A quarter of a century ago a woman was elected British prime minister. Margaret Thatcher left an indelible mark, not only on her own country but on the wider world. History will remember her for transforming a lazy, despairing and strife-ridden Britain into an economically vigorous, largely privatized state. Twenty-five years on, it still rides the wave of prosperity where she pitched it, and its many ills too — not least a gap between rich and poor that places Britain on the brink of Third-World status — are mostly of her making. In 2029, how will people be remembering Tony Blair? When the history of the Blair government is written, will it focus on anything except its stubborn support for the intemperate policies of President George W. Bush?
When Blair became prime minister in 1997, he represented even for Britons who were not traditional Labour supporters the next big step after Thatcher. Indeed, the Iron Lady herself was supposed to approve highly of the young new premier, whose party could not have been elected had its obstructive left wing not been destroyed along with the militant unions by Thatcher’s juggernaut approach. Seven years on, Blair has disappointed virtually everyone.
The dynamic, clean-cut image of the new British leader was a product of news management — the famous spin. All politicians fudge and manipulate, but under Blair smoke and mirrors became ends in themselves. One classic ruse was the re-announcement of existing government spending commitments as if they represented a new injection of cash.
People tend to vote with their wallets. The Blair government’s considerable increase in the indirect tax burden is now becoming evident as the British credit binge, driven by dangerous house price inflation, is curbed by rising interest rates. But the biggest damage to Blair’s reputation has come from Middle East policies in slavish support of the Bush worldview. With the debacle of the Iraqi occupation, the failure of the search for weapons of mass destruction and the disgusting treatment meted out to Iraqi prisoners by some US and British troops, the British people are ashamed and humiliated — and increasingly angry. Many never wanted the war. They now take no pleasure in being proven right.
But Blair spins on. He may for the moment have escaped the charge that he exaggerated WMD evidence to persuade the British Parliament to go to war. He will find it harder to convince legislators that he only found out about January Red Cross reports of torture by British troops when he turned on his television set. At best this leader is not up to the job. At worst he is a liar. In upcoming local and Euro-elections, Blair’s party will be punished hard. An honest leader would then resign. What will Blair do?
