Yo, Blair!: Tony Blair's Disastrous Premiership [Hardcover]

This book titled on a dismissive opening comment by George W. Bush to Blair that was caught by a public microphone when they met at a Summit Conference in 2006, is an exercise in trying to adress one simple question: "Why did Blair end up being such a slave to US policy on Iraq?"

Instead of spending all his efforts in this short 150 page pocket book on the Iraq conflict itself, the author instead focuses on the faults that had developed in the Blair psyche over the prior ten years up to and after this conflict. These start from his opportunistic transformation of his party into "New Labour" and the "third way" (themselves reflecting traits from his education and initial political career and the early usage of the concept of "spin"), through his increasing belief post a landslide election that whatever he said based on the moment and the event was the truth, however fanciful or incorrect. With an increasing lack of accountability to parliament given how he and Brown governed the UK jointly, the fatal flaw in his character developed that was to be so skilfully exploited by the USA.

While this started off under Clinton with the US media in their usual elevation of heroes for the moment adoring him more than he was publicly adored at home (with "Blair for president" bumper stickers), his nemesis came with exposure post 9/11 to Cheney and his neo-conservative policy team. Knowing that the UK could provide much needed credibility to their plans, the manipulation of Blair's psyche and the mis-using of a "special relationship" that merely served to make the UK servile to US interests and Blair's in turn attempted deceit of his own party is concisely detailed. Wheatcroft's analysis is at its best when it interweaves the different interests of Blair's media policy (Campbell); the failing on the UK Intelligence Services to exercise caution and integrity and the Cabinet being ultimately reliant on Tory votes to defeat a major Labour backbench revolt over going to war.

Fortunately the book does not stop at the war and takes matters through to the present in 2007 with ongoing evidence of Blair's previously shown traits of lack of accountability to anyone and dumping people once they had served a purpose (seen before over Ulster especially) hit rock bottom with the Kelly tragedy. His current position is of one having overstayed his welcome with a party that as with Thatcher increasingly realises he may be a liability to their next election chances.

While the remunerative US lecture circuit may await Blair once he resigns, the biggest theme of this book is how undemocratic the UK has become based on such a recent history. While Wheatcroft's narrative bounces around a lot at times (especially in the early chapters) the book is an exercise in precision and brevity. A most useful update and companion to the best book on the subject of UK involvement in Iraq being James Naughtie's "The Reluctant American".

This revealing account of the Blair years must rank as one of the most important books of our time. Geoffrey Wheatcroft is to be commended for his diligent exposé.

Anyone who has ever entertained any doubts about the integrity of our ex-prime minister, will have their eyes wide open after reading this damning indictment of one of the most corrupt politicians in British history.

My only regret is that the book clearly hasn't received the publicity it deserves, since I came upon it by mere chance.

Mark Frankel

In this brief and brilliant essay, journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft tells the story of Blair's premiership, focusing on his disastrous alliance with George W. Bush.

Wheatcroft shows how Blair pursued this alliance against Britain's interests and against the views of the British people. Blair lied to us that Saddam Hussein was a `serious and current threat' to Britain. Blair lied to us that he was pursuing diplomacy, but as early as July 2002 a Downing Street memorandum decreed, "We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."

Even Thatcher had warned that we should only "use our force to preserve our way of life. We do not use it to walk into other people's countries, independent sovereign territories." If wherever there is an evil regime, "there the United States shall enter, then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world."

Wheatcroft rightly argues that Bush and Blair should have focused on destroying Al Qa'ida. Instead they attacked the Afghan people and their government, maximising the number of enemies.

On the EU Constitution, Blair said in May 2005, "Even if the French voted no, we would have a referendum. That is a government promise." Just three weeks later, the French voted no and he broke that promise: "there is no point in having a referendum, because of the uncertainty it would produce."

Blair pledged that the EU's scheme for devolution would strengthen the Union between England and Scotland. Secessionists saw that it would help them to break up Britain.

All these facts raise the question, why has this government (like all other previous governments) consistently, systematically, produced results that are the opposite of what they proclaim to be their intentions? Is it just because they are pathological liars? No, it's because they represent only a minority ruling class that is consistently, systematically, opposed to the interests of the majority of Britain's people, and this class could not safely maintain its rule if it proclaimed that its interests were opposed to the majority's interests.

In September 2006 Blair promised the Labour faithful - all too apt a phrase - that he would dedicate his last months in office to peace between Israel and Palestine. Blair says, "I only know what I believe." Think about it - it's the wrong way round! But neither God nor history is his judge; in a democracy, we would be.

Grovel to Bush, grovel to the EU, grovel to the über-rich. Is this how we want an independent sovereign country to behave? Wheatcroft sums up Blair's rule, `the most dishonest and disastrous prime ministership of modern times'.