Tony Blair

Prescott’s Memoirs - “scared” Blair reneged on Brown

keeptonyblairforpm — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:13:45 +0000

Comment at end

11th May, 2008 - updated

PRESCOTT CAN TELL TALES TOO! SO THERE, CHERIE (& Lord Levy)!

‘When Blair became party leader in 1994, Brown was “really pissed off, I should think. I’m sure he believed Tony had stolen it from him”.’

‘ [Prescott] cornered Blair on a train. “He plonked himself down, all smiles and charm, and I started on him. ‘Listen you little shit, I’ve got a question to ask and you’d better be clear and truthful about the answer. Did you take all that lot down to this secret country meeting and discuss policy?’ ”

‘On one occasion Gordon wouldn’t let Tony see what was in his preparatory budget proposals. He even banned the Treasury from telling him. That was totally against tradition. The prime minister is always told in advance.’

‘He adds: “I also think Tony was scared of Gordon. He didn’t want to take him on. Gordon is a very tough negotiator, doesn’t let things drop, keeps at something till he forces you into his point of view. That’s not Tony’s style.’

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS, according to Prescott:

Blair reneged not once but several times on promises to make way for Brown at No 10.
Prescott urged Blair to sack Brown.
Prescott urged Brown to resign from cabinet and fight Blair from the backbenches.
Prescott brokered “hundreds” of reconciliation meetings and telephone calls between them.
Brown was “frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly”. He sulked so often during meetings that they had to be abandoned. On other occasions he could “go off like a bloody volcano”.
Blair “doesn’t like the full-frontal approach. It puts him off his tea”.
Brown held back government money from Blair’s pet projects so that he would have more to spend when he at last took over as prime minister.
Cherie Blair thought the “longer Gordon suffered the better”.
Prescott called Blair “a little shit” during an explosive row.
Blair was “devastated” and near tears after his son Euan was found drunk in the street.
Blair now wants to be president of the European Union or to have a similar “permanent statesman” role.

Oh how harsh and disloyal friends can be when selling books, eh?

Read this report here

Miliband doesn’t recognise Prescott’s description of Brown - more or less.

WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD BULLY?

[Pic: Brown & Blair at an event in London on 1st May on Palestinian investment]

We’ve already heard about Brown’s moods, sulks and “character flaws”, but what’s all this about Blair being “scared of Gordon”. Scared in which way? The well-reported bullying? Blair is known to dislike personal confrontation. But we are asked to believe that this prime minister, who had almost been fisticuffed by German chancellor Schroeder and had stand-up rows with French president Chirac, was afraid of a bully? I don’t think so.

Or was he concerned that he might end up as natural fertiliser for the heather in the garden of Number 11? After all, Brown had a few heavies around him, all balls and no brains. So, this prime minister who insisted on wearing no body protection on his visits to Iraq was afraid of THEM?

Blair couldn’t have been all that scared or he wouldn’t have hung on for so long (until 2007), considering that Brown seems to have been angry and “pissed off” from 1994! Not too scary then, Mr GB?

Or might it have been the possibility that if he had sacked or moved against Brown, the latter might have rallied the backbenchers and the naive party members against Blair, thus splitting the party? Before the scales fell from the members’ eyes. More likely, I’d have thought.

BLAIR SHOULD HAVE “RENEGED” ONE MORE TIME!

But if Blair reneged in his handover “agreement” it was one time too few, if the present PM’s success rate is anything to go by.

Given that there is some dispute about the agreement anyway, and Cherie told her husband “not to come home” if he agreed with Brown to hand over after one term, it’s all tittle-tattle. But the tittle-tattle which Brown was happy to propagate in his efforts to garner support from his loyal lieutenants.

But let’s accept for a moment that they did have a pals’ agreement in the Granita or at Cherie’s sister’s pad or somewhere else. It’s the kind of thing people do when looking to make an impact on a long-standing organisation they wish to alter for good. The Labour party in 1994, after the death of John Smith, was an organisation going nowhere fast. It had let down its own members and the country for years.

And, to add to that, the lessons learned as Blair advanced in his premiership showed him that Brown did not have the requisite. So he avoided, for as long as humanly possible, stepping down from his own successful premiership to hand over to someone he considered inadequate. Remember, Blair was the only Labour leader who would go on to win three elections in a row - one in the midst of what had become an unpopular war.

Thank God he didn’t hand over to Brown earlier! It’s just a pity he weakened at the end.

And Mr Prescott? What exactly will he be remembered for?

Hmm …?

Still thinking?

Blair was a great politician surrounded by pygmies.

And I for one can hardly imagine Labour doing as badly today, if Blair were still in place. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

//////////

PRESCOTT: “I TOLD TONY BLAIR TO SACK GORDON BROWN”

By Jonathan Oliver, Political Editor, The Sunday Times

John Prescott says he urged Tony Blair to sack Gordon Brown at the height of their frequent rows – but the former prime minister was “scared” of his chancellor.

He says he also urged Brown to resign and fight Blair from the back benches, but Brown, then chancellor, shrank from such a bold gamble.

Prescott, who as deputy prime minister for 10 years knew more than anyone about the furious resentment between the two men, reveals the true depth of their tempestuous relationship in his memoirs which are serialised exclusively today in The Sunday Times.

He also discloses that he intended to resign after his affair with Tracey Temple, his diary secretary, was made public, but he was persuaded not to by his wife Pauline. She speaks publicly for the first time about the affair in today’s News Review, saying that “a lot of very bitter women” wrote to her: “What they suggested I should do to John just doesn’t bear repeating.”

She decided to stick with him after considering that “I can go one of two ways. Either I can be bitter and cloud my very existence, or I can move on”.

In the frankest and most rumbustious political memoirs for years, Prescott writes about his shame at failing the 11-plus, his lifelong inferiority complex and “problems with the English language”, and his remarkable rise from trade union firebrand to high office. But it is his role as witness to the raw anger of the Blair-Brown relationship that makes his testimony unique.

The first member of Blair’s cabinet to lift the lid on what really happened, he says that:

— Blair reneged not once but several times on promises to make way for Brown at No 10.

— Prescott brokered “hundreds” of reconciliation meetings and telephone calls between them.

— Brown was “frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly”. He sulked so often during meetings that they had to be abandoned. On other occasions he could “go off like a bloody volcano”.

— Blair “doesn’t like the full-frontal approach. It puts him off his tea”.

— Brown held back government money from Blair’s pet projects so that he would have more to spend when he at last took over as prime minister.

— Cherie Blair thought the “longer Gordon suffered the better”.

— Prescott called Blair “a little shit” during an explosive row.

— Blair was “devastated” and near tears after his son Euan was found drunk in the street.

— Blair now wants to be president of the European Union or to have a similar “permanent statesman” role.

Despite his revelations, Prescott declares admiration for both Blair and Brown and reserves much of his venom for the “beautiful people” around them. Among the former advisers who are now key members of the Brown government, he singles out Ed Balls, the education secretary, and David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

Of Balls he writes: “He is clearly highly intelligent. But I can’t say I always agreed with his political judgment. He was part of the Gordon group, running around, spreading stories.” And Miliband was “one of the No 10 Mekons” – alluding to a big-brained alien dictator in the 1950s Eagle comic.

Prescott says that he first met Blair and Brown before they entered parliament in 1983. Brown was “dour”, while Blair was “fluttering around . . . a typical public schoolboy”.

As MPs and close friends, Brown was the “obvious leader of the two”. Blair “looked up to Gordon . . . hung on his every word”. When Blair became party leader in 1994, Brown was “really pissed off, I should think. I’m sure he believed Tony had stolen it from him”.

Prescott denies knowing what really happened at the meeting at the Granita restaurant in London when Brown agreed not to fight Blair for the leadership, but “Tony has a habit of saying things people want to hear. They believe him because they are charmed by his smiles and nods. That’s his way. That’s why I used to call him Bambi when he first appeared on the political scene”.

As representative of “old Labour”, Prescott was shut out on occasions from their policy discussions in opposition. He saw it as “the college boys’ coterie, the beautiful people excluding the old bruiser”.

After one such slight, when new Labour’s key figures had met in a country house, he cornered Blair on a train. “He plonked himself down, all smiles and charm, and I started on him. ‘Listen you little shit, I’ve got a question to ask and you’d better be clear and truthful about the answer. Did you take all that lot down to this secret country meeting and discuss policy?’ ” Prescott continues: “He asked me to come to his house and we could discuss it privately. I was getting heated and other passengers could hear. But I said no. So for the rest of the journey . . . I sat there, keeping him squirming.”

More serious strains emerged once Labour was in power. “In the first term, for the initial 12 months or so, apart from cabinet meetings, we’d had regular meetings of what we called the big three – Tony, Gordon and me. But there were always tensions in the air. Gordon would get in a sulk and say nothing, leaving all the talking to me, so these meetings petered out.”

After Labour’s second election victory in 2001, the relationship grew even worse. “During that second term, more and more of my time was taken up acting as conciliator. When I consult my notes from that period, I see there must have been hundreds of phone calls, meetings, presummits, summits and dinners on various Blair-Brown issues.”

“We met in Downing Street, at Chequers, Admiralty House, Dorneywood, Edinburgh, Sedgefield, Scotch Corner, even a restaurant beside a Scottish loch. They would row; they would seek my support. I would try to get them to see the other’s point of view and eventually arrange a dinner. Peace would be restored for a while and then something else would flare up.”

He felt the tensions “stemmed from a deep and personal connection they had, with shared analysis and political insights. I remember once being at a meeting with them and Peter Mandelson. What struck me was how those three behaved like robots in a science-fiction movie in which they needed to download from each other”.

Prescott believes Brown had the impression that Blair had promised to leave halfway through the second term. “But as we got nearer the possible time for an announcement, things always seemed to come up to make Tony delay. It was vital to win the next election, then he would announce it. Gordon would complain, refuse to cooperate. Tony would give Gordon charge of our election strategy, on the understanding that he would keep supporting him till after the election. Then, after it, he’d promise to go. Only he didn’t.”

He continues: “As well as giving Gordon power and position to ensure his support, Tony’s other technique was to persuade him to back him on certain matters about which Gordon might have his own opinions – Europe, academies, foundation hospitals and future manifestos – and in return Tony would come out with the same old promise. He was definitely going in, er, six months, perhaps a year, certainly before the next election. When it never happened, Gordon was furious – and the whole cycle began again.

“Each of them tried to get me on his side, complaining about the other. Tony would say that Gordon wasn’t cooperating with him at all. Gordon would say he’d been cheated again. On one occasion Gordon wouldn’t let Tony see what was in his preparatory budget proposals. He even banned the Treasury from telling him. That was totally against tradition. The prime minister is always told in advance.”

Prescott says that once, when Brown “was even more furious than usual with Tony, I said to him, ‘If this is how you feel, that you’ve been misled once again, resign’. I think he thought about it, but it never came to that. He was aware of the possible consequences.

“With Tony, when he was moaning on about Gordon’s behaviour, I’d say, ‘Sack him. Find a new chancellor, if that’s how you really feel’. But neither could take the final step. They were caught in their own trap. Tony knew that sacking Gordon would tear the party apart.”

He adds: “I also think Tony was scared of Gordon. He didn’t want to take him on. Gordon is a very tough negotiator, doesn’t let things drop, keeps at something till he forces you into his point of view. That’s not Tony’s style. Gordon is a difficult character, but sometimes Tony exaggerated how difficult he had been, just to get sympathy.”

Prescott says: “I have no doubt that Tony was most to blame. He broke his agreement with Gordon, not once but several times. However, in Tony’s defence, most of his promises were ambiguous and on condition anyway.”

He argues that Blair “was not helped” by his wife, Cherie. “I think she saw Gordon as causing trouble and making Tony unhappy which, of course, she could witness at first hand. She probably had him moaning about Gordon all the time. Perhaps she personally didn’t want Tony to go anyway – but as the Blair-Brown relationship got worse, she certainly didn’t want Gordon to be the one to benefit.”

Having initially been so nervous that she held Pauline Prescott’s hand “for moral support” in public, Cherie began to “enjoy being the first lady” and would not have objected to another year in No 10, Prescott believes.

“But, more importantly, I think she disliked Gordon, so she probably felt the longer he suffered the better – and Tony’s staying on might lessen his chances of a smooth takeover.”

He says she was also “unkind” to Brown’s wife, Sarah, snubbing her at the victory celebrations after the 2005 election.

Publishing sources say that Cherie has watered down her attacks on Brown in her own book, also due out this month.

//////////

BBC - Prescott’s memoirs

BBC precis of the Sunday Times report

Brownites say: “Bring Back Tony Blair”

keeptonyblairforpm — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:20:46 +0000

Home

EVENTS … EVENTS … EVENTS … TOO MANY TO KEEP UP WITH, MR CLUNKING FIST BROWN!

“… who will provide me with regular briefs” [drop jaw]

Is Rory Bremner brilliant, or what …?

A more acceptable version of Brown, than Brown. Watch him meld from Brown to Blair at around 1:40.

Remember this?

David Miliband, February 2007: “I predict that when I come back on this programme in six months or a year’s time, people will be saying ‘wouldn’t it be great to have that Blair back because we can’t stand that Gordon Brown’.”

Comment at end

10th May, 2008

BLAIR THE COMEBACK KID? No Chance!

He may not respond with these exact words …

‘TOO LATE’, SHE CRIED, AND WAVED HER WOODEN LEG!

… but it would amount to the same thing. “Thanks, but no thanks”.

[I recall an old friend using this ''wooden leg" phrase, and I could never quite work it out. A quick google search came up with a few obscure references, like this appropriate one. But Blair, the 'dead man walking' (New Statesman article, May 2006), is now well out of it. His party lost it when they chose to betray their leader and the country. There was barely a squeak of protest from any of them as the noose tightened around his neck. Well, the pipsqueaks are at it now. And the 'dead man' moniker has now passed to his successor (News Scotsman)

Who'd have believed it? Well, not to put too fine a point on it - me, for a start.

Of course we all know Mr Blair won't ... can't come back. He meant it when he left, and is now fully committed elsewhere. Some say over-committed. So - no chance. But it's interesting to learn that many punters were asking for his return last week during local election door-knocking. I suppose they thought, "they got rid of him without asking the voters, so now we, the voters want him back".

GUARDIANISTO JOURNOS CHEW THE CUD

It's been almost tear-wrenching to watch the commentariat in the aftermath of Labour's disastrous local elections. The Brown fan club eating their words. Almost to a man/woman they're demanding a refund and sending back their membership a la "disgusted, Tunbridge Wells". But their inconsistencies escape them in their despair. For example -

Jackie Ashley (in "All Gordon Can Do Is Fight On ... And Hope His Luck Turns") bemoans the likely impending leadership challenge:

'And by the autumn it may become irresistible to enough MPs. The calculation among potential replacements may change too. Instead of, "but I don't want to lead the opposition", it may be, "unless something is done, our defeat will be so big that we will be out of power for a decade, or 15 years - so let's try to limit the damage".'

She is lambasted by her commenters here

But this is one of the better and most far-sighted comments, imho:

'One unremarked upon long-term consequence of the last few days is that future political historians will recount the Blair-Brown spats of 1994-2007 very differently from the way that partisan hacks like Jackie covered them at the time. Blair will be seen as the wronged party, his government constantly destabilised by his arrogant, and ultimately incompetent, rival. With the benefit of hindsight -- especially after having witnessed the car-crash of the Brown premiership so far -- historians will pronounce the Labour Party vindicated in choosing Blair as leader in 1994. Brown will be seen as a hollow man whose greater talents lay in intra-party cabalism, but who would ultimately be found wanting at the highest level. The Brownite games that so undermined Blair and forced his early retirement -- games that Jackie and Polly enthusiastically played -- will be dismissed as the grotesquely self-indulgent actions of courtiers and propagandists who put their man's interests above those of the government.'

//////////

Polly Toynbee (in "Labour has Nothing To Say and No Territory of Its Own") tries, for a moment, and pretty vainly, to turn the fire on the Tories. In the end she concedes:

"It is Labour that has become the stupid party - dumb, directionless, depressing. That's why the voters gave them that 24% sucker punch: it wasn't about ideology, it was about basic political competence."

There is only one option - to start all over again, scorched earth. Do what Labour did in 1994 or what Cameron did in 2005. Begin by rooting out everything that has made Labour's reputation toxic to voters - and rediscover everything that made Labour worth voting for.

'Look at Labour successes - the minimum wage, child poverty, children's centres, aid for Africa, free museums, NHS waiting lists, new health centres and schools well-stocked and well-staffed after those 18 miserable drought years of Thatcherism - there is much to be proud of. But all these were promises devised in the resurgent days before 1997. Has Labour still the appetite for anything as radical as its own first term? Can it recapture that insurgent spirit? If not, why would anyone vote them back in?'

And this comment offers no excuses for Brown's predicament:

'The biggest compliment that can be paid to anybody in Brown's position, is to understand your personal limitations and then find people who genuinely fill the intellectual gaps. They might frighten you, they might even say no when you least want to hear it. But they might also stop you making a fool of yourself. Instead what do we get in Downing Street, more PR people and news managers and photo sytlists. How on earth can Harman be considered as DPM. or Darling as Chancellor.

Cameron may well now be electable and he may in the intervening two years have the courage to divest himself of the mediocrity that surrounds him, but I don't expect to hold my breath. Labour have been caught with their trousers down. In fact I am not sure they they can remember whose bedroom they have left them in.'

//////////

And the loyal and ever hopeful Steve Richards says -"There is still room for Brown to save the day - if he can learn to trust his instincts"

'The causes of Labour's crisis are a combination of the immediate and more distant. Yet I do not accept it is doomed to lose the next election. That is partly because politics is not a science where, on the basis of the past, predictions can be made about the future. This is not 1995. Mr Cameron is not Mr Blair. Labour's crisis is not the same as the one that nearly destroyed the Conservatives then.

So what, if anything, can Brown do to avoid a 1997 landslide in reverse? Currently, a fatal narrative is in place. It can be summarised in three words: "Brown is a disaster". If he made a speech on his "vision" in this climate, he would be slaughtered even if it were a work of genius. Perhaps it will prove impossible to change the narrative, but at the very least he needs to address quickly the self-inflicted wounds, such as the ongoing concerns about the abolition of the 10p tax rate. Then if there is a period when crises are not whirling around him, he might have the chance to be heard with at least a degree of respect.

At that point, he should state more clearly what drives him as a leader. Mr Brown chooses not to speak directly because he is worried about offending parts of New Labour's big tent. At least he should realise now there is virtually no one left in the tent. There are no risks any longer of speaking his mind and dropping the deliberately oblique language.'

//////////

Andrew Sparrow in "Time for some Tony Blair revisionism" is one of the present crop who makes sense, though it doesn't address where they go from here. Enough sense anyway for me to comment there. Time for me to make a new video?

'Get ready for a wave of Blair revisionism. I haven't heard anyone publicly calling for his return yet, but there are some clues in the papers today that it could be only a matter of time before someone floats the idea.

Blair is not coming back, and I don't know anyone who would even seriously consider it as a possibility.

But when he left office he was written off as an electoral liability. When the first anniversary of his departure comes up, I suspect the verdict will be different.'

//////////

Anatole Koletsky in the Times says - "Clinton & Brown: Dreams that died" Labeling the often successful triangulation as "hypocrisy" he says:

'But when politicians' reputations are sliding, this dynamic goes into reverse. Instead of getting credit for both the positions they espouse - for example, better public services and lower taxes - the public gives them credit for neither.

Such a loss of credibility is particularly dangerous for left-of-centre politicians because of the last, and probably the most important, common feature of the political reverses suffered by Mrs Clinton and Mr Brown.

This is the alienation of prosperous, idealistic middle-class voters and the resulting loss of support from the elite liberal media that tend to reflect their views. For right-wing parties the attitudes of the bien-pensant liberal media do not matter much, because conservative politicians who advocate low taxes and small government can generally appeal to most prosperous voters on the basis of pure economic self-interest. Left-of-centre parties, by contrast, can only achieve power by creating a coalition of economically motivated working-class voters and highly educated middle-class voters, who vote for left-wing parties because of their liberal ideals.

That, at least, seems to be the lesson of recent history, especially since the end of the Cold War. A left-wing politician who loses the support of this liberal constituency is probably doomed.'

//////////

THE CHALLENGES TO BROWN

No, but yeah, but ...

On the Right - David Miliband says No. "Reports in the press are rubbish".

On the Left - John McDonnell says Yes. "I give him [Brown] six months”.

On The World This Weekend (last weekend) - Ronnie Campbell MP, Blyth Valley, (’not exactly supportive of Tony’ according to David Miliband on the same programme), said:

“I didn’t always agree with Tony Blair and his policies but I was always confident with Tony, with Gordon I’m not so sure that I’m confident with him. We’re forgetting our core voters [...] If Gordon Brown can’t handle it he should get out and get somebody in that can handle it. The heartlands of the northeast are not Labour any more.”

And this from an unsuccessful Labour candidate in county Durham (Blair’s heartland.)

Vince Crosby:

“What I got as I knocked on the door was ‘bring back Tony Blair’ - there was a lot of disquiet about the leadership of the Labour party at national level … the 10p tax, pensioner rates. I don’t think he’s got the charisma that Tony Blair had [...] and he can’t communicate to the people. He can’t get his message across.”

This is not the first time a Labour MP has said this, and it won’t be the last. Even those who were part of the coup against Blair in September 2006, now realise that THAT was THEIR biggest mistake. And many punters on the doorstep last week echoed the call for a return of Blair.

Well, I wish I could say better late than never. But even if the combined ranks of Labour got down on their bended knees and grovelled to The Previous and begged him to return as an MP (and God knows HOW - he’s no longer an MP) to grasp back the premier’s reins, the wooden legs are waving.

And Miliband. Well, who KNOWS? But Tony Blair he ain’t.

He of the “people will be saying, wouldn’t it be great to have that Blair back because we can’t stand that Gordon Brown” described rumours of meetings to discuss his standing against Brown for the leadership as “absolute rubbish”.

“I’ve always believed Brown was the right man to take over from Tony Blair [...] Brown has shown [sic] both vision and drive and determination when times are tough. Thursday was a referendum and a general election is a choice.”

I guess the chalice does not contain his kind of ‘poison’.

There’s always these two:

Left-wing MP John Cruddas wrote in an article in the Sunday Mirror that the party was “sinking fast” and working-class voters felt “let down” as Labour sought the middle-class vote.

And another Left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell denied he was considering a possible “stalking horse” leadership challenge but told the BBC the whole cabinet should consider their positions if they could not turn the party around within six months. He also said he would be launching policies (?!) over the next six weeks! So, it sounds like a campaign is undeway with or without Mr Miliband.

And to stop that lady waving her leg again, John Hutton, the Blairite Business Minister, has added his thoughts to the melee saying that Labour must not lose Blair’s appeal to the south (that elusive aspiring Middle England).

Ri-i-i-ight!

//////////

BLAIR’S TOO GOOD FOR THE ROOM

As one of the world’s foremost statesmen, Tony, despite the knives in his back, is still helping Brown to “win the next election”, according to Cherie. And I recall Brown himself saying he spoke to Tony often. PMs have few to turn to in such moments as this.

And Blair is still considering if he should abandon any remaining EU presidency ambitions. He is still busy with his Middle East peace peace envoy responsibilities. And he is lecturing in Yale from the autumn. Not to mention his other advisory roles.

Wonder how many such posts will await Brown post premiership?

Blair? Sorry to be on an endless loop here, but he’s “too good for the room”.

Sunday Herald Scotland:

“If we have a new leader now, some believe it could mean we will lose the next election by a smaller amount than will happen under Gordon. Others predict a change of leader would fracture the party and we’d lose by more. And there are others still who believe that if get rid of Gordon now we could win the next election. Which is the correct option? Nobody knows.”

For another MP, who accepts the leadership debate, however silent, has arrived and won’t go away, there will be “no point in changing leaders if our policies remain the same.” This advice, however, came with a political caveat and a warning to those on the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party who believe the pressure on Brown can bring about a return of old Labour values and old Labour solutions: “The type of social democracy that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown brought in with new Labour is with us to stay. A change of leader will not bring about a new political philosophy inside the Labour Party.”

//////////

JAW DROPPING! THE ON-OFF SMILING BROWN’S ‘YOUNGSTERS & PYGMIES’

Adam Boulton of Sky got into the interviewing Brown act too after Labour’s poll pounding, and had some fun pointing to the ‘youngsters and pygmies’ in the Brown cabinet. Mr Brown was at his jaw-dropping worst here and in the Andrew Marr Show. His default “time to think mode”. He seemed to have lost the habit in recent times but now it’s back with a vengeance. He has this strange habit of smiling at exactly the wrong moment - and the smile disappears as quickly as it appears and with as little reason. I am sure that he didn’t used to do this. And I can hardly imagine that he is doing it to order. No PR person would suggest THIS, surely?

We should watch the jaw-drops. Perhaps William Hill will use it as a “watch Brown losing it” measure: The more jawdrops per interview, the longer the odds.

MAY DAY, MAY DAY

It’s only about their own necks, anyway, it seems. Much as half the Labout party are still Blairites/some Brownites whatever that is/some Unreconstructed Old Lefties, and some trying to decide - they’d sacrifice the leader tomorrow if it meant they could have a better chance to stay in their seats and jobs post the next general election.

That sounds a very critical and harsh judgement on our MPs. But it’s only human nature. The alternative would be people who have worked hard in politics but don’t really care enough to wish to remain doing the jobs they love.

//////////

BORIS OUSTS KEN

And as for Boris Jonstone, well, what can I say? Tripping up the “booby-trap” steps in the building where Blair’s new Mayoralty for London first saw the light of day, he was near to the very spot where Tony Blair stood 11 years ago to the day May 2nd 2007, and said, “A new dawn has broken, has it not?” I half-expected Boris to say, “a new dusk has broken, has it not?”.

Times Online video on the night of the local elections - they did MUCH worse than this projection of losing “up to 200 seats. He lost - 300+ AND the Mayoralty of London. And they DID get Bury.
BBC coverage and video THE START OF THE FALL OF BROWN?
The sun sets on New Labour
John Rentoul: The day Boris became mayor was the beginning of the end for Dave.

Andrew Marr interview with Gordon Brown on 6th October, 2007, when he confirmed he would not be having a general election.

Other commenters and bloggers’ thoughts

A good blog article - “Why Has It All Gone Wrong For Gordon?”
The American Thinker - on the decline of Leftism in Europe - and what it might mean for the USA.
All Hail Macbeth - for the time being.
David Jones, MP - analysis of Brown interview
Brown’s fightback options on Sky
And if that’s not bad enough, read Cranmer here on How Gordon Brown really went down in the USA (”down” being the operative word).
Watch part of Brown’s interview with Adam Boulton
Watch Brown’s interview with Andrew Marr following election hammering, May 2008
And what did Blair say to Adam Boulton on the local elections? Watch video here

Cherie - “Gordon Pushed Tony Out” - Surprise! Surprise!

keeptonyblairforpm — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:28:33 +0000

Home
Cherie’s book extract, Part 1, as in The Times
Read the Sun’s serialisation here - “How Dare Gordon Do That?”
The Times - Tony advises Gordon now, but he didn’t trust Brown to retain his domestic policy changes
Watch the BBC video on this

[Pic: No. 10 - Cherie Blair accuses her husband’s successor of "rattling the keys above his head" as far back as April 2004.]

BROWN’S AMBITION WAS TO SHIFT BLAIR

[Brown was determined to take over from Blair, as though it were his due]

BUT NOW TONY IS ‘HELPING GORDON TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION’

(So he can’t quite manage it on his won, then?)

UPDATE - 11th May, 2008

I had to add this link from Matthew d’Ancona in Sunday’s Telegraph because it makes some points that others have missed. For instance:

As I have written in this space before, the real problem between Tony and Gordon was not the hate but the residual love: what one Cabinet member described to me as “all that blood brother stuff”.

And this:

The central fact, the dominant narrative of the Blair years, was Brown’s demand for a departure date.

From the moment in May 1994 when it was agreed that Gordon would step aside and give Tony a clear run at the leadership, to June 2007 when Blair finally left Number 10, this running argument consumed the two men, poisoned their relationship and snarled up day-to-day administration.

Indeed, it sometimes seemed that the Labour Government was no more than a gigantic, fractious timetabling committee with a single issue on its agenda: how soon the PM would leave. All of which was most peculiar for the rest of us to behold, given that Blair racked up three election victories, two by landslide, exceeding even Margaret Thatcher’s aggregate of parliamentary majorities.

Why on earth would he resign just to give Gordon a turn, as if Number 10 were a Nintendo DS to be shared by the children? Since when was the governance of Britain organised on a rota basis? What a ridiculous way to run a country. Still, that is the way New Labour has run it.

Ancient history? Far from it. If the question for 13 years was “When will Tony go?” the question now is “Was it really worth it, Gordon?” Disconsolate, embattled, exhausted, Brown increasingly resembles the Macbeth of Act V, king in no more than title, wondering whether the whole thing was all, after all, “a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing.”

How shattering, after such a long wait in the ante-chamber of power, to find that the job is so hard, to be told every day that you are not up to it; perhaps, in your darkest moments, to wonder whether Tony was better qualified all along.

BACK TO CHERIE

“TONY SHOULD STILL BE PRIME MINISTER” SAYS CHERIE

Comment at end

10th May, 2008

The Sun has what it calls an ‘exclusive’ interview with Cherie Blair in the run-up to the publication of her book. The Times too has its own interview.

GORDON Brown HOUNDED Tony Blair out of office, the wife of the former PM dramatically claims today.

Cherie Blair accuses her husband’s successor of “rattling the keys above his head” as far back as April 2004.

She fought to stop him standing down.

Cherie, 53 — whose autobiography is being serialised in The Sun — says the two ARE talking now.

But she admits: “I thought he was putting too much pressure on Tony to leave when Tony wasn’t ready.”

In her book — and a bombshell interview [ ...] — the mum of four finally breaks her silence about life in Downing Street.

She exposes the truth behind the rifts, the rivalries, friendships and fallouts.

Top QC Cherie says: “Tony used to say in terms of ability that Gordon was way ahead of everyone.

“The irony is, if they’d only worked as closely as originally agreed, Gordon’s chance would have come sooner.”

Brown & Blair worked closely on the “New Labour” project

Theirs was a love/hate relationship

Brown felt he had been robbed of the top job in 1994 when Blair became leader. He felt it was his due that Blair should hand over the party leadership and premiership to him some time in the second term.

//////////

Cherie’s book is titled “Speaking For Myself” so Tony clearly knows his place and has little influence on what his top barrister wife says, or how she says it. I suppose we can be grateful that she says they are now talking and that Mr Blair is advising Mr Brown on winning the next election. Funny that. I’d have thought Gordon might have noticed how Tony did that already - over the last three elections. Maybe he wasn’t paying attention.

//////////

Read The Sun’s exclusive - by Victoria Newton

CHERIE Blair sensationally has confessed how she was enraged by Gordon Brown — as she lifted the lid in The Sun on what life was REALLY like at No10.

The ex-PM’s wife — in an exclusive interview with Britain’s No1 paper — told for the first time how she was UPSET at husband Tony being badgered to quit by his then Chancellor.

Mum-of-four Cherie spoke out as The Sun begins serialisation of her autobiography — in which she even admits to being LIVID when Gordon suddenly froze ministers’ pay.

Cherie claims it scuppered her plans for managing the family budget.

And she tells how when she found out, she held her head in her HANDS — exclaiming: “How dare Gordon do that!”

Her explosive book Speaking For Myself appears in The Sun next week. But in an intimate interview with me, she finally broke her silence about her ten years as a Prime Minister’s wife. Cherie, 53, candidly revealed to me:

Tony STUMBLED as he met the Queen — ending up with his face in her hand as he bowed to kiss it.

Just like Deputy PM John Prescott he battled with his WEIGHT — because of the endless round of banquets he had to attend.

She was never afraid of him CHEATING on her — and she told how as a busy mother of four she kept their MARRIAGE alive.

Their lives have now dramatically CHANGED since he left office.

Cherie — a working class girl from Crosby in Liverpool, who rose to become a top QC — was dubbed the Lady Macbeth of Downing Street while her husband held the country’s top job.

Critics slammed her as a money-grubbing Wicked Witch — only interested in the status and riches that came with Tony’s position.

But she seized her opportunity to finally put the record straight, telling of her struggle to hold down a marriage, run a family and still be a successful barrister.

Cherie told me: “There were times where I’d go into court in the morning after having my hair and make up done because I was going to a function later in the day — but I’d have to try and balance my wig so it didn’t completely ruin my hair.

“Then I’d go to the function, rush back to No 10, then back home to feed the kids. It was a very, very busy schedule.”

She added: “I was lucky though — I had a wonderful nanny and my mum would come up and help.”

Cherie was furious when Gordon Brown vetoed a 26 per cent pay rise for MPs — which had been agreed before Tony came to power.

She pointed out that at the time Gordon was a single man with no children — and claimed he sprang the move without consulting anyone.

But she stressed to me: “If I’ve had any problems with Gordon it was only because I thought he was putting too much pressure on Tony to leave when Tony wasn’t ready.

Strained hug … wife of PM greets Brown in 2002

“Gordon and I have had our ups and downs. And when it came down to it, I think Gordon would be astonished if I wasn’t my husband’s biggest supporter. I’m sure Gordon’s wife Sarah is his.”

The loathing she and her husband’s successor had for each other was legendary.

Cherie — who compared Tony to WINSTON CHURCHILL — stressed that her husband had always supported the new PM.

She revealed the pair have been talking a lot in recent weeks, with Tony apparently giving Gordon advice to help him turn things around in time for the next election.

Cherie threw her head back and roared with laughter when I asked her if she agreed with Lord Desai’s comment: “Gordon Brown was put on this planet to show how brilliant Tony Blair was.”

With a cheeky grin, she said: “Well, as his wife, I would say that Tony is brilliant.”

She reckons he should have CARRIED ON as PM instead of finally standing down to make way for Gordon last June.

Cherie said: “Tony always felt that this was a job he couldn’t do forever. He’d always thought two terms or maybe ten years.

“I favoured the ten years because it fitted in better with getting the children through school, doing their A-levels — that was from a purely selfish family point of view. There comes a time when you have to move on. I was very proud that Tony recognised that and moved on and made such a great transition..

“There had been many times before when he’d thought he might stand down and I told him I didn’t think it was the right time.

“I’m really proud that Tony left No10 on his own terms at a time when he left the country and the party in good shape.”

Cherie said: “It’s a hard and lonely job being PM and I think Tony was absolutely fantastic. But when he first went to see the Queen he stumbled and fell on her hand instead of just brushing over it with his lips like you’re supposed to. She told him her first PM was Winston Churchill. I said to him then her tenth PM was going to be as good as Winston Churchill. I, in my completely unbiased opinion, think he certainly did that.”

The toughest time for HER in Downing Street was the Fostergate scandal — when she was accused of allowing conman Peter Foster to negotiate a cheap price for her on two flats she was buying in Bristol.

But she is grateful she never had to go through anything like the torment her pal Hillary Clinton faced when hubby Bill’s fling with Monica Lewinsky was exposed.

Asked if she ever worried about Tony cheating on her, she declared: “Never. Tony is a deeply religious person and he takes his wedding vows very seriously. He’s probably more religious than I am. He’s the one who has chosen to become a Catholic now and he has his morals and takes it seriously. I’m much more lacksidasical.”

She revealed she fancied him from the first moment they met — adding: “I still do.”

She said their lives have been transformed since leaving No10.

Slimline Tony has even beaten his weight problem.

Cherie said: “When he was in No10 he would go to the gym. It’s a great release of the pressure. I think he’s lost weight more recently because he doesn’t have as much stress now that he’s not in the job.

Also, as Prime Minister quite often you are literally eating for your country at state functions.” The couple have bought a new house in the country now they have more time to spend together.

Cherie admitted: “I think to some extent we certainly have got our lives back.”

Did she have any advice for Sarah Brown? Cherie said: “Hillary Clinton did give me some good advice. She said, in the end, you aren’t going to be able to win.

“There are going to be some things that people will criticise, and you’ve just got to remember the most important thing is to be true to yourself, and do what you feel comfortable doing. So if that’s advice, then I pass it on.”

v.newton@the-sun.co.uk

Updates to the above Sun article can be read here, including:

Cherie admitted it was tough holding a marriage down and running a family while being a barrister.

She explained: “There were times where I’d go into court in the morning after having my hair and make-up done because I was going to a function later in the day, but I’d have to try and balance my wig so it didn’t completely ruin my hair. Then I’d go to the function, rush back to No10, then back home to feed the kids.

“It was a very, very busy schedule. I was lucky though — I had a wonderful nanny and my mum would come up and help.”

In the flesh, I found Cherie much slimmer, prettier and younger-looking than I imagined.

Her toughest time at No 10 was the Fostergate scandal — when she was accused of allowing conman Peter Foster to negotiate a cheap price on two flats she was buying in Bristol.

But she is grateful she never had to go through the torment Hillary Clinton faced when Bill’s fling with Monica Lewinsky was exposed.

Was she ever worried about Tony cheating on her? “Never. Tony is a deeply religious person and takes his wedding vows very seriously.

“He’s probably more religious than I am. He’s the one who has chosen to become a Catholic now. He has his morals and takes it seriously. I’m much more lacksadaisical.”

Now the couple have more time to spend together and have just bought a house in the country.

Cherie said: “To some extent we certainly have got our lives back.”

Slimline Tony has won the weight battle he fought as PM. Cherie said: “I think he’s lost weight because he doesn’t have as much stress.

“As Prime Minister, quite often you are eating for your country. On visits to Arab countries, if you eat everything on your plate they take that as meaning you haven’t had enough. So they give you more.”

Cherie joked she has had to teach Tony to use a mobile phone and surf the internet — because as PM others did those tasks for him.

She said: “It’s a lonely job being PM and Tony was fantastic. But when he first went to see the Queen, he fell on her hand instead of brushing over it with his lips.

“She told him that her first PM was Winston Churchill. I said to him her tenth PM was going to be as good as Churchill. In my unbiased opinion, he did that.”

You can’t help but admire Cherie for her unswerving loyalty to her husband, and you have to respect all she has achieved. For a working class girl from Crosby in Liverpool, she’s not done too badly.

//////////

AND ANOTHER THING … IN THE TIMES …

The Times - The Truth About Tony & Gordon

Tony Blair is advising Gordon Brown during his current turmoil and has told him how he can win the next general election, Cherie Blair reveals in The Times today.

She says that Mr Blair would have stood down before the 2005 election if only Mr Brown had been prepared to implement her husband’s public service reforms.

Mr Blair suffered a “crisis of confidence” over Iraq and feared that he had become an electoral liability. But with Mr Brown “rattling the keys above his head” he decided to stay and fight for his domestic legacy.

Mr Brown failed to understand that if he had backed Mr Blair’s plans on city academies, foundation hospitals and pensions, “Tony would have stood down, there is no question”, she says. “Instead of which Tony felt he had no option but to stay on and fight for the things he believed in.”

Mrs Blair’s disclosures are contained in her autobiography, Speaking for Myself, which is serialised in The Times today and next week, catching the political and publishing worlds unawares as it was originally intended to appear in October.

It provides the most authoritative account so far of the reasons why Mr Blair decided not to stand down before the 2005 election and lays bare the tensions throughout the Blair years between the Prime Minister’s wife and the Chancellor then.

In an interview with The Times and in extracts, Mrs Blair:

— Demolishes the myth of the Gran-ita pact. It has always been suggested that Mr Blair and Mr Brown struck a deal over the leadership in the Isling-ton restaurant of that name. In fact, she says, the discussions took place in her sister’s home days earlier;

— Reveals that she told Mr Blair in 1994 that it would be “ridiculous” that he should agree with Mr Brown to have only one term as leader;

— Reveals that Mr Blair used to tell Mr Brown that if he wanted to be leader he needed to get married;

— Discloses her fury with Mr Brown after he told ministers at Labour’s first Cabinet meeting in 1997 not to take a 26 per cent pay rise. “How dare Gor-don do that? What did he know about financial commitments? He was a bachelor living on his own in a flat with a small mortgage”;

— Denies that her former “style guru” Carole Caplin is “dodgy”, says that it was her idea that Ms Caplin should give Mr Blair massages and insists that it was Ms Caplin who “kept me thin”.

She insists that she takes no pleasure from Mr Brown’s current difficulties even though “Gordon’s impatience” to take over from Mr Blair was a problem that her husband could have done without.

She acknowledges “the problem between Gordon and me” but denies that it is anything personal. It was because she had thought that her husband was the best person for the job. “So I was just terribly partisan for Tony and I’m sure Sarah is partisan for Gordon, and so she should be.”

Mrs Blair categorically denies the claim by Lord Levy recently that Mr Blair did not think that Mr Brown could beat David Cameron. “Lord Levy doesn’t know anything,” she says. “I know that Tony thinks Gordon could win the election and I know that he has spoken to Gordon about how he could do that. Tony has given Gordon advice. He and Gordon talk to each other even now.”

In the book Mrs Blair says that Mr Blair made it plain to Mr Brown in 1994 that he had no intention of remaining leader for ever and that when he did stand down he would support Mr Brown as his successor. “My own reading of the myth – that is, that a deal was done at Granita – was that Gordon didn’t want to admit that he’s agreed anything without first discussing it with his people.”

//////////

Read the first part of Cherie’s memoirs - Speaking for Myself, as in The Times, 10th May 2008

And here in The TImes Online, Roland White says:

Cherie counts the cost of not knifing Gordon in her memoirs

Tony Blair is teaching Gordon Brown how to win elections. Or so says Cherie Blair. Yet if the beleaguered prime minister wants marketing tips from a really classy operator, perhaps he should watch Cherie in action instead.

The former prime minister’s wife has written a book about her time in Downing Street. Called Speaking for Myself, it will be serialised this week in The Times and The Sun.

From yesterday’s coverage you might have got the impression that Cherie will be telling all. Yet only last month Atticus revealed that she is leaving out the juiciest bits under pressure from Tony.

“Cherie is desperate to really go for Gordon,” a source close to the Blairs told us. “After all, she was the one that had to listen to Tony, night after night, complaining about what a nightmare Gordon was.” In fact, I can reveal that Cherie has lost £200,000 in serialisation rights because she refuses to plunge the knife into Gordon’s back, let alone twist it.

Mrs Blair, a lifelong Labour supporter, presumably hopes Gordon can repay her by winning the general election. Which now seems about as likely as John Prescott turning down a second helping.

How others are reporting this story

Associated press: Cherie to Tony - “If you agree with Gordon … one term only, don’t come back home”

“It was always a given that they would work in tandem and that when Tony stood down Gordon would take over. Tony also made it clear to Gordon that he had no intention of staying leader forever and that when he did stand down he would support Gordon as his natural successor, assuming they worked well together … in the meantime,” she wrote.

“As far as I know the timing was never discussed but when Tony left for Lyndsey’s, I made my position perfectly clear, even if I framed it as a joke. ‘If you agree with Gordon that you’re going to do this for one term only, don’t come back home. Because that’s just ridiculous,’” she wrote.

The Press Association says her comments risk re-opening old wounds as Brown suffers in the polls, (real and opinion.)

Yahoo News says it might be a surprise that Blair is helping Brown to win the next election, given that Brown pushed Blair out. (Perhaps ‘the project’ is more important than the men.)

Here, The Times describes the secrecy and sadness behind Mrs Blair’s success in evading the press as to her book’s early release. Good for her. Neither she nor her husband are now accountable to the ferals.

This Reuters report mentions the fact that Blair hung onto power longer than he might have because he feared Brown would undo his public service reforms. He was probably right. Up until June 2007 Blair worked like crazy to embed his Health & Education reforms. Now, Brown cannot undo them, even if he wanted to.

SG Politics says: Her disdain for him [Brown], and her admirable belief in her husband, only reawakes memories of when Labour used to win things - under Tony. She also suggests that Tony would have stood down earlier if he had any confidence in Brown’s willingness to maintain his public service reforms.

My thoughts:

I’ve been watching The Sun’s slow move to the Right since Blair left - and even for some time before that. They have been on the lookout for some time for a decent Tory leader that they can trust. Now that Mr Blair has gone - and they DID trust New Labour at one time - I venture it won’t be long before The Murdoch empire moves sharply right.

Cameron might just fit the bill. This is almost inevitable, notwithstanding the fact that Cameron is no Blair. Blair, free from Brown’s reluctance, is now FAR too European for Mr Murdoch, a virulent europhobe. And the EU presidency campaign, which I do NOT believe is over, but perhaps has only just begun, will have hammered the nail in the Blair / Labour coffin for sure. Blair, Murdoch, Brown and Cameron all know that.

It will be with interest that we watch David Cameron try to find a sure-footing when the EU question - the Tory fault line - is next raised.

Perhaps there’s your next big campaign, Mr Brown. Persuade the British people that they really DO need to be proper Europeans. After all you are just about Murdoch-less now. Nothing to lose.

All change at the top?

Other related pages at this site:

Blair Video - Gone but Not Forgotten - “Should I stay …?”

keeptonyblairforpm — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:41:20 +0000

Home
Go to Blair Videos Page - to fill that Blair-shaped hole in politics
Watch my videos on Tony Blair at YouTube

Comment at end

8th May, 2008

SHOULD I HAVE STAYED OR SHOULD I HAVE GONE?

A cumbersome title to fit into a re-jigging and updating of this video. But the original’s very good anyway, and worth watching, if only to remind us of what we used to have, pre-Brown.

Don’t take every word at face value, by the way. He actually said, “You make your own luck“.

And the bit about … “if I go there will be trouble; if I stay it will be double” … should have been the other way round!

BLAIR MOBBED IN JENIN

Watch Sky News video - Blair on the Middle East & Labour’s Meltdown

MYTHS UNCOVERED

Yeah, we KNOW, Mr John Rentoul and Mr Simon Hoggart, that it was “Yeah Blair”, NOT “Yo, Blair”! Are you sure you press boys are up to this investigative journalism stuff?!?

ORIGINAL 1991 LYRICS OF CLASH’S ‘SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?’

Darling you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go
If you say that you are mine
I’ll be here ’til the end of time
So you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go

It’s always tease, tease, tease
You’re happy when I’m on my knees
One day is fine, the next is black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I Stay or should I go

Should I stay or should I go now
Should I stay or should I go now
If I go there will be trouble
An’ if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecision’s bugging me
(Esta undecision me molesta)
If you don’t want me, set me free
(Si no me quieres, librame)
Exactly whom I’m supposed to be
(Diga me que tengo ser)
Don’t you know which clothes even fit me
(¿Saves que robas me queurda)
Come on and let me know
(Me tienes que desir)
Should I cool it or should I blow
(¿Me debo ir o quedarme)

Split

(¿Yo me frio o lo sophlo)

Should I stay or should I go now
(¿Yo me frio o lo sophlo?)
Should I stay or should I go now
(¿Yo me frio o lo sophlo?)
If I go there will be trouble
(Si me voi va ver peligro)
And if I stay it will be double
(Si me quedo es doble)
So you gotta let me know
(Me tienes que decir)
Should I commit or should I blow
(¿Yo me frio o lo sophlo)
Should I stay or should I go now
(¿Yo me frio o lo sophlo?)
If I go there will be trouble
(Si me voi va ver peligro)
And if I stay it will be double
(Si me quedo es doble)
So you gotta let me know
(Me tienes que decir)
Should I stay or should I go

Tony Blair

Prescott’s Memoirs - “scared” Blair reneged on Brown

PRESCOTT CAN TELL TALES TOO! SO THERE, CHERIE (& Lord Levy)!

WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD BULLY?

BLAIR SHOULD HAVE “RENEGED” ONE MORE TIME!

PRESCOTT: “I TOLD TONY BLAIR TO SACK GORDON BROWN”

Related Links

BBC - Prescott’s memoirs

Brownites say: “Bring Back Tony Blair”

EVENTS … EVENTS … EVENTS … TOO MANY TO KEEP UP WITH, MR CLUNKING FIST BROWN!

BLAIR THE COMEBACK KID? No Chance!

GUARDIANISTO JOURNOS CHEW THE CUD

THE CHALLENGES TO BROWN

JAW DROPPING! THE ON-OFF SMILING BROWN’S ‘YOUNGSTERS & PYGMIES’

BORIS OUSTS KEN

Other commenters and bloggers’ thoughts

Cherie - “Gordon Pushed Tony Out” - Surprise! Surprise!

BROWN’S AMBITION WAS TO SHIFT BLAIR

BUT NOW TONY IS ‘HELPING GORDON TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION’

BACK TO CHERIE

“TONY SHOULD STILL BE PRIME MINISTER” SAYS CHERIE

Read The Sun’s exclusive - by Victoria Newton

AND ANOTHER THING … IN THE TIMES …

How others are reporting this story

Other related pages at this site:

Blair Video - Gone but Not Forgotten - “Should I stay …?”

SHOULD I HAVE STAYED OR SHOULD I HAVE GONE?

BLAIR MOBBED IN JENIN

MYTHS UNCOVERED

ORIGINAL 1991 LYRICS OF CLASH’S ‘SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?’