10 years of Prime Minister Blair
It is ten years ago today that Labour took office with Tony Blair as Prime Minister. As he comes close to departing 10 Downing Street, how does one assess his tenure? Apparently, when asked about the historical effect of the 1789 French Revolution, Chinese leader Chou En-lai replied:. “It’s too soon to tell.” So it’s certainly too soon to make a balanced judgement about Blair’s time in office.
The invasion of Iraq in particular colours any judgement, as does the excessive closeness to George Bush. But already it is clear that there have been substantial and lasting achievements, especially in the areas of economic prosperity, social justice and constitutional reform. An editorial in last wekend’s “Observer” newspaper concluded:
“Britain has been discreetly transformed: the minimum wage; free nursery care; tens of thousands more teachers, doctors and nurses – with higher wages; the working families’ tax credit; the right to six months’ maternity leave and two weeks’ paternity leave; a statutory right to flexible working hours; the disability rights commission; the Freedom of Information Act; civil partnerships and the repeal of Section 28; restoring self-government for London; devolution for Scotland and Wales; the Human Rights Act; peace in Northern Ireland. Mr Blair’s government has given millions of people unprecedented freedom to live as they choose and given them the wealth and security to do it.
Britain is better off after a decade with Tony Blair in charge. Wealth has been created, and wealth has been redistributed. That is what Labour governments have always hoped to do. It has happened without a brake on global competitiveness. That is what New Labour hoped to do: build a vibrant market economy with a generous welfare state; economic freedom and social protection. That is Blairism.
So on Thursday millions of voters will go to the polls intending to bury the Prime Minister. In time they will find many reasons to praise him.”
We have not heard the last of Tony Blair.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
It is refreshing to see a positive assessment of Blair’s record over the last decade. Too much of the current political debate is clouded by Iraq, which while important is not the only act ten years of Labour government will be remembered for.
I do, however, wonder what Blair will be associated with in thirty years time.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Presumably, given Tony Blair’s promise to serve a full term, Gordon Brown will soon call a general election?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I don’t see why he should and I’m sure that he won’t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
I do not recall any new leader of a party who was in power at the time of the change, calling a general election. Can Nick tell me why he thinks the next Labour Prime Minister should.
Whilst admitting I am not a Blair fan and never have been. Under the leadership there have been mistakes but on the whole the ‘lad did good’.
And we should remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
At the last election Tony Blair pledged that he would serve a full term before standing down, so it now seems a little shifty that he is standing down (not entirely of his own volition) barely two years into his term. It almost seems as though the Labour Party is putting its own (perceived) interests ahead of the wishes of the country, especially given that Blair is arguably more popular than Brown.
So ethically, it’s murky. Pragmatically, it risks alienating that sizeable proportion of the electorate who voted Labour only because Tony Blair was leader. Constitutionally, of course, there’s no problem; the electorate votes for a party, fighting on a policy manifesto, to form a government.
So I’d like to see Blair publicly invite Brown to stick by Labour’s election pledge. If that is not politically viable, Brown should call a general election shortly after he becomes Premier.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Forgive my naivety but I thought that one voted for a party in this country.
I also thought that, apart from the details of implementation, that all Labour MPs would stick by Labour’s election pledge as contained in the manifesto.
or
Have missed a ‘Prime Minister’ only election somewhere along the line?
And why is it ‘shifty’ – circumstances, both personal and otherwise, change over time. At least they do for most of us, why is Blair different?
May 4th, 2007 at 9:44 am
We do vote for a party; that’s what I meant by: “Constitutionally, of course, there’s no problem; the electorate votes for a party, fighting on a policy manifesto, to form a government.”
Circumstances do indeed change over time, and they changed rather quickly for Mr Blair, didn’t they? No sooner was the 2005 election over than the calls for him to consider stepping down began. By September 2006, only 16 months after the election in which Tony Blair promised to serve a full third term, supporters of Gordon Brown were demanding a public timetable for Blair’s departure: Blair’s offer: I will go in a year. Brown: that’s not good enough.