Search

This paper reviews the last year in British politics with an emphasis on government, complementing Anthony King’s presentation on politics. It covers the tense relationship between Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Brown; the Butler Report; the role of the Bank of England in economic policy-making; the effective delivery of public services, especially health; and the role of Britain in the EU. It concludes by suggesting that there is a new upsurge of populist opposition to the political class in Britain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine the record of the three Blair administrations and will cover the period from his first election victory in May 1997 until shortly after the end of the UK Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers in December 2005. It will argue that during this period the UK and the EU have significantly moved towards one another and that the Blair governments have rescued the UK-EU relationship from the appalling state that it had descended into by the end of the long period of Conservative rule. However it will also argue that Tony Blair has failed utterly in his stated objective of creating a domestic consensus for the European policies that his government wishes to pursue. By 2005 the Blair government found itself committed to referenda that it knew that it could not win on both the question of the Constitutional Treaty and the Euro. The paper will examine all aspects of Blair?s EU policy but will include a particular focus on his attempts to resolve Britain?s long standing foreign policy dilemma of reconciling its European (EU) and Transatlantic (US)relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the principal rhetorical strategies used by the architects of New Labour?s European policy to counter the popular appeal of Euroscepticism in Britain since 1997, concentrating on speeches made about Europe by Tony Blair, Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown. The first and most common approach is to highlight how Britain is missing opportunities in Europe by staying out of schemes for closer integration, such as the euro. The second approach is to emphasise how British society, culture and values have always been intertwined with those of other key European nation states. The paper argues that both strategies seek to rewrite British history for the public, but do so in a way that neglects the influence the British national story has over the public through its presentation on television, in the print media and, crucially, in national curricula for history education. Playing the Eurosceptics at the history game, the paper argues, is unlikely to be a decisive method of convincing the notoriously sceptical British public to vote to ratify either the EU constitution or, later, to agree to British membership of the eurozone. Through this analysis, the paper sheds important light firstly on the failure of the European lobbies in Britain since 1945 to sell the ?European? message to the British public, secondly on the half-hearted efforts by the Blair governments to sell the idea of a European future for Britain to the country, and thirdly on the ways in which European affairs continue in Britain to be written into the British national story. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blair came to power in 1997 promising that Britain would once again be a ?force for good in the world?. Labour?s supporters were expecting a more principled foreign policy. However, the most significant aspect of Blair?s foreign policy has been the frequency and scale of the use of force ? a foreign policy tool which Blair had not even commented on before he came to power. In the case of military intervention in Iraq, many commentators have been left with the view that a Labour government?s principled foreign policy was pushed off course through the influence of the US administration. Similar arguments were made about the Attlee and Wilson governments. This paper will argue that Blair?s war-like stance has not been due to any short-term desire to please America, but reflects his understanding of moral responsibility in the international arena. Blair?s enduring claim of his use of force that ?it was the right thing to do? is not a cynical attempt to sway public opinion, but a genuine reflection of his political outlook. Blair was predisposed to use force in Iraq against a dictator, as, after all, the use of military force had worked well in the earlier Kosovo conflict. However, the result is that British foreign policy looks much the same in 2007 as it did in 1987, and Blair?s legacy will be the enduring projection of power politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proposed Abstract - Since coming into power in 1997 Prime Minister Tony Blair has shown a penchant for the use of the military as part of his foreign and security policy. Over the subsequent decade we have seen British forces engaged in an increasingkly diverse and global range of operations ranging from the Balkans, to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. This paper will argue that the overuse of the military lever is leading to its fracturing. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I demonstrate that the British public was opposed to intervention in Iraq in the circumstances in which the war was fought: without UN approval and UN weapons inspectors’ discovery of WMD. This makes the British case particularly interesting as it runs counter to the oft-hypothesized constraining influence of public opinion on unpopular foreign adventures. Why, then, did Tony Blair challenge public opinion and commit forces to the invasion? I argue that the public opinion â€" foreign policy linkage is mediated by the beliefs and style of decision makers, and that Blair was prepared to commit forces and imperil his domestic position because, ultimately, he believed it was “the right thing to do”. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]