Blair and Brown: An apology

Shows what we knew all along - Brown was disloyal, selfish and was prepared to destroy Labour if he didn't get his own way.

What a truly awful person he was, both as a Prime Minister and as a colleague who would destroy anyone who disagreed with him.

I really believe he was suffering from meglomania.

Nick,

Blair also reveals that he lied in the Northern Ireland peace process. What else did he lie about? Lot's I expect!

All this reminds me of the poster campaign launched by the Conservatives in the 1997 election with Blair and his "devil eyes".

Clearly the Conservative hieriachy knew this man couldn't be trusted but it took 13 years for the electorate to find out after many wars and the bankrupting of Britain.

Can journalists please get out of the habit of regarding memoirs as the final truth?

It is your job to scrutinise such self-serving accounts.

Blair is cetainly in top 3 of pst war PMs. Bronw isnt. As you were.

blair made a serious mistake in not sacking brown and following his keen political nose. it surprises me that as a man of conviction (whether or not you agree with that conviction)he was persuaded that the 'drama' of the sacking would not soon blow over. brown was TOTALLY unelectable and anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There are always two sides to a story Nick. When we hear Gordon's side in print perhaps we WILL get closer to knowing the Truth.

"Tony Blair knew that Gordon Brown would be a hopeless prime minister"
Pot, kettle, black.

Biggest surprise to me from all this is the fact that Blair resorted to drink, but this is the first we heard about it!

This seems simply to confirm that both Brown AND Blair were disastrous!

Being smug is one of the less pretty journalistic writing styles.

Actually, I think you have still got it wrong - and journalists always will because they believe all life can be accurately defined in a headline.

"The PM turned to drink to deal with the stress of dealing with someone he regarded as very very difficult and maddening" - Seriously, could you be any more tabloid. He had possibly the most stressful job in the country and relaxed with a drink before dinner and a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. This simply shows he had the same drinking habits as almost everyone in his demographic. Despite the advice of doctors most people his age with stressful jobs have a drink before dinner and a couple of glasses with.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick, as a number of other contributors have pointed out, the memoirs of Tony Blair are not warts and all historical documents; they are self justifying partial truths. Tony Blair is "getting his retaliation in first" by attacking Gordon Brown in the fashion that he is. Remember, this is the man who claimed to watch Jackie Milburn as a kid at St James's Park, who stowed away on an aeroplane... he is a serial fantasist (45 minutes?), yet you treat his pronouncements as gospel handed down from above.
When supping with the devil, take a long spoon. I think your spoon is way too short...

Nothing here that really surprises me to be honest. It shows that Blair and Brown didn't get on, and that Blair wasn't sure enough of himself to call Browns bluff and as a result lied to him and to us with the result that Brown had another 3 years to destroy the country and the economy.

Here here YetAnotherGeek, a fantastic point which is all too often forgotten. NorthernThatcherite, are we to suppose all of the previous conservative administrations have never told any lies? Never left the country in the economic doldrums so to speak? Not that this excuses New Labour in any way, I'm just thinking of objectivity you understand.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick - are you saying you knew this stuff then, and didn't report it - or that you didn't know this stuff was going on?

And politicians wonder why people say they are duplicitous.

I mean, I understand why Blair, Brown, Mandelson et al lied about how cosy the relationships at the top were; it made them look divided. But from the reporting of Blair's account things were much more acrimonious than suspected, and yet any suggestion from it was met with a bald faced lie, the same as the new Labour leadership candidates distancing themselves from things they were inimately involved in for years and years but neglected to speak out about (disclaimer - I have no doubt all politicians, of any party, would do the same, Labour is just to the forefront at the moment).

The news about drink being a prop is a surprise, but being PM is a hard job, so I suppose we should not be too surprised. Personally, as dull and self serving as I suspect a lot of memoirs are (I cannot bring myself to spend my own money to purchase them and read them and so rely on reports - unfair I know), I eagerly await Brown's. I didn't like many of his policies, but the Blairites have always been louder, and it would be interesting for him to give his opinion.

I do wonder what Labour supporters must be thinking now though. If the current contest is a close one, could they have an opposition with two powerful leaders with their own power bases, where the leader will once again have to struggle to get things through and cannot as a matter of course trust one of their own senior ministers to back them? As opposed to a leader who has a large enough victory that any defeated opponents do not attract significant future internal power bases? Without the salve of government keeping arguments denied to save face, would such a situation be more admitted? I don't think it would, but if I believed in any one party so strongly, I would be worried at the personal reveals of Blair. He may be biased towards himself of course, but his opinion of Brown and his inability to dislodge him are valid even if he flat out lies on certain facts for instance.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The thing is Nick, if you knew all this stuff why did you not report it at the time? That you didn't is an indication of the dysfunctional relationship between journalists and politicians that leaves the public in the dark about matters that directly affect them.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If Blair felt that Brown was such a disaster, why didn't he tell us all this BEFORE the general election?

You mean you knew the appalling truth about Gordon but didn't report it ? And people say the BBC was biased towards the Labour Government and guilty of selective reporting. As if !

I feel on occasion much of the public opinion about Blair is somewhat unfair. Under pressure? Certainly. Idealistic? Yes. Proud? Without a doubt. But to describe him as a megalomaniac, evil or even arrogant is grossly unfair.

His job was presumably stressful to a degree that none of us can imagine.

Blair and Brown were committed to the rule of the Labour party ad infinitum. Blair started the war and is so stubborn he refuses to say it was wrong.

Brown had political ideals of "one world" with possibly him in a commanding role and of course the Labour party in power here ad infinitum.

The public sector swelled out of all recognition. Everybody working for the government and voting Labour. The immigration system got disgracefully out of hand - all of those vote for the Labour party too.



Benefits and welfare got well out of order - they, if they bother, vote Labour - why bite off the hand that feeds you?

Prescott et al supporting "the working class man" whilst doing up his home like a mini stately home. Pah! Champagne socialists.


THANK GOD THEY ARE NOW OUT OF POWER!

And another thing - why, oh why, do we keep getting the Milliband brothers saga played out on the news?

Who the hell is interested?


The country is getting settled. Most of us support the Coalition and believe they are truly committed to do good for US - not for them and their parties.

England can be GREAT again and we should put the appalling mess of 13 years of Labour and their silly henchmen. Support the new coalition for it is the ONLY way we will succeed.

Hats off to Blair. Brown shown for what he was : A hopeless PM and ludicrous chancellor.

A man who would preach about "no more boom and bust" while he spent, spent, spent and then stab his boss in the back.

With 'friends' like Brown who needs enemies. Good riddance.

So Mr Blair, had no consideration for the country. He was oly concerned for how he could get out of office quickly and then make money.

why are so many people talking about his statesmanship and all the other twaddle? He is a money grabbing self serving hypocrite....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

And to think of all the labour supporters who were Blair supporters and took his strong advice prior to the 2010 election. Blair fully endorsed Brown as the best person to lead this country whilst believing the man was incapable of leading this country. Disgraceful man who deceived not only labour supporters but the entire electorate.

I don't see the point of trying to re-write history or rather the contemporary accounts. Let's look forward please Nick.

How many of these stories (plus one or two others which which have been widely rumoured) DID you actually know at the time but didn't report? If not why not?

As more and more details are revealed by Blair,Brown,Mandelson,Campbell etc. it is absolutely clear that Labour governments since 1997 have only been interested in firstly themselves and secondly the labour party. The interests of the country were definitely not in their thinking, which is why the country is in such a mess.
Even the current labour leadership 'contest' is driven by who will be best for the labour party, not best for the country.
Hopefully the coalition government we have now will continue to put the country first.
Good riddance to Blair, Brown and all the rest of the discredited labour party.

29. Flame:

"THANK GOD THEY ARE NOW OUT OF POWER!"

And out of power for a very, very long time, let us hope!

The Blair/Brown government was an almost unmitigated disaster - not only were they militarily irresponsible and fiscally reckless, but they were also serial destroyers of fundamental liberties. Everything was deceit, lies, spin and dishonesty.

Good riddance!

(And, by the way, the question of who leads ZaNuLabour seems irrelevant. The best outcome for the coalition and for Britain would be Ed Balls!)

"I now accept that I made mistakes. Things were worse - much worse - than I reflected at the time."

"I did not report then but now can"

So what stopped you?

Why now is it any different and you now feel you can recite bullet points that the dead tree press have already got hold of anyway?

And all the time there were contributors on here who raised exactly these points, that you acknowledge only now to be true, only to be censored by your moderators?

All the things that have been going on over the summer break and this is what you come up with?

Dear God... So much for "Nation Shall Speak Truth Unto Nation".

I'm certainly not surprised the BBC did not report these things at the time. The BBC were nu-labour sycophants during the whole project and would do anything to avoid reporting negative news on the party.

This was for their own self-serving, greedy reasons with no concern whatsoever for the rest of the country.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

16#

The difference being, New Labour were supposed to be BETTER than that. They were meant to bring an end to all that sleaze, not indulge in so much of it that it made Major's lot look like a bunch of monks by comparison. Thats why the Blair & Brown lies stank so much. "We're not going to be like them"... And they turned out to be every bit as bad, and in most cases, even worse.

Post 16 Leftybrian

Come on mate! New Labour was a totalitarian spin machine of the highest calibre never seen on this country before. Mandelson, Brown, Campbell and now Blair............how many of these people can you honestly say hand on heart you believe when they speak? Really how many? Lieing was just basically a way of political life, which the Tories have never ever been able to emulate.

As for the economy after 13 years of Labour spending and debt and poor governance of of the Financial Service sector we have had the biggest boom and boo of all time! Again nothing compared to Tory administrations.

Blair and Broon.failures par excellence!

I could go on and on and on.....

"When we hear Gordon's side in print perhaps we WILL get closer to knowing the Truth."

Truth?

Brown?


Hahahahahahahahahaha!!! Are you quite sure about that??? Arf!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Blair admits to manipulating, being duplicitous and lying - many of us knew that practically from day one.

The result - he's destroyed the Labour Party and helped to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Many would say he's a deluded, fantasist.

Some of Blair's nonsense:-

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tony-blair-without-gods-truth-at-its-centre-no-community-can-fulfil-its-potential-1779905.html

Contrast it with this:- [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Personally I regard the details of this as yesterdays news. Did anyone ever have any doubts about the core issues?

The thing that interests me is...if unelectable Brown had NOT taken over, AND the tories had still slashed their landslide lead in the polls by telling millions of people they would make them unemployed...

...could labour have won the last election???

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"I would like to apologise for my reporting of the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the years they were together in government. Some said it was tittle tattle, others that it was speculation, a few dared to suggest that it was fabrication.

Gordon Brown and Tony BlairI now accept that I made mistakes. Things were worse - much worse - than I reflected at the time."

So, what is going to be your penance, Mr R??? How are you going to make good for these sins?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm looking forward to your blog in 2015 - 'Cameron and Clegg: An Apology'

#34 ARHReading

I find it rather hypocritical for all the budding labour leaders saying repeatedly 'we must move on', 'we should look forward' and forget about the past, even though they have only just been thrown out of office.

Every contender for the labour leadership and many labour supporters on this blog refer to Thatcher, the last tory government and policies they took and behaviour of members of those governments frequently.

The publication of all these books by labour people will ensure the electorate do not forget the past 13+ years.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

40#

Probably because if they didnt, the back benchers of both the tories and the libdems would be getting increasingly more agitated and the coalition would be looking a hell of a lot more wobbly than it is.

Just look at the political map and see how little of it is red. Purely on results, more of the electorate who could be bothered to vote would appear to be supportive of the coalition compared to a Labour government.

You and I both, I would venture, are not amongst that number.

Convenient how Blair makes out that he's finally telling the truth just when he has a book to sell.

Tony Blair's government was the worst tragedy to befall this nation since bubonic plague. Yet still Gordon Brown managed to make things worse. This I think says all you need to know about Gordon. Blair, however, doesn't even deserve the dignity of being analysed.

46#

Had Blair still been in No10 and Brown booted out, yes, NL would have won. Regardless of everything else, Iraq, Afghan, all the sleaze, whatever. They would have won. Decreased majority, granted, but they'd still have had a majority.

Given the choice between Brown and Cameron, or for that matter, Brown and an Amoeba for who would be a more suitable prime minister, its a decision that makes itself.

Blair and Cameron though... I reckon Blair would have edged it. No point having an heir if you've still got the real thing, eh?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Let's hope Brown doesn't sink to this sort of stuff. So what if Brown drove Blair to drink? Some of my colleagues at work do too. And they don't win elections for me by managing a bouyant economy and - often forgotten - managing general election campaigns for me. (Remember Blair having to replace Milburn with Brown to save himself in 2007? There's gratitude for you.)

I suppose this sells books. And supplies Nick with blog material and other gossip to entertain the masses.

Mandelson's memoirs - done.

Blair's memoirs - done.

Brown's memoirs - still to come :)

In the meantime, save judgements!

Nick, you appear to rely on Mr Blair as your absolute authority, and basis your journalistic vindication on it :)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick:

That's nice of you to do the apology to both (Brown & Blair) and, of course~They last sentence is true and no a one time thought process....Because most people had that feeling for the time they were in office!

(d)

To the Tory trolls bleating about how poor a chancellor and PM Gordon Brown was, and the divisions within Labour: Do you think there are no divisions between the senior tories- let alone between the tories and Lib Dems in Government?

I agree, this is Tony Blair getting in his retaliation first, and bear in mind its only one side of the story. Its in his interests to portray Gordon Brown as 'maddening and destructive'. He was a disaster because he didnt follow Blair's policies - well of course he didnt, because otherwise what was the point? If Gordon Brown had wont he election (and he came much closer than many tories on here would care to admit), then Tony Blair would be praising him to high heaven. So what can we believe?

Wait for the other side of the story - and bear in mind a reading of Alistair Campbells diaries are perhaps more instructive in showing both sides.

"Politicians distort truth" is news?

Would Blair have led New Labour, or whatever, without Brown's support? The answer is no. Brown had Labour principles as well as ambition, whereas Blair had the ambition to lead and happened to choose Labour as the vehicle for his ambition. He could have been a Conservative and in the end it would have been hard to tell the difference.

Blair hid the truth on a number of issues and, in particular, Iraq.

The headlines emerging from today's publication of his memoirs reveal nothing new in general about Blair as this cynic sees it. Where's the balanced view? I suggest you get writing Brown and we shall have another version. Perhaps we shall be able to see Cabinet papers in the future and be able to be really informed.

At the moment it is only negative gainsaying and would appear to be some preparation for argument and counter argument. At best it is only a fictional one-sided creation of history "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."

In the meantime it is a publisher's paradise.

Nick

What are you not reporting on at the moment?

51#

I get the feeling you'll not be kept waiting quite that long, Laugh :-)

Manipulating duplicitous by his own admission, is this a man we would want to lead our country. Surely the right Honourable title given to MP's and PM's doesnot fit well with these character traits.

What comes across as even worse is his endorsement of Gordon Brown. When if ever was he telling the truth? Is he telling the truth now? My view is that I personally doubt it. The years from 1997 have been characterised by the do as we say not as we do attitude of our politicians. When someone questioned them they were pilloried by tame press and the attack dogs of their state paid for press offices. I doubt that the truth will even be known when the Cabinet minutes et al are released in 30 years time, because they key issues were decided behind closed doors, some what similarly to wilson's "kitchen Cabinet".

Nick,

What the Blair book (based on what is reported) says to me is that Labour lost its best hope - even with cash for honours, Iraq and all the rest of it - when it dumped him for the hopeless Brown. A contrite (and inevitably lucky) Blair would probably have seen off Cameron in 2010.

Brown is a politician (albeit a rather 1970s-style one) with no empathy, humility or political nous; as PM, as throughout his career, he was obsessed with power, not practical politics. That 'great clunking fist' was about about all he had. He could scream at people but never, never, it seems take many of them willingly with him. Blair's book seems to confirm that view of him.

You know, ego is a funny thing. All politicians have it, all politicians (to a certain extent) need it to rebuff the daily charges of hypocrisy and incompetence they face. Without ego they would end up a crumpled and bedraggled heaps of mortified, damaged, humanity. In Brown's case, though, his ego suggested to him that his position and authority - not logic, persuasion or intuition - would always find an answer to the nation's problems. At the end of the day people became disenchanted with a man who had the charisma of a bully and the sensitivity of a brick.

Power - and certainly a very evident love of power - does not endear anyone to the British; thoughtfulness, pride in country, humility, genuine leadership and empathy does. Is it any wonder that our politicians find it difficult to connect with voters when they get it so wrong consistently, and favour the game of power over the game of leadership?

I think a bit of sympathy for Nick is called for.

There are probably hundreds of bloggers searching BBC archives to find every time Nick said Blair was 'being honest' 'a great leader' 'one of the best PM's ever' 'got on very well with Brown'etc. as most journalists did, as they did with Brown as well.

Blair has not only shown how bad he was as a PM, but shown how bad his 'colleagues' and the mis reporting that journalists did to the detriment of the electorate.

No wonder Brown has been 'in hiding' in recent weeks/months.
Will he dare - How dare he think of showing his face in the new Parliament?

I don't think you need to apologise Nick -you did report the stories and I think most people sort of knew it was true. I also think most people thought Brown would be a disasterous PM but were, for the good of the country, hoping otherwise.
What I still struggle to understand, even now 100+ days after the election, is why didn't Cameron do better? We were in the worst recession ever with a party in Government tired after 13 years in power and a PM with no emotional intelligence. Yet Cameron still did not win outright. Something that a lot of your contributors should bear in mind given the landslide Blair achieved in 97.
The interesting passage thing about 'A Journey' that sits here on my desk -is that it does not pretend to be history it is, as a lot of people say here, a personal perspective.
Like you I have read the bits on GB in the book(resulting in this post) and I think the turning to drink is a bit of an over statement of how people in their late 40's/50 have a glass or two in the evening! I think it will be an easier read than the Downing Street Years and cast light on why he made the decisions he did. Interesting to see his perspective but it is all history now. However, it may start to get people thinking about how much spin Cameron the PR person is doing -and judging by the posts above he's good at it as well.
All this will be forgotton come October the 20th when the real politics of this parliament begin!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

---------------------
I'm certainly not surprised the BBC did not report these things at the time. The BBC were nu-labour sycophants during the whole project and would do anything to avoid reporting negative news on the party.
----------------------
Absolute nonsense. How do I know this? Because for every comment I read about BBC bias in favour of Labour, I read one decrying the obvious Tory flavoured bias at the BBC.

Nick, surely Blair's admission that he found Brown "very very difficult" and "maddening" yet kept him on as Chancellor is proof of Blair's weakness as PM.

A strong PM would have just kicked Brown out and dealt with the consequences. The effect of Blair's decision to keep Brown on has been an unmitigated disaster for the country's finances.

Isn't it interesting that a man who happily co-ordered the invasion of Iraq and consigned thousands of innocents to their deaths, was bullied repeatedly by the oaf-like Broon.

Blair's excuses and justifications lack consistency, don't you think?

"Let's hope Brown doesn't sink to this sort of stuff."

I agree. Enough trees have died for this pathetic excuse of mutual-after -the-event-backstabbing-and-profiteering as it is.

Hats off to you Nick for the heads up!

I think what really irritates me is that the cabinet just sat back and let it happen. Prescott et al. What did they say about it more to the point. Are we really prepared to accept any of the labour leader party candidates now? Leaders? Not prepared to stand up to a bully?

As for Brown then goodness me what a shameful character. Shame on us for putting up with him. Shame on Blair for allowing such a person to govern the country.

This has been our worst period of politics ever i would imagine.

70#

The answer is simple, isnt it? "Client State". Add that to the long selective memories that some people have and the lack of inspirational leadership that Cameron offers and theres your answer.

I am duly concerned about the admission that "I did not report then but now can…" part of this story. Two scenarios present themselves:

1 - Nick Robinson did not know about these inner problems - so good was the New Labour control over the media that such things were never made visible.

2 - Nick Robinson did know, but was afraid to broadcast them for fear of career, BBC’s access to government politicians, etc..

The question is - which of these is correct?

62#

You know, part of me thinks that such a neanderthal post warrants an answer, but the better part of me thinks "why the hell bother?". Its not worth the bandwidth.

FairandTrue wrote:
And to think of all the labour supporters who were Blair supporters and took his strong advice prior to the 2010 election. Blair fully endorsed Brown as the best person to lead this country whilst believing the man was incapable of leading this country. Disgraceful man who deceived not only labour supporters but the entire electorate.


Absolutely, well put

#42 NorthernThatcherite. just to be clear, I am not stating that New Labour is not a spin machine, it undeniably is, however just look at the societical reasons for them becoming so. It's all to do with portrayal in the media being directly linked to political power, as it always has been. As such, any individual/party with political aspitrations have to be careful of this portrayal and manage themselves accordingly, including your conservative party who are experts at it.

#54 Fubar_saunders, you venture correctly my friend! Saying that, I'm no big fan of New Labour to be honest. I suppose what you are saying has some fact behind it in terms of results yes. However, I would dispute that this indicates support for a coalition government. What you have is a scenario where there are liberal democrat voters who, before the election, would have baulked at the prospect of a coalition government with the conservatives and thought that with their man they had a serious chance of winning an election, alot of them will be reconsidering their choices and votes next time round I would imagine. What you are saying in regards of it looking stable are merely a facade methinks, we shall see.

Now after Blairgate I am really looking forward to the labour leadership campaign. Yawn !!!!

Let's face it they have done a really good job with the last two. And this latest batch of revelations by Mr Blair shows how well they deal with the problem once they have created themselves....

But they are really good in opposition which is going to useful for the next 12 years or so.

Great news for the coalition.....

Opportunism, opportunism, opportunism!

Nick,

The apology, although necessary, is not sufficient.

The key question is whether you will change your spots and (instead of sycophantically repeating the Labour party spin of the day) actually turn to investigative reporting? Surely you did this once? Surely you can do this again?

RE 71. DAMacMillan

Hold on a moment. I value Nicks opinion and although I don’t agree with everything he says, you have to respect it.

I think what we have to learn in all of this is how our politicians conduct themselves has huge implications on the country and it's people. Many MPs treat their roles and responsibilities without the true respect and gravitas that is required. Far too much petty politicking and not enough 'substance' in my view. How could the 'mother of all parliaments' let such behaviour which such disastrous consequences go on without somebody calling time out? Thousands of lives have been lost and millions effected and for what? Book sales and after dinner speaking income?

Not very proud of the UK right now.

81#

Personally, I think the coalition is still in the honeymoon period. That will change in October, no doubt about it. I think there is going to be a need to make difficult, but necessary decisions at all levels and such decisions will require leadership with the courage of its convictions and the ability to get the populace on side.

I dont see those qualities in Cameron or Clegg or any of their ministers or backbenchers either, I'm afraid. And given how Labour appear to be running round in disarray each of the leadership candidates trying to distance each other the furthest from the period where they were most electorally successful, not quite being sure which direction they want to go in, where each of the candidates, bar none is tainted with the worst aspects of the past - where they could have acted, they could have said something, but did not - and still willingly endorsed Brown throughout the election campaign, knowing what he was like - the future of British party politics as we know it is getting darker by the day.

The cracks will start appearing in the coalition after conference season when their respective leaderships are going to have to sell the results of the CSR to their party memberships, both of whom have a mutual antipathy towards each other. At the moment, its akin to mild indigestion. Give it six months, its liable to become full-on political dysentry.

For what its worth, I think we may well have another election in the Spring of 2011, before the AV vote. Fate, I think will play a hand that sees the main parties gravitating away from the centre ground that they have so avidly sought to occupy at all costs over the last decade or so. At least then there will be very clear air between the parties, which there was not this year.

blair also said that gordon brown was a great source of strength to him and
"At his best, his intellect and energy were vast and beneficial to the country,"
but this is all just a soap opera really.arguements and clashes happen in all organisations and govts. interesting maybe, but with a labour leadership contest going on and all the other important political stories over the last few weeks, is this really the top story for the political editor of the bbc.


fubar (pro ukip blogger... lmao) at various
you are almost correct but you should consider your last line in post 79 (the bit starting with "better part".... before even turning on your pc. do us all a favour :-)

This blog entry reminds me of the conditional reflex experiments Pavlov ran in the early 1900s.

A testimony to lobby journalism.

Earlier in the year I read five biographies on Brown, Blair and New Labour. And on some key decisions the books were quite at odds with each other. For example, on joining the Euro the authors stated that Brown and Blair adopted every conceivable position from being in favour, against, opposing positions and indifference.

Likewise if you read the many ministerial memoirs about the Thatcher years you will find a wide variety of "truths".

No one believes Blair and Brown were a marriage made in Heaven, both have said it was strained and argumentative but rather shouting "I was right and worth my wages", shouldn't Mr Robinson do what journalists are supposed to do and investigate BOTH sides.

BTW I find it remarkable that few have commented on Blair's rejection of progressive measures carried out by his government such as freedom of information, which he said was impractical – despite it working very well.

So 'we' were 'lead' for over a decade by self-serving, self-obsessed, selfish, border line nutters, known to and/or tolerated and/or egged on by a bunch of people in positions of authority and/or responsibility.

Many in high office indulged this for personal gain, and indeed are in a 'contest' that is shaping up in a repetition of near, disastrous history. Or gaily reporting away in the most selectively tribal manner.

Is there the slimmest hope that the national broadcaster might be able to hold our political classes to account on anything but tribal or dogmatic grounds in future, for the sake of the country?

This suggest some sense of mea culpa, but a bit blooming late. And too little by too few.

87#

Are you acknowledging therefore lefty, that the first part of the post was correct and that the tribal post was indeed, neanderthal?

You need to get up much earlier than that to put one over on me, fella....

But... in the spirit of the day though, what you say at the end of your post "is this really the top story for the political editor of the bbc?" - I could not agree more. There is much much more important stuff going on that Nick ought to be getting his teeth into.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Just one more thing. "I can reveal now that... Tony Blair knew that Gordon Brown would make a hopeless Prime Minister."

That wasn't in quotes, Nick, and so appears to suggest that you think Gordon Brown was a hopeless Prime Minister too. Whatever you think, please remember that that sort of stuff is not allowed from a BBC reporter.

Can we have a clarification from you pronto? Another - real this time - apology?

# Post 72:

In my opinion, BBC has been a "Tory flavoured bias" since they stopped been impartial in Q4 of 2005. Every time, I posted a comment on here about the bias, the moderator remove them.

I don't think I'll ever see anything about divisions in the Coalition on this Blog

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

85. At 1:05pm on 01 Sep 2010, toughtopperbrown wrote:
RE 71. DAMacMillan

Hold on a moment. I value Nicks opinion and although I don’t agree with everything he says, you have to respect it.

I think what we have to learn in all of this is how our politicians conduct themselves has huge implications on the country and it's people.

Not very proud of the UK right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too right, mate!

We have been brought very low.

We mustn't let any others do it to us again. Time to participate fully in our democracy or it may not be long before we are crying again when it's taken away. We've got to stay on Dave & Cos case to make sure they do a decent job for us all.

Interesting listening to Chris Mullins' Part 2. (R4 9.45am this week.) [Wish he was reading it himself rather than Sam Dale.]

Why don't the good guys - Mullins, Hoey, Field - get the top jobs? Too busy serving their constituents? Not prepared to compromise on ethics?

Only just come back to your blog Nick, thought you had retired.

If you are saying you knew these things and did not report them I am intrigued as to why not.

Much has been said about hacks toeing the line so they can stay part of the circus. I hope this is not so in your case.

Please tell us.

Apart from Blair's admission that he enjoys a tipple, none of his other 'revelations' about Brown and his persona will come as a surprise to anyone who has read Tom Bower's biography of GB

No need to apologise Nick.

I'm sure all journalists were threatened one way or another if they didn't toe the government line.

We should just breathe a sigh of relief that the whole house of horrors has been extinguished and fumigated and hope the people never forget.

It is now going to take years if ever for this country to recover.