What a shame it is that, in response to the news that Tony Blair is resigning, that most of the main news networks (BBC, Sky, etc.) have decided to go out and gauge the opinion of the general public as to what Blair's legacy might be. Narrowmindedly, but predictably, and without any tongues in cheek, most seem to believe that it will be the Iraq war. Really?
The only columnist I have read today who seems to have correctly assessed the likely Blair legacy was this one. I believe that Tony Blair has been, on the whole, a good prime minister. For two main reasons:
1. Because there are aspects of modern life that are far too large and complicated to ever be fixed by any government, whatever their party, despite the best worded pledges: the NHS because it suffers at the hands of private healthcare and because no government will ever have enough money (without raising taxes) to cater for an ever expanding population, raise nurse pay and cure all of the inherent bureaucracy problems that pervade this outdated public service; crime, because parental responsibility is the real root cause of juvenile delinquency. A leader speaks for the nation (and Blair does this well) and cannot (and should not) be held accountable for everything that goes wrong on his watch. Ministers come and go, and a few have made mistakes (including probably the PM - he's only human) but to hold a torch to his every move and statement, waiting (and in many instances trying to provoke) a mistake is counter-productive and detrimental to good government. But unfortunately, this is now common practice in the media. Accountability should be allowed to develop and, in time, evidence itself, not be challenged and antagonistically tested every minute of every day.
2. Because of the Iraq War. Too much is made of this. Tony Blair is not responsible for Iraqi insurgent terrorists killing their own each day. Had the war been wrapped up sooner, there would not be the criticism there still is today. To say that Blair followed Bush into an illegal war is wrong; we are one of the world's leading economic nations with a duty to assist where we can. America is an important ally with the same duty; we were obligated to go into war irrespective of what America did. And, as far as British involvement is concerned, I don't understand on what basis people consider the war to be a mistake. If the mistake is to be measured by casualties, in the 4 years since it started the UK has lost 148 troops. The Falklands War lasted 10 weeks, was considered a success, and yet 260 troops were killed. So perhaps the war is considered a mistake because it has not yet been won? Again, this is the fault of the insurgents, not the coalition. To bring it to a speedier conclusion then should perhaps involve more troops, not less. And Tony Blair is not the maker of military strategy, so should not be deemed responsible for how the war is fought.
It annoys me when the uneducated man on the street is asked his opinion and blindly follows the views of the tabloid press when making statements like "Blair's legacy will be his failings in Iraq." To go into war was a brave decision, to stay and see it through for 4 years was a braver one. Tony Blair has always been front and centre in defending the decisions he has made, and during a very difficult and fast-changing decade. He has on occasion nobly accepted responsibility for mistakes that were not his. When Princess Diana died his sentiment was perfectly attuned to that of the nation, and again on 9/11.
By contrast, Gordon Brown lacks the charisma to be a leader in the same mould; more academic, less dynamic. Politics is about to become boring again under his leadership.
Which will leave room for David Cameron to continue building the same brand and style of fresh faced optimism that brought Blair to power 10 years ago. If the public buy into that again, and elect Cameron as PM at the next election, it will only be a matter of time before the knives come out.
No comments:
Post a Comment