Broken Vows: Tony Blair: The Tragedy of Power

by Tom Bower

Broken Tony Blair The Tragedy of Power [Hardcover] Bower, Tom

Genres: Politics, Biography, History, Nonfiction, 20th Century

653 pages, Hardcover

First published March 3, 2016

About the author

For the author of works on child development, see T.G.R. Bower

Tom Bower (born 28 September 1946) is a British writer, noted for his investigative journalism and for his unauthorized biographies.

A former Panorama reporter, his books include unauthorised biographies of Tiny Rowland, Robert Maxwell, Mohamed Al-Fayed, Geoffrey Robinson, Gordon Brown and Richard Branson.

He won the 2003 William Hill Sports Book of the Year Award for Broken Dreams, an investigation into corruption in English football. His joint biography of Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel Conrad and Lady Black: Dancing on the Edge was published in November 2006, and an unsuccessful libel case over a passing mention of Daily Express proprietor Richard Desmond in the book was heard in July 2009.

An unauthorised biography by Bower of Richard Desmond, provisionally entitled Rough Trader, awaits publication. Bowers's biography of Simon Cowell, written with Cowell's co-operation, was published on 20 April, 2012.

Bower is married to Veronica Wadley, former editor of the London Evening Standard, and has four children.

Reviews

[Athan Tolis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a 594 page book.

It was, for lack of a better word, a bad book. Thank God I’m done with it.

I’m not sure who the intended audience is. I read the FT every day, thoroughly, and I follow the politics closely and have lived in the UK since 1992. I listen to Radio 4 and used to make an effort to watch the 9 o’clock news (now the 10 o’clock news). I vote in local elections, Tory for mayor and Lib Dem for everything else.

With the best intentions on earth, I completely lost track of what's what. So if the author was making an effort to keep a reasonably well-informed and very interested anti-Labour reader with him, 600 pages did not suffice for him to weave some sort of narrative that would allow me to keep track of some of the main characters, policies, ideas, anything.

Not that Tony Blair, the subject matter of the book, makes this easy. The book is a history of the travails of the 4 ministers in charge of Health, the 5 ministers in charge of Education, the 7 who had a go at Immigration, the 3 who were ignored in the Foreign Office, the sundry permanent secretaries, gurus, press officers, confidantes, generals, admirals, spies and fixers he went through in his ten years in 10 Downing Street, his refusal to protect his closer lieutenants, his special relationship with George Bush, his not-so-special relationship with Gordon Brown and, of course, IRAQ.

Regardless, no narrative emerges, no thread. And the author has barely a good word to say for anyone. Statistically speaking, one or two of the main 50 characters in this tragedy must have been OK guys, but no, not here. Reid comes across as handy; a "safe pair of fists." That gave me a laugh.

If the intention was to prove that it was chaos and the manner to convey the chaos was to plunge the reader in 600 pages of chaos, then mission accomplished.

I totally despise Tony Blair, but at some point I did find myself thinking “well, the guy won the election on the premise that he will meet the Tories halfway, why is the entire Labour party refusing to listen,” or alternatively “he’s spending all this money on schools and hospitals and teachers and doctors and administrators, how awful that the results are not coming,” or “damn that tight-fisted Gordon Brown,” but I did have to do it over the author’s heckling about immigration and a 40% debt/GDP (give us a break, bud, that was the lowest in the G20) and I got the feeling the book’s whole point is to confuse you to the point where you feel you’re surfing along with a God-fearing Chauncey Gardner who talks big enough a game bring his party into power, only for them to make a dog’s dinner of the opportunity and in a bout of frustration starts a war in the Middle East to get away from it all.

So I was starting to think there was method in the madness, and then on page 571 I lost all faith in any detail the author provides when JP Morgan banker Ian Hannam is described as “mining diamonds in Sierra Leone.” Ian Hannam may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but he’s a pretty straight guy, he was one of the SAS who stormed the Iranian Embassy back in the day and he later in life had the guts to take on the might of the FCA and judging from the rest of the book would probably very much be to the author’s liking if Tom Bower had bothered to check.

And all that’s fine. But get the bloody name straight. It’s Ian Hannam, not Hamman.

I did not mind too much that the author is bigoted (we all have our faults) or that he has an axe to grind. I don’t’ mind that Blair’s success in Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement is not covered here. I’m rather prejudiced myself in my feelings against Tony Blair, besides. But I got nothing out of this book, especially now that I know I cannot trust the sundry juicy stories about his post-premiership sell-out. It’s a slapped-together mess with no beginning, no middle and no end. The conclusion to this 594 page tome takes up less than a page!

Bottom line, if I did not like this book, I have no idea who will. Perhaps somebody who knows all the detail and wants to have some fun guessing who served what angle to the author. If that does not describe you, stay away.

[Kieran · Rating 2 out of 5]

Think what you will of Tony Blair. He had many failings, and the chapters on his post-premiership activities were insightful and damning.

But, I can't believe that in 10 years in office, he got absolutely nothing right. The book presents his entire premiership as one disastrous day after another, with no redeeming features. These bits were not history or biography. They were moaning, and tediously repetitive moaning at that.

[SD · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 ⭐️

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Fully reveals everything that happened in the Blair era. Extraordinary

[Rupert Matthews · Rating 2 out of 5]

Basically, this book is too long.
As the title would suggest, this book is about what went wrong with the Blair government.
The author marshals his facts well, gives useful quotes from the main players and takes the time to explain not only what is going on but the background to the decisions being made and discussions held. He clearly sets out to explain the policies that Labour brought into office in 1997, what they were intended to achieve and then how those policies survived [or didn't] the collision with reality. Sometimes a policy failed because vested interests undermined it. Sometimes because it proved to be far more expensive than had been thought. Still others collapsed because they simply were bad policies. The author is happy to apportion blame where he thinks it should fall. For instance, he is scathing about the failings of the intelligence community and their assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
On the whole, however, his view is that the Labour politicians and their advisors who came to power in 1997 simply had not thought things through properly. It was a lack of preparation that undermined Blair's governments - though the spin and PR masters managed to hide that from the public for years.
All well and good. The problem for me is that the author goes into such enormous detail that unless you are really interested in politics, policy implementation and administrative practice you are going to lose interest long before you reach page 600. At half the length this book would have been able to retain the interest of the more casual reader. A shame. It is a great book let down by that fault and so I give it only 3 stars.

[John Morton · Rating 3 out of 5]

well written, informative and revealing.

[Chris Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of this review is so I can hold on to my thoughts down the line: I'm quite new to politics and I wanted to understand Blair's place in the narrative. So it's quite lengthy. But please read by all means if you're interested in my thoughts!

I have little doubt that most of the stuff in here is broadly true, otherwise Blair would surely have sued. But I have numerous issues which, in the end, stopped me taking the book too seriously.

I don't think Bower is the best person to write this biography. There's no pretence of objectivity, and quite often he makes judgemental statements without evidence to back them up (see this review from the London Review of Books for more on this, as well as a mention of Bower's factual innaccuracies: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n07/david-ru...).

The picture of Blair that emerges is a borderline psychopath: narcissistic, insubstantial, lacking in empathy and full of empty charisma. The picture of his government that emerges is farcical and satirical. Perhaps these two portrayals are accurate - I have no evidence to say otherwise, and Bower certainly interviewed a lot of insiders.

My problem was that the book often betrayed something that seemed like a vendetta. At one point Bower describes Blair's banter with Alistair Campbell, recounting how Blair paraded around shirtless in No.10 saying, "Not many Prime Ministers have a body like this." I actually thought this was mildy endearing and pretty much reflected the humour shared by many friends, but in the context of the book it's clear that Bower simply wants to make Blair look even more ridiculous than he is rendered by the portrayals of chaos in Blair's professional life. I found these instances unnecessary and distracting.

Bower often describes Blair's thought process, putting his thoughts in quotation marks as if they can be reproduced verbatim ('That's very strange,' thought Blair). This was another factor that stopped me taking the book entirely seriously.

He also makes assertions which may be true, but were undermined by my lack of confidence in him as a biographer due to the above niggles. He asserts that Blair was the politician who was primarily responsible for the erosion of the public's trust in politicians. I was a bone headed teenager at the time of Blair's premiership, so I can't really speak from experience, and perhaps this is true - certainly Blair's chicanery around Iraq and his deployment of Campbell's spin machine could constitute depths of deception not seen before by the public? But come on - Thatcher alienated swathes of society, Eden deceived the British public about Suez, and Blair took office from a Tory government beset by sleaze. I don't know if Blair can be said to have been the sole culprit for the lack of trust we now have in officials, and let's face it, there's been plenty of corruption and conflicts of interest under the governments that followed his.

I was annoyed that there was very little said about the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Wasn't this one of Blair's big achievements? I wanted to know more about this, but I didn't find it in here, and my respect for Bower's integrity decreased as a result.

My final criticism of Bower (and one which, admittedly, might be a little unfair) is that sometimes he chides Blair for not having an ideology to define domestic policy, and equally sometimes he chides him for allowing ideology to impinge too much on foreign policy. Perhaps Bower's belief is that a firm ideology is necessary in domestic policy but pragmatism should guide foreign policy? Either way, it did make me think about whether ideology is actually a good and necessary thing for a politician. George Osborne seemed to have a steadfast, inflexible belief in a shrinking state which resulted in the austerity which (in my opinion) was unhelpful and damaging to our country. My belief, for the moment, is that I would rather have a politician who appealed to the middle ground and didn't allow ideology to get in the way of what needs to be done.

Despite all of my reservations about Bower, it would take an obstinately reverent view of Blair to deny the book's fundamental representation of his administration. He eschewed consultation with his cabinet, and managed to sidestep the checks and balances in executive government which in theory are supposed to safeguard against someone assuming too much individual power. I was astonished to see how the advice of ministers, civil servants and military chiefs could be either disregarded or never given a chance to reach the prime minister's office at all.

I also had no idea how powerful the Treasury could be, and I had no idea of the extent to which Gordon Brown was allowed to hamstring Blair. I was consistently shocked to see how Brown would deliberately undermine Blair, using the press to portray him in an unfavourable light. Ultimately, Brown fell into line on some issues to preserve party unity, for instance during the votes on top up fees (as far as I remember - it certainly happened on a crucial vote around that time). But it made me angry that a party could allow infighting and personal ambitions to get in the way of preserving a strong adniminstration to lead the country.

I don't think many people can argue too much with Bower's portrait of Blair as a man unable and/or unwilling to wrestle with fine details. More often than not, he seemed bored by discussions about details and complexities, preferring simply to concentrate on fairly vague visions for each ministry. This lack of detailed understanding seemed to be hidden from the public by two things: the spin machine of Alistair Campbell, and Blair's skill as an orator. A picture emerges of a politician lacking in substance.

And yet, while Bower clearly paints this aspect of Blair as negative, I think he's being slightly disingenuous about his expectations of a prime minister. Bower consistently savages Blair for not reading documents, but it seems to me that there simply isn't time and space for a PM to become deeply ingrained in pages and pages of reports, rather than asking civil servants to summarise the main points of these documents as was Blair's practice. One of the main criticisms of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister was the length of time he would take to make any decision, large or small, because he insisted on examining minutiae and trying to micro manage issues below his pay grade. Labour MPS were heard to complain that the machinery of government seemed to be grinding to a halt. To me, a leader supplies the vision and strategy; I can't bring myself to believe that this hasn't occurred to Bower, who has also written a biography of Brown. Across politics, the more cerebral characters are generally not best deployed in leadership roles, as far as I can see, and I would be surprised if Bower really believed the opposite was true.

There's lots to say about Iraq, but mainly, the ground covered is the same as that covered by previous commentators. The dossiers which were sent back to John Scarlett with requests for changes in order that they could be sold to the public, the warnings about chaos in Iraq which went unheeded, Blair's determination to be involved despite Rumsfeld's open admission that UK support wasn't even particularly important. There's loads to say on this issue, but it's all been said.

Anyway, this is everything I wanted to get down about this book. Ultimately I am glad I read it, but my rating is based on the fact that Bower's approach is extremely irritating, sometimes unhelpful and ultimately hard to trust entirely.

[Huck Flynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the sort of book i normally read but a fascinating, if detailed, portrait of a rogue politician. It paints Blair as an unprincipled, reactionary, naive, egotistic charlatan who bungled his way through 2 terms in government. And Bower seems to back it up with solid evidence. The overriding message for me was how the book reveals the weaknesses in our form of "democracy" - Blair was able to mismanage almost every aspect of policy - health, education, defense (offense?), immigration and the economy through a combination of a lack of vision, direction and bad choice of advisors. New Labour was just another way using spin. popular but meaningless buzzwords to chase short term gains in popularity, rather than having a sound plan, clear ideals or wise judgement. Blair obviously didn't want to know about detail - he repeatedly fires out ill-considered directives to ministers without explaining how his ministers are supposed to achieve the desired results or any measured analysis of the consequences. Content to throw money at problems but not target where it went, he and Gordon Brown were at constant loggerheads and rarely consulted each other about their decisions. It is clear to see Blair's rather childish frustration at not getting his own way - blaming Civil Servants, squabbling and incompetent ministers and crazy advisors when things didn't go his way. The Blair-Brown relationship seems to have been soured from the beginning, fueled by Brown's resentment and jealousy and caused many of the problems later. Blair's fovernment had a few successes but i think he can hardly claim too much credit in Northern ireland apart from appointing Mo Mowlam - who deserves the kudos for that result, even if Blair tried to claim it. Blair's ridiculous Don Quixote like foreign policy is exposed mercilessly - his desire to be a big world player caused him to become a puppet of George Bush and a laughing stock to many other global powers. His waste of money was staggering and the still unresolved legacy he left after 2 foreign wars should have been the final nail in his reputation. However what we learn of his career in latter years - his backing for genocidal rulers in Africa and his all-expenses-paid jet-setting around the world peddling peace and equality - rather reek of hypocrisy. Worth reading.

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the exception perhaps of the English Pire minister Margate Thatcher there is not many Politian’s that are as divisive as Tony Blair . In this biography, he comes across as a man who can't seem to make up his mind or rather stick with a decision. Only to bring England into the Iraq war. Which he never told the parliament about and seems to have operated his government only on a close few advisers. Who then used the media, as there mouth peace. One of the things one found that one did not know before ways the high right if illiterates leaving school . Especially in a first world country, because of bad teachers but also keeping children in schools even though they were disrupting everyone else. His third way seems to have been now way and did not know which way to turn. While the increase in immigration into England from all over the world. Has changed the face of England forever. And while he changed his religion to Roman Catholic. He was not and is not now overtly concerned with the plight of Christians in Muslim countries. Indeed with the BBC and every other media in England and the west in general. Saying anyone who is against mass immigration and especially Muslim Sharia courts as racist. In order to close down the debate. Immigration in England reached numbers close to half a million each year.
But its what he did when he left politics in England which is really an eye-opener. Amassing a large fortune. Form running his own foundation. Doing some “charity” work and some business for multination companies.

[Marianne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I tried to read this book (having seen great reviews and wanting to know the full background to the misguided Iraq war), I really tried. Weeks of slugging page by page and still only at 25%, I give up.

Here's my gripes with the book:

1. The book markets itself as an objective analysis, but is written like fiction. Every second paragraph is about what Blair was thinking at any given moment. How does the author know what Blair was thinking? It is really distracting. I'd prefer a cold hard look at the facts (which would also have cut the length of the book by at least a third).

2. I didn't expect Blair to come out of this story well, and I am definitely not a fan. But I find it hard to believe that everyone in that Labour government had the IQ of a dungbeetle and was incapable of making a single informed decision. Known positive achievements such as the NI peace process were covered in half a sentence. This bias drags the book down and makes the author less believable.

3. The sheer unedited length and the amount of unnecessary drivel about petty details such as purchase of furniture and whether or not someone greeted employees in a friendly manner on any given day. Keep to the plot dammit!

Moral of the story is that I know as little as before (since I have no idea how much in the book is fact and how much is embellished), and to find out more about the Blair files I will just have to look up Wikipedia. Nothing can make me read another page of this book.

[Meg · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book. Of course, Labour supporters are bound to rubbish it, to try and hide the inadequacy of their leaders, Blair and Brown! Longing to see how much of this is covered in the Chilcott report which is due to be published!
Not a comprehensive assessment of the Blair years; for instance, many of the colourful personalities like John Prescott are barely mentioned. Nonetheless v good on education, immigration, military failures etc. Shocking how Blair apparently ignored important issues out of ignorance or the lack of a good headline! And how inadequate some of his advisors and ministers were, ignoring or actively acting against the civil service safeguards designed to avoid bad government! And the Blair/Brown relationship was so dysfunctional it could only be described as horrific!

[Mr R M Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating but Unfair

I enjoyed reading this book and found the Labour back story and workings of the government machine fascinating. I thought the book both unfair and biased. The NL government achieved a lot of good things under TB and his colleagues and admittedly got things wrong. That's said the book had me gripped to the end.

[Tim Hawkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bizzare read. Having read a few New Labour biographies I wanted to read something with an opposite opinion. This is not it! Simply "Mostly bafflingingly awful". My major points are 1) Rather than having a diologue with the reader about events, firstly just offers criticism without the diologue of what actually happened. There is for example nothing on Northern Ireland peace procces - presumably because there's nothing to crticise so we'll ignore that like it's not really that important. Blair's role in Diana's death barely says anything except Blair got the queens back up - having lived through both events it's not an honest account of what actually happened and refuses to honestly deal with Blairs leadership in both events which makes you think what else is the author refusing to honestly say 2) Makes reading it rather scatty because lack of discussion - if you didn't actually know what happened you'd have no idea what actually did, if you want to know events this is not it! 3) Given the title: the tragedy of power - in conclusion book not only doesn't prove that but doesn't try to prove it either - I would have at least thought they'd be open discussion on Blair's supposed Messianic complex but nothing! About 5% of the book tries to deal with that power question - the title then is false and if the purpose of the author is to proved 'broken vows' it doesn't do that 4) Indeed I don't even think Blair comes out of the criticism that badly because every one is criticised including Brown, Campbell, Ministers, Civil Servants, Advisers. Indeed having read the book I felt Brown comes out worse than Blair, Civil Servants are painted as being pretty much incompetent and the issues to do with Teaching and NHS are blamed as much on on Teachers, Doctors and Nurses as much (if not more so) as politicians 5) I find it hard to distinguish the facts from opinion and what is truth to what is made up because of the authors mixed and badly used quotes, innuendo and opinion. Of which some is quoted of what being quoted as a private conversation and others are not. 6) What I took away from the book is politically rather than New Labour being too middle or right the problems were with lefter like Trade Union leaders and too lefty old labour politicans - the book argues advisors were ignored - having read Blairs own account right from the start is says Blair wanted to do things totally differently and the main struggle was not ignoring civil servants becuase simply they didn't want to do government by consensus in the first place but those individuals adapting to what was actually asked of them 7) in the end if the book is a criticism of Blair my reply would be "seriously, is that the best you can do" - the best thing about the book is I bought it from a charity shop so can't really say it's bad value.

[Robin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am interested that so many reviews refer to this book as being 'well researched'. With never a footnote or citation in the four and a half chapters I read I wonder how anyone knows the level of research. Rather than an academic approach to an extremely important era and person where particular standards of research are required, this is a journalist's 'investigation' and reiteration of opinion.

This is a valid piece of work, nevertheless. After all, 'people are entitled to their opinion'. However, it stands in a very different place from accounts from researchers and writers who feel compelled to verify their statements. That being said, I found the book interesting, but sadly repetitive in its desire to blacken a long period of Labour Government after the end of the long and, for some, devastating Tory Government. One wonders why this is the case. To underestimate the people who voted for the Blair Government is remarkably arrogant. It is not good enough for the writer to claim he was one of them. Voters are not the fools suggested by the tossing around of the claim that 'spin' was the winning feature of the three elections won by Blair and his ministers - more competent than this writer would have one believe.

The writer's sycophantic attitude to the civil service is a feature which bears investigation, together with the claim that civil servants are there to 'make policy'. This is surely the prerogative of the elected government. People vote because they would like to see the Labour or Tory manifesto enacted, not to continue with policies churned out by non-elected officials. Why would a newly elected government blindly trust a civil servant? Why shouldn't a minister question whether particular officers suit his or her approach to a portfolio? Running though the chapters I read was a belief that ministers did not know their portfolios, were uninterested in reading briefings and didn't understand their role. Is there evidence that the government was entirely shambolic? If so, it did not appear in the part of the book I read.

I didn't bother to read any more than the sample I ordered on kindle. It seemed to me that it would only be more of the same and I prefer to read material that is , indeed, 'well researched' with supporting evidence.

[Harry Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a 'good' book, per se. As previous reviews have mentioned, the idea that in 13 years in government, New Labour did precisely nothing right is preposterous, and the impressions that Bower leaves of key figures in the Government - especially Gordon Brown - are no doubt exaggerated. The clear bias of the book would be acceptable if there was actually a narrative line, with Bower consistently giving his opinion, but this happens rarely and Broken Vows suffers as a result. Even though it is written in the style of an objective and unbiased political memoir, there are moments where Bower jumps from one subject to another without warning or even a simple double paragraph break, as well as random details shoehorned in the middle of an unrelated chapter as if there were nowhere else to fit them. As with many other accounts of governments and political campaigns, there are sometimes too many special advisers and minor politicians introduced and subsequently only referred to by their surname.

That said, the book is not entirely without use. Bower provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the moments leading up the Iraq War, and a good summary of Tony Blair's little-recorded life after leaving Downing Street. Read in conjunction with a more positive account of the New Labour years - Blair's memoirs, say, or Alistair Campbell's diaries - Broken Vows may well be of some analytical usefulness. Yet what holds it back as a standalone book is the clear agenda its author has to discredit not only Blair, but almost every key figure in his government.

[Graham Brownett · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual with Tom Bower, meticulous research and quality interviews with those who were involved during and after the Blair years. If the content of this book is inaccurate then Bower would have found himself in a courtroom accused of libel.


Like many, having weathered the chaos of the Major years, a young, dynamic Prime Minister, a modernist with centrist and fresh ideas, someone who was standing up to the lunacy of the far left and understood that private and public could work alongside each other was so refreshing, however this book scuppers that view from page one.


Blair comes across as weak, ineffective, lacking ideas and interest in data or detail. He appointed politicians into roles totally unsuited to their experience or talents then failed to back them, he surrounded himself with those who nodded in agreement and distanced himself from those who disagreed, except for Gordon Brown who due to a lack of courage he could not bring himself to stand up to, in fact Brown bullied him and did everything possible to undermine his premiership. His stock answer to Ministers who requested more funding was 'ask Gordon'.


Blair's close advisors, Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell were there not to advise on politics but to ensure tomorrow's headlines had something positive to say about him, he hated bad press. Cabinet politics virtually ceased to exist, even issues as important as invading Iraq were never discussed with cabinet colleagues. As one general, prior to invading Iraq said, there was more chance of Blair inviting Bono from U2 to Downing Street than there was inviting British military leaders. He sent British troops into conflicts he didn't understand with poor equipment and poor training.


Blair saw being Prime Minister as a stepping stone to far higher office, he saw solving the world's problems, much of it by military force, as his calling, he was referred to as having a messiah-complex.


Much of Blair's 'achievements' have been cosmetic, look below the surface and they were anything but achievements, as somebody said 'Never has a Prime Minister promised so much and delivered so little'. I would argue now having read this book, 'New Labour, what New Labour?'


A good read, interesting and shocking in equal measure, I will never think of Tony Blair in the same way ever again.

[Tarleton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bower asserts that some kind of mythical promise was broken when Blair came to power although I’m not really sure if this is true. After all, a politician who sells himself like a brand of shampoo and turns out to be disreputable and ineffective, should come as no surprise. The only surprise is that the people would vote for such a man in the first place.

Nevertheless, it happened and Blair’s brand of ‘third-way’ politics took hold. His priorities were as narrow as his convictions, focussing on very narrow policy objectives which were repeated like a mantra and packaged like a consumer product thanks to a pliant press.

The book would have been on steadier ground had it focussed more on Blair’s corrupt relationships (the press, the banks etc) given that such issues are particularly apposite at the time of publication and the financial and moral wreckage we now find ourselves in.

But no. Bower doesn’t like Blair and relies largely on his clout as a hard-hitting biographer and journalist to get the former wronged colleagues to talk, as ex-colleagues who have been wronged will. Fascinating as settling old scores in print are, a good writer should bring more substance to bear or else end up as hollow as the subject you’re reviewing.

[Keen Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

“I think that most people who have dealt with me think I’m a pretty straight sort of guy- and I am.” Were Blair’s words after he and his party were caught in the first of many examples of lies and deception, this one being the £1 million donation from Bernie Ecclestone, who was wanting preferential treatment regarding the banning of cigarette advertising in sport. Blair did what he does best when questioned about it, he "denied any wrong doing".

This book started off really well, but with the main body being 594 pages long, I’d say that without doubt, it would have benefited from more ruthless editing. I’m not sure that I can believe that Blair is as bungling and incompetent as he is made out here, but one thing is for certain, he was clearly a man who was well out of his depth from the start, and clearly not equipped to do the job. The stories of the Blair’s moving from number 10 to 11 Downing Street are pure slapstick and are straight out of a poorly acted BBC sitcom.

Bower has clearly done a phenomenal amount of research, and Blair cuts a forlorn and pitiful figure here, which I suppose is the author’s intention. In terms of capability and intelligence he often comes across more Trump than Churchill. He consistently proved to be remarkably ignorant on a whole number of subjects when trying to lead his party and the country, often surprising many of his own people at how out of touch he was. In saying that, I think there is a lot of misleading, emotional colouring here and I am a little dubious by the lack of named sources, for instance how can Bowyer possibly know of the books that Blair has and has not read?...Where is the evidence?...Why does he not cite it?...This is just one example, there are many situations and examples where he seems capable of reading Blair’s thoughts, but without anything to back it up. This book doesn’t make any pretence at balance and too often this has the tone of a snobby right wing, Daily Mail hack with a worrying obsession with Labour’s immigration policy. At times it also reads like a supermarket, tabloid magazine with some of the gossip. Too many of the main figures are reduced to one dimensional caricatures and no one comes out of this looking respectable.

In terms of Blair and his cronies corruption and lies, we are spoilt for choice, there were many dubious subjects to rise from his time in power, from cash for honours, to two catastrophically failed wars. The constant tension between Blair and Brown and the many problems that lead to elsewhere were certainly not helpful to anyone apart from their critics and opponents. It all started off so well, heaving with so much promise and expectation and if we are to believe this Blair and his intentions were mostly good ones, but my oh my how it all went so horribly wrong. The facts around Iraq are just incredibly hard to fathom, in spite of Admiral Boyce’s speech declaring that, “Bombing would not defeat terrorism but would radicalise the Muslim world against the West. A conventional invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, he added, would fail to win ‘hearts and minds’ and would drag on for the next ten years. ‘The world cannot afford non-states, black-hole states or failed states because such states breed terrorism.”

Being Prime minister cannot be an easy job, but then there are plenty of other jobs out there that are a lot more difficult and don’t offer the same rewards, scope for corruption or lucrative posts to take up when it finishes. Jobs like that don’t tend to attract the most pleasant or likeable types and the people who end up getting there, tend to be greedy, egotistical power hungry types with a questionable mental state. One of the great problems about having the job, is when all is said and done to them it really is just a job, and you can get away with far more than mere civilians elsewhere can. People like Blair who are responsible for the mess can and do just walk away into another immensely over rewarded sinecure posts elsewhere, meanwhile everyone else in the real world is left to deal with the lasting consequences of their incompetent and damaging actions as shown by Cameron last year who ran away and left others to clean up his mess too.

The leaders of English speaking countries don’t need to worry about the law, it simply doesn’t apply to them in the same way. It remains to be seen what it would take for a law breaking leader to be put in jail?...They are like spoilt children in that they are immune from dealing or taking the consequences of their actions, whether it’s committing perjury, overthrowing and murdering democratically elected leaders of other countries, repeatedly lying to the public, bombing innocent civilians and being a war criminal are clearly not enough. Instead they receive a slap on the wrist as they hide behind rictus grins and pseudo charm till it all dies down and then they can get on with making their millions on various circuits.

Some hail Blair as “the most successful Labour leader in history.” I suppose it depends how you choose to define and measure success. He won three successive elections, but then look at the hapless candidates he was up against in the Tory party. Blair developed such an inflated ego that he was able to act with such breath taking arrogance and impunity with regards to what happened in his Asian wars. He wanted a legacy, well I wonder what he thinks when he looks at his legacy, his illegal wars and the killing of thousands of innocent people is now being reaped in the streets and venues up and down the country from Glasgow, Manchester and London. Where is the man responsible for creating this hatred?...Travelling first class around the world, making millions as he squirms between various dictators and unsavoury billionaires. We in the UK laugh at the likes of Russia for their version of democracy, but then who has more blood on their hands Putin or Blair?...

[Jonathan Fryer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Bower has notched up an impressive number of biographical "kills" over the years, giving us warts-and-all portrayals of big beasts in politics and the business world. Disgraced former Prime Minister Tony Blair is the latest and there is a fascinating story to tell. I never voted for his government but like many people was excited by the possibilities raised by Blair's election in 1997, particularly in relation to Britain's playing a more positive role in the European Union. But my disillusion had set in long before the disaster of the Iraq War. Tom Bower is merciless in his dissection of Blair's political skills and lack of moral compass (despite the politician's adoption of the Roman Catholic faith), and the epithet "Bliar" that was accorded Blair in retrospect seems fully justified. Following his departure from frontline politics, Blair went on to make millions from speeches and advice to some pretty despotic heads of state, and his performance as "mediator" for the Quartet relating to Israel-Palestine was pathetic and biased. This book leaves one with quite a nasty taste in one's mouth, yet Blair's inner personality remains an enigma. Or maybe he doesn't really have one.

[Yağız Ay · Rating 3 out of 5]

This undoubtedly is a well-researched and carefully crafted book. It has significant insight into many aspects of New Labour, its inner dynamics, how things were getting done and the importance played by Blair's inner circle - Campbell, Mandelson, Gould etc. The problem, however, is Bower's meticulous selection of detail. New Labour's project was to modernize Britain, a project in which they largely succeeded, but Bower, instead of focusing on New Labour's achievements and failures, makes the bulk of this large book a tragi-comic saga circling Blair's personality. Blair, here, appears to be an embodiment of the power corrupts motto; a Byzantine politician with near-sociopathic tendencies. Not only is this portrait completely at odds with every other existing portrayal of Blair; it is thoroughly unrealistic. The anecdotes might be true, but the manner in which they're presented suggests a fantasy-like picture, suited for Shakespearean drama, than real-life politics. Bower, who in the preface mentions he voted Labour in 1997, perhaps was too disillusioned with Blair, to give an accurate portrayal.

[Harry Burnside · Rating 4 out of 5]

If the evidence in this book is accurate then Blair is considered a person who didn't have a clue how to govern who led a bunch of idiots who didn't know how to run their departments and who all kept having childish playground spats particularly Blair and Brown.
It shows Blair wan't interested in government to improve the lives of the British people but to improve his staNDING IN THE WORLD OF international politics.
He always contradicted negative evidence against himself and used the power he received to make himself very rich but despised by the general public for his deceitful entrance to the Iraqui war. In other words a real scunner. Bowers nails him in so many ways it was a sad but must read.

[Steve Parkes · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book would have been a better read if the author hadn't jumped from one aspect of Blair's failings, of which there were many, to another with every chapter, and then back again.
It was difficult to keep track of one thread without going back to remind oneself of which characters were involved in which department, education, immigration, the economy etc.
It was also difficult to distinguish which of the supporting characters were civil servants and which were elected ministers.
If, like me, you voted Labour in good faith only to be betrayed by 'Thatcher in a suit' Blair, the book will confirm your worst suspicions, but more continuity and structure would have helped.

[Lara · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched hatchet-job. I came away with the impression that Blair spent his time as Prime Minister demanding ‘change’ in government departments without having much idea or giving any direction in what exactly he wanted to achieve. Money thrown at the NHS and education, seemingly without any improvements. And his time spent following his Premiership spent amassing millions while globe-trotting across the world hiring himself out to the highest bidder.

Reading this in 2023, the chaos in No 10 seems par for the course. But Bower is so consistently negative about his subject that I don’t think I received a completely rounded or fair portrait.

[Caryl M]

I started this book but it was so horrifying I had to stop. I will continue when I have the courage to face how incompetent leaders are proving to be. In particular the Blair/Brown conflict and how each minister worked against each other. It was very disturbing. I have entertained the idea that this might be supreme prejudice on behalf of the author. However, some of the facts are probably verified.
I have since lost total confidence in any Government, any political party to really care about the people they are supposed to represent. It would appear that the majority are self-serving individuals. Power corrupts and egos get in the way of moving forward for the benefit of the people.

[Yasmin Riane · Rating 2 out of 5]

still haven’t finished this put me in such a reading slump trying to trudge through it and i failed miserably half way through

the book made it seem that blair was a terrible pm which is not true as much as he committed some heinous crimes he also made some pivotal changes to our political system which are not even mentioned in the book

i don’t really know who the audience was for the book but i’ve read far better biographies

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a bit unsure about this book as its subject rather polarises opinions but I actually really enjoys it. The author is pretty fair throughout and pulls no punches saying about Blair's strengths and weaknesses. The splitting of chapters into areas of policy also worked well.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heavy going, with the author covering the same topic on numerous occasions throughout the book. Not surprising, as it covers many years. Nonetheless very enlightening and enjoyable. A real eye opener.

[Annie Tallis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't enjoy the writing I felt as if Bower was trying to put his own spin and retelling history in stead of giving an accurate account of what happened. The only reason why its a 2 star and not a 1 is because I like the way it was structured and also the evident research.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

The most interesting of political times documented by the most boring of books. I didn't even finish it.

[Graham Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wouldn't want Tom Bower to write my biography! As no fan of Blair this confirms some things, but I'm sure he got it right sometimes, if not often.