i think he, Mr Blair, is trying to play a bigger game.

destroy the labour party so it can be rebuilt in his image (again)
please wait for the outcome of two by-elections.

and has delusions of grander of becoming EU president ...

Those thoughts crossed my mind too. He certainly seems to be angling for something.

Well I suspect the Brexit vote has put paid to any chance he has of a prominent EU position. There's little chance the EU are going to elect/employ a British politician to a senior post given we've effectively told them all to piss off. I suspect keeping Britain in the EU was basically his downpayment on the EU presidency and it didn't arrive.

As for him 'reforming the labour party in his own image', that image is a bust. New Labour is a bust. Tony Blair surfed to power on a wave of anti-Tory sentiment (we were just bored with the Tories, basically) and lost millions of votes at each subsequent election. People hold him & New Labour responsible for our military misadventures in Iraq & Afghanistan AND for the financial crash (which he had less to do with, but still). Can you imagine how much stuff there is out there about those periods and events that could be turned into an anti-Blair headline? He would be utterly shredded by the press if he actually made anything approaching a run for power.

It's very possible Labour might not win the next two by-elections. Apparently they are thought to have a good chance to win in Stoke but politics is as it does. Say they do lose both. Will Corbyn quit? There's no sign of it. Will they get another leadership election? Well, they might but Corbyn's won two of those already - he might not win the next one but he probably would. And even if he doesn't Blair would have to stand and get elected and of the 600,000 current labour membership quite a lot of them don't like him at all. Blair represents the form of labour that people voted for Corbyn specifically to avoid. A lot of the labour people who are quite disillusioned with Corbyn might still vote for him if the alternative was Blair.

Also, I'd have to check but I suspect the leader of the labour party has to be an MP. Blair resigned his seat to sod off to America and pocket a fortune. So it's possible he'd have to win a by-election before he could even stand for the leadership. That's if he can - I'll have to check if this is still true, but it used to be the case that the process for resigning as an MP effectively barred you from every standing again.

Frankly, I reckon I have as much chance of being labour leader as Tony Blair does. He has a choice to stick around and work within labour while not being in power, or to take the money and run. He took the money and ran. I don't think you get to walk back in after that.

i think you are jumping the gun here a bit. i never stated that he would lead the labour party. but i believe he will wait until it fails (which sadly it is) then via proxy rebuild it in his image but keeping himself distant from any elected post. there are many within the labour party that still worship him and he played this game very well in the middle east.

note. he won 3 elections for labour and never lost an election, Brown lost the election not Blair, in some parts of labour he still walks on water.

also, i believe, running for the EU position is his main objective. if they can put him in the position of middle east 'peace' envoy (after his history) then an EU position is viable because maybe just maybe in the EU mindset who is better placed to bring the UK back to the EU fold someone from the EU or someone from the UK. he is not back on the scene because anybody loves him, he is back on the scene because of his own enlightened self interest and unbelievable importance in himself ...

ps. as a edit.
the resident president of the EU is not standing for reelection (so say he) ...

I see there's a number of front page stories in the papers this morning very critical of The House of Lords. Total coincidence they're debating the Article 50 bill today of course.

have noticed the same, but they are entitled to debate it and if needs be recommend changes that will place the bill before the house again.
i cant understand the problem some are making of it. we who voted leave wanted are Govt. which includes the HoL to be sovereign and independent and when that happens they start screaming. regardless of any delays A50 will pass but i just cant understand the complaining about it being reviewed ...

Agreed. In any case the Lords can't veto the bill, and any amendments they make have to go back to the Commons for approval. Our government is set up so that at the end of the day the Commons takes precedent position. What's happening is entirely within the rules of our unique national democracy as have applied for at least the last century. The Lords generally know if they take the mickey they'll just get over-ruled anyway, so a lot of their amendments/advise is fairly sensible. I guess we'll find out over the next few days what they've come up with here.

It is vital we have some sort of second house to provide some 'sanity check' on the Commons, IMO. I'm not sure an aristocratic selection is the best one, but I don't honestly see the point in a second house elected in exactly the same way as the Commons, what's the point of that? And any house selected of the learned and wise would face accusations of elitism. As the old saying goes 'It's the worst solution, apart from all the other ones'.

the checks and balances provided by the upper house place a restraint on the lower house to review any bill. thats how it works here so i agree with you.

we will have to stop this.

also i believe the upper house should be voted in, on something like AV or PR, and will stop this b0ll0ck$ about dishing out peerages (regardless of party)

we must most certainly stop this agreeing. its not good for my rep or the forum ...

Cornwall voted leave. Cornwall gets £60m a year from an EU development fund. Cornwall asked the government to make up that money after we leave the EU. The Government said "But you're MILES away from London. Here's £6m a year, that's all you're getting".

Cornwall isn't very happy. Maybe Cornwall needs to 'get over it'?

you reap what you sow

Why overturn a democratic decision everytime it doesn't go their way? It's not a dictatorship yet!

Because it's only 'the will of the people' if they agree with it. The Lords vote wasn't close at all, this one could run and run.

lets get one thing straight. the bill going to the HoL was a very short bill enabling A50 that is/was it. no bells or whistles attached.
and just to note ... the EU refused, let me repeat that THE EU REFUSED to hold any talks on this matter before A50 was invoked.

the HoL has decided to add bells and whistles which will be defeated in parliament and then sent back to the HoL.

but on a more personal note.
i have no problem whatsoever with ensuring that anyone who has come to the UK 'LEGALLY' to live, work and make here there home having that ensured before A50 is invoked.
that will not apply to anyone else or their families/relatives after A50 is invoked and then enacted.

but they have come here in good faith and that should be upheld and respected which i believe is rightly so. i hope the EU are as understanding but i dont hold out much/any hope of that.


its the 'illegals' that should and will be removed after A50 and make no mistake that WILL happen.

now can we get on with the business of leaving this piece of garbage called the E.fcuking.U ...

Why do you have more trust in unelected Tory government than EU? Have you not seen how they manage to [LIFTED] everything they touch?