
Tony Blair addresses the UN General Assembly, Sept. 2005
The Independent on Sunday yesterday ran a generous extract from the new pages, opening with a consideration of the actions of early 2003 that have come to define Blair’s tenure in office. Among many interested responses to that extract was that of James Forsyth, political editor of the Spectator, who took to Twitter to report that he found John’s piece ‘superb on how Blair survived post-Iraq by playing Brown with ‘as fine an understanding of psychology as anything in Jane Austen’’ (and that he was also ‘intrigued by Cherie’s view that [her husband] could take a 51-49 decision and then make the case for it as if it was 70-30.’) Forsyth then offered the crowning verdict that Tony Blair: Prime Minister is ‘one of the best political biographies of recent times.’
Here is the thought-provoking opening to the Independent on Sunday extract:
“Given that Blair’s response to 9/11 led in a straight line to Britain’s taking part in the invasion of Iraq 18 months later, and given that the Iraq war was the main reason Blair did not continue as Prime Minister for longer, solidarity with America – or, rather, solidarity with President Bush and meaning it – was a political error. Certainly, it is possible to see how a more cynical politician might have mitigated the anti-war rage by stepping back from military deployment in March 2003, an option explicitly offered by President Bush and described, but not, he says, advocated, by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, on the eve of conflict. It would have made little difference in Iraq, as the American forces would have gone in anyway, with the British presumably joining them afterwards, when the UN endorsed the international administration of the country in May 2003. But it would have made a difference in British politics…”









