I keep meeting people with a dilemma. On the one hand, they want to see a swift, successful outcome of President Bush’s crusade against Iraq. On the other, if the war goes horribly wrong, they perceive a chance to get rid of Tony Blair.
The vision fills them with an ecstasy normally reserved for winning the lottery, catching a salmon of more than 30lb, or seeing a financial services adviser suspended on a spit over a crackling fire. This Prime Minister nowadays provokes extraordinary passion. Among his predecessors, John Major was seen as an object of pity. Even Mrs Thatcher in her poll-tax days did not command the sort of cross-party loathing Blair has achieved. Jim Callaghan retained a certain public affection, even at the depths of his Winter of Discontent.
God has something to do with attitudes to Blair. Many people, who recognise that all politicians behave badly, recoil from the aura of rectitude in which he clothes himself, even when he is doing something wretched. Amid the shot and shell he is now receiving from his own party, Tony Blair’s body language suggests, Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do. This does not play well among poor sinners.
Yet before we become too carried away by the possibility of seeing the current tenant’s Downing Street lease terminated, stop and think about the alternative. If Blair goes, we shall not see him replaced by Iain Duncan Smith, David Blunkett, Disraeli or the Emperor Claudius. Our prime minister will be Gordon Brown. If that happens, many of the people now baying for Blair’s blood will quickly become contrite.
The Chancellor has been playing his cards with ruthless skill. He has forged an alliance with some important people, including right-wing newspaper editors, whom he has persuaded that he is the only political bastion between Britain and the euro.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in