What does he think he's doing?  There is absolutely no way he can expect the kind of departure from public life he would wish himself.

Going in the wake of the expected Labour rout next Thursday will only serve to make him look like a rodent departing a declining vessel (a hackneyed, but not inappropriate simile).

So...I can only conclude that Blair's continuance in office, certainly since last year, has been all about attempting to groom a challenger to Gordon Brown; when that didn't pan out, he decided just to be a spoiler and make things as difficult for his successor as possible.

What a truly revolting specimen of 'humanity' he is.  Never in my life - even during the Tory Poll Tax years - have I felt such sheer, unadulterated loathing for a democratically elected leader.

But Blair's probably not even worth my contempt - his evil is largely of the petty, provincial kind; he's still managed to be responsible, or partly responsible, for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, though.

I predict he will be the first British Prime Minister to relocate to the USA - even taking out US citizenship - where his brand of soap and water, ineffectual 'liberalism' will be welcomed by the armchair liberals who pasture there (and, no doubt, a fair few Conservatives, too).

I hope he dies broke, alone, and destitute...an unlikely outcome, I'll admit, but it might hopefully happen.

I think it's his just desserts, when you consider all the parents, wives, husbands and children (of several nationalities) who are going to be alone and probably more broke than they should be, just because Brother Tone wanted to keep his position as America's lapdog of choice.

Totally agree with you, pw!

My experience of what the Blair government has done to education is nowhere near as comprehensive as yours...but I do recognise quite a lot of it from when I briefly did some supply teaching in the early 00s.

Blair and New Labour have done a lot of damage....it's really appalling when you think of the size of the mandate they were given ten years ago, that they have actually managed to drag the country backwards in terms of the arts. I wonder what 'Red' Nelly Wilkinson would have thought of her 'successor' Tessa 'Casino' Jowell? Actually, I don't have to wonder.

Yes...what 'New Labour' has done in the name of the Labour Party is disgraceful and a bitter insult to the legacy (flawed though it may have been) of the '45 Labour Government (the only Labour government that did any lasting good, imo). 

I think Blair's abiding legacy, though, will be the destruction of the Party he once led....when they lose an election (probably the one after next, if not the next), the infighting that will ensue will make the squabbles of the early 80s look a kiddies' tea party.

i am not sure about how history will eventually judge Blair for Iraq. It was a big decision; at the time it was made (i.e. before parliament voted several times to go ahead) it was clear from the Times (i think) reporter who was inside No 10 on a special basis that the decision was to go with the Americans who had already decided. So the other choice was to not go with the Americans. This is not about being a poodle alas, it is big stuff in terms of the UK in the world.
That we now know that the Americans as then constituted were the last people to go or do anything with was not quite so clear at the time. Carping now is to commit the cardinal sin of back-broking, criticising a deal when you have knowledge not available at the time. One consequence of a decision not to go with the Americans would have been a much closer integration with Europe. (IF ONLY!) Not an easy prospect for any British PM. It was a really big decision and his first sin was that he was publicly ahamed of the choice. i do not think he has ever made an honest case for his policy, nor stood up to the incompetence and perfidy of the American government ever since. He has behaved like a poodle. But the issue was much bigger than that. (i am not arguing for the war or against).
Subsequent to the choice the Blair Government has ably colluded in a most despicable and incompetent campaign; one that is unlikely to be ever outdone in its capacity to create the antithesis of its asserted objectives whether moral, political or strategic. i am not sure that it is not this failure, and our own sense of being part of it, that generates the hostility to Blair. After all, if it had been moderately successful, and we had not the illegal imprisonments and maltreatments to accept, where would public opinion be?

On the domestic front i feel a much harsher judgement is merited. After ten years with such large majorities we have no worthwhile improvement; a public sector in a turmoil of poor morale, high invetsment and low productivity in education, justice, and health. An economy utterly dependent on a financial services bubble. Excruciating managerial greed in commercial and public sector organisations and an increasing and malignant inequality in society. And everywher an appalling babble of third rate marketing and managerial jargon uttered as an invocation against accountability and pretense of integrity.

We will pay for this decade.

If Blair had refused to support Bush's war in Iraq, it's not out of the question that Bush and his administration might have thought twice, for fear of becoming totally isolated as a result of breaking the transatlantic alliance. But he didn't, and I can't imagine him even going as far as Mrs Thatcher when she very publicly opposed the American invasion of Grenada. For this (as well as many other things) Blair wins my total and utter contempt.

Whether his successor will be at all different remains to be seen, but I'm not that optimistic....

I won't defend Blair, but there is the small matter of what certain forces might have threatened to do to his children if he didnt toe the line. It really does help to recall that most of these guys are lawyers with moreorless dodgy histories...and until recently we owed them financially for their bit of the allied war effort, whence perhaps some contractual clauses?

This is, indeed a puzzling situation.  I can't speak for the EU part of Europe, but over here in the farther eastern half of the continent the slavish British allegiance to Uncle Sam is viewed with a mixture of disbelief and astonishment.  However, I would say that it is one thing to side with the Americans on a questionable aspect of law.  It's quite another to enter into the business of falsifying evidence on their behalf ("the dodgy dossier", "Niger yellowcake" etc) to facilitate America's bellicose plans.

Frankly I would have long ago torn up my British passport if I had any other passport open to me.

Reply #13

If only Tony had 'paid lip service' and not sent in the troops