LETTERS FROM THE U.K.

Hello everyone. My name is Michael Faulkner. I am a long time close personal friend and political kindred spirit of Steve Jonas, and a long-time faculty member in Modern European history and political science. A few months ago, with Steve Gheen’s permission, Steve asked me if I would like to become a contributor to The Political Junkies, presenting a perspective on British (UK) and European affairs from where I live and work, in London. I am delighted that the invitation was extended and here I am. My understanding from Steve is that my columns will be appearing every other Sunday, alternating with those from Mickey Walker, who presents, in essence, the “Letters from Texas.” An interesting contrast, I daresay. With this column, I am starting a series on the history and legacy of the now former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I hope that it will be of interest and instructive at the same time.

1997 – 2007. The End of Blair.

Since Tony Blair’s resignation last week the press here has, not surprisingly, devoted most of its main coverage to the formation of the new government led by Gordon Brown. The Labour Party, which for many months trailed the Conservatives in the opinion polls, has bounced back to a substantial lead. If an election were to be called now Labour could be returned with an increased majority. Such has been Blair’s deep unpopularity since 2003 that even the lack-lustre Brown, contrary to all expectations, appears to have inspired a degree of hope that things may improve. Of course, this could turn out to be a short-lived honeymoon. Time will tell. 

However, the events of the last few days have eclipsed everything else as front page news. The thwarted bomb attacks in London and Glasgow are a sharp reminder that the domestic consequences of Blair’s foreign policy are still with us and are likely to resound for a long time to come. Blair has not simply relinquished the premiership; he has left British politics altogether. Resigning his parliamentary seat, he says good riddance to an institution for which he had neither time nor taste. A man of colossal ego, he imagines that he can play a pivotal role on the world stage as a peace-maker in the Middle East. His assignment to that unenviable post, largely as the nominee of his close friend George Bush, recalls the comments some thirty years ago by the satirist Tom Lehrer. On hearing that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Henry Kissinger, he said that after this he would have to retire as there was no longer any place for satire in the world.

Prior to the 2005 election Blair was obliged to announce that he would not stand for a fourth term. He was deeply reluctant to do this, but he knew that failure to do so would finally breach the fragile truce prevailing with his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. This might have meant that Blair would have been forced out much as Margaret Thatcher was in 1990. It has been public knowledge for nearly ten years that the two men loathe each other, but such are the exigencies of British politics that neither could admit that this was so. So, the public has been subjected to the ludicrous spectacle of Blair and Brown periodically claiming to admire each other. This pretence was sustained to the bitter end. Blair had apparently reneged several times on a deal made early on with Brown, promising that he would step down to make way for his Chancellor some time during his second term in office. Brown is reliably reported to have informed Blair, following one of many broken promises, that he would henceforth never believe a word he told him.

Since he led Britain, against enormous public opposition, into the Iraq war in 2003, Blair’s popularity ratings have sunk to levels currently endured by those of his closest ally, George Bush, in the U.S. Prior to the Iraq war Blair enjoyed almost unprecedented public approval ratings. Those who were less inclined to be swept along by the glitter and hype accompanying the ‘New Labour’ victory in 1997, could see from the start that there was something distinctly phony about Blair’s celebrity status.

What is surprising is that this ‘great leader’ myth continues to have such widespread currency today. When he made his swansong speech to parliament last week, he received a standing ovation from both sides of the House. Only the Nationalists remained seated. It was claimed in most of the media coverage that this was unprecedented in the history of parliament. It was not true. On the 4^th July 1940, just after the fall of France, when Britain stood alone against the armed might of the Third Reich, Churchill received a rapturous standing ovation from the House of Commons when he declared: ‘We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us.’ Although Blair, like Thatcher before him, appears to imagine that he walks in the great man’s footsteps, to invest Blair’s ‘final hour’ with the mystique of Churchill’s ‘finest hour’ must put a strain on even the most credulous of his admirers. A more revealing insight into the former PM’s leadership qualities could be seen in one of his last public appearances, at the recent G.8 summit in Germany. He appeared alongside George Bush (the Dead Duck and the Lame Duck!) to respond to questions from a British journalist about his role in halting an embarrassing Serious Fraud Office enquiry into attempts by British Aerospace to cover up secret payments to a billionaire Saudi prince. The two men mumbled evasively and for once Blair seemed as tongue-tied as Bush.

For the past year and more the British media have kept the spotlight on Blair. Most of the coverage has been critical – some of it severely so. There have been TV documentaries, drama documentaries and satirical shows in the theatre and extended analytical articles in the newspapers. Almost all of these have reached the conclusion that Blair’s legacy will be summed up in one word – Iraq. Yet strangely, much of this coverage has let Blair off lightly. His relationship with Bush and his responsibility for the catastrophe of Iraq, tend to be treated as mistakes. Some of the most experienced liberal journalists such as Martin Kettle and Andrew Rawnsley, in the ‘quality’ newspapers, while often very critical of Blair, reject the charge that he has lied. Commonly his record has been treated with some leniency. He has too often been treated as a man of high moral principles who made serious mistakes but did his best. He is applauded as ‘the most successful Labour prime minister of all time’, while the criterion for measuring ‘success’ is conveniently ignored. Blair’s ‘kid glove’ critics often accuse his more serious critics on the Left of being ideologically motivated character assassins.

In this and some of my subsequent articles, I hope to make a serious assessment of the record of Blair and New Labour. My comments will be primarily concerned with foreign policy, and, particularly with Britain’s relationship with the United States. I intend to look at the post-World War Two history of British-U.S. relations to see what pattern, if any, may be discerned.

To be continued.

NEXT- JUNKIES SPEAK

Last Update: 07/27/2007