When someone gives away a large amount of money it can seem churlish to question the motive. But when the giver is Tony Blair, scepticism – even cynicism – about what he may be up to is pretty much inevitable.
The former prime minister has announced this week that he will be giving away the money earned on his forthcoming memoirs to the Royal British Legion, to help fund its Battle Back Challenge Centre due to be opened in 2012 to help injured servicemen. It is not clear how much this will be not least because it all depends on how the book sells. But Mr Blair is believed to have been given an advance of about £4m to write the book. So it is likely to be a substantial sum, probably the largest single donation ever given to the British Legion.
Mr Blair’s spokesman said: “Tony Blair recognises the courage and sacrifice the armed forces demonstrate day in, day out. As prime minister he witnessed that for himself in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. This is his way of honouring their courage and sacrifice.”
Chris Simpkins, the director general of the British Legion, said: “Mr Blair’s generosity is much appreciated and will help us to make a real and lasting difference to the lives of hundreds of injured personnel.”
Others, however, see Mr Blair’s gesture in a rather less straightforward light. While not denying the obvious benefit the money will bring to those who will receive it, they see his action as primarily self-serving. There are several reasons for this.
In the first place, some of the former prime minister’s critics see the gift as an attempt to counter the reputation he and his wife have gained since leaving office of being extremely interested in money. It has been estimated that in the last three years Mr Blair has earned between £12m and £15m, money used to finance a lavish lifestyle which involves an expensive house near Hyde Park in London and a country mansion in the home counties. No one knows quite how much he has earned because much of his earning is channelled through a complex system of companies which, though legal, allows him to keep secret the full extent of his income.
To many, especially within the Labour Party he used to lead, such interest in amassing wealth is unbecoming. It is the sort of thing they expect Tory politicians to do, but not Labour ones. Some caustically remark that when it was once said that New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, perhaps the Blairs had themselves in mind. Certainly even his worst enemies have never accused Gordon Brown of being in it for the money.
The main reason why some see Mr Blair’s gift as self-serving has less to do with the money itself and more with the choice of beneficiary. By selecting a charity for servicemen, Mr Blair, they believe, is trying to assuage a guilty conscience.
Undoubtedly the most controversial decision of his premiership was to go to war in Iraq. Even those who backed the decision then mostly accept that the consequences were disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives and the toll on British service personnel was considerable. Nor is it over yet. Although the substantial British deployment ended some time ago and the American occupation is about to finish, there are real fears that violence in Iraq, which has been on the increase, could flare up into civil war. Earlier this month, both Iraq’s top general and Saddam Hussein’s former deputy, Tariq Aziz, warned that without the continued American presence, security in the country could fall apart.
It is in the context of this legacy of his decision to invade Iraq that some are interpreting Mr Blair’s gift. Rose Gentle, who has campaigned against the Iraq war and whose son, Fusilier Gordon Campbell Gentle, was killed in Basra in 2004, said: “I have spoken to other parents and everyone is agreed that this doesn’t make any difference. It is OK doing this now but it was decisions that Blair made when he was prime minister that got us into this situation. I still hold him responsible for the death of my son.”
Peter Brierley, whose son was also killed in Iraq, went further, describing the gift as “blood money”.
There are further twists to why Mr Blair’s motivation is so much under critical scrutiny. One is that a great deal of the money Mr Blair has made since leaving office has been earned in the United States where his popularity (and money-earning potential on the lecture circuit) is directly a result of his support for George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. In other words, so this view goes, Mr Blair feels especially guilty because he has made his fortune on the back of the very decision which caused all the deaths and injuries among the military.
Furthermore, according to this view, Mr Blair feels even greater guilt because of the deception which it is alleged he engaged in to take Britain into war. Proponents of this line say that the evidence coming before the Chilcot inquiry into the war makes clear that Mr Blair’s government deceived the country in many different ways and that therefore he has a lot to feel guilty about.
Lindsey German, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: “Blair lied about the Iraq war, he refused to express any regret at the Chilcot inquiry and his attempt to save his conscience will be little comfort to those injured or who have lost their loved ones.” Peter Brierley said: “This gift, or donation, is an absolutely fantastic thing but it doesn’t alter my aim that one day we will see Tony Blair in court for the crimes he committed.”
The issue of whether or not, or to what extent, Mr Blair did indeed deceive the country over Iraq is becoming a focus of interest again for a quite separate reason. Pressure is mounting for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly, the government scientist held responsible for leaking evidence that led to claims that Tony Blair’s government was “sexing up” the intelligence on the existence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. His death in 2003 was recorded as suicide but some medical experts have questioned the plausibility of the verdict and now several public figures, including the former Tory leader, Michael Howard, have called for the case to be reopened. The Attorney-General is considering it.
The publication of Mr Blair’s memoirs will in any case revive the controversy over his decision to go to war and his gift to the British Legion is bound to divide opinion. But perhaps both interpretations are possible. As Simon Brown, a former corporal who was shot in the head in Iraq in 2006, said: “Tony Blair didn’t have to give the money over, he could have just banked it. If it helps ease his conscience, why not?”
What’s your view? Do you think Mr Blair’s gesture is a genuinely selfless gift or do you think it is self-serving? Do you think the reputation he has gained since leaving office for being too interested in money is fair or not? Do you think he should feel guilty or not about the money he has made? Should he feel guilty or not about his decision to invade Iraq? Did he deceive the country or not? Do you think he has a criminal charge to answer or not? What do you make of the ‘blood money’ charge? Should the case of David Kelly’s death be reopened? And will you be buying Tony Blair’s memoirs?
