The definitive account of the rise and fall of New Labour by ‘the master chronicler of British politics’ is packed with astonishing revelations— from 9/11 and the Iraq War to the financial crisis and the parliamentary expenses scandal; and entertaining portraits of the main players as well as the astonishing feuds and reconciliations between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson.
The End of the Party
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Product Description
Review
A devastating portrait of New Labour in power. For all the concentration on Gordon Brown's bullying, The End Of the Party is a much more complete account of New Labour than that. It is all the more devastating for it. Labour has rubbished it. But this is the best history of New Labour in power yet - and unlikely to be bettered any time soon -- Andrew Neather Evening Standard Rawnsley's book is a very good one. He's a top class political journalist who finds things out and writes them down extremely well. He has excellent sources and I don't doubt what he has written. Nor do I doubt its importance. -- Danny Finkelstein The Times It reads like a thriller -- Jeremy Vine As fine a piece of contemporary history as his previous magnum opus, Servants of the People -- Jim Pickard FT.com The detail is extraordinary -- Victoria Derbyshire Radio 5 Live Rawnsley has talked to everyone who has counted over the past ten years... A brilliant account...a sheer delight for the political connoisseur. Almost every page provides a fresh insight or piece of information not previously in the public domain... Some of his passages of description, such as the account of Gordon Brown's failure to hold a general election in 2007, or the long run-up to the Iraq War, are nothing short of masterpieces of modern political journalism -- Peter Oborne Daily Mail This engrossing book by Andrew Rawnsley, like its predecessor a decade ago, Servants of the People, has pulled together a lot of clues. Less than a week old, it already has Westminster agog with its well-sourced but roundly denied allegations Economist Andrew Rawnsley, the man who single-handedly has reignited interest in the political book...The book that brought us the 'bullygate' scandal. Go out and buy, buy, buy it now...I'm really looking forward to working my way through it -- Nick Ferrari LBC Unreservedly recommended GQ Magazine The book's authority rests on an impressive breadth of research... This lively Shakespearian account ... the most thorough, the most enjoyable and the most original book yet written about New Labour -- David Hare The Guardian I think the public perception of Gordon is accurate. Although I haven't always agreed with [Rawnsley's] interpretations, in the past they have always been broadly fair -- Ken Livingstone ...his racy, very readable new book The End of the Party. -- Richard Ingrams Independent A book that displays to the full his talents as a journalist, historian and even thriller-writer. It truly is a rip-roaring tale that provokes the reader to turn the pages to reach the next colourful episode... this book...provides us with the most authoritative account of the period so far -- Philip Webster The Times This book is a meticulously researched, authoritative and indeed devastating analysis of Tony Blair's troubled second term of government and Labour's "historic" third consecutive term... Rawnsley's retelling of familiar events is so skilful and powerful the cumulative effect remains shocking even with what we already know... Rawnsley handles the set-piece crises with aplomb, extracting every smidgen of drama but he is just as effective when analysing a landmark speech or reflecting on a theme such as Blair's uncritical championing of intelligence or flaws in Whitehall's decision-making... Flourishes of humour abound -- Christopher Silvester Express Rawnsley has established a justified reputation over the years for getting the members of the big, happy family of New Labour to sing... the monumental scale of Rawnsley's evidential base, and his journalistic mastery of the story, make this a compelling read. The End of the Party will be a bestseller -- Chris Patten Observer How accurate is he? Rawnsley says 'thousands' of confidential conversations over the years and 500 interviews specifically for this book have contributed to this account, and I believe him...The End of the Party is full of amazing revelations, and deserves to be read -- Craig Brown Mail on Sunday Rawnsley does a superb job of recounting the spleen and skullduggery that have energised and debilitated the New Labour project, and he sheds new light on the tempestuous relationship between Brown and Blair... he offers the reader a front row seat... a scintillating read -- Jonathan Wright The Herald A feast of high politics and low behaviour -- Andrew Gimson Daily Telegraph
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the Author
Andrew Rawnsley is associate editor and chief political commentator for the Observer. For many years he presented BBC Radio 4's Sunday evening Westminster Hour, and he has also made a number of highly acclaimed television documentaries.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
By Paolo
TOP 500 REVIEWER
Format:Hardcover
The Servants of the People published in 2000 chronicled Labour's election and first term in power, this book details everything that has happened since. Rawnsley, political columnist for the Observer, quotes from quite an impressive array of sources as he writes the story of New Labour, 9/11 and the war on terror, the Iraq War and the dodgy dossier that got us there and the financial crisis. It also goes into deep details of the personalities and conflicts between the main protagonists.
Rawnsley comes across as quite Blairite and for him other than when he details the David Kelly affair in which is he quite vitriolic about Blair's involvement, he is portrayed almost as the man who can do no wrong and when things do not turn out as they should, the finger of blame is nearly always pointed at Brown and those in his team who push him into being more extreme than he would be on his own (all of Douglas Alexander, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband and Damian McBride do not come out of this book looking good). In a chapter entitled 'the long goodbye' he details what he sees as the highlights of TB's 13 years in power:
"generous investment in health and education which reversed years of neglect of the public realm. State-funded childcare was introduced alongside the minimum wage. There was considerable redistribution, mainly the work of Chancellor, from the affluent to the poor. Tax and benefit changes since 1997 broadly raise the incomes of the poorest fifth of society. This was not enough to entirely counteract the global forces which were stretching the inequalities and the super-rich continued to pull away from every one else...he left Britain wealtheir and more diverse, but not much happier than how he found it."
The book received a great deal of press pre-publication for the details of Gordon Brown's temper and the book paints him as palpably mad. He is seen as moody, sulking, petty and violent. The reason, it is made to look, that there was no real challenge to Brown for the Labour leadership is that he crushed any promising talent that might challenge what he viewed as his solemn right to govern Britain. He and his team are shown to continually brief and leak against Blair, the content of his budgets were rarely divulged up to a couple of hours before they were announced when they were already at the printers and he is shown to be the worst micro-manager possible.
The book is far from perfect and you are painfully aware that the author is still working with the people he is writing about and so tries to stay away from making personal judgement. However in an election year and despite whatever economic competence he portrays Brown as having you cannot but arrive at the conclusion that Gordon Brown is insane.
An interesting if not biased account.
Rawnsley comes across as quite Blairite and for him other than when he details the David Kelly affair in which is he quite vitriolic about Blair's involvement, he is portrayed almost as the man who can do no wrong and when things do not turn out as they should, the finger of blame is nearly always pointed at Brown and those in his team who push him into being more extreme than he would be on his own (all of Douglas Alexander, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband and Damian McBride do not come out of this book looking good). In a chapter entitled 'the long goodbye' he details what he sees as the highlights of TB's 13 years in power:
"generous investment in health and education which reversed years of neglect of the public realm. State-funded childcare was introduced alongside the minimum wage. There was considerable redistribution, mainly the work of Chancellor, from the affluent to the poor. Tax and benefit changes since 1997 broadly raise the incomes of the poorest fifth of society. This was not enough to entirely counteract the global forces which were stretching the inequalities and the super-rich continued to pull away from every one else...he left Britain wealtheir and more diverse, but not much happier than how he found it."
The book received a great deal of press pre-publication for the details of Gordon Brown's temper and the book paints him as palpably mad. He is seen as moody, sulking, petty and violent. The reason, it is made to look, that there was no real challenge to Brown for the Labour leadership is that he crushed any promising talent that might challenge what he viewed as his solemn right to govern Britain. He and his team are shown to continually brief and leak against Blair, the content of his budgets were rarely divulged up to a couple of hours before they were announced when they were already at the printers and he is shown to be the worst micro-manager possible.
The book is far from perfect and you are painfully aware that the author is still working with the people he is writing about and so tries to stay away from making personal judgement. However in an election year and despite whatever economic competence he portrays Brown as having you cannot but arrive at the conclusion that Gordon Brown is insane.
An interesting if not biased account.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.9 out of 5 stars
8 reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb account of the last two Labour terms of office
May 7 2010
By William Podmore
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
This is by far the best account of the Labour government from 2001 to 2010. It is not quite an insider's account, but at least it is honest, unlike Campbell's diaries or Blair's forthcoming memoirs. Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley has the best contacts among, and the most knowledge of, the small group of selfishly-motivated men who ran Britain from 1997 to 2010.
Rawnsley shows how Blair became Bush's PR man, flying the world, lying for war. In July 2006, Blair backed Israel's attack on Lebanon. At the UN Security Council, only the British and US governments opposed the call for a ceasefire. Kofi Annan condemned Israel's `excessive use of force', inflicting `collective punishment', as a breach of the Geneva Convention. After Israeli forces had killed more than a thousand people, the US worked with France, not Britain, for a UN Resolution calling for an end to hostilities.
His Iraq war did for Blair; his economic record did for Brown. From 1997, Brown tied himself to finance capital, giving it all it wanted. He told us in June 2007 that freeing Britain's banks would bring `the beginning of a new golden age'. He praised the City's `great example' and `remarkable achievements'. In August 2008, he said of the crisis, "This will be over in six months."
Brown shares David Cameron's values and views. In June 2006, Cameron hailed `the victory of capitalism, privatisation and liberalisation'. In September 2007 he said, "the world economy is more stable than for a generation."
Brown handled the crisis by feeding public money to private greed. As Rawnsley points out, "during the frantic negotiations over the bail-out, the banks had not been nailed down to guarantee that they would sustain lending."
In January 2009, a second bail-out brought our total gifts to the banks to at least £289 billion, as against the £203 billion that the financial sector paid in taxes in the previous five years. By contrast, the government gave the car industry just £2.3 billion in January 2009.
Brown said he would not tolerate `rewards for failure' (GMTV, 8 October 2008). But he has tolerated such rewards. 89 per cent of us believe that the government should have stopped the bailed-out banks paying bonuses (Populus poll for The Times, 13 February 2009). But Labour knew better.
There are $10 trillion in tax havens, half of them under British jurisdiction. They were supposed to clean up their act or face sanctions by the end of 2009. What has Labour done about this scandal? Nothing. How about cutting them, rather than our hospitals, schools and colleges?
Labour has worshipped finance capital. It is only fitting that finance capital should wreck it. But what are we the working class going to do? Are we going to let ourselves get dragged down with the wreckage?
Rawnsley shows how Blair became Bush's PR man, flying the world, lying for war. In July 2006, Blair backed Israel's attack on Lebanon. At the UN Security Council, only the British and US governments opposed the call for a ceasefire. Kofi Annan condemned Israel's `excessive use of force', inflicting `collective punishment', as a breach of the Geneva Convention. After Israeli forces had killed more than a thousand people, the US worked with France, not Britain, for a UN Resolution calling for an end to hostilities.
His Iraq war did for Blair; his economic record did for Brown. From 1997, Brown tied himself to finance capital, giving it all it wanted. He told us in June 2007 that freeing Britain's banks would bring `the beginning of a new golden age'. He praised the City's `great example' and `remarkable achievements'. In August 2008, he said of the crisis, "This will be over in six months."
Brown shares David Cameron's values and views. In June 2006, Cameron hailed `the victory of capitalism, privatisation and liberalisation'. In September 2007 he said, "the world economy is more stable than for a generation."
Brown handled the crisis by feeding public money to private greed. As Rawnsley points out, "during the frantic negotiations over the bail-out, the banks had not been nailed down to guarantee that they would sustain lending."
In January 2009, a second bail-out brought our total gifts to the banks to at least £289 billion, as against the £203 billion that the financial sector paid in taxes in the previous five years. By contrast, the government gave the car industry just £2.3 billion in January 2009.
Brown said he would not tolerate `rewards for failure' (GMTV, 8 October 2008). But he has tolerated such rewards. 89 per cent of us believe that the government should have stopped the bailed-out banks paying bonuses (Populus poll for The Times, 13 February 2009). But Labour knew better.
There are $10 trillion in tax havens, half of them under British jurisdiction. They were supposed to clean up their act or face sanctions by the end of 2009. What has Labour done about this scandal? Nothing. How about cutting them, rather than our hospitals, schools and colleges?
Labour has worshipped finance capital. It is only fitting that finance capital should wreck it. But what are we the working class going to do? Are we going to let ourselves get dragged down with the wreckage?
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Tony Blair's Good Side
Mar 16 2010
By conjunction
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
I found this book and its predecessor very helpful, I read them back to back after reading a review which said how many sleepless nights Blair had had when the occupation of Iraq started to fall apart.
The reason the books are helpful is that they greatly thicken out the impressions I had gleaned from the press and other sources about how the Labour government operated. I don't normally read political stories in the papers in great detail and I learned a lot about the character and modus operandi of Blair, Brown and also Straw and Campbell from these books. For me Mandelson was always a more visible character.
The most important result of this for me was seeing Blair's good side. I have strongly disliked Blair because of what I saw has his complete mendacity over weapons of mass destruction etc. Rawnsley reveals that Blair was deeply concerned about developments in fundamentalist Islam and also Iraq going back to the late nineties. Before 9/11 he was reading and rereading the Koran to try and understand the thinking. His concern over WMD predates 9/11 as well.
The fact remains that it was crystal clear to many people (see Murray's seminal 'Murder in Samarkand' for example) that there could be no WMD before the Iraq war, and I haven't changed my mind about Blair as far as the war was concerned; but he had reasons to seek stories he could believe in which justified his stance. He was in fact a committed neocon. Bush didn't have to work on him and he was committed to invading Iraq, if that was what Bush wanted at least twelve months before it happened. The neocon doctrine was fundamentally about having a political/military base in the near East to keep an eye on all those dodgy mostly Islamic states which might or might not get a bomb. Even oil was secondary, it was good old fashioned world domination.
It seems virtually no-one in the cabinet, and only Jonathan Powell in the team at No 10 was in favour of the war. All the others rallied round to support Blair, whose thinking was largely kept to himself for long periods. Even Straw, despite his outward persona, was dragged into it.
Rawnsley clarifies aspects of Blair's personality: that his courage was awesome, once he had made his mind up, and in a crisis he quickly became able to voice his convictions and assume centre stage. However at other times he was chronically indecisive and unable to make decisions. Blair was an instinctive politician and not interested in working out all the angles. He wanted to join the euro, one fight he lost to Brown. When Brown put on a series of seminars to educate his colleagues Blair spent the whole time yawning and looking out of the window. For him it was a political matter not an economic one.
Blair also comes out well over Northern Ireland where his refusal to give in was crucial, according to all other parties it seems.
Both books detail continual rows between Brown and Blair but also and underlying, semi-conscious respect and affection. But the rows were frequently such as to make everyone else take cover, and often stopped work being done.
The last part of the book is probably fresh in our minds anyway and Brown's difficulties have so far been less dramatic than Blair's. Brown doesn't get a good press but his depth of understanding and research done on many issues and his confidence in economic crisis emerge clearly.
Overall I finished these books with a much more positive outlook on the New Labour project than I had when I started. I might even vote Labour. But I haven't changed my mind about the war.
The reason the books are helpful is that they greatly thicken out the impressions I had gleaned from the press and other sources about how the Labour government operated. I don't normally read political stories in the papers in great detail and I learned a lot about the character and modus operandi of Blair, Brown and also Straw and Campbell from these books. For me Mandelson was always a more visible character.
The most important result of this for me was seeing Blair's good side. I have strongly disliked Blair because of what I saw has his complete mendacity over weapons of mass destruction etc. Rawnsley reveals that Blair was deeply concerned about developments in fundamentalist Islam and also Iraq going back to the late nineties. Before 9/11 he was reading and rereading the Koran to try and understand the thinking. His concern over WMD predates 9/11 as well.
The fact remains that it was crystal clear to many people (see Murray's seminal 'Murder in Samarkand' for example) that there could be no WMD before the Iraq war, and I haven't changed my mind about Blair as far as the war was concerned; but he had reasons to seek stories he could believe in which justified his stance. He was in fact a committed neocon. Bush didn't have to work on him and he was committed to invading Iraq, if that was what Bush wanted at least twelve months before it happened. The neocon doctrine was fundamentally about having a political/military base in the near East to keep an eye on all those dodgy mostly Islamic states which might or might not get a bomb. Even oil was secondary, it was good old fashioned world domination.
It seems virtually no-one in the cabinet, and only Jonathan Powell in the team at No 10 was in favour of the war. All the others rallied round to support Blair, whose thinking was largely kept to himself for long periods. Even Straw, despite his outward persona, was dragged into it.
Rawnsley clarifies aspects of Blair's personality: that his courage was awesome, once he had made his mind up, and in a crisis he quickly became able to voice his convictions and assume centre stage. However at other times he was chronically indecisive and unable to make decisions. Blair was an instinctive politician and not interested in working out all the angles. He wanted to join the euro, one fight he lost to Brown. When Brown put on a series of seminars to educate his colleagues Blair spent the whole time yawning and looking out of the window. For him it was a political matter not an economic one.
Blair also comes out well over Northern Ireland where his refusal to give in was crucial, according to all other parties it seems.
Both books detail continual rows between Brown and Blair but also and underlying, semi-conscious respect and affection. But the rows were frequently such as to make everyone else take cover, and often stopped work being done.
The last part of the book is probably fresh in our minds anyway and Brown's difficulties have so far been less dramatic than Blair's. Brown doesn't get a good press but his depth of understanding and research done on many issues and his confidence in economic crisis emerge clearly.
Overall I finished these books with a much more positive outlook on the New Labour project than I had when I started. I might even vote Labour. But I haven't changed my mind about the war.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Getting the inside dirt on a decade of Labour government & a great follow up!
Mar 10 2010
By Todd Bartholomew
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
"The End of the Party" serves as a follow-up to Rawnsley's earlier Servants of the People, which chronicled Labour's first term in office under Tony Blair (1997 to 2001). But "The End of the Party" takes advantage of the internecine fighting within Labour to serve up far more insider gossip freely spilled by insiders. "End of the Party" picks up where "Servants" left off in 2001 at the time of Blair's re-election and carries through the transition to Gordon Brown up to the present. That's a LOT of ground to cover as it includes 9/11, the run-up to the Iraq War, 7/7, Blair's "retirement", Brown's assent as Prime Minister, the financial crisis, the parliamentary expense scandal, and many other issues. To a degree there are parallels between Tony Blair and George Bush; both held the same views regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, both were feared by party insiders; both came undone following their first terms.
What is perhaps both surprising and unsurprising about "End of the Party" is how Gordon Brown comes off. While Brown has never come off as "Miss Mary Sunshine", he certainly comes off a far gruffer, meaner, and more demanding behind the scenes than expected. A harsh taskmaster, he's frequently berated and demeaned staffers causing some to seek counseling. While that would hardly be unexpected in some quarters, this is 10 Downing, as one source points out in the book. And considering all that Blair and Brown went through in this period it's unsurprising that they demanded, and expected, a great deal from their staff. And in some respects, there's not a lot here that's new or that hasn't been read before. Most of what is new is the layers of detail, and the degree to which the infighting has crept into the Labour Party. And to a certain extent "End of the Party" and what it reveals may actually help Brown in his re-election fight later in 2010, as it shows him to be tough and resolute, and his skeptics and critics to be soft whiners. Rather than painting Brown as the bungler he's commonly perceived to be in public, he comes across as more of a hard man here. Were he to show that private face publicly it's likely the public would embrace him more than they have heretofore.
"End of the Party" points out how hard it is to maintain party cohesion after more than 12 years in power, and how that same party can run out of new ideas and fresh blood to carry on. While Conservatives will certainly delight in reading it, "End of the Party" is more of a cautionary tale that could just have easily been about the transition from Thatcher to Major and the same thing occurring. It seems a bit odd for Rawnsley to publish "End of the Party" without the rather fitting coda of the upcoming elections, which could lead skeptics to claim he's attempting to influence the elections. At any rate, "End of the Party" is a fun, gossipy read that covers an important epoch of British history. Rawnsley's delightful prose makes it all the more enjoyable.
What is perhaps both surprising and unsurprising about "End of the Party" is how Gordon Brown comes off. While Brown has never come off as "Miss Mary Sunshine", he certainly comes off a far gruffer, meaner, and more demanding behind the scenes than expected. A harsh taskmaster, he's frequently berated and demeaned staffers causing some to seek counseling. While that would hardly be unexpected in some quarters, this is 10 Downing, as one source points out in the book. And considering all that Blair and Brown went through in this period it's unsurprising that they demanded, and expected, a great deal from their staff. And in some respects, there's not a lot here that's new or that hasn't been read before. Most of what is new is the layers of detail, and the degree to which the infighting has crept into the Labour Party. And to a certain extent "End of the Party" and what it reveals may actually help Brown in his re-election fight later in 2010, as it shows him to be tough and resolute, and his skeptics and critics to be soft whiners. Rather than painting Brown as the bungler he's commonly perceived to be in public, he comes across as more of a hard man here. Were he to show that private face publicly it's likely the public would embrace him more than they have heretofore.
"End of the Party" points out how hard it is to maintain party cohesion after more than 12 years in power, and how that same party can run out of new ideas and fresh blood to carry on. While Conservatives will certainly delight in reading it, "End of the Party" is more of a cautionary tale that could just have easily been about the transition from Thatcher to Major and the same thing occurring. It seems a bit odd for Rawnsley to publish "End of the Party" without the rather fitting coda of the upcoming elections, which could lead skeptics to claim he's attempting to influence the elections. At any rate, "End of the Party" is a fun, gossipy read that covers an important epoch of British history. Rawnsley's delightful prose makes it all the more enjoyable.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see all 8 reviews
4.9 out of 5 stars
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
