Which is possibly a bit harsh.
Possibly.
Possibly …
I really don’t know if I will or won’t be.
But I do know that I’ve just watched what— to me — is a riveting piece of TV.
One that didn’t involve tentacles, or aliens, I should add.
Well …
That actually all depends on what you think of a certain former Labour PM.
I’m talking, here, about Britain’s former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, of course, and I’m starting to think that I’ve — possibly — misjudged him.
And I’m using the word ‘possibly’ with some heavy emphasise, there … !!
Hmmm …
Let me try and sum up 21st century history, here, as I understand it: and I’m happy to have corrections put to me, by the way … !
But start by telling you that BBC2 have, tonight, shown an interview conducted by Andrew Marr, with Tony Blair.
Who, incidentally, has a volume of his autobiography of his years in Parliament released today, called simply A Journey.
Which has nothing to do with the timing of the interview, obviously. (Say that to yourself with as heavy an ironic tone as you want …)
‹‹‹◊›››
I’m burbling, aren’t I?
I am: I’ve got to admit that not only have I watched, I’ve also recorded it, with the intention of putting a clip or two, here on Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar.
And also got it on, again.
Just so I know what I’m talking about … !!
Now, I’ve got to admit, I’ve tried to watch this interview this as few preconceptions as possible, to try an be fair to Tony Blair.
And, for the most part … ?
I’ve come away feeling that I’ve seen an interview with a politician of conviction.
Who, in office, tried to do his best by the population he’d been elected by.
But … ?
You knew there be a ‘but’, didn’t you … ?
But I think that I’m still unconvinced by one thing …
Now don’t forget, I generally quite liked the guy. Whilst being very aware that Blair is and was also — as he’s admitted in the book he’s released, today — a very manipulative one.
Certainly one who was — and is — a very good public speaker: possibly the best the UK’s seen in No 10 since Margaret Thatcher was in office.
One that’s possibly the most Machiavellian, as well.
At any rate, he was one that both was very watchable, and had me convinced he was the slimiest snake oil salesman going.
But one who put forwards ideas I liked and ideas I didn’t like.
I’ve just got to the bit where he’s explaining about how central government targets were good: and I can’t see myself disagreeing with that.
After all, we all like the idea of how well local services are doing.
But I do disagree about the Freedom of Information act he helped put through: he’s been kicking himself, ever since.
I’m thinking he might be kicking himself: I’m thinking that level of openness in government’s a good thing.
But the one thing that I alway felt very strongly about?
Iraq.
Dear lord, the Iraq situation …
Now I don’t know about you, but I always felt that, in joining with our US allies in invading Afghanistan, we had a certain amount of justification for invading.
9/11.
But Iraq … ?
That whole Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction thing … ?
I still find it very unconvincing.
‹‹‹◊›››
He might.
I don’t.
So I think that that invasion, whatever objective good Mr Blair argues it may have done? In removing Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti?
Wasn’t done in my name.
At least, not on the evidence Tony Blair put forward.
