It’s official at last. Like setting a wedding date. Or a series of concerts by your favourite band. Mr. Blair is to step down on June 27. Mark it on your calendar.
The press in the UK has not only been speculating promiscuously on when he would go but have been daily detailing his 'farewell tour'. Tony, it seems has been taking every chance in the last weeks to plant in the mind of the public the terms of 'his legacy'.
Although there other factors have to be considered, I think it is noteworthy that he chose to announce his departure shortly after Tuesday's historic swearing in of a new First and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. He will be seen to bow out basking in the light of at least one major peace deal.
Mr. Blair will claim Northern Ireland to be part of his legacy, and I do think he is entitled to do so. He was the first UK PM for many years to take a 'hands on' approach to the situation. Previous PMs, (with the exception of a beleaguered John Major who leading the viciously divided Conservatives on economic and social issues, and with a cut-throat atmosphere on his back benches, possibly found Belfast relaxing), had tended to sidestep the issue, thinking (and who can blame him) it was complex beyond reason, impossible, even intractable. But Tony got on the airplane each time, and with his chesire-cat smile and his boundless enthusiasm knocked heads together - so to speak. He is not the only person who deserves credit for Tuesday's relevance of course but he is the only player to have just announced he is to step down.
His legacy, I suspect, will be the legacy of any politician. In some places he will be seen as a great man, a man who brought change and prosperity while in others he will be derided, barely missed. His achievements as party leader cannot be denied. And God knows the UK needed something different after 18 years of devastating and then inept Tory rule. But I suspect history will be divided on what his true worth is.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
"I cannot help but think of the daily reports of violence and conflict from Iraq and how his unconditional support for the Bush administration has compromised the UK's standing on the international stage."
That seems to be a matter of perception. Listening to some of the news coverage here in the US, you'd think that Blair's staunch support of the Iraq war has actually boosted Britain's standing in the world more than anything else possibly could have. And that was just on BBC World News.
Mind you, they're well aware that they're preaching to the choir somewhat. Americans love Tony Blair. They respect him for being the first to stand alongside their country on 9/11 and for staying the course ever since, even throughout what most now realize is a stupid war. He's sustained the "special relationship" and helped bring it closer together than at any time since the days of Thatcher and Reagan. Perhaps even closer: Tony and George seem never to have exchanged a cross word, whereas Mag 'n' Ron certainly had their acrimonious fallings-out - about which Thatcher pulls no punches in her memoirs. Whether this tightening of the relationship will turn out to have been the best thing for Britain (and/or for America), history will no doubt judge.
2 - Dave Nalle
You've got to have some respect for loyalty, and Blair has shown a lot more of that and a lot more backbone than I would have expected of him when he first took office.
Dave
3 - STM
Yes, I must say he shocked me as well. The view from Down Under, even among many of those who don't agree with the conduct of the continuing war in Iraq, Blair has BALLS, and big ones. If he'd been a Conservative PM, you'd almost have expected that's he be the first to stick his hand up when Dubya asked.
But being a Labour PM, and having to settle all the fractious factions of the Labour Party, means you need even more balls to what he did because you are copping it from within as well as out.
I don't like Aussie PM John Howard one bit, as I believe he's a puppet of the US because of his own agenda on the world stage and is a man given to gross deceit. Blair, however, clearly is his own man. Both supported Bush.
The big difference: Blair did it because he believed it was the right thing to do, not because he wanted anything out of it. Indeed, it's probably been his undoing.
And in the wash-up, whatever your political views and feelings on the WMD debacle, no right-thinking person can possibly disagree with the real premise for going to war: that the terrorists are out there, in numbers, and they exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to blow the living shit out of the lot of us.
I say, Good on you Tony. I hope Gordon Brown can fill his shoes, as they are big ones.
4 - Dave Nalle
And, of course, there's one undeniable fact about Iraq. Al Qaeda is there, and we're fighting them - which was, after all, the whole point of all of this.
Dave
5 - Christopher Rose
Dave, are you saying that Al Qaeda was in Iraq at the time of the invasion?
6 - Dave Nalle
Chris, are you saying that where they are now is not a hell of a lot more relevant?
Dave
7 - Dr Dreadful
No use crying over spilt milk, I guess. But the only reason al-Qaeda is in Iraq now is that there are lots of juicy American soldiers to eat.
8 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I would say that the USA's acts of revenge have caused more problems than they have solved...
9 - bliffle
I thought the point was to stop WMD. No, wait, I thought the point was to democratize the Middle East. No, wait...
Because, if the point was to stop AQ and OBL we would surely have pursued them in Afghanistan, even into Tora Bora, wouldn't we?
10 - bliffle
Or is ol' Dave just improvising alibis, ad libitum, for GWB and cronies. As usual.
11 - zingzing
yeah, i guess we could of picked just about anywhere in the region to start a civil war, hoping to bring al qaeda into it... but why didn't we just let it happen in afghanistan? or why not just take it to iran? aren't we going there next anyway? honestly, wherever the u.s. military goes, there goeth a.q., so why not pick a nicer locale? like switzerland. at least the swiss would stay out of it. then we could have our little fight with a.q. over there. in the alps. and we could see pictures of big-breasted blondes running through bombed out streets and tumbling churches, arms hanging by shreds of skin, etc. man, i'd join up. nothin like a little fightin, i say. but i ain't going to no desert. that's just stupid. maybe the u.s. military and al qaeda should plan their vacations better.
12 - Nancy
Yah, but Zing, Switzerland has no oil, man. No reason for Dubya to go 'liberate' the Swiss, y'know?
13 - MCH
I'm convinced the main reason for the invasion was so all the chickenh... er,um... war-wimps can get their rocks off spouting and writing macho military slogans...
14 - zingzing
true, but i'm just following up on dave's "fight them there, not here" argument for continuing the war. just move it to more beautiful surroundings i says. a lot more americans are willing to go to switzerland rather than iraq.
and really... wouldn't it be easier to fight a.q. there? no more "is he or isn't he my enemy" bullshit. or at least a far smaller margin for error. i mean, who ever said you have to fight a war in "our" country or "their" country? just pick a spot and fight it out. switzerland is fantastic this time of year! it's really just like a boxing match. and switzerland hasn't had a good boxing match in many years.
15 - troll
Zing - *why didn't we just let it happen in afghanistan?*
I suspect that the thinking in part was that the terrain in Afghanistan is way too gnarly especially for an army geared up for a sandy desert war
...and we didn't take it to the Swiss because they would have kicked our assets in short order
16 - Dave Nalle
Or is ol' Dave just improvising alibis, ad libitum, for GWB and cronies. As usual.
The next time I provide an alibi for Bush and company will be the first, Bliff.
But I do like to play Devil's Advocate in the face of the constant barrage of irrational invective.
Dave
17 - STM
I don't understand why being on the left in America - as opposed to the left elsewhere - means having to toe the line in regards to the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan and George Bush's poorly named and executed but still relevent war on terror.
I would have thought a litany of mass murder that has included lunatics flying jets into New York skyscrapers, bombing the London underground and a double decker bus and blowing the shit out of innocent Aussie kids in a Bali nightclub would be all the proof you'd need to stand up to these bastards - no matter what side of the fence your politics lie.
18 - Dave Nalle
Stan, a lot of Americans just didn't get the message of 9/11 or the overall history of terrorism in the last 30 years or so. America is a country which is huge geographically and in population, and most of us are intellectually and physically isolated from these events. They registered initially, but the momentum of complacency soon overwhelmed them, and nothing which has happened since 9/11 has been of a sufficient level of drama to wake most of the complacent masses back up.
The left has a political agenda in which any terrorist is automatically a hero, especially if they attack the US or our allies, and that viewpoint doesn't allow for the consideration of the implications of 9/11 or other acts of terrorism directly against America. For them we're automatically the bad guys and deserve whatever we et.
dave
19 - Clavos
I would have thought a litany of mass murder that has included lunatics flying jets into New York skyscrapers, bombing the London underground and a double decker bus and blowing the shit out of innocent Aussie kids in a Bali nightclub would be all the proof you'd need to stand up to these bastards - no matter what side of the fence your politics lie.
Just one of the reasons I don't believe you're as "liberal" as you say you are, Surfman. I agree with you, BTW, but US liberals, as you point out, don't.
Perhaps what you and I talk out about are just different definitions of the term? We don't seem to disagree on all that much; only the gun issue comes readily to mind...
20 - STM
Mate, Labor is the party of the left here. I've worked for it (for money, too), love it and all it stands for, and I've never voted Liberal (the party of the Right here) in my life and never will because I don't like to see the average Joe driven in to the ground because it suits a government that only cares about big business and people making money at the expense of others when there is hardly any loss to them if some of it is shared around a bit more.
However, that doesn't mean I can't support governments of whatever persuasion who are quite clearly doing the right thing in standing up to an international network of fanatical terrorists who only want to kill, not talk - no matter the flaws in the way that's been executed.
Both of you know I have a personal reason to feel this way, and it goes beyond politics. The young girl in question, if you remember my Bali story, was the daughter of a wharfie - a waterside worker and union man.
Remember namby-pamby Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time"? A good man conned by a mass-murdering bastard, because he didn't have the wherewithal to see the truth.
I am not comparing myself to Tony Blair, but it's worth noting he's a Labour man as well. I hope history judges him kindly.
21 - Christopher Rose
I would totally support a coherent policy that sought to improve the world by taking out evil mofos of all types. What happened post 9/11 wasn't it.
22 - STM
Well, that's a bit what we've been saying Rosey. Stand up to them but execute it differently. Bush was on the right track, but with 20-20 hindsight, it was the wrong fucking train. Still, the bastards aren't going to go away and time soon.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Americans are and were complacent about a lot of international events, not just terrorism. But I can't help thinking that 9/11, as horrendous as it was, was something of a fluke. There have been no terrorist incidents of any significance on US soil since, and prior to that day there had been only two ever (WTC '93 and Oklahoma City), one of which wasn't even the work of Islamic extremists.
So there's certainly a case for questioning whether the reaction of the US and its allies to 9/11 was (a) overkill and (b) misdirected.
24 - Clavos
So there's certainly a case for questioning whether the reaction of the US and its allies to 9/11 was (a) overkill and (b) misdirected.
Possibly. Or, the flip side of that coin is that the "overkill" is working.
Glass half empty/half full...
25 - Dr Dreadful
Ah yes, but who is the overkill working for? Trillions spent on the war = bollixed-up US economy = partial achievement of aims of al-Qaeda, i.e. destroying Great Satan.
Imagine if after 9/11 we'd just picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened. How that would have annoyed Osama...