But will it really be a happy one?

It has been a slow bank-holiday weekend, and John Prescott has suffered more calls for him to go, most notably from Labour MPs. But these MPs are small in number, and most constitute the "usual suspects". Since his affair, Prescott has done nothing particularly catastrophic; he is not negligent in any obvious way, and it is hard to conceive of a David Blunkett-style situation in which new headlines snowball into a torrent, augmenting pressure until number 10 can resist no longer. Playing croquet was not a wise move for a man who claims to be Old Labour's voice within New Labour, but it is hardly a resigning issue.

Michael Crick on Newsnight last night recalled George Brown in 1968, who resigned from cabinet and as foreign secretary, but stayed on as the deputy leader for another two years, sitting on the backbenches. But as the debate following Skipper's analysis has established, rule 4b 2e of the party's constitution seems to specify that the deputy leader be a member of the cabinet.

Lance Price cites an "arch-conspiracy" theory: that Blairite aides are conniving against John Prescott in order to make room for someone such as Alan Johnson, who, in 18 months or so, could establish himself sufficiently in order to mount a serious challenge to Gordon Brown. Alan Johnson is a former trade-union man, and thus may seem adequate replacement for working-class Prescott. But this, as suggested, is highly conspiratorial, and the more likely scenario is that Blair fears that a deputy leadership election would encourage an anti-Blair/pro-Brown candidate and, in succession, trigger more calls for his resignation. Moreover, it would be politically embarrassing for Blair to demote the deputy prime minister, just one month after the most significant cabinet reshuffle of his nine-year tenure. The reshuffle included Prescott himself, after all.

12 facts you probably didn't want to know about the leader of Her Majesty's official Opposition, Dave the chameleon. It is a slow news day, after all.


1. One of Dave's main aims is to "get into the cities" and woo the urban vote. In rural Oxfordshire, he once won first prize for his home-grown tomatoes.

2. On Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Dave chose among his favourites The Smiths' 'This Charming Man'. This song begins with the lyric, "...Punctured bicycle / On a hillside desolate". Let us hope cycling Dave is not left stranded in Tory HQ any time soon.

3. Rejecting his party's former neoliberalism, Dave has borrowed an idea first pioneered in the 1970s by King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan: the importance of GWB ("General Well-Being"). 1 in 10 Bhutanese die before their first birthday. Perhaps, as The Economist notes, this is all part of the fun.

4. Mrs Thatcher once said that "there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families". Cameron, on the other hand, calls for better work-life balance in order to improve society's "sense of well-being".

5. Vernon Bodganor, CBE, professor of government at Oxford, vice-principal of Brasenose College, PPE graduate, monarchist and former tutor of a younger Dave, has described Mr Cameron as "one of the ablest" students he has taught. Dave's political views were summarised by Prof Bodganor as those of a "moderate and sensible Conservative".

6. Dave is Queen Elizabeth II's fifth cousin twice-removed, via William IV's illegitimate daughter, Elizabeth FitzClarence. It is rather curious, then, that Dave's favourite album is The Queen is Dead. (Dave's wife, Samantha, also has a royal connection.)

7. In the Eton magazine, Dave was reported to have sprained his ankle while dancing to bagpipes on a school trip to Rome.

8. Dave fronts this month's issue of GQ magazine with a photo that The Spectator describes as "pouting".

9. Reflecting the leaders of the Tory Party, 1997-2003, Dave's two middle names are William and Duncan.

10. Jeff Randall, a journalist who dealt with Cameron while he was working for the PR company Carlton, has said he would not trust Dave "with my daughter's pocket money", while The Sun's business editor called him a "poisonous, slippery individual".

11. Dave has been voted the worst dressed man of 2006. Clearly the poll is flawed, however: Pete Doherty with his shoes, and Tony Blair with his ties, also came in the bottom 20.

12. Dave claimed to have been "interrogated" by the KGB - which he suspects was a recruitment drive - while on a gap year between Eton and Oxford.

In an interesting article in The Guardian entitled 'Don't mention the war', John Harris argues that bashing Bush and Blair's involvement and conduct in Iraq has so dominated political debate that it threatens to consume traditional left-right ideological discourse. More for the humanitarian left than the isolationalist right, criticism of the Iraq war has recently implied that these ideologies are centred around negative criticism of the Blair-Bush axis (of feeble), rather than any distinct doctrine of their own, such as an increase in the welfare state. John Harris thus asserts that "so desperate is the desire to link Iraq to just about everything that you occasionally end up with something close to arrant nonsense".

That Iraq is a major issue which deserves coverage is undoubted. John Simpson reported that around fifty people are being killed every day in Iraq, and suggested that this has become "background noise" in today's press. There is indeed insufficient media attention on the true situation on the ground in Iraq. More focus should also be given to the diplomatic situation in the wider Middle East, particularly Iraq-Iran relations. But, as John Harris contends, to use Iraq as a universal beating-stick is misleading, and to see many a debate on the BBC's Question Time revert back to the "illegality of the war" (and other such clichés) tiresome, to say the least.

As the BBC reports, Blair gave a speech on Friday in Washington calling for supranational institutions to reflect a changing world, focussing particularly on the unreformed IMF and UN. So is this the dying act of an embattled prime minister - prominent member of the so-called "axis of feeble" - desperately trying to change the agenda and focus on his legacy?

Personal aggrandisement may indeed play a part, but there are far greater forces at work. The IMF is, in many respects, a massively counter-productive institution. Joseph Stiglitz composes a damning critique of his former employer's economic practices in the third world in his book, Globalisation and its Discontents. Conventional wisdom portrays the UN as archaic; continuing, via the Security Council, to reflect the global balance of power as it was in 1945. It is therefore right that British foreign-policy influence should be directed towards reforming the aforementioned institutions, focussing particularly on incorporating developing economies (India and Africa), as well as Germany and Japan (naturally), into a reformed Security Council, as Blair mentions in his speech. It would be a great shame if much-needed reform of the UN stalled because of Bush, Blair and Chirac's drained authority.

It has almost become a cliche, but Blair's knack for deflecting bad press, along with impeccable presentation skills, is quite remarkable. He is unparalleled in this regard among world leaders today. The video provided on the BBC's website is a fine example of this: amidst a serious speech on international relations, a mobile phone rings, and Blair makes a perfectly timed, witty comment (see title), which goes down well with an American audience apparently unfamiliar with such incision. Blair has used this technique before, of course, at the CBI conference last November, when proceedings were interrupted by anti-nuclear protestors. Nevertheless, the impact remains strong. Blair the statesman is still a force to be reckoned with, even if, like Clinton, momentum has been lost on the domestic front, save in certain policy areas.

The government is under sustained attack, though the weight behind the criticisms levied vary in significance. The Home Office may well be "unfit for purpose", but the media furore over the issue has masked governmental successes in other more serious areas. After all, the premature or undue release of foreign prisoners is limited in number to several hundred; comparatively, pensions policy – over which, since Blunkett’s resignation in November 2005, John Hutton has presided – has massive fiscal implications for the very long-term.

It is in this context that John Hutton is worthy of much praise. In six months as work and pensions secretary, Mr Hutton has had to tailor the government’s response to Lord Turner’s radical proposals, while seeking to reconcile the prime minister and chancellor over the link between the state pension and earnings (see article). Short- and long-term pressures have been addressed with remarkable success. As this week's Economist notes, effective long-term policy-making is alien to a government far too comfortable with armchair politics, preferring knee-jerk responses to longitudinal action.

Gradually increasing the retirement age in line with life expectancy makes demographic sense. Clearly it is a pity that certain areas in Glasgow currently have a life expectancy less than the proposed retirement age of 68 (introduced incrementally by 2050), but regional discrepancies should not dictate national policy. The severage of the link between earnings and the state pension has proved a disincentive to save, while the national scheme of retirement accounts will re-introduce personal saving to a generation broadly averse to thriftiness.

John Hutton delivered these commendable proposals to the House with characteristic charm. In an age of media-driven politics, Mr Hutton's quiet astuteness - he was previously a law lecturer - is well-received. That the government's proposals enjoyed a broad consensus in the Commons was due to the prevailing political climate on this issue, but Mr Hutton's diplomatic mannerisms no doubt helped. Though suggestions that John Hutton could be Blair's successor are misplaced, it would be a great pity if this policy-making and -selling asset of government were to lose out under a Brown administration.

Further to my previous post, in which I observed that at PMQs Brown seemed particularly energetic, Nick Robinson notes that Brown was, during John Hutton's report to the Commons on the newly-announced pensions proposals, "sometimes grinning, sometimes heckling the opposition, sometimes even whispering asides to John Hutton".

While, as Nick Robinson notes, "Brown often fights and scowls in private only to emerge smiling in public", it seems that the chancellor was particularly gleeful today. Out of Nick Robinson's three mooted reasons as to the cause of this (rare?) happiness - aside, of course, from the BBC's new "happiness formula" - is that the proposed (re-)link of pensions with earnings is "subject to affordability and the fiscal position". Since the connection has been seriously proposed, however, PM Brown would experience significant political difficulty with a U-turn in pensions policy, come Labour's fourth term (should it ever happen).

Perhaps, rather than economic or political, Brown's reason for this recent bout of smiling is merely a public relations exercise. Skipper today called the chancellor "moody", and this is certainly telling of his relationship with the media. There are rather too many pictures of a disgruntled and sleep-deprived chancellor, as opposed to an energetic would-be prime minister; Brown is clearly attempting to reverse this impression.

Amidst this talk of personal ambition - juxtaposed by a ubiquitous grumpiness - Legal Eagle's comment on Nick Robinson's blog is most telling:

"What a shame that the details of such an important policy, with huge long-term
implications, are determined by a Blair / Brown ego match."

Patience, Gordon. Patience.

John Reid, under interrogation from the home affairs select committee, has described the execution of immigration policy as "not fit for purpose", and, at times, "dysfunctional". As Michael Howard and Roy Hattersly both pointed out on The Daily Politics today, this is a remarkable indictment of his three predecessors at the Home Office. Nick Robinson discusses this here.

Mutterings within cabinet are of course by no means rare, but Mr Reid's rhetoric was especially damning, and represents a clear attempt to distinguish himself from a very unpopular department. The fact that Mr Reid was prepared to criticise fellow cabinet minister Jack Straw in the way that he did also suggests that he harbours more profound ambitions within the government. Not a challenge to Gordon Brown, surely?

The previous article predicted in passing that "come 2009, voter turnout will rocket back to normal, post-WWII levels". This assertion gave rise to a couple of comments, so I will expound a little on why I made this (apparently rash) judgement.

A prediction of an increase in voter turnout in 2009/10 depends in large part on one's analysis of the low turnout witnessed in the 2001 and 2005 general elections. Many reasons were mooted: tedious election campaigns; a focus on the "wrong" issues (eg, Europe in 2001); economic/governmental contentment; absence of a credible opposition; lack of an ideological conflict, or a clear line of distinction between the main parties; failure of politicians to engage; general loss of a sense of citizenship; a reaction against the distorted structure of FPTP; and other factors I have doubtless neglected.

The chart opposite suggests a direct correlation between high turnout and the proportionality of an electoral system. Presuming the statistics to be accurate, and not misleading, I would counter that an electoral system is merely indicative of a political culture which either encourages, or discourages, voter engagement. Electoral reform is simply not sufficiently salient in Britain for it to encourage such endemic apathy; I think it may be expecting too much of the electorate to suppose that the low turnout was a reaction against the failure of the Labour government to take the proposals in the Jenkins Report (1998) seriously.

I happen to take the "cyclical" view - that this is a political phase - significant, but not devastating, for our political system. The structural argument - that FPTP is wasteful, and therefore people have little incentive to vote - I find unconvincing, for this system has existed throughout the post-war period (and before, of course), and yet turnout only dipped below 70% in 2001. This website shows that the turnout in 2001 of 59.2% is statistically significant compared with the post-war mean of 75.2%. This implies that there was something particular about the 2001 and (less so) 2005 elections which caused especially low turnouts. That something, I would argue, was a general failure to engage with the electorate - the parties' campaigns, in other words, were deadly tedious.

2009/10, on the other hand, will be sensationalist - so far as politics can be. Some may argue that the two main parties' policy convergence will exacerbate apathy. To the contrary: the choice between Gordon "tax and spend" Brown and David "general well-being" Cameron will seem substantial, even if the difference is more one of personality than substance.

My only concern is that the newer generation of voters have grown up in a climate where voting is seen as far less imperative. I was amazed recently that some twenty students, supposedly of a humanities bent, failed to name the five most recent Tory leaders, or even identify the gentleman pictured to the left. Perhaps, rather than politically structural, apathy is demographically potent. My sense, though, is that the above analysis will hold sufficiently true - at least for the over-25s - in order to push turnout above that all-important figure of 70%.

Bagehot in this week's Economist moots that "Gordon Brown is in danger of following the strategy that cost Al Gore the White House". Al Gore, and now Gordon Brown, employed a renowned electoral strategist called Bob Shrum, who, despite his credentials, has failed to get a single presidential candidate elected.

The comparisons, however, end there. Gordon Brown has far more experience at conducting election campaigns than did Al Gore - compounded after nine years of watching the master, Tony Blair, at work. Mr Brown is unlikely to fall into Al Gore's "the people against the powerful" fallacy, though he will probably seek to re-establish himself with traditional Labour supporters.

British politics is working itself into an exciting clash-of-the-titans in the general election of 2009. Though Ming has suffered a lot at PMQs - he would have suffered more had Labour not undergone such an awful month - he can look forward to the two main parties wooing his support in the eventuality of a hung parliament. Much hangs in the balance in the next three years, but one thing is for sure: come 2009, voter turnout will rocket back to normal, post-WWII levels.

This article is by no means intended as a defence of politicians. They can stick up for themselves well enough, thank you very much; they are invariably of a privileged background, and thus there are many others in Britain and elsewhere more deserving of sympathy. It is, however, a reaction against the populist perception of politicians as conniving, Machiavellian, almost devilish characters, as is typified by Alan B'stard (right).

While reading an article in The Spectator, I was reminded of the great sacrifice that politicians make, both financially (most could easily earn many times their salary as an MP, as William Hague has demonstrated in recent years) and socially (as the invasive Prescott affair has shown). To be sure, some (mostly Tory) MPs need not worry about their salary, since the family inheritance is more than plentiful. But for most, including the aforementioned Mr Hague, salary is important - a clear argument in favour of generous financial assistance for backbench MPs.

Commentators have described John Prescott's new role as "the cushiest job in Britain". This is grossly misleading. Who would want the intricate details of their personal life splashed across the tabloids, along with the stress of ministerial office, for what is - certainly in comparison to chief executives' pay packets - a modest salary with some comfortable bonuses?

That MPs receive such criticism from the electorates they serve is perhaps inevitable in the media cycle of fame, scandal and infamy. To a certain extent this is a good thing, in that it erodes undue deference, thus facilitating a more pro-active approach to scrutinising those who hold and wield power, particularly a public office. However, the culture of MP-bashing, as we see so often on the BBC's weekly Question Time, is bound to detrimentally affect the stream of talent willing to enter political life.

Last week, Newsnight devoted a whole programme to the issue of migration in general and immigration to Britain in particular. What was most pointedly revealed was the conflict between the apparent expediency of migration (from an economist's perspective) and the social tensions created, at least initially, by an "influx" of immigrants.

Such social tensions are the inevitable product of ignorance (mostly on the part of the indigenous population) and the isolationism fostered by many of the immigrants. There is no reason why such difficulties should impede the overwhelmingly good effects of migration. Countries' borders are an artificial construct, brought about by a queer sense of tribalism. Social evolution will erode this anachronism, and politics should assist the process.

This week's Question Time also debated the issue. In accord with the tradition of this programme, idiotic points far outnumbered intelligent ones. Ken Clarke and others banded about the phrase "No right to be here...", assuming that he had the right to determine others' locations, when it is a mere historical quirk that Mr Clarke resides in this country in the first place.

Only one member of the audience spoke sense - a university lecturer - who referenced the "illiberalism" of the populist and negative attitude to immigration in Britain (and indeed most, if not all, western countries). George Bush recently succumbed to such populism by sending troops to "guard" America's border with Mexico, which stretches nearly 2000 miles.

There is no justification for isolationism; it is economically inefficient and socially perverse. The sooner words such as xenophobia, borders and nationalism are rendered obsolete, the better. With the natural force of globalisation, it is only a matter of time.

Sadly, I missed the great John Stuart Mill's birthday yesterday. His soul is now a whopping 200 years old. Fortunately another blog remembered to light a candle to our greatest political philosopher, whom Friedrich Nietzsche once called a "blockhead". Mr Mill was not one for personal insults, but did indulge himself from time to time:

"What I stated was, that the Conservative Party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract that assertion; but I did not mean to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Gordon Brown has given an interesting interview to
The Washington Post. Here are some snippets:

We've got to respond by having open markets and free trade...I'm a free trader. I'm pro-open markets. I'm anti-protectionism. I believe that we must have far greater flexibility in the labor markets and in capital markets...The economy that I admire most is the American economy...I was a supporter of the war in Iraq.

Clearly Brown's support for Iraq is expressed somewhat weakly - and who would blame him? - but his expressions in favour of economic liberalism/the New Labour project are categoric.

The full interview in The Washington Post may be found here, and Nick Robinson's analysis here. On Nick Robinson's blog, Ash wrote:

"I was a supporter of the war in Iraq."

Either he now is not a supporter, or he believes the war issue is one of the past...

Maybe you could shed some more light on this, Nick, I think it's important his stance on this is revealed.

I suspect this is syntactical rather than meaningful; the war is technically in the past, therefore Gordon Brown "was" a supporter, when it was present. Perhaps one could say that a civil conflict is underway in Iraq, but there is no war, in the official sense of one government versus another. Does anyone else have an alternative interpretation?

With regard to his ascendency, it seems, Brown is quietly optimistic: "I think things will work themselves out".

Jack Straw always struck me as a highly competent minister most adept at public speaking - particularly in comparison to some of his colleagues, such as Charles Clarke and Ruth Kelly. It was thus a great surprise when it was announced that Straw had been demoted - especially since much of the media focus had inevitably been on Clarke, Prescott and Hewitt. In his monthly press conference, Blair was asked as to why Straw had been demoted; in response Blair merely listed Straw's talents and achievements, without identifying one flaw or dropping one clue. Here are some of the possible reasons for Straw's departure from the material splendor of the Foreign Office.

Iran. On the Today programme, Straw had repeated several times that military action against Iran was "inconceivable". While Bush and his neo-con friends had been at pains to stress that no responsible president should ever "take options off the table", Straw had clearly ruled one possibility out - categorically. In a Newsnight interview, the American ambassador to Britain - whom I think very poor - was implicitly very critical of Straw's aforementioned response. While it may be cynical to suggest that Straw was removed from the Foreign Office for not reflecting American foreign policy, it should be noted that Blair also sees Iran as a great threat, and argues (again, implictly) that Straw's comment, if unreprimanded, may embolden Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader to pursue their nuclear programme.

The Iran contention is therefore convincing. That Straw and Rice fostered a "close" relationship should not preclude the analysis that Straw's absolutist comments on a highly sensitive issue were simply not reconcilable with NATO countries' stipulations. The reluctance of Russia and China to impose sanctions on Iran makes this international problem all the more pressing for western powers.

Iraq. It was also mooted by commentators that Straw was too heavily tainted by Iraq. However, I find this unconvincing. If Blair had felt Straw a liability as a result of the organisational and diplomatic botches in Iraq (not necessarily the fault of Straw - there are greater forces at work here), then the former foreign secretary would surely have been replaced before the general election, possibly in 2004.

Too close to Brown? Another suggestion was that Straw has, in recent months, become to "friendly" with Gordon Brown, at the expense (we presume) of his relationship with Blair. In the 1994 Labour leadership contest, Straw was Blair's campaign manager; thus it is not compelling to suggest that the demotion was a personal one. Moreover, in the reshuffle, Blair promoted Brownite Douglas Alexander to cabinet level (Transport). The gossiping media makes far too much of personal spats between numbers 10 and 11 in Downing Street: while the extent of politicians' ambitions should never be underestimated, neither should their drive, whether selfish or altruistic, to implement the policies they deem right for the country.

Here is my analysis of this week's PMQs.

Cameron v Blair - Cameron has enjoyed, in recent weeks, a clear advantage. Last week, Blair's performance was lackluster, and the Labour backbenches pointedly quiet. This week, however, Blair's performance was, as Andrew Neil described it on The Daily Politics, "robust". Blair, with twelve years' practice at the leader's dispatch box behind him, fought back; the comment, "Yes, Michael Howard, thank you", referring to the former home secretary's time at the Home Office, was particularly well-received by the backbenches. Blair also employed the age-old tactic of listing apparently successful bills which the Conservatives had voted against, thus turning the tables on Cameron.

"Call me Dave" Cameron repeatedly used the phrase "government in paralysis", to the extent that the old Etonian had coined a new cliché. Cameron's tactic is clear: with regard to the debate over foreign prisoners, he does not want to present the Conservatives as anti-immigration - a mistake that Michael Howard and William Hague had made before him - but rather, he wishes to convey to the general public a narrative on the government, one which favours the "paralytic" analysis.

This attempt, however, was weak. Cameron constantly described the state of the government, as he saw it, but made no effort to explain how this was the case. As we have seen far too often with Cameron, the onus was on making headlines, rather than addressing real policy concerns. Where's the beef?


Ming v Blair - Ming, once again, was dire. He had clearly made an effort to speak without notes, but this merely resulted in brief and unfocussed questions, which lacked any real point. Ming had reverted to his specialism - foreign affairs - but even on this area, his performance was nondescript; he thus comes across a one-trick pony. To be fair, Cameron also uses notes extensively, but enjoys the advantage of the dispatch box. Ming's hands betrayed his nervousness.

As an aside, it always strikes me how ineloquent the vast majority of Labour backbenchers are, and how pretentious some Tories can be.

Gordon Brown has recently, in the capactiy of "dual premier"/energetic chancellor, pursued a campaign aimed at celebrating Britishness. Brown seeks, or claims to seek, to reclaim the British flag from its association with the far right. However, a distinct problem with this "return to British values", and other similar campaigns, is a perpetual difficulty in defining what is truly meant by "Britishness". This is expressed in the following cliché:

Being British is all about driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way home, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American programmes on a Japanese TV.

Indeed, globalisation (which, somewhat ironically, New Labour - and, of course, Gordon Brown - embraces enthusiastically) inevitably has the effect of eroding self-sufficient economies, for instance by outsourcing inefficient production to developing economies; with the implicit consequence that national cultures become integrated into a more general continental structure, as we have seen with the European Union. The Liberal Democrats, at least in the preamble to their constitution, promulgate the virtue of internationalist - indeed, intergrationist - policies.

The BBC website is running a debate on this very issue (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1746&&&&edition=1&ttl=20060517000152). I particularly like the following comment, from petit_minou of Brooklyn, USA:

What most people here consider to be "PC" is nothing more than courtesy and common sense, and apparently not enough of you have any. Also, for all of your fussing about foreigners speaking English, most of you are not exactly grammar gurus yourselves. How about "snarkiness" as a British value?

The very fact that this debate is so diverse is indicative of the inevitably self-defeating nature of any attempt to teach core British values, whatever they may be, and however they may be defined. There is certainly a possibility for pupils to be taught (in an open way, rather than by diktat) British history, but this should always be within the context of the wider world; thus avoiding the vulgar nationalism of domestic history put forward in American schools. There is no place for the above image in Britain.

What can be done, then, not to promote nationalism, but to - dare it be said? - celebrate our British heritage, diverse that it is? British history, as has been suggested, should be compulsory to the age of 16; it is far more important for pupils to learn the significance of the past than for sport to be institutionalised and debased within the education system through the obscurely named "physical education". It is important that immigrants be helped to learn English, not for the sake of some abstract notion of patriotism on our part, but rather to help them integrate more easily into society, to the benefit of all of us. Integration is vital for fostering understanding; in this sense, a culture of pluralism typifies Britain, both today, and throughout the ages. That is not to say that we have always been tolerant - on the contrary, our history is mired by petty confilct based on mutual intolerance (Protestants and Catholics being the most pointed example) - but our political culture, particularly the tradition of free speech, is geared towards promoting the aforementioned pluralism.

A plethora of publications and articles debating the nature of Blair’s legacy (or lack thereof) have abounded in recent years and months. The very search for such a legacy, on the part of both senior Blairites and the printed press, is indicative of the somewhat fractured structure of Blair’s three terms. Partly but not exclusively the result of historical perspective, the tenures of Atlee, Wilson and Thatcher (to name but three) have been characterised by the pioneering of the welfare state, social reform and economic neoliberalism respectively. In contrast, Blair’s nine years as prime minister have been a mish-mash of policies, as Bill Jones’s analysis of the PM’s potential legacy demonstrates. Constitutional changes; controlled economic prosperity; decreased poverty; massive expenditure on public services, especially the NHS and education; and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement have all occurred under Blair’s watch, but none stand out as sufficiently profound to constitute a single legacy.

Max Hastings in The Guardian argues that none of these mooted potential legacies will manifest thus, but that rather, his “legacy will be a disastrous foreign war”. Hastings cites historical precedent, such as Eden and Suez, Macmillan and Profumo and Wilson and the lavender list as evidence of the British public’s propensity to negate former prime ministers’ good turns and emphasise their bad ones. Even Churchill, the “great Briton”, is lambasted for excessive warmongering; while the revered Liberal PM, Lloyd George, is still blighted by his corrupted nominations to the House of Lords. However, Hastings’s argument rests on the assumption that Iraq cannot be sustained as a single state, and that “more bloodshed is to come”. Hastings likens Iraq to Suez, but the similarities are few: Suez was a short, sharp, embarrassing defeat for Britain, revealing our dramatically reduced power, post-WWII; the sequence of events showed itself clearly to be ill-wrought, given the nature of the conspiracy with Israel. The legacy of Iraq, however, is much less clear cut: while anarchy abounds, a significant minority still feel vindicated in their support for Blair and Bush; and these two leaders may claim some legitimacy in the birth of democracy in that country. Iraq is by no means healthy, but it dos possess the potential to be so; thus Hastings is overly pessimistic in his characterisation of the war and its consequences as “disastrous” and wrong.

A more convincing analysis of Blair’s style of governance is made by Steve Richards in The Independent. Despite some rhetoric that would suggest the contrary (such as Blair’s claim at Labour’s annual party conference, that every time he had instigated a reform, he wishes he had gone further), Blair is described by Richards as a “cautious pragmatist”, rejecting, for instance, the radical Tomlinson report’s proposals and complete reform of the House of Lords. Blair was ready and willing to compromise on his “landmark” schools agenda, making a “cautious evolution of some moderately promising existing policies” (Bagehot, The Economist) even more tentative. Interestingly, while Blair has exercised caution with regard to constitutional issues and matters of national policy, he has radically transformed the Labour Party, to the extent that Simon Jenkins “cannot think of a political institution so transformed as Labour in [his] lifetime”. While Labour Party conferences were once characterised, most notably in the early 1980s, by varyingly bad renditions of “The Red Flag”, they “now resemble the last chapter of Animal Farm” (Simon Jenkins), infamously manifesting in the removal by security guards of a heckler. It is in this sense that Blair’s authoritarian tendencies come to light: he is, as The Daily Telegraph put it, “an out-and-out state interventionist”. Simon Jenkins even coins the hyperbolic but indicative term “Leninist authoritarianism” to describe Blair’s method of leadership. The Daily Telegraph is correct in its characterisation of Blair’s premiership as “more and more government interference to less and less effect”, but it is uncertain as to whether this will constitute Blair’s, not Brown’s, legacy. In the absence of any coherent political philosophy underpinning the New Labour movement, it is likely that Blair will be judged by the historical context in which he operated, that is, juxtaposed by the governments of Major, Brown and possibly Cameron. Interestingly, the future ascendancy of Brown to PM and the emergence of Cameron onto the political landscape may, by virtue of comparison, boost Blair’s legacy, for neither is likely to match his electoral successes. The danger for Blair, in the remaining months of his premiership – whether few or many – is that another, less favourable comparison will be drawn: between the sleazy and scandal-ridden last years of Major’s leadership, and his own.