There is a point in the evolution of political parties, and in the life of political leaders, when they must decide whether they want simply to be liked, and spend their days going for the cheap laugh, being quoted in the media, and keeping their supporters happy, or whether they want to exercise their judgement and take difficult decisions. The choice is between making friends and making history. Some politicians are happy with the former route. They back every cause, support every demand, and make radical speeches in the sure knowledge they will never have to take responsibility for their rhetoric. The House of Commons is filled with such men and women.
But real politics means that those who are chosen to lead must trust their instincts and be bold. Churchill knew that in 1940. Blair knows it in 2003. When confronted with war in Iraq, Labour’s leader faced down the demonstrators, drama queens and the Daily Mirror, and did what he believed to be right. As events have turned out, Tony Blair was right, and the placard-wavers, tabloid journalists and backbench doom-merchants were wrong.
The people of Iraq will lead immeasurably better lives and a miserable dictatorship has been dismantled, quickly and efficiently. If the one million demonstrators had had their way, Saddam Hussein would today still be in power in Iraq, murdering, torturing and intimidating his own people. The demonstrations may have been well-intentioned, but their marches led to hell.
It was an important moment in Tony Blair’s life, and in the life of the party he leads. It showed that the Labour party is serious about governing, and not a prisoner of opinion polls, focus groups or tabloid newspapers. It showed that we have a leader prepared to risk all in pursuit of his convictions.
It is not only Tony Blair who was tested by Saddam Hussein’s last stand, of course. Every one of our elected representatives had to make their choice. Some were driven by conscience, some by political self-interest. Card-carrying members of Labour’s awkward squad – George Galloway and his ilk – voted against the government on principle.
Iain Duncan Smith led his party with honesty, even though he had the power on the night of the vote on Iraq in the House of Commons, by whipping his MPs to abstain, to precipitate Blair’s resignation. But what of the pretender to the throne of leader of the opposition? Charles Kennedy seriously believes his party can supplant the Conservatives as the official opposition; in his wilder dreams he may even fantasise about becoming prime minister one day. What did the war in Iraq reveal about the character and judgement of Charles Kennedy?
If ever there was proof that Kennedy’s fatal flaw is his desire to be liked, it was the moment he stood on the stage in Hyde Park and addressed the Stop the War demonstration. No one can remember what he said, but his presence spoke volumes. Kennedy joined with Tariq Ali, George Galloway, Tony Benn, Jesse Jackson and the rest. He looked out over the banner-waving crowds and made his speech. He got the applause. He must have felt a flush of excitement. He must have felt adored.
But by siding with the Trotskyists, the pro-Iraqis, the CND-ers, and the rest of Saddam’s useful idiots, he proved beyond doubt his unsuitability for any office higher than a student union officer at Glasgow University. Faced with the decision, he led his party, not towards the sound of gunfire, but towards the sound of the cheering crowds. For as long as Charles Kennedy leads the Liberal Democrats, it will be hard to take them seriously.