservatives.
He was weak when he joined Bush in his illegal war against Iraq but showed cunning in his decision to take the middle road away from the other parties. I remain unsure as to whether he was a good leader during his long period in office. I suspect he bailed out at the right time for his successor has already aged beyond his years and I suspect he will fail to run the course.
2007-10-28 10:09:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hope this is a wind up,that toffee nosed infiltrator to the working class was the worst thing ever to happen to the UK,he sold his country down the drain,destroyed the fabric of the british way of life.A traitor to his people and the nation.Should be stood up against a wall with all the other traitors who formed his decietful party and shot in the name of England.
2007-10-28 11:15:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no he was not, he was a puppet for the bush administration, he didn't care about the people who live in the u.k, or what we wanted/needed he thought about himself and how to make "friends" with certain people for personnel benefits for when he wasn't prime minister. he left us in the s..t for the next pillock gordon brown, from one cow pat to another, we need an election and for people to come out and vote for someone who wants the best for this country and it's people and actually makes our lives better, won't be any of the candidates that are waiting in the background then will it
2007-10-28 08:08:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Too early to judge.
There's no substantial legislation or event where he changed Britain (either for the good or for the worse).
The jury must remain out on the Middle East until it's all over or there is more distance.
So on balance, I'd say "adequate" unless I looked at the minutae of some of his decisions - and minutae doesn't make "great."
2007-10-28 08:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by Luke Warnes 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he was a liar. a deciever a traitor and an assasin.....no one els in history has managed to do more harm to he's own country in such a short space of time. outside of that! he became so confident in hes ability to lie and get away with it that he tripped into one lie too many which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. he should realy be handed to the Iraqi people to face justice. murderers go to prison for killing just one person.......the slaughter of the people of Iraq was premeditated. he knew! that the whole reason for the invasion was a sham. he even lied to the queen about the reason for the invasion. as i allways understood it. that!!...surely is treason!!
2007-10-28 09:41:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who said TB was great....not me, Labour inherited a great economy and between him and Brown have managed to drag it down ..... you should be feeling the effects of this fall out in the next few years.....enjoy
2007-10-28 09:53:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because every morning he would eat a whole box of wheaties for breakfast.
2007-10-28 10:18:54 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋