Bye bye, Blair: more change across the pond
Not unexpectedly, Tony Blair has called it quits as Prime Minister. His farewell speech was relatively short, and some thought it too emotional and quasi-apologetic on Iraq.
I only read it in print, so perhaps it was different when he delivered it, but it didn’t really seem either to me. Surprisingly, though, for a man known for his eloquence, it didn’t have much rhetorical flair. Perhaps after ten years he’s tired, much more tired than Obama, and for that he can be forgiven.
Yes, Blair does end his speech on an odd note, with an apology. In context, though, it’s a blanket apology for the times he had “fallen short;” people can decide for themselves what times those may have been. The bulk of his speech is actually about changes for the better in the British economy and its sense of itself as a leader nation during his tenure; he says only a little bit about international relations or Iraq.
As far as Iraq goes, Blair alludes to the fact that many people hold the opinion that the aftermath of the war in Iraq—what he calls the “blowback from global terrorism”—“simply isn’t and can’t be worth it.” But then he says:
For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief. And we can’t fail it.
It doesn’t seem all that equivocal to me. The war in Iraq has been, if anything, even more unpopular in the UK than it is here, and that was true at the beginning of the conflict as well as now. Blair had to buck public opinion from the start; as he says, he did what he thought was right in leading the country in that direction.
Blair’s most likely successor is his deputy, mystery man Gordon Brown. To some, Brown appears to be pretty much an Americaphile, and although he has a history of supporting Blair’s position vis a vis Iraq, no one is at all sure what he really thinks.
After reading five or six articles on the man, I can honestly say that the picture I get from all of them is a murky one; Brown appears to be an enigma even to those far more familiar with his record than I. Apparently he has purposely kept his positions somehwat ambiguous, the better to change them as the situation might warrant.
His personal style is very different from Blair’s: no charm or charisma here. The New York Times quotes the Sunday Times as describing Brown in an editorial as “a blank sheet of paper,” and that pretty much sums up the views of many who have watched him over the years.
So I won’t even venture a guess as to which way Brown will turn, except to say that he will probably seek to prove he’s not Bush’s poodle (the epithet that dogged Blair’s footsteps) by emphasizing whatever differences in policy do exist.
And by the way—what’s up with all these single-syllable leaders whose name starts with a “B”?
My difficulty with Blair (and therefore, Labour), is that while he’s been a strong supporter of our presence in Iraq, he’s turned his country into a veritable lunatic asylum. People are jailed for defending themselves against hooligans (if they’re successful), Britain is now the Nr 1 surveillance-camera country, and now, cities are starting to put RFID chips in people’s trash cans, to see what they’re throwing out.
The Labour Party has apparently run the country into the ground. For a while now, I’ve been referring to it as “Formerly Great Britain”.
Under Blair and Labour, the UK has become a soft totalitarian state. Or if it hasn’t gone quite that far, the tools for such a thing are already in place. 1 camera for every 13 citizens. It won’t take much to push them over the edge at this point.
All from a government far more to the left than anything in the United States.
The center of gravity in European politics is on the whole further to the left than on this side of the Atlantic; fact of life. Blair was a sturdy and articulate U.S. ally in Iraq but domestic politics are for domestic consumption, and the social-democratic, multiculti Euro-model these days is quite consumptive, and it is unlikely to become robust again any time soon, the election of Sarko notwithstanding.
We shall see…
Blair out.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/05/blair-out.html
“And by the way–what’s up with all these single-syllable leaders whose name starts with a “B”?”
…..and then we have Howard in Australia and Harper in Canada.
timesonline.co.ukWell, it’s true that Brown has kept his options open as regards exactly what he’d do as Prime Minister, but that’s hardly unusual in a politician.
Speaking as a Brit, I feel we do know quite a bit about him – much of it not good. He’s known as a control freak and a poor communicator. Another connected point about Brown is that he has always been finance minister, so he has never properly learnt the habit of compromise and getting along with others: if you hold the purse strings, such talents aren’t at a premium. (This point was originally made by Matthew Parris http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris)
As regards foreign policy, if Brown had been Prime Minster when Blair was I don’t actually think he’d have behaved very differently. The point is that being a fraction to the left of Blair is what he has built his career on – and if you want to stay in with the left in Britain you can’t be seen as being too cosy with America. On the other hand, he’s no fan of continental Europe – far less so than Blair – so on the whole his Atlanticist instincts are likely to prevail, especially in a crisis.
As regards ZZ Mike’s claim that Blair has turned the country into a lunatic asylum, in part due to the huge number of CCTVs… it’s true, we do have a lot of them. But personally I’m pretty relaxed about it. Although any system can be abused, they’re basically there to protect people against crime – and in that respect they are invaluable both as a deterrent and as prosecution material. Every system has its downside: take the high levels of gun ownership in many parts of the US. Sure, allowing citizens easy access to firearms certainly does deter criminals in many cases, and if you’re a libertarian it’s clearly more palatable philosophically than CCTV, but… need I say more?
byebyeblair.net.They`ve got a song here about Tony Blair. Interesting to see political satire returning in musical form. A political friend sent it from http://www.byebyeblair.net. Very witty, and a good tune.
Zoe.
timesonline.co.ukHere’s more bad press on Brown from Matthew Parris, whom I mentioned in my earlier post. If you want to read the full article I’ve left the link.
“Brown is psychologically unfit for the office he craves, suggests Oborne, because: 1. He has persistent difficulty in handling human relationships with anyone who questions his authority or criticises his plans; 2. He snubs, cuts, bullies or ignores people he works with; he displays shocking ingratitude and bad manners; 3. He confines all serious deliberation to a tiny inner circle; 4. He will not let even senior staff know his mind; 5. He excludes talented equals from his circle and promotes talent only in juniors; 6. He punishes the bearers of bad news and favours those who tell him what he wants to hear; 7. He’s a control freak; 8. He transmits but seems unwilling to receive; he will not engage; 9. He seems unable to negotiate, he just keeps restating his position; 10. He is vengeful, given to ancient feuds; 11. He divides the world into a tight entourage that he can utterly trust and relax with, and an outer darkness of sworn enemies and uncertain friends, among whom he treads with suspicion, treating them gracelessly; 12. He hogs credit for himself and hates others to claim it; 13. He leaves other to take the flak and ducks when trouble looms.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/
columnists/matthew_parris/ article1811270.ece