The Progressive

What a difference a change makes

Even the New Statesman has admitted it. Brown has emerged unscathed from the floods in a way that Blair would never have.

As they say in this week's editorial,  " One can imagine the approbrium that would have been heaped upon Tony Blair had the floods occurred on his watch".

Just goes to show how different the acceptability of a Labour Prime Minister can be if he's simply given a fair crack of the whip. But I suppose fairness does not come into it when the knives are out for him.   

Lessons from the Blair era

An orderly transition. An unprecedented House of Commons standing ovation. Tony Blair has stood down with his head held high.

I suppose he main thing I have learned from his premature departure is that not even the best and most resilient of leaders can survive the kind of character assassination that he has had to endure in his latter years. The other lesson I have learned is that the jibes of his critics said more about their own inadequacies than anything else.

Let us hope, for the sake of our continuing Labour government, that such divisive backbiting is now at and end.

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."

Disturbing thoughts on "The Trial of Tony Blair"

With Mr Blair due to step down in the next six months or so it is now open season for vilifying and lampooning our Labour Prime Minister. Of course this sort of nastiness can always be expected from the likes of the Mail and the Express. But in these times the knife-twisting is coming predominately from those who are supposed to be at the progressive end of the political spectrum.

Last week saw two BBC dramas, a "War Crimes" episode of Judge John Deed and Sue Townsend's radio play, Adrian Mole and the Blair-Mole Project, in which Tony Blair was implicitly and explicitly cast as the villain of the piece (so much for Aunty's requisite impartiality on these matters!). Tonight on More4 (to be repeated on Channel 4 on Thursday) the laceration continues with Alistair Beaton's well-trailed satire The Trial of Tony Blair. A theatre play on the same theme is to follow.

All this abuse directed at one man reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 where Big Brother's Ministry of Truth spends its time fabricating stories to discredit the arch-enemy of the people, Goldstein. Except that the roles have been insidiously reversed. It is now the leader, Tony Blair, who is the object of the national hate campaign, with the liberal-left intelligentsia playing the part of Big Brother and our "high-minded" media filling in for the Ministry of Truth.

As the esteemed Bard might have put it, time is out of joint and there's something really rotten in the state of our affairs.

To discover the facts about the fiction in Alistair Beaton's work click on here

Standing in the way of peace…

Standing in the way of peace…

Recent announcements that the talks have been halted because of a security attack by loyalist paramilitary Michael Stone – the man who murdered 3 people at a funeral in 1988 and was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. His actions have meant vacating the building, which is likely to continue for the rest of the day. This is saddening for all of us watching on the fringes and are desperate to see resolution and peace for our neighbours.

Blair and Hain should try and re-start the talks as soon as possible – if possible today – to show that terrorists like these do not have a baring on the politics of a democratic society. These action need forcing out of the politics of Northern Ireland; community leaders should be condemning the actions to show an outcry from people on the ground that one man will not stand in the way of peace that the over whelming majority want.

The purpose of the talks was to implement the St. Andrew’s agreement and see through a plan to get the Stormont Assembly re-established. The DUP and Sinn Fein are currently posturing over nominations for the position of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, policing and the Irish Language Bill.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said that despite the breach, the St Andrew's Agreement remained the only way forward. Speaking from Downing Street, Tony said: "No move forward in Northern Ireland is easy, we've learned that over 10 years.

Fingers crossed!

More info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/default.stm

Tony Blair on Progressive Governance

Tony Blair sets out the progressive case for public service reform at the Social Democratic Futures pages of The Euston Manifesto. A forum has been created and the PM will respond to comments.

The Prime Minister makes the case for empowerment:

Our strategy for public services has been through three phases. The first phase was a zero tolerance approach to failure, with strong central direction and public targets, to ensure that under-investment could not be used as an excuse for endemic failure. This was then followed by a correction of the long period of under-investment. We are now into the third phase: progressive reform.

The driving idea behind reform is to transfer power from providers to citizens. To give power to the people- it is as traditional a left-of-centre slogan as there is.

Aneurin Bevan once said that the purpose of power is to be able to give it away. That idea is our guide too. We want to put citizens in charge because it is both right in itself and it is a way of ensuring that services are tailored to their needs and that services constantly change and innovate as required. So, power to the people is both the means by which the vision will be achieved and is a progressive end in itself. It is no coincidence that the least well-off, the people with least power, consistently tell the polls that they want choices the most.

If the citizen has a choice they have a power. The service is likely to be more responsive to their needs. Their voice is a lot more likely to be heard and acted on. The service has a stimulus to improve.

He also stakes out the terrain on which the Party can defeat the Tories at the next election: progressive governance versus 'let sunshine win the day':

The progressive left’s belief that government can be a force for good is a major advantage. David Cameron has understood that he needs to be seen as a centrist. He is doing his level best to sound reasonable, although his various policy reviews keep giving us an unfortunate glimpse of the contradictions he falls into whenever he is actually forced to confront tough questions rather than simply pose them.

This will be critical when he is finally forced to make decisions about policy. It is all very well to talk about some of the questions that government faces. But if you put yourself in a position where you can’t determine the solution, then sooner or later this will become clear to the British public. In the meantime, the serious reform, to match the profound changes to our country, goes on.

Read the whole thing.

Cameron throws down foreign policy challenge

Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have delivered speeches heavy in foreign policy significance in recent weeks. The Prime Minister’s speech to the Labour Party Conference went beyond terrorism and the need to maintain support for the United States to highlight energy security and mass migration as new issues on the national security agenda. David Cameron, speaking ten days earlier to the British America Project, talked of the need for a new multilateralism and of the need to re-balance our relationship with the United States. Of the two speeches, it is Cameron’s that points the way ahead for progressives.

This is true for two distinct but related reasons. First, Cameron is right to say that the foreign and security problems we face today can only be met through multilateral solutions. No state acting unilaterally, not even the United States, can manage the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, of climate change, or of transnational terrorism and organised crime. The international community’s response to the North Korean nuclear test will be informative in this regard, since there is little the US itself can do in response. Meaningful sanctions, if they come at all, will come from China and South Korea. Cameron’s speech may have been motivated by political opportunism, and he himself may be politically incapable of seeing the EU as a pivotal part of the multilateralism now needed, but this should not distract us from the wider truth his speech identified: Security requires multilateralism.   

Second, the Labour government’s claim that there is no inconsistency between full public support for the current US administration on the one hand, and our stated desire to build effective multilateral institutions and regimes on the other, is no longer tenable. The neo-conservative view that the national security mission should determine the necessary coalition, rather than the coalition of states determining the mission, is fundamentally at odds with the approach required to foster the multilateralism we now need. It is one thing, against this backdrop, to say that effective multilateralism cannot exist without US participation and that we should seek to influence US policy in our direction. It is another thing entirely too publicly support US policies that undermine the more effective multilateralism needed to keep us safe. 

Given this, and given the domestic political price already paid by progressives for the government’s support for President Bush, a change in our approach to relations with the United States is now urgent. To be successful, this needs to include not only a subtle shift in policy but also some fresh analysis and a more mature understanding of how our relationship with the United States works.

First, we need to assert politically that it is possible to be serious minded on security without agreeing with everything the American administration does. In this regard, Cameron’s speech was extremely helpful.  It exposed as flawed the Prime Minister’s view that only two security policy choices are on offer, namely close support for the Bush administration on the one hand or the hopeless idealism of the far left on the other. There is a viable policy space in between these extremes and Cameron’s speech has made it politically easy for us to occupy it without being seen as soft on security.

Second, and to reinforce the credibility of this shift in policy, we need to conduct a strategic threat assessment to ensure our policy frameworks, alliances, and institutional architectures are designed to meet the challenges of the early twenty-first century rather than those of the last century. This threat assessment must consider issues such as the worrying amount of WMD related material and know-how going missing from sites in the former Soviet Union and Pakistan. It must consider the security implications of growing international pressure on natural resources such as oil and water and the possible re-emergence of multipolar competition among the US, China and a resurgent Russia. Finally, it must consider the long-term security implications of climate change, and the degraded power of formal state authorities to keep control of transnational terrorist and organised crime networks. Strategic assessment of these threats should underpin development and publication of a national security strategy for the United Kingdom, spelling out our interests and vulnerabilities, as well as the rationale for any policies intended to keep us secure.   

Third and last, we should develop some much needed maturity in our domestic debate on the relationship with the United States. It simply lacks credibility, for example, to claim that any public disagreement with a US administration on a national or international security issue would destroy the relationship. This has not been the experience of history, nor the experience of other European allies when they have failed to agree with US foreign policy positions. And if the claim were true, this would be a stunning assertion that our entire national security strategy is based upon the most fickle and unreliable of relationships.

It is equally unhelpful to claim that all disagreements with the US are motivated by anti-Americanism. As Andrew Gamble, the leading academic and author of Between Europe and America has pointed out, there is an identifiable Anglo-American presence in world politics. Ideological debates take place between Anglo-America and other entities internationally but also within the Anglo-American sphere itself. These latter debates are transnational in nature, dividing opinion within the US and UK in more important ways than they divide opinion between the US and UK. The neo-conservative view currently prevalent in Washington, therefore, is not the sum total of American opinion. Many credible foreign and security policy analysts in Washington disagree profoundly with the policies of the Bush administration. And when disagreement is allowed to be branded as disloyalty, either within the United States, or between allies across the Atlantic, we concede important ground to those who seek political advantage in constructing the debate in this way.

Moreover, if we treat, the views of the current US administration as a permanent feature of the landscape, we fail to acknowledge the obvious point that American politics is dynamic and cyclical. Neo-conservative foreign policies often struggle to show results abroad, and can suffer serious loss of popular political support at home. American administrations, in this context, use the support of allies abroad as important sources of political capital in the ongoing noise of domestic disagreement and debate. We will never know how a British government refusal to take part in the invasion of Iraq would have played on the American political scene but we should not underestimate how valuable our support can be to any American president about to undertake serious and risky military action overseas. 

There is then, more room for disagreement and influence in this relationship than many would have us believe. We share core values with the United States, including a commitment to an open international economy, good governance and universal human rights. More often than not, we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the US in promoting a global order based on these values. But in a mature relationship there will sometimes be open disagreement. The challenge, of course, is to limit the disagreements and to know when to disagree, and why. The decision should be based on the contents of a well thought through national security strategy, not fear or unconditional loyalty.   

Fingers crossed for Northern Ireland

As the decision on the future of the Stormont Assembly and more importantly peace in Northern Ireland starts to draw to a crunch point, I am sure there are many who share my suspense about what will happen and have their fingers crossed. The focus on Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams may be unhelpful, the danger always being their fear of looking weak, but this week they have people’s lives in their hands so lets hope they are on the side of what is right. See more here...

I am hoping that the skills of Tony Blair and Bertie Aher will shine through and another chapter in the peace process will close and the greatest opportunity for all of us comes through. Tony Blair deserves this too, it is undoubtedly part of his impressive legacy and one of the dividing lines Labour and the Conservatives who could never take us any near as close. On this it is something Labour can be proud, but as I am sure Blair will demonstrate, not something we can stand back and enjoy but something on which we must continue to work to see its resolution. As ever with this Labour Government – lots done, lots to be done! And finally, with the talks we see the world of blogging show new frontiers as the Ulster Union Party have created one to keep people informed in the talks.

My kid sis Konnie gets out her sticky-back plastic with Blair (and Clare)

I’d never been in a gossip column and then came the leaked memo about the Blair exit strategy, a Blue Peter interview at Downing Street undertaken by Konnie Huq and someone coming up with my name. I’ve since been mentioned in The Daily Express, Evening Standard, Hugo Rifkind’s people column in Murdoch’s Times and most recently Jon Henley’s diary piece in the Guardian which got my kid sis Konnie, Blair, Clare Short and myself all into one succinct paragraph.

Since 1975 I have become used to comparisons drawn between me and my younger, better-known sister. She has no political aspirations or affiliations yet it is her who managed to get an exclusive with the PM notwithstanding the fact I have been a Labour candidate (PPC in the next door seat to Beaconsfield where a young T.Blair was bloodied). Interestingly although Blair and Short are not these days usually mentioned in the same breath, parallels can be drawn. Both entered Parliament among the rare new blood on the labour benches after the “longest suicide note in history” 1983 election. Both are now due to exit centrestage New Labour politics in the not-too-distant future. Progress readers may have seen my comments on our Kingston gig before so it’s not worth repeating them again.

Meanwhile Blair has now been on Blue Peter as the exit strategy memo predicted. Far from this demonstrating his demise as a serious politician as some have implied, the appearance is entirely in keeping with Blair’s numerous popular media appearances. Early on in his premiership, he was interviewed by Des O’Connor, apparently mockney-fying his accent in the process. He has been on Richard and Judy’s sofa more than once and the Simpsons. “When Konnie met Tony” follows on from my sister’s first tv appearance aged 14 on Newsround where Huq junior quizzed then Labour leader Neil Kinnock on stopping CFCs destroying the ozone layer - I remember as I was the consenting adult guardian required to accompany her under BBC rules. Politicians reaching out to the wider public by the power of the cathode ray – or whatever its flat screen digital equivalent is – is commendable. After all every politician agrees with the notion of reconnecting with the voters - even Tories. Blair's Blue Peter appearance had infinitely had more substance than David Cameron's vomit inducing adventures in web-land will ever command.

Clare Short remarked that Tony Blair was an “actor”. His last Labour party speech was another virtuoso performance which returned the compliment by including a veiled reference to her beginning “let’s have no more talk of hung parliaments.” In the end I missed Konnie’s interview as I was out of the country but I understand the question never arose: an opportunity missed I’d say, but then I guess electoral reform is not up there in the sticky backed plastic stakes. In the meantime it’s on with the show…

A curious transposition

'On the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence - through a curious transposition peculiar to our times - it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself,' wrote Albert Camus in The Rebel (1951). I was reminded of Camus' insight when reading the thoughts of the artist Sarah Lucas in Guardian Weekend (October 7). Asked which living person she most despised, and why, she replied, 'Tony Blair, for burying dissent'.