Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Come on Back, Tony Blair

By Ian Williams, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2005.


Despite the British prime minister's troubled track record, the British electorate will almost certainly re-elect the Labour Party -- and they will be right to do so.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheists, It's Time to Stand Up to Jesus
Russell Blackford, Udo Schuklenk

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Ian Williams

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Tony Blair is having a rough week. The days before the national elections in Britain have been marked by new and damning revelations of his outright mendacity or, at the very least, monumental self-deception over Iraq. Over the weekend, voters learned that not only had their prime minister planned for a war before he went to the UN to seek its blessing, but that Blair misrepresented his own attorney general's advice on the legality of the invasion to his cabinet.

Yet a majority of the British electorate will undoubtedly vote the Labour Party back into office -- and they will be right to do so. As a British expatriate living in New York, I would do exactly the same if I were back home today. For if my fellow countrymen and women are poised to reelect a man whom they clearly do not trust, it's a measure not of their gullibility but their immense political sophistication.

It's Gordon Brown, Stupid

The various American (mis)perceptions of the British electoral landscape were on full display last week at a Manhattan forum hosted by Harry Evans for The Week magazine. Here's what the two contending speakers had to say.

Sidney Blumenthal, who supports Tony Blair, portrayed him as a transatlantic Bill Clinton -- hardly a surprising characterization given the close relationship between the two men as evidenced by Clinton's recent public declaration of support for his old "Third Way" partner. Anything to help his buddy distance himself from George Bush, who is thoroughly disdained by most British voters.

Difficult as it was to get anyone to support Conservative leader Michael Howard, the organizers managed to conscript the National Review's Andrew Stuttaford, who fulfilled his obligation by damning the Tory candidate with exceedingly faint praise. Like Blumenthal, Stuttaford, took for granted an impending Blair victory, and reiterated his Clintonista tendencies -- though in less ecstatic terms than his debate opponent. But he warned that a Labour victory would mark the ascendancy not of Tony "New Labour" Blair but Gordon Brown -- a dyed-in-wool socialist, no less. (If only that were so!)

The irony, of course, is that Stuttaford made a much better case than Blumenthal for voting Labour -- at least in the minds of the average British voter -- since much of Blair's unpopularity in Britain derives from his Clintonian tendency to adopt his opponents' policies. And the increasing likelihood that Brown will supplant Blair in the future is good news for an electorate that has lost all trust in the slippery bosom buddy of both Bill and W. There's a good reason why the Labour Party's election campaign is astutely Blair-light, and most of its candidates are so eager to be seen on the same platform as Brown. If Tony Blair is re-elected this week it's because voters expect him to be ousted by his more openly liberal party colleague.

Blair is not the only New Labour luminary relying on old-fashioned Labour support to stay in office. Perhaps the ultimate in ironies is the campaign of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw whose opponent in his Blackburn constituency is none other than the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who resigned over British complicity in the U.S. policy of shipping its "suspected terrorists" into that country to be tortured. To prevail over Craig, Straw is relying on none other than former foreign secretary, old Labour Robin Cook -- the man who quit the Blair cabinet over the Iraq War.

The Old/New Labour Party

Straw's predicament also offers an important reminder to American observers who tend to forget that this is not a U.S.-style presidential election, i.e., a face-off between Blair and Howard. This is a parliamentary election that will be fought in 659 separate local seats, where, in most but not all cases, voters will choose candidates on the basis of their party affiliation. And whatever his credibility problems with the British electorate, Blair has not yet succeeded. in efforts to transform the Labour Party into something like the Democratic Leadership Council. If most Americans are not aware of the genuine accomplishments of the party, it's because Blair and his immediate entourage have been reluctant to advertise them in fear of alienating the Rupert Murdochs of the world. As one senior cabinet member of oldish Labour inclinations has complained in the safety of New York, "We've really done a lot of good, but we're not allowed to talk about it."

And also, to be fair, Brown himself has colluded in this reticence though for very different reasons. Previous Labour governments were often sabotaged by hostile financial institutions, which made sure that its leaders were too busy dealing with a run on the pound to do significant income redistribution policies. The result is that Labour's genuine progressive achievements have been played down, even as its backsliding on genuine reform is played up.

A quick look at its record reveals that Blair's government, in practice, has been far to the left of most of the Democratic Party. It introduced a minimum wage for the first time in Britain, and maintained its value so that from October of this year the minimum wage will be the equivalent of $9.60 -- with free health care as always. What's more, the quality of that health care is much better too, thanks to Tony Blair. By 2008, at current rates of increase, Labour will have doubled spending on the National Health Service since it took office.

In fact, not only has Labour considerably increased the amount the amount spent on health and education under warmonger Blair, it has reduced the amount of money spent on defense from 10 percent to 6 percent of the budget. His government has introduced tax credits for retirees and poor families, measures which, along with the minimum wage, have resulted in falling poverty rates among children and pensioners both. And the Labour government has achieved all this while maintaining a steadily growing economy and falling unemployment, which is now at its lowest level in 30 years.

But what price a national health service and a minimum wage at the cost of your national conscience? What about foreign policy? With the admittedly very significant exception of the disastrous and dishonest attack on Iraq, Labour has not poodled along in the wake of Bush and the neocons in world arena. Britain, for example, has accepted the UN guideline that asks wealthy countries to donate 0.7 percent of their GDP for overseas aid; aggressively advocated debt write-offs for Africa; not only ratified but pushed hard for the Kyoto protocols; and supported the International Criminal Court in the teeth of American opposition.

While it may offer little consolation for anti-war advocates, the one potential mitigating factor offsetting Blair's connivance in Bush's adventure in Iraq is his continual insistence that the White House take a more balanced approach to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. He may have been unsuccessful -- but he has tried his best.

Return of Old Labour

While few politicians go into an election praying for a smaller majority for their party, many prominent Labour dissidents are, in fact, privately hoping for a much reduced majority in the House of Commons. A smaller margin would reduce the number of recent members of Parliament who are New Labour proteges. Their departure would give the old guard the leverage they need to overturn the illiberal breaks with Labour tradition that Blair has pushed through, as in the invasion of Iraq, introduction of college fees and identity cards, a stricter political asylum policy, and the various pale imitations of the Patriot Act that the Blair administration barely managed to push through even with its huge parliamentary majority.

While such policies hardly deserve to be rewarded, no one can doubt that Britain is a better place now than it was when Blair took office, nor that it is better off without the Conservatives, who have become a slimy caricature of themselves. Since this is the real world where making one choice requires considering the alternatives, the British will almost certainly re-elect Labour -- and they will be right to do so.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Ian Williams' new book Rum: A Social & Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776 will be out this Fall from Nation Books.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I don't recognise this picture of Blair, or Britain
Posted by: mariamaria on May 4, 2005 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Brit who still actually lives in the country, I do not recognise Ian Williams' description.

Until 1997, higher education in this country was free to all: no tuition fees, student maintenance grants. I have to continually pinch myself to realise that it is a LABOUR government (so-called) that not only introduced tuition fees and abolished grants but then, in violation of its own 2001 manifesto commitment not to introduce anymore fees, recently introduced additional top up fees.

New Labour has also undertaken a comprehensive assault on publicly owned services, like the health service, by expanding the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) which awards private companies contracts to run public services. Almost every one of these schemes has been disastrous and resulted in the tax payer having to bail out private companies whose bottom line is always their own profit margins. We had a great tradition in this country of public services run for the common good, not for profit --- but Blair has ruined that and is promising to expand the PFI. Interestingly, this is not widely publicised and not been discussed much in the campaign. Probably because all the polls that have been done on this show that the public is overwhelmingly against it.

Notice also that Blair says very little on the environment. His government has tried to sabotage EU directives on carbon emissions. He recently stated explicitly that he was not going to do anything to curb the rise of low-cost airlines, despite the major threat to the environment that they pose (again, business first). When asked about this directly, he replied, in an unusually candid manner, that people who want a progressive agenda will always be disappointed because it's not politically realistic.

As for Iraq... it's now beyond any doubt that Blair lied and lied again. And Gordon Brown recently stated categorically that if he had been in the Blair's shoes before the war he would have acted in exactly the same way.

The idea that we should forgive Blair all of this and vote for him anyway is totally obnoxious. Blair and Brown have been telling everyone that if they vote for the Liberal Democrats (third opposition party) they will let the Conservatives in again by the back door. Well I'm afraid to say that the conservatives came in through the front door eight years ago and voting for them again will only confirm them in their policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

continuation....
Posted by: mariamaria on May 4, 2005 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also wanted to say that its hard to describe how much Tony Blair has fallen in peoples estimation since 1997. When he was first elected the atmosphere was absolutely electric. People couldn't believe that they had finally gotton rid of the Conservatives after 18 years and really believed things would change. What we got was the PFI, tuition fees, bombing of Serbia (and Iraq), subservience to Washington, long hospital waiting lists.... No wonder that the turn out at the next election (2001) was only 58% --- the lowest since 1918.

So when Blair gets re-elected tomorrow, it won't be because people love him, it will be because the only difference between him and the main opposition is that the Conservatives are even worse than he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: continuation.... Posted by: nakis
why not the national review?
Posted by: guychick on May 4, 2005 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slate had the compromised Christopher hitchens to write its endorsement of Blair, and National Review essentially endorsed Blair too. Both of them did it in the best reptilian sleazy tradition of their journalistic outfits.

And here's AlterNet and Ian Williams paving their own road. Completely pathetic article. I did a search on the page just to make sure I was right -- not even a mention of the Liberal Democrats. This is not a small mistake. It's a really bad one.

On Iraq, there's a very sad journalistic trope employed of highlighting the importance of an issue while curtailing it significantly. Williams devotes two sentences to Iraq. And we first hear about it half-way down in the article. He fails to explain that this issue is behind what has made the British electorate so volatile.

I give you Ian Williams, writing as no lefty-apologist has before:

--With the admittedly very significant exception of the disastrous and dishonest attack on Iraq, Labour has not poodled along in the wake of Bush and the neocons in world arena.

--While it may offer little consolation for anti-war advocates, the one potential mitigating factor offsetting Blair's connivance in Bush's adventure in Iraq is his continual insistence that the White House take a more balanced approach to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. He may have been unsuccessful -- but he has tried his best.

That last one is for the history books: a quick put down to pacifists gets followed by an attempt to give moral underwriting for Britain's complicity on Iraq because, hey, Blair tried to get the whole peace in Palestine process going, which is then followed by a confession that Blair got nowhere.

What does Ian Williams and AlterNet get out of publishing this? Proof of dedicated conformity to a status quo that is literally setting the world on fire?

What are you in it for if this is the stuff you come up with?

In every respect, the world would be better of if this collection of words never existed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: why not the national review? Posted by: mariamaria
Blair should go...
Posted by: gazevans on May 4, 2005 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but probably wont. He told porky pies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Greg Pallast has to say
Posted by: nakis on May 4, 2005 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A counter article to this one.

http://www.gregpalast.com/
detail.cfm?artid=425&row=0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sorry
Posted by: flashfast on May 5, 2005 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps it all makes sense, but the reality it doesn't matter who is elected - in Brtiain, the US or my home country Australia. They're all the same. Wealth is the perogative of the rich. Massive sales of public services such as telephone, water and electricity have seen nations become poorer. And if they can't sell them, like australia's public broadcatser ABC, they make sure they're a propoganda tool for the powers that be (e.g. ABC international news is more like a pentagon press release than news - in fact they sacked all the real journalists over a decade ago in the name of 'cost cutitng'). Take 4 Corners expose on illegal mining activites on native land at jabaluka - the show never made it to air because the government threatened retaliation in the form of more cost cutting, as well as placing mediocre yes men in the reigns of power at the ABC.

I don't think it matters anymore who wins an election. Rupert Murdoch won them all years ago, starting with Australia, and backed by conservative intelligence operatives, his hack journalism has taken over the world.

Revolution anybody?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sorry Posted by: kingfelix
A Rougher Week for All The Dead
Posted by: Dave Schneider on May 5, 2005 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Williams asserts Tony Blair is having a rough week. Perhaps there is some validity in considering that all those who have been killed as a result of his and Bush's unnecessary assault on Iraq are having an even rougher week: they are dead.
Certaily Robin Cook understood this. Bush and Blair either knew or should have known that Iraq did not constitute a clear and present danger to the Western World. Iraq did not attack the Western world on 9/11.
If education stands for anything it certainly means understanding that. The documentation is so great that it shouldn't be necessary to repeat it, but just for the heck of it think sexed up dossier and try reading former White House Counsel John Dean's book "Worse Than Watergate" with its page after page of Iraq lies and violation of the law, just check the index.
Tony Blair knowingly lied on the reasons for war, the most serious matter a nation can take against another and the bodies are still coming home.
He and Bush may very well be guilty of war crimes and are unfit to be world leaders; we now know Chirac and Schroder were correct and spoke the truth to their peoples.
... Dave Schneider, writer, San Francisco taxi driver and member Illinois Bar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement