In defence of Blair

As Tony Blair begins to leave the stage that he has commanded for the last ten years, I am reproducing here an edited version of an article I penned for Renewal just before the last election. I am doing so because I think the piece stands up to the passage of time and because the fact that it does two years into Blair's third term is indicative of how the left-wing intelligentsia have played their shameful part in the premature departure of an exceptional leader, to the detriment of the Labour Party and the country at large. The "high-minded" high-brows of the left have always been quick to accuse others of betraying "this great movement of ours". I have to say that some of us regard their remorseless attacks on Blair in his latter years as the greatest betrayal of all  (not to mention those Cabinet and ex-Cabinet colleagues who failed to stand up for him when it really mattered). So here is the article that articulated these concerns over two years ago. "To make the case for Tony Blair at this political juncture is to risk banishment from left-leaning intellectual circles. Those who do are dismissed as being hopelessly naive, or unprincipled careerists bent on securing a place in the Blair establishment. Pro-Blair arguments rarely make the pages of leading radical journals and when they do there is invariably a sting in the tail linked to the totemic leftist issues such as the Iraq war or civil liberties, if only to provide reassurance that the writer has not taken complete leave of his senses. To attack Blair, on the other hand, is to demonstrate your credibility as a deep-thinking political commentator, notwithstanding that logical argument and fairness seem to be largely ignored in the process. This is usually done by putting the worst possible interpretation on whatever Blair is saying or doing, with little regard to context or objective analysis. Thus is Blair: — accused of being in thrall to Big Business if he makes the slightest concession to the business point of view – however strong the arguments might be for doing so — criticised for not raising even more revenue for the public services despite the growing evidence that the limits of taxation are being reached in a debt-ridden consumer society where the perception is that there are more exciting things to do with your money — reprimanded for the time it is taking to deliver on public services, with scant account being taken of Blair’s election promise to impose a two-year freeze on public spending in the interest of economic stability (such promises only seem to be sacrosanct when Blair’s critics approves if them!) and of the time it takes for extra resources to work their way through the system — lambasted for bringing politics into disrepute without any regard being given to the political cynicism created by a malign media. Thus is the induction of some private funding and choice into education and the health services portrayed as a betrayal of everything the left stands for as if socialism was simply about unadulterated state funding, or the old Ford approach writ large – where you could have a car of any colour as long as it was black. Thus we have the Iraq war depicted as ‘Blair’s war’ regardless of the fact that the Americans would have invaded Iraq anyway – and perhaps with even worse consequences – without Blair’s restraining influence. Finally, and most damaging to Blair’s reputation, there is the charge that he took us to war on the basis of a lie – no matter how many times it is argued that the actual casus belli was not Saddam’s alleged possession of WMD per se but his serial non-compliance with UN Resolutions requiring him to demonstrate (not merely assert) that he did not have these weapons. But all such considerations are swept aside by the compulsion of Blair’s critics to present everything that Blair doesthrough a glass darkly – appropriate perhaps to bar room discussion but not, I submit, to serious debate. So how should those who still believe in left ideals, but who recognise the constraints on realising them in a world dominated by business interests and realpolitik, relate to Tony Blair’s leadership? First, we  should  give credit where credit is due. There is a huge success story to be told - from Sure start to vastly improved pensions for the poorest in our community, from the introduction of a rising minimum wage to massive investment in health and education services.                                                                                                                                           Second, we should accept the positive elements of Blair’s essentially pragmatic approach. What is wrong with a philosophy of what works best, irrespective of which part of the political spectrum the idea is coming from? Socialism was never about taxing the rich per se or nationalisation per se but about building a better society. You cannot do that with what does not work, however much you might wish it to be otherwise. So why not give more attention to rigorous research findings when we try to put our ideals into practice? If the results fit the ideology of the left (e.g. that comprehensive education produces a more cohesive society without detriment to academic standards) all well and good; if the results do not fit (e.g. that Foundation Hospitals provide a better and more democratic service), so be it. What is wrong, too, with recognising the central role of consumerism in peoples’ lives and the importance that is now attached to personal spending and personal choice compared to the more collectivist ethos of former days? Recognising this as a fact of life in a capitalist society does not mean we necessarily approve of it. It means we have to be more canny about nudging people in the right direction as we see it – and appreciating that the achievement of a truly social democratic society will be quite a slow process where many pre-conditions will have to be met, such as a more rounded school curriculum and curbs on working time and advertising, before we can begin to change course in a decisive manner. We can just about see the start of this under the Blair regime, but given the need to keep everyone on board, not least the wealth-creators in a highly competitive business society, we should not be too impatient about the rate of progress. Third, we should continue to put forward radical policies based on socialist values but adapted in the Blair way to chime with how people actually live their lives in this frenetic twenty-first-century turbo-capitalist society of ours. More emphasis on the well-being agenda would be a good start in this respect. Fourth, we should try to move towards a more balanced view on Blair’s part in the Iraq war. We may well still conclude that this was a mistaken venture, but we should at least consider the possibility that Blair’s motives for doing what he did were not ignoble and that in the end there may have been a fine choice to be made between the lesser of the evils.   As to the future, it could be that Blair and any Blairite successor could be so beholden to the business community as to rule out any significant advance under their leadership. At this point, but only at this point, let battle commence."

Comments

[BlairSupporter]

Mr Rosenthal,

At last! A man of principle in the Labour Party! No that's too facile - I'm sure there are many.

But what a good article, with the additional benefit of reference to your earlier perceptive one. Well said.

As you know, and so kindly commented on my blog the other day, I have felt like a sole voice crying in the wilderness in defence of Tony Blair. It may be easier for me because I am NOT a member of the Labour party - or ANY party - though I once belonged to another party. But what does it say about Labour when a non-Labour party member has the ONLY blog in his support? Well, the only one I have found anyway. Please let me know if there are any others. Perhaps it says that he actually DID have the unique ability to appeal across parties. Remember when THAT was considered valuable?

But even on a personal level I feel that Mr Blair's own party, in failing to speak out for him, have done the man a cruel and unforgivable discourtesy. I suppose the reason he hasn't crumbled under the strain is that he really IS now Teflon Tony. His family and his faith are his strengths, as well as the people he meets while out and about who invariably find they actually quite like him still.

Yet the man is brilliant. Brilliant! Probably the finest politician of his age. Yes, he has made mistakes. Show me a politician who hasn't and I'll show you one who died too young. The sainted John Kennedy comes to mind here.

It could be that in the end Iraq will prove NOT to be considered foremost amongst Blair's errors despite the deaths AFTER the war. The deaths which OTHERS have wrought on that land.

A contrarian view? Just for the sake of it? Contrarian, yes, but because we do not yet know what will happen in future years, so not just for the sake of it. We DO NOT KNOW the future.

If there follows a settled land - true, it doesn't look likely yet - many of the Middle East's problems could be resolved. Then peace would be seen to have emanated from Bush and Blair and others recognising that terrorism had to be nipped in the bud, when only thousands had been killed and not millions.

We can't "undead" the dead in Iraq. Of course not. But for pity's sake why do people REFUSE to accept that WE ARE NOT DOING THE KILLING.

And we can't be sure how many would have died anyway, had Saddam remained in place.

And at last the USA is following Blair's suggestion and talking to Iran. Better late than never. Though a bit galling for Blair, I expect.

On to your main point - sorry I took so long.

THE GREAT BRITISH PRESS.

The "liberal intelligentsia" (a misnomer and even oxymoron, if ever I saw one) has much for which to be responsible. I have written quite a bit at my blog about them, particularly in relation to the cash-for-honours inquiry.

But such as The Independent - well, words fail me. But they never fail The Indie. Enough about that paper.

What bothers me is that so many journalists behave as though they were THERE through every nuanced discussion, every decision made, every consideration. They fit the telling of their version of a story to support their own political view. So if someone, anyone, has expressed a somewhat different view of a meeting or discussion or note than the official view, then that PROVES, yes, PROVES absolutely that BLAIR IS A LIAR.

What's wrong with these people? Bring back lessons in logic pur..lease, whoever tackles education next! You wouldn't think we need to go back to ancient Greek philosophers to understand complexity and cause and effect, but we obviously do.

Anyway, I need to go now, Mr Rosenthal.

Have to get up a new page on my blog arguing why I don't want Tony Blair to become the Ambassador for Peace in Iraq, and, on the other hand, why he probably WILL!

Good luck to you.

This page has, if I recall correctly, my thoughts on the press (oh, and the police).

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/leaks-leaks-more-leaks/

[DannyD]

A good article, Stan...As Bill Clinton has said, we think that whenever we read something that we are in full agreement with, the person writing it is a genius!
What we have achieved in 10 years is worth celebrating, and we do have a good story to tell...It can sometimes be a strange world we live in, whereby you feel with a certain number of Labour supporters (still a small minority, but have a high media presence) that they will not be happy until we are out of government. Then they can return to the opposition sidelines wringing their hands, rejoicing in their ideological "purity".

[Alan Smart]

Stan

Maybe before the last election your article had a point, but what is the point of it now?

Blair has not been "hounded from office" by anyone - the left or the media. He picked his own moment is going, it is a time of his own chosing.

Tony has controlled the deparure agenda from start to finish. For example, who objectively could say it would not have been better for Labour for him to have gone before not after May's election? Had he gone say in February, Labour would near certainly still control the Scottish Parliament( it was tight) would probably have won Wales fairly easily and would also control at last 20 major English Councils lost on May 3. Why? because Brown as a new leader would have got some bounce, not necessarily much, but enough to achieve what I outline above.

Why did Blair not go before rather than after the vote? Was it political - vital work to be done? Not at all. It was because he wanted his 10 years, wanted to beat Maggie's record. Even now, he wont go - he's picked late June, can see the film, and wont even do the obvious thing and go now that there has been a non contest for his successor. Country in limbo , UKs G8 input all but meaningless, all for Tony's ego.

So Stan , the entire rationale of your article is just wrong - Blair is still contolling his departure, right down to the very day, hour I guess.

As for your assement of his overall record - if "the left" is blinkered to anything good he did - and he did do lots - you are more blinkered in the other direction.

Iraq - a 101% disaster from start to finish , and illegal as Tony himself surely knows.

Sleeze - not a media invention a fact. So much of a fact people close to Tony have been charged, an absolute first for a sitting PM in modern times.

The rest? Room for reasonable political debate, a lot of plusses, fewer minusses i guess. But the two I mention above are big, "indefensible" I'd say.

So, an illegal disterous war, and illegal abuse of the patronage of office. And the worst labour results for decades, indeed the worst reult in Scotland since 1919, the outcome of which ( SNP actually in power) I believe will in time see the end of the UK and with it Labour as a natural party of Government.

So against the significnat good ( all revesible in time), two indelible black marks, plus the probable break up of the UK and with this the geopolitical semi-terminal decline of the party he leads. And none of this assesment is at all "left wing" or media bile.

[el Tom]

Sorry to drag the debate down to this oft repeated level, but I was wondering if the guy above could explain why, when we knew that a power vacuum would be created in an area susceptible to a particularly vile strain of armed fundamentalism, we went ahead and invaded it?

Even before the war, it was a little obvious that the death toll would exceed anything Saddam could have dreamed of.

the fact that we haven't done most of the killing is far less important to understanding the nature of the problem than the accompanying fact that the destruction of iraqi infrastructure and social hierarchy, along with the political unpopularity gained by the west, in the face of civilian deaths unnecessary to the removal of Saddam, has effectively allowed these people the opportunity to wreak their havoc:- which did not exist before, would not exist had we chosen a more suitable route to removing Saddam, and has resulted in more deaths than Saddam himself could ever claim any twisted notion of credit for.

Worse, all of this was claimed before the subsequent invasion; but nobody would listen.

All of which goes on to show that we should become a more listening government.

Basically, in removing Saddam in completely the wrong fashion, we have allowed these people to get away with a far greater murder than that for which we took revenge against Saddam; despite this being warned against.

Now, for the love of God, let's rebuild the iraq we smashed up, as Gordon has indicated we should, and move on from the debate.

[el Tom]

Sorry to drag the debate down to this oft repeated level, but I was wondering if the guy above could explain why, when we knew that a power vacuum would be created in an area susceptible to a particularly vile strain of armed fundamentalism, we went ahead and invaded it?

Even before the war, it was a little obvious that the death toll would exceed anything Saddam could have dreamed of.

the fact that we haven't done most of the killing is far less important to understanding the nature of the problem than the accompanying fact that the destruction of iraqi infrastructure and social hierarchy, along with the political unpopularity gained by the west, in the face of civilian deaths unnecessary to the removal of Saddam, has effectively allowed these people the opportunity to wreak their havoc:- which did not exist before, would not exist had we chosen a more suitable route to removing Saddam, and has resulted in more deaths than Saddam himself could ever claim any twisted notion of credit for.

Worse, all of this was claimed before the subsequent invasion; but nobody would listen.

All of which goes on to show that we should become a more listening government.

Basically, in removing Saddam in completely the wrong fashion, we have allowed these people to get away with a far greater murder than that for which we took revenge against Saddam; despite this being warned against.

Now, for the love of God, let's rebuild the iraq we smashed up, as Gordon has indicated we should, and move on from the debate.

[Jas]

Much sense in what Stan says. Iraq is not the Big Issue. The labour government, with a big majority could have done much more to change our political economy. Difficult to decide whether Blair suffered from having the stuffing knocked out of Labour by Thatcher and concluded (with all "informed opinion") that he had to go with the flow. Or did he, like the average labour supporter, detest Thatcher and all her works, and plot to reverse her evil ways just as soon as he got into power?
There are sensible ways of accomodating business interests without having your tummy tickled at every opportunity, and there should have been much greater efforts to promote social and co-operative enterprises. These could really improve public services without "patchwork privatisation". All the polls that purport to show 70% voters identify themselves "in the centre" make me weep and console the "faint hearts". After 10 years of Labour we should have campaigned/convinced people of the benefits of an egaltarian/hi wage/hi welfare inclusive society.
Ok we haven't done it and some of the blame must rest with the "anbiguous" leadership.

[Sean Jennings]

I fully agree with the the comments of both Mr. Rosenthal and his two supporting commentators. Mr. Blair is not without fault,who is. However the degree of villification thrown in his direction borders on the obscene, as well as in many cases being unjust and dishonest. Furthermore, none of his detractors, especially over Iraq, have as yet explained to my satisfaction what the consequences, both immediately and longer term, would have been if Mr. Blair had not taken the actions and introduced the policies he has. I am not without criticsm of the Blair governments but overall and in the round, they have done a good job. I keep reading and hearing the many accusations about the poor state of the country but do not recognise these as being apparent in my everryday life. QED.

[Stan Rosenthal]

Sorry el Tom but I can't let you get away with that comment about the Iraq war.

Not dealing with a thug for fear of worse things happening in the process is a recipe for giving thugs a free hand. The alternatives were tried unsuccessfully over a period of more than 10 years with intensive efforts being made to reach a settlement right up to the last moments (see my "22 reasons..." posting in this connection).

And without getting into the numbers game it is incontestable that Saddam was responsible for many more deaths, taking into account the wars he started, the gassing of the Kurds, the mass executions, and the countless murders taking place "behind closed doors" throughout his rule. If anyone might have outdone him in this respect it would have been his even more psychopathic sons!

[BlairSupporter]

Two remarks on comments here.

I couldn't agree more with Sean Jennings.

I too feel that Blair is taking far too much criticism for decisions (well, Iraq) that I believe he made for the right reasons. He has been a great prime minister and his government has been a reforming government. I too do not recognise this 'police state' the mad lefties refer to. I feel VERY secure with Blair in charge. Don't know how I'll feel when Brown takes over, except possibly heartbroken ;0(

But on the other hand, Alan Smart's comment is riddled with the kind of inaccuracies which are typical of the lies and distortions which Blair has had piled on his head almost daily.

1. Blair HAS been 'hounded from ofice' by his OWN party, though the way it has panned out means it will not be recorded historically that way. True, he was 'permitted' to delay the date of departure until now - but mainly because Labour and Brown have been unpopular anyway since they moved to oust Blair last summer. Even now most people, given the simple choice, prefer Blair to Brown. If Brown had been in place before May, the elections MIGHT even have been worse for Labour. WHO KNOWS!?
2. Blair DID have vital work to be completed. The idea that the G8 would have been as successful without Blair is laughable. See the thoughts of John Curtin of the Toronto University, Director of G8 Research. He says that Blair "showed he really was a great genius of G8 diplomacy" and also said that "much of the positive results on Africa and the Climate debate are because of Blair's active leadership especially in relation to bringing Bush on board." Curtin rates this recent G8 meeting and Gleneagles in the top three of all 32 meetings. The common denominator - Tony Blair.

Then there's the EU Summit on 21/22 June. Blair has been working on European issues for years. He is a committed European, in contrast to Brown who is lukewarm and yet to be convinced on our relationship with the EU. The country might well still be with Brown on this - but the country has invariably been slow and wrong about the rest of Europe. More power to your elbow Mr Blair.

Why should he not be around to finalise his 10-year-old government's contribution in this big debate? And why shouldn't he get his ten years in? What short memories some of you have. It may be the last Labour government for many years. Best to go out on a high!

3. Iraq - 101% of ANYthing? Come on!

The main disaster in Iraq is that the insurgents kill their own people on a daily basis. And this is happening when we are there as the UN backed peace-keeping force. The war was over in a matter of weeks.

There were obviously misjudgements regarding de-Baathification etc, most of which came from the Americans AGAINST British advice it would seem, though I was not there - so I DO NOT KNOW for sure.

But the very idea that the Americans or Britain or ANY of the coalition countries would have gone into Iraq EXPECTING that thousands would die is MAD! They no more expected this than they hoped for it. They hoped for a quick positive result, after Saddam's fall. So WHY would they wish to go in if they had expected the insurgent killings? WHY? Are they masochistic as well as sadistic?

Misjudgements? Possibly. But that should not distract from their good intent.

Tony DOES NOT "know" that the Iraq invasion was illegal. Neither do most international lawyers. But I expect Mr Clark knows.

Btw, none of this nonsense about illegality or WMDs would be in the public arena at all if everything had turned out hunky-dory! We'd all be praising western leaders for bringing an island of democracy to the turbulent middle east, so curbing fundamentalism in a vital part of the world.

4. Sleaze - some sleaze yes, but so far NO-ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED with anything, as (wrongly) claimed by Alan Smart - "So much of a fact people close to Tony have been charged". Nonsense!

Repeat - no-one has been charged - unlike in the previous Tory government's term, viz Archer and Aitken 'the sword of truth man".

If there has been abuse of patronage - it is the usual and normal though regrettable abuse. Why THIS particular government should take all the punishment is beyond common sense. Or has the cash gone into Blair's back pocket, as it did with Lloyd George?

5. As for the decline of the country and the Labour party - well, didn't Blair agree to devolution in his manifesto? And wasn't he the one man who could appeal right across the political classes? And wasn't Labour in decline BEFORE 1997? Yes, to all three.

Labour only became the 'natural party of government' from 1997 on. Before that the Tories were in that position. Don't forget it.

But there is a point I will concede: Labour has historically depended on its majorities in Scotland and Wales. In the event of voters deserting Labour for the nationalists, England without Blair may well become Tory again. So whose fault would THAT be?! You Labour people? Just maybe. If you think becoming more Left wing will bring back 'Middle England' - think again.

No chance.

I believe that Tony Blair is a good man and a great politician. He doesn't walk on water, and he is not without fault. But I am nonetheless concerned that he is being vilified far too heavily by the rest of us with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight.

I suppose if he really wasn't around any more we might lend more weight to these words of another good man:

"For evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing."
Martin Luther King Jr.