bye-bye Blair
Jun. 27th, 2007 08:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacSo Tony Blair has stepped down as Prime Minister of the U.K. Others will have plenty to say on his legacy, so I'll just predict that when he dies, the word "Iraq" will be found carved on his heart, the way the word "Suez" was on Anthony Eden's.
Instead, I'll write about the difficulty of getting Prime Ministers to leave. It's easy if the government loses a clear-cut election to the opposition: they're out in a day, no fuss, no transition. Blair's arrival ten years ago accompanied John Major's departure in this manner, for instance, and nothing became Major's tenure of the office like the hasty dignity of his leaving it.
But unlike with the U.S. President, there's no legal or traditional term limit, and in most parliamentary systems a P.M. who doesn't get defeated can't retire as a President does, holding office to the end of a term while your chosen successor campaigns for the next. You have to depart mid-term, perhaps leaving enough time for your successor to "play in" and build up a personal record before the next election. (Some Westminster-style countries are particularly bad at that last point. See New Zealand in 1989-90, or Canada in 1993.)
But without a set date of departure, getting the boss to leave at all can be difficult. Of the five previous post-WW2 British P.M.s who left office other than at an election defeat, only Harold Wilson in 1976 just announced his retirement and then simply left of his own volition. (And even then not without an infamously self-indulgent resignation honours list.) The others had to be pushed. Blair's long-promised but protracted departure reminds me of Winston Churchill's. Almost from the moment of his return to office in 1951, Churchill said he would retire RSN, but for 3 1/2 years he kept not getting around to it, and his lieutenants were too pusillanimous (in awe of Churchill, and spineless on their own behalf) to push very hard, even after his health made him no longer capable of the job.
I'm also reminded of Margaret Thatcher; rather than promising to go, Thatcher declared her intention to "go on and on." Suddenly, after eleven long years, the majority of her party rebelled, and she was out. Thatcher was indignant. The ungrateful brutes; had she not won them three elections? What she failed to realize is that basing your justification to continue on your election-winning capacity is all the more grounds for your removal if it's suspected that your presence will cause the loss of the next one, and that's where things were with Thatcher. Labour today has better hopes for next time with Gordon Brown than it would with Old Tony yet again.
Besides finally departing as P.M., Blair is also resigning his personal seat in Parliament, effective immediately. This too is new. His only post-war predecessor to resign his own seat immediately was Eden in 1957, and he had health problems as an excuse. Even Thatcher and Major served out their terms as private members, and earlier P.M.s like Wilson and Churchill actually ran for, and served, further terms in the ranks. Leader among those was Sir Edward Heath, who stayed in the House for 26 more years, becoming the respected senior member and almost, if not quite, wiping out the memory of his unfortunate Prime Ministership. And most of them had plenty of time to devote to their constituency, something which even a P.M. is supposed to do, but Blair reportedly neglected.
Further service like this was a relic of the old days when high office, even the Prime Ministership, was just something a politician held for a while, and then didn't. They might even come back. William Gladstone was Prime Minister four separate times. (Three of them were after his first announced retirement. Getting him to finally go was almost as tough as with Churchill.)
But now, even though a P.M. is just a head of government, not head of state, it's got to be the grand exit. No more workaday politics for Mr. Blair. He's going to be a roving Mideast ambassador, sort of like what Hillary Clinton wants Bill to do if she's elected. Watch out, troubled spots of the world! Your ever-smiling, hand-shaking retired big cheeses of first-world countries are coming.
Instead, I'll write about the difficulty of getting Prime Ministers to leave. It's easy if the government loses a clear-cut election to the opposition: they're out in a day, no fuss, no transition. Blair's arrival ten years ago accompanied John Major's departure in this manner, for instance, and nothing became Major's tenure of the office like the hasty dignity of his leaving it.
But unlike with the U.S. President, there's no legal or traditional term limit, and in most parliamentary systems a P.M. who doesn't get defeated can't retire as a President does, holding office to the end of a term while your chosen successor campaigns for the next. You have to depart mid-term, perhaps leaving enough time for your successor to "play in" and build up a personal record before the next election. (Some Westminster-style countries are particularly bad at that last point. See New Zealand in 1989-90, or Canada in 1993.)
But without a set date of departure, getting the boss to leave at all can be difficult. Of the five previous post-WW2 British P.M.s who left office other than at an election defeat, only Harold Wilson in 1976 just announced his retirement and then simply left of his own volition. (And even then not without an infamously self-indulgent resignation honours list.) The others had to be pushed. Blair's long-promised but protracted departure reminds me of Winston Churchill's. Almost from the moment of his return to office in 1951, Churchill said he would retire RSN, but for 3 1/2 years he kept not getting around to it, and his lieutenants were too pusillanimous (in awe of Churchill, and spineless on their own behalf) to push very hard, even after his health made him no longer capable of the job.
I'm also reminded of Margaret Thatcher; rather than promising to go, Thatcher declared her intention to "go on and on." Suddenly, after eleven long years, the majority of her party rebelled, and she was out. Thatcher was indignant. The ungrateful brutes; had she not won them three elections? What she failed to realize is that basing your justification to continue on your election-winning capacity is all the more grounds for your removal if it's suspected that your presence will cause the loss of the next one, and that's where things were with Thatcher. Labour today has better hopes for next time with Gordon Brown than it would with Old Tony yet again.
Besides finally departing as P.M., Blair is also resigning his personal seat in Parliament, effective immediately. This too is new. His only post-war predecessor to resign his own seat immediately was Eden in 1957, and he had health problems as an excuse. Even Thatcher and Major served out their terms as private members, and earlier P.M.s like Wilson and Churchill actually ran for, and served, further terms in the ranks. Leader among those was Sir Edward Heath, who stayed in the House for 26 more years, becoming the respected senior member and almost, if not quite, wiping out the memory of his unfortunate Prime Ministership. And most of them had plenty of time to devote to their constituency, something which even a P.M. is supposed to do, but Blair reportedly neglected.
Further service like this was a relic of the old days when high office, even the Prime Ministership, was just something a politician held for a while, and then didn't. They might even come back. William Gladstone was Prime Minister four separate times. (Three of them were after his first announced retirement. Getting him to finally go was almost as tough as with Churchill.)
But now, even though a P.M. is just a head of government, not head of state, it's got to be the grand exit. No more workaday politics for Mr. Blair. He's going to be a roving Mideast ambassador, sort of like what Hillary Clinton wants Bill to do if she's elected. Watch out, troubled spots of the world! Your ever-smiling, hand-shaking retired big cheeses of first-world countries are coming.
