Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Good-bye, Prime Minister. History will be kinder…

Cranmer sheds no tears; indeed, he rejoices in the departure of one of the most unprincipled, perfidious, mendacious, treacherous, disingenuous, sanctimonious, dishonest, deceitful and deluded leaders the United Kingdom has ever seen. The man who promised a government that would be ‘whiter than white’ and ‘purer than pure’ leaves office with one of the most blotted and stained reputations, one of the most questionable of integrities, and one of the most dubious legacies of any leader in modern British history.

He was, however, a consummate performer, a skilful and wily political operator, the most successful leader that Labour has ever had (and probably will ever have). Like Presidents Reagan and Clinton, he has the sort of demeanour one instinctively wants to forgive. And like the Thatcher-Major transition, viewed through the lens of history, the inadequacies and shortcomings of the successor will eventually leave the Labour faithful yearning for their golden era – the age when Britain was great, evangelically proclaiming its worldview, bold in its confrontation, and possessed a leader who walked tall on the world stage.

While Cranmer sheds no tears, he is certain that history will be kinder. It will take half a century, but Iraq may become a stable form of democracy, and the world will point to the foundational efforts of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. It was doubtless due to the efforts of Prime Ministers Thatcher and Major that Ulster embraced peace, but it was the irresistible charms of Mr Blair that persuaded Dr Paisley to govern with Sinn Fein. And it may have been constitutional vandalism to remove the hereditary peers, to tamper with the judiciary, to meddle with finely-balanced constituent parts of the fragile Union, but he gave the Bank of England its independence from government, established a Ministry of Justice, enshrined the principle of academic selection in city academies, and talked of the need for ‘radical reform’ of the public services. That he did not deliver is more to do with the Old Labour instinct to pour good money after bad than it was his personal lack of vision, but he has undoubtedly written the first chapter of a narrative which the Conservative Party must embrace.

As for his path to Rome, it is ironic that 'the most devoutly Christian prime minister since Gladstone' has done more to undermine Christian liberties than any challenge to the faith on these islands in three centuries. He is a spiritual fraud, and Rome is where his heart has always been: his professed Anglicanism was simply a piece of theatre - a facade maintained for constitutional reasons. As far as Cranmer is concerned, he can go, and good riddance - politically, spiritually, ecclesiastically, and theologically. But it is curious indeed that the Vatican would even want such a vain and corrupt dissembler in their ranks. He has failed consistently to adhere to the unequivocal teachings of the church he aspires to join: on protecting the unborn child, on experimentation on human embryos, on civil partnerships, on the challenge of the Sexual Orientation Regulations to the very existence of Catholic adoption agencies, on plans to force faith schools to take students who do not adhere to that faith - his record is one of consistently contending against the faith.

While it easy for him to profess the Nicene Creed, when it comes to his formal reception into the Roman Catholic Church he will be required to swear: ‘I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God’. He could not utter these words in good conscience, and to do so would make him a manifest hypocrite. But then ‘hypocrite’ is from the Greek word ὑποκρίτης (hypokrites), associated with hypokrisis, that is ‘actor’. He is simply pursuing his vocation.

It was Enoch Powell who said that all political careers end in failure. This one may appear to have done so - and that spectacularly - except that Cranmer doesn’t quite think it’s over. While immediate attention is focused on Mr Blair's promotion to Middle East messiah envoy, where he will set up his throne in Jerusalem, Cranmer has his eye on the ultimate appointment. In light of the agreement on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty, there is an emerging vacancy…an assured legacy…which goes hand-in-hand with conversion to Rome…demanding great acting skills…providing a pulpit for Mr Blair’s personal philosophy - pro-European, anti-State, anti-individualist, socialist, federalist, ‘third way’ Catholic-ecumenism.

Cranmer just thinks that Mr Blair will find the prospect of strutting the world stage as Emperor President of Europe will be far too hard to resist. And President Blair would be able to eclipse Prime Minister Brown at every turn…


Anonymous Terry said...

Absolutely wonderful to read someone telling the truth about Mr Blair - he essentially took God's name in vain, making it known that he "was a Christian" and thereby implicitly claimed God's authorisation for what was in fact a vile anti-Christian government.

26 June 2007 at 23:23  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

we seem to be forgetting that dispite his apparent shortcomings it was in fact God who placed him in that postion of power and those vile deeds of his have pushed us closer to the fullfillment of the divine plan. So perhapes you should be asking yourself, who do you trust in? Man or Yahweh?

Psalm 146:3-5

26 June 2007 at 23:48  
Anonymous Voyager said...

has done more to undermine Christian liberties than any challenge to the faith on these islands in three centuries.

The Bible warns us about false prophets and those who ciome in His is just that the British public is ignorant.

Blair's mortal enemy is now in No10 so I doubt he will be able to act as a king across the water in delivering anything in future - FCO briefings to Moscow and Paris and Berlin may well see Blair twisting in the wind as he is frankly ignored.

Without the institutional power he is simply a Kinnock...he cannot take an EU job because he is needed on the campaign trail in the US next year and TV is more lucrative in the USA

27 June 2007 at 07:48  
Blogger Perry Neeham said...

Full marks for your clarity on Blair the fibber but no marks at all for your crystal ball gazing skills - "Iraq may become a stable form of democracy" - about as much chance as a snowball in Hell. How about broken up into three despotic states after a long and violent regional war?

27 June 2007 at 11:40  
Blogger C4' said...

I knew that Tony "Adolf" Blair was the Antichrist eleven-and-a-half-years ago. I have always fought tooth-and-nail against that Satanic cretin.

27 June 2007 at 12:41  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

I have to admire the mans Chutzpah, as a double dealing, insincere political animal he led the UK by the nose for 10 years and before we try and absolve ourselves totally of any blame we did vote him back in (no I never did either but the country did).

As for the WMDs I lean more to the cock-up rather than to conspiracy theory and believe, in the beginning at least, he genuinely believed they existed. Saying that I was ever sceptical as to how Saddam could deliver a missile attack on the UK in 45 mins after 10 years of sanctions when the best he could do in Gulf 1 was drop a few tired Scuds with reduced payloads on Israel, always though that was a crock but then that story was press driven not No10.

If he wanted to join my club I’d black ball him, if he wanted to run my company I’d change jobs but the RCC is for us all sinners and saints, rich and poor so I leave that up to his conscience, after all he is responsible for his own soul. I hope he avoids my parish.

27 June 2007 at 13:02  
Anonymous John Fisher said...


I recommend you revisit John Chap 8 before attacking someone who has done his best for his country.

27 June 2007 at 22:20  
Blogger The Hitch said...

there is "peace" in NI purely because the two sides had had enough, that and the sein fein gangsters saw political advantage in ceasing to murder people.
Nothing to do with Blair.

John fisher
Blair did the best for himself

28 June 2007 at 00:04  
Anonymous Observer said...

who has done his best for his country

His best perhaps but to the detriment of the country and through the injection of deceit into every pore of national life

28 June 2007 at 06:56  
Anonymous athanasius said...

You make a good point. He can only join the RCC if he publicly renounces his views as expressed hitherto.

28 June 2007 at 21:22  
Blogger Peter Kirk said...

Ruth Gledhill predicts yet another questionable honour for Blair which will fit nicely with his imperial thrones in Brussels and Jerusalem: a cardinal's hat! No, he doesn't have to be a priest first, apparently the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperors were also cardinals.

28 June 2007 at 23:32  
Anonymous dearieme said...

What are these "constitutional reasons" to which you allude, Your Grace?

29 June 2007 at 21:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Dearime,

Quite obviously, the establishment of the Church of England and the prerogative powers of a prime minister in the process of selecting and appointing bishops and archbishops. Insofar as the Constitution demands that the monarch may neither be nor marry a Roman Catholic, so the potential and perceived interference of a Roman Catholic prime minister in the process could indeed create constitutional tensions which Mr Blair was simply not prepared to face. It was manifestly easier to avoid the issue by pretending to be what he was not.

30 June 2007 at 00:17  
Blogger devonian said...

I was interested to note the verbal vitriol your Grace poured over the character of Tony Blair. While you remain anonymous it seems that you are probably a high ranking political insider with a range of knowledge beyond the reach of most of your subjects. This makes your assessment of the man all the more illuminating.

Tony Blair is undoubtably a charismatic, visionary,and world class political figure with as yet unspecified future aims and ambitions. If he is, as you say, a consummate hypocrite come actor then we should wait and watch with great interest as he moves across the world's political landscape, via Jerusalem,Rome and Brussels.

Commentators have rubbished his credentials as a Middle East peace envoy. But why ? The Palastinians have little enough to lose through his mediation. It is surely the Israelis who have most to lose in terms of land, security and indeed the status of Jerusalem. If the Israelis trust Blair because he is seen as an American appointee then
then the arabs, if they had any sense, should rejoice, since there will be no agreement without substantial and real concessions on the part of the Jews. There will be nothing other than treaty and verbal concessions asked of the Palastinians. Verbal agreements, concordats and treaties can be broken at a whim, as history testifies.

Should Blair achieve what is said to be impossible then the presidency of Europe will be his for the taking. Then we will not be looking at a New Labour but a New Holy Roman Emperor.

Hail Caesar.

1 July 2007 at 22:22  
Anonymous BrightOmen said...

A new Holy Roman Emperor you say?

That's one title this man could very well take if he accomplishes what I think he will. Although the most famous title that many will associate with this man is a word I'd rather not spell out. Let's just tell the first poster to take the "ian" off of that word. Yeah, you know which word.

13 August 2007 at 08:04  
Blogger Mike said...

I have just stumbled across this site and quite astounded to find that many of you think that Tony Blair is the anti-christ. I know many friends who believe this to be tue. Many refer to the books of Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (the left behind series). They believe that Tony Blair is Carpathia. I find it interesting that many other are going along with this. I have to say that this would make this the biggest conspiracy theory of all time. But even I have to admit that Tony Blair is the only many in the last 1000 years who could just about fit the bill.

9 April 2008 at 12:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older