Too complacent': how Blair's advisers misjudged his disastrous WI speech

"Despite the WI explicitly warning they were wary of anything that smacked of capital P politics, Blair's aides were critical of his first draft and bombarded him with additions to inject more policy. Fresh from paternity leave after the birth of his son Leo, Blair believed the annual WI conference in 2000 allowed for a more personal and reflective speech and an opportunity to blend tradition and modernity to appeal to middle England."

"Particular lines that irked Campbell included Blair saying he applauded the Tate Modern even though I don't always understand it and describing any suggestion of doing away with the old-fashioned pomp and pageantry of the queen's speech in parliament as an unnecessary act of destruction of an ancient and loved ceremony. Campbell wrote: The queen's speech/Tate Modern stuff comes across as rather desperate and you sound in parts like a commentator rather than a political leader."

"There was a risk of it seeming patronising, he added, urging Blair to address topics such as drugs, Sure Start, university access and small business startups. The speech was too complacent and too comfortable and a seeming effort to distance yourself from what is you. The strategy and polling adviser Philip Gould felt it leaves the wrong taste', tried to be conversational but instead feels condescending and lacked energy, verve, dynamism and change, according to files released to the National Archiv"

Tony Blair delivered a notably ill-received speech to the Women’s Institute at Wembley Arena in 2000 that provoked heckling and slow hand-clapping from around 10,000 members. Advisers warned the WI did not want overt politics, yet urged injections of policy and greater energy into the speech. Alastair Campbell criticized lines about the Tate Modern and the queen's speech as sounding desperate and commentator-like, and warned of a patronising tone. Advisers recommended focusing on drugs, Sure Start, university access and small business startups. Philip Gould described the speech as condescending and lacking dynamism and change.

Read at www.theguardian.com