Translated material
"Tony Blair Limited"
Over the past century, only Margaret Thatcher, who became a kind of alter ego for Blair, managed to stay in power longer. The Iron Lady changed both her party and the country as a whole. An emotional politician with a cold mind, Blair was guided by no less ambitious goals.
Through thorns to power
It is often said of Tony Blair that he was not born a Labourist, and this is true in the sense that he was not brought up in the spirit of traditional Labourism.
However, Blair represented a new generation of politicians who, due to their youth, did not feel that they belonged to the era of the post-war inter-party consensus based on the principles of Keynesianism and corporatism. Having first taken his seat in the House of Commons in 1983, Tony Blair was not associated with previous Labor cabinets, and therefore with their mistakes. He became an MP too late to be drawn into the internal party split that befell Labor in the early 1980s, but in time to take a closer look at what was happening in the party and fall into the fold of the team of reformers formed around Neil Kinnock.
Ten years later, thanks to his extraordinary qualities, primarily his political flair, ability to behave in public, eloquence and photogenicity, Blair became one of the most noticeable and promising figures in the Labor leadership.
In 1994, John Smith, who replaced Kinnock as party leader, suddenly died, and Tony Blair decided to compete for the vacant seat. Easily beating other contenders, including current Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and the head of the Foreign Office Margaret Beckett, Blair headed Britain's second most important political organization. At that time, few people knew that things could have taken a different turn if he had not agreed in advance with Gordon Brown, no less popular among Labor members: the latter agreed to temporarily cede to him leadership in the party, and in the future, in the country.
In the 1990s, it was discovered that Great Britain, having gone through thick and thin and the copper pipes of Thatcherite modernization, was tired of British-style neoliberalism. Yes, the economy has seen significant growth (not least due to petrodollars), the labor market has become more flexible, the confrontation between the government and trade unions has ceased, and in the international arena the country has gotten rid of the image of the “sick man of Europe” and regained its respect. But the “treatment” according to the recipes of the British “new right” brought side effects: part of the population lost from the reforms. Social inequality and poverty rates have increased significantly, the situation in education and health care has worsened due to chronic underfunding, and in the European Union, Great Britain, more than ever after its entry into this organization, “went against the grain.”
At the same time, a series of defeats in the elections led Labor to the realization that the British do not want to allow a party to power that indiscriminately denies the results of the Conservatives. In order to defeat the Tories, it was necessary to both reject Thatcherism and accept it. In other words, to present the Labor Party as a clear alternative to the Conservatives and at the same time win over a significant part of the traditional Tory electorate.
The new leader did not disappoint the expectations of supporters of deep modernization of the Labor Party. For several years after Tony Blair took charge of the party, the remnants of Labour's traditional left-wing slogans were removed from its program. No less important was a step of a symbolic nature: in one of the key articles of the party charter of 1918, the directive to nationalize the means of production, distribution and exchange disappeared, which meant the final deliverance of the Labor Party from elements of socialist ideology. Once again (and far from the last), content and form were of equal importance to Blair.
In 1979, the British chose the Conservatives, guided largely by a pragmatic desire to free themselves from the economic and other problems that characterized the last years of the government of Labor leader James Callaghan. But after almost two decades of rhetoric of individual enrichment and a minimalist state (in fact, the share of taxes in the country’s GDP has increased under the Conservatives), after a long period of expansion of market relations, the country’s residents have felt a lack of solidarity and trust. They were driven by the desire to feel like a society, and not just a soulless sum of self-sufficient individuals, to change the emotional climate, to get rid of a government mired in squabbles and scandals.
The election victory of Labour, which came to power under the banner of social cohesion and restoration of the “fabric of human relationships”, resulted in a demonstration of collective joy in May 1997. These sentiments, as well as the widespread grief over the death of Princess Diana in early September of that year, reflected the process of mental recovery in British society.
Perhaps the last time such unity was observed in the usually reserved and prim Britain was back in 1982, during the days of the Falklands War. But that was unity in a fit of belligerence and bitterness, directed outward. Now the nation had an opportunity to unite on a more positive basis. It is no coincidence that many believe that the success of New Labour, which adopted most of the Thatcherite reforms, is a victory for the right in the economy, but a triumph for the left in the sphere of emotions.
A time of hope and reform
With Labor coming to power, Great Britain began searching for new national symbols and writing a new chapter in its history. These attempts were carried out under the slogans of renewal and modernization, especially since the approach of the third millennium prompted us to take stock and develop plans for the future. Innovation was welcomed in everything: in politics, economics, culture, architecture. It was under the “New Labour” that a huge Ferris wheel appeared in the center of London, which broke the usual contours of the city in the same way that the glass pyramid erected in the courtyard of the Louvre shocked Paris.
Tony Blair took his most daring steps in the first years of his reign. Later, he will often be reproached for being too cautious, for squandering the trust placed in him. At the initial stage of Labour’s stay in power, people often spoke about the “fever of reforms” and the hyperactivity of the government, whose initiatives poured out like a cornucopia.
The government first directed its energy towards constitutional, rather than socio-economic changes, as one might expect from the Social Democrats. The most far-reaching of them took the form of devolution - the delegation of part of state power to the British regions (the "Celtic periphery"). As a result, the Scottish Parliament resumed its work for the first time since 1707, and the National Assembly of Wales appeared. The Good Friday Agreement opened the final chapter in the history of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland . These measures gave impetus to the process of the gradual transformation of Great Britain from a unitary state to a federal one. Self-government of cities was introduced, and the position of mayor was established (in the capital, it was occupied by the famous left-wing politician Ken Livingston). One of the patriarchs of British political science, Anthony King, called Blair “the first constitutional radical to serve as prime minister since Gladstone.”
Labor took a swing at the holy of holies of the British establishment - the House of Lords, a bastion of aristocratic privileges, and achieved the exclusion of most hereditary peers from it. The government has legally banned fox hunting, a centuries-old pastime of British nobles, because of its inhumane nature.
If previously the country had a majoritarian electoral system, in which only Conservatives and Labor had access to the state helm, now combined electoral systems with an element of proportionality are used in the elections of city mayors, in the Celtic regions, and in the European Parliament. As a result, the practice of multi-party systems and coalition governance has spread at these electoral levels. Thus, in Scotland, a coalition of Labor and Liberal Democrats has been in power since 1999; in 2000-2003, the same coalition was formed in Wales. Thanks to a more equitable mechanism for the distribution of parliamentary mandates, local parties - the Scottish National Party and the Welsh Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalist Party) - have firmly established themselves in second positions in the legislative bodies of these two British regions. Multi-party politics has also become the norm in the politically diverse Northern Ireland. Local authorities expect similar changes.
At one time, Tony Blair promised to call a national referendum on the introduction of elements of proportionality in general elections. If this happened, the third most important Party, the Liberal Democrats, for which, like Labour, the Conservatives are the main rivals, could eventually count on positions in the government. The possibility of such a scenario in the future cannot be ruled out. If the “progressive forces” begin to cooperate closely again, as Labor and liberals did at the beginning of the 20th century, then the conservatives, who led the country for most of the last century, will be pushed out of power for a long time.
The entire set of changes that took place under Labor in political governance, the state, the constitutional structure of Great Britain, and in party life, testifies to the shift taking place in the country from the Westminster to a plural (consensus) model of democracy. The first is characterized by a strict two-party system, a culture of harsh political confrontation, intolerance towards opponents, and disregard for the opinions of minorities; the second has exactly the opposite characteristics. If this trend develops under Blair's successors, no matter what party they belong to, it will be quite enough for him to rank among the most successful reformist politicians in British history.
"Third Way"
The activities of the Labor government in the socio-economic sphere also did not fit into the idea of traditional British social democracy. Tony Blair firmly believed that his party should once and for all stop being associated with large-scale economic regulation by the state. In this he was fully supported by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
The government has not returned to state ownership a single company, let alone entire sectors of British industry that fell under the knife of privatization under the Thatcherites. It did not even dare to carry out renationalization in such a disadvantaged area as railway transport, although public opinion was sympathetic to this idea. Moreover, parts of air traffic control and the London Underground were privatized, and only the prospect of a failed government bill stopped New Labor from pushing through the corporatization of the Royal Mail.
Labor only softened the anti-union legislation adopted in the 1980s and lowered direct tax rates. Having dismantled a number of market mechanisms that conservatives tried to apply (for example, so-called voucherization), they created others with the help of which market principles are introduced in the fields of education, health care, and even in the prison and correctional system. By giving the Bank of England operational independence, that is, autonomy in choosing interest rates, Labor emphasized its commitment to low inflation and macroeconomic stability.
There is some truth to the idea that Tony Blair offered the country “Thatcherism with a human face.” But still, “New Laborism” is more post-Thatcherism than neo-Thatcherism. Before this, the only Labor prime minister who forced the Tories to move to the left was Clement Attlee (on the wave of social optimism and faith in the mobilization abilities of the state that reigned in society after the end of the Second World War, his government erected the building of the “welfare state”). But the post-war cross-party consensus proved unsuitable for the post-industrial era and was buried during the Thatcher years. Then Labor had no choice but to correct it. When the country again turned its attention to issues of social justice, conservatives had to adapt to the new trends of the times.
By 2007, government spending had risen in five years from 37 to 43% of GDP. The achievements of “New Labour” in the socio-economic sphere include: the introduction of a minimum wage and its constant increase, an active government policy in the field of employment, increased assistance to low-income and single-parent families, a grandiose project to eradicate child poverty, investing large additional funds in education and healthcare. Although social inequality in the country has increased over the past ten years, the number of poor people has decreased. The tax burden has been redistributed in favor of the less wealthy, although it remains lower than in France, Germany, Italy and the Scandinavian countries. Having come to power, Labor left the enterprises denationalized by the Conservatives in private hands, but introduced a tax on excess profits. In doing so, they killed two birds with one stone: not only did they raise several billion pounds of extra money to invest in social programs, but they also increased the legitimacy of the widely seen unfair privatizations carried out under Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
The “third way” - the desire to combine part of the proven heritage of the British “new right” with social democratic traditions, economic efficiency with social justice, individual freedom with healthy collectivism, the social market of continental Europe with Anglo-Saxon capitalism - became the calling card of Tony Blair. Over time, the card turned yellow, but it’s too early to hand it over to the archives. Of course, a miracle did not happen, and Great Britain did not turn into a country with a Californian-style successful economy and Scandinavian-style generous social services. However, a step forward has been taken. In London, the “third way” is mentioned less and less, but not because it has not justified itself, it’s just that the pool of initial ideas (“knowledge economy”, “auxiliary state”, “social investment state”, etc.) is constantly updated, old concepts are being replaced by new ones... The “third way” was preceded by the ideas of a “common society” and communitarianism, and now it can be replaced by the theories of the “built-in market”, “guarantor state”, etc.
Watershed number one
The war in Iraq in 2003 divided the past decade into “before” and “after” with a bold line. The Iraqi events critically increased the degree of public discontent and hit the prestige and reputation of the authorities, and more precisely, of Tony Blair. After all, joining the US military chariot was actually his sole decision. If it were not for the Prime Minister, who firmly believed that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction, Great Britain would hardly have shouldered the burden of the “Vietnam syndrome” of our days.
In the second half of the 1960s, Washington, which fought in Vietnam, needed London’s support much more than in 2003. Then Labor Prime Minister Harold Wilson rejected the option of direct military participation, limiting himself to political solidarity with a senior ally. He believed that support for the United States should not be automatic, but depend on the extent to which its actions were in keeping with British national interests. In this, Wilson turned out to be more far-sighted than Blair.
In May 2003, BBC commentator Andrew Gilligan claimed that on the eve of the war the government had manipulated intelligence data and deliberately exaggerated the threat from Iraq. The situation took an even more dangerous turn for the Prime Minister when David Kelly, a microbiologist who worked for the Ministry of Defense, committed suicide. A clear relief for the prime minister was the results of an independent judicial investigation, which showed that the charges brought by Gilligan were unfounded and that the government had nothing to do with Kelly’s suicide.
However, calls for a more thorough study of the causes of the Iraq War continued, and in February 2004 a new investigation began. The task of the commission headed by Lord Batler was an assessment of the quality of information provided by the intelligence services to the government before the war. Blair categorically refused to analyze the political component of the decision on the invasion, i.e. The motivation of their own actions. In the final report, Batler stopped a step away from confirming the fact of distorting the information of the British intelligence services in order to justify the need to join the war.
And soon, to the amazement of the British military and diplomats, it turned out that Washington did not have a thoughtful program of the post -war recovery of Iraq. The official military losses of the United States in manpower since the beginning of the war at the turn of 2006-2007 have reached 3 thousand people, Great Britain-more than 130. The promises of the British Prime Minister, which were in circulation of the Iraqi people in April 2003, contribute to the creation The “peaceful prosperous Iraq” and ensure the forces of the coalition forces security in the country did not turn into real actions.
According to public opinion polls, the level of trust in the prime minister has not restored to the pre -war. Dissatisfaction with the policy of the government in the Iraqi direction largely led to the last failures of the ruling party in local and European elections, a sharp narrowing of the government majority in parliament according to the results of universal 2005 elections. In July of the same year, the Iraqi war directly reached the foggy Albion. A series of explosions in London took away the lives of 52 people, the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims who grew up in the UK. The Iraq factor will undoubtedly play a role in the regional elections in May 2007 and in the general elections that may take place in 2009.
After coming to power, Tony Blair confirmed both the commitment to “special relations” with the United States and the desire to see his country “in the heart of Europe”. The possibility of turning Great Britain from an uncomfortable partner in the framework of the European Union was opened. However, the opposite happened: London quarreled with leading European capitals.
Operation "successor" in British
In September 2006, shortly before the annual Labor Conference, Blair announced his imminent departure. The preceding wave of the resignation of the younger ministers became the straw that "broke the hump of the camel." Some met this news with regret, because the most successful leader of the Labor Party in the entire history of its existence leaves its post. Others are looking forward to when getting rid of the “election ballast”.
In recent months, Tony Blair's position has worsened due to the new government scandal. The Labor Party is suspected, in fact, in the sale of places in the House of Lords to replace the secret monetary injections to the 2005 parliamentary elections. In fairness, it must be said that the conservative party came into the view of the investigators. The practice of selling ranks and titles was prohibited by the law adopted in 1925. The requirement to disclose information about sponsorship is also contained in the Law on Political Parties, Elections and Referendum (2000). Several suspects, including the Lord Michael Levy, who was close to Blair, who was responsible for attracting sponsorship money, underwent arrests, although they have not yet been charged. Interrogation as witnesses did not escape not only a number of former and current ministers, but for the first time in British history and the head of government himself.
What is happening in many respects resembles the events of the 1990s, when Margaret Thatcher, who had never lost the parliamentary elections, but set up a significant part of the electorate against himself, was forced to leave the political pedestal under the pressure of the one-party people. The latter wanted to once again defend a place at the helm of government. Their calculation turned out to be true: two years later, the conservative party for the fourth time, now under the direction of John Meigzhor, blocked the Labor to the path to power. Blair, unlike his famous predecessor, decided not to bring the matter to the “uprising”.
Moreover, if in Russia the Operation "The successor" is only gaining momentum, in the UK it joined the final phase. Gordon Brown, who had been waiting for Gordon Brown, when Blair was fulfilling his promise, exhausted, and the relationship between the two leading politicians completely went fraud.
The Prime Minister was ready to leave back in March 2003, vote deputies of the parliament against the country's entry into the war with Iraq . Then many members of the Labor’s faction of two evils-the British troops in Iraq and the crisis of the ruling party due to the resignation of its leader and the prime minister of the country-chose the first. From the height of today, it is obvious that it was a pyrrhic victory.
In May of this year, the next elections to local authorities in England and regional in Wales and Scotland will be held. Given this perspective, no one in the Labor Party wants to further weaken its positions - hence the numerous calls to Tony Blair to leave earlier. However, it is precisely such a step that can be a great evil in this situation.
The fact is that in the light of the approaching elections to the Minister of Finance it is more profitable not to rush events: the ruling party with any leader will lose points on them, so let this happen under Blaire. But after his departure, Brown will be able to start from scratch and get one or two relatively calm years to prepare, possibly the fourth parliamentary victory of the Labor.
Of course, the elections of the new head of the government (in the UK, after Tony Blair left, the election of the leader of the ruling Labor Party, which will automatically become the new Prime Minister will take place) will not be non-alternative. The representative of the Left Wing of the Party has already stated about his intention to participate in them; Probably, the candidacy will appear on the right. However, the outcome of the struggle is almost a foregone conclusion: the “successor” will win.
But, as you know, every analogy is lame. Gordon Brown-a politician with many years of experience, a successful Minister of Finance over the past ten years-will not be “appointed” (Tony Blair, if his will, perhaps, would bless someone else). He will become a leader thanks to numerous merits and the reputation earned in the maiden of political struggle and public administration.
The figure of Tony Blair rose permanently over his comrades -in -arms. His country’s management project was a “limited liability society”, in which the responsibility lay more on the prime minister’s shoulders than the ruling party, and the ambulance of its leader means much more than a rearrangement in the frames.
Nevertheless, the history of the Tony Blair Limited project ends not with a point, but by a multi -plate. The policy of the "new Labor" was in demand by Great Britain, and not imposed on it; Many election promises are still waiting for their implementation. The updated leadership of the party and government will get rid of the unnecessary ballast in the legacy of Blair, but at the same time will continue most of the reforms running under him. Gordon Brown will disappoint those who are waiting for a return to the traditions of left -wing labyrinism from him. The course will be adjusted, but not changed.
The well -known branded smile of Tony Blair for a long time did not leave his face. Today she looks more like a melting smile of a Cheshire cat. It remains very little time to finish the matters so that future historians do not limit themselves to the definition of the “outstanding leader of the party” and bring out a more desired verdict - “outstanding prime minister”. But the “Cheshire cat” will definitely smile, because the “New Laborists” will not leave Dauning Street, 10.
The article was fully published in the journal "Russia in Global Policy"