Tony Blair: the FactCheck verdict
Updated on 10 May 2007
As Blair prepares to step down, is it time to debunk the "bliar" claims?
In many people's eyes, the Blair years have been defined by a fact which didn't check out. The shadow of the war in Iraq dominates his period in office. Particularly damaging is the claim that we went to war over a lie - that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which were ready to fire in 45 minutes. No weapons were ever found.
In the 2001 election manifesto, Labour said the party would not introduce so-called university top-up fees.
There have been other notable broken promises, reversions and linguistic contortions during the Blair years. Take higher education. During the 1997 election, Mr Blair said he had "no plans" to introduce tuition fees, but said he would wait for the Dearing Report into higher education finances to be published. By September 1998 students were paying £1,000 in tuition fees.
And in the 2001 election manifesto, Labour said the party would not introduce so-called university top-up fees and that it had "legislated to prevent them". But by January 2004 the Higher Education Bill legitimising top-up fees was passing through Parliament. Labour tried to wriggle out of it by claiming that the commitment only applied to the 2001-5 parliament.
That same year, Mr Blair was specifically asked whether the lack of commitment over National Insurance contributions should lead people to assume they would increase. He replied that "they shouldn't". A year later Labour raised National Insurance contributions by 1p.
Addicted to spin
It's difficult to imagine how any government could stay in power for 10 years without doing occasional violence to the truth; full and honest disclosure of every single thing that goes on in Whitehall and Westminster would be a recipe for mayhem.
But for many journalists, the 'story' of the first years of Labour in power was the government's addiction to 'spin' - particularly focused on Blair's lieutenants, Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell.
At times, it seemed the press was trotting out the 'spin' line because it couldn't land a punch any other way. And although it was often asserted that the Blair government was more dishonest than its predecessors, it was never proven.
If they did tell more lies, then it was because the growth of 24 hour media gave them more space to tell them in.
Harsh treatment
Outside observers were certainly amazed at the harsh treatment Blair received at the hands of the British press.
As David Remnick of the New Yorker put it in 2005: "Perhaps only in England - the country where, it is said, people feel schadenfreude towards themselves - could a prime minister with such promise, and, over time, real accomplishments, be whacked around so mercilessly."
Blair got "whacked around" in Scotland and Wales too - but you get the point. And over the years, the perception of the prime minister as a man with a semi-detached relationship to the truth has persisted and grown - witness the proliferation of 'Bliar' t-shirts, protest banners, badges and the rest.
Meagre fodder
But despite this, Tony Blair has provided relatively meagre fodder for FactCheck over the years. Looking at recent Blair speeches, there are actually very few facts in them.
Thinking back to the most memorable soundbites of the Blair era, they're barely even slogans, let alone factual claims: "Education, education, and education." "24 hours to save the NHS." "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." And that line about Diana being "The people's princess" - try FactChecking that.
When he refers to the NHS, or education, or child family tax credit, he illustrates his points with examples, rather than numbers.
Take a look at Blair's last party conference speech as leader. There are very few solid facts in there.
When he refers to the NHS, or education, or child family tax credit, he illustrates his points with examples, rather than numbers - a new hospital in Knowlsey, or an education village in Darlington.
Slippery target
While this may make for more digestible oratory, it also makes a more slippery target for FactChecker to get hold of. If David Cameron is now the poster child for style over substance, that label once attached firmly to Tony Blair. Little wonder that Cameron has started parroting some of those vintage Blair lines.
But if the speeches were short on substance, the Blair project was not. He approached the task of governing with considerable reforming zeal.
If David Cameron is now the poster child for style over substance, that label once attached firmly to Tony Blair.
As he put it in the 1997 manifesto: "I believe Britain can and must be better: better schools, better hospitals, better ways of tackling crime, of building a modern welfare state, of equipping ourselves for a new world economy."
So just how successful has that project been? There are two ways to look at it. You could look at what Labour promised to do at the start, and see how many of those hopes and promises have been delivered.
We've tried to do that and, as you'd hope, much of what was promised in 1997 has been achieved. Welsh and Scottish devolution, independence for the Bank of England, economic stability, the minimum wage, increased health and education spending, reduced waiting lists, reductions in poverty, especially among children and the old.
The bold pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 was placed in jeopardy this March, when child poverty figures rose for the first time in the Blair era. But a sustained fall is no mean achievement.
In retrospect
But delivery has been expensive - government spending rose substantially during the second term - and the central task of reforming public services is far from complete.
In fact, in its first term Labour reversed many of the market-based reforms of the Tories, only to reinstate them later under different names.
Blair achieved many of the things he promised to do in 1997, and after. But given the huge majority Blair won in 1997, it's less than many might have hoped - perhaps including Blair himself.
As he told the party conference in 2005: "Every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further." Will Gordon Brown be able to do better?
Your view
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the Editor at the email address above.