What I find interesting is the fact that we have seen self-seeking memoirs by an ex-Labour PM before. At university, I had the good fortune (!) to read Harold Wilson's account of his time in office. There are some interesting parallels between these two Labour politicians. Wilson, like Blair, was a controversial figure when PM.Both took office after a lengthy period of Conservative tenure in government. Like Blair, Wilson tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to negotiate peace between all parties in Northern Ireland. Like Blair, his term as PM was dogged by scandals about his cabinet colleagues (eg, John Stonehouse). Also, at that time the USA was engaged in a war- in Viet-Nam. Unlike Blair, however, Wilson steadfastly refused, publicly, to send British troops to fight in Viet-Nam, despite American pressure. Right-Wing American politicians never forgave Wilson for (as they saw it) failing to help an ally.
Or did he? There are numerous eyewitness accounts of British SAS soldiers being deployed against the Viet-Cong during the Viet-Nam War. One ex-gunner told me of how one Royal Artillery battery was seconded to the Australian Army in Viet-Nam, and no-one ever found out about it. All of which points to another similarity between these two Labour politicans, though Wilson seems to have been the more able politician - or was he just more cunning?
I can see the point you're making, but I don't think Wilson and Blair are two of a kind at all. Wilson's Cabinet represented all strands of the Labour Party, as he gave left-wingers like Tony Benn ministerial posts as well as those on the right. He was inclusive, and that is a point Tony Benn himself has acknowledged. Blair's Cabinet, on the other hand, was exclusive. As far as possible he filled it with fellow travellers, which meant that Cabinet discussions would not contain the full range of views from different strands of the party.
ReplyDeleteBlair fell in love with strutting on the world stage, being seen with US presidents and putting on his serious face as he made the "tough decision" to go to war. The lingering impression he leaves is of a very vain man. Wilson's government, on the other hand, liberalised censorship, divorce, homosexuality, immigration and abortion, and abolished capital punishment. Blair would be struggling to find a similar selection of social achievements - the minimum wage is probably the nearest.
Both Wilson and Blair were able politicians, but both left office under a cloud. But Wilson's positive achievements far outweigh anything Blair did, and when he resigned he didn't leave us with an insoluble war.
Any different views?
ReplyDeleteWell, I agree that maybe Blair is more of an operator than Wilson was - Blair has certainly made more money after leaving office than Wilson did. Seriously, though - is this, realistically, all we can expect from Labour politicians?
ReplyDeleteQuite probably. Blair had no political principles - formulating policy solely on focus groups (carefully selected of course, but then publicised as a 'consultation') and spin doctors is the tactic of a managerial politician, not of one with political principles. Cameron, Clegg and the leadership candidates for Labour are in much the same rôle. Faceless mediocrity is all any of the parties offer us now.
ReplyDelete