Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 3

message: Why does the summary box refer to “predecessors“ and “successors“ and then refer to one person for each.  It should say predecessor and successor.  This does not just apply to this article, but if it’s a deliberate style it makes no sense.  -Chris
*The only logical answer to that question is if we have two Prime Ministers serving alongside each other at the same time, which obviously is totally illogical. I think it's perhaps just a standard box that was used and nobody has bothered to change it. Should it be removed? Deskana (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessors vs predecessor

message: What kind of degree did he get? First, 2:1? ZephyrAnycon 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A second class degree. Oxford did not divide its seconds at the time. See John Rentoul's biography at page 52. David | Talk 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Degree

message: The AfD is obvious vandalism. The nonsense at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Blair is further evidence of this. --Jwinters | Talk 19:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an obvious bad faith nomination and I have removed it. David | Talk 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD/Vandalism 

message: This section seems very POV (even after I edited it heavily). Why only criticisms by the left. They are a small minority of the political spectrum. To label policies such as the minnimum wage as progressive is pure POV, can we please ensure we don't engage in such blatant politicising. I also thought Meyer's statement that Blair could have used his influence with the US (to do what exactly the article didn't try to tell us) to be a piece of original research that is in no way notable enought to be in an encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The left are not a small minority if the political spectrum. Presumably for you to make such a comment you are from the US. The Labour Party is a left wing party and Tony Blair is its leader. Criticism from the left, which he is supposed to represent, therefore seems extremely relevant.
The minimum wage is clearly and demonstrably progressive in the economic sense, eg: 'progressive taxation'. --Dazzla 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nah. progressive taxation means increasing the tax burden on the rich compared to regressive taxation which relatively increases taxation upon people of below median income. Dazzla is wrong, because there is no proof beyond political argument that a minimum wage does actually increase the living standards or earning potential or the poor, mainly it impacts upon people like paperboys and 2nd it is not progressive when it is coupled with the UK's biggest ever immigration wave ruthlessly and relentless forcing down wages. 194.112.58.29 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're slightly overstating the case - Blair was never a down-the-line Bennite, being always in favour of UK membership of the EEC, for example. But in substance this is correct and an interesting observation: the intellectual mainspring of 'new Labour' came not from the Labour right but from what was in the 1980s called the 'soft left'. David | Talk 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms by the left

message: There are multiple sources for this. One of the best and most concise is the Nuffield study 'The British General Election of 1997' at pages 56-57. See in particular the commentary on an internal paper about the election: "The authors were particularly impressed with the need for a coherent political message, as well as with the need to stay 'on message' and to use regular polling and telephone canvassing to monitor campaign progress." David | Talk 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea to source such claims in the article. It seems like a simplistic characterisation 87.74.12.83 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive inline referencing destroys the natural flow of an article. I detest defensive editing in which every comment has to be sourced. Good articles are naturally balanced. David | Talk 00:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On a point of fact, Blair was quite explicit that he did not "pray together" with President Bush. Wikipedia doesn't have a duty to reveal as a fact something which is merely opinion (because that would conflict with NPOV), nor should it speculate about something which is suspected without any direct evidence (because that would conflict with No original research). David | Talk 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is quite obvious that Blair and Bush 'prey' together, they preyed on Iraq, they prey on truth, they prey on decency, they prey on freedom, not they're preying on Iran. 194.112.58.29 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On 'spin' and the Clinton campaign

message: Re sentences: 'Euan and Nicky attended the London Oratory School in Fulham where they could be educated in accordance with the Catholic faith of their mother. When this decision was announced, Tony Blair was criticised for rejecting schools in Islington, where he then lived.' This could be understood as implying that Islington has no Catholic secondary schools, and that the decision was made mainly or entirely on religious grounds.  In fact, Islington has a Catholic boys' school that Mr. Blair's children could have attended (St Aloysius College).  It is of interest that the most recent Ofsted inspection report for this school states that: 'The school is failing to provide a satisfactory education for its pupils'.
This is not an attempt to make a partisan point.  I recognise the difficulty of maintaining Wikipedian objectivity in biographies of contemporary politicians, but the complexity and difficulty of the Blair family's choice might be better represented at this point in the article.
For a list of schools in Inslington, see the local education authority website: http://www.islington.gov.uk/Education/SchoolYears/15.asp
For the Ofsted report, see www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/100/100459.pdf
:All very interesting, but good to see that the point is properly made in the article now. I was roundly beaten around the head a while back by Sqeakbox and Dbiv for suggesting the same. The roundabout continues to spin  --84.69.34.161 09:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for education of children at Oratory School 

message: Some clever person changed the photo in this article to a photo of a Pugeout (sp?).  I think it was done by deleting the original image and uploading this new one under the same file name.  I don't know what to do to correct it, but it really should be done.
Clarkefreak ∞ 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was .  He's blocked now, but as this is (at least) the second account of his this evening, he'll probably be back. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Scratch that...its now a Hyundai... Clarkefreak ∞ 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It was Blair for a moment, but now back to the lovely teal Hyundai...can someone tell me how to revert, so I can do this myself?  Clarkefreak ∞ 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Think you need to be an admin to have access to the revert tool, Clarkefreak. - Wezzo 08:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: here you go: Wikipedia:Revert.--Alhutch 08:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo 

message: The recent edit by Cynical stated that Blair was critical of PFI/PPP schemes while in opposition. The criticism which Labour made of the Conservative government was that it was not being sufficiently supportive of PFI schemes. As far back as the "pre-manifesto document" published in 1996, the comment was "We must put together the best combination of public and private finance to renew infrastructure" and a specific reference to "We have long advocated a partnership of public and private finance to improve rail finance".
In the Labour business manifesto of 1997, "Equipping Britain for the Future" (B/021/97), page 9 states "In the future, public/private partnerships will play an increasing role in procuring public services and investment" and pledges to establish "a new public/private taskforce within the Treasury .. whose responsibilities will be to set priorities and drive the process forward". The manifesto also included pledges to encourage local government to enter into PFI schemes. David | Talk 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labour's policy on PFI schemes while in opposition 

message: Just so you know, Scottish would nowadays appear on the Passport or Birth certificate, but they would be a "British National."  Tony Blair is not Scottish, fact.
I removed the "Scottish politicians" category. Yes, he was born in Scotland, but he isn't Scottish. An analogy for you:
Keanu Reeves's mother was British and his father was Hawaiian\Chinese. He was born in Lebanon, but was raised in Canada. Hence, the article on Keanu Reeves says he is "British-Canadian." Not Lebanese.
Tony Blair's father was English and his mother was Irish. He was born in Scotland, but was raised in England. Hence, Tony Blair is English, not Scottish. Neither of his parents were Scottish and he was not raised in Scotland, therefore he is not Scottish.
If, however, you believe that being arbitrarily born in Scotland makes one Scottish, then I shall have to ask that you edit the Wiki on Keanu Reeves to explain that he is Lebanese, because he was born in Beirut.
71.246.209.4 10:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about this on Category talk:British politicians about 15 months ago - well okay a proposal not objected to. The suggestion is that a politician must be active within the politics of the specific nation - so for example Michael Howard may have born in Wales but has never been specficall involved in Welsh politics so is not in the category for Welsh Politicians. Timrollpickering 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting question. My take on the Category is that it should include both (and looking at the list of articles in that Category would seem to support this). He was born in Scotland, albeit to parents of different nationality, but if a poll were conducted in Scotland (or anywhere else in the UK for that matter), I think the overwhelming response would be that he is English. What is Tony Blair's own view? Probably that he is English I would suspect. Is he active in Scotland as a politician? Not directly, and he has a rather dismissive view of Scottish politics, recalling here the infamous pre-devolution "parish council" disparaging of the proposed Scottish parliament. On that basis I think removal of the :Category:Scottish politicians is correct. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, he is not the Prime Minister of England, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Calling him an English politician is overly specific.  He may be English in his capacity as a person, but in his capacity as a politician he is surely British.  JackofOz 12:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that is why he is in :Category:British MPs and :Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, calling him an English politician is overly specific. He is not Scottish at all, he is English-Irish. I don't see a point putting him in the Scottish politicians category. He should be a British, that represents more of the whole of UK then just England. --Terence Ong Talk 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was also educated at Fettes College, in Scotland, but like most politicians his heritage changes depending on who the audience is. British/UK politician is probably safer. Rockpocket 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually his mother was Ulster Scots but lets not confuse things eh :D Arniep 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All three of my children were born in France to a French mother but all have British passports because I am British. I was born in Germany, my father in Pakistan, his father in India... It's rather more complicated than just where you were born. And Scottish isn't a nationality.
OK, I'm from Edinburgh, but one of the last things I would ever want to admit about the city is that Tony Blair was born here. If he wants to call himself English, he can bash on!
--Timothy Horrigan 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish

message: We gotta put this stuff in Bowen 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Blair: Rock Star

message: Why is there no mention of the campaign to impeach Blair?  Guinnog 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it isn't considered significant given we are writing a biography about Blair and until the impeachment has some legal force it could be argued that the attempts to impeach him have nothing to do with him, ie they relate to certain of his political opponets but dont and wont relate to him until or unless impeachment happens or becomes a major topic for speculation in the press, SqueakBox 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The attempted impeachment of Tony Blair is mentioned in the article in the section headed "Attempted impeachment". The link is not particularly relevant to Blair's biography but if curious readers follow the link to the article about the impeachment itself, it is linked there. David | Talk 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I hadn't seen it. It seems rather POV at the moment. Surely the fact that an impeachment movement was even started, however unlikely it is to succeed, is relevant to his biography? Guinnog 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinserted this para; shortening it did not make it better in this case. Please discuss here before making any wholesale changes, thanks Guinnog 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been deleted. I'm going to reinsert it, unless anyone can justify not mentioning it. --Guinnog 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeachment

message: This edit was made by the journalist who wrote this Guardian article about wikipedia. Someone reverted him, SqueakBox 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guardian article

message: The article says "the US had no greater friend than Great Britain"
This does not seem much of a benefit. I suggest the sentence be removed.
User:Eiler7 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quote from President Bush. Having the President say it is a benefit. David | Talk 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Did Tony Blair claim it as a benefit? If so, can you provide the source so that I can see that the claim is verifiable?
Eiler7 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits for Blair 

message: Why does this article tip-toe around the issue of Blair's Christianity?  On Saturday the 4th of March he will tell chat show host Parkisnon that he called for divine intervention on the issue of Iraq.  Are we ashamed to admit his religious convictions?  He has publically claimed he keeps "a bible by his bed".  Why is all this invariably deleted here? - unsigned comment by User:195.93.21.101
:There is a section discussing Blair's religion. However, because Blair has not made a public issue of his religion, it would not be appropriate to make a big issue of it. Keeping a bible by your bed is not particularly meaningful in itself (naturally one would expect a believer to have a copy of the bible, and naturally one would be more likely to refer to it at night rather than during the day). As for what Blair might say tomorrow, let's wait until the interview is broadcast. David | Talk 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I agree with David that if a politician keeps their religion as a largely private matter, we should just note it and leave it at that, with Blair, I think things aren't quite that simple. Blair does talk about the subject in public, albeit reluctantly, and perhaps more importantly, there has for years been a growing belief that his religion has played an important part in directing the course of policy decisions. As he's now confirming this in the Parkinson interview (in respect of one decision - in fact, in respect of his most controversial decision), I think we are being too careful by not giving more prominence to it. My suggestion would be to cover it as a new subsection of the "Criticism" section. The reaction to the Parkinson comments (see today's BBC website coverage), taken together with reaction to previous events such as his tolerance of the teaching Creationism in schools, desire for expansion of faith schools, and so on, should give us enough verifiable sources to produce something worthwhile on the subject. SP-KP 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I think the article may be too confident about the existence of the deal. Eiler7 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're probably right. There is never likely to be direct evidence of it. In my view the significance of the deal is in the way Gordon Brown, or more specifically his supporters, reacted to Blair from about 2004 onwards. David | Talk 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed my mind. The article is fine as it stands. Eiler7 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The deal 

message: Should emphasis be made on Tony's declaration that he went to war because of his religious belifes? Me lkjhgfdsa 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No because he has made no such declaration. What he has said is that he would be accountable to god for his Iraq policy, which is something quite different. David | Talk 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with David, but what Blair also said was that he asked God for guidance prior to making his decision. That aspect of the Parkinson interview is not covered in this article yet - I think it is significant enough to deserve a mention (see also comments above about the reaction). David, what are your thoughts on that? SP-KP 17:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Where in the article do you think is the best place to refer to this? SP-KP 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes we should - please suggest where, and propose some wording which you think would cover the subject adequately  SP-KP 18:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, how about "In an interview with Michael Parkinson, broadcast on BBC1 4 March 2006, Blair stated that he had prayed for guidance from God to help him decide whether going to war in Iraq was a correct thing to do ." SP-KP 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any other comments from anyone before this is added in? SP-KP 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Blair supporter, sounds fine with me. The ep of Parkinson aired (well, is airing now) on ITV1, not BBC1, though. :) Wezzo 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The G word 

message: "At the same time Sinn Féin became clearly the largest nationalist party, as voters recognised that since Blair always capitulates to force, the most forceful party was the only one worth supporting."
I think that's a little POV?
Kaenei 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant POV r.e. Northern Ireland? 

message: Just because the result of an opinion poll does not match your own opinion that does not mean that it is unreliable. They ARE representative of the entire population as respondents are chosen from a carefully selected cross section of society. All the laws of probability show that the views of 1000 random people will mirror the views of society - its basic probabilty. This article is opinionated and anti-war accorded to The Independent and no doubt the opponent of opinion polls is in that anti-war brigade. 
Thank you Guardian reader.  No, I disagree, opinion polls are often incorrect and un-representative. You can't put people in boxes so unless everyone has the opportunity to take part, then you cannot form an opinion.
The more people an opinion poll includes the more likely to be representative it is. Opinion pols performed by respectable organisations will take a large representative sample of the population and it will be close to representing the make up of public opinion, if not exact. If the Independent, a mainly centre left and anti-war paper describes the article as anti-war I think they can be trusted.Jameskeates 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion Polls

message: Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on the talk page or its archives, but I was wondering why Tony Blair is said (in the boxes at the bottom of this page) to be the successor to John Smith as Labour Party Leader and Leader of the Opposition? The Wikipedia pages covering these two roles both state that Margaret Beckett was acting Labour Party leader and was presumably the Official Leader of the Opposition (rather than acting) in the interim period after John Smith died. Is it usual for these "succession" boxes to ignore acting/interim leaders? I found some discussion of this issue here. Carcharoth 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point to add. The succession boxes for "Labour Party Leader" on this page shows the order "John Smith - Tony Blair". But the box further down the page, showing the Labour Party Leaders, lists the order "John Smith - Margaret Becckett - Tony Blair". This is just inconsistent. It should be one or the other, and one of them needs changing. I'm not sure which one is technically correct. Carcharoth 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult issue and brings to mind the constitutional disagreement in the US over whether a Deputy President became the President on the death of the incumbent, or became the Acting President, or remained the Deputy President but with Presidential powers. Formally, the Labour Party rules at the time of John Smith's death said this (rule 5 (4)): "When the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy party leader shall automatically become party leader until a new party leader is elected". So Margaret Beckett was actually Leader of the Labour Party, and in fact during this period material was indeed issued which identified her as such. David | Talk 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Neil Kinnock has been scrupulous in not continually criticising his successors. The first recorded instance of any criticism was in 2006 over educational reforms. Labour Party opposition to Blair's policies would merit an article in its own right. Nunquam Dormio 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Labour Party succession issues 

message: Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s.
Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a left opponent of Blair's move to the right.
However, neither in this article, nor in the Labour or Kinnock articles are there anything on whether Kinnock or who in particular has led a challenge to the right direction of New Labour and Blair.
Where is the discussion of leadership in Labour against Blair's coziness with and lack of critique of George W. Bush's policies in the Middle East? Dogru144 8:17 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Neil Kinnock has been scrupulous in not continually criticising his successors. The first recorded instance of any criticism was in 2006 over educational reforms. Labour Party opposition to Blair's policies would merit an article in its own right. Nunquam Dormio 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is / are the leader(s) of the de facto left opposition within Labour to Blair & New Labour?

message: Widespread understanding of the terms "Spin Doctor" and "Spin" in UK politics emerged during the late Thatcher administration, not with Tony Blair's rise to power. Here is the article reference for the earliest mention of the phrase "Spin Doctor" I can find in the major UK broadsheet newspapers: the article title is: "Gracious address in need of spin doctor; State Opening of Parliament; Inside Politics"  
by David Hughes, The Sunday Times, 20 November 1988. Bwithh 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 1988 usage of "Spin Doctor" 

message: May I ask why my instertion of words "sweeping" regarding police powers, and "roughly" regarding Wolfang's treatment, were deleted twice? User:Merlov 16:01 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:Because they endorse a point of view, thereby violating Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' principle. David | Talk 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have replaced "sweeping" with "additional" although I realise that term may not suffice either. Have also inserted "violently ejected" rather than "roughly" and would point to the large amount of footage available of the incident to qualify that assessment. Have made changes to avoid potential edit war --Zleitzen 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritarianism 

message: I realise that the purpose of the main photograph is simply for identification purposes and nothing more, but doesn't anyone else agree that this photograph of Tony Blair is a bit, weird? It seems to be a posed photograph and Blair is clearly one of those people who doesn't pose very well for photographs. The expression on his face just doesn't seem normal and distracts my attention from the aricle. To be perfectly honest I simply don't like the photo and I think wikipedia could do with using a different one. That's my two cents anyway. 84.64.197.145 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind it. As Merlov said, it identifies him quickly and easily; while it's not perfect, no other really good shots of him come to mind. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything wrong with the picture at all. "Weird"? It's just Tony Blair - that's what he looks like. Camillus (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to go through this issue every few months. As with other contemporary biographies, it's not that no better photo is out there, it's just that the image has to be (a) a good photo, and (b) on a free license if at all possible. David | Talk 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideous Photo 

message: Who disabled the page again? And why? User:Merlov 10:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done by an admin through the page protection process, because of recurring vandalism by anon users. If you wish to see it unprotected, please propose this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection SP-KP 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The vandalism has been very frequent; several registered editors watch this page and revert it as soon as it happens. To document it in detail here wouldn't serve much of a purpose, as far as I can tell - why do you think we should do that? The purpose of semi-protection is to take the load off the people who are editing the page responsibly so they can spend their time more effectively. SP-KP 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disabled Again? 

message: The page has been unprotected again (the 5th time now, I think), and of course, there will be high levels of anon vandalism as a result. Anyone care to reinstate semiprotection? SP-KP 10:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that most edits are either vandalism or near-vandalism or reversions of the aforesaid. I'd favour semi-protection. 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree. This is getting a bit monotonous. Alan Davidson 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be left unprotected, now the schools are on holiday for 6 weeks or so, the level of anon vandalism will be down probably. --TheM62Manchester 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The little mites (if that's who they are) have broadband at home these days. Seven reverts and counting today. It took an hour and a half and contributions from various people to get one vandal blocked today. Perhaps monitor for a while but the rate of vandalism needs to be reduced somehow. Nunquam Dormio 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected again 

message: Please note that the term 'Blairite' when typed into the search engine takes one to the Tony Blair page.  This is clearly wrong, as 'Blairite' has meaning.  I propose this entry
'Blairite'.  
This term is routinely assumed to refer to a follower of a political philosophy as espoused by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingom.  However as most people would have trouble associating any particular political philosophy with Tony Blair, the term 'Blairite' should more accurately be used to refer to Members of the UK Parliament and others who regularly voice support for Tony Blair in the hope of preferment and political advancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.12 (talk • contribs) 
* I once made a major edit to save Thatcherism from becoming a redirect to Mrs Thatcher. There is a good case for unredirecting it and attempting an article. I think your proposal could be improved:
:In United Kingdom politics, the term Blairite refers to a personal and/or political supporter of Tony Blair, Prime Minister since 1997 and Leader of the Labour Party since 1994. Politically, Blair has been identified with support for involvement of private companies in public services, an interventionist foreign policy, and support for strong powers to law enforcement agencies. The term is used in particular to identify those within the Labour Party who prefer Blair's leadership to that of Gordon Brown. David | Talk 22:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the redirect page per what seems as a consensus here.  I used User:Dbiv's text as the most appropriate. Captainj 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blairite

message: Failed on quality: cleanup tag for refs section is not discussed on talk, but is still valid. Cleanup refs and renominate. Chuck(척뉴넘) 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5 Nomination 

message: I reverted User:Sunfazer's seriously long-range reversion all the way back to this revision from 1 December 2005.
Given that it's so significant a set of changes (and breakages), I think we should probably discuss this first. Of course, if the consensus is to carry through, please feel free to de-revert (or, umm, re-revert). :-)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was testing the new popups.js script, apologies! --Sunfazer |Talk   11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunfazer's long-range reversion 

message: The notes section is entirely inadequate. I would prefer to see them improved rather than initate a featured article removal candidate. If anyone is currently working on fixing this article's references please let me know. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section 

message: Hi User:Raul654 - on the two issues you've identified with this article, here are my views:
If I understand you correctly, becuase this article is an FA, you wish to ensure it remains of FA quality - a good intention, which I support. I think the two problems you've identified need different resolutions:
* Whether the article should have a trivia section - personally, I like trivia sections, and think there are good reasons for having them. I don't believe that the removal of the trivia section of this article is a necessary prerequisite for this article to remain as an FA. As far as I know, there isn't an anti-trivia section policy which you we use to justify removal of trivia sections? I think it should stay, but would be interested to discuss 
**Trivia sections are horrible writing - if something is worth saying in an article, it should be said in prose. If it is not so important, then it doesn ot belong. Trivia sections are deleted as a matter of course from article on teh FAC (so yes, consider that the anti-trivia section policy). It is unacceptable to add one after an article has become featured. Raul654 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia, clean-up tags 

message: Has anyone ever considered just how awful Tony Blair and his government really is?  It was always the case that Margaret Thatcher was his inspiration, and he is now clinging on to office, I believe, for the simple reason that he wants to exceed her eleven year record, and thus attain his own place in history.  What are we left with; what is Blair's place in history to be?
Forget longevity; here are the main points to consider.
1. He started unravelling the United Kingdom, bequething to Scotland a national Parliament of painful mediocrity.
2. The British have lost control of their borders.
3. Crime and the causes of crime are out of control.
4. Taxation is now at crippling levels, with money pouring into the NHS and other financial black holes.
5. He has, by his actions, invited terrorism to make a home in cities and towns throughout the United Kingdom.
5. He has involved Britain in a foreign adventure far more serious than that which destroyed poor Anthony Eden in 1956.  Iraq is worse than Suez for the simple reason that we have the wolf by the ears-we do not want to hang on but we dare not let go.  Perhaps the best epitaph on Blair is to be found in Shakespeare's Macbeth-I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er.Rcpaterson 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinions. However article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for anyone to give their opinions on the subject. The article must be written in neutral point of view which means discussing all significant opinions but endorsing none of them. David | Talk 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is, of course, a laughable statement coming from 'David'. Of course, discussion of immigration could centre on how Labour incompetence has let in millions of new immigrants thanks to their illegal collapse of asylum hearings and appeals.
It could centre upon his crushing of local democracy through the unaccountable local assemblies
Or upon Prescotts illegal building over the countryside with mansions for crony millionaires
Or upon his destruction of freedom of the press through the gross and manipulative Hutton inquiry
Or upon how their illegal dirty war in Northern Ireland
Or upon how they have screwed about with the NHS time and again to give money to their friends...
...the consultants who they spent £30billion each year...or how labour officials enjoy time and fat salaries with these consultants when they are out of office
or the gross corruption scandals involving Cherie Blair, Prescott, mandelson, Mills and Eccleston to list a few
or how they have privatised the schools and given them to their buddies under the 'academy' scheme
Or their relentless thirst for power, how free speech is now so drastically curtailed
Or how they want to seize all legislative power under a 'tidying up exercise' - which considering the incompetence of their legislation may well be warranted.
Or how they have launched illegal wars since Kosovo...
Or how they are incapable of telling the truth
Or how they have plunged electoral attendance to its lowest level since the 19th Century
Or how they talk about a 'meritocratic society' yet nepotistically give opportunities to their children, including in hollywood and in Washington where the little brat was given the opportunity, each week, to make contacts at the UK ambassadors suppers.
Or how Blair oversaw changes in legislation to make any offece arrestable, the violation of the double jeapordy rule, the changes in the neccesary balance of proof for imprisonment
Or how they hushed up the worlds largest ever nuclear leak at Sellafield last year to win the general election and then sold the site, privately, to an American body run by their buddies.
Or how the whole country is suffering under the cognitive dissonance of lie upon lie upon lie that leads half the country to quake in their beads that this satanic mad man is going to let armed soldiers invade their homes and try to shoot them dead without the scantest proof...
This is a bollock biography mainly written by Dbiv, one of the paid-apparatchiks of the Labour party, who spends his time, when he should be working for his Westminster council constituents editting a biography of the foul tyrant that rests his satanic backside upon the throne of the country spreading his evil ooze across the country.194.112.59.180 13:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read our no personal attacks. In point of fact I have never been paid by the Labour Party, and editing Wikipedia in my spare time does not stop me from helping my constituents. You may wish to read, learn and inwardly digest the neutral point of view policy as well. David | Talk 13:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, yeah. Read the history - you attacked me enough...& blah blah. you're splitting hairs. You get paid by the central govt. through Westminster gov. elected under the Labour ticket. splitting hairs...but - okay - let's just say some editers here are very blinkered and frightful trolls. Not naming any names David. 194.112.59.180 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Man