June 8, 2001
Results so far for every constituency
|
I have just returned from Buckingham Palace, from my audience with the Queen.
I want to say what an enormous privilege and honour it is to be trusted with the government of this country and I am deeply conscious of that privilege and honour at this time.
I would like to congratulate all the MPs from whatever political party who have been elected to the House of Commons.
I would like also to say this word about my opponent in the election, Mr Hague.
Even though obviously I profoundly disagreed with many of the things he may have said during the course of this campaign, I thought he showed extraordinary stoicism and resilience in very difficult circumstances and I said to him in the early hours of this morning I wish him well, I wish him the very best of luck in the future.
It has been a remarkable and historic victory for my party but I am in no doubt at all as to what it means.
It is a mandate for reform and for investment in the future and it is also very clearly an instruction to deliver.
I have learnt many things over the past four years as prime minister. I have, I hope, learnt from the mistakes as well as the good things.
But above all else I have learnt of the importance of establishing the clear priorities of government, of setting them out clearly for people and then focusing on them relentlessly whatever events may come and go.
I believe there is an even greater obligation on us, on me, after re-election to tell people very clearly what are the difficult choices and challenges we face and how we work our way through them and that I will try to do.
So in the course of the campaign we have just had, I set out in a series of speeches the changes that I believe the country needs to see.
On the foundation of a strong economy, we need to keep it strong. We need to make sure that mortgages and inflation are as strong as possible.
But then on top of that we need to start building the economy of the future based on skills and talents and education and the application of technology, knowing that for this country in the future the forces of global competition and technological change mean that we can only compete on the basis of skill and ability, not low wages.
And then, we have the critical importance of investment in, and reform of, our public services, most particularly our National Health Service, our education system and our transport system.
Again here, from talking to people, from meeting them, from hearing their concerns over the past few weeks, that they may applaud the direction in which we wish to go, but they want us to do it as fast and as profoundly as we possibly can and that again is an obligation that we must discharge.
In our welfare system we need change too. We need to separate very clearly those who cannot work, who need security and protection and must have it, and those who can work but at present don't, who we must try to help off a life on benefit and into productive work.
Then there is the reform of our criminal justice system. There is no issue that touches our citizens more deeply than crime and law and order on our streets and we need to make the changes there so that we have a criminal justice system that punishes the criminal, but also offers those convicted of crime the chance to rehabilitate and get their way out of a life of crime.
Finally, in respect of Europe and the wider world, we need to make changes there too so that we are engaged, exerting influence, having the self belief not to turn our back on the world or retreat into isolationism.
These changes will not be easy. But Britain is a very special country and its people are a very special people and our very best quality is our ability, when we need to do so, to face up to and overcome the challenge of change.
All those changes are for one purpose and that again is the purpose I have tried to set out in the few weeks of this campaign and will try to set out again in the years to come.
And the purpose of each and every change that we make must be this - to create a society which is a genuine open, meritocratic nation where we have laid to one side the old adage about knowing your place and where the only place that any man, woman or child knows is the place that their talents take them, where we create a country genuinely where not just a few people at the top, but everyone, every one of our citizens gets the chance to fulfil their true potential.
I believe in the last four years we have laid foundations. I believe our victory in this election shows the British people understand we have laid foundations but now is the time to build upon them. Thank you.
JOE CONASON
June 15, 2001
 |
Americans pay scarce attention to our own democratic processes, let alone those taking place in other countries, including what we used to call the mother country. Both reason and superstition, however, suggest that the historic romp of Tony Blair’s Labor Party is a significant event for the United States as well—and a warning to conservatives here and abroad.
To sober analysts, the overwhelming reelection of Mr. Blair signals the rejection of American policy by our closest ally and the decline of America’s international prestige. In the nation whose leaders have often mediated disputes between the United States and other European nations, there is simply no public support for the Bush administration’s discredited and increasingly disorganized approach to issues of global concern.
To politicians and pundits who have always detected signs of ideological synchronicity between the United States and the United Kingdom—as they did during the Tory era—the crushing defeat of the right over there is bad news for conservatives here. Those who once took comfort from the rise of Margaret Thatcher probably took a drink that was more gin than tonic as they observed the ruin of William Hague.
The British election was an inauspicious prelude to George W. Bush’s first tour of Europe, and the reaction of the White House has once more revealed that his “grown-up” advisers are as incompetent and confused as their boss. Suddenly Mr. Bush is in retreat from the arrogant posturing that characterized his first months in office on almost every policy question, from relations with North Korea and Russia to arms control and the global environment.
As he arrived on a continent that abhors the death penalty, the President even proffered an incomprehensible refinement to his position on capital punishment, announcing abruptly that he thinks mentally retarded killers do not deserve execution, except when they do. A White House spokeswoman was unable to explain what distinction Mr. Bush had in mind.
Equally inexplicable is what kind of “leadership” Mr. Bush expects to provide on arms control and global warming. His administration has proclaimed its intention to abandon the anti-ballistic-missile treaty and construct a “missile shield.” But as European leaders will learn again this week, there is no actual plan for a missile shield (because no reliable technology exists). There is only the implacable hostility of Republican ideologues to international security cooperation. Having forfeited the world’s confidence by scuttling the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and slashing Russian nuclear-control programs, Mr. Bush is in no position to lead anyone anywhere.
The American message on global warming is equally garbled. On the eve of Mr. Bush’s departure, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, a former lobbyist for the auto industry, assailed the Europeans for their own supposed reluctance to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Then Mr. Bush, who unilaterally killed that treaty three months ago, called for “further study” of the problem. This is the same dodge he used during his campaign last year. It won’t work now.
All this fumbling and deception has left little space for Mr. Blair to rescue the President even if he were disposed to do so, which he isn’t. To the extent that Mr. Hague symbolized acceptance of American policies, that position was repudiated by nearly two-thirds of the traditionally friendly British electorate. In the continent’s other capitals, Mr. Bush’s prospects are still worse.
If the Blair victory exposes the weakness of Republican foreign policy, it also indicates a direction for Democratic domestic strategy. While much commentary about Mr. Blair tends to emphasize his efforts to move his party toward the center, he fought and won the election on a renewed commitment to better health and education for all. Quite explicitly, he called upon voters to repudiate Thatcherism, along with his opponent’s imitation of that dated philosophy.
For the moment, no prominent Democrat dares to pronounce such clear differences with conservatism and to articulate a progressive alternative. The party’s leadership in Congress feels constrained to appear “bipartisan,” muting its dissent and disappointing its constituency. Even leaving aside the disputed and undemocratic election result, they seem to have forgotten the voters’ endorsement of progressive policy last November, when 52 percent of the votes cast went to either Al Gore or Ralph Nader.
It would be an obvious mistake to draw too close a comparison between British politics and our own; the great differences of system and temperament can’t be ignored or elided. As one Brit wit put it the other day, with comedic license, under their system the candidate who gets the most votes is the winner.
At the very least, however, the British election of 2001 represents the exhaustion of a conservative ideology that has defined politics in both countries over the past two decades. That is why Mr. Blair’s triumph this year may be as salient for us now as Mrs. Thatcher’s three victories once were. And the first Democratic politician who understands and acts upon that transatlantic shift will have the strongest claim on the future.
IE users and Netscape version < 4 users