Tony Blair Announces Resignation

Washington Post London reporter Kevin Sullivan and The Times of London political reporter Sam Coates were online Thursday, May 10 at 3 p.m. to examine Tony Blair's decision to resign and how the transition to new U.K. leadership will work.

Britain's Blair Announces His Resignation (Post, May 10)

The transcript follows.

Video. Blair: Ten Years 'Long Enough For Me' (AP)

____________________

Wellesley, Mass.: It appears Gordon Brown will become the new Prime Minister of the U.K. What can we expect from him regarding the Iraq war -- any change, or more of the same?

Sam Coates: British troop levels are already being reduced, although nobody knows Gordon Brown's exact intentions.

Tony Blair told Parliament in February that British troop levels would be cut from 7,100 to 5,000 by the end of the summer, with further cuts by the end of the year if all went well. The draw-down is about to start, although we have a specific date because the timing coincides with Mr. Blair's departure.

Mr. Brown echoed this on his recent trip to Iraq, where he said British troops could withdraw in a "few months," but stressed he wants to see Iraq running its own affairs. This suggests that he is unlikely to bring them home much faster than Blair's timetable, which was expected to take 12-18 months in total. But if he wants to signal more of a break with Mr. Blair, he could do it faster.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: At this point, the 64,000-pound question seems to be: Will Gordon Brown call for a snap election after taking over the Labour leadership? I'm presuming Sir Ming's move for a dissolution has about as much chance of success as Neil Kinnock's no-confidence motion in November 1990, but the fact that Blair pledged to serve a "full term" may not only haunt him, but also Brown as well -- because Blair's language implicitly guaranteed the country a say in choosing his successor.

If there is no election, the Tories and Lib Dems can claim first that this is another broken Labour promise, and also portray Brown as hunkering down in attempt to forestall an election defeat. Delaying elections didn't work for Major a decade ago, nor for Callaghan two decades before that -- in fact, it probably made each of their defeats that much worse. So does Brown try to have a go with the country in a few months' time, or hope he can turn things round in the next 18-24 months before the normal window for a general election?

Sam Coates: In short, no. Here's my reasoning.

1. Gordon Brown said so. A fortnight ago, he said: "I didn't hear the Conservatives calling for a general election the minute that John Major took over in 1990. Nor did people say that on the other occasions in British history."

2. He needs time to unveil the policies he has spent ten years preparing, and he will hope these feed through into the opinion polls.

3. He seems simply unlikely to want to take the risk. Having waited this long to become PM, why chance of giving it all up already?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Who do you see as Brown's successor at Number 11 -- and, just as important, will the next Chancellor have anything near as much control over the economy and spending as Gordon? Or do you even see Brown following in the footsteps of Gladstone and Chamberlain and serving as his own Chancellor?

Sam Coates: On who is the next successor to Gordon Brown, it's easy to pick names out of a hat -- the youthful David Miliband is often mentioned, for instance -- but there are too many imponderables. To give you the boring answer, it depends how long Gordon holds on, how he performs and who is around when he leaves and the result of the next general election.

On your second question, it seems unlikely that Gordon Brown would allow his successor as much of a free reign as he had. Why do that to yourself? The Treasury has large power because it sets performance agreements that all the other departments, such as health and education, have to adhere to. Whether this will continue or this moves to 10 Downing Street remains to be seen.

Of course, we discovered only this week that Tony Blair wanted to "break up" the Treasury into smaller, less powerful parts.

_______________________

Kevin Sullivan: Hello everyone, and greetings from London. My friend Sam Coates is so eager to get started that he jumped the gun with a couple of answers. So let's keep the ball rolling.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I turned on CNN as Blair's announcement was aired live, but turned it off after several minutes of self-congratulatory comments. He certainly seemed full of himself -- or maybe just trying to put the best face on what is not a universally admired administration as he departs. If a poll were taken in the U.K. today, how many would say "good job!" and how many "good riddance!"?

Kevin Sullivan: Well, that seems a bit harsh. I thought the tone was actually quite humble, and if he can't use his farewell speech to make his best case for his accomplishments, when can he? Your poll question actually has an answer: Blair has 28 percent approval rating in the latest poll -- he peaked at 75 percent in September 1997. So there is quite a strong good riddance chorus out there -- remains to be seen how Blair's legacy will play out in the coming months. There are those who argue that nostalgia will set in fast, although I did have a couple of e-mails today suggesting that Blair be tried for war crimes. So who knows...

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: I know this is an imperfect analogy, but I cannot help but compare Tony Blair's exit with that of Bill Clinton. The triangulation, personal charisma, success at co-opting conservative ideas towards progressive triumphs -- and also one fatal decision that eclipsed several achievements, lack of a cohesive ideological legacy and a successor that did not embrace them whole-heartedly. Agree/disagree?

Kevin Sullivan: Sure it's an imperfect analogy, but an interesting one. Blair and Clinton really do have a lot in common, both stylistically and in political philosophy. Iraq and the concept of pre-emptive war, presumably, being a major difference (but who knows how Clinton would have responded to 9/11.

Blair, like Clinton, has an unclear legacy at the moment, although it seems a good bet that Iraq will be a dominant factor. And Blair, like Clinton, doesn't have a successor who seems eager to praise him to the heavens. In terms of post-office life, a key differences that has been mentioned here is that Clinton's party still adores him, while Labour has a much more divided view of Blair.

_______________________

Exeter, England: For me, a great supporter of Margaret Thatcher, Blair has been a total disaster for the U.K. I base that view on the "open borders" he is responsible for, which have allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants to flood into the country, putting enormous strain on the social fabric of the country; his illegal attack on Iraq on the basis of lies he told to Parliament and the nation, one consequence of which has seen British homegrown Muslim terrorists murder more than 50 people in London bombings; his destruction of the best pension system in the world by robbing it of some $10 billion a year; a failing National Health Service; higher serious crime levels; and the dumbing-down of education. But perhaps most important for me is his contempt for Parliament and the U.K.'s history, traditions and institutions. To most American eyes he is a paragon of virtue when measured against the U.S. president, but here in England he is widely despised for his lies, spin, deceit, incompetence and corruption.

Kevin Sullivan: I'm delighted that you wrote, because you very articulately lay out the case that so many people here make against Blair. It is, of course, a fairly extreme view of Blair's years in office, but I think it will help our readers in the states understand the level of feeling against Blair in some quarters in Britain (particularly among those who identify themselves as "a great supporter of Margaret Thatcher).

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Iraq will certainly cast a long shadow over Blair's legacy, but as a hypothetical, what if it never happened? What would be the dominant policy, accomplishment or failing that Blair would be remembered for?

Sam Coates: The biggest universally acknowledged accomplishment is peace in Northern Ireland, which was sealed this week.

Another area he changed the political consensus on was the introduction of a minimum wage, which is highly unlikely to be abolished even if an opposition party come into power.

Blair has changed the political landscape to a certain extent, bringing the center-right Conservative party closer to the middle ground of British politics.

Mr. Blair also would say his legacy was massive investment in public services, which have received huge investment. Currently there is much argument on this element of his legacy, and I think when the dust settles the record here will be some triumphs but some areas where they have stagnated or got worse.

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wisc.: Could you talk for a moment on how Tony Blair as Prime Minister compared with Margaret Thatcher? Obviously their views and priorities diverged in some areas (Europe) and were similar in others (keeping a close relationship with America). Blair was far more personable. It seemed to me that Thatcher, overall, got more accomplished. I also wonder whether Thatcher, committed though she was to the Atlantic relationship, would have allowed herself to be pushed around by President Bush as Blair did so often. What do you think?

Kevin Sullivan: Let me take the last part of your question, because it gets at a primary question about Blair: Why did he not push back more against Bush on Iraq? Clearly part of the answer is that he believed, and still believes, in the cause. Another part, as we tried to explain in today's story on page one, is that Blair was an interventionist long before Bush left Texas, and he had been talking about Saddam since 1997. And he also believes, to his marrow, that Britain is best served by a PM who stays very close to the U.S. president to try to influence policy. Lots of people here say that essentially trapped Blair: He was on the record wanting Saddam out, and his instincts told him not to let Bush go it alone. So it was hard for him to change tack. Obviously there's more going on -- but that's the prevailing theory among many here about why Blair seemed so un-Thatcher-esque in his dealings. Most people here believe Thatcher would have demanded many more conditions for British participation in the war.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is Gordon Brown the first Scottish Prime Minister? And also, is it possible some ministers would go? Cameron said this week in the Commons that Margaret Beckett wouldn't be around -- didn't she use a barnyard epithet when appointed Foreign Secretary last year? She also looks far too much like Princess Anne for comfort. I agree with Cameron -- the "living dead" Labour front bench looks like a bunch of "spent volcanoes," as once said of Gladstone's cabinet in the 1800s.

Sam Coates: Ironically of course Tony Blair is Scottish, having been born in Edinburgh. Not that you would ever know it because he always appears about as southern as they come. I have to confess my knowledge of other Scottish Prime ministers is nonexistent and I could Google but that would be cheating.

Yes, I think there's going to be a rather dramatic reshuffle in Brown's first Cabinet. Beckett looks likely to be moved, John Reid the Home Secretary has announced he's quitting, as is the Deputy Prime Minister, so there are going to be lots of vacancies.

Gordon Brown will be bringing up as much young talent -- ministers in their mid- to late-30s -- into the Cabinet precisely to avoid the 'living dead' epithet.

_______________________

Baltimore: In reading The Post's piece on Blair this morning, I thought it extremely interesting that Bill Clinton said to him following the 2000 election, "don't get as close to Bush as you have to me." Do you believe that Clinton knew Bush would lead Blair down a dead end street politically?

Kevin Sullivan: The quote was actually the opposite -- Clinton advised Blair to get as close to Bush as he had been to him (if it doesn't say that in the paper, it's a bad typo!). Clinton also told Blair not to underestimate Bush. Blair took all that advice to heart.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Do you anticipate Brown's somewhat crusty demeanor working for or against him in the court of widespread public acceptance? Could it actually be an antidote to some of the criticisms against Blair?

Kevin Sullivan: Great question. One of the things that drives some people here nuts about Blair (especially the "supporters of Margaret Thatcher") is that he seems a bit too much like a game-show host -- a little too smooth. Fair or not, that's the rap. So maybe somebody like Brown, who considers all options carefully and studies facial policy alternatives before deciding to smile, is just what a certain segment of the population here is craving.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Bigger tormentor/nuisance for a Gordon Brown government: Tony Blair or Alex Salmond?

Sam Coates: TB frequently has said he doesn't want to be a back-seat driver. Whether, unlike Mrs. T, he succeeds is a question we don't yet know the answer to.

But the Blairs need money, not least to pay for their mortgage on the huge property in a sharp square in one of the most expensive parts of London. So Blair will have to do speeches and events, and possibly take some non-exec directorships to pay the bills. And of course, write his memoirs.

But the speeches, and particularly the memoirs, may hold some problems for Gordon, so watch this space.

As for the SNP's Alex Salmond -- who won votes campaigning for an independent Scotland -- the Brown strategy is likely to be quite interesting. Presuming he does become first minister in Scotland -- and that hasn't been resolved -- he will be irritating, but it just seems unlikely to be able to force through a referendum splitting Scotland from the UK. His room for maneuver will also be limited because his party didn't win an outright majority in last week's Scottish Parliamentary elections, so he probably only will have limited powers.

Two years of disastrous Salmond, would help Brown at the next General Election, likely in 2009

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If Clinton told Blair to get close to Bush, then it does appear there was a typo in your piece this morning -- here's the paragraph from the article, with the errant "not" included: While Blair was nervous about meeting Bush, Riddell said, he was determined to follow advice from Clinton, who told him not to "get as close to George Bush as you have to me." Meyer, who was present for the first encounter, said: "They hit it off right away. He was in awe of Bill Clinton, but he found in George W. a blunt directness that he liked."

Kevin Sullivan: Well that's extremely unfortunate. I hope it hasn't misled too many people. As I said, Clinton's advice to Blair was clear: hug bush close.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Was pressure for Blair to resign coming primarily from inside or outside the Labour Party? Were there strong concerns, as there seem to be here, that Blair could drag the party out of power in the next election?

Sam Coates: The moment the 2005 general election was won by Blair, various elements inside the Labour Party started agitating. Some wanted Gordon Brown to be leader immediately, some just didn't want Blair, but there was something of a mini-revolt. There was a bigger problem a year later at the local elections, and finally a full-scale Labour party revolt last September by MPs who wanted him to go.

This, ultimately, speeded up Mr. Blair's exit. He of course wanted to stay a full third term.

_______________________

Freising, Germany: It's quite a paradox to read a review of the a book about Churchill's rise to power and the end of Chamberlain's appeasement policy towards the Nazis ("Troublesome Young Men" by Lynne Olson) and then read about the overshadowing of Blair's legacy by the Iraq War. It seems that while both Blair and Churchill had similar goals, Churchill is considered to be the most famous Briton of the past century and Blair's popularity has plummeted. Is there a chance that the history books will remember Blair for anything else than the Iraq War?

Kevin Sullivan: Legacy questions are tricky, and some leaders seem to fare far better in public memory simply by dying. I think most people think Iraq is the obvious dominant factor now, but that could change given time, depending on long-term events in that part of the world. It seems unlikely that Blair (or Churchill) will be remembered for their education policies, but there is some thinking here among optimists that maybe Blair's Iraq legacy won't be so awful over time. And then there are those e-mails calling for him to be tried for war crimes. That's for the historians...

_______________________

Kevin Sullivan: Thanks very much for all the great questions. Stay tuned -- there will be a lot more happening on British politics in the coming weeks!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.