Friday, October 13, 2006

Examples of Blair's Lies: No 94

Do you remember Gordon Brown saying to Tony Blair "I can never believe another word you will ever say to me"?

When Blair went into hospital with his heart murmor a couple of years ago Downing Street said: "He does not have, has never had, a heart condition".

Blair himself said at the time: "This has never happened before... I have never had this condition before"

David Blunkett says in his diaries: "Tony told me that he had had the heart problem, on and off, for fifteen years..."

Bill Clinton and The Queen have both said that Blair had told them about his heart condition some years before.

No wonder Gordon Brown has come to believe Blair to be a congenital liar.


Anonymous said...

A politician telling a lie?HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!! And Dave would never tell a lie(!).

Anonymous said...

The very fact that this man is still in power speaks volumes about the state of democracy in the UK. It is indicative of the perversity of the electoral system that allows a minority of people (remember the lowest turnout since 1918 at the last GE) to deliver a government with a working majority.

It also speaks volumes for the British people. We either don't care about the fact we are lied to on a daily basis, or that we simply believe it. One of the reasons for the current meltdown is the fact that New Labour's lies are gradually being exposed, viz. Iraq, the NHS, criminal justice, etc. and people can see through their lies more clearly now. Whilst I am prepared to give support to the Conservatives, I am frankly worried about the line the young Cameron is taking. He should be putting the boot in more effectively. Mind you, he did do well at PMQs the other day, but that is merely pantomime to keep us plebs amused. The biggest problem is that whoever succeeds Blair, whether it is Brown or Cameron, they will have a very hard job to reverse the damage done.

Anonymous said...

Did Blair actually say that he'd never had it before? I thought he had a slightly more slippery form of words, which said that he'd never been into hospital for it before. I'll try to check.

Anonymous said...

It's not just Gordon Brown who believes that! One of the great failings of much of the media during the Blair years has been its reluctance to point out the lies and inconsistencies that have emanated from No. 10 since 1997. Peter Oborne did a depressingly brilliant analysis of the Blairite tendency for, erm, 'terminological inexactitudes' in his book 'The Political Art of Lying'.

I teach a modern history course which includes an assessment of Mao's China. One of the sadly many dire legacies left by this ogre was the sullying of political discourse in China, to the extent that nothing was believeable, and a resigned national cynicism permeated the country in the wake of the Cultural Revolution. Blair's no ogre, but his legacy as regards our national political discourse is disastrous. When lies become a standard method of communicating, who do you believe?

Anonymous said...

I've always known Blair was a 'wrong 'un'.IMO he is a narcissist who truely believes he has the answer to all questions.When he said he wouldn't serve a fourth term I think his advisors had assured him that it was the only way to lance the Iraq boil and allow Labour to be re-elected.As pressure mounts for him to go and the reality of his leaving approaches,I wonder how this deeply flawed man will react?I think the only thing that assaults his ego more than the thought of relinquishing power is the thought of being mocked.As the time draws nigh it will be entertaining (for us) to watch.

AnyonebutBlair said...

I think lying about a heart condition is the least of it. What about these gems: "Education, education, education" followed by appalling dumbing down on examinations, spin and evasion around school results (as an aside, my wife a state school teacher has returned to work in a public school after the birth of our second child. She's staggered at the gap in attainment between the public school pupils and the equivalent state school pupils and the confidence and articulation of the public school pupils); or "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", yeah right; and "this dossier is detailed and authoritative" or "We had nothing to do with the death of Dr. Kelly" or "We did not reveal Dr. Kellys name to the press" or etc etc. Once a liar always a liar

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt you're right, Iain, but where have you sourced the quote of the Queen saying what she undoubtedly said...?
(Is it possible it could have been Helen Mirren instead...?)

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's a disgrace and it seems to be an accepted part of the 'any means to an end' politics of the day.

And lies don't have to be verbal.

Any attempt to knowingly deceive is a lie - for instance, bycycling to work with a chauffeur following behind with your briefcase and shoes.

In my view the professional politians of today are so immersed in their own cocoon of Spivery & Spin that they genuinely don't realise that they have totally lost their integrity.

And it's no good pleading "It's the only way to get into power". That wouldn't justify murdering your grandma if she stood between you and No.10. On the other hand I'm not too sure that many Westminster pros would agree.

Paul Burgin said...

When did the Queen mention this?

Anonymous said...

Only 94 !

Anonymous said...

If Blair can lie about WMD then a lie about a dodgy heart is no big deal. I suppose he subscribes to the theory of 'necessary lies' which is given so much credence by the US administration.

Johnny Norfolk said...

Shifty eyes. The Torry poster campagn was true. Why are the Tories not opposing him at every turn.

Anonymous said...

You're all liars... everyone one of you sinning humans on earth. But Blair's going to burn for a very long time: forever!
Burn, baby, burn!

Anonymous said...

I'm no fan of Blair or Labour, but it seems to me that this is one of those 'acceptable' lies - if he tells the truth then confidence is undermined, probably for no good reason.

I believe William Waldegrave got into some trouble for admitting that there are some times when it's acceptable for a politician to lie, in order to prevent unnecessary panic or loss of confidence.

Given that the media and political machines are almost entirely driven by speculation and hypothesis these days, if all politicians always told the complete truth about everything then maybe the country would become ungovernable.

Anonymous said...

Get out of the gutter.

Should anyone have to make public their medical conditions if they have no bearing on their ability to do their job. Whatever you may think about Blair his physical health over the last 10 years has had no relevance to how well he does his job or otherwise.

I look forward to you and all the other Tory candidates providing details of their medical conditions! Remember Harold McMillan lied about his health as a reason for resigning.

Anonymous said...

perhaps blurs pants are responsible for global warming ?.

Anonymous said...

"Wonderful for his age" - exactly how old are you , 108? I've been around a bit myself, but surely everyone apart from those going a bit senile can detect that there is a world of difference between the kind of lies perpetrated by this government, which have involved deaths of individuals as the outcome in some cases, taxpayers being fiddled out of huge amounts of cash in others, over David Cameron's pretty unspectacular publicity stunts, like the much-repeated baloney about the bike and his chauffeur -driven car - (well, I mean YAWN!!). If that's the worst thing you can throw at him then don't bother! Let's face it, this kind of stunt pales into insignificance alongside the PR stunts laid on by Blair & co. over the last decade. And I don't buy this mealy-mouthed stuff I keep reading from government apologists on here, who attempt to counter accusations about the misdeeds of the government by bleating on about how the Tories did it /are doing it. The Tories are comparative amateurs at the art of spin, so if you don't mind, I think I'll stick with the amateurs. At least there's a chance the lies will be smaller and less damaging.

Paul Evans said...

When did the Queen mention this?

Over tea with Iain last week.

dearieme said...

Is being a congenital liar better than being psychologically flawed?

Anonymous said...

Machievelli and Paul Burgin - I remember reports at the time that the Queen had said he had told her of his heart condition.

I didn't believe it. Who did she say it to? It is just so staggeringly unlikely that the Queen would make this statement to anyone at all, never mind someone who immediately ran out of the room and called the press.

At the same time, it was reported that Clinton said the same thing - that Blair had told him he has a heart condition. This I also doubt, for different reasons. Clinton was the most powerful man in the world. Blair is such a cheap little egoist that he would not want to appear weak before such a powerful man.

I didn't and don't believe either story. More lies. But why?

So it would appear that he hadn't been covering up? He'd told the two people who mattered? So he's not really a sneak? This has always lingered in the back of my mind. Why?

Anonymous said...

As someone points out, there are the outright lies but what is more commonplace and pervasive is the misrepresentation of things. So politicians can say they are not lying, when they not telling the whole truth (like cycling with the car behind...)

Etzel Pangloss said...

Lies are only lies when when one does'nt get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Dynamite - First prize for the funniest post of he day.

Anonymous said...

I was watching cable TV the other day and caught the tail-end of an episode of "The Young Ones". Hadn't seen the programme since the early 80's, but I was suddenly struck with a hideous reaslisation. Dear God, for the last ten years the country has been run by right-on Rik. Rik was the shallow, fawning, pompous radical prat of dubious morals, always trying ever-so hard to be "cool" (but let down by the Cliff Richards thing...). Rik also had moments of manic violence - from which he invariably came off worst.

So Rik grew up to be Blair. Should have seen it sooner....

Anonymous said...

Blair's heart condition is ventricular fibrillation. It is not dangerous, just uncomfortable, and disconcerting.

Atrial fibrillation is dangerous, but he doesn't have that.

Blair doesn't lie. He lives in a different reality where the truth is only what people think it is. If you can change peoples' views of the facts, you move the truth. See.

If you believe truth is perception, lying is hard to define.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you see the Queen's statement? Log on to

Bob Piper said...

I don't recall Thatcher ever coming clean about her mental instability when she was running (sorrry, ruining) the country.

Oh, no! Now Peter Luff will start creaming his pants and getting all excited.

Iain Dale said...

Noel, It's something Private Eye do. I am merely copying Lord Gnome!

Anonymous said...

More lies from blair today. just to show consistency, he is saying that he agrees with every word the General is saying.

And blue is pink. How do the journos let him get away with all this stuff? Only because he is PM is nobody going up to him and saying; "What rubbish are you spouting now you nerd, you cannot believe anyone aged more than six is believing a single word you are saying, can you?"

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6:51 - He's not up to nerd standard.

He has said he agrees because he is a coward. He is frightened that a man of real accomplishment, and one who is not within his remit, has presented an argument that he cannot argue with. Blair must have been a crap barrister because he is just frightened to death of engaging in an argument with someone he fears may best him and make him look foolish.

The man's a coward. Give him a white feather.

HM Stanley said...


I am surpised at your trusting-ness on this matter. On your theory, contra reasoning..Blair is so craven that he would want to share intimacies with equally plausible.

I always found the HM comment credible. HM's comments/feelings...La Cherie and her creaky knees---often come out. Recall TB's boasting at HM's Golden Jubilee...much mocked...that there were only two people that he was comfortable telling anything knowing that it would be kept confidential...La Cherie and HM!!!

Anonymous said...

Swans Egg wrote:

"...surely everyone apart from those going a bit senile can detect that there is a world of difference between the kind of lies perpetrated by this government, which have involved deaths of individuals as the outcome in some cases, taxpayers being fiddled out of huge amounts of cash in others, over David Cameron's pretty unspectacular publicity stunts, like the much-repeated baloney about the bike and his chauffeur -driven car - (well, I mean YAWN!!)."

wonderful for his age writes:

I agree that there is a world of difference in outcome. And, there is a complete sameness in intention, which is to deceive.

I've no appetite for voting into power anybody who demonstrates a shameless willingness to deceive. C'est tout.

Dodgy bike rides today; dodgy dossiers tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe for one minute that Blair had a heart problem.

If I believed he had a heart, I might do.

Scipio said...

You can always tell when Blair is telling porkies - his lips are moving!

Thye perversity is that we put up with it!

Wht? If tghis was Maerica we would have impeached the little shit by now!

Anonymous said...

It's actually more a question of 'which' particular queen mentioned Blair's 'condition'....

Anonymous said...

Evening Iain,

It's all 'ticker tape', you know, ready for the fall when things look bad.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Unsworthy - V good!

HMStanley writes: "On your theory,[Verity] contra reasoning..Blair is so craven that he would want to share intimacies with equally plausible"

Not at all. Weak people don't knowingly advertise that they're weak. They pose as strong. People like Clinton don't pick weak people to be friends with. I do not believe that he ever confided that he has a dicky heart to either Clinton or HM.

How would Blair's private confidence to the Queen get out? The minute he was out of the royal presence, she picked up the phone and called Richard Littlejohn with a tip-off? Come on! He didn't tell the Queen he has a weak heart and the Queen didn't tell the papers or anyone else who would tell the papers.

Bravo, Wonderful for His Age - There is an intent to deceive. Blair has done it more successfully, until now, but both are despicable.

I am getting a stronger and stronger feeling that this is going to end unexpectedly.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Slim Jim, I enjoyed your post. But I don't think Brown has a chance in hell of becoming prime minister. He's already been operating beyond his level of competence for 10 years. According to the Peter Principle, he should have been sacked years ago.

I think Alan Johnson will be the Labour contender. And I think he'll get in. People relate to him. They just don't relate to an OE with a wind turbine on his roof in Notting Hill or wherever he lives, doing very obvious and God-awful publicity stunts. That he has agreed to these stunts tells me Dave is not overly bright, although he's greedy for attention, like tony.

But Alan Johnson is clever. You wouldn't catch him dressed in a parka on a Norwegian ice floe posing with huskies. Or any other obviously phony photo ops. As in Dave posing for a b/w photo before his trip to India, trying to look like an idealistic young man setting out for India long years ago. (Before they had colour film.)
Oh, the nostalgia! Oh, wait, that was only a couple of months ago!

If Dave has to stand against Alan Johnson, I'm sorry Iain, but people will turn out to vote for Johnson in their droves.

Aaron Murin-Heath said...

>Dynamite - First prize for the funniest post of he day.<

Do you clap when Co-Co pops turn the milk chocolaty?

Anonymous said...

"I always found the HM comment credible. HM's comments/feelings...La Cherie and her creaky knees---often come out."

And you believe this dodgy comment came out how? Do you really think a woman of 80 would have made a comment about a woman of 50-ish's (30 years younger, just to spell it out) "creaky knees"? That is just so silly.

I would think her comments, if any, on trailer trash cherie, would be far more pointed and made in private.

Anonymous said...

I remember once being present during the interviewing of a woman who was an accomplished inveterate liar. Hardly anything she said was the truth. That she was psychologically disturbed was in no doubt, but she was intelligent and articulate. When asked about her behaviour she claimed that at the actual time of uttering a lie she believed it to be the truth. It was only later that she realised the truth about herself, but then of course she was telling more lies to cover up the first! When this eventually came to a head, she had lost all sense of reality. She did, in fact lose everything including her family and her freedom!

Anonymous said...

Well it's weight that put's the strain on knees (if you're not into Levinskyesque love(sic) life).

And with Cherie the hips (unlike the hubbie) don't lie!

Anonymous said...

Are you sure about Blair mentioning this to the Queen as in Elizabeth 2? Two much more likely explanations are that he mentioned it to Cherie, who thinks she's the queen, or to one of his aquaintances who happens to be a queen. Sort of "leave me alone big gob I've got a dicky heart" or "be gentle big boy I've got a hearty dick"

Anonymous said...

"I've got a hearty dick"
which is of course why the hips don't lie.

PS How do you conjugate the cockney verb 'caplin'?

I capul
You capul
We capul
We came as a capul
RU caplin?
I need a Chaplin
You got any Charlie?
Ask Peter. Or maybe George's mate Dave.

Anonymous said...

I don't remember a single negative or even questioning story about Blair for the first three years of his Premiership.When we had the Ecclestone affair we had 'Trust me,I'm a pretty straight typo of a guy (only two letters transposed)'.The media then allowed Labour a fresh start.Any transgressions (and they're all big enough to have sunk a Conservative government)and Labour says 'ok,we made a mistake,we'll start afresh' and the media LET them.It's a pity the Labour government was so slow in forcing BT to upgrade the exchanges so allowing opposition to migrate to the internet.Criminal in competitiveness terms but usefull for maintaining media control.It's going to take dynamite to get rid of this lot but the prize is a media apparatus so diverse that ruthless schemers who believe that the ends justify the means can no longer successfully attack no more pretence of a laughable impartiality.

Anonymous said...

Schoolboy Error - Interesting. And correct.

I think this Labour government has dynamited the myth of the brave, free, independent British press. They were cowering in corners like a frightened puppy before Field Marshall Alastair Campbell. I have never seen an analysis of how he managed to bully and silence them, but I would like to. He was just one man, but all the papers, from The Thunderer and The Torygraph to the cheeky red tops, were scared to death of Campbell. Could he really have had something on every single editor on Fleet Street?

You imply that Campbell is a ruthless schemer, which indeed he is, but how did one man manage to control the entire British press?
Not one of them dared to write anything negative about Blair. They couldn't all have liked him, and I would think several of them would have absolutely despised him. Yet he controlled them all. How?

They were even afraid to publish anything negative about Elena Ceaucescu Blair, who is a case study in her own right.

It really is only during this past year or 18 months that they've been running negative stories and negative opinions about tony blair and his fat, greedy, crude wife. And even then, I think it was led by the bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Bugger conjugating Caplin. How do you decline Blair?

Anonymous said...

As far as I can see this shower of liars, chancers and no-hopers have succeeded in staying in power through the use of 4 key strategies:
1. Make sure that there is such an abundance of sleaze that no one issue will stay in the headlines for more than 2 days and so will never be properly followed up.
2. Bribe the non working class with visible (apparent) benefits whilst introducing massive hidden taxes.
3. Get the fat fool to introduce postal voting and then save the voters the trouble of filling the forms in for themselves.
4. Import the dregs of the world population and ensure their allegiance to nulab by plying them with unearned benefits.

Anonymous said...

The BBC has an editorial policy that sometimes indulges in social engineering.See substitution of the phrase 'lone parent' for the phrase (then) in common everyday use 'single parent'.I read in Frederic Forsythe's Express column that the Wilson report had aknowledged there was an influx of leftward leaning journalists into the BBC in the build up to the 1997 election.I first heard the use of 'Tory' to describe the Conservative Party in a BBC radio news report in (mid)1996.This then migrated to television news reports with (to my recollection)increasing frequency approaching the '97 election.We had Labour and New (improved) Labour.We had Conservative and Tory.The Labour terms are mutually reinforcing in brand terms.The Conservative terms are not.You could claim that Tory had become a term of abuse to a substantial proportion of the population by that time.I've seen many news reports since that time onwards when Conservative and Tory were used interchangeably and in the same report.No commercial organisation would permit such de-branding.If media was impartial they wouldn't either.You can use 'Labour' when reporting stories emphasising 'traditional socialist values'.You can use 'New Labour' when reporting on the party's vision for the future.Using both in the same report is fine as they mutually reinforce.'Aunty Beeb' is a tremendous anchor for the country as a whole.Where the establishment meets the people.If you can put your foot in that door you're in the driving seat.If it was a scheme.It worked.It won't be possible to prove it so the only thing is to fix it.Broaden the means of discourse.Partial parties (openly declaring that they are so)clamouring for attention/votes allowing us to judge on their best case.Politics has to form and grow in an organic way or all of us are poorly served.Remember when the Conservatives accused Blair of lying about Iraq before the last election.The media were up in arms.You can't say that without absolute proof.The trouble is these things are done by word of mouth.There won't be any memos/emails etc.If there are enough people on the internet mocking the absurdity of it,it seeps into the general consciousness and colours people's opinions.People talking to people is the way to go and Doughty street,the Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem and the rest bloggers and more to come will enfranchise all of us to talk and thereby become engaged and enable us together to thrash out the best way forward for all of us.

HM Stanley said...

"Do you really think a woman of 80 would have made a comment about a woman of 50-ish's (30 years younger, just to spell it out) "creaky knees"? That is just so silly."


I think you've had a sense of humor bypass on this one. FYI, the comment was not about Cherie's knees or her age, but a mockery of Cherie's refusal to curtsy to HM. HM reportedly joked...and from what we hear, HM has a great sense of humor...that she hears Cherie's knees creak whenever HM enters the room as Cherie steels her knees no to curtsy. I believe it was reported by Giles Brandreth...who is supposed to have uncomon access, if not to HM, to Prince Phillip.

Anonymous said...

hm stanley - Yes, I didn't think it was funny the first time I read it, several years ago, I believe, and I don't credit it. The Queen does not talk so freely and I do not think Prince Philip would pass on something so political and negative about the sitting prime minister's wife. It would be nice if she had indeed said it, though.

Anonymous said...

Bob Piper said...
I don't recall Thatcher ever coming clean about her mental instability when she was running (sorrry, ruining) the country.

5:50 PM

I remember her! Wasn't she a Prime Minister who won a war without killing a scientist?

Anonymous said...

As I have pointed out before - go and look in the mirror at the dark lines around the rim of your iris.

Then look at Tony Blair's eyes. You will see his eyes look watery - like an old mans eyes.

It's a classic symptom that experienced cardiologists look for.

He has been suffering from a heart problem for at least 10 years.

Forget obesity I would say he has hardening of the arteries. My considered opinion is that he will be lucky to get past his 70th birthday and will probably die from a massive stroke after a pain in the calf or thigh for several days.

Paul Burgin said...

I agree with Verity about the Queen which is why I questioned it!

Anonymous said...

Schoolboy error - the term Tory is of Irish 19 th century origin; it is derogatory, it means 'bog bandit' and has been in use for ever such a long time, well before the mid 90s.

Anonymous said...

paul burgin - We will never know. But I would be unhappy if I thought HM had not been distressed by the previous 10 years of "governance" of Britain.

I firmly believe that Sir Richard was not suddenly - in a burst of amiability with the press that has not illustrated his career heretofore, speaking out of turn at this particular moment.

I think blair's finished. I honestly think this was a very British coup. Blair has done little wees on the floor all over his office, agreeing with everything our General said. He is a submissive puppy. He will go.

Until he goes, believe me, he will not have any new programmes or "initiatives with which I can be personally associated". History. Blair's dead meat.

Too bad. I'd have preferred something more toe-curling. But I think he's gone.

Anonymous said...

Not in BBC news broadcasts when referring to the Conservative Party.Which was my point when conjoined with the Labour/New (improved) Labour mutually reinforcing terms in reference to brands.