Registered user login:

The history of now

Rachel Cooke

Published 28 June 2007

This is the definitive documentary about the Blair era - for the moment, at least
The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair
Channel 4

Brilliant as he is, television's most accomplished political documentary-maker, the BBC's Michael Cockerell, won't go on for ever. So who will inherit his mantle? The journalist Andrew Rawnsley and his director Rob Coldstream have put in a serious bid with their ambitious two-part series, The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair (Saturday 23 June, 7pm and Monday 25 June, 8pm). Rawnsley is a master of the interviewer's greatest skill: he knows that silence is worth a thousand interruptions. He listens and listens, and when the revelation eventually comes, his face speaks only of mild interest.

I admire this very much. I'm also violently envious of his contacts book, which is as epic as Paradise Lost. It was, however, unwise of Coldstream to trill his delight at both of these attributes in a blog on a newspaper website before the films had even screened. Not only did he sound boastful but, as an investment in the future, it's best not to alert people to the fact that you long for them to "cough". Nor is it gentlemanly to describe one of your most canary-like interviewees - the Blairs' friend, Barry Cox - as looking like "a warm-up artist for a Blackpool cabaret". Do your work, let it speak for you, then move on quietly.

Cockerell, of course, had his own go at Blair's premiership last February, in Blair: the Inside Story. That series was more nuanced than Rawnsley's, largely because Cockerell had spent months filming inside No 10. The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair, by contrast, relied entirely on talking heads to bolster its amazing narrative sweep. Luckily, these were quite some talking heads. The aforementioned Cox, who told us of Peter Mandelson's "almost homo-erotic admiration" for Blair, was certainly a star when it came to gossipy incontinence - to a degree where I began to wonder whether someone hadn't sanctioned him to let rip (if this is not the case, you can only wonder, yet again, at the Blairs' judgement when it comes to friendship; if one of my close friends acted in such a way, I'd hurl my Le Creuset saucepans at their bay windows).

But even Cox was upstaged by Peter Mandelson who, though he coyly feigned discretion, refusing to tell Rawnsley exactly what Blair said to him the second time he sacked him from the cabinet, also had his faithful boning knife to hand. Blair had told him that the plan for postwar Iraq was the responsibility of the Americans. "Well, I'm afraid that, as we now see, wasn't good enough," said Mandelson, tartly.

Blair and Brown's dysfunctional relationship was deftly stitched into Rawnsley's script. He dished up a new low with the revelation that, on the day of the Commons vote on tuition fees in 2004, Blair did not know if Brown's supporters would back him (I'm still not sure which of the two this fact makes me despise the most). But for me, Rawnsley's chief triumph was the way he made explicit the connection between what Blair achieved in Kosovo and his support for the US invasion of Iraq; and the way he induced so many high-level advisers, leading supporters and fellow politicians to admit fully what a giant cock-up Iraq was. From the outside, this is harder to pull off than you might imagine.

Recently, I spent several weeks interviewing Labour MPs, and not one admitted to any sense of shame or despair about Iraq, yet here was Margaret Jay, the former Leader of the House of Lords, referring to it as a "tragedy", and Stephen Wall, Blair's former European adviser, dryly commenting that "Jacques [Chirac, who vetoed military action at the UN] got it rather better than we did". The relief! On the subject of post-invasion planning, no one had anything positive to say.

It's immensely difficult to attempt to write history before the period in question has come fully to an end, and then to unroll this combination of high drama and analysis in only three hours of television. But The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair felt definitive, at least for now. It also, with another eye on the future, sneakily planted several timebombs. Brown, we learned, considered the war a bad idea. He wanted to "explode" with rage at the very thought of it. But did he say "no"? He did not.

Pick of the week

Doctor Who
Saturday, 7.05pm, BBC1
The finale for series three. Get behind the sofa.

The South Bank Show
Sunday, 10.45pm, ITV1
Architect Zaha Hadid gives viewers a peek at her sketchbook.

The Thick Of It
Tuesday, 9pm, BBC4
Expletively funny political spin show from Alan Partridge's co-creator.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

Princip,uk
28 June 2007 at 10:13

Kosovo is a total cock up and it needs to be understood that the same mistake of Kosovo was allowed to happen that lead to the major cock up of Iraq

Princip,uk
28 June 2007 at 10:20

Here is a snippet of an article in Spiegel reporting on the 'The Failure of the West's 'Ostrich' Policy'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,471178,00.html

The international community is largely to blame for ignoring the realities in Kosovo.

The planned "construction of a multi-ethnic society" has "failed" and does not exist "outside the bureaucratic statements of the international community," says the report, released by the Institute for European Politics (IEP) in Berlin.

The 124-page report blames the bleak prospects for the province's future on the UN administration, the NATO-led KFOR mission and the Europeans' "ostrich" policy. The study outlines mismanagement, corruption, organizational chaos and "organized crime gangs," which have infiltrated significant parts of the KFOR staff. The role of the United States is also deemed counterproductive: The IEP accuses Washington of being involved in helping criminals to flee, "sometimes openly" hindering European investigations into war crimes and training former KLA fighters -- an "obvious" breach of the UN resolution.

writeon
28 June 2007 at 21:25

As history is still fluid and not yet crystalised, there's still time to resist the re-writing of it. Gordon Brown and many others in the Labour party were in a difficult position in relation to the attack on Iraq. Would open, public opposition to Blair's policy have had any real effect? Would it have stopped him supporting the American invasion with every fibre of his being? I don't think so. Blair knew he had the support of the Tories, no matter what. This gave him tremendous power, because he could rely on substantial backing from his supporters in the PLP too. Blair knew, because of Tory support that he had a majority, though small for his stance. He was prepared to go all the way. By this I mean he was ready to split the Labour Party in two in order to get his way. He would have become a new Ramsey McDonald. Would such a scenario have led to a radical re-alignment of british polictics? Who knows. One can imagine Blair ditching New Labour and forming a new 'centre-right' party with half of Labour and the vast majority of Tories supporting him in parliament. Given the heated atmosphere pre-invasion anything could have happened. I believe Brown and others in the party were afraid that Blair was prepared to sacrifice New Labour if he had to and they were simply too timid to call his bluff or take the risk that he'd bring the whole house down around them.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Rachel Cooke

Rachel Cooke trained as a reporter on The Sunday Times. She is now a writer at The Observer. In the 2006 British Press Awards, she was named Interviewer of the Year.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?