My dear pal Brian Micklethwait was not exaggerating; Tony Blair is, indeed, in deep trouble.
Judging from this article in the Independent the assault on his premiership has just been ratcheted up to a whole new level:
Supporters of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, have launched an extraordinary attack on Tony Blair, portraying him as a “psychopath” and “psychotic”.
Blair loyalists are furious about a string of hostile articles about the Prime Minister in the current edition of New Statesman magazine, which is owned by Geoffrey Robinson, a former Treasury minister and a close ally of Mr Brown.
Another article in the magazine is headed “What is the point of Tony Blair?”, while a third declares: “The question of Tony Blair’s sanity can no longer be avoided.”
This is pretty grim stuff. It is one thing to disagree with a Prime Minister’s policies but quite another to denounce him as a ‘psychopath’. I cannot recall any serving Premier being publicly subjected to quite such a vicious attack. And from members of his own party, to boot!
Mr.Blair may have been warmed by the adulation he has received in Washington but back here in Britain, he has got serious problems.
I see that Stephen Pollard (see the links for his blog), who used to write for the NS occasionally, has decided to stop because of his disgust at this sort of crap. Good for him.
I don’t particularly like Blair and detest a lot of his agenda, especially the assault on civil liberties. But it is quite clear that much of the Left has gone stark staring mad.
Wow. Cool. I can’t say that watching the leftists turn on themselves isn’t going to be interesting (and fun).
However, I feel a little bad for Tony, because he did do the right thing, and in exchange he may get totally shafted. But hey, he chose his buddies–he’ll have to deal with them.
The question is, can the Tories respond to this effectively.
I’ll put my money against it. Cue another spectacular goal-line miss/fumble by IDS.
Apologies to Andy Duncan
Eamon
Every time I see the word “leftist”, I completely ignore the entire comment or article it appears in. There could not be a more effective way to fail utterly to get your message across. The same applies to “neocon”. It just smacks of having no actual information to offer to the discussion. Ignoring the opinions of people who use these words is like blocking emails with “viagra” in the title line. It’s only spam, so you won’t miss it anyway.
“I cannot recall any serving Premier being publicly subjected to quite such a vicious attack. And from members of his own party, to boot!”
So what about Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech then?
Andrew,
At what point did Howe called Mrs.T a ‘psychopath’?
This is such a bizarre political tactic, to stop addressing facts and positions and just call somebody a raving nutter.
It’s an amazing tendency of…ummm…ahhh…(oh, dear, how to avoid saying ‘leftist’ and losing dan?)…a certain sort of debater to believe some ideas are so outrageous that they don’t ever have to be addressed. Once someone utters certain blasphemies, you can safely dismiss him as a crackpot without rebuttal.
Aliens ate your housecat? No global warming? War in Iraq was justified? Take 1,000cc Thorazine and call me in the morning.
You know, every time I see someone say “every time I see the word ‘X’, I completely ignore the entire comment or article it appears in”, I don’t completely ignore the entire comment or article it appears in, because I don’t need to. Such a statement is stupid and blinkered enough in its own right to be dismissed.
I’m not that familiar with politics in England, but in Estonia people who write stuff like that are dismissed as looneys by everyone but themselves and others looneys.
I mean, with articles like that, it’s hard to take them seriously, isn’t it?
AE Newman, I was just about to say that myself 😀
Dan, what word would you prefer we use, assuming you understand what group of people are being refered to.
That’s my point, A Massey: we’re all different. I’m afraid that my eyes slide off broadbrush labels. It’s not something I do on purpose, but I do take Alfred’s point above.
In future I must make more of an attempt to read through blinkered prejudices and try to find some arguments beneath the point-scoring, but it’s hard when I deduce from certain phraseology that the writer has probably already discounted my opinions, or lumped me into a bucket in which I do not belong.
When we over-generalise, in order to demonise one set of people over another, we lose all chance of having a rational debate. But I’m sure you don’t need me preaching to you here, especially since I’m not a regular at this site. I was just making the observation that pre-polarised arguments switch me straight off.
Sorry if I derailed the debate.
Here in America, leftists have been calling conservatives psychopaths since Goldwater ran for President in 1964. We’re used to it by now. But liberals calling other liberals insane — that is strange.
By the way, although you might label me a “leftist”, I agree that it’s disengenius for those who were opposed to the war in Iraq to call Blair a “psychopath”, which he clearly isn’t. I think there may be some mileage in calling him a “liar”, or a “war criminal”, but one can take it too far. Best wait until there’s some evidence one way or another before throwing out too many wild accusations though, eh? In return I only ask the same courtesy of Mr Blair next time someone accuses another sovereign nation of presenting us with a direct military threat.
dan, I don’t think you’ll get much agreement calling Tony a war criminal here. Many posters here consider whacking a tyrant a justification in and of itself, myself included. And you cannot seriously deny that Saddam was a tyrant.
What I find fascinating, but unsurprising, it that this doesn’t seem to be causing the controvery that we had from the twits in Brussels when Berlusconi suggested MEP Schulz could play the role of a concentration camp officer. And I’d think calling somebody a ‘psychopath’ is far worse.
It goes to show what I think everybody here already knew: that it’s OK to engage in vile name-calling if you’re of the correct political persuasion.
There you go assuming again. Saddam was undeniably a tyrant. Ok? That doesn’t give one nation a right to attack and invade another without the say-so of the UN Security Council. I’m no expert, but I believe this to be a matter of international law. Note also that I did not actually call Tony Blair a war criminal. I stated that there may be some mileage in calling him such, but that it would be best not to throw out wild accusations before seeing some evidence. Perhaps not the fairest of rhetorical devices, in retrospect, but no worse than implying I’m unpatriotic to disagree with a war, which was something Tony was keen to point out quite recently.
dan,
1. I didn’t assume you didn’t think Saddam was a tyrant–I was making a rhetorical statement just in case.
2. Granted, you did not directly call Tony a war criminal.
3. There is no such thing as international law. I think this subject has been covered before, but let’s rehash. Laws are created by governing bodies and are enforcable. What we have are international treaties that set out the rules that you call “laws”. The only time these rules get enforced is if somebody decides to do so, which we did. So please do not use the completely false old saw of “international law”.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Blair might just be exactly that.
A psychopath.
Eamon Brennan
Eamon: only to the extent that most politicians are a bit psychopathic – self-aggrandizing, risk-taking, thrill-seeking, escalating the odds, lacking conscience.
But there’s a world of difference between a psychopath and a psychotic and, no, I don’t think Tony Blair is a gibbering frootloop. A creep, but not a nutter.
Alfred, like you, I’d rather not get dragged into rehashing past arguments, although I wasn’t party to exactly the same discussions as you, so I must assume that we’re similarly informed.
I said I’m not an expert, and I’m afraid that I don’t always use the right words. Is it not true that according to international treaties it is not allowable for one nation state to attack another without certain conditions being met? We don’t have any evidence yet that Iraq was breaking international treaties on “WMDs”, and neither do we have a security council resolution directly legitimising an invasion.
I realise that I may be misinformed, but it is my limited understanding that there may well be a good case for the prosecution of Messrs Bush and Blair under the Geneva conventions. I leave it to more official bodies than this forum to make and act on such decisions. However, for my peace of mind, perhaps you could furnish me with a link to the previous discussion(s) where this issue was nailed? Hopefully I can improve my knowledge in this area.
In case I am wrong, I will happily retract the words “war criminal” from my post, and further apologise if necessary.
However, the burning question in my mind is still “did he lie or mislead parliament about the reasons for this war, and if so why”?
S Weasel
At what point did I use the word psychotic.
Eamon Brennan
I recommend substituting “leftist” for “left winger.” The same meaning with less aggression.
Eamon: you didn’t. The source(s) quoted in the article did.
dan, here you go:
International Law
This isn’t a Samizdata discussion, but the site linked to is sometimes linked to by Samizdata and the writer of the site comments here. Enjoy.
Did it occur to you why I might quote the one and ignore the other.
Of course he’s not psychotic. That goes without question. He does display psychopatic tendencies though:
manipulativeness, irresponsibility, self-centeredness, shallowness, and a lack of empathy
All of the above.
Eamon Brennan
Eamon, you just described a whole lotta politicians, celebrities, and lawyers. By that description, Tony doesn’t stand out.
Is that a yes or no Alfred?
Eamon
Dan, mebbe we should spend the weekend coming up with plausible and alternative words for leftist.
Getting back to the original point – I think that when your own side (in the case, socialist-leaning folk) start calling you a psychopath, it is time to take stock. Parts of the Left (I do of course generalise) seem unable to understand the issues surrounding the Iraq war in terms other than the most infantile. The name-calling, conspiracy theorising, evasion of basic realities – it is all part of a pattern.
The Left is still strong enough in the Labour Party to do Blair and hence their own party, a lot of damage. The Tories, if they have enough sense (big if) can stand back and watch the conflagration.
1/ It was required for Iraq to prove that they have destroyed their WMD, not for the UN to prove that Iraq still has them. The UN weapons inspectors at no point announced themselves satisfied.
2/ If you take the peaceful ideals behind the UN seriously, you should support bypassing those within that organisation who were plotting to let Iraq off the hook without disarming. The UN should have taken action YEARs before, when Iraq first began to show signs of resisting the inspectors. How long should we have waited before acting? Or would you have prefered taking a course of action such as “containment” or simply backing down and withdrawing our forces from the region?
Eamon, we’re going to have to wait and see, I think.
They should have never left Hussein in power in the first place. When you go to war, finish the war. Don’t leave it hanging like that.
I’ll be seriously angry if Tony Blair is ousted. Absolutely disgusted is how I’d explain it. The Left is seriously insane, and I say this as a liberal.
Thanks Alfred, I’m familiar with Steven Den Beste from another website and generally respect his viewpoints even when I disagree, which is more often the case than not. I’ll have to give the article a read later, because unfortunately the day is rather catching up with me, but I do appreciate your linking it.
Johnathon: good luck! I’m not sure either what the reverse term would be. I’ve heard “neocon” bandied around, but I detest that just as much as “leftist”. It would appear (to me) that both terms were coined with some intention of intellectually discounting contrary arguments. At the same time I agree that labels can be handy when we need to generalise in our statements.
Speaking for myself, I espouse certain socialist causes such as a National Health Service, but I also have techno-libertarian leanings and I sometimes think people should be forcibly educated in how to bring up children. I’m for economic markets, but I think we should restrict them in certain ways to our social benefit. If I met Stalin, I would poke him in the eye with a sharp stick. If I met Karl Marx, I would buy him a drink and want to discuss social dialectic over it. I think that sometimes both Labour and Tory politicians make a lot of sense in different directions, and I usually end up voting tactically, depending on the issues of the day. I think Party Politics are the bane of all of our lives and would like to see them outlawed, but in that case I’m not sure how anyone could be elected.
What does this make me, other than confused? I would resent either a left or a “rightist” label, because I often find myself agreeing with one “side” more than the other, but there’s no predictable outcome. Also, in my experience opposition or support for the war has not fallen out along strictly party lines. I think some are too ready to use the war to generate political strawmen to attack. And now I need a cup of coffee 🙂
A Massey: if, as seems to be the case, we discover that Iraq destroyed what weapon stocks they had before the war ever started, and if we further suspend disbelief momentarily on whether the weapons inspectors would have been able to prove this given more time, then might it not prove true that we didn’t even need to bother invading this time around? Granted, if we’d overstepped our UN mandate last time we would probably have still been occupying the place and so they would not have been able to hide them for nearly ten years until they’d rusted into inserviceability.
Yeah the worst Tories called Major was boring and dull. Tories don’t even muster this kind of vitriol for that slobbering traiterous poof Ted Heath.
I fear noble Samizdata readers may be missing the point. PM Blair wailed/ruled/rocked-the-house yesterday. Whatever you think of his politics he earned the adulation he is receiving in the US.
“The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.”
Nobody talks like that anymore. It is hard to reconcile with his EU-philia, but they are stirring words.
So jk, I agree that they are stirring words. But I’m left wondering how invading Iraq has furthered the war against terrorism. I’d love to know that the potential for terrorism has been decreased by this war, but I just can’t convince myself. Was there really a link to Al Quaeda? I don’t trust our governments any more to be telling me the truth. How can I regain that trust in the light of all this doubt? Tony Blair doesn’t fill me with a sense of well-being with those words. He just raises more questions. Like, “what exactly is the nature of the mistake that he admitted to”?
And, to paraphrase an earlier comment, please do not use the completely false old saw of “liberty”. The incumbent powers are using the excuse of terrorism to erode our liberties away, so far as I can see. By the way, I apologise if I appear to be monopolising this thread. I’ve only just discovered this site and am enjoying the erudite level of discussion here now that I’ve got past my initial pique at the “L” word.
Dan: “if… we discover that Iraq destroyed what weapon stocks they had before the war ever started… then might it not prove true that we didn’t even need to bother invading this time around?”
No, because this is partly an issue of trust. Saddam was required to show a change of heart on WMD – not just to get rid of those he had, but to give us some confidence that he wouldn’t try to get more in future. In order to do this, all he was required to do was cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors. His record on that front speaks for itself.
I agree with you there, A Massey, but I still think we were premature at best. I’ll probably never be entirely convinced either way. I do realise that if Blair is telling the truth it must have been an awful decision to take. If I could be sure he made the right decision, I would back him. The awful thing about all this is that I don’t really know what will convince me now. Going back to the topic again, I wish that the accusations (on both sides) could stop until we’ve at least had a full-blown, independent enquiry.
dan,
The incumbent powers are using the excuse of terrorism to erode our liberties away, so far as I can see.
The government as a whole, not just the current one, has been eroding our liberties from day one.
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” — Thomas Jefferson
So let’s do something about it.
What to do when government so patently appears to ignore the people? Vote the next cycle in, I suppose.
Dan: What does this make me, other than confused?
Kit: Perhaps you’re a liberal relativist/pragmist. The government reserves the the right to exert control of particular private properties (money, land, companies) when it’s in the interest of the “greater good.” .
The more libertarian one becomes the more absolutist one becomes, the idea being that it is fundamentally [b]immoral[/b] for the government to interfere.
In my view mainstream politics is not really about what is right and wrong, but about the pragmatic achievement of general niceness and the avoidance of general nastiness, relative to the social climate.
People can find right wing ideas uncomfortbale because they’re about percieved truth rather than percieved virtue.
I have always sensed a lot of buried rage on the left – a pent-up frustration that their essential goodness is not acknowledged, blessed, welcomed.
So it is not at all surprising to me to see socialists turning on each other like this. They all believe anyone who disagrees with them is mentally ill – and they have always been prone to seeing their closest ally as deadliest enemy.
Kit: or, to put it another way, capitalism runs on human greed; communism runs on human good. Guess which one actually works?
I too, take great umbrage at name calling. Labels such as “leftist”, “collectivist”, “statist”, “left winger”, and “liberal” are mean and nasty and I shut down and stop paying attention when I read them, literally sticking my fingers in my ears and going “nnnneeeee nnnnnneeeee nnnneeee!”
Forthwith, some proposed names so as not to unfairly label and offend our political friends.
incorrigible ahistorical optimists – instead of: liberal
economically illiterate – instead of: marxist
economically illiterate sufferers of compassion deficit disorder – instead of: communists.
economically illiterate sufferers of compassionate deficite disorder with violent ideation – instead of: stalinists.
people who’d just as soon be left alone – instead of: libertarians
philosophical fusionists who’d rather be left alone, but, if they can’t be, would rather be bothered by little government than big, with just a hint of Judaism or Catholicism – instead of neocons.
On second thought, I think I will skip the descriptive labels, and just call people who rabidly cling to outmoded and wrong left wing positions by a handier, generally accurate title: assclowns.
And as for them, they can continue to call me fascist. No need to stop now.
Kit: In my view mainstream politics is not really about what is right and wrong, but about the pragmatic achievement of general niceness and the avoidance of general nastiness, relative to the social climate.
Add a degree of social climbing and a set of revolving doors, and I think you’re generally spot on.
In terms of labels, use whichever you like. There’s clearly nothing productive left to discuss about it here.
Omnibus Bill: Thanks for that hilarious suggestion! We may need to abbreviate or use acronyms for brevity’s sake.
Dan: “if… we discover that Iraq destroyed what weapon stocks they had before the war ever started… then might it not prove true that we didn’t even need to bother invading this time around?”
Also, no, because the stocks are just the symptom of a much deeper disease. The problem isn’t a few barrels of germs, the problem is a regime with the demonstrated (a)capacity to manufacture and (b) willingness to use, the stuff. This is why the anybody who runs around acting as if the failure to find barrels of germs matters much has a very shallow understanding of what is going on (unless their concern has to do with who might have hte germs now; this particular concern does not appear to concern opponents of the war much).
As to whether we were “premature” or not – this is one of those totally untestable propositions. You can only be sure you aren’t premature when it is too late and you are looking at another smoking hole in Manhattan. In my opinion, we were 12 years too late. A lot of Kurds and Shiites would share that opinion, but they’re dead now.
If it’s OK, I’ll depart from the “Dan’s debut” sub-thread and address the original post.
Having seen on TV Clare Short basically saying her leader is a liar and manipulator, followed by all the Brownite “psycho” stuff, (reminiscent of the way the Soviets used to declare people insane for dissenting from communism), I would think Blair’s best option right now is to shoot home and challenge his critics to fight a Labour leadership election against him. That will flush out all the creeps, and silence the backstabbers (or front stabbers), and either he’ll be on his way out or their lack of support will be vividly demonstrated.
No party leader can tolerate the kind of stuff that’s being hurled at him by his own people. Either he whips them into line, or he surrenders.
I daresay the Tories could do with him going on a free transfer.
Frank DiSalle mentioned a good example from the US press. I thought the ‘Bush bashers’ were pretty good too. Questioned his intelligence and wondered if he had a learning disorder.
Now that I think of it, the ‘Clinton Bashers’ questioned if he had a sexual addiction problem and how that could impact his ability to be president. Stories also implied he may have a psychological problem because of his refusal to admit anything was wrong.
The press can get very nasty here with some political figure they don’t like.
Always hate to see it happen, even if I hate the target. Most criticism is fair game. But, some stuff crosses a line that shouldn’t be crossed.
Members of the press, and whatever experts they consult, are not qualified to make any sort of diagnosis on anyone.
Why are the war sceptics (Chirac for example, British Laborites) in denial of the fact that before the US posted some 200k soldiers to Kuwait, en route to invasion, Saddam refused to admit UN weapons inspector into Iraq ? Even though there were 123 UN resolutions demanding that, and a commitment he himslef signed on ?
Those who said – let the inspections work (France, Germany) – why didn’t they send 200000 soldiers to Kuwait to make inspections work ? What did France do when the inspectors were expulsed in 1998 (or was it 1996?)
France and all those who obstructed the efforts to reach a UN decision only wanted to prevent a war AT ALL COSTS (they said as much) – i.e. – they were frantic in protecting a murderous, mad tyrant.
They didn’t care about inspections, that was a pretext. They didn’t care about the UN and international law either, both of which were ignored by Saddam. They only cared about the murderous tyrant and their own weapons and oil contracts.
And these people call Blair what ? a psychopath ?
The attacks on Blair in Britain demonstrate just how unhinged the Left has become over Britain’s participation in the war in Iraq. It is driving them crazy. There is something unseemly about their response.
While the Lefties are obviously angry that Britain helped overthrow a vicious killer dictator some of the attacks on Blair must be a product of Gordon Brown’s plotting to become PM. I think he’s capitalizing on the anger of the Left and stoking it as part of his power bid. Given that Saddam was an evil dictator who deserves to be dead Brown’s utilization of this anger does not speak well of his own character.
There is another angle to this: Blair’s betrayal of the International Brotherhood of the Left. They didn’t denounce Blair for supportung Clinton over Kosovo bombimgs. That was “our” war, i.e. Clinton was one of “us”, he deserved support.
But how could Blair support BUSH ? Bush is the enemy, he is the “right”, he is “them”. Never mind Saddam and his murdering of Iraqi people – the cardinal sin is supporting Bush. Blair has betrayed The Left.