The Monkey Cage

Would Capt. Blair returning to a sinking ship still be a “rock star” (pardon mixed metaphor)? I wonder how he could help marginal Labour MPs given that this hypothetical return would smack of real desperation by a party that was not exactly sad to say goodbye in the first place.

As for the Jerry Brown reference, I don’t get it. If he gets elected again as Gov. of California, it would be quite a story—maybe even “glory”—but he would be no caretaker. So the analogy would not work.

I don’t think the starting premise — that Blair is hugely popular — is entirely correct. Compare Blair’s ratings with Brown’s. Blair’s are better, by any metric, but not by much; and not necessarily so much better as to avoid the smack of desperation MSS mentions.

Getúlio Vargas in Brazil. He lost the presidential elections in 1930, but since there was fraud, he disputed the result and got the office. In 1937 he ruled a civil dictaturship until 1945, when leave the office with democratization and new elections.

Then, in 1950 he returned to office in democratic elections and is considered one of the most important presidents of Brazil.

Now, some people say current brazilian president, Lula, will return in 2014. But we have to wait and see (I personally do not bealive it).

Blair is not popular with the Labour rank and file - at all.

In an October poll, only 34% of Britons wanted Blair to become EU President. Almost half (47%) were opposed.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34295/few_britons_want_blair_as_eu_president

@MS: Glad to see you keeping me honest on the analogies again. Yes, you are right, Jerry Brown was simply about coming back to the office; I agree it does not fit the “caretaker” aspect of my suggestion.

@X: If my premise that a Blair led Labour would do better in an election than a Brown led gov’t is correct, don’t you think the Labour backbenchers would prefer an election in which they had less chance of losing their jobs to one in which they had a higher chance of losing their job, personal dislike of Blair not withstanding?

And in response to the public opinion numbers, I guess my thought was just that Brown had gotten so unpopular that anything would be better for Labour heading into the next election. So then I guess the question is fresh face (which might cause other conflicts within the party) vs. bringing back Blair. I’m not sure which one would lead to a better outcome for Labour, but if there is sufficient doubt then it probably makes it that much more likely Blair wouldn’t be interested. Still, would make the election a whole lot more interesting for the rest of us, wouldn’t it?

I can think of a few more local examples of this in the U.S.:
-In 2002, after Bob Torricelli dropped out of NJ’s Senate race, Frank Lautenberg came out of retirement to keep the seat Democratic. It worked.
-That same year, former Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D-Los Angeles) came out of retirement to run in the Democratic primary for a state Assembly seat, basically to keep the historically African-American seat from going Latino. It worked.
-Also that same year, former VP Walter Mondale jumped into the Minnesota Senate race to keep the seat Democratic after Paul Wellstone’s death. It didn’t work.

Pierre Trudeau in Canada

stepped down after losing in 1980, a leadership contest was begun to replace him, and then he decided to return.

But still pretty different: an entire year hadn’t even elapsed, there was not yet a clear new leader, and there was a referendum on Quebec sovereignty looming that he wanted to fight.

There is failed attempt of T. Roosevelt, but that hardly qualifies as glorious. And J. Q. Adams certainly thought more highly of his role in the House than of his role after he lost the Presidency/

“If my premise that a Blair led Labour would do better in an election than a Brown led gov’t is correct”

A big if, indeed.

Additionally, f=(Policy preferences, electoral performance), no?

Plenty of evidence to that effect, from the UK (and Labour itself) in the 1980s!

This is bizarre.

You do realize that only members of Parliament (and by convention, only the House of Commons) can be the Prime Minister, don’t you?

Blair doesn’t have a seat in Parliament, when he resigned a PM, he resigned his seat.

If Brown resigned before the next election, then whoever has the confidence of the House of Commons will become PM until the next election. Most likely someone like Harriet Harman since she is leader of the House of Commons.

Mine is the only British blog with a cute kind of name in this vein - “Keep Tony Blair for PM” - and I never even voted for him!

I realised when his party was about to boot him out just what an extraordinary politician he was. The voters NEVER voted Blair out of office.

And I’ve kept the blog going to counter the lies about him spread by the political opponents who never came higher than his kneecaps. They still don’t, both inside and outside of his party.

Unfortunately, unless he won a by-election in the next couple of months he would not be a member of parliament and would not be eligible to be the Prime Minister. Don’t know if he’d want it again, anyway, even as a caretaker. He said recently he didn’t “miss the execution table” at Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons.

But who knows? If the EU is daft enough to select someone else as their president on Thursday night he’ll still be free.

Always a chance, I suppose.

I DO think only HE could save Labour this time. And I have to tell you that Cameron’s Conservatives are NOT inspiring. If they win in 2010, it’ll be more an anti-Brown vote than a pro-Tory vote. Whereas when Blair came in in 1997 it was pro-Blair/Labour. Again in 2001, and even after Iraq in 2005 he won with more of a majority than the Tories are likely to get next time.

Have a glance through my site’s archives on the history of Tony Blair, if you’re interested in this one-of-a-kind politician.

Latest post:

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/herman-van-rambo-vs-bond-tony-bond/

@Alex: My assumption about parliamentary systems is that the majority party can pick whomever they like to be the Prime Minister. I admit to not having known that the British system requires the PM to be an MP (is this the case for all ministers?), but even so, you don’t think that if Labour wanted Blair to return they couldn’t get someone to give up a seat for him? I ask this in all seriousness - maybe this sort of thing wouldn’t work? So here’s another question: is there an instance in British history of this kind of thing happening to get someone who is not currently in the parliament into a ministerial position?

Jerzy Buzek current European Parliament leader left the office as the highly unpopular prime minister in Poland. He returned eight years later as the head of one of Europe most important institutions.
Nixon made a spectacular return after losing with Kennedy. Also Winston Churchill return in glory after post war election failure.
Berlusconi in Italy is also a good example of unbreakable politician who can survive almost anything.

@Joshua You have to be a member of either the House of Commons or House of Lords to serve as a government minister. There is the case of Peter Mandelson who was a former member of Blair’s cabinet and eventually took the role of EU Trade Commissioner but went back to save the Labour party after Tony Blair left and for him to be able to serve as minister, he was given a seat in the House of Lords to be qualified to take the role. (The word is that he is the most powerful man in Britain right now.)

Technically, one Labour MP can give up his/her parliamentary seat (preferably a strong Labour one) so Tony Blair would be able to contest that seat in a by-election and then trigger a leadership election before the general election if he wishes to lead the party.

The thing is, this might actually work. Because the way votes are crumbling right now, there is a possibility of a hung parliament. Despite the 10pt lead in the polls, they are still not assured the election and Tony Blair’s return might just tip it back to Labour be it as EU president or as Labour leader.

(I’m crossing my hands for the former and I highly doubt the latter.)

Yes - Peter Mandelson, just over a year ago. He was hastily made a Lord so that he could rejoin the government after resigning his seat some time ago. This is the only way to get someone into the government without an election. If you want to me an MP, you have to stand for election.

However, the convention is that the PM always comes from the Commons. So to be PM again, Blair would have to contest a by-election between now and the next election.

When rumours were going round about David Milliband becoming EU Foreign Minister, there was speculation that Mandelson would become the caretaker PM, only for Milliband to return after his term completed and become party leader.

Yes, Blair would need to be an MP in order to return as PM. It’s technically possible that he could be appointed to the Lords, but there has never been a Labour PM from the Lords. Also, the only person who could appoint him would be Gordon Brown, the current PM.

A possible scenario, if one is given to speculation, is that Britain is about to lose one of its EU commissioners (Catherine Ashton), who is set to become EU High Representative. If Brown were to give the commissionership to a sitting Labour MP, that person would probably resign their seat, opening the way for Blair to stand for election and then resume the Labour party leadership. It is conceivable as an idea within the constitutional framework of the British government and of the Labour party, but it will never happen.

Timing is also against this idea. The next general election will be some time in the first half of next year, with the latest possible date being in May and dates as early as March being talked about. After that point, Labour are very unlikely to be in government. Whilst I would find a Tony Blair-led Labour opposition incredibly fun to watch, I don’t imagine that Tony Blair would find it fun to lead. He has too many enemies and too few friends.