Airbrush makes Tony Blair a new man

Tony Blair is a new man, now that the cares of office have been lifted from him. A bit of airbrushing also helps.

Welcome British change of tack on Guantanamo detainees

It is good news that the British government has requested the release of a further five UK residents from Guantanamo Camp. This is a welcome change of direction following the change of Prime Minister.

Guantanamo camp remains one of the most disgusting acts of the US government. Tony Blair should hang his head in shame for supporting Bush in Iraq, following such a shameful abuse of human rights.

Should Charlotte Church be treated at Chequers?

Well done to Norman Lamb for eliciting the information that Tony Blair's guests at Chequers, in his last few months as PM, included:

-Charlotte Church
-Gavin Henson
-Lorraine Kelly
-Richard Madeley
-Chris Evans
-Vernon Kaye

It speaks volumes about this government's lack of commitment to freedom of information that it took months of effort to extract this information, as Norman comments:

For reasons that defy rational explanation the government has been treating the fact that Tony Blair enjoyed drinks with Vernon Kay and Charlotte Church as a state secret.

Could the government's reluctance to publish this information be motivated by an attempt to avoid this question?:

Why is Charlotte Church being treated to a slap-up meal at Chequers at the taxpayers expense?

What possible advantage to the country can be gained by discourse between a departing Prime Minister, a singer and her Rugby playing partner? Even if such interaction were justified, does it have to be accompanied by luxury treatment at the taxpayers' expense?

And we hear today that Blair's farewell tour cost the taxpayer £1.7 million. Surely some of this should billed out to Blair's future publisher and agent? After all, much of it was an advance publicity tour for Blair's future lecture tours and publications.

Blair to stand down as MP

I agree with Clare Short (interviewed on Radio Four's PM) that it is not entirely necessary for Blair to stand down as an MP purely because of his Middle East envoy role, which is not full time. It doesn't involve chairing standing talks, for example. It will probably involve just the odd trip, which Blair has managed to fit in with two other roles for years, so fitting it in with one role wouldn't have been a problem.

He just hasn't got the patience to carry on has he?

I am sure Brown will welcome it, because it means there is no chance of sulking on the back benches. It is traditional that retiring PMs (e.g Major, Heath, Churchill) stay on until at least the next election (Heath went on far longer). But Blair is no normal human being, of course. He has millions (mainly dollars) to earn.

In reply to Newbury Blogwatcher and others who have suggested that this will overstretch the LibDem by-election machine...Sedgefield and Ealing are so far apart that this hardly arises as a problem. In the main, people who are likely to travel to Sedgefield to help are not the same people who are likely to travel to Ealing to help.

Blair the Middle East "peace envoy" - like pouring petrol onto a fire

Lindyloo's Muze hits the nail on the head, and then some:

The news that the man who was prepared to collude, lie and condemn hundreds of thousands to death in Iraq is now likely to be appointed an envoy to the Middle East beggars belief. I remember the contempt with which Blair was regarded by Palestinians when I was there a couple of months after the Iraq invasion. The idea that Blair will do anything other than collude with US and Israeli objectives to weaken the Palestinian cause and ensure the Palestinian state remains untenable, seems to me Alice in Wonderland politics. No, the most appropriate job for Blair would be to go and work with an NGO working in Iraq with the victims of that illegal, immoral and disastrous war - maybe that will at least go some way towards his own much needed rehabilitation.

Way to go, Linda! I imagine Blair on his hands and knees, scrubbing floors in Iraq, while wearing a hair shirt and periodically flagellating himself with stinging nettles. That's the only suitable role for him!

Blair planned to sack Brown

The Independent reveals government papers which show that Blair planned, in detail, to sack Brown and break up the Treasury, after the last election.

One warning though: the plan seem to have involved John Birt - so no wonder it didn't go ahead.

But seriously, the detail of this planning - including draft speaking notes for the announcement and a profile of qualities the new chancellor should have - demonstrates a remarkable degree of distrust between Blair and Brown, to an extent which hasn't previously been clear in such a concrete fashion:

The paper provides the first concrete proof that the speculation was true, including draft speaking notes for the Prime Minister, a briefing for the " new Chancellor", as well as a list of personal qualities Mr Brown's successor should have.

Marked "Copy No 1 - Prime Minister Confidential Policy", the paper says the new Chancellor's qualities must include "lack of personal investment in previous policies". It adds that "teamwork" is a key asset, something that arch-Blairites have accused Mr Brown of being incapable of.

The document adds that on the first day in office Mr Blair should " convey to the new Chancellor" his plans to split the Treasury and hand many of its key roles, including responsibility for tax credits, to other ministries.

Kinnock: "What the hell is a Labour Prime Minister doing with George Bush?"

I have just been watching the first part "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair" on Channel 4.

It was a remarkably clear summary of Tony Blair's period in office up to 2004. There was an exceptionally qualified cast of interviewees including Condeleeza Rice, Andrew Card, Stephen Wall, Sir David Manning etc as well Labour figures including Jack Straw, Neil Kinnock and David Blunkett. There was also 'Bazza' or Barry Cox, a family friend, who was very frank.

So it was a very authoritative account, also bearing in mind that it was narrated by Andrew Rawnsley, who has a reknowned knowledge of "New Labour".

A few things stood out for me.

It was made clear, in a way that I had never appreciated before, how Blair's success in getting the US on board to win a victory in Kosovo gave him confidence and a belief that he could sweep all before him in international affairs. That confidence was later to lead to over-confidence in relation to Iraq.

Watching the clip of Blair in the Commons mentioning the "45 minutes" made me realise that this clip will be Blair's epitaph. It really encapsulates the shattering of the trust in which people held him.

It was telling to hear Stephen Wall describing a conversation with Jacques Chirac about the proposed Iraq invasion. Chriac said that he had been a soldier in Algeria and knew the horror of war at first hand. He said that if Blair/Bush invaded Iraq they wouldn't be welcomed and they would start a civil war. He added that they shouldn't mistake the Shia majority for democracy.

Wall said that Blair came out of the meeting with Chirac saying "Poor old Jacques doesn't get it, does he?" As Wall commented, events proved that, in fact, Jacques "got it" and Blair didn't.

Neil Kinniock talked with considerable passion when he described the incredulity of Labour stalwarts that Blair got so close with "above all people - George Bush". In the trailer for the next programme, this sentiment is expressed with even more exasperation by Kinnock with these words, presumably describing the views expressed by Labourites:

What the hell is a Labour Prime Minister doing with George Bush?

Blair feared US would "nuke the s**t out of Afghanistan"

Former British Ambassador to the US, Christopher Meyer has said that Tony Blair feared that the USA would "nuke the s**t" out of Afghanistan in revenge for 9-11.

In Channel Four's two part documentary, "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair", Meyer says:

Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a kneejerk reaction' by the Americans... they would go thundering off and nuke the s**t out of the place without thinking straight.

The Mirror reports:

In Channel 4's candid two-part documentary The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair, Mr Meyer claims the threat explains why the Prime Minister vowed to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Bush over the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan - to thwart his allguns blazing battle plan.

But it meant sending British troops to Iraq knowing Washington had NOT made preparations for its post-war reconstruction.

From the other side of the pond, Daily Kos comments in outspoken terms:

The next time a world leader feels like legitimizing some reckless endeavor because they think they can keep control of Americans better by working on the inside, I have a request: don't do us any bloody favors. And Tony, if you wanted to stop this war, the way to do it was to speak out against it, not pal up with the instigator. W***er.

(My asterisks)

Blair knew that Iraq aftermath would be disastrous

The Observer reveals quotes from senior Blair aides at the time, from a forthcoming Channel 4 programme, which show that Blair repeatedly warned Bush of the need to prepare for the post-Iraq invasion scenario. Blair knew full well there was no adequate plan. The picture painted is of Blair as powerless to persuade the US to properly prepare for the aftermath.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told The Observer: 'These frank admissions that the Prime Minister was aware of the inadequacies of the preparations for post-conflict Iraq are a devastating indictment.'

(What the article doesn't mention is something Paddy Ashdown said the other day. That is that an expert on the World War Two aftermath in Germany visited the White House well before the invasion and told them not to do all the things they did do - chief among them: disbanding the army.)

The article also repeats that Bush was quite happy for Britain not to send troops:

Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, confirms that the President offered Blair a way out. Bush told Blair: 'Perhaps there's some other way that Britain can be involved.' Blair replied: 'No, I'm with you.'

So, Blair could have quietly helped without sending troops and Bush would have been perfectly happy. It just shows how foolish Blair was on the whole issue.

"Margaret Thatcher was a sweetie to the young and old"

I know, I know, I should stop reading articles in the Daily Telegraph. It would be good for my blood pressure.

But, in an article entitled Tough luck if you're not Scottish in that organ today, Alice Thompson reminds us of Neil Kinnock's speech in 1983 when he said that if Thatcher was re-elected: "I warn you not to be young - I warn you not to grow old."

Alice Thompson remarks:

Margaret Thatcher was a sweetie to the young and the old compared to what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done to them.

She then goes on to list some examples to demonstrate her point. I have found fatal flaws with the first two examples and then gave up, as my blood pressure was getting too high:

Now the results are showing. Blair's babies are actually worse off than Thatcher's children. Not only are they now the most over-tested, stressed and unhappy children in the world, but according to new figures they are also saddled with far more debt than Thatcher's brood were when they left university.

According to reports in this week's Daily Telegraph, children spend the first 18 years of their life being examined, starting as babies, when they have to show they can shake a rattle. As toddlers, they must prove they can integrate with their peers; by seven they are sitting formal national tests.

Hang on. The SATs, the 'formal national tests' to which seven year olds are subjected, were introduced by the Conservatives - not Gordon and Tony, Alice old thing! And this stuff about toddlers having to 'prove they can integrate with their peers'...our child was recently a toddler. I think Thompson may be somewhat over-egging the pudding regarding toddlers. That's putting it mildly.

Their teens are spent in their bedrooms cramming for GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels. All to get to university where, according to the National Union of Students, they now leave with vast debts.

Instead of being able to buy their first flat, they are paying off the tutors who taught them geography or golf management. The average degree course now costs £42,000, and then they have to think about a mortgage.

Hello? Unless David Cameron has done another U turn on this since January, the Conservatives actually support tuition fees!

Blair Rome trip: Taxpayer pays for Pope to see after-dinner speaker and book salesman

I suppose you have to go back to Winston Churchill to find a Prime Minister of the UK who has had anything like the "long goodbye" that Tony Blair is having. So, to a certain extent, Blair is writing the manual for retiring PMs.

One feels slightly nauseous watching his recent tours around the globe. It is very difficult to see where valid representation of the country ends and the advance book tour begins. It is hard not to conclude that the publisher of Blair's future books, or his speaking agent, should be paying part of his tour expenses.

Richard Littlejohn, with typical colour, has called Blair's tour a "carnival of vanity".

I have tended to shrug off all this. But I am little nervous about the timing of Blair's trip to see the Pope. It will be on June 23rd, four days before Blair stands down as PM. That's according to Reuters, although it is denied by Downing Street.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things Blair ought to be discussing with the Pope. A confession over his stupidity and arrogance on Iraq would be an excellent start. The Guardian quotes Freddy Gray, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald listing some of the topics they might cover:

I expect they will talk again about foreign affairs - notably the plight of Christians in Iraq and, perhaps, the issue of what is widely called 'aggressive secularism' in British society and governance, an issue that came to the fore recently in the row over Cateholic adoption agencies.

However, I am very curious about the timing of the Papal audience. By its lateness in Blair's premiership, it is being given very high priority. Quite rightly so, but one cannot help concluding that the priorities of Blair the private person are overly influencing the schedule of Blair the Prime Minister.

I feel quite queasy about this. Number Ten bats away rumours of a Prime Ministerial deathbed Catholic conversion and appointment of Blair as Deaconess of Detroit (sorry - Deacon - my Monty Python obsession overtook me there) as "a private matter". Indeed they are. But it is hard not to conclude that Blair is allowing private considerations to unduly influence his use of taxpayers money to fly to Rome at this time.

You could say he has "saved the trip up" but I just think it seems pointless for the Pope to be speaking to someone who has just three days left in charge. The Pope will in effect, be talking to a very well known after-dinner speaker and odd job ex-statesman.

Fine. But why should the taxpayers pay for it?

Brown the roundhead; Cameron and Blair the cavaliers

Clifford Longley had a very interesting "Thought for the Day" this morning.

In a nutshell, for the purposes of discussion, Longley divided Britain into "roundheads" and "cavaliers", calling Tony Blair and David Cameron "cavaliers" and Gordon Brown a "roundhead". He summarised the opposing characters they symbolise as:

"Cavaliers have more fun, Roundheads get more done."

His conclusion was that we need both types in society. It is a fascinating thought, and certainly more soothing than anything "from our Oxford studio, writer and broadcaster A..click....this is Radio One". The transcript of Longley's talk is here. Here is a sample:

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both been emphasising the need to establish a clearer sense of national identity, to counter the tendency for a multi-cultural society to pull itself apart. Neither mentions religion, probably because it is seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. But what about the national character?

That's slightly different from identity, and you can't so easily dismiss religion from the equation. The Anglo-Saxon personality owes a lot to our turbulent religious history, in particular the fault- line that has emerged time and again between two principles or ideas which, going back to the English civil war, we could label Roundhead and Cavalier.

If we're looking for where the dividing line runs today, we shouldn't ignore the party wall between No 10 and No 11 Downing Street. There is something of the Roundhead about Presbyterian Gordon Brown and something of the Cavalier about Tony Blair, who leans, as we know, towards Catholicism. The Cavalier and the Roundhead have two views of God, even a God they don't believe in like my utterly atheist father who was distinctly Puritan in his values. The Puritan God is hard to please; we must keep to his rules or he will be angry with us. Those who follow him are zealous strivers who work hard to get where their duty drives them. The Cavaliers' God is more relaxed and forgiving, who wants us to enjoy life. Cavaliers, natural aristocrats, rise effortlessly to the top as if it was their God- given right.

The very senior Labour figure from the 1980s who Blair called a "c word"?

Paul Linford speculates as to which "very senior Labour figure from the 1980s" it was, according to Andrew Rawnsley's write-up of Alastair Campbell's new book, Blair called a "c-word".

When I read Rawnsley's article yesterday I thought it sounded like Roy Hattersley. Paul Linford confirms Hattersley as the odds-on favourite.

A far-reaching decision, taken at the eleventh hour - Why?

This seems to be a week for major announcements:

Energy
Planning
HIPs

Is this considered a 'good week to bury bad news' or, at least, major announcements?

It all seems rather strange since Blair will soon be gone. Does Brown want all the clutter out of the way before he starts? Is Blair trying to secure himself a place in history other than as an alleged, potential war criminal?

Blair's message at Prime Minister's Questions today was summarised by the BBC as being, in effect, "not me guv - Blair tells MPs it's now up to someone else to decide things"

In which case, is it really a good thing that this 'headless chicken' government is announcing such a major decision as that on nuclear power? After all, as recently as 2003, the relevant minister told the Commons:

It would have been foolish to announce ... that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now.

(Hat-tip John Sauven on Comment is free)

For such a long-term policy area, with consequences for many future generations, is it wise to be making a decision, which reverses the direction of the government announced only four years ago, at the eleventh hour of Blair's premiership? What's to say it won't be reversed by Gordie next year?

Why Blair will go down in history as a complete Numpty

Numpty is putting it mildly. I am grateful to the Scots for providing a word which can avoid accusations of over-the-top posting.

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair has succeeded into putting huge investment in the NHS and Education. He has completed a constitutional revolution in the UK. He has succeeded in the almost saint-like achievement of creating a kissfest (am I dreaming? - pinch, pinch) between Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland.

For those achievements he ought to go down as the most successful Labour Prime Minister bar, possibly, Clement Atlee.

But he ruined it all by the most stupid, idiotic act of a Prime Minister since Eden and the Suez misadventure. ...The type of act that Harold Wilson was wise enough to avoid by refusing to give President Lyndon Johnson even the fig-leaf of an army band to help him out of the Vietnam quagmire.

I believe Blair will be forever remembered for his completely wrong-headed, insanely unquestioning and pathetically blind obedience to George Bush. (The latter of whom will go down as one of the most disastrous Presidents in the history of the United States of America.)

Both of them ought to be tried for war crimes, and I hope they are.

Their unedifying display of "sod everyone" self-congratulation in the White House Rose Garden today was blood-chilling. They are the only two people in the world who believe their own bulls**t.

Thank God Blair is going, and thank God the Democrats are starting to, at last, bring change to American foreign policy.

The Blair legacy: "Profound constitutional revolution"

In The House Magazine, via epolitix.com, Vernon Bogdanor writes a fascinating summary of the constitutional changes of the Blair years:

Our constitution has now been almost completely refashioned by the Blair government, and is coming to be based on consciously formulated rules rather than tacit understandings. We have been living, therefore, through an unnoticed constitutional revolution, a quiet revolution yet profound.

It is interesting to get this perspective on the Blair years, as such reflections have been missing so far from all the retrospectives.

What happened to 'Education, Education, Education'?

Sean Coughlan, BBC News education reporter, has produced a thorough and interesting analysis of the actions of the Blair government on Education. It is worth a read.

In particular, he highlights the resources which have been poured into education:

Between 1997 and the current academic year, the core "per pupil" funding has risen by 48% in real terms - or £1,450 more per year per child. By the end of next year, it will be a 55% increase.

There are now about 35,000 more teachers than in 1997 - reducing pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes in primary and secondary. Teachers' pay has risen by 18% in real terms, and heads have had a pay hike of 27%.

Another quiet revolution has been the huge increase in support workers, such as teaching assistants - up by 172,000. To put it into context, that's like recruiting an additional workforce that is bigger than the army, navy and air force put together.

Well done Tony Blair!

...I never thought I'd write that.

I suppose that we all have an idealised memory of our childhood. A sort of amalgam of different memories which make up a vision of what it was like. I picture growing up over 15 years with Top of the Pops permanently presented by Alan Freeman, Jimmy Savile, Pete Murray and Tony Blackburn on a rota basis. Of course, they only did it like that for about a year.

In this funny memory cache I also have the news permanently presented by Robert Dougall. It involves pictures of Harold Wilson walking backwards and forwards out of Number Ten with his pipe and gannex, and pictures of Ted Heath heaving his shoulders with laughter. The news always seemed to feature the latest dire news on the monthly balance of payments, with accompanying graphics, as if the country was about to go into receivership. We never seem to hear about the balance of payments nowadays, although, the last time I checked, we were permanently in deficit but bailed out by something called "invisibles".

This memory capsule invariably features the news read by Robert Dougall starting with the words "In Northern Ireland today...." followed by news of some awful killings in the province. In fact, those old newsreaders, Robert Dougall, Richard Baker, Kenneth Kendall and Peter Woods (on the Beeb) not to forget Ivor Mills, Andrew Gardner and Reginald Bosanquet on ITN, must have said "In Northern Ireland today" more than any other phrase.

The troubles went on for so long, and were such a permanent and tragic backcloth to life, that it now seems like a bizarre dream to see Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness giggling together at Stormont. After so many failed attempts and so many Northern Ireland secretaries (remember Robert Carr? I even remember Terence O'Neill and Brian Faulkner, who were, I think, the last two "Prime Ministers" of Northern Ireland - goodness I am ancient) it just seems unreal that we have got to a state of reasonable peace and devolved rule in Northern Ireland.

So, for all this, I say well done Tony Blair. No doubt I will later find ways to take credit away from him for this and it is certainly drowned out by his Iraq debacle, for which he deserves to be tried for War Crimes, but for the moment I pat him on the back for this extraordinary achievement. However, the real people who deserve the credit are the people of Northern Ireland.

Now Victor Meldrew lays into Blair

Hard on the heels of Noel Gallagher, now Victor Meldrew actor, lifelong Labour supporter Richard Wilson, lays into Blair.

Noel Gallagher lays into Blair...and Cameron

Ten years after famously supping champers with Tony Blair at Number Ten, Noel Gallagher has laid into him:

We thought it was going to be John F Kennedy and for a year or two it was. Unfortunately for this Labour government, they are going to be saddled with the Iraq war and nobody can get around that.

If anything, Gallagher is more vitriolic about David Cameron, especially about his refusal to admit or deny using drugs while at school:

To say no comment is typical of him and his party copping out. (The Conservatives) wait to see what Tony Blair says...and then they move in behind and switch it and change a little bit. It's like a song writer who's eternally ripping off someone else's song and just changing the odd line a little.