Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before invasion

There has been all sorts of evidence that Blair deceived the British populace but this is another example of his lying because in his evidence he said that it was only after 9/11 that serious attention was given towards a policy of regime change. It seems not to matter that Blair often contradicts himself. He is always certain of his moral rectitude. Towards Bush he always maintained a loyal moral rectum kissing. This is from the Independent.



Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion

Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil and trade deals in return for regime change

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent






A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.


Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law. ....

"The Iraqi people have the right to live in a society based on the rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest; to enjoy respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity," the contract reads. "The record of the current regime in Iraq suggests that its priorities remain elsewhere.

"Those who wish to promote change in Iraq deserve our support," it concludes. "We look forward to the day when Iraq rejoins the international community." A new regime was to be offered "debt rescheduling" through the Paris Club, an informal group of the richest 19 economies, given help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and handed an EU aid and trade deal. Companies were to be invited to invest in its oil fields. A "comprehensive retraining programme" was to be offered to Iraqi professionals.

During his evidence to the inquiry last week, Mr Blair said it was only after 9/11 that serious attention was given to removing Saddam as the attack changed the "calculus of risk". However, another classified document released by the Iraq inquiry on Friday night showed that No 10 explicitly saw the Contract with the Iraqi People as an early tool to remove the former Iraqi dictator. A memo issued in March 2001 by Sir John Sawers, then Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, cited the document under the heading "regime change".

"Regime change. The US and UK would re-make the case against Saddam Hussein. We would issue a Contract with the Iraqi People, setting out our goal of a peaceful, law-abiding Iraq," the memo states. "The Contract would make clear that the Iraqi regime's record and behaviour made it impossible for Iraq to meet the criteria for rejoining the international community without fundamental change."

Officials planned to release the contract alongside tougher sanctions against Saddam's regime being negotiated in 2001. When no agreement was reached and the US began to seek more active measures to remove the Baghdad administration after 9/11, the contract was dropped.

The document was not released by the Iraq inquiry, despite being cited as significant by Foreign Office officials. Sir William Patey, the Government's head of Middle East policy at the time it was drafted, said it was "our way in the Foreign Office of trying to signal that we didn't think Saddam was a good thing and it would be great if he went". He said it was used in place of an "explicit policy of trying to get rid of him".

"It was a way of signalling to the Iraqi people that because we don't have a policy of regime change, it doesn't mean to say we're happy with Saddam Hussein, and there is life after Saddam with Iraq being reintegrated into the international community," he said.

Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."

* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

A solid war crime case against Tony Blair

While there may be a good case for prosecuting Blair for war crimes it is certainly unlikely anything will ever happen. Blair is quite willing to claim given his supreme moral arrogance that it would be quite OK for him to have gone to war just to remove Hussein since he was such a bad guy. No doubt Hussein was no saint but that surely does not give another country the right to invade and overthrow him. Sanctioning such actions is a recipe for continued international disaster and as this article notes quite counter to international law. I find Blair an even more detestable leader than Bush.





War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid



By Neil Clark

December 16, 2009 "The First Post" - -- Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes.

The case against Blair, strong enough before this latest comment, now appears rock solid. Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Blair's admission, that he "would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam]" regardless of the WMD issue, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he [Saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation."

The view that Blair is a war criminal is now mainstream: when comedian Sandi Toksvig, host of Radio Four's News Quiz, called him one on air, the BBC, according to the Mail on Sunday, did not receive a single complaint.

But while it is easy to label Blair a war criminal, what are the chances of him actually standing trial - and how could it be achieved? Various initiatives have already been launched.

The Blair War Crimes Foundation, set up by retired orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin, has organised an online petition, addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, which lists 14 specific complaints relating to the Iraq war, including "deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war" and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the occupying powers.

The campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who attempted a citizen's arrest of the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, for his role in the Iraq war, said at the Hay Literary festival in 2008 that he would put up the first £100 of a bounty payable to the first person to attempt a non-violent citizen's arrest of Blair.

Monbiot has also called for the setting up of national arrest committees in countries which, unlike Britain, have incorporated the 'Crime of Aggression' into their domestic law. These committees would exchange information with one another and make sure that Blair "would have no hiding place".

If Blair is to face an international trial, then the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague - to which Britain is a signatory - would be the likeliest forum. While the ICC has said that it will not conduct prosecutions for the Crime of Aggression until it has been defined by its own working group, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007 that he would be willing to launch an inquiry into US/UK war crimes in Iraq. Charges could also be brought against Blair at the ICC for failing to prosecute the war in a "proportionate manner".

From Iraq itself, there are also moves to bring Blair to book. It has been reported that lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz, the former deputy leader of the country, now held in captivity, have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for war-crimes, in the light of his latest comments.

Whichever way it comes about, if Blair is forced to stand trial, there can be no underestimating the event's significance. Up to now, the only political leaders who have faced war crimes trials since World War Two are those who fell foul of the west - and in particular the United States of America. But the notion of international justice will never be taken seriously if western politicians are deemed to be exempt from the same rules that leaders in Africa and elsewhere are supposed to adhere to.

The prospect of Teflon Tony finally having to answer for his crimes in a court of law, would be warmly welcomed by millions of people throughout the world, not least all those who marched for peace through central London in February 2003, one month before the Iraq invasion.

There is widespread contempt for a man who has made millions while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law.

The next decade will tell us whether that is indeed the case.

Blair planned to join Iraq invasion nine months before the war.

So the British cheated and became pregnant nine months before the war and then lied about the father being Weapons of Mass destruction.

Antiwar.com -
Blair Planned Iraq Invasion Nine Months Before War

Posted By Jason Ditz

Sir David Manning, a top foreign policy advisor to Tony Blair and the latest in a parade of top officials detailing the run up to the Iraq War to the Chilcot Report, took the stand today to discuss the pre-war planning.


According to Sir David, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair joined the Coalition of the Willing and pledge to help President Bush invade Iraq in April 2002, 11 months before the invasion, and ordered the military to plan for the invasion in June, nine months before the start of the war.

Sir William Patey began the testimony last week and revealed that President Bush had been discussing attacking Iraq just weeks after he took office in 2001. At the time, Britain rejected the invasion as “illegal.”

On September 14, 2001, President Bush telephoned Blair and according to Sir David he claimed that Iraq was secretly in league with al-Qaeda. This appears to have been the turning point at which Britain’s rejection of the war was abandoned and the Bush Administration was given another opportunity to convince Blair of the value of attacking Iraq.

The US, Britain and others invaded Iraq in March of 2003, with a combination of claims about Iraq’s secret weapons of mass destruction arsenal and al-Qaeda ties used as a pretext. Both claims were ultimately proven false, and the British government probe is meant to reveal the errors made which led the nation into attacking Iraq on false pretexts.

Philippines seeks help of UK and Sweden in peace talks with MILF

Gloria needs all the help she can get. Unless things start to cool down a bit on the ground any peace talks may be a bit premature. No doubt the MILF will not agree to start laying down their arms until they have an agreement they can live with and that may be some time if it is even possible at the present juncture.


Gloria seeks help of UK,Sweden in peace talks
BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR
PRESIDENT Arroyo is seeking the help of Sweden and the United Kingdom in the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Brunei is also offering scholarships for MILF members and their families to enable them to "learn to moderate Islam," Arroyo said in an informal interaction with media Monday night at the Well Being Spa at the Clark Freeport Zone.
Arroyo cited the experiences of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in talks with Northern Ireland.
"Actually Blair is willing to come to help us because he (played) a very strong part in the negotiations of Northern Ireland, although Sweden is helping us on the DDR side," she said.
She said Sweden in 2005 came up with the Stockholm Initiative on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) which aims to "contribute to a secure and stable environment in which an overall peace process and transition can be sustained."
The President said an invitation to Blair, whom she met during her visit to London in December 2007, has yet to be sent.
Peace talks with the MILF were disrupted this month by major attacks launched by rebel commanders in several parts of Mindanao, including Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato.
A memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain with the MILF, seen as a major breakthrough in the talks, was to be signed August 5 but the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order based on petitions questioning the constitutionality of the MOA.
Arroyo said the MILF attacks, which included atrocities against civilians, led to a change in the basic premise of the peace efforts. She said the government is now focusing the talks "from armed groups to the community" through public consultations.
Arroyo clarified she is not setting the disarming of MILF members as a precondition to the peace talks. But, she said, she wants the government and MILF panels to start tackling the DDR, particularly the disarmament aspect, when negotiations resume.
"It’s not a precondition, but part of the outcome of the talks. Part of the comprehensive agreement," she said.
Senate President Manuel Villar urged government to advance the internal revenue allotment funds of towns badly affected by hostilities in Mindanao.
"Towns, cities and provinces hit by MILF attacks are being saddled by unforeseen expenses caused by unforeseen events," he said.
Villar said towns need money to "care for the wounded, aid the displaced, bury the dead, rebuild homes, heal psychological wounds, construct damaged public infrastructure and other things needed to make things normal again."
For starters, he said the national government can release part of the P2-billion calamity fund to areas hit "by this man-made calamity."
This can be complemented by funds to be taken from the P800 million contingent fund, which is under the discretion of the President to release, he said. – With Dennis Gadil

Tony Blair: A true friend of Israel

This article gives a good summary of some of the historical background of Blair's relationships with Israel. It could be that if he does actually try to mediate in a way that the US or Israel does not like he will find that his wings will be clipped or the poodle will be clipped to please the owners to mix metaphors.


Tony Blair: A true friend of Israel
Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 29 June 2007


"A true friend of the State of Israel," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of his outgoing British counterpart Tony Blair. He was appointed this week as special envoy for the Middle East Quartet with a portfolio focused on Palestinian economic and political reform. "Tony Blair is a very well-appreciated figure in Israel," said Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. According to an Israeli government statement, Israel "will provide [him] with all necessary assistance in order for him to carry out his duties."

It should not come as a surprise that Israeli government officials welcome Blair to his new job. Although he has long claimed to be interested in supporting justice for the Palestinians, Blair has an unremitting record of bias towards Israel. After George W. Bush, Blair is probably the most disliked and distrusted individual, among Palestinians as well as in the Arab world in general. This stems not only from his role in the Iraq war, but because he has swallowed the neoconservative agenda whole, becoming one of the leading proponents of a "clash of civilizations" between a supposedly enlightened West and a backward Islamic world.

All the language of Blair's appointment describes the conflict not as one generated by Israeli occupation and colonialism -- something a more courageous former leader Jimmy Carter has characterized as "apartheid" -- but one of Palestinian failure, and a need for "institutional reform." This suits Israel perfectly because Blair, with his fake pro-Palestinian tones, is actually helping Israel to blame the victim by changing the subject from the brutal Israeli military rule that makes normal Palestinian life imposssible.

Blair's anti-Palestinian bias began early in his political career. During his time as prime minister, Blair regularly consulted a pro-Israel lobby group, Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). He has been close to this group ever since he became a member of parliament fourteen years ago. In his speech to the LFI Annual Reception in September 2006, Blair said: "I have never actually found it hard to be friend of Israel, I am proud to be a friend of Israel." [1]

One of Blair's early supporters was Michael Levy, a staunch supporter of Israel's policies against Palestinians, a former board member of the Jewish Agency and active in various Jewish charities in Britain. Levy began to support Blair's private office from his own pocket. He has since raised millions of pounds for the Labour Party. Levy's fundraising efforts for Blair eventually paid off when Blair became Prime Minister. First appointed an envoy by Tony Blair after the 1997 election, Levy -- later nicknamed "Lord Cashpoint" -- has helped to develop a strongly pro-Israel line from Blair's office. [2] Three years later, Levy was appointed Tony Blair's personal envoy to the Middle East. In July 2006 and again in January of this year, Levy was arrested in connection with allegations that Labour Party supporters were offered honors in return for loans and donations. With the resignation of Tony Blair today, Levy also steps down. Commenting on Levy's resignation, Richard Spring, a Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, told The Independent: "I welcome his departure. We have some of the most skilled and distinguished diplomats in the world and they have been humiliated and sidelined by Lord Levy's antics in the Middle East. He has caused great embarrassment for this country." [3]

Blair's portfolio as Quartet envoy does not come as a surprise. In February 2005, Blair organized a one-day meeting between Palestinian leaders with senior officials from thirty countries. [4] The aim of the conference was to outline and support Palestinian political, financial and security reform. When Blair first spoke of hosting a conference in December 2004, Palestinian leaders hoped it would focus on political issues and the peace process. But there was little support for that from Israel and the US and Israel did not even attend the conference, demonstrating how little influence Blair had on Israel even as prime minister.

At the time Israeli forces invaded Nablus, Jenin and other Palestinian towns and villages during Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield" in April 2002, Tony Blair visited his closest ally George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas. "We agree that the Palestinian leadership must order an immediate and effective cease-fire and crackdown on terrorist networks," Bush said. "And we agree that Israel should halt incursions in the Palestinian-controlled areas and begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has recently occupied." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon later told the Americans he understood their desires for Israel to end its operations in the "territories." A statement from Sharon's office said the prime minister told Bush that Israel "is conscious of the American desire to see the operation ended quickly." [5] His office also said the prime minister had pledged to "speed up" the offensive, not end it. Asked their plans if Israel does not withdraw, both leaders declined to address the issue. "I believe that Israel will heed the words of President Bush," Blair said, "and will do so knowing that he speaks as a friend to Israel."

In the summer of 2006, during the first week of August, just before he would meet Bush in Washington, cabinet ministers were pressing Blair to break with the policy of the American administration and publicly criticize Israel over the scale of death and destruction in Lebanon. A week earlier, Jack Straw, former Foreign Office Minister, said that while he "grieved for the innocent Israelis killed" he also mourned the "ten times as many innocent Lebanese men, women and children killed by Israeli fire." Blair took the line of the US and two other Israel allies in the EU, Germany and the Netherlands, by refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire and waiting for an UN resolution. In an interview with Sky News that same week, Blair answered the question whether he was too close to the White House by stating, "I will never apologize for Britain being a strong ally of the US." [6] Three months ago, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the Lebanon war. He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

At the G8 summit in St. Petersburg as Israel's war on Lebanon raged, Bush and Blair were caught on an open microphone talking about whether US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should head to the region, or whether Blair should go himself. [7] Blair said to Bush, "If she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can just go out and talk."

That is exactly what Blair's new function will be. He can just go out and talk. The Middle East Quartet -- in the words of Alvaro de Soto, "a group of friends of the US" -- wants Blair to operate according to the model of the previous envoy, James Wolfensohn. In his leaked End of Mission Report [8], De Soto, who was the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and envoy to the Quartet, wrote that Blair's predecessor Wolfensohn was first introduced by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a US special envoy. "The terms of reference originally proposed would have given Wolfensohn a writ, essentially covering the entire peace process, much wider than the narrower one that emerged." De Soto also noticed that Wolfensohn's mission "began to run aground after his attempts to broker an agreement on access and movement were intercepted -- some would say hijacked -- at the last minute by the US envoys and ultimately Rice herself." This does not look good for Tony Blair. Wolfensohn left the scene with "a more jaundiced view of Israel (and US) policies than he had upon entering."

It is hard to escape the impression that Blair -- despised at home and saddled with the weight of Iraq -- is still seeking a way to salvage a "legacy." Yet it is hard to imagine a person lesson suited to be a peace envoy to the Middle East.

In the meantime, one shouldn't expect much from Britain's new prime minister Gordon Brown. Britain, together with Germany and the Netherlands, traditionally supports Israel within European political debates. This will not change. Brown has not shown much interest in the issue and policy experts do not expect Britain to play a major role. Israel is content with not only Blair's appointment as new Quartet special envoy but also the appointment of Simon McDonald, a former British ambassador to Israel, as Brown's foreign policy advisor. Israeli officials see McDonald as "friend of Israel." According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, McDonald has been considered one of the most influential foreign envoys posted to Israel, and one well-connected to Israeli decision-makers. Though the faces may change, Britian's one-sided policy line remains the same.

Arjan El Fassed is a cofounder of The Electronic Intifada

Blair to be named Envoy to Mideast region?

What more appropriate neutral mediator could there be than a retired lapdog to Bush?

Mideast Quartet poised to name Blair envoy
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | 6:06 AM ET
CBC News
Representatives from the Quartet of Mideast negotiators met Tuesday amid speculation that outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair could get a new role in reviving the stalled peace process.

The meeting of the envoys from the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia marked the Quartet's first gathering since the Islamist group Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip by force two weeks ago.

The Quartet is expected to name Blair as a senior envoy to the region, media reports quoting unnamed diplomats as saying.

Blair is stepping down Wednesday after more than a decade in office, with new Labour Leader Gordon Brown set to assume the premiership.

A spokeswoman for the British Embassy in Israel, Karen Kaufman, would not confirm the reports.

Earlier this week, Blair deflected speculation about his next role upon leaving office, but left the door open to getting more involved in the peace process.

Continue Article

"Anybody who cares about greater peace and stability in the world knows that a lasting an enduring resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is essential," Blair told reporters.

"As I've said on many occasions, I would do whatever I could to help such a resolution come about."

Olmert pledges to free 250 prisoners
The Quartet envoys have "no set agenda" and will discuss "recent developments and the way forward," said a local spokesman for the United Nations, Brenden Varma.


During Monday's Mideast summit at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised to release 250 Fatah prisoners, a gesture of support to the Palestinian president in his struggle against his Hamas rivals.

The move came after Abbas dissolved a three-month-old Hamas-led coalition government and then appointed an emergency Palestinian cabinet in the West Bank on June 17.

The leaders committed to work for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that have remained effectively frozen since 2001.

The Sins of Tony Blair

I thought that Blair was a bit more progressive with respect to his internal politics than this article indicates. I read in a different article that he had decreased poverty but this article claims otherwise. I find it hard to believe that Blair did not lose his labor base given his record.


Tony Blair's seven lefty sins
>by Jim Stanford
June 25, 2007
Tony Blair exits Britain's political stage next week. Which side he is leaving from, however, is open to question. Having won three consecutive majorities, he's the country's most successful left-wing prime minister ever. Or is he?

I adhere to the old-fashioned notion that what a politician does in office is more important than the number of elections won. By this standard, it's hard to conclude Mr. Blair was a lefty at all: Britain went backward during his era in the things that matter most to our side of the political spectrum. Britain is a leaner, meaner, more unequal society than when Mr. Blair came to power. And considering he inherited Margaret Thatcher's legacy, that's saying something.

Of course, no one expected Mr. Blair to undo the dramatic changes wrought by Ms. Thatcher. He took office in 1997 after deliberately watering down Labour Party policies and distancing himself from the past. But few thought he would actually take Britain in the wrong direction.

Here are seven ways Britain actually shifted to the right during Mr. Blair's tenure. The list doesn't even include the disastrous endorsement of George W. Bush's military adventures — just the home front:

Inequality: Income inequality and poverty didn't budge, staying at the levels reached under Ms. Thatcher. Wealth inequality actually got worse: In 1997, the richest 1 per cent of Britons owned one-quarter of all wealth (excluding dwellings); today they own one-third.

Children: Nothing reveals the soul of a society more than how it treats its children. Last year, the United Kingdom ranked dead last on UNICEF's ranking of 21 industrialized countries for the quality of children's lives.

Tuition Fees: Even when they go off to school, Mr. Blair hurt the kids. He broke a campaign promise and introduced “market-sensitive” tuition fees at universities — now worth many thousands of dollars.

Unions: Mr. Blair kept almost all of Ms. Thatcher's anti-union laws, and union membership declined further.

Industry: 1.25 million manufacturing jobs disappeared under Mr. Blair, cementing Britain's status as an industrial has-been. He oversaw the near-demise of Britain's automotive industry, and watched its merchandise trade deficit swell to 6.5 per cent of GDP.

Privatization: Mr. Blair extended Ms. Thatcher's commitment to selling off public assets, but he did it in disguise. He pioneered public-private partnerships, in which taxpayers bear the risks while investors reap the profits.

The Labour Party itself: Needless to say, the activists who worked their behinds off to bring Mr. Blair to power quickly lost enthusiasm under his unprincipled rule. It was Mr. Blair's deliberate goal to break the ties binding his government's policies to actual party decisions. It's poetic justice that Labour membership fell by more than half during his rule, leaving his successors without a grassroots base.

In each case, it wasn't that Mr. Blair failed to undo Ms. Thatcher's right-wing shift or to fulfill the hopes of the progressive voters who elected him. Rather, he actually led Britain in the wrong direction. Despite a few positive measures (like Britain's first minimum wage, and modest increases in public spending), there's no doubt the country remains one of the most market-oriented, business-dominated, unequal jurisdictions in the developed world.

There are lessons in Mr. Blair's legacy for those who still aspire to build a more inclusive, equal society. Most important is that merely electing someone who professes to share your views is no guarantee you'll even head in the right direction. Mr. Blair's foremost goal, in retrospect, was getting elected, not changing society. And despite the initial relief at ousting the Conservatives, that wasn't enough to put Britain back on track.

Worst of all, the groups that should have demanded more from Mr. Blair were silenced by their allegiance to Labour's electoral strategy. They mostly kept their mouths shut as Mr. Blair headed in an increasingly conservative direction. Only recently have they found their voices again.

That's a crucial lesson for Canada's lefties to keep in mind, given our own fractured and confusing political landscape. The experience of Blairism proves we must keep our eyes on the prize (namely, better policies) — not on the party.

Jim Stanford is an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union.