I agree.

I always said Blair should have stayed til 2009. He was our greatest asset and we got rid of him far too soon.

[ Parent ]

Actually Richard, no.

The grassroots were clamouring for an election. 62% said they wanted an election; 56% said we were ready for an election. Only 34% expected him to call the election then, though - which means the grassroots got it right.

[ Parent ]

On the WMD issue, I think that Blair genuinely believed that WMD was in Iraq. I think the accusations of 'Bliar' were unfair.

Also, I'm not sure we should refer to Blair as 'that man'.

The phrase 'that (wo)man' should only be applied to Thatcher.

[ Parent ]

I'm afraid you are wrong here. Blair was irritating people very badly on the foreign policy front. Remember Lebanon, where he needlessly got Britain involved in supporting israel's invasion of that country? We had the whole world and their dog saying "why isn't Britain doing something about Lebanon", forgetting that Lebanon was a former French terroritory and only the french had influence over them and only the American had influence over Israel. We had influence over no-one. In the end the french and Americans did call a halt (I think the french sent troops) - but not before there was a lot of needless angst about britain, and all because Blair deliberately stoked the idea that he had influence (when he had none), out of sheer vanity.

Have you noticed that all has been quiet on the foreign policy front since Blair left and Brown has happily allowed David Miliband a free hand at the foreign office? For the first time since 1997 we have a foreign secretary in charge of foreign policy, and how wonderful it has been!

As for Blair handling Northern Rock better - I doubt it. Remember when Farepak wenk bust he refused any govt help - he'd probably have let the rock go bust with grave consequencs to the financial system, simply out of prejudice against the "nationalisation" word.

The 10p tax thing - remember that was agreed while Blair was in power in March 2007. It is however true that Brown wouldn't have even suggested it had he not been goaded by Blair to give something to the middle classes (the 2p cut to the basic rate).

And the world economy would have been the same as now: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would still be gigantic ticking bombs hovering over the world financial system, the dollar would still be crashing making oil go higher, food prices would still be rising due to the Americans refusing to import sugarcane to make ethanol and instead inefficiently trying to make ethanol out of corn  - only Blair would have irritated everyone even more by making Very Self Important Trips to the USA to see Bush about it. It would have made everyone even more furious.

Gordon Brown has made some mistakes on presentation, but I think on a lot of fronts he has been a success: carefully being low-key and soothing on the foreign policy front, getting the Human Embryo Bill through parliament (for the first time in an age we have a PM who is studiedly neutral on religion - how refreshing compared to the excessively religious Blair), going ahead with protections for temporary workers, protections for aupairs and foreign domestics so they can leave Britain instead of being trapped as servants in households they hate, going ahead with nuclear, wind and solar power, extending the hours GPs are  open, so that people who work can see their doctor in the evening, the equalities bill putting an end to discrimination of the elderly. All sorts of good Labour things.

But all the Tory press focus on is Brown's awkward presentational skills - they want a change in government and will seize any excuse to get it, and I'm afraid Labour people play into their hands by constantly wondering about the leadership - including this thread about whether Blair would have been better.

We should really get behind him. In Oxford they produced rather good council results by defiantly saying they liked Brown and doing a lot of work on the ground to counter the air war. If labour could be loyal to Michael Foot (a lesser man than Brown, though Foot was magnificent during the Falklands, demanding action with the result that people came back to Labour from the anti-war Alliance), we can be loyal to Brown. We won the 2001 and 2005 election mainly because of Brown's efforts at the treasury. The Labour govt wouldn't have achieved half the things it has without him.

[ Parent ]

You must be joking! Blair should have gone in 2004 and let Brown pave the way for an election in 2005, when things were going reasonably well for Labour and the fiasco of Iraq had not quite sunk in on the British Public.
Because Blair refused to go, and honour an unwritten agreement, he soured the whole scene for everyone. By 2004 Blairs best work had been done, only NI remained, but the train had already been set on that and Brown would have completed the job.

[ Parent ]