Does Tony Blair need to build bridges? Why bother? He has won, like many a political leader before him, a khaki bonus. He has been hugely strengthened by a short and successful war against Iraq: the fall of Baghdad saw his own personal ratings soar
to plus seven points, according to April’s Guardian/ICM poll, back from a pre-war plummet to minus 20 points in mid-February. And though it seemed throughout the war that Tory MPs and the rightwing press were his greatest cheerleaders, Labour voters seem to be quite pleased with him as well. Blair’s net approval rating in April among Labour supporters was a massive 66 percent.
So it’s easy to imagine his more hawkish advisers telling him to give peaceniks and progressives their final marching orders.
Why appease the appeasers? They’re a spent force. Yet, if you actually talk to people in the Labour party, and indeed some in the cabinet too, it simply doesn’t feel that way. Many supported the war reluctantly, more were firmly against it. There is no great feeling that Tony Blair and George Bush were right all along: rather a huge surge of relief that the bloodshed wasn’t worse, combined with deep misgivings about the future of Iraq and the whole of the Middle East region.
That, and the realisation that this New Labour government really is the strongest ally of the most rightwing Republican adminstration seen in Washington for years is prompting many progressives to ask, just what is the point? What is New Labour for? One, up until now, loyal minister confesses: ‘I don’t know how much longer I want to carry on in government because I just don’t believe in what we’re doing any more’.
It’s a problem Mr Blair can’t ignore, any more than the left can assume that Blairism will soon be a thing of the past. Despite all the feverish talk before the war about putsches and resignations, and even a brief wobble inside Downing Street itself, Tony Blair is going nowhere – well, certainly not into retirement – any time soon. Gordon Brown recognises this. Robin Cook recognises this. The moment simply never came.
So does Blair need the progressives? Of course he does. He is, after all, in office not because he was elected under a presidential system, but because he is the leader of the Labour party. He needs Labour MPs to support him in parliament and he needs Labour members to canvass for him in elections.
So, how to re-enthuse this worried and disorientated party? First and foremost, there must be greater clarity about the government’s future intentions in the Middle East. If George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld want a new adventure, this time against Syria, the Prime Minister needs to be adamant that we’re not up for the ride. Despite denials from both Tony Blair and Jack Straw, there’s an element of mistrust here. After all, weren’t they also the guys saying just a few months back that there would be no question of going to war against Iraq without UN approval?
Then, ministers need to get out there and talk to the activists. Partly, it’s been pressure of work, but there has been a bunker mentality in Whitehall for months now. Tony Blair needs to do a bit less jetting around in aeroplanes and get on the road, because he still has some explaining to do – not only about those weapons of mass destruction (the pretext for the war, still not found as I write) – but also about where New Labour is going now and what the party stands for.
It’s no good, either, dismissing trade union leaders as taking the odd day trip to Planet Zog, as one minister did recently. Labour needs union money but it needs union members’ support even more – these are the people at the sharp end in delivering public services, as well as being active, critical consumers of them.
On specific measures – foundation hospitals and tuition fees, for example – the government seems unwilling to compromise. But, given the number of Labour MPs who rebelled over the war, Downing Street may be wise to do its sums before pressing full-speed ahead. Without Conservative support – which they had on the war but won’t have on tuition fees – they could come unstuck.
Many, though not all, in the progressive community would welcome faster progress towards a referendum on the euro. Even if that is still considered too risky, a greater tilt towards Europe, with its focus on workers’ rights as well as human rights, and away from the neo-conservatives in the USA would be a sage move. The Blairites are not, of course, daft. They too recognise the need to redefine their purpose. Peter Mandelson, among others, is organising a big conference on global progressive governance in July. Let’s just hope the emphasis returns to progressive.