Blair was a snake-oil salesman, Brown a magician whose house of cards finally tumbled. But Blair was elected Prime Minister three times - as many as Margaret Thatcher - and Brown was PM this time last year. Questions of personal like or dislike shouldn't have come into it - they should both, as former leaders of Britain, be at what in all but name is a full State occasion.
It will give a degree of aid and comfort to Labour Party republicans - although recognising political realities*, none will be going to the scaffold for Blair or Brown - but that's not the main objection.
Stephen Glover nails it :
"it is highly regrettable — indeed, I would say constitutionally irregular — that the two most recent prime ministers of this country, who happen to be Labour, have not been invited to Friday's Royal Wedding... whatever the explanation, this is a decision that will damage the monarchy more than the feelings of Mr Blair and Mr Brown. Once the Crown appears to be taking sides — and that is the impression, if not the intention — our delicate constitutional arrangements are imperilled."
* the Mail comments are overwhelmingly anti-Blair and Brown. As I've written before, the Mail comments are where you can see the real damage that's been done to British culture over the last 40 years. Whatever happened to fair play?
I almost forgot to say. In Martin Kelly's words : Best wishes to the happy couple for a long and fulfilling married life; and also to everyone else who has married yesterday and today, who is getting married tomorrow, and who will get married from now until the end of time.
23 comments:
I suspect it was an oversight and the reason Major & Thatcher were invited because they are members of the Order of the Garter.
But it does look bad.
excuse me if I dont cry. imho both of them should have a royal invite to the tower and thats it. according to a man on the radio, or possibly down the pub, ex-prime ministers arent automatically invited so they dont fall into that list and they certainly arent friends. didnt mrs blair write about her experiences s****ing in a royal palace? and shouldnt everyone try our hardest to forget brown and his towering morality?
anon - not the point. For good or ill, they were Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. And I say this even though the thought of Tony and Cherie walking through the abbey door makes me quite ill.
When they get 'forgotten' like this, it makes us smaller as a nation. It's the office that's being demeaned, not the person.
It is rather pointed.
Perhaps they should have been invited and sat next to each other, behind the king of bongo-bongo land. I'd have loved the juxtaposition of that 'chewing a wasp' face and the rictus grin.
On the other hand Brown is still an MP and and yet neglects to attend Parliament. So sod him.
As for Cherie & Tonie, well, what can one say. Greatly missed by no one.
Someone suggested inviting them, but seating them between the ambassadors of Zimbabwe and North Korea.
Maybe the queen had the final say, and decided 'No! Up with these two, I will not put!'
Who'd gainsay her? Not me!
Your concern for the office is touching to say the least , but you will concede that Blair and his successors have truly demeaned the office entirely. The prime Ministership of the UK is the preserve of conmen and incompetents .If you disagree then I 'd like to hear your reasoning.
"I yield to no one in my detestation of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. But the decision not to invite them to today's bash seems petty - and in the case of Brown, downright vindictive - talk about kicking a man when he's down. What must his wife think ?
Blair was a snake-oil salesman, Brown a magician whose house of cards finally tumbled. But Blair was elected Prime Minister three times - as many as Margaret Thatcher - and Brown was PM this time last year. Questions of personal like or dislike shouldn't have come into it - they should both, as former leaders of Britain, be at what in all but name is a full State occasion."
You are too reasonable ie soft. They did enormous damage to this country, the extent of this is hardly realised as yet. Blair was "elected" under
false pretences. I don't recall mass immigration, banker collusion and crazy foreign wars - which led to the deaths and horrendous injuries to our lads - in the manifestos
They are what Fielding described in his satire on Jonathan Wild as "Great Men". Wild whilst serving ostensibly as thief-taker in chief was a master criminal and monster of corruption.
Blair and Brown belong where Wild ended up - Tyburn Tree
Simple 'No Cunts allowed' Thats why Obama wasn't there either
B&B getting the snub is the best bit about the wedding!
B&B are traitors to Britain who did almost as much damage to Britain as WWII inflicted, so it's quite proper they are not invited.
And even better, Mrs. Obama, who so wanted to come was also not invited. Heh!
Was disappointed with the flyover though, missed the 1st pass and only saw the Tornado/Eurofighter diamond. There should have been more!
Does anyone remember how Blair behaved when Diane (William's mother died)?
Of course if they really wanted to be horrible they could have just invited Brown.
One of your better posts, fairplay still matters, marriage too.
"Was disappointed with the flyover though, missed the 1st pass and only saw the Tornado/Eurofighter diamond. There should have been more!"
I was rather surprised there was no appearance by the Red Arrows...
Blair and Brown were snubbed. I cannot believe it would have been an oversight. After the damage they inflicted on the country I can’t blame the Queen, even if it does diminish her office. Slimy smiley Blair and his ghastly self serving wife together with Brown (the only one I feel sorry for is Brown’s wife, Sarah) and other senior Nu-Lab inner circle cohorts were elected on one ticket and pushed ahead with their own agenda, notably abandoning any pretence at controlling our borders, to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”. They kept quiet about this because they knew the overwhelming majority of the population would have objected. The years since ’97 will be remembered as a period of self destructive utter madness. Concepts of right and wrong were eroded with the clever use of political correctness. Nu-Lab concepts were promoted throughout the police, civil service and government by very clever manipulation of promotion and discipline procedures. Once cherished institutions, such as the police and civil service, which were the envy of the world were badly damaged
Nu-Labour has nothing to do with the Old Labour party (which had its share of nutters). It has nothing to do with improving conditions for the working man or working class. Nu-Labour is a party which was hijacked and used by a gang of “champagne socialists” with crazy, trendy ideas that should never have made it out of a 1970’s university refectory. They were a bunch of spoilt pampered rich kids playing at rebelling against mummy and daddy. They have done immense, irreparable damage to the fabric of British society and it will take decades to recover.
I think they are traitors. They deliberately lied to the public and perused their own secret agenda. They have brought the country to the brink of ruin and have our streets flooded with foreign criminals.
Tony Blair won three general elections in a row. If not for the invasion of Iraq, 2005 would also have been a landslide. I understand that your loathing of a Labour politician who stuffed the Tories 3 times in a row can cloud many commentators judgement, but Laban is correct. This was petty, and stupid. There will come a time when a King may need help and he needs it from a Labour Prime Minister. It's not sensible to need a favour from someone who knows that you've insulted a predecessor.
Worse, many Labour supporters really liked Tony Blair - not all, and you'd never know it from the media - as I know from visits to Party Conference and life in the Party.
I felt that someone surely at the Palace was grownup and said - hang on, we've got to invite the last 2 Labour Prime Ministers as otherwise we'll look partisan. Worse, that No.10 didn't intervene to ensure they were invited.
Loathing of politicians as individuals is different from respecting them as representatives of serious political traditions. And that they were snubbed at a National event was very bad.
I suspect Blair's omission was revenge for the humiliation he foisted on the Queen during New Year at the Dome.
As for Brown, he probably did something ghastly at Windsor that led to a corgi being put down. You never know.
I remember the dome. Auld Lang Syne, and the Queen with a face 'like a bulldog chewing a wasp' as Cherie tried her best to heave Her Majesty off the balcony.
There will come a time when a King may need help and he needs it from a Labour Prime Minister. It's not sensible to need a favour from someone who knows that you've insulted a predecessor.
(Un)fortunately for us, not many modern politicians (and I count the ones in all three big parties) have memories that long nor vision that goes that far out.
Brown should have been invited, to make it very clear indeed that the objection was to Blair per se, not to Labour PMs.
I beg to differ Laban. I think these men were traitors - particularly on the matter of mass immigration - and in excluding them, the Monarchy showed its connection to the people it serves with an action that speaks louder than words.
Forty percent of Labour MPs in the '90s were self-described republicans. How many more were closet?
The Blair/Brown years are a painful period of our history, a period we need to draw a line under and somehow move on from.
This wedding might just have been that line.
If Blair and Brown had turned up the RAF might have arranged a Predator flypast just for them. Ideal targets for a couple of Hellfire missiles in the war against terror.
Laban,
The depth of the British right's enthusiasm for either jailing or stringing up their opponents never ceases to amaze me.
I can't see why the Royal Family would have had any objection to Blair, given the intellectual elasticity he displayed, and constitutional contortions, he was willing to go through, to enable the current heir to the throne to marry his concubine. In that matter, he was nothing less than a good and faithful servant. One rationale I saw for Brown not having been invited was that he had cut the budget for the Royal Yacht Britannia. As sad as it might have been for the end users, it doesn't really have the same kind of impact as a change in funding arrangements for the bus pass.
Can we give William special dipensation, after all he's the heir apparent? It makes a big difference. Had he been the actual heir to the throne, he would have been obliged to invite Blair and Brown.
(Bring on the Diamond Jubilee)
Post a Comment