Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

The return of the Blair

What Ed M should and shouldn't learn from TB.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 02 March 2012 10:39

Ed Miliband has been holding secret talks with former PM Tony Blair to discuss Labour's strategy.

The pair have met four times to review the party's direction under Mr Miliband's leadership.

That is despite his attempts to distance the party from the New Labour years. He has also criticised Mr Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq.

But a party source said despite their differences, the pair have held fruitful discussions since Mr Miliband became leader.

And from Jonathan Freedland's Guardian column last Saturday:

The former PM, clearly keen to re-engage with British politics after nearly five years away, has been meeting small groups of young, class-of-2010 Labour MPs. What he says privately is that the Lib Dem position is hopeless. . .

Blair's proposed method starts with a repeated insistence that this is nothing but a "Tory government".

I have no problems with Blair advising Ed Miliband or the "class-of-2010" MPs - and not just because our former premier agrees with my line on the coalition. As a "friend" of Blair's told the Sun:

Tony is the greatest political strategist of his generation -- why wouldn't Ed want to meet him?

Indeed. And Miliband shouldn't be embarrassed about taking Blair's advice on strategy and tactics and spin and communications and the rest. The truth is that Blair was, and still is, a master of presentation and persuasion. As I wrote in a column in the Times in December:

Above all else, [Ed Miliband] struggles as a rhetorician in set-piece speeches and primetime interviews. Mr Miliband is the exact reverse of Tony Blair: for this Labour leader, politics is an intellectual, not a theatrical, pursuit. He needs to be much more Blair-like in front of the cameras.

But Miliband and the new intake of Labour MPs should be wary of listening to Blair on matters of substance. According to the Sun, the pair "talked about the need for Labour to be in the centre ground of British politics". But Blair's definition of the "centre ground" is very different to Miliband's - it is premised on the arguments and rows of the 1990s and the fallout from Labour's back-to-back election defeats, at the hands of Margaret Thatcher, in the 1980s. Yet, from public attitudes to high pay and bankers' bonuses to political and media attitudes to the Murdoch empire, the world has moved on. We don't know what TB's response would have been to the 2008/09 financial crisis - we do know, however, that he offered a seeming endorsement of the Tory-led coalition's cuts-obsessed economic strategy in his memoir, A Journey (though Freedland says Blair now "backs Ed Balls in the great macro-economic question of the age, agreeing that excessive austerity will choke off recovery and that what's needed is Keynesian action for growth. . . accompanied by a clear deficit reduction plan and enough business allies to convince voters that if Labour's advocating spending it is doing so not out of congenital habit, but hard-headed economic necessity").

The standard and lazy riposte from the ultra-Blairites to even the mildest criticism of their hero is to remind us that he "won three elections in a row". Yes, he did - an impressive, remarkable and historic achievement. But, in the cold light of history, his record as a vote-winner isn't as impeccable or infallible as some might assume. Some points to consider:

1) In July 1994, Blair inherited a 13 per cent poll lead over the Tories from the late John Smith; it was handed to him on a plate. Despite extending it to a massive 29 points in June 1995, on election day in May 1997, Labour beat the tired, divided, lacklustre, scandal-ridden Tories by - wait for it - just under 13 percentage points.

2) Labour lost four million votes on Blair's watch, between 1997 and 2005 (and another million on Brown's watch, in 2010). From the moment Blair walked through the black door of Number 10, the Labour vote share started to decline and the "master" himself could do little to halt or reverse it in the subsequent general elections.

3) Blair won his three election victories, in an age of affluence, against John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard (who picked up the baton from Iain Duncan Smith). He never had to face a tough opponent - be it Ken Clarke, who the Tories crazily rejected again and again, or Blair's own "heir", David Cameron.

4) Blair benefited from a voting system that is biased in favour of the Labour Party: in 2005, for example, TB secured a third term, with a healthy 66-seat majority, on just 35.2 per cent of the vote (that is, one in five eligible British voters). Five years later, however, Cameron's Conservatives couldn't get a majority in the Commons despite winning 36.1 per cent of the vote.

5) By the time Blair reluctantly left office, in the wake of a series of embarrassing scandals and unpopular wars, his sheen had worn off - the Tories' had a near-uninterrupted poll lead over Blair's Labour Party between December 2005 and Blair's resignation in May 2007. Unlike Blair, Ed Miliband inherited a Labour Party trailing the Tories in the polls in September 2010.

In our recent biography of Miliband, James Macintyre and I explore how the current Labour leader succeeded in beating his elder brother - and hot-favourite - David by understanding the need for a message that stressed "change" over "continuity". As the younger Miliband stated, provocatively, in an essay for the Fabian Society in August 2010:

It is my rejection of. . . New Labour nostalgia that makes me the modernising candidate at this election.

It is, therefore, irrelevant how many times Miliband meets with Blair - I just hope the Labour leader doesn't forget these all-important words of his. To modernise is to change and move on from the past. In substance and message, Tony Blair is very much the past.

Tags: Ed Miliband David Cameron Labour Tony Blair

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

67 comments

Thu, 2012-07-12 11:19 — A Realist (not verified)

Personally, I find Blair's strategies for political popularity and spin, a bit like cold calling and telephone sales. They've had their day. If his legacy, like a dodgy car salesman is to dupe people in to believing lies, then he's great at all that.

However, he is now a toxic brand. Please don't let me relive the nightmares again! Blair and Bush reappear in an episode of Dallas, with a dodgy dossier to invade Iran!

Ed can do this on his own. In fact, it is Ed's lack of spin and polish, that is now his unique selling point. He seems human. Tony, by contrast must run on batteries and cuprinol wood preserve.

Wed, 2012-07-11 23:57 — GDWilliams (not verified)

Political or social psychologists have known for decades, using empirical measures, that the more fearful a population becomes, the more conservative their behavior also becomes. Enough so that for a democratic societies like ours where "a landslide" is measured by a mere 2 or 3% lead, for conservatuve politicians its merely good politics to get the country embroiled in wars, or oversee a deterioration in middle-class fortunes.

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:32 — frances smith (not verified)

miliband needs to wait for cameron's weakest supporters to come to him, not make the mistake of going chasing after them, policy wise, and they will come to him.

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:39 — thinkov

listen to the left of France

radical policies equal big poll leads
oh and fuck off luddite

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:43 — Galahad (not verified)

The one thing everyone agrees on, with regards to Blair, is that he was very successful about communication, image, presentation. Skills that are essential to wining elections. Also skills that Ed Miliband lacks to a great extent.
Ed Milibands greatest strength is being a wonk, developing and shaping policy. A friend of mine once said that "People agree with what EM says, until they hear and see him say it"
Therefore, why is it considered wrong that Ed should be taking tips on presentation and image from the politician widely described as the best in a generation?

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:44 — Arthur Williamson (not verified)

Let`s be honest.

In 1992 the Tory party had lost so much credibility, what with the Poll Tax and the state of Britain`s economy at that time. Despite this, they still managed to win the 1992 election. What does that tell us about Labour`s credibility in the eyes of the voters at that time?

People like Medhi Hasan should remember 1992 before they start talking about the "cold light of history".

I`m sure Ed Milliband remembers 1992, and I`m sure he therefore appreciates how good Tony Blair was at election strategy. Ed Milliband speaking to Tony Blair for advice is absolutely the right thing to do.

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:44 — John P Reid (not verified)

1,Yes and Labour lost 5.6 million votes between 1951 and 1983, same as Labour increased it's vote by 5.2 million from 1987 to 1997.

2, Neil Kinnock was 26% Ahead in 1990 and 16% ahead in 1986, there's a thing called mid term unpopualrity ,that the Tories always recovered from, I on't think John Smith was 13% ahead I seem to recall in one poll at that time it was 1%, And I'm old enough to remember back then Medhi. Opinion polls are always bias towards laobur so beign 13% ahead doesn't mean you are, (Labour was 2% ahead on the eve of the 1992 election, and the Tories got 8% more than labour.)

3,Was William Hague and Mchael Howard that un impressive as Tory leaders ,Howard Launhced Camerons career at that time and Hague is back as forgegn secretaary now, Ken Clarke messed up every depratment he had, and would have split the Tories on europe.Blair never said cameron was his Heir.

4, the 35.2% is based on the u.K voted the 36% (not 36.1%) is based On British votes, if you comapre teh 2005 election on British Votes Balir got 36% too. It's not how many votes or percentage you get, It's how much the other party gets, Thatcher got less votes in 1983 than 1979 ,but it Labour getting even less than 1979 and A low turn out that effected the change.

5 Labour rwere Actually in the lead in the Opinion Polls from January the 1st 2006 to April the 26 ,2006 ,Cameron going level pegging in december 2005 with all the coverage his election gave them,
(Plus it was only A one or two point poll difference)
Ed milband didn't inherit Labour trailing the Tories labour had regained the lead when Harriet harman was acting leader in August 2010.

Fri, 2012-03-02 14:48 — John P Reid (not verified)

point 4 above ,should have Explained, If you subtract the Northen Ireland votes as Labour ,Libdems and the Tories don't stand it gives A different percentage

Fri, 2012-03-02 15:11 — Henry Leathem (not verified)

Completely agree with John P. Reid, in the comment above. Medhi is trying to blight Blair's overwhelming electoral success by pointing out facts that don't prove he wasn't a top election winner, and a top political strategist.

Ed Miliband didn't beat his older brother because he was the candidate of 'change' rather than continuity. The party, and most of the Labour Party members voting in the election (including myself and my later father) voted for David Miliband, and did this precisely because he recognised what was good about New Labour, and what needed to be corrected. The PLP nor the mass members chose Ed Miliband, and Medhi's co-authored book is a bemusing attempt to force a retrospective positive narrative on his victory. It was, genuinely, the unions that won it for Ed. I am a Labour supporter and shall forever be one; that doesn't mean I am blinded to the truth.

Fri, 2012-03-02 15:42 — nourredine (not verified)

Mr E.Miliband is an intelligent and calculator politician.
He started with a blank page, Mr Cameron mocked him.
Mr Miliband is now starting to fill his page with descent policies and he is taking his time as the elections are not yet and the crisis is not over.
Mr Miliband has won in all the arguments he had with Mr Cameron.
People will not forget that specially the affaire of Mr Murdock and what will come out and how many people are corrupted in different parts of society with a commun point (POLITIC)
Mr Miliband is talking to any body he wants to, nothing wrong with that.
Be Mr Blair or the Lib/Dem lining to the left, because if he is elected he will be for the majority of the people and not only his party, he is the one who stand against the Union when he think they are pushing far.
He is showing that he wants a different Labour, he need to put it in action.
It is not the tone of voice the most important, it is the content of it who will tip the balance to his favor.
The Lib/Dem are going for an internal disagreement from next week and we don't know where that will take them.
The Huhne crisis.
The Lords.
The Tories have their own division on Europe.
On the 50p tax.
The grudge Mr Fox steering trouble.
The Labour seems united.
That is showing in the polls so far.

Mon, 2012-03-05 10:03 — Arthur Williamson (not verified)

Reading between the lines, this is a good sign for the Labour Party and a bad sign for the country.

Two years ago, Mr Blair released his autobiography, in which he quite happily hung his dirty washing out in public. That is a sign of a person wishing to retire (for good) from his profession. At that time, it was easy to see why he would want to retire, Labour had lost the election, needing to find a new leader, and what with Messrs Cameron and Osbourne convincing the country they had inherited a mess, Labour had also lost economic credibility. In short, Labour had lost all momentum 2 years ago.

Two years on, things have changed. The LibDems, with their support for Tory policies such as increasing tuition fees, have sold out. The Tories meanwhile have shown a great deal of economic incompetence.

There`s no way Tony Blair would want to return to politics if Labour were still in a weak position. His decision to come back is a good (political) sign for Labour in that the current government are a bunch of sitting ducks. Unfortunately, not a good sign for the country in that we still have 3 more years of the coalition.

Fri, 2012-03-02 15:43 — LeeF (not verified)

Looks like John P Reid has demolished this :)

Fri, 2012-03-02 15:46 — Ellmore Disco (not verified)

Bobby the Shoe:
To be a "voter" you need you need to vote. What you saying would be correct if Mr Hasan had referred to "the electorate".

Wed, 2012-03-07 22:22 — Gideon Polya

It is outrageous that Ed Milliband, a Jewish British politician whose decent, anti-racist Jewish British parents are dead opposed to holocaust and genocide atrocities, should have anything to do with Blair who has been complicit in the Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide (war-related deaths since 1990 4.6 million, 5-6 million refugees: http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/) and the Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide (war-related deaths 5.6 million since 2001, 3-4 million refugees: http://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/).

In his 2005 Literature Nobel Prize Acceptance speech outstanding Jewish British playwright Harold Pinter stated: "The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading as a last resort all other justifications having failed to justify themselves as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'" (see: http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm).

More specifically about Blair's involvement (and at a time when media reported 100,000 Iraqi dead) Harold Pinter continued: "How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice."

10 million? More than enough, I would have thought.

There is little prospect that the cowardly, racist, holocaust-complicit, genocide-complicit, holocaust-ignoring , genocide-ignoring International Criminal Court will ever prosecute Blair since it appears to adopt the position that only Africans, Asians and Eastern Europeans can be prosecuted for such crimes and ignores horrendous genocidal crimes of the US Alliance countries (for pertinent analysis see "The Politics of Genocide" by US scholars Edward Herman and David Peterson; for review see: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya051211.htm ).

Nevertheless, there is precedent for a UK impeachment of Blair in the late 18th century impeachment of Warren Hastings, first governor-general of India; 10 million Bengalis had died in the 1769-1770 British-imposed famine and millions more Indians subsequently died in the devastation of the rest of the Gangetic plain by war criminal Warren Hastings and his criminal ilk). Warren Hastings got off of course - British laws and justice are applied for and by the rich - but at least outstanding humanitarians such as Richard Brinsley Sheridan and Edmund Burke got to expose the appalling crimes of their fellow countrymen (the great British humanitarians mirrored today by a mere few decent Brits such as George Galloway, Baroness Tonge, the late Harold Pinter and Ed Milliband's parents) (for the dreadful details and the wonderful speeches of Edmund Burke and Richard Brinsley Sheridan see my book "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History": http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com.au/ ).

Fri, 2012-03-02 16:12 — Marion (not verified)

Re. Bobby the Shoe

What has Hamas got to do with Mehdi or Blair?

Fri, 2012-03-02 16:18 — Sir Michael (not verified)

The coalition is an unmitigated disaster, forcing policies nobody wanted at all and tearing the nation apart.

But Miliband still can't make a dent in them. Indeed his opposition been utterly feeble, despite the golden opportunity to be in opposition to a party with no overall majority. He is simply spineless and weak, particularly on things he should be more powerful on such as cuts to welfare, the NHS, or the rights of unions to strike.

We need a real alternative to Conservatives. Not Tory Tony coming back from the dead to sweeten the right-wing with spin in order to get us to swallow it.

Mon, 2012-03-05 11:54 — Robert Taggart

The return of the 'Bliar' - enough said !

Wed, 2012-03-07 23:23 — jankaas (not verified)

"Tell me Jankaas, Sadaam wasn't the above?"

seriously JJ? ok. no of course Saddam was a far more vile creature. the type of sociopath who is so far on the fringes of what it is to be human, as to be almost a different species.

the flaw of Blair is completely different, he has a glib arrogant style, and an unfailing ability to delude himself intellectually.

and if you would just read that whole sentence again, i make it clear that Blair is just another human, like you and me in fact. that was my point. he wasn't born bad, but he definitely did some bad things, and yet he's let himself off the hook completely. just like that. i think that is pretty awful, though entirely human.

Fri, 2012-03-02 16:42 — Leon (not verified)

First point - mid term poll leads for opposition parties rarely translate into GE results. Blair was enormously successful in maintaining the 13% lead - he was remorseless in his destruction of the Tory reputation and left many flosting voters with no place to go but Labour.
Second point - when you are at the top of the hill electorally as Labour was in 1997 of course you are going to lose votes thereafter. There were such high expectations generated that some voters were bound to be disappointed.
Third point - Blair may not have had many principles but he had policies that he could explain and defend simply and effectively. Milliband believes that by reflecting the public mood re bankers, hacking etc somehow that makes him a good potential PM - it doesn't it just makes him seem a lightweight opportunist.If he is a serious politician he needs to start to come up with some serious stances and policies and explain them clearly. He needs to say exactly what he agrees with and what he doesn't. I get confused about which cuts are okay and which are not which just leaves me with the impression that faced with the deficit Milliband would not be capable of making decisions on what to cut and what to save.

Wed, 2012-03-07 23:23 — jankaas (not verified)

"Apologies"

thanks

Sat, 2012-03-03 18:05 — Tom (not verified)

Miliband says he wants to rebuild Labour. So the first thing he does is have secret meetings with a war criminal? He just totally destroyed what little credibility he had.

Fri, 2012-03-02 17:21 — Sam Dale (not verified)

Brilliant analysis and great read. Measured and insightful. I agree entirely and I'm a so-called 'Blairite'

Sat, 2012-03-03 18:34 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

There's no point in splitting things up again into two - this time the old continuity vs. change debate.

Constant duality.. either/or .. this or that.. right or left.. good or bad..religiosity or feral/animal, dare I say..This type of dialogue is the very stuff of exclusion because when applied in the wrong way, place and time it means nothing ever gets settled once and for all?..

Mr.Blair once came up north and told us that where even one person was excluded..I can't remember the rest.

Unfortunately the word " politics" itself implies polarity - negative/ positive. But we don't have to look at things like that anymore surely - given the current state of this so-called "hung" Parliament.

I remember the late Gwyneth Dunwoody apparently once remarked that during all the years she spent as a labour person and member of Parliament - she felt that the whole labour movement effectively evolved around how she understood her own position.That was probably because she was so much older and wiser than most, I think.

"Dancing on a pin head" is how Lord Prescott ( another person who has never fallen for the new labour/old labour division ) describes his position in the face of all the usual media pressures.

And in any case I daresay Mr.Blair will understand the position of the centre better than most because of his religious beliefs. "The Kingdom of God is in your midst"..etc.

Sat, 2012-03-03 19:14 — Reginald-Fah-fah

@ Mehdi Hasan: Good seeing you on 10 o clock and sunrise with the marvellous Mrs Hawkins!!!

The answer in the question, TB sounds nasty before he open his mouth!

Fri, 2012-03-02 18:12 — John P Reid (not verified)

Leon ,brilliant

Fri, 2012-03-02 18:13 — Bobby the Shoe (not verified)

Hi Ellmore Disco,

I don't vote, but I still consider myself a voter. In any case, some of my best friends are black / gay/ Christian.

I was merely pointing out that, on this particular point, Mehdi Hamas had a fair point.

I don't normally agree with Mehdi "CATTLE" Hamas, but I think he has a fair point.

Re the French Presidential elections ( 'Les Presidentielles' ), the truth is that the way to pick up votes in La France Profonde is to criticise Islam.

Sarko is stealing the National Front's clothes. Mr Hamas might not like it, but attacking the religion of peace is a good strategy in a European democracy.

Sorry, mais c'est vrai !

Bobby the Shoe

Fri, 2012-03-02 18:24 — C Baker

Labour = Blair = wars.
Labour = Brown = debt.
Labour = Alistair Campbell = spin and loving the murdoch empire.
Labour= funded by the unions, that they are not getting along with right now.
Labour may get in , if the public hate the tories and want a change, or they may get in in a coalition.

They have no distinct policies, except a bigger state, that they can't afford any longer.

Try a new leader, completely. Also, shake up the shadow cabinet. It's so predictable. White and rich.

Thu, 2012-03-08 06:06 — Krisco

I am hoping against hope that Ed Miliband was not seriously “consulting” Blair - the most treacherous, lying scum that ever set foot on earth – but was taking notes to ensure that he does not make the same mistakes or stoop to Blair’s level of treachery. I know of several con-men and used car salesman who preyed upon and exploited many a trusting soul but Blair is beneath all of that in the sense he has/had no integrity, conscience or remorse and he shattered/sacrificed many hundreds of thousands of lives for personal gain and aggrandisement. He should never ever be forgiven.

Sat, 2012-03-03 21:01 — alex (not verified)

Mehdi
'..as I wrote in a column in the Times in December..'
oftentimes I disagree with what you write but I still had an abiding respect for you as a columnist and commentator, it's not the content of your Times ($£$!!) piece but the medium that matters.

When you choose to let Murdoch be your paymaster the medium is the message

Fri, 2012-03-02 18:51 — nourredine (not verified)

@Bobby the Shoe,
I do not understand you at all, you say you do not vote but you give France as a comparison to your theory,
You talk about "la France profonde".
What is it and who is it?
Before you say
Sorry, mais c'est vrai !
What exactly you know?
Please enlight me.

Sat, 2012-03-03 22:14 — jankaas (not verified)

the horrific thing is that Blair somehow has managed to exonerate himself, and show any remorse equivalent to even approximating the staggering number of deaths he his is directly responsible for. reckon he sleeps just fine most nights, maybe all of them. he is a living breathing example of just how awful an animal we are.
let him be a lesson to us all. Milliband should know better, but apparently doesn't.

Fri, 2012-03-02 19:18 — Bobby the Shoe (not verified)

Hi Nourredine,

I was merely pointing out that it is possible to be a voter without acutally voting. I am a voter, but I don't vote. It is a philosophical point, perhaps. Something to do with Epistemology.

As for the French, I was telling Mehdi Hamas that Sarko has worked out how to win votes: copy the policies of the Front National. Like Marine Le Pen, Sarko knows that many people in La France Profonde ( miles away from the Banlieues ) are upset to see that their country is turning into an Islamic state.

If Ed Miliband wants political advice, perhaps he should get some from Sarko.

That is all I was saying.

Capiche ?!?!?!

Bobby the Shoe

Fri, 2012-03-02 19:29 — Anthony (not verified)

Vote UKIP ! The fastest growing party in the U.K.

Thanks to people like Mehdi who called UKIP and it's supporters a "Bunch of Whack-Jobs" our membership increased by 11% last year.

Coming from him that's a compliment.

Fri, 2012-03-02 19:32 — nourredine (not verified)

@Bobby the Shoe,
Are you saying you are a Front National
or you support Marine Le Pen?
Sarkozy is seen like her to the vue of many,many french et ca c'est vrai mon pote.

Sat, 2012-03-03 23:24 — Lotta Continua (not verified)

Ah the joys of eternal opposition: Blair is by far the most effective leader Labour ever had and to fantasize that nice cuddly, sectarian MR Smith would have held a 13% lead for three years shows why the Staggers readership has declined because it is so far out of touch with reality and no wish to actually help the traditional working class voters who sustained the Labour Party when it fell into the hands of Tiny Benn and the wild Trots.

Fri, 2012-03-02 20:18 — Tesco Shelf Stacker (not verified)

Secret talks with Tony Blair - for crying out loud - you couldn't get any lower on the creep scale than Blair.

I dunno? I know that public memory can be short but after many years of spin and lies under Blairs New Labour government - the legacy of public deception is still there in many peoples minds - the wounds are fresh and holding talks with Blair is like rubbing in salt.

I suppose the secrecy surrounding these talks is something to do with the public distrust of Tony Blair - a public who still think he is lower than bollocks on a snake. And rightly so - the mans warmongering two-faced compulsive liar.

Unfortunately these 'secret talks' are no longer a secret ... and despite talks of distancing himself from New Labour he is now lost any credibility he may have had before becoming leader, what a muppet.

Sun, 2012-03-04 01:10 — Attrition47

Come off it Alotta, Biar was the beneficiary of Britain's fascist electoral system not middle-class floating voters. He had plenty of opportunity to introduce a democratic system but that would have been too democratic for the mass-murdering mountebank.

Fri, 2012-03-02 21:54 — Bobby the Shoe (not verified)

Hi Nourredine,

I thought you might be French: your English is not terribly good.

Touche pas a mon pote, Nourredine. Touche pas a mon Front National. Oui, vous avez raison - j'adhere au Front National, le seul parti politique francais que s'evertue a faire la guerre contre les vagues immigrationistes.

It's interesting, Nourredine, that you should be on an English website.

Marine 2012 !!!!!

Bobby the Shoe

Fri, 2012-03-02 23:48 — CitizenZod

It's quite simple really. Take away all the sophistry and obsfuscation like Hans Christian Anderson's story of The Emperor's New Clothes. Blair was, is, and always will be a Tory. He won 3 election victories and carried forward the new right counter-revolution for another 10 years or so before impeccable timing to extricate himself for the farce of Brown. Thus like his true love Thatcher, avoiding an electoral defenestration.

That Miliband cohorts with this obscenity is yet another reminder to those in deep denial that the Labour Party is so soiled with this right-wing entryism, that there is no way back.

Don't forget that Miliband and Balls effectively pulped the notion of plan B some 5 weeks back in favour of 'There is no alternative' a tedious counsel of despair cover version circa early 80s.

Sat, 2012-03-03 00:53 — Silican (not verified)

@Galahad Because he could be getting those lessons from a professional actor rather than a twisted psychopathic, con-man and war criminal who had the UK bend over every time Bush got an erection. Moreover, he is loathed by anyone with an ounce of humanity in their body. That he bends over every time the bearded Bedouin witch-burners get an erection is fine, but he gets paid for it whereas we and lots of brown people got killed for it.

Mon, 2012-03-05 21:48 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Tony Blair was the greatest box-fighter of his day. He roped-a-dope for ten tumultuous years and classily KO'd Tory contenders with aplomb.
But let's not forget his manager - Gordon Brown.
The relationship was somewhat like a double-act comedy team. They hate each other - but apart they're not the same. Together they're dynamite.

Funny Man and Straight Man

Sat, 2012-03-03 09:23 — skiptonman

Tony Blair the lawyer that lied to parliment and should be in the Hauge answering questions to an international war tribunal is still walking the corridors of power advising .... it just sums up the world of duplicity he lives in.

Tue, 2012-03-20 16:52 — Lord Jimbo (not verified)

Blair got to the top of the mountain, but what a spectacular fall, you cannot mention his name without the spectre of war, death and destruction entering the thought processes. He is doomed to spend the rest of his life defending the indefensible.

Fri, 2012-03-02 11:10 — Steve McEvoy (not verified)

Was the mention of 'Blair' and 'Sheen' in the same paragraph intentional?

Fri, 2012-03-02 11:12 — The Habit (not verified)

Yep. Regardless of cosying up to Blair -though it would be advised to keep a reasonable distance from him- Ed just needs to make clear he is everything the ConDems aren't. People aren't as stupid as some in Westminster would like to believe and no matter how it's dressed up a wholesale mugging of the Britsih people by a bunch of free market millionaires doesn't go down to well. More red from Ed.

Sun, 2012-03-11 21:43 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Is this really working? Or is it just another image produced by and for people with too much money and no real power?

Sat, 2012-03-03 10:23 — WHERES JULIA HARRIS (not verified)

WHERE IS JULIA HARRIS

Fri, 2012-03-02 11:23 — Kippers

Taking Blair's advice on spin and communications? The problem is that the public has learnt to see through spin and now it is often only party members who believe the spin. Probably the public is now more aware of the probable effects of Lansley's Health and Social Care Bill than MPs are.

Sun, 2012-03-04 17:42 — John P Reid (not verified)

attrition4k there were boundary canges in both 2005 and 2010 to stop blair havign such big majorities, had the tories adn Laobur got the same amount of votes in 2001 blair would have still won with A majority of 17, note the changes on both 2005 and 2010 that had the 2005 eletion been foaught in 2010 instand of the 67 majority blair ot it would have been 40

Fri, 2012-03-02 11:29 — Agoodword (not verified)

Ed needs to be educated on the art of telling lies. No one better at that than Tony Blair.

Then again Ed, I don't think, is really cut out, with his stuffy nose, i just cant take the guy seriously.

Lessons from the master of spin can only take him so far.

Biggest political mistake Labour made, not choosing David. I say that as someone who finds David odious as a person. He is however better suited for the fickle world of politics.