The State of the Kingdom

[Banquo's Ghost]

I thought this was a cruel, but remarkably accurate pillory of the current inter-regnum affecting the United Kingdom.

What's to be done?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Matthew Norman: While Blair burns, Brown plays his fiddle

His refusal to do the decent thing is creating the most curious atmosphere Britain has known
Published: 12 January 2007

"He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore." You may recall this sublime rhyming couplet from the memo about his cunningly staged departure compiled by remaining loyalists in Tony Blair's bunker and leaked to a newspaper last September.

If the thought seemed richly comic at the time, it has since come to assume an aura of such overwhelming pathos that it's hard to contemplate without the need to brush away a manly tear.

Much has happened in the intervening four and a bit months - the alleged attempted coup against him, marked deteriorations of the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, further evidence of fiscal chaos in the NHS and gross incompetence at the Home Office, his interview with the Met over peerages, the disgracefully conducted execution of Saddam Hussein, another grubby saga of freeloading holidays with showbiz mates, this week's dreadful education figures, and so on - and none of it good.

Apart from that one episode at the Labour conference, when a brilliantly delivered speech induced a moment of mass hypnotic adulation, it has been a blemish-free catalogue of failure, disaster and rank humiliation. And yet, like John Major's childhood home in Brixton, he's still here.

Whether how he is still here is a more interesting question than why he is still here, I can't quite decide. The first is a matter of pure politics, specifically the pathological cravenness that has blighted Gordon Brown for so long, threatening to condemn him to a premiership barely longer than the man who may well prove the Brownite template, Sir Anthony Eden, who seethed for a decade before succeeding Churchill and then quickly destroyed himself.

It has been in Gordon's power for years to dispose of this deluded apology for a British Prime Minister. Had he shown the same degree of principle over Iraq as his old enemy Robin Cook, and resigned before the invasion in March 2003, Mr Blair could not have survived the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Since then, Gordon has had him on the ropes, legs wobbling and brains scrambled, several times. Each time he has stood back, seemingly unable to believe how close to the title he was, and gifted Mr Blair time to recover his wits.

Frank Bruno, another big punching but mechanical bruiser undone by lack of killer instinct, did the same when he buckled Iron Mike Tyson with a scything right cross early in their first meeting in Las Vegas, held on the 10th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher's time in Downing Street. Which brings us, by way of a clunking local radio link, to that second question of why he is still here.

Is it the desire to celebrate his decade in Downing Street in May that keeps him going on and on and on? Is it the need to pay the mortgage on that town house in Bayswater, or bullying from Cherie to frustrate the wicked Gordon for as long as possible? Is it the old, old story of a leader so cosseted from reality by sycophantic courtiers, who carefully hide the newspapers and ensure he's otherwise engaged when irritants such as next week's Channel 4 drama The Trial of Tony Blair are screened, that he has no conception of the derision in which he is held? Or is it the even older story of the leader so warped by overexposure to power that he literally cannot imagine how the world could survive without him?

With the one exception of the mortgage, which a month's tour on the US lecture circuit would pay off in full (the real reason, presumably, why he was so slow to criticise Saddam's hanging, and so mealy mouthed when he did; bleeding heart nonsense like that costs ticket sales in middle America), it might be one, all or any permutation of the above. Without extraordinarily rendering of the man to Vienna and giving a vast squadron of top psychotherapists time to diagnose him, how can anyone know for sure?

What is in no doubt is that his intransigent refusal to do the decent thing is creating the most curious political atmosphere this country has known in living memory, and perhaps ever. One of the very few appealing things about the British system of government was always the extreme haste with which fallen leaders were shunted out.

When Edward Heath lost the 1974 election, he hadn't arranged anywhere nowhere to live, and had to camp with a friend in Vauxhall. When Mrs Thatcher was finally ejected, her des res on an ugly, red-brick Dulwich estate for retired Rotarians hadn't been furnished, so she borrowed a house in Chelsea. A colleague recalls seeing Harold Macmillan, a week after his tenure in Downing Street ended, waiting forlornly in a Westminster bus queue.

There was something vastly reassuring about the undignified speed with which prime ministers were reminded of the transience of power and its trappings. Mr Blair, who lost power many months ago, has defied all the laws of politics once again by clinging to office, but for him the indignity is a thousand times worse. If only he knew it.

Looking increasingly vacant in that ravaged, glassy-eyed way, the widow's peak stretching the hair-thickening sprays more by the day, his recent statements of intent - sorting out the Middle East, revolutionising university funding, saving the planet from climate change while continuing to star in Carry On Turning Left At The Stewardess - have been so barmily self-contradictory or plain delusional as to suggest the sort of character for whom the first question, on being hurriedly admitted to a clinic, is "Now then, dear, do you know who the Prime Minister is?"

In a vaguely sane political system, with a vaguely coherent written constitution and a vaguely effective legislature, the answer "Tony Blair" would trigger the appearance of a syringe and the whispered request "Straitjacket, sister, quick as you can". But thanks to this weird, unsettling stasis gripping Westminster, it still qualifies as that rarest of commodities to emit from Mr Blair's mouth, the literal truth.

And there is nothing, so it seems, anyone can do but wait it out. Whether it does the country any quantifiable damage is hard to say (our international reputation could hardly be more degraded than it is), but the damage to Labour, with important local elections looming and David Cameron industriously cementing his poll lead all the time, is abundantly clear.

And still the Chancellor stands by, making his little calculations and watching the last of his possible rivals, "Dr" John Reid, implode; settling for the role of Regent to our very own George III, still unable to locate the balls to end it with a good, clean strike. At least Tony Blair has the excuse of being raving mad. For his barely less central role in this demeaning farce, Gordon Brown has none.

[RabidGibbon]

The first line in the article was the one that I think sums up the problem in British politics. That leaked memo is disturbing in that it suggests the best way to be remembered for being a great prime minister is to orchestrate a careful "spin" campaign in your last few months in office. With the UK at war in two foreign countries, interest rates up for something like the 3rd time in 6 months and prisoners receiving compensation for being prevented from killing themselves Tony Blair is working on his exit strategy, not from Iraq but from 10 Downing Street. On another note, would I be laughed at too hard if I suggested that maybe Gordon Brown hasn't "finished off" Tony Blair because of old fashioned loyalty? Or am I just being far too naive?

[Vladimir]

Oh dear. First your history friend now this man with condescending remarks about "middle America." The top-drawer hanky crowd certainly should stuff it in their mouth. (I do find it entertaining though!)

The problem with Blair, like all politicians, is what other choices do you have. It seems there is plenty of haughty criticism but few ideas. Where is this next Churchill that should replace Blair?

[caravel]

What's to be done?

He will wait until the last minute before going, then when things start going really pear, it will be all Brown's fault anyway then and he'll have to deal with clearing up the mess. And people will say "it was all ok until Brown took over". Blair will get all the credit. Blair has left a mess for others to clean up in the same way that Thatcher did. It has got to the stage where I'm now unsure as to whom was the worst.

[lars573]

This whole thing reminds me of the dance our former PM's did years ago. Then current PM and Liberal leader Jean Chrétien kept threatening to retire and hand power to his heir appearant and finance minister Paul Martin. But Chrétien never said when he would retire and for a year he wouldn't commit to a date. Eventaully (2003) he did go, then a year later the sponsorship scandal broke. Leaving Paul Martin holding the bag on Chrétien's mess. Which cost Paul his long sough PM's seat. And the Libral party 12 years of in power.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh dear. First your history friend now this man with condescending remarks about "middle America." The top-drawer hanky crowd certainly should stuff it in their mouth. (I do find it entertaining though!)

My dear Vladimir, we of the arisotocracy are born to condescension and vaguely inaccurate impressions of the lower orders and foreigners. Noblesse oblige requires us to provide amusement for the masses, otherwise what purpose do we serve?

The problem with Blair, like all politicians, is what other choices do you have. It seems there is plenty of haughty criticism but few ideas. Where is this next Churchill that should replace Blair?

Well, first of all the Brits don't actually get the choice directly. For example, it is likely that Chancellor Brown will succeed to the Premiership in May or June, but there won't be a general election. New Labour chooses whomsoever they will.

My impression is that the British are not looking for a new Churchill, but for a competent manager that doesn't lie and cheat - and who has a respect for the system of cabinet government that has always made the UK successful. Blair has tried to impose a presidential system of government not unlike the US model, but without the checks and balances of the Consititution.

The telling part of what was certainly an opinionated piece was the correct assertion that British Prime Ministers, once they lost power, immediately became virtual non-entities. Macmillan in the bus queue is a wonderful image - and very British. Other countries have to have revolution, assassinations and executions - the British sentence their powermongers to stand forlornly in the morning drizzle waiting for the Number 9.

[InsaneApache]

OK I'll bite.

BG I agree with a lot of what you said about Blair and his 'presidential' style of governing. A lot of the problem with New Labour and its antics in office is the fact that they cannot differentiate the divide between party and government. They just do not get it.

Or perhaps they do. The politicisation of the civil service is one of the worst things that has happened. When you have (unelected) party apparachniks in positions of power over the beurocrats there lies a recipe for disaster. Q.E.D.

This twinned with the notion of doing something, for the sake of looking as though you are doing something, has led to the sorry state of affairs we have arrived at. Government policy led by tabloid headlines has also caused division and confusion at every level. How many inquiries has this lot had? Hundreds. How much re~structuring and internal reviews have we had? Hundreds. What has any of this done to facilitate good governence? None.

The thing that really gets my goat is the way they fritter away our tax money. In the '80s the UK underwent some very painful changes as we adjusted to modern working conditions and the free market doctrine. A lot of people lost jobs and homes in the shake up. We paid a heavy price. Twenty odd years later the UK is benefitting from these reforms. So what does chummy on his sofa do? Waste billions on IT schemes that do not work. Waste tens of millions of consultants fees. Throws a shed load of cash at the NHS, without looking at how the money might be wasted spent. Throw in a couple of wars, one of which has turned out to be highly dubious legally, the imminent prospect of the break up of the union and the farting about with the UK constitution.....yup Anthony Charles Lynton Blair will get his legacy....just not the one he envisaged.

[rory_20_uk]

What really irritates me is when entire DEPARTMENTS can be declared "unfit for function" - and this is no one's fault. When did this start?

That Google can index most information on the internet using html spiders in the main, and the government can't make a system when they know where the information is!

Sadly Brown might help with the Legacy by making a worse job. Although reducing red tape has been shown to work (not least as it reduces the number of overpaid incompetents working in the home office) he seems to like adding to it. Even reports that show that simplifying the tax system far from being followed get censored.

[BDC]

Britain needs a couple of parliaments of consolidation and some common sense. Really quite badly.

Obvious way to get this would be some proper opposition. Cameron's Tories hardly seem any different from Labour, and the Lib Dems are useless.

[IrishArmenian]

Oh dear. First your history friend now this man with condescending remarks about "middle America." The top-drawer hanky crowd certainly should stuff it in their mouth. (I do find it entertaining though!)

The problem with Blair, like all politicians, is what other choices do you have. It seems there is plenty of haughty criticism but few ideas. Where is this next Churchill that should replace Blair?

Me! I am running for Prime Minister of the U.K.!
Like Winny, I will be the source of much drunken revelry and will later be rememberd in many odd anecdotes involving pissed (drunk, for Americans) leaders having peculiar run-ins with the people.
Still, I will be better than Blair, because I don't have my head in an anatomically impossible place, my stomach is always full. I could do a little better where he went wrong (ya'know...mmm...everywhere). I would be considered a hero by the people, simply for being mediocre in a land where mediocre seems a blessing. The problem is my being elected. I would probably not get many votes because of the Irish part, and most will think I'm an Arab with strikingly un-arabic coloured hair. Well, that is why we have public relations people, right?
Consider Vartan Gdrig Beegan the next PM of the UK.

[Pannonian]

My impression is that the British are not looking for a new Churchill, but for a competent manager that doesn't lie and cheat - and who has a respect for the system of cabinet government that has always made the UK successful. Blair has tried to impose a presidential system of government not unlike the US model, but without the checks and balances of the Consititution.

We need a Robert Walpole, not a Winston Churchill. Lying and cheating is beside the point. We need a competent and realistic administrator, who cares if they lie and cheat.

[Somebody Else]

There is only one solution. Boris for dictator! Who's with me?