Having spent a great deal of time (probably not enough) subsidised by the British taxpayer looking back over the history of 20th century Britain and trying to get some of it to stick in my mind, I feel that it might be worth speculating about the views of historians on the Blair governments. I’m sure I won’t be the only one over the coming months (Tony might want to have a good hard think himself) but hear me out.

In the first place, history isn’t very interested in scandals and sleaze. The only ones that pop into my revision-addled brains are the Profumo scandal in the 1960s and Lloyd George’s cash for honours scandal in the early 1920s, and neither of these are dealt with particularly seriously- they are distractions from the drama of governing the country, and in any case both were much, much more serious than even the current cash-for-honours debacle. The Hinduja brothers, Lakshimi Mittal, Geoffrey Robinson, Lord Levy and even the dodgy dossier will be forgotten with surprising speed.

History however does enjoy a good war, and even better, a bad one. If the dodgy dossier is remembered, it will be for its part in launching the Iraq war, which, inevitably, will loom large. The troop commitment in Sierra Leone and the intervention in Kosovo though will probably receive more attention from historians in 30 years than they do in the press today though. Other initiatives, such as dropping African debt, will also loom larger in historical accounts. Bizarre phrases like neo-Gladstonianism and post-colonial interventionism will be bandied about when students have to answer questions like ‘Moral imperatives formed the basis of foreign policy from 1997-2010. Discuss.’

Historians, unlike most people, seem to enjoy discussing constitutional change. Devolution, though we’ve seen far more discussion recently (Liz’s excellent post below..), was largely ignored in the London press from 2000-2006, but is certain to feature strongly in any historical account of the Blair years, as will the London Assembly, elected mayors, Freedom of Information and whatever eventually becomes of the House of Lords. This might get wrapped up in general studies of political participation- ‘Account for changes in patterns of popular political participation 1990-2010’ or similar.

Certain recent preoccupations of the press will probably be almost ignored however- crime, ASBOs, super-casinos, 24-hour drinking, benefit fraud, the Millennium Dome, and the Olympics will be lucky to receive mentions outside the publications of a few worthy but dull social historians.

Economic historians, a breed even worthier and potentially even duller, will have a field day with the Blair/Brown years however, as the British economic history of the 20th century is a story of crisis following crisis, and the mid-90s onwards has seen (touch wood) this pattern broken. I’m sticking my neck out here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the phrase ‘economic miracle’ gains some currency, though whether the credit will accrue to Clarke or Brown remains to be seen.

Anyway, come back in 20-30 years and tell me how right I was….

Filed under: constitution, foreignpolicy, gambling, gordonbrown, history, tonyblair, ukpolitics on May 5th, 2007