There has been much talk in the press about the future of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Crucially I refer to John Prescott's interview in the Times on Saturday and Michael Portillo's comment in the Sunday edition.
Portillo is a conservative whom I have the greatest respect for, he is not only one of the few who 'gets it', but he also had a great deal of respect for Mr Blair, and for a few months honestly saw what I see in his premiership. However the prime minister's answers in PMQT have lead him away from his support, Portillo is insistent that Blair was dodging issues and that he appears too weak to countermanda Bush, in offering commentary on the Abu Ghraib abuse.
In particular, I take issue with the following section of his comment:
So there is not to be even a token whimper of protest against an administration whose machismo begat the atrocities of Abu Ghraib. Blair will be too polite to mention that our foreign policy objectives have probably been set back a generation and his monument in history vandalised.
What, pray Mr Portillo would this achieve? Putting the knife into the back of your wartime ally is hardly prudent, even if it does save your own skin. What's more, Blair's disgust for the actions was palpable and robust. "Appaling" "completely unacceptable" are two phrases which come to mind.
To go further, to criticize either the target du jour - Donald Rumsfeld or indeed the Bush Administration on such a vital issue, upon which so much is balanced would mean political suicide for the coalition, and is the sort of opportunistic folly which we have come to expect only from the most obtuse of liberal politicians.
Tony Blair has chosen not to take the easy road and forsake our allies but has instead stuck to his principles and refrained from scoring the political points which may help bolster his flagging domestic support. Had he come down like the proverbial ton of bricks I am in no doubt that his popularity levels would have increased, however such action would be grossly irresponsible and would likely destabilize US commitment to Iraq.
The integrity, which you find Tony Blair now lacking is evident in the very actions you lambast him for Mr Portillo. I am astonished that you have become so short sighted and pray that it is only momentary.
I have a new Labour membership card, it resides in my wallet with considerable pride, however my attachment to the Labour party is conditional entirely upon Mr Blair's leadership. Whilst the Independent trains its guns on the Prime Minister and suggests he is a liability to the future of the Labour Party, I am certain that he is Labour's key electoral asset.
Upon the transition of sovereignty in Iraq the Prime Minister will have the opportunity of tying the war up in a speech. The Prime Minister will likely invite the people of England to look at the transformation in Iraq. The functioning economy, powering out from its enfeebled start in the grips of a madman. The new schools, and Hospitals and functioning press. The elections that wait on the horizon.
It will be this speech that will either make or break Mr Blair's political career - if the rabid insurgents still roam the streets it will seem pale and ridiculous. However if indeed Iraq is where it could, should and most likely will be, then there will be a lot of head scratching in Westminster as to where this dead weight upon the Labour party had vanished to.
Until such time as the Prime Minister steps down from office, that card shall remain in my wallet, peering past the fee-hating plastic veneer of my National Union of Students card, and taking pride of place in its top sleeve. I still have faith in Tony Blair, and I pray that I shan't have to inform the Labour party of my departure for a long while yet.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at May 16, 2004 03:09 AM