Diary – 3 April 2004

Has any prime minister been quite so insulated from Parliament and Cabinet? Blair’s solo performance last week, as he flew from Madrid to Libya to Brussels with his plane-load of captive journalists, was another reminder of how far Britain’s foreign policy revolves around a single man; while the procession departing from No. 10 has left him personally more isolated. As I’ve been inspecting again the Anatomy of Britain, I’ve been looking for times when No. 10 was similarly holed up over the last half-century. It’s true that Macmillan, Wilson and Thatcher were often accused of overcentralising power, but they all kept closer links with Parliament than has Blair, even in a crisis. The closest parallel was Sir Anthony Eden in 1956, as I’m reminded by his sympathetic new biographer D.R. Thorpe. Eden appeared similarly isolated after the Suez war — before the doctors came. In fact the Iraq war is now showing still more resemblances to Suez: both prime ministers ignored warnings from lawyers, diplomats and the military when they went to war. And contrary to popular myths about ‘oil wars’, they both ignored the interests of the oil companies. Eden claimed to be defending Britain’s interests, yet the companies with most to lose, Shell and BP, were against the Suez war (as I realised when I later wrote a book about them). And a year ago Lord Browne of BP and Sir Philip Watts of Shell were likewise warning against a war which they feared would disrupt their supplies — with good reason, as the high oil-price now testifies.

No. 10 is certainly looking more like a fortress under siege; but the exception is Lord Falconer, whose relaxed metabolism seems immune to any worry. Blair clearly needs him not only as a loyal friend but also as a kind of court jester who can defuse any tension.