It seems astonishing, from an Australian point of view, that there is so much talk in Britain about the resignation of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Also from an Australian perspective, it is astounding that Blair has got himself into such a hole over the two matters that are now dogging him: the Hutton inquiry and university fees. Politics may be similar everywhere; but it is not the same. It is difficult to see this happening in Australia.
The media is full of the possibility of Blair’s demise. It is mentioned at social gatherings. It arises in House of Commons debates.
This is despite the fact that Labour has a thumping majority in the House of Commons (408 seats of 659) and that Blair is a dominating political figure on the world stage.
Blair himself has even mentioned the R word. He has said he would resign if the inquiry by former Law Lord Brian Hutton into the suicide of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly found that he had lied in insisting that he had not authorised the leaking of Kelly’s name.
Kelly was the initially undisclosed source of a BBC report that asserted that the Government had “sexed up” a dossier on the threat posed by Iraq and weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to the second Gulf War. After his name was leaked Kelly committed suicide.
The Opposition Conservatives are pursuing the assertions that the Government “sexed up” the dossier and leaked Kelly’s name. The question is whether Blair himself authorised it.
It is now a question of semantics. Evidence in the Hutton inquiry suggests that Blair authorised government members to confirm Kelly’s name if a journalist identified Kelly and sought confirmation that he was the leaker. But Blair argues that that is different from authorising the leaking of the name without prompting. Blair’s fate might well lie on what Hutton makes of this semantic difference.
Blair has also mentioned the R word in saying that, whatever Hutton finds, Conservative leader Michael Howard will seek his resignation.
Hutton has announced he will publish his findings on January 28 – the day after an important vote on a Bill to increase university fees. The fees Bill will test Blair’s leadership because more than 160 Labour MPs have expressed disquiet – enough to see the Bill defeated.
Australian politicians have their own silly ways of getting into strife, but it is difficult to see a Fraser, Hawke or Howard getting anywhere near losing their job over something like Kelly or university fees.
In Australia I suspect the reaction would be: Kelly committed suicide. He was the cause of his own death. End of story. No inquiry. If someone is silly enough to commit suicide because he was outed (whether by the Government or not) as a whistle-blower, that is his look-out and nothing to do with the Government.
In any event, Australian Governments rarely, if ever, initiate inquiries into allegations of their own misconduct. And if they do, the inquirer is certainly not as robustly independent as Hutton; the result of the inquiry is largely foreknown; and a scapegoat has been ear-marked for sacrifice before the inquiry starts.
But perhaps Blair’s abundance self-righteousness made him forget these fundamental rules of political survival.
On university fees, Australian Labor Treasurer John Dawkins introduced the educate now, pay later scheme in the 1980s. The scheme has been adopted by many countries. The middle classes copped it because they did not have to pay upfront; rather their children were required to pay later. And the poorer classes were not excluded from university on grounds of money alone.
Blair wanted to increase the fees substantially. He tried to please all. The universities would get extra money. The left would be happy because the middle classes would have to pay for their higher education leaving more money for other things. The right would be happy because this was classic user-pays stuff.
But in the end Blair has pleased none. He has watered down the proposals in the face of left opposition that believes in free (or at least as free as possible), universal education. That has meant that the universities would not get the promised funds. And the watering down has not appeased the left.
Again, it is an unlikely scenario in Australia. Crossing the floor is rare. Even threats of revolt are rare. But in Britain, the large size of the House of Commons combined with the voting system can give very large majorities to Governments. Revolts have not usually threatened Government defeat, so they are not taken as seriously. Smaller majorities in Australia tend to focus the minds of MPs and their Whips. Moreover, most Australian MPs hear the ministerial call much more clearly than the sounds of high principle.
The fees, though, are a sidebar. The main question is the Hutton inquiry.
Whether the Government authorised the leaking of Kelly’s name is perhaps of lesser moment than other questions. As usual with these things, it is the cover-up and lying about it afterwards that gives the game away for a Government. Hutton may exonerate Blair on the semantic point — that he authorised the confirmation of the name, not its leaking. But that might still erode Blair’s credibility.
Of more importance, though, is not the death of the scientist but the reasons for Britain going to war and how those reasons were put to the public before the war began. Was the decision to go to war to protect Britain against a madman who would unleash weapons of mass destruction at Britain and British interests with less than 45 minutes warning? Or was it to rid the world of a heinous dictator?
Before the war, political leaders stressed the former. After the war, when no weapons were found, political leaders stressed the latter.
It has been the same in Australia, but it is a debate that Prime Minister John Howard has largely been able to ignore.
In part this may be due to historic differences in the attitudes of each country to the question of going to war. Australia has only ever gone to war to be at the side of Britain or the US. That, in itself, has been justification enough.
In Britain though, an imperial position has made the act of going to war far more subject to public questioning over the past couple of centuries. Did the nation go to war to protect itself? If yes, fine for everyone. Did the nation go to war on some matter of principle like a British subject or others being mistreated by a nasty tyrant? If yes, fine for some – late 19th century Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone, Christian missionaries and so on. But fine provided everyone knows and it is explained and debated beforehand. Did the nation go to war to protect its interests and its empire? If yes, fine for some – late 19th century Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Cecil Rhodes, Stamford Raffles and the like – but definitely not for others.
This is Blair’s historic difficulty. He wants to fit the Iraqi war into the first category, but now weapons of mass destruction have not been found he might have to take the second category with the added thorn of not having explained that this was the reason for war before the event (unlike, say, Margaret Thatcher before the Falklands War).
Many might think that, sure, Saddam was a tyrant, but if you are going to topple him on those grounds, why not also topple Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and a host of others – hence the need to explain such a foray first.
Others might think the Iraq war fitted the third category from Day 1, and hence was unacceptable.
In any event, the historic context of Blair’s declaration in crucial, and explains why he is in trouble.
In Australia, on the other hand, the Prime Minister said before, during and after that we were joining our great allies the Americans (and to a lesser extent the British). For Howard, it makes it politically easier (leaving conscience and independent thinking aside). Whatever unravels in Britain or America, his decision holds water. We went in good faith because they wanted us to go.
Perhaps this is why the Iraq war is not a political issue in Australia whereas in Britain Tony Blair’s Prime Ministership might well be lost because of it.