I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.
He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.
And he is NOT Financial/Organised, otherwise this country would be in the middle of a boom and not a bust (wasn't it he who said "an end to boom and bust"...famous last words, anyone?). Knowing people who know him, Organised/Protective is more like it, Blair having been Charismatic/Aggressive. (David Cameron = Creative/Charismatic, but since I actually
do know him, let me put it charitably that perhaps Creative/Stoned-half-the-time would be more like it. The time I role-played a civ game as him - well, OK, using Gilgamesh's Creative/Protective stats - it was the only single game in which I have lost the Apostolic Palace building).
I'll add my 0.02
to the Civs thread, as the UK should be in as an independent civ. The EU is not a coherent global power, nor does it have its own army - take it from me as someone who knows these things intimately - and could not really be considered a civ. Particularly given the Treaty of Lisbon has failed, it really can't be organised into a single unit. If you are putting Kazakhstan (!) in, then the UK should be in on its own.