Tomorrow, after ten years in office, Tony Blair steps down as British prime minister. He will hand power to Gordon Brown, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is remarkable is that although Brown has been one of the longest serving chancellor in British history, in office for the same time Blair has been prime minister, and has done the job extremely competently, the world knows very little about him. The British too know little about him. Consequently, there has been intense speculation in the UK as to what sort of prime minister he will be. Does the change herald a return to traditional Labour policies? Brown is suspected of believing that the state can provide solutions to a wide range of problems and should intervene in people’s lives. Likewise, it is suggested that he is less pro-American than Blair, that he wants to pull British troops out of Iraq and that he is a Euro-skeptic. Although there is not much evidence for any of this.
In fact, the British should be able to draw a number of conclusions about their new prime minister. He has faithfully supported and endorsed Blair’s policies down the line, down through the years, on Iraq and the Middle East, on constitutional reform, on education and welfare changes. He and Blair are of the same mind. They have been a team where the only major difference was that one had charisma and the other lacked it. Brown has also rigorously maintained the free market policies he inherited from the Conservatives, again with Blair’s full blessing. There are few grounds, therefore, for thinking that major changes of substance are ahead, apart possibly from some further constitutional changes, which Blair himself wanted. That does not mean that there will not be changes of style. There will be an outward show of change. The attempt to copy France’s new President Sarkozy and bring opposition into the Cabinet, trying to invite the Liberal Democrats aboard, was such a move — and it was also just the thing Blair would have done, indeed tried to do ten years ago. Another example of the two minds thinking alike. A steady if uninspiring hand at the wheel for the next two years (Brown has hinted that 2009 is the next election date) with little major change is probably the best prediction that can be made in the circumstances of far greater interest in the Middle East is what Tony Blair is going to do next. Is he going to be named the Middle East Quartet’s special envoy? The speculation is that an announcement will be made at a meeting of the Quartet’s representatives in Jerusalem. If named, one thing will be clear — it is not just President Bush is in Blair’s favor. Such an appointment could not happen without support from the Quartet’s other three members: Russia, the EU and the UN.
But there can be little optimism. That is not because Blair is distrusted in the Middle East, as suggested by certain quarters in Britain with their own axes to grind. On the contrary, he has developed good relationships with most Mideast leaders. He has the skills and the contacts to do deals. The trouble is that the US will block anything that Israel does not like, which means stalemate. In any event, the US is now in the dead pre-election period when political initiatives are on hold. Even if Blair could negotiate a breakthrough, Washington would be too focused on the domestic agenda.
