Individual Post Archive
« The in-crowd get out of Blair’s tent |
Main
| Crisis as SAS men quit for lucrative Iraq jobs »
It used to be said that the facts of life are Conservative. It helped to explain why, despite being disliked, the Tories kept winning. The Conservative outlook, if unpopular, conformed to the real world.
Today some of the facts of life look Blairite. The past few days have brought a transformation in the foreign policy scene and a corresponding surge in his prestige.
Tony Blair’s enemies were licking their lips as the Iraqi elections approached. Maybe a spectacular terrorist outrage on polling day, along with a derisory turnout, would supply a suitable epitaph for the Blair/Bush misadventure.
Things turned out differently. The level of violence continued much as before, but no higher. The terrorist menace has journalists pinned down in their compounds, unable to tell us how bad (or good) life in Iraq is. The sight of inky-fingered Iraqis weeping with joy because for the first time they had been able to vote in a democratic election moved even the British media. Foreign correspondents who (understandably) are terrified to show their faces in a Baghdad street were impressed by citizens who defied death threats to cast their ballots.
The Iraqi election spun the weather vane of international politics. The wind is now blowing for the coalition. During Condoleezza Rice’s first foreign tour as US secretary of state, European politicians who made a career of anti-Americanism tumbled over each other to grease up to their visitor.
Gerhard Schröder, chief architect of continental Europe’s calamitous rift with the United States, was wreathed in unctuous smiles as he greeted her. Spain’s foreign minister, whose country provoked Washington by withdrawing its troops from Iraq, seemed delighted with his peremptory handshake. A few months ago it seemed brave to defy the world’s superpower by pulling out of the occupation forces. Now it seems churlish not to have been there to protect the Iraqi voters as they risked their lives en route to the polls.
Rice supplied America with a new smiling face. She seemed to be a different woman, conducting herself with a femininity that was not apparent when, as national security adviser, she was often seen during press conferences scowling at the president’s side.
The secretary of state’s tour had an almost magical effect. Within hours of her meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, the two men were shaking hands in the company of the rulers of Jordan and Egypt.
By all means let us remember that there have been many false dawns in the Middle East, but we should not underplay the importance of what is happening now. Who would have guessed that within days of Bush’s second inauguration we would see the leaders of the two enemies sitting together to agree to a ceasefire? Suddenly Bush does not look so obdurate for having said that Yasser Arafat was the impediment to peace. Today the years of European toadying to the late PLO chairman do not seem like a good investment.
Blair’s support for Bush over the past four years no longer smacks of political suicide. He always sought as his reward an American commitment to the Middle East peace process. Now he has it. His opponents will find it harder to attack the Iraq war without appearing indifferent to Iraqi democracy. In foreign policy the facts of life look Blairite.
What luck, you could say, that the international scene has turned around just weeks before the British general election. In truth, although the timing of Arafat’s death was fortuitous, Blair has made his own luck. He staked everything on backing America and he deserves credit for his tenacity.
It is a pity that the prime minister is not interested in history, because his recent experience illustrates a recurring phenomenon that is hard to explain. Surprisingly often, political parties succeed in the wake of events that you might expect to sink them electorally (although the leader does not always survive).
The Conservatives increased their majority following the catastrophe of Suez. Under Margaret Thatcher they won a landslide victory despite 3m unemployed. John Major squeaked home after the Tories had both introduced and abolished the hated poll tax. The opinion polls say that Labour will win despite Iraq.
The prime minister can be forgiven a little trumpeting. He defied his critics further last week with a denunciation of Iran for sponsoring international terrorism. His party grimly anticipates another American attack. Blair seemed to enjoy playing on their fears.
If Blair sometimes soars like an eagle across the international landscape, at home he grubs in the gutter. As the election approaches, his nasty little kitchen cabinet has reassembled and Alastair Campbell has returned to Downing Street to intimidate the media.
Any time that you feel in danger of admiring Blair, consider what it says about him that he is in thrall to Campbell. It works for me. Blair is also apparently incapable of fighting an election without Peter Mandelson, who last week attacked the BBC for being anti-European. The charge is as plausible as accusing the chief rabbi of anti-semitism.
Meanwhile, the prime minister’s wife was doing little to increase respect for his office, simpering for a large fee about life in No 10 in front of New Zealanders whom she addressed undiplomatically as Australians. She may have Aussies on the brain.
First she had a brush with the conman Peter Foster (Carole Caplin’s former boyfriend). Then she arranged her speaking tour through another Australian, Max Markson. Adelaide’s Queen Elizabeth hospital research foundation has complained that after a charity banquet organised by Markson (addressed by Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor), it received only a fraction of the money it had expected. It must be a relief that Cherie Blair does not share Imelda Marcos’s penchant for shoes.
At home there was more grubbiness as our political parties tried to outbid each other on immigration. In this degrading competition points are awarded each time a politician promises to "crack down" on some hapless group of migrants. They will do no such thing of course. It is all talk. We were better off when, during the 30 years following Enoch Powell’s "rivers of blood" speech, the subject was taboo, especially during elections.
Blair distinguishes himself from Michael Howard by branding him an opportunist. You can never accuse Blair of lacking brass neck, since opportunist could be his middle name. On Friday the prime minister had planned to make a policy announcement in each of five cities. At the last minute his new policy for clamping down on immigration had to be added, so one city was lucky enough to receive two election pledges.
Sixteen years after their convictions were quashed, Blair also chose last week to apologise to the Guildford four. Ellen MacArthur, the round-the-world yachtswoman, could hardly make it to dry land before the prime minister had basked in her reflected glory by making her a dame. Readers thinking of setting a record in any field should do so now, before the election, unless they want to settle for a mere OBE and wait their turn in the new year honours.
All those government announcements are part of a plan to distract us from serious political debate, because in domestic politics the facts of life are stubbornly not conforming to new Labour’s model.
There is mounting evidence that Blair’s high-spending policies have been largely ineffective. Two oncologists have reported that the national cancer plan, costing £2 billion, has failed. The latest figures show a huge rise in the proportion of patients who do not start their radiotherapy treatment on time. The National Audit Office tells us that despite £885m plunged into reducing school absenteeism, truancy levels are as high as in 1997. The chief inspector of schools reports that 40% of children do not receive a decent education.
Blair must ensure that we do not focus on such inconvenient statistics. Dame Ellen has been a useful diversion. Even Campbell’s four-letter e-mails draw our eye away. But what better sideshow could there be than a royal wedding? The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles have become key accomplices in the prime minister’s election strategy, unwittingly of course.
February 13, 2005 at 01:41 PM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home