In Appraisal of Blair

Having finally finished Tony Blair's "A Journey" the impression I took away was of a vain and somewhat self-deluded character. This is probably harsh, many politicians on given closer scrutiny would probably share some of those characteristics.

Blair's Labour party colleagues are portrayed as mere walk on parts in the great story that is his life. Gordon Brown hovers in the background of the narrative like Stannis Baratheon wandering around Westeros, popping up now and again to cause trouble and stick a spanner in the works of the Blair/ Lannister state machine. Only fellow titans - Clinton, Bush, Sarkozy - are brought to life and given any character, Blair making clear who he considers to be his equals.

Blair is above the party and the nation in contrast to Margaret Thatcher, who he believes was a great prime minister, who was always Conservative and British.

A great deal of Blair's analysis seemed to be me to flawed hence my view on his vanity and self-delusion.

Here goes:

First. That Labour won the 1997 election entirely due to him. Really? Kinnock had eaten into the Conservative majority at two successive elections, whittling down John Major to around 20 seats in 1992. Ok places like Hove might not have moved to Labour if it wasn't for Blair but by 1997 the Tories so unpopular that any moderate Labour leader would have won by a landslide. The nation had had enough and across the country voters chose either Labour or LibDem depending on who was most likely to get the Tory out.

Second. Blair characterises many of his fellow PLP members as being over idealistic on domestic policy. Blair confesses to being pragmatic rather than idealistic and portrays himself as being the voice of reason dragging his party, often kicking and screaming, into the real world. Having little time for idealism, it is strange then that that pragmatism deserted Blair when it came to foreign policy. Believing that he could use Her Majesty's armed forces to deliver democracy throughout the world and often likening critics of his wars, especially Kosovo, as 1930s appeasers I believe Blair was naive. Had Blair being a more realistic abroad and more idealistic at home, I believe he would have been a better prime miniter.

Third. The succession. Blair admits he stalled the succession to Brown until he was convinced that he was fully on the New Labour agenda. Eventually frustrated Brown felt his hand was forced and ousted Blair in a party coup. It seems hard to blame him. Blair seemed to lack the emotional intelligence he felt was deficient in Brown. If he wished to move on how would he put constraints on Brown's premiership any more than an England football manager could refuse to move until he had okayed the tactics of his successor?

Fourth and the weakest of Blair's analysis in my view. He continually warns his party not to "move an inch from New Labour". This is ironic as the three greatest vote losers from 1997 to 2010 were the war in Iraq, tuition fees and continuing Thatcher laissez-faire economic policies. All of these were firmly new and not old Labour policies. Those policies which could be considered traditional Labour - minimum wage, increased health and education expenditure - did not cost Labour a single vote. I suspect had he renationalised the rail network and energy/water utilties this would not have cost him a single vote either.

Five. And most disappointing. In the final chapter he gives his current view of the world. He disagrees with Keynesian economists and his own party believing free market economics are right and that government "should get out of the way". I thought this was especially weak and then I remembered Blair enjoys a lucractive consultancy post with Morgan Stanley.

In the end I felt more intrigued in going back to that shadowly character in the background - Gordon Brown - and wanting to find out more. Whilst Blair strides the globe on lucrative lecture tours, Gordon Brown runs a charity.