Blair Resigns

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of Britain's most influential and long-serving leaders in a century, announced Thursday that he will step down on June 27, leaving behind a legacy of economic and political achievement mixed with deep public anger over his partnership with President Bush in the Iraq War.

"On the 27th of June I will tender my resignation as prime minister to the office of the queen," Blair said at the Trimdon Labor Club in his home constituency of Sedgefield, speaking to Labor Party supporters in the building where he launched his political career as a 30-year-old lawyer almost 24 years ago to the day. "I've come back here to Sedgefield to my constituency, where my political journey began and where it's fitting that it should end."

Blair's long-anticipated announcement clears the way for his political partner and rival Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to replace Blair as prime minister in June. Brown, the country's successful and longest-serving finance minister, is expected to easily win a party leadership battle in the coming weeks then assume a premiership he has coveted for a decade."

I think it's past time for this, given what seems to me, from a distance, to be the bitterness in Britain over Blair's role in the Iraq war, and the loss of trust in Blair himself. Nonetheless, I hope his immense achievement in helping to bring about peace in Northern Ireland isn't forgotten -- by all accounts he worked very hard at that, and achieved a lot.

Gordon Brown, who will in all likelihood succeed Blair, seems to be more enigmatic than one would expect of someone who has been the Prime Minister-in-waiting for a decade. Here's the Financial Times on what to expect:

"If Mr Brown has one driving impetus from the moment he enters Downing Street, it will be a relentless determination to win the next general election. The temptation might be to assume that, having attained the premiership, he has reached the summit of his ambition. But he has not. Mr Brown does not want to go down in history as the man who ended Labour’s astonishing run of election victories. Proving he can be as potent a standard-bearer for Labour as Mr Blair by securing a fourth successive mandate will drive his every action in office.

The Brown premiership will therefore have a far more intense focus on domestic politics than was the case in the Blair years. And at its core will be three goals. The first will be to address Labour’s electoral weakness, brutally exposed in the results of last week’s local elections. Mr Brown will want to eradicate the impression of a sleaze-dogged administration by cutting down the number of political advisers answerable only to their ministerial masters, while returning a neutral civil service to the heart of decision-making. He will look for better management of the health service, as he seeks to overturn what for Labour MPs is a deeply disconcerting Tory poll lead on the National Health Service. .

All in all, there will be a gravity and austerity to the way the new prime minister operates.

Second, Mr Brown will seek to rally a Labour left which has been utterly demoralised by the Iraq debacle. That does not mean he will abandon plans for further reform of health and education. But there will be a deeper emphasis than before on using public service reform as a tool to reduce social inequalities in education and health.

Inevitably, Mr Brown will raise Labour’s spirits by putting more distance between himself and the Bush administration. There will be no dramatic declarations of independence from the White House. But symbolically, his first international outings after he assumes the premiership in July will be visits to the new wave of reformist leaders in France and Germany.

Finally, Mr Brown will want to entrench political dividing lines with the Conservatives. On public spending, his instinct will be to continue portraying the Tories as advocates of a smaller state. On European policy, Mr Brown will want to give the impression that, by removing the Conservatives from the centre-right grouping in the European parliament, Mr Cameron has isolated himself from the governments of Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Angela Merkel in Germany. Mr Brown will seek to suggest that, on pressing issues such as climate change, he can do business with these leaders – while Mr Cameron cannot."

***

I should also say that the reason I haven't commented on the French elections, and on Sarkozy's victory, is that I don't really know enough to say anything particularly enlightening. (I am, however, grateful that at last the French political scene is not dominated by the very same people who dominated it when I spent half a year in France in 1977. Mitterand, Chirac: one reason my grasp of French politics sort of atrophied was that it really didn't seem worthwhile to brush up on Chirac or Le Pen yet again.) If anyone wants to dispel my ignorance in comments, please feel free.

Comments

[OCSteve]

If Mr Brown has one driving impetus from the moment he enters Downing Street, it will be a relentless determination to win the next general election.

At least one thing is the same in politics across the pond...

[Hartmut]

Can't say anything about the defeated madam Royale but the impression I get of Sarkozy (from among others French papers in English translation) is that of a person too sympathetic* to the US economic (and partially social) models of today, there were even hints that he thinks well of Reagonomics and is inclined to try it out in France.
He also seems to be a person that makes enemies easily (his own words iirc) but he is definitely and fortunately not the type of loony that currently runs Poland.
Otherwise it's wait and see for me.

*for my personal taste

[Jesurgislac]

It's by no means absolutely certain that Gordon Brown will be prime minister by September. Blair is resigning July 27, and leadership elections will take place 7 weeks afterwards.

Every single Labour MP will want to retain their seat at the next General Election, and while Brown may manage to convince them he's the best one to do it, he's not the only one in the ring - and the Labour MPs are not the only people with a vote, though they are (as far as I remember from last time) the most influential single group.

[Hartmut]

And Brown is a Scot. That could be quite a liability currently with Scottish Nationalists having beaten Labour in the North.

[Jesurgislac]

Well, yes, that's how it's being spun.

Given how bad the electoral process was, it was as much a victory for Scottish Nationalists as the 2004 election was for the Republican party.

But one thing's for sure: if Brown becomes leader of the Labour Party/Prime Minister, it'll be because there were no other candidates who looked any better, not because anyone's got any great enthusiasm for him personally.

If Robin Cook hadn't died a couple of years ago, he would have been an excellent candidate: just as Tony Blair became Prime Minister only because John Smith died unexpectedly. Not that I'm alleging conspiracy or anything. But I do wish Cook hadn't died.

[spartikus]

Perhaps of interest, a bit of a primer: How Labour chooses a leader.

[sanbikinoraion]

Anyone who thinks anyone other than Gordon Brown will win the leadership election is simply wrong. The Labour party has no other heavyweight politician who would make a credible party leader and Prime Minister.

[Jesurgislac]

The Labour party has no other heavyweight politician who would make a credible party leader and Prime Minister.

John Prescott's certainly a heavyweight...

No, well, I don't say you're not right. Gordon Brown will have Millwall's support, and that's big deal: all the senior Labour Party MPs are tarnished with the Iraq war and tied to ID cards, so there's nothing much to choose between them and Gordon Brown: and Robin Cook, who would have been a credible challenger (and a very welcome one) died unexpectedly two years ago.

[spartikus]

Anyone who thinks anyone other than Gordon Brown will win the leadership election is simply wrong.

Not having a "heavyweight" might be precisely what the party membership wants at this point in time. Someone with no baggage.

[Nell]

Feh; this is a fecking disgrace. If Blair cared at all about the standing and future of his party, he would have ceded to Brown before the last elections.

[Nell]

Maybe the correct term for what I was referring to in my comment is 'by-elections'.

[dutchmarbel]

But I do wish Cook hadn't died..

Me too. And in the more realistic realm that that Campbell was more charismatic.

[jayann]

If Blair cared at all about the standing and future of his party, he would have ceded to Brown before the last elections

I disagree. Labour was going to do somewhat badly in these elections whoever led it (for different reasons in different parts of the UK), so it was for the best that Blair remained (having hung on for so very long).

[Pithlord]

Sooner or later, the electorate gets tired of governments. That may be a good thing. But I think it would be a mistake to understate Blair/Brown's achievements. A Labour government with a sound economic record. The end of the troubles. Real, material improvements for the working class.

[Mark]

IMO Gordon Brown is the worst possible person to lead the UK. He will be taking the leadership in the worst possible way at the worst possible time. One example of his moronic decisions is the sale of the total UK gold bullion reserves against the advice of the Bank of England when the prices were at a 20 year low, as reported in the UK press http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2450038.ece.

I dispute any suggestion he makes of creating the economic success story of the UK over the last decade. The UK economy has undoubtedly boomed, but not because of Gordon Brown. This is attributed to an upturn in the post dot com economy; any economist who has studied Kondratieff waves will understand the cyclic nature of the macro economy and not the mad ramblings of a power deluded imbecile.

http://www.gordonisamoron.co.uk

[janinsanfran]

Like most of the US blogosphere, folks here are being awfully nice about the departing Blair. In the UK, folks not so different from us think very differently. Give it a read.

In particular, the Blair government, in the name of "fighting terrorism" has put in place authoritarian legislation that probably exceeds in outrageousness even what our authoritarians have done. The main difference is that without a Constitution, they pass laws to do it. Here, they just ignor law and the Constitution, aside from passing the torture bill.

Blair has deeply undermined the democratic polity of the UK, just as the Bushies have undermined ours here.

[Jackmormon]

Sarko is going to try to be Thatcher. There will probably be a couple of massive strikes in the future, but who knows? Maybe he'll manage to push through an economic restructuring. I rather doubt it, though. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to lean American in foreign policy, though. Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war was the most popular thing he ever did, and Sarko is something of a Gaullist (although much less of one than Chirac, I think; it would be a little weird for the son of a Hungarian aristocrat to become a full-on Gaullist).

[Nell]

Sarkozy's eagerness for rapprochement with Israel makes me dread French involvement in the current imperial schemes for Lebanon and Gaza. (E.g., Rozen:

It's been strangely underreported in the US press what's clear listening to Israeli officials, that Israel is anticipating fighting a new war with Hezbollah in the coming year that would if it happens likely take the war to Syria. That is why the urgency over the issue of whether talks or no talks with Syria.

And Badger:

an Action Plan aimed at rolling back the idea of a Palestinian national-unity government, sidelining Hamas, and "building up Abbas' political stock" in a short period of time not to exceed nine months, with the idea that Abbas would call new parliamentary elections in fall 2007, which Fatah would win.

Not to mention coming repression against Muslim French youth, which will set the stage for more "terrorist cells", as well as real terrorist cells.

Sickening prospects.

[trilobite]

Nell, I would prefer not to conclude that you are motivated by a reflexive animus towards Israel, but what am I to make of your word "sickening" as applied to an "Action Plan" for peace that, according to your link, includes:

the setting of a schedule for withdrawals, along with confidence connected with progress in the security plan will also aid the political process (programmed withdrawals, elimination of barriers and checkpoints, rrelease of prisoners, halting construction of new colonies, stopping excavation work in Jerusalem). And it is also important that the Palestinian Authority commit to the following: (and there is a discussion about internal commitments to end violence, recognize prior international agreements and so on).

And also plans to get the Palestinians some serious World Bank money to address unemployment and other financial crises.

That's setting aside the obvious fact that this "Action Plan" has no provenance, so you might as well keep things simple and be outraged by the plots detailed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Your word "imperial" is also...interesting. Considering that Israel is smaller than New Jersey, was kludged together originally from land held by other imperial powers and not directly from the locals, and that Israel has, in the course of several reasonably successful wars grabbed land only to create buffer zones and given about half of that land back in exchange for peace treaties ... on what, exactly, do you base the notion that Israel is an imperialist power? Do you have your own dictionary with new definitions of pejorative terms?

You also appear to entirely discount the notion that a war against Hezbollah could be defensive rather than "imperialist." Are you of the belief that Hezbollah didn't really kill Israeli civilians with mortar strikes for decades before Israel attacked it? Or do you just think that it's ok to kill Jews, but not for the Jews to strike back? You would hardly be the first to hold that view. But, as I say, I would prefer to think better of a person who posts here. Please, give me a reason to?

[liberal japonicus]

Oh goody, an I/P discussion. Not.

I don't mean to pick on either of you, but I think the underlying point is what will Sarky's approach be, which is a concern because France is a traditional power broker with its relationship to Lebanon and has traditionally been a stronger supporter of a viable Palestinian state. Given his reported comments during the Paris riots about Muslim youth and his own background, it is useful to discuss this. Of course, if you two want to go off on an I/P thing, I'll let you go at it.

[Anarch]

Robin Cook, who would have been a credible challenger (and a very welcome one) died unexpectedly two years ago.

*waves Robin Cook flag mournfully*

[trilobite]

I'd apologize for the potential threadjack, except I didn't start it. Ball's back in Nell's court, let's see where she takes it.

I doubt anyone can guess what Sarkozy will do, tho I suspect I/P will not be his first priority. I for one would not mind a France slightly less enamoured of the Palestinian side, or slightly less antagonistic towards Israel. But I don't see how one can discuss this without some mention of I/P. After all, if one thinks Israel is entirely to blame for the stalling of peace talks, any wavering by France must be bad. If one thinks, as I do, that there is blame on both sides, then more international pressure on the Palestinians to make peace would be seen as helpful. Assessment of the effect of Sarkozy's presumed leanings depends entirely on one's view of the conflict. Ne c'est pas?

[Tom]

"And Brown is a Scot. That could be quite a liability currently with Scottish Nationalists having beaten Labour in the North."

Tony Blair is also a Scot...

[liberal japonicus]

Ne c'est pas?

Peut-etre, mais...

Sarkozy's infamous comment about using firehoses to clean out the city makes me wonder how precisely Sarkozy will be able to separate his reactions to the disaffection of Muslim youths in the banlieue and his approach to foreign policy in the Middle East. As such, Nell's comment (at least for me) has an on-topic component to it and it is necessary to look at what Sarkozy proposes to do in that light and to take, if one wishes, an opinion on Sarkozy on the basis of that. Thus I reject the notion that Nell is having her views dictated by her views of the I/P conflict. Colored, I would accept, but 'depends entirely' is far too strong.

I'd also like to preemptively apologize in if it seems like I'm singling you out here, cause I'm not. It's just that your comment, rather than stating that your understanding of the situations that Nell discusses and presenting why you have come to that understanding, instead focusses on Nell's own fitness as a commentator, placing a number of propositions that Nell now has to deny in order to validate her own views. I realize that this is the norm in most I/P discussions, but I don't think it is worthwhile, especially within a discussion of Sarkozy's presumed foreign policy which, while a threadjack of the actual post, had the potential of some interesting discussion (imho). Again, this is not to take Nell's side against you, this is just my 2.397 yen's worth on the direction of the thread

[Jackmormon]

As much as I dislike Sarko's policies, I have to admit that calling rioters "racaille" is really not that shocking. It's an epithet in fairly common usage in France; the slang version of the word is pronounced "kaie-rah," and I think it's at least sometimes self-ascribed.

Yes, when I first heard people describing others as "racaille," I was shocked; it was a word I associated with Marie Antoinette. I would have translated it as "rabble"---before I got used to so many everyday people being described to me as "racaille."

However. While I would in such discussions generally say that France had a long ways to go in facing its own racism and dealing with it, in the wake of Royal's defeat, I think it's important to emphasise the fact that the most salient feature of the "racaille"---before they burn cars and become a public entity---is that they harrass women.

That's the context in which I learned the word. I have never in my life been harrassed---anywhere---as I've been harrassed by the street-slouchers of Paris. I don't know what it is about French culture that can't quite perceive the systematic harrassment of women (and minorities) in front of its eyes. The fifteenth time you've seen a gendarme whistle at a passing female pedestrian, you've given up on asking their help against some guy who's harrassing you.

I don't intend to defend Sarko, whom I rather dislike.

[liberal japonicus]

JM,
I was thinking of the comment about cleaning out the city with a Kärcher. Perhaps being American and thinking of firehoses turned out demonstrators in Selma colors my thinking, but the underlying notion of 'cleaning' is pretty strong. A number of other points can be found on the wiki page on the riots, which is quite interesting

[Dianne]

Random and conflicting thoughts on Sarkozy:

1. He is a bit too Bushy for my taste and his comments on the banlieu and firehoses could most kindly be described as an incredible moment of foot-in-mouth disease.

2. On the other hand, the French economy really does kind of need a rupture. 10% unemployment for decades, along with 50% in the banlieu...a politician who is willing to do something (especially something unpopular...ie that no one else was willing to attempt) that might improve that might be very helpful.

3. But can he be trusted to treat the Islamic population of France with any degree of fairness? There are anonymous signs on the Paris metro with ostensible Sarkozy quotes on them that (if I understand them correctly, my French being, shall we say, imperfect), make the firehose quote seem mild. If he really said, for example, that Muslims can't ever be truly French, then he's probably a disaster in the making. But did he really say that? Anonymous quotes on the metro aren't the most reliable of sources.

4. He did at least have the sense to say that Chirac was right about not joining the coalition of the crazed in Iraq. If I remember correctly, he said something about having made that mistake in Algeria already and that no one could occupy a country against its people's will. (Again, language and memory cautions.) So he doesn't appear to be an neo-imperialist.

In short, I don't know. But the political situation in France seems about as polarized as the one in the US right now and that doesn't seem good, with Sarkozy or Royal as winner.

[trilobite]

liberal japonicus
No apology necessary, and I do take your points.

To the extent that Nell's post was about Sarkozy's threats towards disaffected Muslim youth, she was on-topic and I/P issues are barely relevant, as you say. But she appeared to drag in another issue entirely, and it was to that I was responding.

Was I overly personal? Perhaps. I am touchy on the subject of Israel, and I abhor the way that many on the left appear to take it for granted that Israel is simply evil. It's not just that I think that view is incorrect, but also that it is personally offensive. I do not think it is right to throw around words like "sickening" and "imperial", without any qualification or explanation, about a country which, despite all of its very real flaws and sins, many people love.

"My country, right or wrong," someone once said, "is a thing no patriot should ever wish to have to say. It is like, my mother, drunk or sober." I am perfectly willing to hear and discuss Israel's problems and crimes. But even if my mother drank, I would not like to hear her simply dismissed as a drunken sot -- and I would not respond merely by discussing whether and how much she drank.

[CJColucci]

"I should also say that the reason I haven't commented on the French elections, and on Sarkozy's victory, is that I don't really know enough to say anything particularly enlightening."
What the hell kind of a reason is that? Think of all the pundits who'd be out of business if they thought that way.