The press has covered the walkouts by the brothers, and where friendly to the government has characterised it as ‘brave’. But Tony Blair’s advertised last speech to the Trades Union Congress was fascinating in itself, calculated in a cartoonish way. Who was it for?
Who would be entranced by the sententious, treacly opening, claiming some sort of credit for sympathy with the victims of terrorism and war?
Before speaking to you today, I want to remember all those who died, including the many British people, repeat our sympathy and condolences for the loss of their loved ones and rededicate ourselves to complete and total opposition to terrorism anywhere, for whatever reason.
Who would be persuaded by the windy pseudo-rhetoric, the clichés set in shattered sentences, and exhibition of truism as valuable policy insight?
We have to escape the tyranny of the “or” and develop the inclusive nature of the “and”.
The answer to economic globalisation is open markets and strong welfare and public service systems, particularly those like education, which equip people for change.
The answer to terrorism is measures on security and tackling its underlying causes.
What, addressed to trades unions, was the point in half the time to international affairs, and Mr Blair’s role on the world stage?
Peace which threatens its security is no peace. But on the right terms it must be done.
Yesterday’s announcement of a government of national unity in Palestine is precisely what I hoped for. On the basis it is faithful to the conditions spelled out by the quartet – the UN, EU, US and Russia – we should lift the economic sanctions on the Palestinian Authority and be prepared to deal with the government, the whole government.
Then, piece by piece, step by step, we must put a process of peace back together again.
Is this really carefully scripted? Is it aimed at an English-speaking audience? What on earth does it have to do with congress?
And who could miss, or be fooled by, the manipulative slide from lachrymose anectote about exploited foreign workers to the hint (immmediately contradicted) that they might be stopped from coming here at all (and thus from competing for work with union members… er, being exploited…) by magic biometric border controls?
I know this answer isn’t popular, at least in some quarters. But I tell you, without secure ID, controlled migration just isn’t possible.
You can have armies of inspectors, police and bureaucrats trying to track down illegals but without a proper system of ID – and biometric technology now allows this – it is a hopeless task.
And as identity abuse grows – and it is a huge problem now across parts of the private as well as public sector – so the gains for consumers and companies will grow through a secure ID database.
And we all want effective armies of inspectors, police, and bureaucrats, don’t we, children? The whole thing (offered by The Guardian here) is extraordinary. The relevant bits – attacks on protectionism, allusions to Labour’s success in enacting union-friendly legislation – would be a perfectly good TUC speech. Short, but to the point. One might not agree with it, but one could see it as a piece of working political machinery. But that speech is suspended in a mush of late-Blair messianism that is much more instructive.
He’s going to fix all the world’s problems. All it requires is for all the great powers to come to a final lasting peace agreement in which he is playing a vital role, defusing the grievances that (alone?) drive global conflict(s), and monitoring all activities of everybody who lives in or visits Britain using a big database.
So who was the speech for? It was the calling-card of a War Leader for the lecture-circuit, some cynics may say. But this cynic suspects the speech was mainly for Mr Blair himself – that this is how he sees the world, and how he wants us all to see it too. It is a preamble to rants to come.
Presumably he’s trying to speak to posterity, using his few remaining big set-piece speeches as PM to put his vision of the world on record. Of course, when politicians try to do that sort of thing they usually end up sounding more like Jim Hacker than Winston Churchill.
Speak to posterity!
More like speaking out of his posterior.
Of course Tony wants to exchange “or” for “and”.
Now in the UK we have Democracy AND totalitarianism!
Marvellous analysis, Guy. Really top shelf stuff. And I fully agree with your conclusion.
“Top shelf stuff”
Shurely shome Mishtake!
Insightful as Guy’s post was it ain’t Asian Babes
Asian Babes, eh? I hear they publish some interesting articles.
He meant the naked truth.
I wish to state for the record that I have never bought a copy of Asian Babes or even peeled apart the pages of a mate’s copy of that fine upstanding organ of the press.
I get all my porn online. That’s one of the reasons my IBM Trackpoint comes in so handy.
Insightful as Guy’s post was it ain’t Asian Babes
I would be happy to write for such a distinguished publication, if asked.
Dear Mr Herbert,
We, at the board of Asian Babes,
consider you to be an ideal candidate
for the editorship of a new publication
we have in mind called-
WIGS&WHIPS!!
We have noted your legal antecedents and deep knowledge of the practices of the Judiciary, and feel that you certainly are our man.
Reply as soon as possible, as the short list goes on for pages!
OT:
[Entirely. Not a comment at all, then…]
All his speeches from now on will be part auto-obituary, part job application addressed To Whom It May Concern. Don’t think I’ll bother, myself.
BTW:
Insightful as Guy’s post was it ain’t Asian Babes
I apologise for the appalling grammatical error there. I noticed as soon as I posted. I apologise further for the late nature of the apology but there was dinner and the latest copy of Massive Mammaries to get through.
Sorry to the hosts; didn’t realize OT comments were frowned upon here.
Nick M, You are a very naughty boy!
Heffty shove-
But I like you!
Let me tell you a tale of old Nottingham town.
Back in the early 70’s, a friend of mine got a job in Nottingham, in the Porn industry.
Ah when I say porn and industry, in the same breath, well there wasn’t much of either happening back then.
His job was to edit these blurry backstreet backpocket, Forum sized (ha! I just realised that only Alistair Cambell would know what size that was without looking!) Mags that were almost completely – well a con!
Frinstance! There was an article in NME way back in the 70’s, that linked Mike Oldfield, of Tubular Bells (the founder of Mr Bransons fortune) to a porno movie that he had supposedly made.
Well of course he hadn’t! Hell he’s barely got the sense to get out of the way of a truck!
But he was upset, well you would be too , wouldn’t you?
Well it was all the fault of my friend.
See this Porn mag outfit he worked for, was so shoestring that they would review porn movies without actually seeing them.
They would get a few stills and a title.
That was it.
So my friend, being an imaginative sort , would make up a plot.
He saw these stills one day, having just bought Tubular Bells, and thought the bloke bonking for Holland in them, looked remarkably like Mike Oldfield.
So he wrote him into the review.
Makes you wonder as to the professed and real reading habits NME journalists of the era though doesn’t it?
Nottinghamshire porn.
Well love a duck!
Possibly quite literally.