The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Teflon Tony – A Rogue’s Guide To Keeping Slippery As A Greased Piglet
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
Page:
his time may be up,george bush really has screwed him over by saying the weapons may not have been there when the war started.
oh well if you play with the devil...
oh well if you play with the devil...
A few blips?
My prediction/ hopes on the outcome of the next election.
Labour will win, but it may be tight.
There will be a scrap for the no. 2 party. I hope that Lim Dems get in. I think they are just as opertunist(sp?) as the Torys, but their policies are much, much more acceptable to me. And apart from a few blips of varying degree on the Labour side, the country ain't all that bad, so good luck to them i say.
Labour will win, but it may be tight.
There will be a scrap for the no. 2 party. I hope that Lim Dems get in. I think they are just as opertunist(sp?) as the Torys, but their policies are much, much more acceptable to me. And apart from a few blips of varying degree on the Labour side, the country ain't all that bad, so good luck to them i say.
It's horrible - Blair or Howard, you can't win!
I've been thinking about Kennedy too. He's been making a bit more noise than usual during the last few days, but still not much.
And I think I've had to reluctantly accept the lib dems are cheap opportunists.
Oh well :^S
I've been thinking about Kennedy too. He's been making a bit more noise than usual during the last few days, but still not much.
And I think I've had to reluctantly accept the lib dems are cheap opportunists.
Oh well :^S
Either way, if there really is that much dislike for Labour they will be voted out next year...any chance of Blair going early was lost with the climb down (sorry, treachery) of the rebels againt top up fees.
Personally I wouldn't like to say which way the next election will go...
Personally I wouldn't like to say which way the next election will go...
unknown kernel wrote:
> Could it have been headlines like "Brits 45 Mins From Doom"
> that made people think this? Headlines that, though the government
> knew they were incorrect at the time, they did nothing to correct?
> Your sneering only comfirms the attitude taken by the warmongers: ha
> ha, they deserved to be tricked into war.
You mean the headlines in an independent media? You mean like the BBC, y'know where the government complained about inaccurate reporting and was ignored and that set in motion a large chain of events in the process. The fact is no one was tricked into war. Misled by large sections of the media? Yep, but not the government. These would be the same sections of the media now attempting to play down the Hutton report as invalid. By the time they have finished I would not be surprised if we end up with another enquiry into their conduct and claims. Gilligan played the "I apologised and said I was wrong" card all through the Hutton Enquiry, yet now he has resigned he goes straight back to claiming he was right. Two faced or what? Same for Greg "SR won't let me use that word".
And SR, why the feck can I not use the word d y k e ??? It makes no sense seeing as everyother homosexual type word can be used. Look, gay, homo, queer lesbian etc Swear filter madness.
> I would be pretty interested to see your posts from the time the
> dossier was released: were you laughing at the stupid plebs then or
> were you whipping up hysteria about the Cyprus and 45 minutes claims?
> I suspect the latter.
I was laughing actually. Iraq was developing the missiles to hit further away targets like the bases in Cyprus but, at the time, was thought, accoding to what I had read, about 10, maybe as much as 15, years away from any kind of ICBM. Even then Iraq would have had a hard time getting the technology together for any such ICBM unless sanctions were removed. A very remote chance was that Iraq could let certain groups get hold of it's chem/bio weapons and that those groups would use them in Europe and the USA - this was also suggested by certain media - but even that was unlikely because whilst Saddam was stupid he did know that the US would retaliate in kind against any WMD.
> Could it have been headlines like "Brits 45 Mins From Doom"
> that made people think this? Headlines that, though the government
> knew they were incorrect at the time, they did nothing to correct?
> Your sneering only comfirms the attitude taken by the warmongers: ha
> ha, they deserved to be tricked into war.
You mean the headlines in an independent media? You mean like the BBC, y'know where the government complained about inaccurate reporting and was ignored and that set in motion a large chain of events in the process. The fact is no one was tricked into war. Misled by large sections of the media? Yep, but not the government. These would be the same sections of the media now attempting to play down the Hutton report as invalid. By the time they have finished I would not be surprised if we end up with another enquiry into their conduct and claims. Gilligan played the "I apologised and said I was wrong" card all through the Hutton Enquiry, yet now he has resigned he goes straight back to claiming he was right. Two faced or what? Same for Greg "SR won't let me use that word".
And SR, why the feck can I not use the word d y k e ??? It makes no sense seeing as everyother homosexual type word can be used. Look, gay, homo, queer lesbian etc Swear filter madness.
> I would be pretty interested to see your posts from the time the
> dossier was released: were you laughing at the stupid plebs then or
> were you whipping up hysteria about the Cyprus and 45 minutes claims?
> I suspect the latter.
I was laughing actually. Iraq was developing the missiles to hit further away targets like the bases in Cyprus but, at the time, was thought, accoding to what I had read, about 10, maybe as much as 15, years away from any kind of ICBM. Even then Iraq would have had a hard time getting the technology together for any such ICBM unless sanctions were removed. A very remote chance was that Iraq could let certain groups get hold of it's chem/bio weapons and that those groups would use them in Europe and the USA - this was also suggested by certain media - but even that was unlikely because whilst Saddam was stupid he did know that the US would retaliate in kind against any WMD.
Thanks for the feedback, positive and negative :^)
Skarra wrote:
> Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think
> 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
Just because a bunch of other people would have done the same, it doesn't make it any less dishonest or any more right.
> Did Tony Blair handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? No!
> Did Geoff Hoon, yes. Thats why he got spanked, and not Tony
Did Geoff Hoon handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? Did he rubber-stamp every bullet that left for Iraq?
No, part of his job involves delegating, and handing over a level of control to other people. Yet as their superior, he has to take an element of responsibility when the system as a whole fails.
And who is Hoon's superior? Who delegated control to Hoon?
So why should all responsibility pass all the way up to Hoon, but stop dead at that particular level and go no further?
Moreover, Hoon didn't even have full control over the military budget, or the plan to run down weapons stocks, to order new stuff when war was looming (this failed for Iraq as there wasn't enough notice to order the new equipment).
> I was under the impression that in the UK, we followed the innocent
> until proven guilty way. It seems people assume Blair is guilty of
> something, until proven guilty. Any talk of innocence is shouted down
> as Whitewash.
We're not talking about a criminal conviction here, a civil charge for example has a lesser standard, and even if we were, I beileve a jury is entitled to draw inferences from a defendant's silence, so I don't think that analogy holds water.
Any talk of innocence? I assume you refer to the Independent's headline. Hutton went a little further than 'any talk of innocence'.
> What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very
> sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see
> it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
One possible compromise would be an independent inquiry, whose members would examine evidence, reach conculsions on it, yet keep the details confidential. That's more or less what the opposition parties and large groups of the public are requesting.
> Times change. Before 9/11, Blair was making military cutbacks. After,
> investing more. See, things change. Perhaps he assumed to much in the
> last manifesto, but i doubt he was laughing to himself saying,
> 'Fools, just wait until after the next election'.
So that's it? Someone can make a serious guarantee of something, then a little later decide 'times change', flip everyone the bird and forget about it?
> Have you read 1441? Here you go:
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
>
> Take a look at page two, paragraph 1. I quote:
> "...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
> obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution
> 687(1991)..."
> That is where the permission came from. I'm short sighted, and i
> didn't need to squint at all.
Yep, but if you're going to launch a war that will see thousands of innocents die, whatever the moral arguments in favour, you'd like the document that you claimed authorised the action to say something a little more firm on your legitiate recourse than 'serious consequences'.
Skarra wrote:
> Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think
> 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
Just because a bunch of other people would have done the same, it doesn't make it any less dishonest or any more right.
> Did Tony Blair handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? No!
> Did Geoff Hoon, yes. Thats why he got spanked, and not Tony
Did Geoff Hoon handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? Did he rubber-stamp every bullet that left for Iraq?
No, part of his job involves delegating, and handing over a level of control to other people. Yet as their superior, he has to take an element of responsibility when the system as a whole fails.
And who is Hoon's superior? Who delegated control to Hoon?
So why should all responsibility pass all the way up to Hoon, but stop dead at that particular level and go no further?
Moreover, Hoon didn't even have full control over the military budget, or the plan to run down weapons stocks, to order new stuff when war was looming (this failed for Iraq as there wasn't enough notice to order the new equipment).
> I was under the impression that in the UK, we followed the innocent
> until proven guilty way. It seems people assume Blair is guilty of
> something, until proven guilty. Any talk of innocence is shouted down
> as Whitewash.
We're not talking about a criminal conviction here, a civil charge for example has a lesser standard, and even if we were, I beileve a jury is entitled to draw inferences from a defendant's silence, so I don't think that analogy holds water.
Any talk of innocence? I assume you refer to the Independent's headline. Hutton went a little further than 'any talk of innocence'.
> What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very
> sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see
> it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
One possible compromise would be an independent inquiry, whose members would examine evidence, reach conculsions on it, yet keep the details confidential. That's more or less what the opposition parties and large groups of the public are requesting.
> Times change. Before 9/11, Blair was making military cutbacks. After,
> investing more. See, things change. Perhaps he assumed to much in the
> last manifesto, but i doubt he was laughing to himself saying,
> 'Fools, just wait until after the next election'.
So that's it? Someone can make a serious guarantee of something, then a little later decide 'times change', flip everyone the bird and forget about it?
> Have you read 1441? Here you go:
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
>
> Take a look at page two, paragraph 1. I quote:
> "...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
> obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution
> 687(1991)..."
> That is where the permission came from. I'm short sighted, and i
> didn't need to squint at all.
Yep, but if you're going to launch a war that will see thousands of innocents die, whatever the moral arguments in favour, you'd like the document that you claimed authorised the action to say something a little more firm on your legitiate recourse than 'serious consequences'.
Nicely put.
Tony keeps wriggling free, but he looks death warmed-up. I bet he sits alone at night in his shadowy office in number 10 and wonders, 'What the hell have I become?'
Tony keeps wriggling free, but he looks death warmed-up. I bet he sits alone at night in his shadowy office in number 10 and wonders, 'What the hell have I become?'
Brilliant, Duckmesiter.
Summed up everything thats been going on recently, beautifully.
Summed up everything thats been going on recently, beautifully.
Skarra wrote:
> Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think
> 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
Uh, because you're the government, because people are supposed to trust you, because this is supposed to be a democracy, and because going to war is the most serious decision its possible to make and people shouldn't be hoodwinked into that decision. If the case for war was so compelling then the truth should have been enough.
> What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very
> sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see
> it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
Sadly, after the dossier debacle I think most people are questioning the intelligence nature of intel. Presumably a lot of these sources are Iraqi, so now that Iraq is a free and sovereign nation they should have no qualms about coming out into the open - perhaps as part of an investigation into why and how we went to war?
> Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think
> 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
Uh, because you're the government, because people are supposed to trust you, because this is supposed to be a democracy, and because going to war is the most serious decision its possible to make and people shouldn't be hoodwinked into that decision. If the case for war was so compelling then the truth should have been enough.
> What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very
> sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see
> it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
Sadly, after the dossier debacle I think most people are questioning the intelligence nature of intel. Presumably a lot of these sources are Iraqi, so now that Iraq is a free and sovereign nation they should have no qualms about coming out into the open - perhaps as part of an investigation into why and how we went to war?
Page: