Bye, bye Blair!
 

Blair will stand down on 27 June

Tony Blair has announced he will stand down as prime minister on 27 June.

He made the announcement in a speech to party activists in his Sedgefield constituency, after earlier briefing the Cabinet on his plans.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

In an emotional speech, Mr Blair said he had been prime minister for 10 years which was "long enough" for the country and himself.

Brown tribute

Mr Blair earlier told the Cabinet he did not want ministers paying tribute to him, adding "that can be left for another day".

But as the meeting was breaking up, Mr Brown said he "did not think it would be right to let Cabinet finish without offering thanks to the prime minister".

He praised Mr Blair's "unique achievement over 10 years and the unique leadership he had given to the party, Britain and the world".

His comments were greeted by "much thumping of tables" by Mr Blair's colleagues, the prime minister's official spokesman told reporters.

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said it had been a "cordial, comradely" meeting with "quite a lot of laughter" and "leg-pulling".

Mr Hain, who is a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, said Mr Brown would now "take up Tony Blair's mantle in the next period of our government".

The chancellor later made a joke about Mr Blair's departure plans in the Commons.

Answering a question on employment, he said: "There are of course 600,000 vacancies in the economy as a result of the... actually there's one more today as a result of announcements that have just been made."

'Good years'

Mr Blair's election agent and close friend John Burton said he expected Mr Blair to continue as Sedgefield's MP until the next general election, unless he was offered a major international job.

Former Cabinet minister and Blair ally Alan Milburn said thought the prime minister "slightly regretted pre-announcing his retirement" by saying he would not seek a fourth term.

"I think he would have preferred to stay longer," added Mr Milburn but he said the prime minister had had "a good 10 years" and had "fundamentally changed the country for the better".

Mr Blair's official spokesman insists he will remain "focused" on being prime minister until Labour has chosen his successor - a process expected to last seven weeks.

He said Mr Blair still has lots of work to do on domestic issues and had a number of international commitments in the run-up to this summer's G8 and EU summits.

But with a new prime minister expected to be in place by the beginning of July, attention at Westminster has already shifted to his succession.

Mr Brown is unlikely to face a Cabinet-level challenge for the leadership as all of the likely contenders have ruled themselves out.

But he could still face a challenge from one of two left wing backbenchers - John McDonnell and Michael Meacher. The pair are meeting later to see if one of them can muster enough support to get on to the ballot paper.

'Paralysis'

Candidates need the signatures of 45 Labour MPs to enter a contest.

Six deputy leadership hopefuls will also be battling for nominations to enter the race to replace John Prescott, who is due to stand down with Mr Blair.

Conservative leader David Cameron has said the country faces seven weeks of "paralysis" until Labour chooses a new leader, accusing Mr Blair of running a government of the "living dead".

The Liberal Democrats have, meanwhile, tabled a Parliamentary motion urging the Queen to dissolve parliament and call a general election.

But European Union Trade Commissioner and close Blair ally, Peter Mandelson, denied that Mr Blair's last weeks in office would be as a lame duck leader.

"'He's going of his own choice. He's doing it at a time which he thinks is good for the country, is good for the government."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6639945.stm

Blair should have spurned Bush at his earliest convenience. I think the fact that he worked with Bush brought him down. Bush is poison. I hope future history books vilify that numbskull (Bush) the way he so richly deserves :nod:

so true...so..true.

Blair did some great things and all in all, I'd give him a B if not a B+

Here is a blurb from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

I tend to agree with you. It is sad, that in many respects he should have been remembered as one of the better Prime Ministers we had, because of his domestic policies – but wont. The often debated Foreign Policy issues have dogged him and soured his reputation.

But history may judge him differently - I hope. Maybe I see things a bit simplistically but I think he was essentially a decent guy who did what he thought was right.

^^^

I agree. Iraq was a nightmare from the beginning in 1992 or so and I honestly do not know what the solution was other than removing SH in some fashion.

I do think though that if W had executed a coherent plan after the invasion, then the later determined bogus reasons to invade would not have been a significant issue. Sadly, W did no such thing and it will hurt Blair and has gotten many of the bravest hurt of dead.

This news saddens me. I just rented the DVD "The Queen" and was quite impressed at how Tony Blair was portrayed (as opposed to Her Majesty.)

I do believe that Mr. Blair's association with "W" was fatal....as it has been for many Amercians.

He has done some good things:

Peace in Northern Ireland
Introducing the minimum wage
Improvements in the Health Service and Education
Devolution for Scotland and Wales

Unfortunately he will be judged on the debacle in Iraq. I dont know about you but we were told that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction that could be readied in 45 minutes able to hit British interests. Not true.

There's no doubt that Sadam needed removing but there are lots of others that need removing and we do bugger all about them.

I would say B-

Gail

The Iraq issues are complex and like many things we do in life the benefit of hindsight would be a wonderful thing.

But Blair seems to have finally got some stability in Northern Ireland and that, from a British perspective is worth celebrating.

Well, the Iraq War is one of the biggest catastrophes of my lifetime and those who sent their militaries into such a mess should be judged very harshly.

You better believe it....this will go down in history as a major disgrace.

Catastrophe is an understatement!

I do, though, often wonder how history would have judged W if things had gone the other way, which I submit was possible if there had been a plan (much less a better one) in place to win the peace and create a stable government. In other words, I think it is not so much the invasion of Iraq - as almost all think something had to be done there, at least according to a decade of UN resolutions. I think people fault W for the subsequent waste of Iraq and the opportunity to show the world the good that we can do. I think those last two are the reason that W will be judge harshly regarding Iraq, and deservedly so.

As for Blair, I do not see how he could not have stood with America in Iraq given the history of the two countries both in and out of Iraq. I also think he is less to blame that W for no coherent policy after the invasion as W lead the brigade so to speak. But, some fault does surely sit on Blair's shoulders - so he gets no pass there.

Is Iraq mess and his culpability there enough to outweigh all good he did? I think not, though surely it detracts from the overall picture. Others may reach a different conclusion and that is fair I guess.

Interestingly, unlike W, who has failed in everything he touched, Blair has done some good things. So, kudos to him for that I guess.

I have always liked Blair. I think it takes a pretty strong man to stand firm in the face of so much acrimony (and believe me, once he supported Monkey Boy, he had nothing BUT)

His golden days were when he collaborated with Clinton :nod:

He is a friend to America and Americans. He is not weak and did not capitulate as part of political expediency. For that he has my full respect.

I dont agree that the end justifies the means, but I think that by and large, most people are more willing to grant leeway IF there is a happy ending for all concerned. After all, it IS a bit hard to point fingers when all concerned are ok....

I liked Blair... till Iraq. He definitely did many good things but then he supported a war, bypassing Onu role, backing false informations and lying to all the world. The results have been a a huge humanitarian tragedy and a rise of terrorism acts (as UK tragically experienced). Now we're seeing a Country where every week hudreds, thousands, of people die and two of the most powerful Countries in the world stuck there without any perspective to create a more stable future. If he had said no to Bush all this wouldn't have happened (I really doubt GWB would have gone there alone) and the solution would have been diplomatic, as obviously has to be now. Luckily there are still politicians like Zapatero who are able to act accordingly with their principles.

I'd say there's enough material to judge Blair not too kindly.

Romy