What does Tony! [The Tony Blair Rock Opera] tell us about how the Blair era is remembered?

With talk of a huge Labour victory in the next general election, I’ve been thinking about the previous Labour Prime Minister to win a general election. Tony Blair won three elections for Labour, including a huge landslide, but left office with an overall satisfaction rate of below 30% according to Ipsos Mori.

Years later, views on Blair’s ten years as Prime Minister are nearly as diverse as there are people. Some argue everything he did was good for the country. Others argue that everything he did was good except for one huge mistake: the invasion of Iraq. Some claim there was some good, such as introducing the minimum wage and House of Lords reform, and some bad, such as PFI and getting close to President George Bush. Finally, there are those who claim that everything he did was bad.

Which do you agree with?

Which one of these you agree with pretty much depends on what period of Blair’s time as Labour leader you focus on. People who view Blair more positively tend to focus on the sense of rebellious cool he exhibited in the mid-90s, such as getting a shout out from Oasis at the Brit Awards and then winning that historic election victory.

Those who view Blair less favourably focus on the later period, the war in Iraq and cash for honours scandal, when Blair was synonymous with the establishment and only supported by relentless squares like Mark in Peep Show.

Into this debate I would like to inject a piece of culture that will inform our understanding of how the public views the Blair era: Tony! [The Tony Blair Rock Opera] at The Park Theatre in Finsbury Park, London.

The stuff of blockbuster rock operas

Blair’s life and his time as Prime Minister was very dramatic. He presided over huge election wins, the Foot and Mouth crisis, Princess Diana’s Death, 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as debates over Europe, public service reform and an epic rivalry with his Chancellor, Gordon Brown. This is the stuff of blockbuster rock operas.

What Tony! shows is how the person in the street remembers Blair and thinks of him now. It was written by Harry Hill, a veteran comedic writer and performer with his finger on the pulse of what the “average” Briton thinks, or at least finds funny.

Covering his ten years as Prime Minister, the show focuses on Blair’s 1997 landslide election victory, the death of Princess Diana and how he led the nation in mourning, his relationship with President Bush, 9/11 and the War in Iraq.

Illuminating what most people remember about the Blair years

What is left out is as interesting as what is included. There is little mention of Blair’s protracted fight with Gordon Brown over the former’s departure and nothing on House of Lords Reform, the minimum wage, PFI or Sure Start. Key debates on immigration and the Euro are glossed over. This is not a criticism of a play that is primarily a work of comedy not history, but it serves to illuminate what most people remember about the Blair years.

Tony! is structured around a rise and fall. It charts Blair’s rise to PM and his huge electoral success, followed by his fall through Bush dragging him into the invasion of Iraq, with an intermission between the two.

The overall tone of the play is cynical and biting, which is set by the opening number, “The Whole Wide World is Run by Assholes” and firmly points to Blair as one of these “assholes”. Blair is presented as a successful politician who is ensnared by Bush, leading to his downfall. However, he is also presented as greedy and self-enriching. When he retires as PM, it is with the line: “To spend more time with my property portfolio.”

Genuine seriousness

Although the show’s tone is mocking and cynical, genuine seriousness is deployed for sections towards the end covering those who died in the Iraq War, the disillusionment with politicians that followed and the rise of populism.

The comedic light-heartedness is offset with a serious message that the optimism for change that swept Blair into power led first to disillusionment with the debacle over Iraq, then cynicism with mainstream politicians and finally people turning to populist alternatives. The play implies that a line can be drawn from Blair to Nigel Farage and the Brexit vote. This message is crucial for the post-Blair world we live in.

We will probably be discussing Blair forever and arriving at a consensus may only happen long after we’re all dead and the historians can do their work uninhibited by hot takes. However, this play is important in focusing our assessment on Blair on what is widely remembered by the public, not ardent politicos.

Blair stands by his decision

In a 2020 interview with David Dimbleby, for The Fault Line podcast, Blair was directly asked if his actions in Iraq (an invasion on the pretense that there were WMDs that turned out to be false) led to the rise of populism. Blair said that if people are cynical about mainstream politicians because of Iraq, then they shouldn’t be because he made a difficult call based on the evidence he had at the time (which turned out to be greatly exaggerated, at least).

His argument is that it was a difficult decision to make and that we want politicians to be able to make difficult decisions. If people are angry or cynical about politics because he made the wrong decisions in challenging circumstances, then they shouldn’t be, because most of being a leader is difficult decisions in challenging circumstances and we need our leaders to be able to do the job of leading without being hated for doing it.

Blair’s legacy

Firstly, this pretty much accuses the great British public of being wrong for what they feel, which is not a good look for a politician. Secondly, there is a nuanced argument here about politicians making difficult decisions. Early 20th Century German philosopher Max Weber could have written a lecture on Blair’s answer, but this isn’t an essay on what Weber would have thought about modern politicians (although I’m working on one). 

There is also a debate to be had about whether the WMD intelligence was reviewed with due diligence by both the American and British governments. However, what is most important about this response is that Blair spectacularly ducks the issue of whether his actions created this age of political cynicism and populism.

Iraq is Blair’s legacy, at least for most people - Tony! shows this - whether Blair likes it or not and he needs to own the line drawn from the invasion to Brexit. Blair’s not wholly responsible for Brexit, but he is partly.

What most people remember of Blair

What Blair’s current supporters forget is the very ‘Mark from Peep Show’ place that he ended up. From being a rockstar, he became someone liked by those who prefer the status quo and are frightened by change or anything that isn’t boring or conformist. Blair’s supporters remember the cool, not the by-word for boring quasi-authoritarianism that he became.

Tony! captures what most people remember of Blair, i.e. mainly Diana and palling around with Bush. People remember the big election wins, but also how Blair got richer whilst he was PM. Most people don’t remember House of Lords reform, the minimum wage or the Millenium Dome.

Above all, what people remember is that Blair said we need to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, which turned out to be wrong, and lots of people died. This marked the start of a long slide into cynicism and populism that gave us Brexit and Donald Trump. This is also Blair’s legacy.

"Tony Blair" by StefdeVries is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 

Ten Days at the Space attempts to be as radical as the Russian Revolution

We may be living in revolutionary times. Extinction Rebellion are taking to the streets to prevent a climate catastrophe and the amount of workers on strike has not been this great in 50 years. It’s only natural that this potentially revolutionary moment is reflected in art.

This is why I was excited to see Ten Days, which recently finished its run at The Space theatre in the Isle of Dogs, a play that shows the revolutionary possibilities of the present by connecting now with the most famous revolution of all: the Russian Revolution.

The play charts the ten days that led to the Bolshevik’s revolution in Russia in October 1917 (by the Julian Calendar used in Russia at the time). It’s based on the account written by American journalist John Reed, who had an astonishing level of access to the senior people behind the revolution at that crucial time. His account is the most compelling and comprehensive of those fateful days that shook the world.

A radical approach to theatre

This new stage adaption of Reed’s book was written and directed by Matthew Jameson and performed by BolshEpic Theatre. It attempts to be as radical in its approach to theatre as its subjects were in their approach to politics. This included pay-what-you-are-able pricing and means to draw the audience into the radical events of the play (more on that later).

At nearly three hours Ten Days is a long production, but it’s still a condensed version of the events leading up to the revolution. Jameson himself plays John Reed and moves through the action to narrate events. Jameson made the sensible decision to cut many of the long speeches that Reed reproduced in great detail, which gives the play a fast pace that helps offset its long running time.

Many short scenes keep the drama focused on the narrative of a country hurtling toward revolution and the small cast cope well switching between different characters and locations with minimal set and costume.

The appeal of the Bolsheviks

The production’s great strength is how it captures the rising tension as the situation escalated in St Petersburg in 1917. You feel the growing frustration as the unpopular provisional government continued to prosecute a disastrous war whilst failing to deliver meaningful improvements in living conditions. This caused the Russian people to look to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov - aka Lenin - and the more radical Bolsheviks - who offered peace, land and bread - as the solution to their problems.

The play captures the frantic feeling of those crucial days, as Reed does in his book. Ten Days is filled with the possibilities of radical change following the February Revolution that many felt had not changed Russian society enough. Frenetic uncertainty was seized by the Bolshevik’s to lead a second revolution in only a few months.

This is mainly achieved through a strong script and a series of great performances, notably Matthew John Wright as Lenin and Oyinka Yusuff as Leon Trotsky who form the core of the play. With many cast members assuming many different roles of both historic figures and representatives of broad social groups, it helps to have these two actors as anchor points portraying the two most important people in the story.

Bringing the history to life

As well as capturing the mood of the time in an entertaining way, there are lots of small details in the play that go beyond Reed’s book and show that Jameson knows his subject matter. All of the key factions and historical figures are included, which is a lot of people for a small cast to represent.

Many important historic details, which less well researched accounts overlook, are included; such as the February Revolution beginning with women marching on International Women’s Day, or the fact that the storming of the winter palace was more of a quite creeping in through a backdoor than the spectacle staged by Sergei Eisenstein in his film October: Ten Days That Shook the World.

The play also includes many of the comedic moments of the revolution; such as Lenin’s enthusiasm for disguises, the delay in beginning the October Revolution that was caused because a comrade at the Peter and Paul Fortress couldn’t find a red light to signal the Bolsheviks and Kitchkin declaring himself leader of all of Russia when he barely controlled the Winter Palace in St Petersburg.

Modern parallels and modern culture

The radical history is very entertaining, but to become a transcendent work of art this needs to connect with how the audience feels right now. Many modern parallels are drawn out; from strikes, a cold winter, inflation, a useless and unpopular government and above all a feeling that everything is getting worse, everyone has had enough and change is needed.

Modern language is used in the script to reinforce the point, such as references to “snowflakes” on the left or fighting in Ukraine. Recent dance music was played in the intermission, whilst a video was projected onto the stage approximating how cable news would cover the fateful ten days if they were happening right now. Following the climax, the cast exited to the sounds of Pig With The Face Of A Boy’s Complete History Of The Soviet Union, Arranged To The Melody Of Tetris, which ended proceedings on a humorous note.

Rising to the revolutionary moment

Not only did the play attempt to make its radical themes relevant to the modern day, it also attempted a radical use of the medium of theatre. Red flags were handed out to the audience, who were encouraged to wave them, participate in the chanting and to keep our phones on to take pictures during the performance.

The audience (at least at the performance I attended) didn’t rise to the revolutionary moment. We behaved like a traditional audience, watching events in silence and not participating. The fact that the people were hesitant to act when presented with something radical was itself a more powerful metaphor for the present political situation than the historic parallels that Ten Days drew out.

Are we ten days away from a revolution?

Despite the audience not embracing the more radical parts of the show, I was impressed by Jameson and BolshEpic Theatre wanting to create a piece of art that captured (the spirit at least) of the revolution in avant-garde art that was unleashed by the Russian Revolution. Their imagination and creative use of a small theatre, minimal set and props is inspiring. Revolutions, artistic and political, come about by radical ambition and it was great to see this alive in the 21st century.

Ten Days is a great dramatic play about a key moment in 20th century history. It is more than an entertaining retelling of historic events. This play is urgent, relevant and has something to say about contemporary politics: i.e. when people are suffering we may only be ten days away from a revolution.

Monument to Lenin image created by Watchsmart and used under creative commons.