Could Blair face a challenge at next month’s conference?
August 19th, 2006-
The Independent reports left-wing moves to press for an election
A report by Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, this morning says that “..demands for Tony Blair to quit over his support for US President George W Bush in the Middle East are to be taken to Labour’s annual conference next month in a direct challenge to his leadership by left-wing Labour campaigners.”
He says that all constituency Labour parties are being sent an emergency resolution calling for a leadership election within two months of the conference. What gives the move some force is that behind it are leaders of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, who successfully backed four candidates to the party’s NEC.
Among those on their list was Walter Wolfgang - the 82 year old who was ejected from last year’s conference after heckling Jack Straw.
Whether this will gather any momentum is hard to say but in the past fortnight the tempo has clearly moved up a gear as a result of the Prime Minister’s position on Lebanon. An indication of the change is the way John Prescott’s reported use of the word “crap” about George Bush has been well received within the party.
Those campaigning against Blair are said to want to provide a spur to Gordon Brown to force the Prime Minister out. An NEC member is quoted as saying “So far, Gordon has been too afraid to strike. He has got to demonstrate that he is ready for the leadership by helping the party to get rid of Blair.”
Whatever the pressure it’s still very hard to see the Chancellor doing anything other than maintain his cautious approach.
The element that’s still in the background for Blair is the cash for peerages police investigation. That’s very much out of his control but it hasn’t gone away. What would be the impact of the police interviewing him on top of the current discontent in parts of his party?
I still think think that the 6.2/1 on Blair going in the final quarter of 2006 is a good value bet.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
“So far, Gordon has been too afraid to strike. He has got to demonstrate that he is ready for the leadership by helping the party to get rid of Blair.”
That’s an interesting comment - the subtext being that if Gordon doesn’t finally make a move to get rid of Blair then he’s not worthy of being leader? An intriguing challenge.
1 - but then who is favoured at Gordon’s expense? Reid or Hain or Benn is hardly going to be able to boast a record of rebelling against Blair.
Gordon will not wield the knife as he who does will not get the prize. DOubly so when you look at his record of putting his hand up for the big decisions. Iraq?
Are there any lefties who are either (i) too far gone to be a serious threat or (ii) too low down the food chain at present to be a serious contender who have just enough weight to be a stlking horse?
I’m sure that TB is disappointed not to have solved the problems in the Middle East and Lebanon.
There are plenty of tips for him from various lefties about what he should say. Rather fewer plausible suggestions as to what he (and Britain) should and could usefully do.
The real problem for TB is the fatigue factor. Not him, all the rest of us. How many in the PLP are fed up with him—bored by him—and want a change? The MP for Broxtowe thinks not many. And he’s our in-house expert…
I doubt he’ll face a challenge. Maybe somebody from the left with try, but there is not enough support for such a candidate, who would be humiliated, and therefore end up shoring up Blair’s position, perhaps until 2009!
I’ve just one comment for the proponents of this idea. Bring it on and watch Conference chew it up and spit it out: virtually nobody wants a sudden leadership crisis forced in this way. It’d be seriously counter-productive for critics of TB - I’d predict a vote of at least 10-1 against, and that could be interpreted as a nice fat mandate to carry on for another couple of years. But it wouldn’t get that far - delegates vote on which emergency resolution to debate, and it’ll lose out to other things before it gets to the conference floor.
The key question is does the Labour Party Conference have any powers left? Lets face it policy is certainly not decided there. If it were we would not have gone into Iraq.
Nick says that it would be voted out 10-1. Sorry, Nick the evidence is that Blair would be voted out by at least 3 to 2 if a reasonable candidate stands.
Most of the constituencies (see NEC results), the majority of union votes, just over half the PLP share the view that they all want Blair well before next May.
Labour MPs are looking at May 2007 and saying to themselves “can we afford another cull of councillors?”. What is that going to do to their acivist base? Renewal will only start with a new PM. Gordon said at the last Conference that he would “go around the country”. What is he going to do next? Is he going to sit and watch his inheritance be frittered away? Odds of 6 to 1 look a reasonable punt. Time to invest my gains from Cameroon.
Also Liverpool for Prem looks like good odds.
8 - but it won’t be a reasonable candidate, so Nick is wright. It will either be a loon from the left, or a disgruntled ex-minister of the calibre of Frank Dobson.
9 - I mean of course “Nick is right” - must be too early in the morning for me!
I think we have to be led by Nick P on this one. A great pity in my opinion. In order to get ALL of the Labour vote back nothing short of a thumping humiliation for Blair will do. A gentle passing of the batten in a years time could suggest Blair Mark 2 which is unfair to Brown.
I remained a fan of Blair longer than most Labour voters I know but I can tell anyone who hasn’t experienced it, that when the shutters are lifted it’s not a pleasant experience. The Bush-Blair love-in did it for me. Such a small thing but so significant in explaining what has really been going on these last five years.
There’s also another interesing motion tabled by the Mole Valley CLP to change party rules to make impossible for the leader and deputy leader to serve for more than 10 years.
Then the usual (in the sense they’ve already complained about it in the past) one from Erith and Thamesmead CLP and Weston Super Mare CLP to remind that the General Secretary should send out nomination forms for the leadership/deputy leadership every year. It seems he has stopped to do it since late 90’s.
Any idea who’s the NEC member quoted (if they didn’t make the quote up!)? I’ve a thought about who can be….
Earlier in the week I attended a wedding where the bride and groom were both Labour activists as were a number of the guests - including the local Labour MP. The comments I heard were very similar to that in the Indy report - particularly the quote about Gordon Brown having to show he “..has got to demonstrate that he is ready for the leadership by helping the party to get rid of Blair.”
The tipping point for a number seemed to have been Lebanon. They had just about gone along with everything so far but now it had to be stopped.
PS. I also believe that if Thatch hadn’t been humiliated by her own party Major wouldn’t have won in ‘92. Whatever revisionist Tories might think, the hatred of her was tangible-far worse than for Blair- and without the savagery of her ditching no-one would have believed that they had changed
14. Excellent point Roger! “…without the savagery of her ditching no-one would have believed that they had changed”
If Brown is simply seen to be taking over from Blair in a “steady as she goes” manner, then voters like me will think that little has really changed. OTOH if Brown were to actively bring about the removal of Blair in some sort of coup, in a spirit of “this nonsense has gone on far enough” then I would think that things really had changed, and that renewal really was taking place.
The significance of Lebanon was huge. To hear our PM say the Israelis ‘had a right to defend themselves’ when we could see high tech weaponry destroying an innocent country with no means of defence at all was just so preposterous that he seemed to have lost his marbles. But to realize he was just taking orders from Bush who had lost his long ago was just horrible.
12 Andrea. Welcome back Andrea … hope you had a vladtastic time !!
……………….
On thread, Nick P has this spot on, it’s just Gordons burden that he has to suffer another 2 years or so of this “will he wield the knife”. No Gordon will not.
From those I meet, particularly in the North West, there appears to be a large discontent, that is putting it mildly, in Labour ranks.BUT IT MAYBE THE COMPANY I KEEP!!!!!!!
Nick, bless him, cannot say this, and I would not expect him to, his stance in his position is recognised and accepted.
What has always baffled me, is how there has been no putch against Downing Street, if it had been the Cons or Lib Dems, I am sure TB would have gone ages ago.
Perhaps Labour is after all more reverential!
14. I’m not sure that’s quite right. Major was seen as very different from Thatcher, because of his low-key style, the generational shift, and above all his commitment to repeal the Poll Tax. The hatred of MT came almost exclusively from the left, whose votes didn’t matter enormously in the days when they always turned out anyway (remember that she also attracted similarly strong enthusiasm).
It was the loss of Conservative voters that did for MT and the Poll Tax and her increasingly imperious style were causing it. It wouldn’t have taken her humiliation to change that around - except that she refused to go any other way.
With Blair the situation is different. He’s announced that he will go before the next elections (though I’m not absolutely convinced he will if he gets the chance to weasel out of it), so the question is over timing. I have to agree with Nick and David S - while many in the Labour Party want Blair out, they don’t want it at the expense of an assassination. The evidence HF refers to at point 8 is more a shot across Blair’s bows - which he will of course ignore - than a signal for a mutiny.
12. Had that rule been in place throughout Labour’s history, Attlee would have had to stand down in 1945!
3. And finally, ‘he who wields the knife’ does sometimes get the crown. Ming and Margaret Thatcher both did.
18 - “What has always baffled me, is how there has been no putch against Downing Street, if it had been the Cons or Lib Dems, I am sure TB would have gone ages ago.”
I think this has what has perhaps most weakened Brown’s candidature in recent months.
It’s not that anyone seriously expects him to wield the knife - it just would not look Prime Ministerial. (Thatch and Ming were both in opposition when they struck.)
No, the real problem for him has been that - for all Blair’s weakness - no credible Labour figures, a la Geoffrey Howe, have been prepared to try and push Blair over the edge. Eg, Charles Clarke pulled his punches when he spoke out following his sacking.
Why hasn’t the Cabinet yet staged a coup? After all, there surely cannot be anyone in the Labour Party who now believes Mr Blair is capable of renewing his Government? So what are they waiting for?
And that’s the crunch - the Labour cabinet knows what they are waiting for: a Gordon Brown premiership - and that is why many of them are quite happy to keep waiting.
That those who know the Chancellor best, those who work with him daily, are lukewarm about his accession to the Top Job is a warning to us all. Most of all, it’s a warning to Gordon Brown.
The first thing to remember about the Labour party is its a very Conservative party, much more Conservative than the Conservatives, who aren’t really Conservatives at all. The Labour party has no history of decapitation, it moans about its leaders, plots against them, threatens to dispose of them: never does!
The Tories however are past masters at it, even the most successful Tory leader in modern history, Mrs T was dispatched with hardly a tear. The Queen is dead, long live the King.
Oh come on. Please.
Gordon has rightly decided that Tony Blair should be allowed to go of his own accord. It would be highly damaging for the party if it was any other way. To say he is showing weakness because he has wanted to spend the summer with his wife and family after the birth of their new baby is complete rubbish.
Think about all you punters. to appear to be plotting when he should have been at home with his wife would be far more damaging, certainly amongst female voters, than doing what is being suggested.
OT. Guidos blog tells the story of an ‘Orange’ employee who wrote an offensive piece against Muslims on ‘Conservative Home’ which was in the style of the Tory humorist Ann Winterton (but more so!).It seems ‘Orange’ have suspended the man which has left Guido and his Tory contributers very angry indeed.
A good illustration of the difficulty Cameron has in changing his Party. I’m sure most Labour and Lib Dem supporters would be delighted to know that Orange don’t employ nasty racists.
20. “Why hasn’t the Cabinet yet staged a coup?”
Because Blair has already said he is going. You only stage coups against those who refuse to go.
Also, I’m not sure about roger’s post saying “if Thatch hadn’t been humiliated by her own party Major wouldn’t have won in ‘92.”.
Thatcher’s departure cheered up people who would never vote Tory anyway. And Major won because people were uncertain about kinnock, it was nothing to do with Thatcher - Kinnock’s makeover had been presentational only, and people knew it. From from an objective point of view, the manner of Thatcher’s removal screwed up the Tory party. Discipline disappeared, they were at each others throats in a public way using the media, during the whole of Major’s government. It traumatised them so much that even now they feel guilty about moving on from Thatcherism. As a result they’ve been in opposition for three elections. Whereas if she’d left in the normal way, moving on from her era would have seemed natural.
And what have the Lib Dems gained from their coup against Kennedy?
I think that Blair should go in Sept 2007. I think Mr Brown needs time to finish the latest spending review. Iraq needs to be finished off under Blair’s watch rather than Browns. And there should be a smooth handover - there is nothing so offputting than a party quarelling among itself.
Also, am curious why are people are so worked up over Lebanon. It’s not as though Britain had any troops there or had any influence over any of the parties. If people are going to stage coups over things unrelated to Britain, then govts would be falling every six months over such unrelated tragedies like Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Chechnya and so on. 200k people died in Darfur, 1300 in Lebanon, neither caused by Britain, neither can be solved by Britain. Yet people are worked up over the latter but not the former. More people died in Iraq in the last month than in Lebanon (and we do have some responsibility in Iraq) - and yet it passes people by. People think that the PM should fall over lebanon. Of all the reasons put forward for Blair to go, Lebanon is the most illogical.
As a Labour supporter Snowflake you should know that it’s important for our leaders to be on the side of the angels whether or not they are directly involved. So to see a country getting blown to bits and hear our Prime Minister say it was reasonable and proportionate made many supporters-like myself-really angry. To see anywhere being blasted so wantonly and hearing a Labour Prime Minister say it was a ‘reasonable response’ shows how low we have sunk
24 Snowflake. Yes, more people have died elsewhere recently in other conflicts, than in the Lebanon, but it is the CONTEXT of Lebanon that it important.
I think that people are so worked up over Lebanon because it feels as if Tony Blair is putting two fingers up to us all. After the Iraq debacle, and all of the bad feeling about his closeness to Bush, Blair seems to be showing absolutely no remorse at all over his foreign policy.
If you claim to be a Labour supporter, and yet don’t feel incensed by the Lebanon issue, then you are Tony Blair and I claim my £5.
24 - “You only stage coups against those who refuse to go.”
You could have added, “or who refuse to go when their time is up”. As there is an obvious successor, the co-creator of New Labour, waiting in the wings - the question has to be asked, for what is Blair hanging on?
The fact that he is doing so, with the compliance of the Cabinet, simply re-inforces doubts about why they might fear Gordon’s promotion to the Premiership.
Gladstone has it right. It’s the two fingers to his supporters that makes us really mad.
26. I’m more upset about Iraq than Lebanon. Iraq we have a responsibilty for. With Lebanon - don’t you think perhaps your feelings are connected to the coverage of it? Perhaps if Darfur was being covered in such detail, then people might be equally enraged - or perhaps not - or perhaps it’s the involvement of israel that gets people all worked up.
I’m reasonable enough to know the limitations of govt and that our govt can’t be held responsible for all the ills of the world, esp cases where we have no presence and no influence.
I also know that without Iraq, Blair would be standing for a fourth election - i.e. he is being punished, as he is leaving earlier than he would have liked and under a cloud. That’s enough punishment for me. I’m not vindictive.
Snowflake - your question is fascinating - why are people more upset about Lebanon than Iraq? Look on this site - it was the things that moved Roger. My report of the wedding of two Labour activists which I attended on Thursday was extraordinary. There has been a step change in the hostility to Blair within the party.
I seem to recall that Nick Palmer reported a week or so back that he was getting the same reaction from his members in Broxtowe.
Betting note. I don’t know whether Brown’s lack of action will hurt him but I’ve just put another £100 on Reid at 12/1 with Ladbrokes. My reading is that his popularity has increased and it only takes a couple of polls showing this for him to become a serious contender.
29 Snowflake. I like to think that I am not vindictive either, but it is not vindictive to want Blair to go NOW, before he has the chance to inflict more damage on his party, his country, and on innocent people abroad.
Compared to Blair’s betrayal of the Labour Party and its values, Ramsay MacDonald’s was a minor indescretion.
As far as I am concerned Blair is a criminal, and criminals should not have the right to decide that they will only take their punishment “when they feel like it”.
17. Jack, thanks!
30. “My reading is that his popularity has increased and it only takes a couple of polls showing this for him to become a serious contender. ”
yes, I think you’re probably right and this last period has been good for him. But aren’t we always doing the same thing over and over again? Trying to find a serious challenger for Gordon.
It always happens. It was Milburn in first place (is he still alive, btw?), then the “let’s skip a generation” talks proposing David Miliband, then everyone started to praise Alan Johnson (have they forgotten about him now?!), now Reid. I’m sure some of the names mentioned in the last months will be back as possible challengers.
30. Mike, I think it’s to do with the TV news. They were relentlessly covering Lebanon, but they have no reporters in Iraq, as it is too dangerous - which has the strange effect that the more serious, more important war (Iraq) is not even registering in people’s minds.
We’ve actually stopped watching TV news in our household, apart from Newsnight - too emotive, it was like taking in poison every night - and I now get my news online. Reading text has a different effect, more objective, more detailed, less emotive. Also, the online media (esp the American online media) does cover Iraq, which I’m interested in. But not watching TV probably explains why I’m not as worked up as Gladstone and Roger.
Everyone I know who watches a lot of TV news is upset. I also believe that the reason the muslim community seems even more worked up than everyone else is because they’ve been getting uncensored Al Jazeera. There’s only so much broken bones and bloodied children an average human can watch before it overwhelms them, they feel guilty at being safe, desperate to do something, start operating on an exclusively emotional level and become impervious to objective arguments (which seem cold and unfeeling to them).
I disagree with Mike about Reid’s chances. The Home Office is a political graveyard for most of its occupants. 12/1 is just not attractive enough. Now if Labour were in opposition that would be different.
The rarely mentioned factor is Gordon’s age and health. He is what 55? Is overweight and has been in stressful jobs for 15+ years, many of them unmarried which is fatal for men. These and other factors mean that each year that goes by will decrease his chances of succeeding Blair. Odds for Brown will surely be longer after November.
As to the party members, the moves to get Walter etc onto the NEC are almost a last ditch chance to reform before their anger with Blair turns to disillusionment with the party at which point Membership will plummet. The Tories must be praying for another 12 months of Blair.
My bet from last year of Blair out by year end looks very good if Labour act logically as the Tories did with Thatcher.
34.”The rarely mentioned factor is Gordon’s age and health. He is what 55? Is overweight and has been in stressful jobs for 15+ years, many of them unmarried which is fatal for men.”
Gordon was born in 1951. So yes, 55.
Is it fatal for women too, btw? Should I start to worry for Widdy?!!
12 Labour lost their last councillor on Mole Valley a couple of years ago. Whilst obviously I’m not an insider in the CLP, I think it came as a bit of a shock to them.
Incidentally, I didn’t see anything from them this May. I suspect that they may have decided not to target my road… The “Vote Conservative” posters in every other house were probably quite intimidating…
36. At this year NEC elections, the Mole Valley CLP nominated Black, Willsman, Shafcroft, Wolfgang, Azam and Johnson. So the full Grassroots Alliance slate. I think that like some other CLPs in unwinnable areas are quite on the Left of the party.
I am sure that Gordon will be delighted by all the concern for his health. But does this show how much Tories fear him because the only way they can see him being ousted or losing is him developing a health problem?
On the issue the evidence is that men with families live longer than those who are not so blessed? It is also the case that having a young wife also aids longevity?
Gordon will reside at Number 10 for a very long time.
Without meaning to sound morbid,in the last 12 years 2 senior Scottish Labour politicians have died relatively young (John Smith,aged 55 1/2,in May 1994,and Robin Cook,aged 59 1/2,last summer- I was particularly shocked at Robin Cook,as he was slim,apparently leading a healthy lifestyle-in hindsight,John Smith,with his history of a previous heart attack,and carrying a fair bit of bulk,was a tragedy waiting to happen-I’m sure I’m reading too much into this;I’m going to enjoy the start of the Permiership season;enjoy,all!
(As I carry a fair bulk,smoke,enjoy the wrong knid of food,perhaps I should adjust my lifestyle,before I’m logging onto political betting in the sky!!!)
Perhaps this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a senior Cabinet Minister to break ranks and declare Mr Blairs foreign policy unacceptable. He/she would get plenty of support from unlikely places. Brown couldn’t do it-he would look like an opportunist-but Hain or Johnson or possibly even Reid could.
snowflake: “Of all the reasons put forward for Blair to go, Lebanon is the most illogical.” The fact that you just dont understand this is symptomatic of the bizzare blindness of New Labour advocates, and is the reason Labour arent still riding high in the polls.
Blair’s unconditional support for Bush’s worldview is a *significant* factor in the outcomes of both Iraq and Lebanon. To say that we couldnt have any impact is utter rubbish and has been demonstrated as such by inside stories of the players. Without Blair’s unconditional support, Bush would never be able to talk about “coalitions”, only ever the US.
Blair is - love him or loathe him - a massive figure on the world stage. His support for any cause DOES have a large impact on the viability of that cause. If Blair had come out strongly against the destruction of Lebanon from the start the UN could and would have forced a ceasefire much earlier. Hundreds of lives would have been saved. It is this that has incensed the remaining Labour supporters.
Blair promised after the last election that he had “listened and learned”, but it’s obvious now that that was just a platitude to placate the membership…a lie, if you like. That you cant see or understand this is part of the problem…
19 - but in Ming’s case it was more like Murder on the Orient Express!
Roger at 23, would you like it if a vicious bigotted pressure group, like MPAC, attempted to hound you out of your job, because they didn’t like some comment you made on PoliticalBetting?
Wouldn’t you take the view that if they didn’t like what you wrote, they should take it up with you, or Mike Smithson, rather than running a campaign against your employer to get you fired?
The Orange employee in question was not writing on behalf of his employer, but in his own spare time. Running a campaign against him is the act of people who are mean, cowardly, and spiteful.
Whats that a young wife makes you live longer! Must get rid of mine, we’ve been together nearly forty years. So dump her, younger wife I’ll live for ever. Do you think that Petronella Wyatt is available, evewn I’m better looking than Boris!
23. Roger, Lefty lexicon QED.
11 - roger: party members bent on humiliating each other don’t in general have a positive effect. You want months of newspaper articles about “Labour’s civil war”? No thanks. I wouldn’t vote Labour myself if we were led by someone who’d set out to humiliate those of us who he disagreed with. Don’t wish it on us.
Note, by the way, the recent autobiography by Mossad’s former chief, complaining bitterly that Tony Blair persuaded Bush to force Israel to accept the Road Map. Did you know he’d done that? Foreign policy is an iceberg, 2/3 out of view, and it is much more important that any British government tries to promote agreements than slag off one side or the other.
30 - mike: it was three weeks ago: there really were a good many spontaneous emails on the issue (a dozen at least), much more than usual. I was expecting an impact on Labour’s share in the polls, and was surprised not to see it. But as I also reported here, they died away after a week, and recent emails on the subject have been less critical (though at the moment nobody is writing about anything very much).
What is funny is that people complaining about stereotyping usually stereotype those they are complaining about.
Actually it’s not funny, it’s just tragic. So little self knoowledge shown all round.
(just read the article in question - can you sack someone for not being funny? Someone like Ianucci could do a lot better than that sort of schoolboy stuff)
Nick P: the “roadmap” has been dead for years. I’m quite surprised that you didnt notice that.
47. Nick P - of course the Israelis SAY they accept the roadmap. But in reality there is no chance of them voluntarily actually carrying it out.
They have now occupied the West Bank for 40 years. They continue to build more settlements. If anyone was quoting odds on it the chances of Israel voluntarily leaving the West Bank at any point must be about 1000-1.
Forget Cameron’s parties with girls in bikini and all , here’s an event you can’t miss!
http://www.islington-north-clp.org.uk/events.html
44. Sean. The point is that the person in question had some particularly bigotted views which he was prepared to air publically. I actually have more sympathy for Ann Winterton who told her offensive joke at a private club. I certainly don’t blame Orange for not wanting someone who holds those views to be working in their PR department. As for the person/persons blowing the whistle? What does it matter. Conservative Home is a public forum.
Nick P. The roadmap was always a pig in a poke. It required George Bush’s administration to be even handed which was never the case. If Blair had said publically that Israel should return to the ‘67 borders according to the UN resolution the ‘map’ would have had a starting point and momentum could have built. As it was Blair’s inaction allowed it to fall into the long grass which was the Israeli/US intention all along.
44 - Sean, right behind you on this one.
52 - Roger, surely the point is that in a free democracy, I am entitled to say and publish whatever I like (within the bounds of the law) in my own time. It is none of my employer’s business which political views I hold and espouse outside of my professional duties.
Whatever I think of the views posted (they weren’t that funny, but nothing I could see was in any way illegal), Inigo Wilson has an absolute right to post them, unmolested by those who would seek to deny his freedom of speech.
PBers who value their freedom to come here or to other blogs and post whatever they like (again within the bounds of the law) should be extremely concerned at the actions of Orange in suspending Inigo Wilson whilst they investigate. An attack on one legal blog comment, is an attack on us all.
Of course, I utterly uphold the right of MPAC to protest against Inigo Wilson’s comments (although hounding his employer is not in my mind reasonable form of protest); again this is one of the ironies of freedom of speech in a liberal democracy.
Anyone concerned at the suspension can find an Orange email address on Guido’s blog.
42. Mark “Blair is - love him or loathe him - a massive figure on the world stage”
followed by 50. Mike L: “of course the Israelis SAY they accept the roadmap. But in reality there is no chance of them voluntarily actually carrying it out.”
Which neatly illustrates the problem.
I think people in Britain like to think that Blair has massive influence in the world. But he doesn’t. He did indeed persuade Bush to accept the Road Map, they even had a summit in Jordan about it, with Israelis and Palestinians present, just before the Iraq war, when Blair’s leverage was at it’s max. But the whole thing then got dropped. Neither the Americans nor the Israelis were serious about it, though Blair was. And it’s dead, and they were following a unilateralist plan instead (at least till Lebanon exposed the flaws of that).
It just goes to prove Blair’s lack of influence over the Americans and Israelis.
As for claims that Iraq wouldn’t have happened if Blair had said no, remember Rumsfeld saying “we’ll work round them”, if we had to pull out? It’s a pipedream to believe they’d have stopped. Lebanon too would have happened regardless of what Blair did or did not say or whether he stayed on holiday or not.
I know people are desperate to believe that Blair is very important in the world (and as a reflection, that Britain is very important in the world). But think it through. Britain is a medium European power, what leverage do we have over the Americans or Israelis or anyone else? None at all. Making speeches? Anyone can do that - Chirac does it all the time. Makes no difference.
Even while Blair was an ally of American in Iraq, he failed to persuade Bush to lift the steel tariffs that they illegally imposed on us. The Americans only lifted them when the EU waded in, and threatened sanctions on American goods entering all 25 EU member states. The Americans find it easy to ignore 60 million Britons, but not 450 million Europeans. If we want leverage, our one chance is to do it via EU policy, and even then, EU power is restricted to trade and financial issues.
I think you are all angry with Blair because he’s failed to live up to your expectations that he is a “massive figure on the world stage” and following on from that, that Britain is a quasi-superpower that can sort out any problem in the world via the PM’s superpowers. But Blair was never that influential, and Britain isn’t a quasi-superpower either.
I think the problem is that Britain still hasn’t come to terms with the loss of influence that end of Empire brought. We still like to pretend that we are so influential we could stop the existing superpower in her tracks. Daydreams.
You don’t make anyone believe you by repeating it ad nauseum you know.
Just get used to the fact that most of us don’t trust you. As such you’re just wasting your time.
In fact, given that, just run it past us again will you?
Nauseam that is.
BTW - this is what I think would have happened if Blair had made anti-US speeches in the Chirac style: The Karl Rove machine would have gone into attack mode. Blair’s speeches would have been dismissed as that of a “lefty” which would be “proved” because he is a Labour PM. They’d have noted his fondness for quoting Marx in his youth. They’d have revived memories of how perfidious Britain was during the War of Independence for standing in their way during that war and the later Canadian war. We’d have been rubbished as “limey-Londonistanis” in the same way that the French have been rubbished as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”. Congess would have moved to complain that London is “taking business away from New York” (they are already moaning about this now, but mildly) and to recommend punitive action.
We’d have been treated in exactly the same way as France (who, recall, is America’s oldest ally, being the one country on the planet they’ve never gone to war with).
Relations between our two countries would have been rent, and they’d have gone ahead in Iraq anyway.
Those imagining that they’d have gratefully accepted Blair telling them what to do are daydreaming. That’s not the nature of the Bush administration. Nor of the American public (look at the vitriol with which they reacted to the Guardian readers who wrote them letters during the 2004 election for a small taster).
58 - So basically you’re saying that Blair acted like a coward.
Glad we’ve got that settled.
‘They’d have revived memories of how perfidious Britain was during the War of Independence for standing in their way during that war and the later Canadian war’
Confused and confusing nonsense, C+
56. ukpaul - I’ve come to accept that you are an angry individual who is determined to believe that Blair is a superman and which allows you to be piously furious that he hasn’t used said superpowers to do super-things. And that you derive great pleasure from nursing this anger towards him. Of course, I’m not going to persuade you - who could? Luckily most of Britain is more realistic.
I think there’s something in what you say Snowflake except that I don’t think most Labour supporters care about the Empire or what influence Blair has just that if he has it perhaps he could try being on the side of the goodies for once!!
Anyway none of this explains why he wont leave the stage when almost all his supporters-present and past-are willing him to.
61 -
Look at the polls, you’re the one that’s out of step. Remember the reaction to Iraq, remember the reaction to Lebanon. It will forever be branded on the heart of new labour. Even labour voters didn’t support the government line (I take it that you depsie Prescott for letting the truth slip out then).
A government that reduces liberty is the government I attack, it’s not about anger it’s about making a better future. That most governments of all parties do the same just makes it more important for people not to acquiesce and believe that they can’t make a difference.
How can I think Blair is superman when I think he’s craven, cowardly individual in any case? Get your story straight will you.
Blair isn’t superman, he’s a very naughty boy.
despise not depsie!
62. I think he’s not going because the govt wants certain unpleasant stuff to take place on his watch rather than Browns; the council and Scottish elections next year. The spending review needs to be completed. Home office restructure. Iraq pull-out. Better if it happens under Blair than Brown.
Re Empire, I’d never have believed Labour people were attached to it, - but look how people insist on swaggering about pretending we have influence. Bet they don’t do that in Sweden. It’s nostalgia for when Britain was important, and some just can’t admit that we’re not.
65 - Straw man argument about empire, creating your own idea of what people think so you can easily knock it down. You can do better than that can’t you?
63. Everyone on the planet thinks the Bush administration is crap. Probably even the PM thinks so. But he can’t say it out loud because of his position. PM’s can’t sound off the way the rest of us can. It’s called diplomacy
As for polls and Iraq - labour won the last election (i.e. sufficient people didn’t care), and they did so without my vote. But they’ll have my vote in the next election. What does that tell you?
67 - When the country is behind him and he ignores them it’s not diplomacy it’s denying the will of the people.
The last election tells me that a party with 20% of the vote can get elected with a majority, which is the biggest electoral crime out there. Your vote doesn’t matter as there are more going the opposite way, mind you don’t get trampled.
Stawmen, snowflake, strawmen - I never said that Blair could have stopped Iraq, or that he can force the Israelis to do anything. Re-read my post, e.g.: “Blair’s unconditional support for Bush’s worldview is a *significant* factor in the outcomes of both Iraq and Lebanon.” Note the word outcomes. Also: “If Blair had come out strongly against the destruction of Lebanon from the start the UN could and would have forced a ceasefire much earlier.” Note here that it is the UN that would have been empowered by a different Blair position, when we know that Blair was instumental in holding and blocking French moves in the UN to pass the ceasefire resolution.
It’s understandable that you will wriggle and try to argue against a position that we do not hold, because it’s that much more difficult to argue against what we are actually saying rather than what you wish we were saying.
You talk of EU policy…when it was BLAIR who was the primary block to a unified EU position on Lebanon. Merkel is a new leader and would have been unlikely to want to stand out alone if Blair hadnt strode out alone first.
I know it’s also trendy now for Blairites to try to talk down Blair’s world presence - despite spending 8 years talking it up! The fact remains that he is certainly the second most widely known national leader in the world, and though reviled in Europe now, he is still a major figure throughout most of the non-Islamic world. Pretending that Blair is just a two-bit player on the stage is quite comical I think, but if that’s the position being taken by the New Labour spinners to try to limit damage then I’m sure we’ll see more of it in future.
As for Britain not being a “quasi-superpower”, well we are the 4th biggest economy in the world and one of the 5 permanent Council members, so that is clearly nonsense. We are - and will remain for some years until the Asian nations eclipse us - a leading world economy and power. We also used to have that much more clout because we were respected as an impartial world voice of great experience in international issues. Sadly much of that latter image is gone now, but we should use the rest of our still significant influence for good while we still can.
Robin. “surely the point is that in a free democracy, I am entitled to say and publish whatever I like (within the bounds of the law) in my own time. It is none of my employer’s business which political views I hold and espouse outside of my professional duties”.
It depends what your job is surely? It was never OK for Ann Winterton to make a joke about 10 Pakis at a Rugby club event or anywhere else. Not because it was illegal but because it was unacceptable for the Conservative front bench to have amongst it’s number one who held racist views. Similarly it wouldn’t be acceptable for a policeman to say “All Blacks are thieves”. Not illegal but a mindset that isn’t accepted in the force.
And the same applies to Orange. They obviously didn’t realize when they employed him what his views on Muslims were. Now they know and they find them unacceptable. Surely that’s reasonable?
Hypothetical but plausible situation.
China becoes the largest econonomic and military world power, British government bows to their superior power as they have little influence and the UK goes along with their plan to invade Siberia to gain access to natural reserves, providing troops and logistical support. Government points to long standing connections between the two countries in justification. Rest of world up in arms, Britain safely under the coat-tails of the biggest figure in the playground.
You act like a coward, you end up supporting the unthinkable. It’s what Blair has done and that’s why he is despised for it.
“Blair has no influence” = “It’s all gone pear shaped but don’t blame us”.
69. How would the UN have forced a ceasefire if the Americans vetoed it? And note for the record that Britain sided with France in the UN in asking for a “cessation of hostilities” instead of the “suspension of hostilities” that America wanted. It wasn’t Britain holding things up, it was America.
Re Angela Merkel - check out her history. She was in favour of Iraq (as was the rest of the CDU) - that’s why they lost the 2002 election to Schroeder. And the Bush administration think she’s their new ally in Europe - note how many trips Bush has made to germany since she came to power. He hasn’t made a single one to Britain in that time - the Americans think that both Brown and Cameron will be cooler to them, and therefore it’s not worth courting them. Therefore even if Blair didn’t exist, there wouldn’t have been a unified EU position on Lebanon - in the EU summit meeting, Germany and Poland opposed making a strong statement. But of course people like to think it was all Britain’s fault - everything is britain’s fault, right?
71. That’s not a remotely unthinkable position. It’s pretty much Munich 1938.
73. ‘Britain sided with France instead of America’. So France can act as an opposite pole of influence to America in the UN, but Britain can’t? France and Britain’s potential influence is identical given our respective histories, economies and military capacity. If anything, we probably have fractionally more.
75. What has France achieved by acting as an opposite pole? Nothing. That was the point I was making earlier. We’d have been treated exactly as France was if we’d have opposed Iraq. And there’d still have been a war.
And America didn’t give way on the UN resolution on Lebanon because Britain and France stood against them. They gave way because Israel was losing and it suddenly became important to save their face. If Israel looked like winning, there would have been no resolution and that war would still be raging now (indeed it’s not over, they are still fighting).
No snowflake, your disingenuousness is beginning to shine brightly now - trying to pretend that it all doesnt matter what Blair did because only the US matters is laughable. The whole point of the UN and world opinion is that the US is just one - albeit by far the largest - voice in the crowd. Blair added to that voice, and therefore that voice was louder, and importantly the contrary voice was quieter. I know you understand this logic, because your prevoous posts on the economy have been very intellectual; so your wriggling on this subject now is rather plain.
Yes Merkel is aligning with the US, but she is still in coalition with the leftist SDP, and still has domestic opinion to worry about (something Blair evidently doenst care about any more), and would not have been so strident if Blair had not already been. Trying to pretend that anyone on the world stage cares what Poland thinks is comical; most people on this planet have never heard of Poland, and I’d bet less than 1/10 of PB.com could name the Polish PM without a visit to wikipedia.
I’ve never said everything is Britain’s fault, I say again for your clarity: “Blair’s unconditional support for Bush’s worldview is a *significant* factor in the outcomes of both Iraq and Lebanon.”
76 - What have we gained by supporting the US? Not influence as you’ve already made that clear. What else? Financial support? What?
67. What a conceited person, who assumes that their own views are somehow representative of Labour voters or ex-voters as a whole.
77. I’m not being disingenuous - I’m being realistic. The USA has a veto in the UN and has used it countless times (and often they are the sole dissenter) when it comes to stopping resolutions on Israel.
If Israel was winning the war in Lebanon, there’d have been no resolution. The delay happened, because intially, Bush, optimistic as ever, thought they were winning.
The Americans even vetoed a resolution condemning in strong terms, the targetting of UN forces in lebanon by Israel. Note that China had a UN official killed in that strike, and they were furious and they are also one of the permanent five. Yet they didn’t prevail.
Please be realistic about Britain’s role.
47. “roger: party members bent on humiliating each other don’t in general have a positive effect. You want months of newspaper articles about “Labour’s civil war”? No thanks. I wouldn’t vote Labour myself if we were led by someone who’d set out to humiliate those of us who he disagreed with. Don’t wish it on us.”
Nick, at the moment you seem to have a lot of people positioning themselves for the moment that Tony Blair stands down. Will it be 2006?, 2007? or maybe 2008? who knows, not the Labour party, the media or the general public. Discipline within the party is breaking down, and that is when things can start to unravel beyond your control. At the moment you are sleep walking into a civil war without realising it.
This kind of uncertainty can rumble on for a while. But leave the problems unaddressed for too long, and someone will finally get bold enough to make the first move. Ask Mrs T, IDS or Charles Kennedy.
When Tony Blair announced that he would not stand again for election I think that both he and the Labour party achieved short term political gain from this move. But in the long term it has in fact benefited Tony Blair’s position as PM, but I can’t see how it is doing anything other than damaging the Labour party and his expected successor.
I hated the way Mrs T and IDS were dispatched from the tory party and the damage it did to the tory party. IMHO there was real support within the party for Michael Howard to stay for a while after the last GE. But he made the decision to announce his resignation and laid down the timetable for a leadership contest. He even stayed around long enough to shake hands with David Cameron the day he was elected!
If Tony Blair had wanted to see a Gordon Brown led Labour party achieve a GE victory, he would have announced his departure by now. :D:
Snowflakes and others.
I think we’re all allowing Blair to slip under the table during this bun fight I’m sure you read-and others watched-the ’secret’ conversation between Blair and Bush. It was fairly obvious that Blair was without independent thought and was keen to follow the US line wherever it took him. For most of us who don’t like Bush or US foreign policy this was an unpleasant eye opener. We’d understood Blair had earned influence by his craven behavior over Iraq.
Interesting that you didn’t vote Labour in ‘05. I’m probably the only Labour voter I know who admits to voting for them then. How did they win?
The UN and France will sort it out,and all Liberal internationalists will re-joice.
If you believe that, you are a deluded optimist.
However the westphalian world order of sovereignty has collapsed in many states.
Thus the concept of a democratising global governance and world order, is a pipe dream.
A utopian ideal.
Realists will once again,hope they go back to secret diplomacy, rather than grandstanding at the UN, for their own public opinion, then doing nothing.
78. Our interests in the City have not been threatened (though I note that cetian members of Congress are muttering about how London is taking their business away - I expect to see them try to impose the disastrous Sarbanes-Oxley rules on us so that we lose our competitive advantage - but it’s difficult for them to attack us openly while the special relationship still exists).
And the lack of permanent rupture means that if there is a Clinton restoration in the White House, we can easily go back to how things were before Bush came along. The relationship with America is about more than the Bush administration. He’s going in two years time. Why make a permanent rupture with them now?
snowflake, you seem to be operating in a bizzare world if binary influence, where influence is either 1 or zero. That isnt the real world - influence is shades of grey, and we are one of the strongest shades of grey. Where and which cause we chose to add our shade to is very important…otherwise what the heck and let’s all just pack up and go home. As I said in my first post, the fact that you dont understand this is why Labour is sliding. The fact that you refuse to comtemplate this is why Labour will continue to slide.
84 - “78. Our interests in the City have not been threatened ”
Beyond satire, the defence rests.
84. Of course, using your line of argument, our intererests have been threatened implicity as any alternative policy would bring about sanctions. Still, nice to know what the going price of Britain’s sovereignty is in your book.
82. “Interesting that you didn’t vote Labour in ‘05. I’m probably the only Labour voter I know who admits to voting for them then. How did they win?”
They won because people in marginals voted for them. I only made my protest because i’m in a safe Labour seat. If I thought for one moment the seat was in danger, I wouldn’t have. My protest was, I’m afraid to say, tokenism.
I’m going to vote for them in the next election. I’ve calmed down and become more realistic about what government can do. I think the govt has done too much good to risk losing them over Blair and Bush, both of whom will be departing soon.
HF at 8 and 34: your posts (apart from the morbid bit about Gordon, which seems a bit desperate stuff to me) don’t reflect the Labour Party as it is, though perhaps the party as you’d wish it to be. The NEC election result was almost identical to last year, on low turnout. Membership has stopped falling, though it’s not going up either. Basically most members have accepted with greater or lesser enthusiasm that there will be a change of leadership within a couple of years and that it’s not worth a bloodbath to force it early. Many, like me, would be against an early change anyway for various reasons; others would like one but not a nasty battle. The probability of a new PM in 2006 is IMO as close to zero as you get in human affairs.
dez: No, I dont expect the French to sort it all out - that’s exactly why it’s so important that the UK is in there, influencing and getting better outcomes. I wouldnt trust opportunist idiot Chirac to fix my garden gate. But at least you are taking a different line to snowflake, suggesting that the UK is using its influence quietly behind the scenes, whereas snowflake thinks we have no influence.
Oh yes! We could go back to our “influence” with the Clinton White House. Wonderful idea! We could watch the President warmly shaking hands with Gerry Adams on the steps of the White House, and remember how strongly Madeleine Albright stood with us against terrorism.
I so enjoyed watching the man who carried the coffin of the Enniskillen bomber being feted by the President of the United States.
Our “special” relationship surely counted for something back then.
86. Indeed, a thoroughly bizarre remark.
85. Let me ask you a question. Given that Bush is leaving in two years time, and that it’s likely his successor will be a lot saner (whether Clinton or McCain) - why do you think it’s worth wrecking the relationship with America now? Americans close ranks when attacked. If we attacked them, Bush’s successors would be bound to be hostile to us. Why would you risk that?
Surely the relationship is a very long term thing and is more important than any leader that might hold office temporarily on either side?
“If we attacked them, Bush’s successors would be bound to be hostile to us. ”
Logical fallacy - argumentum ad baculum.
93. Why is the relationship so important? Our policy should be shaped by our interests and others’ policies. If the policies don’t benefit Britain’s interests - and Bush’s don’t - our relationship should change to reflect that. If the next president changes America’s policies, then we should reassess the situation in the light of that change.
Speaking out against the destruction of Lebanon would not have ruined the special relationship one bit. I have never suggested publically attacking Bush - that would be stupid. You suggest that we shouldnt speak out of line for fear of upsetting the relationship. What utter tosh. There’s a name for that kind of relationship: it’s called servitude.
89.” The NEC election result was almost identical to last year, on low turnout.”
well, Nick, there has not been a NEC election for CLP division last year! They previous election was in 2004.
And well, it’s not identical either. In 2004 it was a 3-3 split between the loyalist slate (Ruth Turner, Malik and Wheeler) and the Grassroots Alliance (Black, Seddon and Shawcroft). Now it’s a 4 to 2 split for the Grassroots Alliance.
But don’t spoil the discussion now….I’ll probably try to submit a guest column about NEC elections to Book Value for when he’ll be guest editor.
90,
Mark, thats what I hope.
Many players in all situations have to say things for their own domestic situation.
In reality, in a murky world, one has to speak,to people and consider ideas you despise.
Nevertheless, if the greater good is achieved, of a long term peace,it has too sometimes, be done behind the scenes.
79 and 92. I’m sure if you used your more regular username to post insults no-one would hold it against you!
97 - Good to have you back Andrea - hope you had a good holiday.
Don’t think you’ve missed very much - you’ll not be surprised that the SSP soap opera continues. It look like Tommy will probably go off on his own with a new party called ‘Solidarity’.
99 - Who do you think it is?
Digital Dave video. I’ve just been sent this video which I find very boring. Is it just me or am I missing the point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrL_86qPcxI
99. Paul. I don’t know. I’m sure Mike’ll let us know one day!
Yes nice to have you back Andrea. Everyone has had to do their own googling. Sometimes posters have been away for hours!!
03 - I thought it might be you and you were putting us off the scent there!
re 103. I can confirm that it wasn’t Sarah J or Nuala.
Mike.I’m ashamed to say I found it quite funny. I suppose it was born out of his not being an ‘analogue politician in a digital age’. Nonetheless a pretty effective character assassination and the bit with Archer made me LOL.
Nuala is for real isn’t she?
“Tommy will probably go off on his own with a new party called ‘Solidarity’.”
Will it have the same vigour of the poles who shafted the soviets?
I guess one of the concerns within New Labour is that Blair will presumably want to go out on a high,but they can’t see any ‘highs’ on the horizon.
Blair’s 10th anniversary as PM would be a natural time to step down,but this is likely to coincide with another set of awful local election results,so it will appear that he’s been pushed.
Meanwhile Iraq just gets worse each month (in July alone the central Bagdad morgue received 1,800 bodies),so will he go with a full scale civil war in Iraq,to be remembered as the PM responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez?
On the other,the chances of any miracles happening in Iraq are so remote that maybe he has already resigned himself to this legacy.
But where & when will there be a high?
100. Thanks Max. yes, I had a good time.
I saw something about Tommy and SSP (Rosie Kane being ready to do everything to defend her honours and some members writing a letter against Sheridan for how he threated the MSPs who testified against him)
103. Roger, hope pb.comers googling skills have improved!
97.Andrea, welcome back you have been missed. There have been many arguments on PB.com which could have been settled much earlier with your googling skills. :D:
110 - he has now regretted opening his mouth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5266310.stm
he is also considering setting up his own party - the TS Fan Club
Interesting S Times MORI poll, though tantalisingly 10 days old and without party preferences shown:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2320662,00.html
Brown maintaining a modest lead over Cameron in ‘most competent PM’ and a bigger one in ’substance over spin’, though you could say that both questions play to GB’s known strengths (DC does best on fluffier questions, likeability etc.), and it’s not clear if the usual harsh filtering by likelihood to vote (which balances the lack of voter recall adjustment) has been applied.
The focus during the sample period on large-scale Eastern European immigration produces odd results: people are evenly divided on whether it’s a good thing, but want much tougher laws to limit the numbers, but don’t know how tough, and anyway they think all the parties are useless on the subject (note that ‘other’ only gets 5% so they don’t fancy the BNP either). It seems sort of like the weather - people grumble, but without any expectation of improvement.
113- Good spin Nick. You didn’t mention the bit about nearly half of the public wanting Mr Blair to resign immediatly.
113. Thanks for the link Nick. The question about “when Tony Blair should step down as PM” would have been an interesting edition to the thread if it had been published a bit earlier.
113- “Serious and widespread concerns at current government policy” the article says.
I think it may be too late now changing the Captain on the sinking ship. It has taken on too much water…