Blair Accepts Thatcherism, Devolves the Celts

Domestically, Tony Blair’s time as PM has been one of lost opportunities. In this, he is much like Bill Clinton. Both men are quite clever, able, and rather likable. They just didn’t deliver much. The Britain Tony Blair leaves behind is much different from the country that elected him in 1997. To say that it is better is a matter of perspective.

The Red Flag socialism of the Old Labour Party is dead. Much of its raison d’etre is dead too. The miners’ strike that Mrs. Thatcher provoked and then crushed saw to that. Mr. Blair’s contribution to British politics was to accept that fact and not turn the clock back. The Winter of Discontent was not worth a reprise. And in accepting the Thatcher changes (reform is too kind, revolution too grand), he forced Labour to change its ways. Policy was nice, but style triumphed over substance.

“Cool Britannia” was the term, and in a sense, it was the national sigh of relief that the Tories were finally gone. Labour was in, and well, that had to be a good thing, right? What did he actually do for the last 10 years, though? Establishment of the minimum wage was definitely good, and a bit anti-Thatcherite. Waiting times for the National Health Service are down, and at £48 billion more, they should be. He’s banned fox hunting and hare coursing, both Tory pastimes. The economy has done well, but that was largely the result of letting Gordon Brown run the Exchequer. Admission charges to museums were abolished, and while that sounds like a small issue, giving the poor access to their own civilization and history beyond the TV does matter.

At the same time, he forced students to pay for university educations, saddling the next generation of Britons with thousands in debt for no good reason other than it was ideologically appealing (primary and secondary education remains free, if of dubious quality). Violent crime is up, and 25,000 prisoners have been released early. Since he doesn’t get credit for the improved British economy, it is unfair to blame him for the increase disparity between rich and poor. Nevertheless, it is entirely appropriate to note that he has done little to reverse it.

The most significant changes he wrought are those to the British constitution. While he did a half-hearted (or perhaps half-assed) job on fixing the House of Lords, he also gave Scotland and Wales their own legislatures, and devolved power to the Stormont Assembly in Ulster. Whether this leads to a Federal Republic of Britain (sounds nice, doesn’t it?), or an independent Scotland with a diminished UK, or whether it proves that Westminster runs things best all lies ahead. By moving power from its traditional spots, he set the precedent that it could be moved wherever it is best wielded. For a unitary state that had been so since the Irish Act of Union in 1800, this was revolutionary. In this sense, Mr. Blair made Britain better by allowing the possibility of changing the game when the old rules weren’t working.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home