The British Labour leader, Mr Tony Blair, yesterday told his party conference he has not got a reverse gear. Asking delegates to trust him, he said the time for that is when a politician is taking a difficult - not an easy - option.
He defended his policy on Iraq and said he would do the same again. He insisted that Labour's commitments on health and education are being delivered on. He held out the prospect of an historic third term for Labour and a decisive realignment in British politics to marginalise the Conservatives, based on rebuilding the public realm and bringing solidarity to bear on a self-interested consumer society.
It was a spirited, confident performance. It was all the stronger for the disarming note of self-criticism contained in it and the commitment to a major process of policy consultation with the Labour Party's base. It confronted head-on the speculation that Mr Blair is thinking about giving up the job, or likely to face strong pressure to do so. On this performance neither scenario looks likely, at least in the short term. And that is probably the most which should prudently be said on the basis of a conference speech. More than ever, this one will depend on how well Mr Blair delivers on these commitments - on the clichéd 'deeds, not words'.
Any failure on this score will stoke the impression conveyed on the first day of the conference by Mr Gordon Brown's bravura speech setting out a potential alternative path for Labour. Commentators noted Mr Brown's repeated emphasis on the party's traditional value of equality, together with a subtly different perspective on Britain's international role as a "beacon" rather than a "bridge" for transatlantic relations. While Mr Blair yesterday defended his strategy of maintaining Britain's position at the centre of EU policy-making by keeping up the option of joining the euro, it is clear that Mr Brown's more sceptical line on the subject predominates.
Mr Blair steadfastly defended his policy on Iraq, but was willing to acknowledge the deep disagreements involved within his party. He justified his alliance with President Bush as heading off US isolationism, in the face of a growing threat that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction may converge, and other international questions requiring multilateral solutions. And "we who have started the war must finish the peace". Critics say he indulged Washington by cravenly going along with US policies even when he was systematically over-ruled. He should be much more independent in his future dealings with a US administration coming under increasing pressure on Iraq. He will so be judged.