Put me down for a copy! This'll be the first auto-biog i'll be reading for a while, can see it being very interesting.

I'm a Blair fan, and appreciate that not everyone is. Will be a very insightful, albeit pretty biased look into pretty notable government in British history.

From some of the snippets so far he says he had to watch his drinking habits in case they got excessive - a GnT or a strong whisky before dinner and a couple of glasses with dinner.

Looks like he needs to get out on a proper session - then he'll realise what 'excessive' means

I will be reading it. I might even go the the Daily Mail offices and read it in their reception.

Half price in Waterstones (£12.50)

I to think it was a notable government in our history, probably for very different reasons
Dont think history will see him in a very kind light, in my view has done damage to many of the aspirations of those who founded the party he led, not sure in whats left of my life will ever see a proper Labour part in power again, he has taken them down a road that is so far away from its roots, cant see it being able to return.

The only Journey i'd be interested in looking into regarding Tony Blair will be his funeral cortege.

gUy was a complete and utter chap.

Think it will make decent reading. I've just finished reading "The Last Party - Britpop, Blair and the demise of English Rock" which was thoroughly enjojable and I probably realise that, with hindsight, I voted New Labour in 97 because I saw Blair rubbing shoulders with Noel Gallagher and co, as well of being sick and tired of 19 years of Tory Government. I hope there are some juicy titbits on Iraq - the "sexed up" dossier etc and the tragic "suicide" of Dr Kelly. Unfortunately, Iraq and the lives lost is the can he has to carry but a Tory Government would have done no different IMO. Blair was no mug. He knew when to hand over the reins to Brown as he could see the tide was turning. He got his record breaking three terms and could see the economy turning. Suppose you would also have to see read the Peter Mandelsohn and Alistair Campbell books for a wider view.

I still feel let down badly by Blair and New Labour and I think that with Maggie, the two of them have done irrepairable damage to the country .

Sounds very dull to me, probably as bland as the average footballer's biog but with the lawyers having spend more time editting. At least if you lot all buy it then it will raise a decent amount of blood money for a good cause.

Shame if that eases his conscience though.....

In the mid 1980s i was a politics student. Many highly respected academics of the day believed that there would never again be a Labour government. The gang of four had split and the future of the opposition to Thatcherism seemed to be the middle ground of social democracy offered by the Social Democrats and Liberal alliance.

Blair's legacy is twofold. He led the party to purge it off the irrelevent dogma which was now painfully outdated and made the Labour party the party of sensible centrism. He made them electable.

Secondly he introduced evidence based date driven measures to government and made success or failure measurable. Comparative data used to establish what good looks like and how far away from it each service is has made a huge difference in health and education.

Unfortunately he'll be remembered for Iraq.

If only he hadn't handed over to Brown

+1

But no-one stood against Brown, as I said at the time, cowards I say. Then they had the nerve to slate him at every opportunity, disgraceful.

To me he sold out for a handful of silver, what you see as dogma was brought up on, if your idea of a sensible socialist is making yourself a millionaire, then we have very different ideas on it.
Agreed many parts of original Labour had to change, but not in way that Blair took it, as said before learned to read via The Daily Herald, back in the 70's brother worked for your fav newspaper do believe in the basic principals that old Labour stood for, just cant see how any can not see through Blair for what he really is .

Old school Labour was unelectable (Kinnock & Foot failed despite the hatred of late-era Thatcher) and he had to sell out to get in (See also Clegg. N.).

Britain needed a breath of fresh air and Blair was it. Shame it all went pear shaped thereafter (To his credit the economy did tick over nicely for a bit but we never really capitalised on it)

Indeed. Not only electable but fairly hip too, for a time. He appealed to a whole generation of twenty somethings, first time voters and even some of those cynics who could remember 70s Labour.



Yes, he went with Dubya but as I said, any party would have done that. The Tories would have jumped in too. I think only Robin Cook stood strong against the war and was basically ridiculed for it.

He had to hand over to Brown. "Brown Blair" became "Blair Brown" following a meeting in a London restaurant. The meeting is mentioned in one of Andrew Marr's books. It was just a case of when Blair had to hand over the ropes and it was indeed timed to perfection.

If only one of the current crop had had the bollocks to challenge Brown for the leadership we'd now have a Labour or Labour/LibDem coalition government.

Depends on who it was, but yes more chance of a win as all sides were after him from the off; so Brown had no chance!

Brown was not leadership material

Blair was right

I'm currently reading Alistair Campbell's diary - 'The Blair Years' - which may paint a more accurate picture of Tony Blair than a self-portrait. All the same, I'll probably read Blair's own account at some stage.

The fact that Blair needed someone like Campbell really tells you all you need to know about Labour's on-going problems with the highly influential, Tory-centric, British press - and the (sickeningly crucial) relationship with Rupert Murdoch and News International is one of the biggest barriers to the adoption of any kind of modern democracy in the UK.

Just watching the Tony Blair interview with Andrew Marr - very interesting

"Sometimes politics is right versus left, and sometimes it's right versus wrong"

Responding to being despised "I WON three elections, not lost them"

He's still got it

That little bit of folklore was finally debunked tonight, appropriately enough, on Andrew Marr's Blair interview. The restaurant thing never happened.

Absolutely. I utterly despise the man but it has to be said he timed his exit to perfection, with hindsight it must have been within weeks if not days of the all time highs in the market, really quite incredible. It was all downhill from there, literally.

But I think he's wrong in these interviews to suggest that Brown lost the election because he abandoned the policies of New Labour. He lost because the public abandoned New Labour. For all the old Labour attributes Brown supposedly had, the public still remembered him as one of the architects of New Labour, and now he was effectively the last man standing. The Tories meanwhile had made themselves electable again, beating New Labour at their own game, winning the PR war in getting their message across, and making Labour look a very tired adminstration, totally bereft of ideas. And although it sounds simplistic he shouldn't underestimate the fact that Cameron was likeable, just as Blair himself had been years before, but Brown wasn't.

The election was lost because of Brown's gurning bumbling persona

The average punter couldn't name a single policy on either side

Which turns out to be fine given the government lied about everything they are now doing!

Reading this post makes you think for a moment (just a moment) that the Tories had made themselves electable again, had beaten New Labour at their own game, were winning the PR war in getting their message across????? the fact that Cameron was likeable?????

Given that Brown was (supposedly) as bad as the posts above would tell us and that New Labour was at an all time low in popularity, the fact that Cameron wasn't able to win the election for the Tories must tell us something about either him or the Tories or both.
Blair was likeable years before and swept to election victory for three consecutive General elections, Cameron is that likeable that he can't even scrape one victory in the midst of a Labour / Brown all time low.

Correct, and what it shoudl tell you is just how unpopular the Tories had become in '97 after 18 years in power, that 13 years later even with a likeable leader and a hugely unpopular government they could still barely win, the public wasn't going to let them back in that easily.

But think about the alternative scenario, the Tories coming into the 2010 election was like Labour coming into the 1992 election, and had Brown some how managed to win this year I have absolutely no doubt the public would have soon regretted it and handed him or his successor a crushing defeat 4 or 5 years from now like they did for the Tories in '97, and it would take them a lot longer to recover from that than it should take them now against a coalition. The difference between the leaders was that likeability factor that Cameron had and Brown didn't, can you honestly say if it were reversed and Brown were likeable he wouldn't have won?

With hindsight I think it was a masterstroke for Cameron to be embracing a coalition so quickly when he could have soldiered on in a minority government and then called another election and maybe won small, but even worse risk losing small to a new Labour leader. In excerpts from Mandelson's book he notes that Brown and Campbell thought it made Cameron look weak, but Mandelson thought it was very smart, that he was embracing a new politics, and I think that's so far proved to be right and the public are happy with the result.

As for Blair's 3 victories, the '97 win was so huge with a 180 majority it was more like winning 3 at once, when you win that big it's a given you won't be going anywhere for some time, you should be able to serve at least 2 terms probably 3. The largest Thatcher ever got was about 140 but even with a new leader they still managed to secure a fourth term, an incredible achievement but one that ultimately took it's toll longer term on the party and the country given that Blair was the legacy of those 18 years.

Good analysis and from this you have to think that Labour stand some chance in 2015 whereas the Tories had no chance in 2001.

Of course the Tories elected Hague in 1997 compounding their errors. Labour could only get it so badly wrong if they go for Ed Balls or Diane Abbott (which they won't).

I disagree
Blair did not make them electable. He was the beneficiary of the great strides that Kinnock made.
The fact that Labour became electable was all down to Kinnock in my opinion.

The only "great strides" Kinnock made were backwards

Blair's book has presented booksellers with a dilemma: they can't decide whether to move it to the Crime or Fantasy sections

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/tony-blair/7980583/Internet-campaign-launched-to-move-Tony-Blairs-book.html

Sadly thats an easy one, Blair was no Fantasy and for sure he would fit the other category no problem.
To me it is one of the few humorous aspects related to him, his supporters all would think see them self on the side of someone wanting a fair society, but as I see him he was nothing better than a con artist of the worst kind, granted very good at it, even Groomy admits he is no socialist, unfortunately shows how gullible even the nicest people can be.