Whilst travelling on the Tube this morning I wondered to myself what Blair single biggest mistake has been. I imagine right now people are listing untold different events and incidnets that were clearly mistakes. Most of those mistakes will be policy ones no doubt, but to be fair that was not what I was thinking of when the question occured to me. In years to come, when undergraduates look back at the Blair era what will they pinpoint as a pivotal and most significant political mistake he has made? Whilst there will be much criticism of policy, the question I have is what will be seen as the defining action of his tenure?
For some it will, I imagine be the Iraq war. However, I think that that is the easy answer to go for right now, and it's blighted by 20/20 hindsight and the situation on the ground today. I accept that some may think me naive, but I genuinely think that in 50 years time when people look back on the Iraq war, Bush and Blair's actions will be hailed as emminently brave and ultimately right (don't forget he won an election on the back of the war, it ain't nearly as big an issue as some think).
In my view, and this is where this post links in with current events, the most signficant single mistake in the Blair History, was his deicsion to say that he would not seek a fourth term in office. It's been well and truly analysed already by commentators, but by saying it he instantly weakened his own position. As we know, Blair himself acknowledges this was a mistake, and the events which surround him today are born from it.
Don't get me wrong on this, I'm not saying that there have not been many other mistakes by Blair. What I think though is that in the years to come, that moment, in that interview, will be seen as the key point at which Blair went over the cusp of the wave that carried him into Downing Street. None of the other mistakes, and there have certainly been many, have been as pivotal as the decision to take out a gun, hold his leg in the air, and shoot himself in the foot.
7 comments:
I would agree that the announcement was immensely foolish, but I regard it as being symptomatic rather than causal of Blair's weakness. The key issue is that Blair allowed Brown far too much power from the off, and there were many, many opportunities when Blair could have stamped his authority on his administration by 'dealing' with Brown and his amen corner.
The cabinet reshuffles after the 2001 and 2005 elections would have been ideal times to switch Brown into portfolios where he could not hold Blair's feet to the flames, and if the Incredible Sulk was not prepared to accept a 'demotion' to the Home or Foreign Offices, Blair would have been in a position to sack him in the interests of maintaining his authority. To this might be rebutted that Brown had an army of disruntled Scots and sundry has beens and never weres on the back benches ready to follow him wherever he would go, but I can see little evidence that Brown has anything like the courage necessary to lead a revolt. He is a near textbook passive aggressive, and his modus operandus is to snipe from the sidelines and to undermine Blair indirectly, rather than having the courage to be direct.
I can't say I disagree actually. I did make reference to the "deal" as a starting point orginally but it didn;t make the cut. I think that yes, there are the key steps of tactically mistakes along the way and then it reached the tipping point which I reckon he bitterly regrets now.
I think it's a good point that you make about the Iraq war. Though arguably the Conservative party was seen in 2005 to be pro-Iraq war, so the only party who opposed it was the Lib Dems (and there vote went up a reasonable amount shows that it was indeed an issue to some.) However, largely it is overplayed by a liberal media and an anti-war lot who squwark very loudly.
Personally, while I agree with Croydonian that one of the route problems for Blair was giving Brown too much power, I think that his decision to stand for a third time was his undoing. Until that point, it was mainly the Conservative party that was against him. Nobody else. The media loved him (some still do.) If he had stood down then, arguably his time as PM would probably have been looked upon very favourably. However, he stayed on past his time - and as they say, the rest is history.
What was it Powell said about all political careers ending in failure. I suppose we should not be surprised that PMs get undone by their own hubris if the electorate doesn't get them first.
Blair going for a fourth term seems highly optimistic, Dizzy. His third probably owed as much to postal vote chicanery as any genuine desire by the electorate for further Blairing.
Blair made no mistakes as he only pursued his own agenda. His genius lay in that he could so easily persuade people that he cared, when there is little evidence that he cared for anything other than his own ego and image. He would even go to war to try to achieve some extra 'significance'.
The judgement of history lies in the future, of course, but Blair will be seeking significance for a long while to come, make no mistake about that.
YOu misunderstand me tapestry. I am not saying he could've gone for a fourth term. I'm saying that by saying he wouldn't it represented a moment which has seen gradual decline since then. The thougt of him going for a fourth term makes me feel ill.
Going into politics was his biggest mistake.
Post a Comment