It is rare for the Prime Minister to provide an insight into his intellectual worldview. Writing in the Observer today, Blair details his views on civil liberties and his differences with the liberal tradition.
These [summary] powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.
That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: ‘what we have been witnessing … is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations’.
Blair argues that the tradition of social democracy applies “morality to political philosophy”, with the unspoken implication that other traditions are unable to do so. This is accompanied by an attack on individualism with a phrase of much potential: that government ensures “the many can live without the fear of the few”.
Recent history has appeared to demonstrate that it is the few who should live in fear of the many. It is not surprising that the Left views the majority as a moral virtue.
I particuarly enjoyed Blair’s line about “excessive individualism”.
Antonio Falso is a perfect, ignorant example of someone who thinks if he uses a whole gang of Latinate words, this will supply the gravitas that his argument lacks.
Read Antonio Falso’s words again – or OK; don’t torture yourself; just take my word for it – and his argument is bullshit dressed up in Latinate finery. Still the same old conman. Delboy with a larger, although less meaningful, vocubulary.
“the many can live without the fear of the few”
Hmmm. This is one of the concepts that will actually be used by both sides of the spectrum.
TB will is use it as a tool for state control (ID Cards) whereas as anyone with the remotest grasp of decency and morality will understand that it is essentially an underlying principle of civilised society (fear is only ever employed by extremists.)
Bullshit article, natch.
If anybody thinks that this gives an insight to the real Tony Blair then they are mad. After he retires, and writes his memoirs it will still be a “Walter Mitty” experience, and shortly after his death there will be biographies by the dozen, some from socialists and some from his enemies, and we will still be confused.
In 100 years time, when he has finally been fairly appraised then some dusty, crusty historian may get somewhere near the truth. My guess is the final entry will be, “The husband of Cherie Blair, (Prime Minister 2009-2021, Life President 2021-2046), father of the Lord God Euan.
Chilling, John East. Just chilling.
You are correct that Antonio Falso is a fantasist. A Walter Mitty indeed. There will be absolutely nothing to be gained by reading his vainglorious ghostwritten memoirs. But there are people around him who are far cleverer than he is, and they will spill the beans for money – in the true capitalist tradition of socialists who have spotted an opportunity.
Anyone who buys Antonio Falso’s “autobiography” will get a hymn to himself and loads and loads and loads of photographs of Antonio in different costumes in different venues. “Here I am at the Parthenon, on a visit to persuade the president of Greece to ….”. “This is me in front of the Great Pyramid. Alastair wouldn’t let me bring my Lawrence of Arabia get up!!!!!” “Me with a photo of my youngest ‘kid’ on my coffee mug outside the door of No 10. I took a lot of stick on that one!!!!!” “Strumming my guitar with Cliff Richard in Barbados.” “Wearing corduroy trousers so tight I couldn’t move without wincing at President Bush’s ranch in Texas – but I thought I looked pretty good!”
Hardee har har. The vultures will fly in and their books will fly off the shelves.
But your words, John East, about Iron Cherie, President for Life if Not Longer, and St Euan of Puke were chilling
So Bleah and the Labour Party (and, by extension, other social democrats) are trying to legislate morality, are they?
Ted Schuerzinger – Yes. A woman who said on a radio show that she did not think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt little boys – hardly an outrageous opinion, and even if it were, so what? – was called on in her home by police to “investigate”. Someone had complained – whoaah! Hold the front page! Someone objected to what someone else had said on a radio talk show! – and the police turned up at her door to “investigate”.
After 1,200 years, there is no free speech in Britain now, save what St Tony, in his magnificence, deems “acceptable”.
I have always thought of “the many” as the governed, and “the few” as the governors. Mr. Blair obviously has this backwards.
The left also tends to see morality as something that should be hammered out by a committe, and revised annually.
Philip doesn’t quote some of the scariest bits. This is published now because Blair is about to accelerate the destruction of liberty:
Note, as ever, a begged question followed (though in sequence, for extra concealment of the join, preceded), by non sequitur begged. What evidence is there that the nature of crime is changing? None; except insofar as the TB regime progresses it defines more and more human behaviour of which it disapproves, or finds messy, or inconvenient, as crime. If crime were changing and bringing some liberties under threat, it does not follow that other liberties become less important.
What Mr Blair fails to understand is that the government is not the majority and indeed fails to speak for the majority. He just uses the assumption that government represents the majority to throw weight behind his own flawed arguments.
He would attack Tories who sought to apply their morality to politics, but the left is free to because the left assumes it represents people due to its history of insisting that.
If I say 2+2=5 enough it does not make it true.
The most worrying thing in this is his dedication to collectivism and his stand against the individual. He makes the same false assumption which Popper campaigned against that collectivism = altruistic and individulism = selfish.
As Hayek and Popper have admirably demonstrated, the opposite is more often true, for although the collectivist may be altruistic in origin, he has to force his views upon others through coercion thus harming others.
Mr Blair does not acknowlege the fundamental basis of Liberalism and Democracy: The right of the minority not to fear the majority and the rights of the individual.
No liberal would ever say that there are no responsibilities, however these responsibilities apply to all including politicians and the powerful, not just those deemed undesirable by the current administration.
Lastly, this government’s parroting of ‘freedom from fear is the most important freedom’ is Orwellian double-speak to the extreme. We can never be free of fear, it not in our nature as human beings, and we irrationally fear many things which are unlikely and are fine with real and present dangers.
The freedoms which we should be guarding are those of free speach, free association, freedom to trade and equality under the law. None of which we truly have in this country.
“He would attack Tories who sought to apply their morality to politics, but the left is free to because the left assumes it represents people due to its history of insisting that.”
I agree with your statement, but disagree with your justification. The left feel free to legislate their morality into law because of their fundamental world view. Whereas the right tends to view their opponents as wrong, the left tend to view their opponents as evil.
In their mind theirs is the only morality that matters.
T Mills,
Very true. Unfortuantely we are left with a Prime Minister who makes grandiose gestures regarding “morality to political philosophy” yet presides over an administration where one of the biggest virtues lacking in his government is … morality. We are expected to believe that Mr Blair is the shining knight saving Britain from oppression by [insert banned organisation name here] yet the man has amply demonstrated his contempt for Britain and his apparent disdain for the British people.
Gramsci emphasized in his diaries the role of intellectuals in the creation of hegemony. Given the obvious dearth of ‘intellectuals’ inside the modern Labour government (I hear that John Reid is fond of boasting at Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings how he keeps a copy of Antionio Gramsci’s diaries beside his bed) I wonder if maybe using Grasmci as your moral creed is not so much an ideology for these people as some form of cosmetic overlay to make them appear more respectable to their own minions?
I’m afraid that in this day and age all I can see from Tony Blair’s frantic scribblings is a somwhat ordinary man growing more and more desperate for his place in history.
On the other hand perhaps? he is just a greedy, stupid person with attitude
Blair is a crook and a lightweight, but that does not mean he may not sincerely believe this quasi-fascist claptrap and do immense damage to this nation in his remaining time in office.
The interesting question now is whether David the Wonderboy Cameron has it in him to oppose this sort of rubbish. I am not holding my breath.
Quasi?
Blair is a fascist, unquestionably and like all authoritarians, he believes he alone is the best one to decide what is “allowable” – ridiculous in itself, as everything ought to be allowable except that which is specifically disallowed – but we are in Napoleon territory here. Like speaks unto like.
At the same time, he is shallow and grossly incompetent. Talk of his “legacy” (LOL) has led us all to wondering what this might be, if anything. And thinking back, it becomes obvious that the man has failed at every single thing he has essayed. His record is one of devastating failure and endless cosmetics and bullying to cover them up.
Just as a side thought – can you imagine what it must be like to be a child brought up by that toxic father? My god, the control! It’s a wonder that St Euan of Puke only went down the road to Bristol. If I were him, I’d have applied to the University of Woollagong.
To those of us blessed (cursed?) with having lived during the 1960s and ’70s there is an extra dimension of enjoyment to all this. We had to survive through the interminable lectures about “freedom” and “individualism” from people on the Left, who scoffed when we pointed to the simple fact that there has never yet been a socialist society where freedom wasn’t repeatedly and messily sacrificed to the false god of the Common Good.
Well, the big iron wheel has come crushing round once again, and now it is that very generation of student activists that is proving the point for us.
Wasn’t it one of their clowns who sang: “when will they ever learn?”
Blair has very certainly created a legacy; my job brings me into more companies than is healthy, and one change in recent years has been the nature of staff appraisals. Once upon a time you sat down with a manager, confirmed what you had agreed to do a year ago, and discusssed how well you had delivered befor going on to your target for the next year. Now you sit down, and discuss how well presented your promises were last year, how accurately you have set out your reasons for success or failure, and what you have learned from the process. There is no talk of delivery at all. That is the essence of Blairism; concentrate on what I say, bacause I’m not planning on actually doing anything.
I have seen this in a bank and two manufacturers recently, and my next contract (please) will be an SME, where this nonsense has not penetrated.
Verity,
Your speculation concerning the effect of Blair’s personality on his son is interesting. An experience I had many years ago taught me that public and personal personas are often totally different.
Do you remember Dr Desmond Morris. He achieved fame as the long time presenter of Zoo Time on TV, and wrote the best seller Naked Ape. He was considered an expert on human personality and behaviour, and was a pioneer of modern non-confrontational parenting techniques. I met him and his son, then aged about 10 years, in a pub restuarant in Marlborough many years ago. The lad was the most spoilt brat I’ve ever seen, whinging and whining constantly and always getting his own way. Not a good ambassador for touchy feely parenting.
In view of my earlier experience I can’t help speculating along similar lines with the Blair family. Perhaps when Tony gets in from the office, after a long day failing to deliver, he is mercilessly bullied by Cherie and Euan. The authoritarian aspect of Blair’s public life may be a way of compensating for humiliation at home.
GCooper writes: Wasn’t it one of their clowns who sang: “when will they ever learn?”
No, it was three clowns. Peter, Paul and Mary, of “Puff The Magic Dragon” fame.
John East, I don’t think you can extrapolate a thing from seeing Desmond Morris in a pub with his son. We know far more about Blair and his destructive pathology than we know about a TV presenter, for heaven’s sake, even if he was an authority on his subject. Maybe he was bringing his son up in an apely way for all we know.
Blair’s a controlling, authoritarian, interfering individual and seems to have been that way since he was in school, judging by remarks from his old headmaster. I don’t think people whose ambition it is to be a rock star are shy and retiring.
No it wasn’t – it was Pete Seeger who wrote ‘when will they ever learn’ in ‘Where have All The Flowers Gone’.
From what I hear Euan is supposed to be ok. Certainly not a God-basher like his father is and, let’s face it, it would be bloody hard to be more financially inept than the unfortunate chap’s mother just happens to be.
Last time I checked, the Observer was a Sunday newspaper, not a Monday paper.
You’re right! Pete Seeger! Another one. Peter, Paul & Mary sang the fake folk song, “If I Had A Hammer”. They put so much energy into singing that song it would have been easier just to go down the DIY and buy a damn’ hammer. On the other hand, as they expressed the intention to hammer in the morning, hammer in the evening and all night long, perhaps it was better that they didn’t have one.
Speaking of the above performers, I see that Tookie got his lethal injection last night. That Joan Baez was outside the prison walls singing folk songs may have made it that bit easier to take his leave.
Needless to say, Jesse Jackson was on camera.
Verity, far sadder is the recent death of Richard Pryor. What a funny guy he was.
Jonathan – I don’t think Tookie’s death is sad at all.
How can anything be sad if it provides Jesse with a photo op?
One thing about Jesse Jackson, though, is, he is a powerful orator. It’s just that everything he says is wrong.