In the millions of words written about Blair's premiership, there's one that, with an honourable exception, has hardly been used - counterfactual.
How would recent history look if someone other than Blair had been PM? It's only this question that allows us to judge Blair's actual contribution.
But of course, there's no way of knowing this. Most people make one of two errors. One is to assume a very bad counterfactual: what if the Tories had stayed in power? The other - and I might be guilty of this - is to assume an impossible ideal. By one standard, Blair's done great; by the other bad.
But the problem is, neither of these counterfactuals is a feasible alternative. Between 1997 and 2006 there was no public appetite for either Tory or left-libertarian government.
So what is the relevant, feasible counterfactual? I don't know; at best, counterfactuals can only be vaguely plausible. Which means I don't know for sure what Blair's contribution to history has been.
This difficulty of establishing counterfactuals is one reason why the social sciences have traditionally made less progress than many natural sciences. It's harder in the social sciences - though far from impossible - to conduct experiments to isolate counterfactuals.
Despite this, the commentariat have seemed remarkably certain in their judgments of Blair.
Could it be, then, that these judgments - of both supporters and opponents - are motivated more by tribalism than by rigorous social science?
"rigorous social science": you excel yourself.
Posted by: dearieme | May 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
The two obvious counterfactuals are; 1. John Smith doesn't die and becomes PM in 1997; 2. Brown has the photos of Blair, and gets the job when Smith dies, becoming PM in 1997.
In terms of domestic policy, I suspect the only significant difference would relate to the NHS. Smith would have adopted a defensive strategy which would have left the service in just as much financial difficulty as it is now, because although he wouldn't have been suckered for massive IT money sinks, nor would he have been able to find a coherent approach to the allocation of scarce resources. Brown might have been equal to finding a more radical strategy such as he appears to be advocating now; however, you form a cabinet from the political cadre you have, not the one you might like, and I don't know who would have been capable of implementing it for him.
On education, taxation, trade and human rights, I doubt if we'd have seen any difference, given the global political climate.
Internationally, neither Smith nor Brown would have been instinctive grandstanders like Blair, and Britain would probably have pulled out of Iraq about the same time as Spain.
All in all, not very exciting, as counterfacuals go, but not being in Iraq would be nice.
Posted by: chris y | May 13, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Brown would have modernised the civil service and local government, thus bringing significant improvements to the quality and efficiency of public service delivery. Whether the Commons would have been more effective, giving us all more confidence in the political process, is something I hope others will comment on - of late, the Lords has had to shoulder a heavy burden.
Posted by: dreamingspire | May 13, 2007 at 03:19 PM
"not being in Iraq would be nice"
I'm sure there are 16 million Iraqis who'd fully agree on that one!
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 13, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Could it be, then, that these judgments - of both supporters and opponents - are motivated more by tribalism than by rigorous social science?
Could it be that Chris is a secret admirer of Sir John Junor?
I think we should be told.
Posted by: Phil Edwards | May 13, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Given the influence of Bush on Blair's later prime-ministership, you could always think about what might have happened if there had been a Blair/Gore alliance, or even Blair/Kerry.
A Gore presidency might have helped us to avoid some of the more authoritarian excesses of Blair's time in power.
Posted by: Thom | May 14, 2007 at 09:13 AM