Tony Blair- The Balance Sheet

So there we were. A bunch of tired, stressed out postgrads, taking shelter in the real world over lunch. The conversation, as happens fairly regularly, turned to politics. There was some David Cameron kicking, some Bill Clinton reminiscing. Then He comes up. Tony Blair. Immediately, it is obvious we're not going to reach an agreement on Him. I had a go. I almost came out of it alive.

But why? For left of centre people, Blair should surely be a hero. He led the Labour Party to three general election victories, the first two of them Earth-shattering landslides the like of which Britain hadn't seen for decades. His government was the 'brave new dawn,' after eighteen years of darkest night under Mrs Thatcher and John Major. For those on the right, Blair was the only Labour leader many of them trusted to run the country, largely as he cleverly sidestepped all that socialist nonsense of his predecessors. Something for everyone to like.

 And yet... Blair appears to inspire hatred and admiration in almost equal measure, despite nearly half a decade out of office.

So, I decided to compile a balance sheet. Now, obviously this will be heavily biased by my own views, but I've attempted to be impartial and take the long view. After all, I am a historian. I've given Mr Blair marks on a scale from -10 to 10, for a variety of things he usually gets credit or blame for. Starting from zero, lets see where he ends up:

The Good Friday Agreement= +15 Ok, so I know I said scores were out of ten, but this, above all else, gets him praise from even those who detest Tony Blair with all their heart and soul. Yes, it wasn't the end. It wasn't even the beginning of the end. But it was, to paraphrase Churchill, the end of the beginning.

The National Minimum Wage= +9 As someone who all through Sixth Form was paid £3.82 (the second worst paid person in my school year!) the leap to £5.56 on my 18th was the best feeling in the world. How people suggested in 1997 that it wasn't a good idea is completely beyond me, and always will be.

Human Rights Act= +7 Much moaned about ever since by those who decry our subservience to Brussels bureaucrats, this legislation ensured Britain will never reintroduce the death penalty without first having to leave the EU. All the arguing over EU law aside, that is a Good Thing.

Greater Public Spending= +6 Having fallen to dismal levels under the Tories, Britain's public services in 1997 badly needed the money. Eventually, they got it. However, perceptions of excess and waste ingrained themselves in people's minds.

Freedom of Information Act= +5 Ok, not as good as many would like, but better than nothing.

Africa= +4 Remember Gleneagles, Make Poverty History, Live8? Blair was part of that drive, even if the agenda has now been sidelined since the onset of the crash.

Fox Hunting Ban= +4 Outside animal rights lobbyist groups, this served no purpose to the vast majority of the British public. But it was worth watching Labour introduce it; even as a teenager with few firm political opinions, I could tell the upper classes were annoyed, and that was fine by me.

Tax Credits= +3 Overall, a good thing. As a targeted measure to get people out of poverty, a brilliant idea. And less obviously 'redistribution of wealth', so they passed with Middle England's approval. The problem was, they came to be seen as a waste of money, and to be encouraging people not to work. Maybe a disclaimer at the bottom would have helped?

Windfall Tax= +2 An extra, one-off tax imposed on corporations which had made huge profits at public expense, the income of said tax being used to reduce unemployment. Can't think of any contemporary parallels at all... The reason its so low here is the fact it was never repeated!

Devolution= +1 Although not having affected me directly, this is one of the lasting legacies of the Blair years, and one which is here to stay. The small worry of it being used as a vehicle to breakup the UK, plus the unresolved West Lothian Question if Scotland does stay in, do drag the score down a little.

Pro-EU Foreign Policy= +1 I personally think was great. Not everyone agreed. Plus it was rather shot in the foot a little by splitting the EU over Iraq, but hey, can't win them all!

House of Lords Reform= +1 Well, a start is better than nothing...

Total Positive Score= 58


Cash for Honours= -3 Left a nasty running sore for Labour. More here as a representation of Blair's hobnobbing with big business.

Economy= -4 If you'd have asked someone for this list in June 2007, this would doubtless have been higher. Hence the reason this isn't further down the list. After all, he'd overseen a decade of rising growth and prosperity. However, the continued decline of British industry and the rise of an unsustainable service sector, especially banking, not to mention ballooning personal and corporate debt, would create a perfect storm for the man who succeeded him.

Spin= -4 In our post-News of the World World, it now seems grotesque the lengths a Labour Prime Minister went to to court the right wing media, including but not solely News Corp. And it did at the time too... The general media obsession of the Blair government meant that what looked at first like slick operation soon became tiring. And it reached an ugly climax with the death of Dr David Kelly.

Contempt for Parliament= -4 Partly born of the colossal majorities he won, partly the sheer feebleness of the Opposition, and mainly because it prevented him from being out on the trail, Blair was not a great House of Commons man. Instead, it became an arena to be endured, a theatre, rather than the Mother of All Parliaments. Plus, there is a very real chance he lied to it. The Big No-No of British politics.

Cabinet Government= -5 Closely linked to the above, Blair's decision to use Cabinet to agree a party line, rather than, say, make policy, wasn't all his fault; in part it was born of Labour's experiences in the long wilderness years. But you know things are bad when you David Cameron and Nick Clegg are the ones who have to restore Cabinet to something approaching its proper place.

Presidentialism= -5 Would rank lower, if it wasn't for the fact Blair was by no means the first politician to practice this (Mrs Thatcher, Lloyd George, Harold Wilson all come to mind) Makes you realise the value of a monarch...

Tuition Fees= -5 In summer 2011 I went to a talk by Alan Johnson, the minister who piloted tuition fees through Parliament. It was really interesting to see the logic behind them. I was almost convinced. But then, against that is the fact they are fundamentally unfair, land students with a lifetime of debt and were bound to be exploited when the Tories returned to power.

The NHS= -5 In 1997 we only had 24 hours to save the NHS. Which the great British public did, by voting for the party which abolished the internal market. Pity it was late brought back in under another name, but some people will always moan.

PFI= -6 Yes, we may have had shiny new buildings. But one day, a Prime Minister currently still in secondary school, and a Chancellor currently the age of one of my Scouts, will have to work out how the hell we're going to pay for it all.

Impact on British Politics= -6 Blair was apparently always bored by the classic left/right paradigm. Whether this meant taking a social democratic political party and dragging it rightwards towards Thatcherism in order to 'look credible', at the very moment the public was tiring of that creed, subsequently dragging the whole of the British political spectrum right... hence why we have Red Ed for a Labour leader still nowhere near as left wing as Neil Kinnock or even John Smith (at least in public)

Foreign Policy (Excluding The Obvious)= -7 If anyone knows what happened to Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy', I'd be grateful to know?

Civil Liberties= -8 For a country which faced, and saw off, nearly thirty years of IRA terrorism, I'm not quite sure we needed all of the statist authoritarian stuff. And by all, I mean any.

Iraq= -9 Yes, perhaps obviously the lowest point. Even at 13, I didn't believe in the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Neither, it seems, did much of the country. Or the House of Commons. Or even sections of the Government. Nor, rather crucially, the UN Weapons inspectors. The Atlantic Alliance was upheld above international law, public opinion and our national interest. The result was a bloodbath in Iraq. The Middle East Peace Process was completely derailed, never to fully recover. And as Ken Clarke put it in the debate prior to the war, "How many other terrorists will we recruit? Next time a large bomb goes off in a western city, how far did this policy contribute to it?" The only saving grace here is a ruthless dictator was removed from power. When we'll get round to the rest remains to be seen...

Total Negative Score= -71


Combined Average= -13


Which, bizarrely, is probably my overall view too.

The Wit and Wisdom of... Denis Howell

My answers on drought matters have been most realistic— namely, to bring rain

Denis Howell, the Minister for Drought, in the House of Commons, 15th October 1976

(Denis Howell was appointed Minister for Drought to deal with the 1976 drought, at which point the heavens promptly opened, causing large flooding)

The Wit and Wisdom of... Ken Livingstone

Why was the Blair government so disappointing? Why is this one such a mess? Because the first thing they've run is the bloody country

Ken Livingstone, in a Guardian interview, 26/04/12

I Agree with Ed

My political views have come a long way. From hearing my mother telling me she voted for a Mr. Major in 1997 (I always wondered who the other Tory voter was!) and my friend John telling me we'd all have to work harder at school because the work party had won (Labour!), things have subtly moved left. Perhaps the biggest influence in turning me into the mild democratic-socialist I seem to have ended up as has been the crisis of capitalism from late 2007 onwards. It was easy really. 'Casino banking' had forced the government to act as the lender of last resort, causing it to rack up huge debts which the public subsequently punished it for running up. Therefore, bankers are bad, and the culture they had bred in the City of London was totally detached and unreal to those of us who had no access to it.

So it was with some trepidation yesterday that I found myself on the train to London, going to a private art gallery just off Saville Row for an event with my university for alumni who donate money to the university. I'd been roped into this as my MA is part funded by money the History Department receives from an alumnus. To get to the art gallery we were taking over, we had to walk down Regent's Street and then a maze of side streets. Now, my parents are both from London, my grandparents still live there, and I've lived close enough to it to say I know it wellish. That short walk from Piccadilly Circus tube station to the gallery blew me away. As a history student interested in politics, the only thing I could think was that well known Edward Heath quote:

It is the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, but one should not suggest that the whole of British industry consists of practices of this kind

The guest list once we got to the place and set up didn't do much to improve my mood. My university seems to have generated a disproportionate number of bankers, stockbrokers and various other City type jobs, most of which, to me at least, simply appeared as words on the page. Most (or least) impressive was the presence of the political director of a right-wing pressure group (I won't name it, but it has to do with taxpaying...). I reckoned I was in for an awkward evening.

Well, I was wrong. Within half an hour or so if the event starting, I'd bumped into none other than the man who had given the university the money for my MA, the man who had made it possible for me to even still be at university. After nearly falling over myself to thank him, we got round to chatting about university life in general. Then the Vice-Chancellor swans over. Not exactly popular with his students, he proceeded to ask my donor what he did for a living. Shock horror; he works for RBS. RBS. 84% owned by the taxpayer, the symbol of the excess and recklessness which dug us into this hole.

Still trying to marry the concept of 'evil financier' with the great guy I'd just met, who was willing to give away his money in order to help those who wanted to study, there were two speeches which cemented my view. One was by a current first year, describing how the grant she got was all that enabled her to even be at university. It was incredibly powerful stuff, and moved one or two people to tears.

Then the Chancellor of my university bounded up. I like him. Hounded out of a high profile media job in 2004, in the eyes of many taking the fall for the then Prime Minister, I have more memory of him thanks to his portrayal on Dead Ringers at the time (No prizes for guessing who he is!). One thing he said stuck in my mind. He asked how many of those present had attended university during the years when the state gave a full grant for fees and living maintenance. Most of the attendees hands went up. The Chancellor then posed a question: for the generation which "had it all," isn't it only fair that they help the next generation who can see the ladder being pulled away from them? Virtually everyone was nodding.

I suppose where this leaves me, rather annoying, is in full agreement with Edward Heath. There is indeed, the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, which cannot be allowed to continue to play Russian roulette with people's jobs and money. But even amongst those traditionally labelled as the 'bad guys,' there is cause for hope. Not all of those who have come to represent the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism are 'bad.' One should not suggest that the whole of British industry consists of practices of this kind. Things are rarely that simple.

Oh, and my newfound friend? He works for the business investment arm. So everybody wins...

P.S. Apologies to those of you who were drawn here expecting to hear about the other Ed. Doubtless he will make an appearance at some stage in the future...

What If... In Place of Strife Succeeded?

As a non-driver, I find it hard to understand the panic recently caused by a government minister over the threatened petrol drivers strike. After all, no strike had been called, and since the 1970 Trades Unions Act Britain has only seen one major outbreak of industrial disputes, so a massively disruptive strike hardly seemed likely.

The credit for this must go to Harold Wilson and his Employment Secretary, Barbara Castle. In 1969 she introduced a White Paper called In Place of Strife to Cabinet, which proposed measures to limit the disruptiveness of strikes by requiring independent balloting of members and a conciliation service which could impose cooling off periods and settlements.

What is forgotten today is the near hysterical reaction this document caused in the government. The Labour left were incensed, in particular the Home Secretary James Callaghan argued it was a betrayal of the labour movement. The Trades Union Congress was also resolutely opposed. However, Wilson stuck by Castle, reckoning that the electoral benefits of curbing union power were greater than the short term hassle of Cabinet infighting. He also pointed out to the unions that it was better for Labour to go down this road, as what the Tories might do would doubtless be much, much worse. Despite these arguments, the legislation was only carried with Tory and Liberal support, and Wilson was forced to contend with Callaghan's resignation from Cabinet, becoming a bitter critic of Wilson. But no matter, the Act had been passed, and at least Callaghan's leadership ambitions had been severely damaged by his sniping at Wilson.

Despite the initial bitterness, Wilson's government went into the 1970 election much stronger; with the issue of strikes pretty much sorted, and the economy on the up, voters saw no reason to change horses. Labour were re-elected with a barely reduced majority of 89. Wilson had confounded his critics yet again.

But perhaps the biggest loser was Tory leader Edward Heath, who in January 1971 was narrowly ousted as leader by the maverick right-winger Enoch Powell. A highly articulate man, Powell had gained notoriety for his 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968, predicting civil unrest if immigration continued unchecked. His election had the unintended consequence of plunging the Conservative party into a civil war between his supporters and a Heathite contingent. Many of the them eventually ended up leaving the party in 1973 for a new Democratic Party. Powell's message, part popular, part frightening, never quite hit the right note with the public, although his exchanges with Wilson at Prime Minister's Questions were electrifying.

With the Opposition is disarray, Wilson continued with his social reforms, with equal pay and racial discrimination top of the agenda. The economy continued its gradual recovery from the mid 1960s crisis, with government intervention helping to nurture growth without smothering it, such as the nationalisation of Rolls Royce and Upper Clyde Shipyards. Although Wilson's successor is remembered as the pro-European, it was under Wilson that Britain entered the then Common Market in 1972. Also in 1972 was the first big test of the new Trades Union Act. A potentially calamitous strike by mineworkers was averted when the Unions Conciliation and Advisory Service (UCAS) imposed a settlement on the National Union of Mineworkers. Begrudgingly, the TUC accepted that the measure was here to stay, and instead turned to trying to influence the government by cooperation.

Wilson's retirement in 1973 saw a host of senior Labour figures vying to succeed him: Barbara Castle, Denis Healey, Michael Foot, Tony Crosland, Tony Benn, and, from the backbenches, Callaghan. Castle was beyond the pale for many Labour MPs, with the pain of In Place of Strife still fresh. The same went for Callaghan. The others knocked each other out, round by round. But despite a nail biting close final ballot between Foot and the eventual victor, it was Roy Jenkins who emerged as leader. A formidable intellectual figure within the party, responsible for many of the social reforms of the early 1960s, he could also, as Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1967, point to his engineering of the economic recovery. He soon got the chance to show off his economic skills, by working with the trades unions to help guide Britain through the oil crisis and economic storm of 1973-1974. Jenkins also played a crucial role in the talks which culminated in the Sunningdale Agreement, which brought hope for the embattled province of Northern Ireland.

By 1975, when Jenkins finally called the election, voters knew he could be trusted. By comparison, Powell ran on a manifesto promising to end state involvement in industry, mass denationalisation, curtailing the NHS, withdrawing from the Common Market and ending the fragile peace process in Northern Ireland. Heath bitterly attacked the platform as "the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism," and the electorate rejected it in droves; the result was a Labour landslide.

The rest of the Jenkins years were marked by deeper British involvement in Europe. Whilst this ensured Britain a leading role in many of the EEC's key early decisions, such as reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the establishment of Regional Development Funds, the creation of the European Rapid Response Force and the first tentative steps towards the Single Currency, it hardly enthused voters. It also caused a decline in the 'Special Relationship' with the USA, with not even the pro-NATO Foreign Secretary Denis Healey able to salvage relations with Presidents Ford and Carter. Jenkins' major political shakeups at home, with devolution for Scotland and Wales, plus the changing of the electoral systems for Westminster elections to the Alternative Vote, were hardly mass vote winners. Jenkins wasn't helped by the fact that he found it hard to connect with an increasingly left-wing grassroots Labour membership. Coupled with a severe recession, Jenkins lost the 1980 election to the Conservative Sir Keith Joseph.

Joseph had originally been chosen as Tory leader in 1975 as he was acceptable to both Powellites and Heathites. Unfortunately, he took office at the worst possible moment. The economy, already struggling amidst a deep international slump, needed to be supported. Instead, Joseph and his Chancellor, Margaret Thatcher, made massive cuts to public spending, thus pulling the rug from under British industry and the welfare state at the wrong point. Unemployment sky-rocketed to over three million, huge swathes of industry disappeared and the good industrial relations which had persisted after the In Place of Strife dispute collapsed; during the NUM strike of 1984-85 Joseph was even forced to put Britain on a three day week. With only victory in the Falklands Conflict in 1982 to point to as a solid success, Joseph was ousted from No 10 in 1985 by Labour's John Smith.

Smith would remain in power until his death in 1994, using the wealth of North Sea oil to help rebuild British industry and create the pro-European, high wage, high productivity, Scandinavian style social democracy we live in today. The unions were given a constructive role in business and industry along the much vaunted German model, and while Smith's successor Tony Blair did make some denationalisations, the size of Britain's public sector remained large. For the Tories, they were only returned to office in 2005 by promising to sustain Labour's level of public spending and fuelled by Blair's unpopular support for the US war in Iraq. But once again, a major international recession cost the Conservatives the premiership in 2010, with William Hague's message of cuts driving voters back into the arms of David Miliband's promises of greater growth.

P.S. Prime Ministers, 1964-2012

1964-1973- Harold Wilson (Lab)
1973-1980- Roy Jenkins (Lab)
1980-1985- Sir Keith Joseph (Con)
1985-1994- John Smith (Lab)
1994-2005- Tony Blair (Lab)
2005-2010- William Hague (Con)
2010-2012- David Miliband (Lab)

What If... The Tudors Never Ruled?

1485. The Battle of Bosworth Field is not yet two hours old, and already the Wars of the Roses are heading towards a dramatic conclusion. The Yorkist King Richard III is facing down an attempt to usurp his throne by the last Lancastrian claimant to the throne, Henry Tudor, Earl of Pembroke. The main nobles are holding back their armies, waiting to see who gains an early advantage. Eager to finish the battle before Lord Stanley brings his forces in on Tudor's side, the household squadron of King Richard III makes a desperate charge into the Lancastrian force. Forcing their way through to Henry Tudor's personal bodyguard, the Earl and the King came to blows around their standards. The fate of England hung in the balance.

At this distance, it is very hard to know exactly what happened. In William Shakespeare's play Richard III he has Richard and Henry fight a dramatic duel, while more contemporary chroniclers recount Henry Tudor simply being swamped by sheer force of numbers. Either way, it doesn't matter. By the time Tudor's bodyguard broke and fled, the Earl of Pembroke was dead and Richard III had carried the day.

Richard's victory at Bosworth Field helped to finally secure his position on the throne, after two years of chronic uncertainty following the death of his brother in 1483. Although Edward IV had originally intended his son Edward to take the throne, Richard stepped into the breach after it became known that Edward and his brother were illegitimate. Their tragic death at the hands of agents of Henry Tudor in 1485 helped to cement Richard further; not only were there no credible alternative monarchs, few wanted to switch to a family which practised infanticide.

Secure on the throne, Richard was able to continue with the reforms he had started to bring in during the first two years of his reign. The ideas of bail and the Court of Appeal, which are cherished parts of our justice system, were introduced under Richard. His Council of the North, founded before 1485, was followed by the Council of the West in 1487, the Council of the South in 1488 and the Council of the Marches in 1495. These are the forerunners of our modern English regional government structures. Richard also continued the improvement in the royal finances begun under Edward IV, which helped to leave such an excellent legacy for his son. Marriage was also foremost in Richard's mind, and in 1487 he married Isabella of Aragon as part of an alliance with Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. This marriage gave him a son, Richard IV, who was born in 1491, thus ending the uncertainty over the succession. In future years, he ended the bitter warfare on the Scottish border by signing the Treaty of Perpetual Peace with James IV of Scotland in 1502. Although peace was less than perpetual, the marriage of Richard's daughter Anne to James would prove to be of immense significance later on. Meanwhile, his sponsorship of John Cabot ensured that England and later Britain came to rule the vast stretch of North America which is modern Canada.

Richard III died in 1503, if chroniclers are to be believed a hugely popular monarch, and one who left his son Richard IV (1503-1547) a large amount of money. Richard IV was the model of a Renaissance prince; athletic, a good fighter, interested in learning and staunchly Catholic; his defence of the Pope against the accusations of Martin Luther are widely credited with helping to keep England in the Catholic fold, hence why the House of Lords still contains Church bishops and abbots to this day and many of our laws reflect the Church's conservatism in their rejection of abortion and the difficulty in obtaining divorce, much to the annoyance of secularists.

In turn, Richard IV's three children would all succeed him: Edward V (1547-1553), Margaret (1553-1558) and Anne I (1558-1603). Edward V is remembered as an ineffectual boy king, whilst Margaret was the first Queen of England, and her attempts to root out heresy proved divisive even in as staunchly Catholic country as England. Anne I's reign is, by contrast, remembered as a Golden Age for England, in much the same way as the Richard III and IVs' reigns are. There was a great outpouring of culture, most obviously William Shakespeare's plays but in many other areas too. England began to build an overseas empire, and saw off the Spanish Armada in 1588.

However, by the end of Anne's reign things were going badly wrong. Her war with Spain had dragged on for too long and was deeply unpopular, the Late Plantagenet Inflation spiral had set in, plague was rampant in London, oppression of dissidents was seemingly relentless and, worst of all, Anne was childless; cultivating the image of the Virgin Queen was all very well until it came to the succession. The Privy Council was forced to turn to her only living relative: James VI of Scotland, who rode south to become James I of England. The long years of the Plantagenets were over; the reign of the Stuarts had now begun.

Possibly the Most Useful Network Rail Sign

Now, for regular readers of these Ramblings, my hate/hate relationship with Network Rail will come as little surprise. But today they really outdid themselves. This morning all the dot-matrix boards at Clapham Junction station, underneath the times and destinations of the trains, read:

The Information On These Signs May Be Wrong: Please Consult Posters

Need I say any more?!

The Wit and Wisdom of... Neil Kinnock

"My sorrow is that millions, particularly those who do not have the strength to defend themselves, will suffer because of the election of another Conservative government"

Neil Kinnock, resigning as leader of the Labour Party, 13th April 1992, following Labour's fourth sucessive election defeat on 9th April 1992