This question is for people who are somewhat knowlegeable about British politics. Did Tony Blair?

Given that Mr Blair was given a lucrative consultancy job with JP Morgan after he left office, and has since earned shedloads of money as a public speaker, I'd have to say the answer is "no".

With the blood still drying on his hands, he was appointed a middle -east peace envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU. One can only assume that the phrase "peace envoy" was designed to amuse fans of Orwell.

I can see the point of view of the writers who have previously responded to this question. However, I think they are missing one critical detail: the question asks if Blair and his party paid any "political" price. The previous answers seem concerned mainly with the views of corporate types and politicians of Blair and "New Labour".

They certainly represent a significant section of the UK's body politic, but I think the opinions of the British masses should be our main concern when answering this question. On that basis, I would say that the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror have cost Blair and New Labour more than may at first appear, though not quite as much as one might think, given the derision commonly heaped on Blair. I believe Blair has definitely loss the gloss that he had prior to Iraq and the war on terror, but he also seems to retain a significant amount of goodwill among Brits.

I think this retention of goodwill is significant as it points to an essential conservatism of the British public.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.