Tony’s Legacy: Will it be Blair or Bliar when the Jury Returns?

With the sun at last shining and a General Election required within the next few weeks the view from my room is far from bleak. This is in contrast to the future which awaits the Blair Legacy. Tony Blair was seen by many as the antidote to Thatcherism and a way in which politics could return to principles of social cohesion and fairness. Of course, that is where the dream began to unravel since it soon became obvious that the principles which were to govern were nothing to do with political philosophy, but more to do with the principles of rhetoric, marketing and spin. Anyone who knows anything about this unholy trio will know that they are for the most part strangers to such principles, sometimes reserving the greater disdain for the principle of truth. For those who spin webs the fate that awaits them is often self entanglement. Such is the case with the Iraq War and it is that which will cast a shadow over the few achievements, whatever you think they might be, of Blairite New Labour.

About six years ago I was holding forth in a book shop in Hay to another customer about the shortcomings of Prime Minister Blair, when a homely lady emerged from behind an adjoining stack and admitted with some emotion, ‘ I’m so ashamed. I voted for that man: I feel betrayed’. I greatly admired her courage for speaking out as I suspect it has taken many of us sometime to approach the public confessional.

Tony Blair chose to play fast and loose with some fairly basic principles and institutions, including the Rule of Law, Cabinet Government, Collective Responsibility, Parliamentary accountability and International Law. Some of these featured in his own end of the Constitution Show that dreary Thursday morning of 29th January when he appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry. Outside the gathered crowd carried posters referring to him as ‘Bliar’, a point missed by the commentator I saw doing his bit to camera outside the building, while those with tickets filed in, in some cases in search of some explanation as to why their loved ones had died.

Before his appearance the case was forming in my mind that here was a man, whilst he endeavoured to be a ‘nice sort of guy’, was rather adrift in a sea of troubles unable to find neither guiding light nor sound anchorages to see him through. The book title which kept coming into my head on that dreary Thursday as I saw his robust debating technique gather momentum was that of ‘He knew he was Right.’ Of course Trollope’s character was far from being right and in Mr Blair‘s case he probably did sincerely believe that there were WMD’s beyond doubt. His problem now, like any scientist in the laboratory or lawyer in a court, is that we are now watching the process of seeing whether the facts on which it was based can be proved.

The justification he gave the Chilcot inquiry would seem to be no more than his assertion that he believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he believed this beyond reasonable doubt. This would not be enough for a jury to convict without a bundle of proved facts and inferences, the evidence, which removes all doubt from the mind of the jury: just one reasonable doubt should prevent a juror from finding guilt. It would seem however that Mr Blair is asserting that war was justified beyond his own doubt, period.

Whether or not the evidence was there to justify his certainty is what Chilcot should decide upon but in the meantime Mr Blair’s case presents several problems, some of his own making. If we run the clock back to Sunday 12th December 2009 he appeared in an interview with Fern Brittan. His expressed conviction at Chilcot as to the existence of WMD’s appears to have been undermined by his earlier frankness with Fern Brittan
I paraphrase the interview thus:
"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?"
Blair replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]",
Adding, "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.".... "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathize with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision." Guardian 12/12/09
No wonder the search for the number one justification, the existence of WMD’s, had been such a scruffy affair with allegations of alleged plagiarism, sexing up of documentation, and a bogus 45 minute deployment time. Oh, and by the way, since the Detroit bomber was charged in the US, we now know, if we are to believe the Federal charge sheet, that WMD’s can been hidden in undergarments. If only the UN inspectors had known that when they were trying to do their job.

I must confess that I forced myself to watch the Fern Brittan interview as I had not yet had breakfast and I didn’t want to be put off my grapefruit by an apologist’s master class. My self denial was however rewarded, not only by the admission of the backup reason for going to war but also by his claim that when making decisions on matters of life and death, like War, his faith didn’t appear to come into it. Oh dear I thought, so what is the point of your Christianity? O.K., perhaps George Bush would seem to have been informed rather badly in these matters but in his case I suspect it was possibly a matter of deficient critical reading skills. But in Tony’s case I remain somewhat puzzled as to why he bothered to go in for the interview given that the programme’s brief is within the BBC’s religious/ ethical Sunday morning slot. As a sometime Anglican and now a Catholic, can we really believe that his faith was irrelevant?

By the time he was questioned at Chilcot about the interview it seemed he still hadn’t realised that he was in a hole and that the time for digging had long since passed. Not a bit of it. What on earth was all that business about having had a great deal of experience in giving interviews but he hadn’t been prepared for Fern? Was his rather fumbled comment an admission that he had inadvertently revealed something he would have rather left out? He defended himself by saying that he had not used the phrase ‘regime change’. Of course he hadn’t: it was superfluous. He had said that even without WMD’s it would have been right to remove Saddam. Was it any wonder that some MP s who had relied on his assurances from the dispatch box were now feeling somewhat peeved.

In effect this all combines to show that in the absence of WMD’s he would not have been able to convince Parliament, not least because International Law does not allow one nation to go into another’s territory to remove a nasty person other than by way of self defence. In the absence a legal authority it is no more than an illegal act of war. This was probably why the international lawyers at the Foreign Office were also somewhat peeved when Lord Goldsmith’s advice to Cabinet was preferred to theirs. It was pointed out by one of them when before Chilcot, that the Attorney General was not a practitioner of international law.

This is clearly the weak spot in the Blair justification. Witness the crumbling of Alistair Campbell when asked by Andrew Marr ( BBC 1: Sunday 7th February), that if Chilcot fails to find unequivocal evidence to support Blair’s assertions from the dispatch box, the conclusion will have to be that the Prime Minister mislead Parliament. At this the ex-Cabinet Office hard case broke down and, breathing somewhat heavily, made a halting reference to the vilification of an honourable man. None of the debate away from the placards in the street had struck me as that, so this must have touched a nerve. Was the alliance with Bush, the dislike of Saddam’s ghastly psychopathic oil -rich regime and all the hype, so powerful that it swept Blair and his henchmen along on a self made wave of enthusiasm into an unjustifiable and illegal war?

The evidence of Clare Short on the 2nd February seems to support this theory. Unlike Blair’s performance the abiding impression was that here was a witness who had nothing to fear from Chilcot because all she had to do was tell the uncomplicated truth. It would seem that from Tony’s performance to date, the truth is anything but uncomplicated. Like Thatcher before him, he adopted a presidential role whereby he chose to exclude his colleagues from the decision making process to the point where he now tells us it was all on his shoulders. He apparently had no friend to turn to and not even his faith could help him with the decision. In a system which professes a convention of cabinet collective responsibility, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy this need not have happened. Having for some reason felt that his shoulders alone were broad enough, it is on his own head that it now shall be. The time for vilification has passed: the word ‘pity’ comes to mind but doesn't quite make the journey.

Cometh the Hour: Goeth the Man: as the Wootton Basset Cortège Lengthens time is running out for Gordon Brown

I apologise for this somewhat gloomy article but as I sit here on this hillside with the mist still clinging to the fields this is the political landscape I see. These things will pass and some sunlit uplands will eventually appear. When that will happen and how it will be achieved is not for my failed generation to determine. Any ideas, especially from those involved in the political process, would be welcome.

As I predicted in a post some months ago (Sunday, 19 July 2009 Gordon, do you Remember Vietnam?) , as the number of deaths in Afghanistan mounted so too would the pressure on Gordon Brown. With the latest loss of life and further concerns about inadequate supplies of equipment we are assured by the Prime Minister that he has done his best. Unfortunately at some time or another we all have to recognise that our best is not good enough and I am afraid that, judging from his demeanour, he is beginning to realise this. His administration seems to be sleepwalking into an election without any real clue as to what it is doing and with no hope of winning. Is this a parallel with Afghanistan? Whilst we probably have some sympathy for a man that has been severely damaged by the failures of Blairite New Labour I can still find it in my heart to have some sympathy for the poor devils who will inherit the Brown portfolio of muddle and indecision. Will they do any better? I have my doubts.

It should not be forgotten that the funding and procurement strategies which have lead to the present peacetime budget for a war all started when Gordon was running a tight ship at the Treasury which was cutting back on defence budgets. The procurement of unsuitable equipment has been known of since the Iraq War and now the consequences showing in another. It is therefore no surprise that support for the Afghan War is fast evaporating and that the Sun newspaper is now starting to turn the electioneering screw.

As the public contrast all this with the support which has been given to the bonus junkies, previously known as bankers, with the increased taxation for the rest of us, they will see that the New Labour train, now in its Brown livery, is fast heading for the buffers. It is remarkable that within this decline time is still being found to emasculate Parliament and bring in changes without debate. MPs still allow a hyper-active Executive to undermine an increasing number of our civil liberties in the retreat from Democracy to Bureaucracy. Sleep walking into disaster seems to be catching with so many MPs no longer conscious of the fact that they are supposed to scrutinise legislation. So much so that their nods have now rubber stamped a vast volume of guillotined measures at the behest of the Home Office and the Association Chief Police Officers.

With a hopeless Government comes a hopeless electorate in the sense that they will have lost both the will to vote and any belief that our democratic system can be taken seriously. Our present Secretary of State for Defence for example is now putting forward the nonsense of a policy which will no longer defend vast tracks of Afghanistan but will concentrate resources to defend populated areas. This is not defence, but a managed retreat, and presumably proceeds on the assumption that the nice Taliban will not congregate in large numbers in the vacuums thus created, before encircling prior to delivering the fatal blow. It should be noted that the Taliban’s choice of transport, the small motorcycle, is already an improvement on the push bike of the Vietcong.

If our political leaders cannot properly support our armed forces, then why should the British public support the war? We have now come to the point where leading military men are doing the work of government in telling us that the war is necessary to prevent terrorism in the UK. This is not their job. Our so called elected leaders should be doing this but it would seem that even this is now beyond their limited talents.

Unfortunately we now have to watch the dying stages of this Rump Parliament and this incompetent Government with all its dreaded consequences. Our political classes have failed and there is little chance that we will get anything more than a bunch of apparatchiks to replace them who have got to Parliament by the modern route of party worker or research unit placeman. No wonder the details of the election debate cannot yet be faced by any of our political parties. They all know that whatever the outcome the result will be unpleasant. In the meantime I fear that Al Qaeda will have moved to Somalia and that British Democracy will still be waiting for a bed in Intensive Care.

Oh no! It’s that man again!

To my mind a retiring characteristic is sometimes sad because the person concerned can sometimes have a lot to offer in the line of good company. Unfortunately it seems that this is a characteristic which does not seem to be possessed by politicians. It is now widely recognised that Winston Churchill took on one premiership too far and that Margaret Thatcher would have done herself more good by retiring gracefully to a more therapeutic life style. Tony Blair is no exception. I was one of the many who now have to confess that I thought he would make a big difference for the better. I now feel betrayed and embarrassed while he no doubt thinks he did a great job.

If a great job includes expanding police powers, undervaluing the right to silence, more privatisation, failing to see that the bankers were taking us to the cleaners, failing to maintain a public housing programme and going into two wars, one without the kit and the other without the truth, then the boy done well. That is no doubt why he became a peace envoy for the Middle East and the promoter of inter faith knowledge, and now, could become President of the European Union. Surely he has done enough. Having recently seen his speech to his annual conference some fourteen years ago about how the elderly would no longer have to put up with poverty in their retirement etc .and then hearing the news last week that the present government is still coming up with ideas for self-funded insurance policies for residential care. I decided I had had enough exercise in the cringe department.

With New Labour’s betrayal of their voter base and more and more grand promises that cannot be delivered, ( and with earlier promises being broken e.g. the troops in Afghanistan will get everything they want!), I am now one of the electoral homeless awaiting some credible politicians to come up with some deliverable policies which might actually do something about the accumulating problems of youth unemployment, social injustice and so many other problems on the downward spiral of incompetence that has got this nation where it is. One thing I am pretty certain of is that whether or not Mr Blair becomes President of the European Union will make not a bit of difference, apart from making EU summits a bit awkward for Gordon.

Who are the Subversives Now?

According to the OED a subversive can be someone who seeks to demolish or turn upside down or overturn and so if your views or actions are seen as having this effect expect to be on the awkward squad list kept by your local Special Branch Officer. I would now like to add the names of various politicians and police officers to that list since they are now the new subversives. The power of the people has been turned upside down, if it were ever the other way round, and this stolen power is now increasingly used against them.
According to our own publicity the United Kingdom is described as a ‘liberal democracy’ .This means different things to different people. What it means to me is a system based on that old fashioned phrase, rarely used now by politicians of the Blair years, and even more rarely, understood, ‘The Rule of Law’. I do not know who taught Tony Blair British Constitutional Law or indeed if he ever studied it to become a barrister, before that is, he became a failed Prime Minister, but if he did, he seems to have been unconvinced by its core teachings.

This is surprising because the Rule of Law is fairly simple to grasp, even by those who merely gargle at the fountain of knowledge. Basically, government is to be by law, rather than the whims of rulers or their officials, all are equal before the law and have access to it, and it is the courts, not government officials, who rule on the interpretation of law. There are one or two fuzzy edges about where administrative tribunals and the like fit in, but these are no longer seen as a threat to good government. The threat to the Rule of Law today seems to come from our elected governments which seem ever eager to create more and more discretions for more and more ‘officials’. The keenness for privatisation and the ‘war on terrorism’ has combined to blind our politicians to what they are doing.

The point which the Blair generation and many of its apparatchiks either never learnt, or chose to forget, is that in seeking to protect our Liberal Democracy from the enemy within or without, you risk destroying the thing you cherish. It is rather like getting the balance right in the countryside. Once a beauty spot is discovered all sorts will rush to see the beauty and unwittingly destroy it with their traffic jams, car par, gift shops and theme parks. Stop everything happening and you deny others the chance to experiencing what only an elite few could enjoy. In the context of civil liberties if you get the balance wrong and make things too easy for the police we all pay the price through facing more and more difficulties, especially if you want to be a participating and critical citizen in the political process.

The product of the Blair years is a path to the destruction of liberal democracy. I never understood the phrase, ‘Town Air is free air’ but the meaning fell into my lap in a small museum a few years ago. When people were more or less enslaved by feudalism the big change would be that of somehow becoming a ‘freeman’. One route would be to acquire a small strip of land in a town, since that brought the status of freeman. How that was achieved I have no idea, but when I go into our big towns today and see the tooled up police walking the streets, followed by their reserves in the form of Community Support Officers, followed by the private security guards, thug wheel clampers and the like, and see it is all being observed by the CCT cameras on every street corner, in every shop and at every car park, station and shopping mall, ‘town air’ is now suffocating. The dust which spread out from the Twin Towers is no longer grit but has been atomised by our politicians and has blinded them. Those politicians who have wielded power both before and after 9/11 in an attempt to impose Law and Order, have subverted the Rule of Law. They, not their critics, are the subversives now.

Dacier