Blairs on the trail
James Forsyth 6:55pm
Reading through the Cherie interviews in the papers today I was struck by this part of her reply when she was asked if she took any pleasure in Brown’s difficulties: “I would be delighted to campaign for them.”
One of the key strategic decisions that Brown will have to take about the general election campaign is how the Labour party uses the Blairs. The Cabinet has very few big beats and there’s no doubt that out on the stump, Tony Blair could drive the news agenda in a way that none of the current cabinet could. But equally, sending Blair out there would remind people both of just how long Labour have been in power and of all the old Blair / Brown splits.
The other thing to bear in mind is that Blair would be most effective driving an anti-Cameron message; Blair always had the ability to go negative without it turning the voters off—something that Brown lacks. But considering the role that Blair still wants to play in public life he might be loathe to offend Cameron. The political Siberia that Bill Clinton is about to find himself in will act as a powerful reminder to Blair of how turning yourself into an attack dog can undercut your status as a statesman.
Previous
Comments
Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle
May 10th, 2008 7:41pmCan I just say that references to Cherie Blair as "the former first lady" really piss me off.
SHE may consider herself as first lady, but she aint. OUR first lady is HM The Queen (thank God).
Chuck Unsworth
May 10th, 2008 7:42pmWhat she fails to understand - always has done - is that she personally is a liability, both to Blair and Brown. Frankly thet public saw through this self-obsessed air head a very long time ago, and she has done nothing to change their views.
Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle
May 10th, 2008 7:46pmFurthermore, if I may, this Cherie person calls herself a catholic (as does Tone these days) which presumably is christian. Well, I would say she is a terrible witness to her faith - which preaches forgiveness etc. Also preaches humility, unselfishness etc.
Makes her (and far worse, her religion,) look like a
hypocrite.
Thanks a lot, Cherie.
Graham
May 10th, 2008 8:31pmYes and wouldn't there be an irony if, in a general election, Brown was more dependent than he would choose to be...in much the same way as Blair was dependent on Brown in 2005...
salieri
May 10th, 2008 8:48pmIt is truly hard to say which of these single-minded charlatans one feels sorrier for.
Austin Barry
May 10th, 2008 9:28pmI'm not sure that Bill Clinton was ever a statesman. His junkyard dog attack mode for Hillary and his Priapic cigar-penetrative past destroyed any claim he had to statemanship. Blair was never a statesman, just a very clever politician. He had though great charm and a sense of humour which clearly Brown does not have. Charm and a sense of humour are not, however, transferrable assets and Brown will disappear up the fundament of his own gloomy, mirth-less demise. So why should Blair even bother?
John
May 10th, 2008 9:43pmIt is a mystery. Blair always managed to turn me off, whenever he was positive or negative or whatever, just by opening his mouth (which was always open in that halfwitted grin). I found him as creepy, from day one, as I have ever found anyone.
Ian C
May 11th, 2008 2:16pmBlair will have something else rather more important to do at and around the time of the next election. The obvious candidate will be lining himself up for the Euro presidency (at least that's what he would tell Gordon why he wasn't available).