Handy tips: how to get your comment published at Guido’s blog

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

15th June 2012

Let me say that I don’t actually subscribe to the view of some that Britain’s best-known blogger Guido Fawkes is a pile of manure. The picture is just visual licence as we bloggers have been entrusted it by the great know-all in internetyland. Guido will understand.

Guido has been a trendsetter in recent years showing the mainstream media how to get news, even ‘scoops’ without being in the mainstream. He has an understandable desire to retain this renegade position and at times is, therefore, inaccurate with the verity even if occasionally unintentionally. That aside, Guido has one major problem: his commenters.

Some of them are probably normal people, but to be honest, I’m yet to be convinced that there are that many. The pressure of his aim in life is such that Guido has a tendency not to monitor comments and I have from time to time had a little moan about some of them. Even some success in having some removed due to the intervention of an understudy of Guido’s. GF himself blocked me on twitter some time ago for some unknown reason.

The talk as the Leveson Inquiry into press/media standards nears its end is of regulation of the internet. That “threat” like every other threat Guido and his followers see every time they open their eyes in the morning is boosted by a general distrust, at least on internetland, of politics and politicians.

Sadly, it is my humble opinion that the way blogs, commenters, tweeps and other social network users often behave would itself be to blame for any regulation. So in an unintended way the civil rightists with instant-glue like determination to rant on about their rights while exercising little responsibility may well have brought regulation on themselves.

More blame for the moral descent of normally acceptable behaviour is to be laid at the feet of the mainstream press, the font of all knowledge information and stuff to twist around and then bash people with.  Lord Justice Leveson now knows this, as many of us have known for years. Although the papers themselves don’t scream (for) blue murder at (of) those with whom they disagree they lay the ‘freedom of speech’ trap for their commenters. And being ‘troof-finders’ the commenters fall straight into it.

So where was I? Oh yes, how to get your comment published at Guido’s, something which I signally failed to do with a recent one of mine. But I’ve worked it out now, just by taking a look at some of the commenters in a recent blog  –

  • First of all you need to be anti-government. Any government, but preferably a Labour one. Or a Tory one when it sounds too European. Lib Dem governments don’t count except when they do and then you have to dismiss them, anyway.
  • Make sure you agree with Guido on the gist of his particular post. He will still publish you some of the time if you disagree, but only if you don’t expose his shortcomings.
  • Make sure you talk loudly about things of which you know little are an undoubted expert, such as the Iraq war, legality or otherwise, decisions made in government re same, and of course who pulls the world’s strings and why. ‘Bilderberg’ is always useful to drop in here.
  • Make sure you bellow even louder about how at least one ‘Labourite’ is now ‘filthy rich’ after office and that by so being he has obviously impoverished the rest of us, while destroying the UK’s moral fabric and the world as we know it.
  • Never agree with any politician unless it’s an anti-European one or Tom Watkins or someone of his ilk. His agenda is the same as yours. And Guido’s.
  • Remember Guido’s is your home-from-home. This is not The Telegraph or even the Daily Mail, where they occasionally expect standards. Well, very occasionally. Think of it as your local pub.
  • Give yourself a good alias, so that others get your all about before you even tap anything out. Samples of this are – Tony Bliar didnt fool me / socialism is a mental illness / The future is NWO / One day one of his bodyguards will do him / and Lordy Mandelscum just stating the bleeding obvious
  • And of course don’t forget that you can suggest killing anyone, as long as he’s not the enemy, as we know it or rather knew it before the internet toddled along and told us all otherwise.

Also be as to-the-point as you like. For instance this kind of comment seldom if ever gets removed at Guido’s:

94 socialism is a mental illness says:

Blair is long overdue for the snipers bullet.

Well? Just a statement of fact! Not incitement or anything.

Then there’s this in reference to the same clearly ‘deserving’ individual:

92 Timothy Lloyd-Davies says:

June 14, 2012 at 6:25 pm

I pray to God that we see this vile piece of filth hanging by his neck one day!

Well? The commenter IS a religious man.
Then there’s this sort, more wordy so that you can sound ‘informed’ and a clued-up good egg:
62 One day one of his bodyguards will do him says:

Chief Inspectors that refuse to investigate claims of treason, malfeasance in public office, etc.

The HMRC officials that don’t care about shredded receipts, or his off-shore accounts.

The EU that pay him shitloads to ponce about as a peace (oh, the irony) envoy to the ME, the very place he brought war to.

The Humphreys in the the Civil Service, who know where the bodies are buried (possibly literally), yet keep schtum.

Probably the worst offenders in allowing this utterly vile piece of filth to continue breathing are the British public that voted for the twat 3 times, and don’t lynch him on sight now they can see he was nothing but a fraud.

Well? Three times “well”.  You mean you think this might be a touch OTT, with its suggestive alias an’ all? Not to mention the “lynch” bit? No, never. It’s at Guido’s.  It must be right. All of it.

Taranow. Take care.


Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 


Why did Guido Fawkes monitor (out) my comment? Was it too abusive?

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

15th June 2012

Or did I do something right?

I imagine my dear friend John Rentoul would suggest I see this monitoring (nay, monitoring OUT – I’ve just checked) as a badge of honour. But I’m a sensitive soul. And it’s my birthday today – Magna Carta Day. True as  it happens, all ye “liberals” of the left and right (latter exemplified in Guido’s commentary stream.)

Lord Denning described the Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”. (source)

Not that I’d describe Fawkes as a despot. Oh, that he had that power, eh Guido? But he is now monitoring my comments and refusing to publish those with which he disagrees. Freedom of speech at Guido’s.  And it’s odd.  I am hardly abusive. I don’t call for a “sniper’s bullet” or for “hanging” anyone. Even if they are as filthy as Guido’s commenters often are. Nor do I curse anyone or any political party or group of individuals in the way his blog commenters habitually do. Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t like being hauled over the coals as to the facts. As if.

As readers of my earlier post may have noticed I have been trying to put Guido right on a few FACTS regarding the Numpty incident at Hong Kong yesterday. Seems Guido doesn’t like facts up him.

Below is the comment I posted at his site earlier. Guido has decided, in his wisdom, that it is not deserving of a flicker across the eyeballs of his brainwashed. Sorry, his readers –

  • Blair Supporter says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Jimmy – “Menacingly? Really?” is to put too forgiving a light on Guido’s “story”.

    Fact is Tony Blair NEVER said “I wouldn’t come any further.” Professor Daniel Chua, Director of Humanities at HKU said it as he looked towards the security people for cover. Nor did Mr Blair or Prof Chua “threaten” anyone.

    Watch the video at YouTube. In full screen at around 50 secs you will NOT see Blair’s lips move. Prof Chua is the “culprit”. Should he be shot too?

    Still waiting for Guido to apologise for this latest ‘lies/world/truth/boots on’ episode.

Terrible stuff, eh? Worthy of keeping away from the tender view of those who share his views.

But Guido is not for deleting me permanently, unlike some of his commenters, no doubt.

Thus far he is still showing my latest comment:


Thanks for monitoring out my comment, Guido. Will be following up my earlier post.

To check the truth of what I said in the comment you cannot see – take a peep at the video again.  Watch in full-screen view and pay close attention from around 50 seconds.

As “I wouldn’t come any further” is heard, did you see Tony Blair’s lips move? Nor me. The man is astounding. A ventriloquist as well!

A propos today’s 797th Magna Carta anniversary: who is the most infamous name who attempted and failed to destroy our democracy? That’s right – The REAL Guido (Guy) Fawkes in 1605, after which futility he decided to choose the high jump.

By the way, Happy Magna Carta Day.

Next post, handy tips: ‘How to ensure you get published at Guido Fawkes’ blog’

Update: And here it is – Handy tips: how to get your comment published at Guido’s blog



Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 

Tony Blair partners with HKU on “Faith and Global Engagement initiative course”

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

15th June 2012

[Cross-post] The real story on Tony Blair at Hong Kong University

Conflict and compassion | Tony Blair discusses the two faces of religion

HONG KONG : Tony Blair, Former UK Prime Minister, speaks at University of Hong Kong, Thursday, 14 June, 2012

Today Tony Blair, Founder and Patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, delivered a key note speech and answered questions on the impact of faith and globalisation on Hong Kong and the wider region, at a lecture held in the University of Hong Kong (HKU).

This lecture inaugurated the partnership between the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s global network of leading universities, the Faith and Globalisation Initiative (FGI) and HKU’s Faith and Global Engagement Initiative.

Tony Blair spoke of the significance of the partnership between his Foundation and the Faith and Global Engagement Initiative at HKU.

Addressing an audience of HKU students and professors Tony Blair, Founder and Patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation said: “The initiative is very timely. This part of the world is one of the fastest areas of growing Christianity as well as many other faiths. HKU has a steadfast commitment to scholarship and freedom. The basis for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Faith and Globalisation Initiative is similar. I am delighted and honoured to be partnering with HKU, I could not think of a better partner or a better part of the world.”

“My vision for the Faith and Global Engagement at HKU is to change the nature of the debate – I want people to see that you have to take religion seriously and I want to help build interfaith understanding.”

Professor Daniel Chua, Director of Humanities at HKU said: “Leaders should be intelligently engaged with the questions of faith and the global impact. We formed the Faith and Global Engagement programme to initiate a conversation in the spirit of hospitality. Whoever you are and whatever you believe in we want to engage with you about religion.  Our initiative here at Hong Kong University has much in common with the principles of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. For this inaugural lecture on Faith and Global Engagement, “I am honoured to welcome Tony Blair”.

Tony Blair stressed the urgency of understanding the impact of religion in the modern world:

“Just look at the news and you see the impact of both everywhere; in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the debate over whether or not orthodox Jews should serve in the military in Israel. The face of religion in this environment is two-fold: conflict and compassion. Much of the news about religion is about conflict. However, religion is also capable of great compassion. For example, much of the improvement in health for continental Africa is as a result of religious centred endeavours.

“We can promote this face of compassion by firstly, treating religion as religion. There is a temptation to view religious problems as political problems, especially for politicians. If the heart of the matter is religious, than the religious element must be understood for what it is: religious. Secondly, by building platforms of inter-faith dialogue and action. Thirdly, through research and scholarship. Religion has much to say from many perspectives on many issues. What is required is proper, in depth and rigorous research into these issues. This is where these programmes and the work of HKU can help.”

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Faith and Globalisation Initiative (FGI) is a network of leading universities around the world, collectively exploring the relationship between religion and globalisation. Through the Faith and Globalisation network, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation is supporting policy makers, and future leaders, equipping them to appreciate religion’s presence in the world and its relationship to decision-making and public policy.  Significantly HKU is the ninth university in the world and the second in China (following Peking University) to join FGI. In collaboration with other FGI partner institutions, HKU’s Faith and Global Engagement Initiative will explore topics including religion and conflict, religion in public life, and human rights bringing critical analysis to the forefront of global debate.

The new Faith and Global Engagement initiative course at HKU will bring a unique perspective to the academic and policy analysis of the relationship between faith and globalisation. Hong Kong’s position at the nexus of East/West relations, adds an important voice to this global debate.

Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 

Guido, BBC, ITN, Huff all mislead re Tony Blair “loses cool, threatens” Hong Kong Grundy Numpty

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

14th June 2012

Guido Fawkes says:

“…former PM warned menacingly: “I wouldn’t come any further…”

Except the former PM didn’t say that!

I have spent some time looking through today’s video versions, edited and otherwise of this incident in Hong Kong. This is the only full version I can find.

Protester attempts to arrest Tony Blair in Hong Kong (1m 53s from YouTube channel telegraphtv)

The bad news is that this full unedited version – the truth and nothing but the truth (so help them Lord Justice Leveson) – originally appeared at the Huffington Post. Until that is, they realised it showed Tony Blair in far too good a light for their agenda.

So I am calling out the BBC, ITN, The Huffington Post & Guido Fawkes for messing with the facts.

Lord Justice Leveson, Sir. You ARE going to investigate ALL the broadcasters and the internet know-alls, aren’t you? After all, as David Cameron admitted today, the broadcasters are the ones whose reach is all-pervasive and who have by far the widest coverage. Especially the “blessed” BBC. Thus the broadcasters are the main target for those who wish to get a political message out instantly to millions.

Let’s take a closer look at today’s (video) editors.

1. If you read Guido Fawkes’s blog on the Grundy Numpty who tried and failed (as they always do and will) to arrest Tony Blair in Hong Kong today, you could almost believe that our former PM reached into his pocket for his pistol. In fact he didn’t “warn” the protester and spoke in NO WAY  “menacingly”. Nor did anyone present. Apart from Tom Grundy. (Isn’t he from “The Archers”?)

At Guido’s –

Blair Loses Cool, Threatens War Protester

Tony Blair lost his rag after being heckled by a protester during a speech to students at the University of Hong Kong. As the man approached Blair, accusing him of breaching the Geneva convention, the former PM warned menacingly: “I wouldn’t come any further…” Asia Pacific News claims that  Blair said “that’s democracy for you” as the man was led away.

Neither did anyone else threaten the protester, as a quick look at the only unedited video online proves (Telegraph video above). Well done, the Telegraph. Now please do not remove it!

Guido probably picked the story up from ChannelNewAsia. That sentence  was not mentioned by Peter Walker here at the Guardian.

2. At the Huffington Post video version things are actually even worse. Guido could be forgiven for just copying and pasting. After all he has to prove he’s on the ball. Quick with the story, inexact or not. But when I watched the Huff’s video and tweeted on it earlier, twice, I said this:


Blair Supporter Blair Supporter@blairsupporter Video of prize wally, Briton Tom Grundy’s #failed attempt at Citizens Arrest On Tony Blair In Hong Kong. http://huff.to/LFq79k @HuffPostUK

Just watched this video once: http://huff.to/LFq79k Check & see if you think Tony Blair “threatened” the Numpty in Hong Kong. Applause for TB


I would not have tweeted this if it was not clear that Tony Blair did NOT say it. So I tweeted twice again to Guido, though he has blocked me on twitter for some inexplicable reason.  (He’ll still read them, believe me)

I don’t think it was Tony Blair who said “don’t come any further” to that numpty in Hong Kong. Guido? @guidofawkes So no threat, eh?

Blair Supporter Blair Supporter@blairsupporter

. @Firebird734 @guidofawkes said TB threatened the guy. He didn’t. It was another voice saying “don’t come any further” Apologies Guido?


Now the Huff has got the huff and is showing the shortened ITN News version- 1:28 long. In this we do not hear those words uttered by anyone, nor much applause at the end. The Huff has also added to the text input of the protester, to include his denial over “harassment” something I, co-incidentally of course,  mentioned at twitter. Twice.


Blair Supporter@blairsupporter

@MarkKersten “Armed with the law”? That’s why they keep failing, & always will. GUILTY of harassment Arrest the “arrest Tony Blair” idiots


Blair Supporter@blairsupporter

Arrest this numpty for harassment. GUILTY! In Hong Kong reading out his charges to Tony Blair. @Daylifehttp://www.daylife.com/photo/0crs6xHcMZ4j5?__site=daylife&q=Tony+Blair&__site=daylife&__site=daylife


Why did the Huff change their video? Imho,  two reasons: 1) sustained applause for Mr Blair at the end of the original clip, and 2) it was clearly NOT Mr Blair who spoke those dreadfully menacing words.


3. The BBC/ITN

Both ITN and the Johnny-come-lately of broadcasting the BBC – in their talked-over video clips – edited out that remark. The BBC website even has this, a blatant LIE –

“As the heckler neared the podium, he was threatened with police action and left the auditorium peacefully.”

Really? Where was this “threat”?

As I tweeted earlier –

Blair Supporter@blairsupporter

@Axelfinance Another video this time from ‘honest’ #BBC which edits out fact that Blair did not threaten. BBC in cahoots w Guido Fawkes ;0)


. @MailRightMinds Love how the editors at ITN edited out the part that show Tony Blair did NOT threaten the Grundy Numpty. OK, @guidofawkes


The ever-trustworthy and truth-seeking Daily Mail used the ITN version. Again WHY? Simply because Tony Blair did not say it. Any of it. And showing the full video as above would have shown this. The chairman of the Faith & Globalisation meeting said it AND it was in no way threatening.

TBFF upcoming transcript Editing out the peripheral and unnecessary, hopefully.


ADDENDUM Just spotted the longer version also here at Sky Watch it in full screen. You will then see clearly that it was the man standing immediately in front of Tony Blair who said “don’t come any further”.  NOTHING at all, by anyone, about a threat to arrest the protester.

ADDENDUM 2: The Telegraph disappoints me by spreading the lie/world/truth/boots on in its online article by saying, weakly, ‘Mr Blair reportedly told the protester: “I wouldn’t come any further … you can go.” ‘

For the umpteenth umpteenth – the man in front said that, NOT TONY BLAIR.



Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 

Found it. Cached. Number 10 website. Deleted page on The Queen & Her PMs

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

8th June 2012

Follow-on from my previous post –  ‘Number 10 deletes its page on The Queen’

I found it, though it took some searching. Had to look through ALL of these 20 search engines until I found a cached version of Number 10 website’s 6th June article “cached”.  Didn’t find it until I got to the last one – Yahoo. One has to be a terrier-like at times in the search for truth, doesn’t one?


Below is a snapshot of the Web page as it appeared on 6/5/2012. This is the version of the page that was used for ranking your search results. The page may have changed since it was last cached. To see what might have changed (without the highlights), go to the current page.


It wasn’t here yesterday –  http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/queen-elizabeth-and-her-twelve-prime-ministers/ as it had been the day before.

As it happens I didn’t originally notice that article because of their mention of Blair and the Royal Yacht. I noticed it because it seemed to mention Conservative PMs a lot more than it did others. And on first reading this had also escaped my notice: one of The Queen’s Conservative PMs seems to be by FAR the most important for 1,000 years!


‘His most important dealing with the Queen so far in his Premiership is one of the most significant in a1,000[sic] years of monarchy: the proposed change in the law regarding primogeniture’

Oh my!

With all the Royal going-ons at the weekend Jubilee celebrations I recalled that they had made this confession there:

“[The Queen] … lamented the loss, in 1997, of the Royal Yacht Britannia (a decision wrongly ascribed to Tony Blair, but in fact inherited from the Major government) …”

And with so many little tweeps constantly having a go at Tony Blair for this and so many other things, I thought it worth revisiting Number 10’s page. And there it was – GONE.

So, just in case it disappears again, here it is in all its modest, unselfserving glory, links and all. Purely in the interests of open government, you understand, Mr Cameron. I DO realise you may have been asked by an external body to remove it. One has to be careful as Prime Minister whose apolitical toes one steps on.

My thanks to Yahoo at this for this


Queen Elizabeth and her Twelve Prime Ministers

by D R Thorpe

On her 21st birthday in 1947 Princess Elizabeth broadcast from Cape Town in South Africa:

‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great Imperial country to which we all belong…God help me to make good my vow and God bless all of you who are willing to share it.’

The Queen’s relationship with her 12 Prime Ministers (eight Conservative and four Labour) over the past 60 years demonstrates how she has fulfilled that vow.

Churchill was a formidable presence for the young Queen, who remained in awe of the great war leader. At their first audience, Churchill told the Queen he could advise her from a lifetime of experience, but the time would come when she would advise Prime Ministers younger than herself from a similar standpoint. So it has proved. The first of the 12 Prime Ministers younger than the Queen was John Major. Tony Blair and David Cameron were not even born when she acceded to the throne.

The central assertion about the rights of a constitutional monarch, as defined by Walter Bagehot in 1867, remains as true as ever:

‘the sovereign has under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.’

The Queen has exercised all three rights. An early example was the issue of live television coverage of the Coronation in June 1953. Churchill opposed it, and, initially, the Queen was also doubtful. Eventually, the Queen’s view that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages prevailed. Asked by an old court favourite whether Churchill was attempting to mentor her, as Melbourne had mentored the young Queen Victoria, she replied, ‘Not at all, I find him very obstinate.’ Nevertheless, she learned much from the old warrior.

The weekly audience between monarch and Prime Minister remained a fixed point of contact. At these audiences, the Queen found her second Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, a sympathetic listener to her concerns. Dominating their early meetings was discussion of Princess Margaret’s possible marriage to the divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend. The Suez crisis in 1956 led to much speculation about the Queen’s views and what she knew of unfolding events. Eden believed that informing the Queen was of supreme importance and all the Suez papers were sent to her, the first time she was to be shown secret government papers. Their relationship was one of impeccable constitutional propriety and confidences were maintained. The Queen was able to draw on these experiences at later audiences with Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War.

The Queen has two prerogatives, to choose, or now to confirm, a new Prime Minister in office and to grant a dissolution of Parliament, triggering a general election. The first prerogative was exercised in 1957 and in 1963 when the leadership of the Conservative party became vacant between general elections. After taking advice from senior Conservatives, the Queen invited Harold Macmillan to become her third Prime Minister, a process repeated in October 1963 when Sir Alec Douglas-Home was appointed.

At first, the Queen did not find Macmillan easy to deal with. He was unsure whether the Prime Minister’s annual visit to Balmoral was a social occasion, with ‘talking shop’ relegated to the margins, or a Highlands version of his weekly audiences at Buckingham Palace. However, it was not long before they  were on the same wavelength. Indeed, the Queen soon came to rely on Macmillan to offer wise counsel, both while in office and after his retirement in 1963. They discussed issues including the inauguration of the memorial to President Kennedy at Runnymede in 1965, and the 250th anniversary of 10 Downing Street in 1985. Crucially, the Queen also sought his advice following the uncertain General Election outcomes of February and October 1974, when he advised on historical precedents.

When Macmillan resigned in October 1963, accusations were made that the Queen had colluded with his supposed blocking of the Deputy Prime Minister, Rab Butler, as his successor, leading to the controversial appointment of Alec Douglas-Home as the new Prime Minister. In fact, the Queen had distanced herself from the process, both physically  – by staying out of London, at Windsor Castle – and  personally – ensuring that her Assistant Private Secretary Sir Edward Ford was the conduit between the Palace and the Prime Minister’s Office. The Palace made it clear that the choice of a new leader should be for the Conservative Party alone, a process known as ‘You Choose, We Send For’. Far from colluding, the Queen maintained the monarchy’s political impartiality, waiting for a name to be brought to her.

Subsequent events eroded the Queen’s prerogative. From July 1965 onwards, the Conservative Party elected its leader, as the Labour Party had done since 1922. Today it would be highly unusual if the Queen invited anyone to become Prime Minister who was not the acknowledged leader of the party commanding a majority in the House of Commons. Outgoing Prime Ministers in mid-term have made things easier for the Queen by staying-on until their party has elected a successor, including Harold Wilson in 1976 and Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

When Sir Alec Douglas-Home became Prime Minister in October 1963, for the first time the Queen had a Prime Minister whom she already knew as a friend, Home having been a childhood friend of the Queen Mother. She was now in the unusual situation of having to formalise a relationship that had always been informal. When Home went to Balmoral for his first Prime Ministerial visit, he heard for the first time the sound of the Queen’s official bagpiper before breakfast, an experience he would not have had on his previous visits as a family friend. Over the years, Home often helped the Queen to name royal horses. After hearing the Balmoral bagpiper, Home suggested the names ‘Blessed Relief’ [by] ‘Bagpipes’ [out of] ‘Earshot’ for her three new foals!

James Callaghan observed that that the Queen provided friendliness, not friendship to her Prime Ministers. Wilson and Callaghan, her first two Labour Prime Ministers, both got on famously with the Queen. Wilson enjoyed the informality of helping with the washing-up after the Balmoral barbecues, unlike Thatcher for whom these weekends interrupted work. Wilson noted that the Queen respected those who had served in the armed forces, which made her relationship with Callaghan, who had been in the Royal Navy, so relaxed. The relationship with Edward Heath was not always easy, as his world-view differed sharply from that of the Queen. European integration was Heath’s vision. The Queen, however, saw her role as Head of the Commonwealth to be of supreme importance. For this reason she lamented the loss, in 1997, of the Royal Yacht Britannia (a decision wrongly ascribed to Tony Blair, but in fact inherited from the Major government), which had enabled her to visit the smaller, more remote Commonwealth countries.

Much attention has been paid to the Queen’s first prerogative, the right to appoint a Prime Minister, but little to the second, the dissolution of Parliaments. So far in the Queen’s reign there have been 15 such dissolutions, the two, indecisive elections in 1974 being potentially the most difficult. Returning from Australia in February 1974, the Queen’s role proved invaluable in a volatile and uncertain political climate. However, the recent Fixed Term Act, setting a statutory, five-year parliament, has in effect removed that prerogative, except in the most unlikely of circumstances. In 1952 when she came to the throne, the Queen could choose the Prime Minister, and could grant, or not grant, a dissolution of parliament. Now, in effect, she can do neither. The party commanding a majority in the House of Commons presents its accepted leader to the Queen after a General Election or a change of party leadership in the governing party. The next General Election is already determined for May 2015, unless two-thirds of the Commons decides otherwise.  These changes do not weaken the Queen’s ‘dignified’ position; on the contrary they remove her entirely from the political arena.

David Cameron is the youngest of the Queen’s Prime Ministers and was at prep school with Prince Edward. The Queen first met him when he was nine years old, acting in a production of Wind in the Willows, a rabbit to Prince Edward’s mole. His most important dealing with the Queen so far in his Premiership is one of the most significant in a1,000 years of monarchy: the proposed change in the law regarding primogeniture, which will enable any future daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to become Queen before any younger brothers, a change agreed by the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.  The evolution of a modern monarchy continues.

© W J R Gardner 2012

Edited by History & Policy



The bias here is even WORSE than I had presumed. Try clicking the link for Tony Blair in the article above. It will NOT open a page with ANY information at the Archives of the Number 10 website on Labour’s longest-serving and most electorally successful Prime Minister ever. But at least Tony Blair gets a mention. Gordon Brown’s name does not even appear. Why ever not, Mr Cameron?

Update: Mr Blair’s page has now opened for me via the link. But poor old Gordon has no chance of being found. Perhaps that is because, in the opinion of the writer of this ‘deleted’ article he did not get on as well with Her Majesty as the article insists some other PMs did.


Royal Yacht Britannia, History [as at Wikipedia]


Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 

Number 10 website deletes its page on The Queen. One IS disappointed!

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

7th June 2012

“[The Queen] … lamented the loss, in 1997, of the Royal Yacht Britannia (a decision wrongly ascribed to Tony Blair, but in fact inherited from the Major government), which had enabled her to visit the smaller, more remote Commonwealth countries.”

Click to see the whole article at the Number 10 website > http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/queen-elizabeth-and-her-twelve-prime-ministers/

Got it?

Or did you get this –

Page not found

We are sorry. The page you are looking for cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or may be temporarily unavailable.

You can return to the home page at www.number10.gov.uk or you can look through content held by The National Archives at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/*/http://www.number10.gov.uk/

If you followed a link from within this site to get here, please contact the Digital Communications team in Number 10: admin@number10.gov.uk

That pain in the rear end, aka Blair Supporter to the rescue. Soon, hopefully.


Sep 2011, Robert Hardman at The Daily Mail – headlined (DO note MIND-BENDING headline) – “Why Blair wished he hadn’t made the Queen cry” – (even though the article does not point to Tony Blair as the only tear-maker.)

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh leave the Royal Yacht Britannia for the last time in Portsmouth.

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh leave the Royal Yacht Britannia for the last time in Portsmouth.

Excerpt from Hardman’s article. MY bolding:

“Distant memories now. To the Queen’s evident distress — and Prince Philip’s ill-concealed anger — the incoming Labour government of Tony Blair decommissioned the Royal Yacht, turned her into an Edinburgh tourist attraction and vetoed a replacement. Ultimately, though, responsibility for the decision rests equally with the Tories.

But what the Royal Family may find particularly intriguing — and infuriating — 14 years later, is that Tony Blair now deeply regrets his part in it. As he tells me: ‘I think if it had happened five years into my time [as Prime Minister], I would have just said “no”.’

The twisted saga of Britannia’s final years began under John Major’s government, which announced, in 1994, that the 41-year-old yacht would be decommissioned when she came up for her next major overhaul. There was little enthusiasm for replacing her.

‘During the early Nineties, the monarchy went through a very difficult time,’ Sir John Major explains. ‘Ask yourself this question: in the midst of the recession, with the British people facing economic hardship, how popular would it have been to announce a £50 million spend on a new yacht for the personal use of the Royal Family? How would that have been portrayed by the media?’”


You don’t mean that even pre-Blair governments were “afraid” of the media??!! It didn’t start with Alastair Campbell? How CAN you say that? WHAT? You’ll be suggesting the Tory-led Government has a valid reason to delete this page next.


Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter 

At the Leveson Inquiry, were they too soft on Tony Blair?

All blog posts 2012 + Original, from 2006 to 2012

Click to tweet this post

Comment at end

5th June 2012

There were, in the main, two versions of Tony Blair at the Leveson Inquiry last week –

  • 1. “He was brilliant, as usual.”
  • 2. “He was despicable, as usual.”

In between there were, to be fairer to the press than some have been to him, some variations.


Tony Blair at Leveson. Question: Was he thinking – “Hope I’ve got my glasses”? OR -“I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse”?  Answer: Depends who’s writing about him.


As I watched the Leveson Inquiry (see it here am and here pm if you missed it) even I wondered at times if he was being given rather an easy pass. I suppose that’s because I’d like him to be more ‘guns-blazing’, to shut up the antis. This is no criticism of the Inquiry itself.  I’ve never criticised those involved in running the Inquiry or its procedures. Never apart from the other day when I mentioned the young lady on the left in the picture below.  Alone amongst the legal beavers and journalists behind Robert Jay QC she seemed to think an interloper at the Royal Courts of Justice was something to smirk about. I notice she hasn’t been around in that prominent position since then.

Mr Blair, on the other hand, never smirked or even smiled at inappropriate moments as I pointed out in this post. But if he had come out all guns blazing it might allow me some time to get my life back for a start. But enough of this selfishness.

  • He did come out at the Inquiry with the Daily Mail in his sights. For that we can all be grateful.
  • He also came out with reasons why he ‘flirted with’ Murdoch’s press. For that his party can be grateful.
  • He reminded us that he had mentioned much of the Leveson Inquiry’s issues in his feral press speech a couple of weeks before he left office. For that reminder some in the press will not be grateful.
  • He also pointed out that opining does not equal reporting, and that its differentiation has never been required to be made clear in the British press. For that… press… ungrateful etc.
  • He also made it clear that he understands the issues around today’s social media & lies-halfway-round-world-before-truth-boots. For that some semi-informed tweeps may not be so grateful.

In fact there was little in his evidence that could be countered as not being valid or of value.

As to my question – were they too easy on him? Only if you thought he was there to account for and justify the umpteen issues various factions of the press have with him. He wasn’t. He didn’t.

Much of the press couldn’t actually answer Mr Blair’s criticisms. Instead they chose just to pose some questions in quotation form. Yes, we get the innuendo.

If Mr Jay and Sir Brian Leveson treated him as though he were a civilised human being with some life experience rather than a barbarian (as some would have us believe) it is because the legal people are right, and the excessively opinionated wonks are wrong.

Mr Blair had laid out beforehand in his written evidence to the Inquiry most of what he had to say. They had clearly taken much of it onboard. By the time the Inquiry had got around to interviewing the former prime minister they knew much of the bones of the political viewpoint already. His evidence only gave that skeleton some flesh.

Tony Blair’s Witness statement to Leveson prior to his appearance.

Exhibit to Witness statement –  As in The Guardian (London), July 17, 1995 – BLAIR’S NEW LEFT WARNING TO MURDOCH, by Michael White And Christopher Zinn. Excerpt:

“TONY BLAIR warned the high command of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire last night that the Thatcherite free-market policies they espoused in the 1980s had failed to provide the social and economic stability needed to manage the technological revolution they unleash.”




Back to top

Click to tweet this post

Follow Blair Supporter on Twitter