If this kind of unmasking eventually comes to all politicians, it has to be noted that if your article is right it came with remarkable speed for Gordon Brown.

As for Blair, based on the record, it would appear that his downfall came for a surprising reason. He chose NOT to lie to the people and took a stand based on principle rather than popular opinion, and from that point you can mark the beginning of his decline - throughout which he stuck by his guns and principles and followed the inevitable path to the exit.

Dave

Possibly an oversimplification, Dave. Blair was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as subordinating the UK's power and influence to the US's, so his war stance may have been a matter of principle to him, but was seen by many as the abrogation of a larger principle.

And the pacifism in the UK and the rest of Europe is a much more powerful, emotional force among a much larger percentage of the population than in the US.

But it's true that for someone generally thought of as being as opportunistic and insincere as Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney combined, his Iraq stance doesn't seem to have been a political calculation. [Certainly not a wise one if so!] Blair is far more popular here than at home [a la Gorbachev].

What he may have hoped to do [here's where calculation comes in] is serve as a counterbalance to Bush but in the role of an ally, unlike the French and German and Russian leaders who chose to simply rebuff and criticize US policy. The current push for peace talks in the Mideast reflects demands he made of the Bush administration; maybe they are belatedly granting his wish.

Because all politicians are compromisers, they all eventually are compromised. The public puts up with it while things are going well, but can turn quickly when rough patches come along. And the Brits seem even more inclined to turn on leaders, and more intensely so, than we do here.

John, I'll agree with this much: that it's not good for a people to hate their leader. I think you've got it wrong about childlike adoration, though.

Leaders don't have to be magicians. We can accept them as human beings and judge them on their capability, can't we? I was reading Barbara's article and was struck by the same thing. We need leaders who share our goals and are capable of attaining them. We don't need visionaries. We really don't need people pretending to be visionaries.

I suspect that throughout most of human history, people vaguely thought that their leaders were stupid but had more important things to worry about. We weren't always this gullible. Then the baby boom came along, and the country had to process a glut of naivete all at once. That's the driving force behind a lot of what you talk about in your article.

"Leaders don't have to be magicians."
- Baronius

But they at least should not be Deserters, either...

@Handguy and Dave Nalle

As far as Tony Blair goes, he has recently said that he played down his religious convictions when in office for fear of being considered "a nutter" [tr. a head case; someone who is mentally unhinged]. It has to be said that in Britain, no popularity will be gained by intimating that you are doing the work of any god. It is a fundamentally secular nation, where, if anyone mentioned that they prayed for the Prime Minister either personally or for the office held, they would probably be advised to seek medical attention.

As far as honesty in his cause and course of action goes, there is the apparent fact that he wilfully disguised, manipulated and hid intelligence reports which demonstrated that Iraq was not the threat he was very determinedly pretending it to be. He also ended a long tradition in British politics, which assumes you are going to have a plan of what happens when the war is over. These plans may or may not work in the long run, but he simply forgot, or was not quite bright enough to make one.

On a more cynical and less quantifiable note, he was also probably looking at the record of Margaret Thatcher and thinking that he could imitate her "good" Falklands war, which did her popularity and status no end of good at home.

@Baronius

"We don't need visionaries. We really don't need people pretending to be visionaries." Absolutely right, although this is what we keep seeming to get. When we have to choose between the grand parade of politicinas at election time, this is what they try to sell us. Gordon Brown is even now trying to tell everyone his vision, whatever that may be. Last time I looked, nobody was really listening to him any more. Then, of course, we have Tony Blair's legacy, if anyone has managed to find it.

Thanks for the comments and best wishes.
John

Hi John,

Reference your comment on Tony Blair:

"... there is the apparent fact that he wilfully disguised, manipulated and hid intelligence reports which demonstrated that Iraq was not the threat he was very determinedly pretending it to be. He also ended a long tradition in British politics, which assumes you are going to have a plan of what happens when the war is over."

I'm pleased to see that you at least qualified the idea that Blair "disguised, manipulated" etc. I'm one of these 'odd' people who has faith in him. He was one of many, including all the major world leaders and the UN (is that enough for you?) who believed the "intelligence". He may yet prove to be right. Who knows? Time will tell.

And yes, it is true that he did not seem to have an afterplan for the invasion. But then again Britain was a junior parner. Did the other allies have a plan? The USA should have had this sorted. Not that I have ever heard Blair criticising the USA for this. In fact, unlike the rest of us, he NEVER seems to criticise anyone. He did push tenaciously for retaining the Iraqi police and army, but was over-ruled. Interesting how America has now come round to Blair's thinking on the climate and the MEPP, to name but two.

To me, he's still a hero, even if this is an unfashionable view to take.

Brown? An OK chancellor. That's it. Oh, and handy with a dagger.

Blair started off great but disappointingly declined with every passing year until he was little but a simpering embarrassment with a little boyish grin.

I don't know about anybody else but personally I'd prefer to have politicians who were effective and efficient, more like an excellent CEO than a visionary. One person's vision is another's nightmare. Let's get some competent professionals to do the work.

@BlairSupporter

Hello. Nice to bump into you again.

'He was one of many, including all the major world leaders and the UN (is that enough for you?) who believed the "intelligence".'

Yes, this is actually less impressive than it sounds, to the degree that the intelligence was derived from a small number of sources, churned and doctored and then retailed to anyone who was not directly privy to the original intelligence, which meant that the people you mention were just accepting the common currency of information at the time. The fact that so many people were hoodwinked is not really something which attaches credit to Blair, but somewhat the opposite. I would not imagine that he was just the innocent and uncritical recipient of anything put before him and was therefore tricked by the more quick-witted Campbell or Scarlett. If that were the case, it would still reflect badly on him.

@ Christopher Rose

"little but a simpering embarrassment with a little boyish grin." You saw that this was what he became: I thought he started off that way and got pregressively worse.

I think it's fair to say that he was a breath of fresh air at the time but it rapidly became apparent that his political promises and his actual agenda were quite different.

Perhaps having to maintain a pack of lies about his increasing religious delusions didn't help...