Tony Blair announced the other day his decision to step down as prime minister in the next 12 months. The British prime minister was not specific, but he is likely to quit before May 4, 2007, when Scotland and Wales will hold elections for parliamentary assemblies, and England will vote for local authorities. An influential group in the ruling Labor Party would like to get rid of Blair before his procrastinated leadership brings it defeat.
Needless to say, the Brits have accumulated quite a few grievances against Blair during his almost ten-year-long stay at 10 Downing Street. The wealthy and the middle class cannot forgive him for higher taxes - nobody has ever liked that. The pensioners are displeased with the awkward attempts by the authorities to reform the National Health Service, and surgery waiting lists are not getting shorter. Local Muslims think that the enthusiastic struggle against terrorism is turning them into lepers who must be pushed to the outskirts of society.
The majority of Brits are accusing Blair of something they consider even worse - it is still unclear whether he was lying or made an honest mistake when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had the ability to use weapons of mass destruction in no more than 45 minutes. The weapons had not been found but the war against Iraq began. Moreover, Britain has been the U.S.'s most servile ally, a policy for which its soldiers have paid with their lives.
In spite of all this, the situation is not so gloomy. Along with his setbacks and mistakes, Blair has scored some successes. He has noticeably redistributed state allowances between social groups. Here are some figures: Since Labor's post-2001 reforms, the poorest 20% of Brits have received 11% more subsidies and allowances from the state. Meanwhile, the richest 10% have lost four percent a year in reduced state benefits.
This is an impressive result even in a welfare state. This is why many are prone to believe him when, waving his red Labor card in front of TV reporters, he says that his party is on the side of the many rather than the few and gives everyone an opportunity, not just the rich.
Blair's service record is not unequivocal, but it still would not seem quite fair if he had to quit before the end of his third term. The critics could be more patient.
But in effect, they have been waiting since 1997, when the post of prime minister went to Tony Blair as a result of some conspiracy or intrigue. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown might have been a more prominent Labor figure. During Blair's entire time in office, the 55-year-old Brown has been circling around him like a dog surprised to see a cat occupy his place in the basket.
Despite the presence of other hopefuls, like Home Secretary John Reid, today there is little doubt that Blair will give his position to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not yet know how exactly this is going to happen - in a way that Blair considers decent, that is, before the May elections, or as the result of an uproar, which his opponents may raise at the November Labor congress.
One way or another, Britain will go on without Blair, and it looks like it will change a little from how it is now. Its home policy is expected to go from Blair's New Labor course back to its old left-wing practices. Blair's supporters have demonstrably broken the traditional links with the trade unions, whereas Brown is quite at ease with their leaders and is ready to restore the old friendship. He detests the habit of Blair's entourage of wholly relying on political strategists. Motivated information leaks against his colleagues are not his style.
But home affairs are not too important for Moscow. It would be more interesting to see what will happen with UK foreign policy, especially in the London-Washington-Moscow triangle.
Vladimir Putin has a rather complicated history of dealing with Tony Blair. Almost the same age, the two leaders have got on well from the very start, which has produced obvious benefits for bilateral trade and economic relations. Britain ranks fifth in foreign investment in Russia after the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Cyprus, and Germany. According to recent estimates, that investment totals about 10 billion dollars. The example of BP shows that the two countries have good prospects for energy cooperation. Russian oil makes up almost a quarter of BP's production and profit margins.
Moscow and London have long been allies in the struggle against terrorism and drug trafficking. The joint working group on anti-terror, established in 2001 on the initiative of the two presidents, has done very much to get secret service professionals to trust each other. There is one more unusual area of cooperation - Britain is also taking part in the construction of a Russian plant for the destruction of chemical weapons.
But there are some gray clouds in this otherwise clear sky. The worst is the anti-Russian fuss kicked up by some new emigrants in London with the connivance of the authorities. Oligarch Boris Berezovsky calls for Putin's removal by force, and London has granted him refugee status and a passport under the fake name of Platon Elenin. Russia is accusing former Chechen field commander Akhmed Zakayev of setting up bandit units, killing 302 people, and kidnappings, but the British courts have helped him avoid extradition seven times. The Russian General Prosecutor's Office is seeking through Interpol to extradite about two dozen suspects who have found refuge in Britain.
In Moscow's view, this is not compatible with a true partnership, something London claims it has with Russia. Apparently, Tony Blair has a different idea of what a partnership is. It will be interesting to find out what his successor thinks on this score.
