You say tomato, I say tomato. What high minded ideals? You've just stated Blair won with packaging. Oh come on. What candidate really lives up to their rhetoric? Generally the ones that do are the ones to avoid. I think you'll find in 50 years history may well disagree with you. Blair never had a real crisis, so comparing him to Churchill is pointless. And while my knowledge of English 20th century politics is obviously not as good as yours, I'm not sure I agree with your list from what I do know.
They get the keys to Joe Cole? Seriously, we will never know what his term would have been like without the incredible albatross of Iraq. Take away the time and money spent on that effort, and perhaps they would have hit more of the domestic benchmarks they set for themselves.
OK, a qualification: he failed the ideals he claimed to represent and which his party - and everyone who voted for them - understood to be important. The fact that he did so with packaging is neither here nor there. 1997 was meant to be a sea change. And not a shiny smile, wave to the well-wishers style of sea change either. Like I say, 1997 was a big deal in the political history of this country. Well let's hope I'm around to find out. You asked who was better, I told you. Although in actual fact, comparisons between Blair and Churchill can be made, because each faced the challenge of correctly perceiving a global threat and each needed to respond on that basis. Churchill was right, Blair was wrong - and managed to be a simpering idiot into the bargain. Well it's all debatable, but if you really think you can give me a single event, initiative, achievement or stake in history that Blair can substantially lay claim to which measures up to things like the Welfare Reform Act, universal suffrage, the establishment of the NHS or entry into the EEC, then fire away.
That's more a reflection of the country than a reflection on him. The "Republican Revoluition" was a similar event in the US, although it was more ideological. It ended with even more of a pained whimper. Sorry, I forgot you live in Liverpool. Erm......Churchill was right but failed to do much about it. Nor was war against Germany and war in Iraq (a war everyone knew would be won easily) the same. One was a crisis, the other wasn't. But Blair hasn't had the option of doing anything like that. Blair has helped bring a final settlement closer in Northern Ireland, has kept his interference with a good economy small enough not to adversely affect it, has handled Europe deftly and hasn't bungled anything domestically. In this day and age, that's not bad. All the systems are in place - no big fixes are necessary. Really, what has any leader in Europe done over the past 10 years that's remotely similar? Of the longest serving leaders in Europe over the past 10 years, who has done anything? Aznar? Schroeder? Chirac? Berlusconi? Clinton? Its almost impossible to be great when there's no pressing problem to fix. And, frankly, not fixing imaginary problems is an important part of leadership. A historian once described the reign of Antoninus Pius with the words "and during the 18 year reign of Antoninus Pius, nothing happened". For a ruler/politician, that's a massively underrated epitaph.
Besides the point being made that he probably would have faced a party leadership challenge, it makes sense because Blair had announced that he wasn't running for re-election. This gives someone else (Brown) a chance to lead as PM prior to the next election. If Blair just stayed on as a lameduck and resigned just prior to the next election, it would be very difficult for his theoretical Labour successor to run as his own candidate. Essentially, resigning as PM ensures that the party in power is always running an incumbent in the next election. And, as we know from American politics, incumbency has certain advantages.
You have cause and effect mixed up. He's not running for re-election because he's stepping down as a PM.
Not at all - he was author and architect of that moment. Now there's a debate ... But I'm not applying the "being great" metric - you are. You asked me to compare him to other PM's of the century. Blair didn't have to be "great" to be successful. Thatcher was "great", she was also a complete disaster for 8 of her 11 years in power. Blair formented a moment in which he had the opportunity to do genuinely significant things to the social fabric and the institutions that serve the people - and he bottled it. To cap the issue, he spent the best part of half his Premiership focusing on the perception of his own place in history when, had he only remained true to the moment, he could have actually earnt it through action.
I know what you mean. In a literal and logistical cause & effect sense, you're right. But in Blair's mind, the decision to not attempt a fourth term came first--that decision is what's caused him to resign ahead of the next election. My point is that, immediately after the last election, Blair said that he wouldn't lead Labour into a fourth election, right? That doesn't mean he MUST resign way ahead of that election. Which is why, I think, GringoTex asked what the rationale behind resigning before a PM's term is up was. That's the question I was trying to answer. Blair could, theoretically, resign as the next election is called, have Brown lead the campaign as the de facto party leader while Blair stays on as PM right up until the election. Then (if Labour wins) when the new government is formed, Brown would be PM. I understand how stupid that would be. But that's why I phrased my answer as I did. I was attempting to explain why, electorally, it makes sense for a PM who is not interesting in serving another term to resign far ahead of the point where that term would normally end. And I think that's what GringoTex was asking; if it wasn't, my post is irrelevant, anyway.
Regarding Blair's position in the pantheon of British PMs: Middle to bottom of the second tier. There's just no knowing where he would have been had he not decided, tapeworm-like, to live his days in George Bush's upper colon and sign on for the Iraq debacle. The most pitiful thing must have been his statement/implication that even if Iraq was wrong, Britian has a duty to see it out. If Brown cuts the Iraq cord quickly, there's a very good chance Labour gets back in at the next election, resurgent Tories notwithstanding. (Good article about Blair here).
Blair was good at winning power, manipulating the media and leading his party, but when it came to actually doing the job of prime minister he wasn't much cop. In 1997 he had a huge majority, a booming economy and he was enormously popular, so he had a real chance to do some good and reform public services. He squandered that opportunity and failed achieve anything substantial other than spend more money. On education one of the first things his government did was abolish Grant Maintained Schools, ten years later his big education reform was to reintroduce them under a slightly different name. That sums up the incoherance of his government to me.
Blair's much talked about legacy is largely already known. Even if, say in 10 years time, Iraq has stabilised and seems to have a more positive future, his middle east escapade will always be seen as a botched job, which it was. That's the best case scenario and credit will go down to luck not planning. I really don't think there is much doubt that Blair lied to the British public and to parliament and that's his legacy too. Lied is a very strong word, perhaps mislead might be a better, but that's just semantics really. Personally, I'd go with 'willfully mislead' which is lying in my book. That's a fundamental and well-remembered flaw irrespective of any other achievements. That said, I wish the alternatives were better now. I don't think they are at the moment. Brown is another new labour soundbite mid-atlantic, slightly evangelical closet god-botherer. Not much of a change, just without the charm. I hope he's smart enough to prove me wrong.
Blair fell down when it came to the one real decision he had to make. That's what national leaders are there for; to get out of the way when aspects are fine, and to make decisions when they need to be made. His Iraq decision was a horrible, end-justifies-the-means, fear-based one. to which he didn't even really commit, given his heartfelt claims. Thus, a failure.
That's not true and looks only at Blair through American/Iraq-tinted glasses. On the international front he did a good job in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Domestically he had Northern Ireland. Most likely he'll be remembered for Iraq, but there were signicantly more decisions that Blair had to make than just Iraq. Nevertheless, as I said, he'll still be seen in the middle to bottom of the second tier of British PMs, primarily because of Iraq.
Blair was calling for Saddam's overthrow when Bush was still pooh-poohing the idea of nation-building from the Gov. mansion in Austin.
The sad truth is that everytime I read something like this, I literally have a split second thought that, "God that idiot has no business being the governor of a major state." Then in the subsequent nano-second, the reality of the past six years sets in.
He actually wasn't a bad governor (better than the one we have now), but that's not saying much, considering the governorship in Texas is pretty powerless.
Not being Thatcher is about the only he thing he got right - and even that was unintentional. As to the absurd idea that he's not a conservative, where on earth did you get that from?
labour is to the left of several parties in GB, right? Isn't the new PM taking over more conservative than Blair?