Iraq, Blair and Tennis
There is a popular myth that tennis ace Sir Andy Murray is described by the press as British when he wins and Scottish when he loses. This persists despite a comprehensive analysis of press coverage in 2015 by Stirling University student Ben Dickson disproving this.
If you have far too much time on your hands you can trawl through the echo chambers on social media (especially Twitter) to see that successes of the 1997–2010 governments (such as Sure Start centres, minimum wage, huge increases in public service funds, scrapping Section 28 and lifting millions out of poverty) are proudly attributed to Labour whilst Blair gets all of the glory for PFI schemes, the introduction of tuition fees and — you guessed it — the war in Iraq.
Andy Murray: Scottish when he loses, British when he wins.
Policies during the 1997–2010 governments: Blair when we don’t like it, Labour when we do.
After the party suffered its worst general election result since 1935, the only Labour leader to win a general election in 50 years offered some opinions which, reading between the lines, it is hard to interpret the core of them as anything other than a thinly veiled ‘I told you so’.
Luckily Twitter reacted in a measured way which assessed the merits of Blair’s suggestions that has come to truly typify the medium.
Just kidding. He was dismissed by many online as a Tory and war criminal (I don’t know which is worse to some members of the party). People don’t like being told so, especially those with deeply held convictions. Why listen to people with experience on an issue that the party is struggling with if you really really don’t like them? Armchair generals of Twitter who back Corbyn seem to know what really went wrong during the election and none of it — or at least worryingly little — seems to lay blame on the leadership during the election. These sometimes seem to be the same people who dismiss the views of somebody who has led the party to 3 general election victories compared to their — presumably — none.
Before I can be accused of hypocrisy, I do not know the answer for how Labour can bounce back from this; I have opinions but I don’t know for certain. I don’t think Blair has all the answers, and I don’t think doubling-down on a strategy that gifted the Tories the majority they craved after 9 years of disastrous governing is the way forward. It is very hard to see where to go in order to unseat the Tories from office. Above all, I’ll bet my kidneys that a successful policy won’t come about from not even listening to the points being made by somebody who has actually won elections. I think it will come about from listening — actually listening — to people from all wings of the party; something which a broad church is supposed to embrace.
If I can indulge in mixing metaphors, this isn’t just a problem of playing the man and not the ball; we’re also throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Labour membership selected and campaigned for the MPs who voted to take us to war in Iraq as well as to introduce the minimum wage. The Labour party elected Blair in 1994 (including the majority of trade unions affiliated to the party) fighting off Jaguar enthusiast and Have I Got News For You unfunny man John Prescott. In a distant third was the self-assigned ‘moron’ for backing Corbyn, Margaret Beckett.
The inconvenient truth is that the Labour governments of 1997–2010 did not just consistently voted to go to war in Iraq, but Labour MPs have also voted against investigating the war. At least, that’s what I conclude from the following votes:
- On the eve of war, 254 Labour MPs voted to go to war in Iraq, 84 voted against (and 69 abstained).
- On the same night, 138 Labour MPs voted for a motion to say that the case for war had not been established, whilst 245 Labour MPs voted against the motion.
- In October 2003 there were 2 votes about investigating going to war in Iraq; one to set up a judicial review and another to decide whether it is necessary to have a judicial review. Not a single Labour MP voted in favour of more investigation or having a judicial review.
- In 2006 by a margin of 293 to 8, Labour MPs voted against an investigation into the Iraq war by a select committee.
- In 2007 only 10 Labour MPs voted for an investigation into Iraq whilst 287 voted against (interestingly, 173 Tories voted for and none voted against it).
- In 2017 with Corbyn as leader, Labour MPs voted by a margin of 159 to 5 (yes, you did read that correctly) against an investigation into actions and statements prior to invading Iraq.
It is worth noting that Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against the war and in favour of investigations. Based on the votes above, he is clearly at odds with his party’s positions on these matters.
We should be mature enough to own the past mistakes and actions of the party. This includes holding the leader at the time accountable for their actions and the actions of the party. Simplistically piling all the praise or blame onto one person ignores the reality of how our parliamentary system works and how parties work. It also lets MPs off the hook for any votes which they later regret or which are embarrassing to them (such as Barry Gardner who voted against investigating Iraq 12 times and voted in favour of the invasion 5 times) from the level of scrutiny that the public deserves.
I would rather we hadn’t invaded Iraq. I would rather we did have further investigations into the build-up of the war. Neither of these positions are mutually exclusive with thinking Tony Blair might know a thing or two about winning elections.
So I close with three pleas:
Firstly, that we don’t frantically scream down voices of people within the party who we don’t like but scrutinise their proposals instead.
Secondly, the membership owns the party’s record on Iraq and holds MPs who voted for the war and against investigation to a similar level to that which Blair is held.
Thirdly, that we have reasoned debates based on the points being argued, rather than simply trying to assert moral superiority against other members.
The only people who benefit from the party not even listening to what successful Labour leaders have to say about electability are those in government, grinding down public services in communities which the echo-chambers on Twitter profess to support. I hope that pragmatism prevails against the pull of asserting one’s own moral superiority. However, as the platform does reward such stances I will not be holding my breath.
The ball is well and truly in our court. We must decide carefully how to play it.
