Not personally, but as an example of media monopoly influence.
Well, personally, as he is not really an example, being sui generis

Steve Davies' "A very special  relationship" on Radio 4 this morning was timely. Though Davies did not mention it the biggest mistake Blair made was to let the Sun make the case for war for him. Blair did not lie but he let the press lie and failed to contradict it on a few specific points. This is why 'live by the sword etc..' applies in this case. Apart from the business of getting elected and going to war, Blair managed to avoid overusing the Murdoch weapon. Independence cost him dear in ministers from time to time.

Cameron has decided not to sell out to Murdoch, or so he claims. In my view, unless the British public has the guts and nous to ignore not just Murdoch but much of the other media opinion, the next election will be like others - in the hands of those either pulling the strings or having them pulled within the 'free' press.

Naturally the media could give good advice, based on good intelligence.  After all, peer pressure in the UK if unguided and unchanelled can lead in almost any direction these days, usually creating two or more opposing but equally confused and irrational views on any question you care to name. The British public, previously famed for solid values, tradition and consistency boarding on obstinacy, now seems to have little resistance to peer pressure. When stirred by media, overtly or subtly, it can be decisive. I suggest a unit of peer-pressure, equivalent to the Newton in physics, called a Murdoch (abbreviation Mch). It takes 1 Murdoch to change the opinion of a standard UK citizen from 'don't know' to for or against a proposition that costs them £500 p/a. Purely Political Murdochs (abbreviation PMch) are different. 5 PMch at least are required on matters of war, though only 2 on election of a government. If the local MP is a pressure factor this can be more or less.

The only healthy outlook now is for all political parties to ignore the media and do their own overt spinning with an in-house party newspaper. Do it on the web to save money. Refuse all cooperation and articles in newspapers. Advertise regularly and briefly in all printed and broadcast media to inform the public of the URL and headlines in the political webcasts. For those of the public without PCs or wanting hardcopy, special terminals which print on cheap, recyclable or even reusable 'paper' should be available in supermarkets, post offices and newsagents where for the same or less cost than a newspaper hard copy of the party's news sheet would be available.

This can put an end to election advertising, save millions after the initial set up (billions in a few years) and also end the problem of financing the political parties through encouraging donations and loans for electoral campaigns.

As has been true since the beginning of time, the solution of a problem is the key to evolution and one so-called problem solves solves another. In this case, the solution is not just to cease political spin but to cease cooperation with the media. Keep the free press and broadcasting, let them write and say what they wish. Treat them all as the enemy. Fair enough. But politicians should speak direct in their own words only, without interruption by a John Humphrys or the cynical twisting of a Kelvin McKenzie.

I realise that there are those who think Kelvin McKenzie was or even is a fine example of Britishness, cool and sceptical, realistic, the backbone of the nation. I could not possibly comment. As for Murdoch, he is not necessarily always wrong politically, I just don't want him running anything other than his business. Only the British public and the leaders of all the political parties can take back the responsibility they are supposed to exclusively possess.