Kmflett's Blog

Once again on ‘Sir’ Tony Blair-what was the legacy?

A letter in the Guardian (10/1) manages to link Steve Bell, Simon Jenkins and myself as criticising the Knighthood for Tony Blair and argues that the right shouldn’t define Blair’s legacy. I don’t think the writer meant that this glorious triumvirate were on the ‘right’ since Steve Bell and myself are perpetually wandering around somewhere on the left and Simon Jenkins isn’t that right-wing

Even so the letter has a point. Of course there are people on the right who don’t like Blair. He was after all a Labour PM and successful at getting elected three times. He pursued to some extent an agenda around improving education and health unlike Governments from 2010.

This in part is the problem with petitions, like referendums. The one saying he shouldn’t get a Knighthood (which I’ve signed along with over a million others) can be supported by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons.

As my recent Guardian Fletter made clear the concern is that the Knighthood is more than anything an official attempt to draw a line under the Iraq War. Yet the demonstration against the War on 15^th February 2003 remains the biggest ever in UK history and many think there is outstanding business not least for Blair.

As for Blair’s domestic agenda the letter focuses on the Good Friday agreement. I don’t know how much this was Blair’s work and I regarded its precise format as flawed but it can perhaps be seen broadly as a step forward. Its certainly one the current PM would not have been bothered with.

The rest of Blair’s domestic agenda is in my view very mixed like the Curate’s egg. Privateers were introduced into the NHS to their own but not our benefit, something Labour remains keen on. Rail was not re-nationalised as it should have been and we’ve been paying the price ever since.

One thing we can perhaps all agree on is that as Keir Starmer noted last week Johnson will have no positive legacy worth discussing and certainly shouldn’t get a Knighthood. Starmer of course already has one.

Don’t let the right redefine Tony Blair’s legacy

Those Conservative voices opposing Blair’s knighthood seek only to undermine New Labour’s achievements, from the Belfast agreement to public sector investment, writes Paul Clarke

Letters

Steve Bell, Keith Flett (Letters, 5 January) and Simon Jenkins (‘Sir Tony Blair’? How cheaply knighthoods come in our broken honours system, 5 January) represent a formidable trio to engage in a quarrel for which few Guardian readers would choose to build the barricades: the elevation of a discredited former prime minister to an outdated institution through a corrupted honours system.

Nonetheless, there is arguably a danger in acquiescing in the attack on Tony Blair orchestrated by the press and others on the right that is greater than marching to the front in a lost cause. The case rests on the motives behind this denigration and its intended outcomes. The right have no particular quarrel with bellicosity, under-regulation of financial markets or lucrative consultancies in Kazakhstan.

The real – but concealed – target of their attack is the substantial body of achievement under New Labour: restoring the NHS, rebuilding schools and colleges, establishing Sure Start and committing, more broadly, to an idea of social justice that has since been sacrificed.

Equally important, one of Blair’s finest achievements was surely the Belfast agreement, reflecting his tireless energy and ability to engage with the key players.

Since Brexit requires either a border across the island of Ireland or down the Irish Sea, the posturings of Lord Frost and now Liz Truss pose a real threat to the agreement, and those that support this manifest folly have a vested interest in pretending there is nothing substantial to lose.

The attack on Blair is surely designed to airbrush his most historic achievement out of the record altogether. For no other reason than that, Sir Tony Blair deserves our unwavering support.

Paul Clarke