Ask Angry: Can Dalmatian puppy love triumph over De Vil?

On the surface of it, I’d be extremely worried. While it hasn’t yet been established conclusively that Theresa May actually turns Dalmatians into fur coats, it’s perfectly believable, based on some of her policies, that this is the sort of behaviour that she might consider enjoyable. In the following paragraphs, I will explain exactly what I mean by this.

As I’m sure you’ll know, 101 Dalmatians is a wonderful story about good triumphing over evil. However, it is also a story of sustainability triumphing over consumerism. It tells the story of Cruella de Vil, a woman rendered insane by greed, and her desire to destroy a litter of puppies in order to wear their fur. Faced with brutal and unnecessary slaughter, the quick-witted Dalmatians, led by puppy parents Pongo and Missis, devise a plan to escape from Hell Hall. They do so through effective communication, teamwork and progressive politics. From this alone, it is apparent none of the puppies grew up to be Tories.

It is my guess that Theresa May never read this story. Either that or she did read it and understood Cruella De Vil to be the heroine. Of course, within this great story is a larger metaphor – we are all Dalmatians. And Dalmatians cannot be held down by one evil and powerful woman, no matter how hard she tries. So, don’t worry, Jessica. We’ll all be fine.

After Chilcot, is this finally the end of the road for Tony Blair?” Katy, Glasgow

Katy, the Chilcot Report has solidified Tony Blair’s place in history as one of the most dangerous, deluded and diabolical politicians to ever live. It has confirmed that everything we ever thought about Tony’s warmongering actions is true – and, ironically, Blair appears to be quite shocked and awed by the whole state of affairs. For decades he has considered himself untouchable. Now he’s finding out that he’s anything but.

Indeed, watching his initial reaction to the report was akin to seeing the school bully getting caught and stammering an explanation for his unjustifiable actions – and boy was it a long explanation! Blair’s statement after Chilcot’s precision putdown should simply have been “I have messed up on a monumental level and I am deeply sorry”, but Terrible Tony’s pride wouldn’t allow for that. Instead, we had to endure a garbled, two-hour rant about why Chilcot, and by extension reality, were wrong to bring Blair’s moral judgement into question.

Blair initially apologised for the Iraq invasion, but then spent

120 minutes explaining why he shouldn’t have had to. “I express regret but ...” is the sort of thing only delusional egotists say, and Blair’s “sorry not sorry” language was filled with his usual hypocritical hallmarks and self-justifying logic. “I didn’t lie, I simply passed on the lies of others” and “It wasn’t a lie, it was an honestly held belief” was the rationale employed by the former PM. By the end of the lengthy statement, Blair was back into his old habit of telling people what to do regardless of whether it was right, logical or welcome. This talk might have been thinly justified in 2004, but in 2016 it is absolutely derisory. The families of soldiers who perished in Iraq have already branded Blair the “world’s worst terrorist”, and if Tony’s speech is anything to go by, he is now attempting to spin that title into some sort of accolade.

One of the many excuses deployed was that none of us could relate to Tony as a “decision maker”, which is a ridiculous claim, as the majority of world leaders saw through the nonsensical intelligence reports and chose not to bomb Iraq. As decision makers went at the time, Blair was one of the very worst. But what else would you expect from a man who is such a strong believer in safety through violence? As quick as Blair has always been to remind us of the climate of fear after 9/11, rational people have never lost sight of the fact that by resorting to destructive military strategies, you give terrorists exactly what they want.

One of the many dark ironies of the Iraq invasion was that Tony Blair went against the will of his own people. He acted in a dictatorial manner to remove a dictator. Worse yet, he did so believing 9/11 was in some way transcendentally related to Iraq instead of the Gulf Arab States he’s been so pally with over the years.

Naturally, flights of fantasy are a staple of any transparent defence of Tony Blair. Especially ones coming from himself. Blair’s speech was laden with a series of “What if?” scenarios that seemed to serve only him and do their best to steer the conversation away from the facts Chilcot has judiciously collated over the last seven years.

Indeed, Blair appears to be living a world of hypotheticals, which makes sense as our reality is not proving a friendly place for him at the moment. While we have spent the last decade asking ourselves questions like “was the death of a single dictator worth losing the innocent lives of literally thousands of people?”, Blair has spent his time charging ungodly sums of money for speaking engagements, while apparently seeing no reason to pass this money on to the relatives of the troops who died fighting his unjust war.

Aside from the lies, deception and arrogance, I also noted Blair’s use of the phrase “I need” throughout his answers to the press. Evidently, he is a man searching for a redemption that will, rightly, never come. Blairites and inter-party warmongers may have jumped to Blair’s defence – but this only exemplifies the fact that the most blameworthy people in this affair are the very ones telling us that nobody is to blame.

Alastair Campbell claims that the Chilcot Report denounces Tony Blair for mistakes, not lies. Yes, the mistake was not telling the truth. Tony Blair may have spent two hours trying to get us to see where he was coming from, but the truth is we all know where he’s going:

The Hague.