No comments about Winston Churchill.

No comments about The Right Honourable Benjamin Disraeli.

No comments about Just in Time.

3 comments about TONY BLAIR: THE MODERNISER.

1. This book saw the light of day 10 years ago. In 1995 Tony Blair had just been elected leader of the Labour party and consequently of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Jon Sopel describes his volume as `a biography', which I suppose it just about is, taking in the first 41 years of its subject's life and career. However it is really about the politics of the 1990's. If you want an analysis of Blair's personality you can find an interesting if distinctly hostile one in Leo Abse's `Tony Blair: The Man Who Lost His Smile'. What you will get from Sopel is a very interesting account - interesting partly in its own right but more from the perspective of 10 years' hindsight -- of what was happening at that time and how it all felt.
   
   The book's strength, and its main weakness at the same time, is that it is the work of a good TV reporter and journalist. Jon Sopel seems to have been absent from my screen for a while, perhaps because I watch the wrong programmes but possibly because he may be on leave writing another book. If he is, I want a very much better one from him next time than this is. To appreciate how good he can be when he puts his mind to it, try the chapter entitled `A Loyal Deputy?', where you will find an admirably balanced and analytic account of the rival candidates as Blair's deputy and the political processes that went into the final selection of John Prescott. If a current-affairs journalist wishes to bestow or inflict his views on the public in the solemn format of a book, then the book must amount to significantly more than just a string of reports, and too much of this particular book consists of not enough over and above that. In a BBC report the journalist has to be very careful to maintain balance, and it's in the nature of the case that many a bulletin has to report in the manner of `on the one hand X has stated that A is the case, whereas Y insists that this is not possible. A press release from Z takes the view that ...' and so on. There may be some analysis and editorial comment, but it is more than the reporter's job is worth to draw firm conclusions. In a book this restriction does not apply, and we are consequently not satisfied with reports left hanging and no firm stance on the matter taken by the author. Sopel cites an instance, for one, where Blair and Lord Irvine had decided on a certain strategy to meet a challenge in the courts from one of the trade unions. This strategy turned out to be totally unnecessary apparently, but is there some conclusion to be drawn? If so it's left to us to draw it, and there are too many specimens of this kind of thing, not so much neutral as neutered.
   
   Otherwise the book is of a great deal of interest to those who follow British politics and who are not as young as we were, but it's difficult to recommend it with any fervour to the general readership. By now we have all had the opportunity to experience Blair as prime minister and to draw our own conclusions. A book review is not the place to expound my personal conclusions, at all events not my conclusions about Blair. On the other hand ordinary fairness demands that I say that Sopel is a particularly good reporter with a flair for conveying atmosphere, and historians in years to come could do much worse than look in this book to catch the `feel' of the time. I would have to agree that Blair had, and possibly still has (Iraq war or no Iraq war) quite exceptional and extraordinary charisma. Something else that I found of unusual interest in Sopel's version is the story of how the Labour party turned away from Gordon Brown, long seen as the leader-in-waiting, in favour of Blair. This narrative and analysis has real independence of thought and observation. I am in no position to weigh it up for accuracy in respect of either, but I'm exceedingly curious to know why Sopel has absolutely nothing to say about the topic that has obsessed everyone else about the meeting at the Granita restaurant in which Brown decided to withdraw from the race in Blair's favour, namely what - if anything - was said about the party leadership eventually being passed across from Blair to Brown. Sopel says literally nothing about this. Is it even possible, after all the hot air, that Blair and Brown actually said nothing about it either?
   
   If Jon Sopel is planning more books, I certainly shall be among their readers, whatever my senior gripings about this one.



2. This book spoilt by being too psychophantic. It is not a patch on Hal Colebatch's "Blair's Britain" (Claridge Press) which is geniunely bold and penetrating and which shows what Blair's "Modernisation" really means and the real political agenda behind it.



3. This book was the first biography of Tony Blair, the man with the 100-watt grin who is now Britain's Prime Minister, to be published. It came out shortly after he became leader of the British Labour Party, and though it contains no revelations and few insights into "Blairism" (whatever that may be -- Brit pol hacks are still distinctly unsure), it is a handy summation of his career and progress up to the point at which he officially became The Next Prime Minister. The book is clearly pro-Blair -- the author (John Sopel) is a political reporter for the BBC and thus technically strictly impartial, but his approval is plain to see, especially when he lapses into a prose-style that reads like breathless admiration -- but the facts can be sorted from the "spin" easily enough. My particualr beefs with the book: it unquestioningly accepts Blair's definition of himself as a radically new kind of politician, as a politician who has somehow miraculously remained above the fray of politics and so is the perfect kind of politician to lead the nation, and as a man propounding self-evidently correct analyses of Britain (its economy, social problems etc). The book doesn't even address, if only to dismiss, the notion that Blair is simply a right-wing Labour leader. This last point is a particular failure: even if it is rubbish, the fact that a significant number of Blair's own Cabinet colleagues and MPs make this "right-wing" charge against Blair means that it ought to be raised in any seriour study of him. If you need to know about what Blair got up to before he became someone worthy of your attention, this isn't a bad starter. But now that he is actually Prime Minister, it shouldn't be long before more rigorous examinations and critiques of the man appear. If I had no pressing need to learn about Tony Blair, I would give it a few months and wait until they appear rather than delve into this one. If you can't wait, read about how wonderful, revolutionary and "new" he is with a dose of scepticism. After all, remember your own Bill Clinton, and how wonderful, revolutionary and "new" HE was supposed to be . .

No comments about The Letters of Benjamin Disraeli to His Sister. 1832 - 1852.

No comments about Eminent Churchillians.

No comments about W.G.C. Gladstone (A Memoir).

No comments about The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence, 1953-1955.

No comments about Churchill.

No comments about Selected Speeches of Benjamin Disraeli.