Words I never thought I'd say.
Jul. 9th, 2004 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavySome time ago, whilst browsing through second-hand books, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
puddingcat came across a copy of “New Britain: My Vision for a Young Country” by Tony Blair. Written in 1996, before his first election victory, it was a collection of his thoughts and speeches about what Labour would do if they got into power.
Reasoning that my blood pressure is a little low at the moment, and my recent sunny demeanour is entirely at odds with my surly nature (plus she's been trying to give me a nervous twitch for years), she bought it for me and I, always enjoying as I do the feeling of the veins in my temples throbbing, set about reading it.
My original intention had been to go through and catalogue the broken promises, the lies, the inaccuracies, the mendacious spin which so characterise the current administration of this land. Needless to say, as I went through the book turning over the corner of each page containing a later-unfulfilled promise or undertaking, very soon the corner of every second page was turned over. I’m not joking when I say that. For the first third of the book, literally every one or two pages has a note, an addendum, or other reminder by me that, yes, here’s another unfulfilled howler from old ‘straight kinda guy’ Tony.
As I read further, my enthusiasm for the task diminished; not because I was taking potshots at a lot of fish in a vanishingly small barrel (which I was), but because my anger was slowly replaced by a new sensation. Dawning horror. You see, the more you read of his writings, the more you come to realise that Tony actually believed this load of old nonsense. He really, genuinely believed at time of writing that he was the man to usher in a new golden age of peace and prosperity, in which everyone would hold hands, sing a song, and love one another – and be led in that singing by head honcho Tony, smug grim plastered all over his eminently punchable phiz.
I suppose I ought to be shocked that he’d gone 14 years (he entered Parliament in 1982)in a hive of realpolitik and managed to hang onto his idealism. I mean - how did he manage that? Such preposterous naivety should surely have been burned out by the reality of Westminster. But I’m not horrified. Instead I think about what an awful process of realisation he must have had that he cannot achieve his dreams and I understand why he looks so tired, irritable and burned out in his public appearances.
I feel sorry for Tony Blair.
I bet you never thought you’d hear me say that, did you? But I do, I pity him. Somehow he managed to keep the youthful idealism which so characterises the student common-room politics ofinskauldrak, raggedhalo and others long after real-life experience should have stripped them away with the ongoing effects of reality. Thinking back over his seven year tenure I suppose it might be possible to chart his process of disillusionment. It mystifies me how he could have managed to hold onto these beliefs. I suppose that that sense of overwhelming self-satisfaction and superiority which he presents must have led to him being able to dismiss others caught up in the web of reality. “They’re little people,” he must have thought. ”They lack my superior socialist principles. I shall succeed where they have failed because I’m just gosh-darn better than them.” That delusion must have kept him going all these years, and now it has been shown up in the harshest possible light as the fallacy it was.
Of course, I wouldn’t want you to think that pitying him makes me like him one iota more. He’s still the same mendacious, oily little creep that he was seven years ago. He’s still the same insincere, glib little bastard who tried to turn the funeral of Princess Diana into a party-political broadcast. But now he’s a disillusioned insincere, glib little bastard. His fall must have been hard.
The kindest thing we could do is vote him out.*
*And if I were in charge, this is what you'd get.
puddingcat came across a copy of “New Britain: My Vision for a Young Country” by Tony Blair. Written in 1996, before his first election victory, it was a collection of his thoughts and speeches about what Labour would do if they got into power.Reasoning that my blood pressure is a little low at the moment, and my recent sunny demeanour is entirely at odds with my surly nature (plus she's been trying to give me a nervous twitch for years), she bought it for me and I, always enjoying as I do the feeling of the veins in my temples throbbing, set about reading it.
My original intention had been to go through and catalogue the broken promises, the lies, the inaccuracies, the mendacious spin which so characterise the current administration of this land. Needless to say, as I went through the book turning over the corner of each page containing a later-unfulfilled promise or undertaking, very soon the corner of every second page was turned over. I’m not joking when I say that. For the first third of the book, literally every one or two pages has a note, an addendum, or other reminder by me that, yes, here’s another unfulfilled howler from old ‘straight kinda guy’ Tony.
As I read further, my enthusiasm for the task diminished; not because I was taking potshots at a lot of fish in a vanishingly small barrel (which I was), but because my anger was slowly replaced by a new sensation. Dawning horror. You see, the more you read of his writings, the more you come to realise that Tony actually believed this load of old nonsense. He really, genuinely believed at time of writing that he was the man to usher in a new golden age of peace and prosperity, in which everyone would hold hands, sing a song, and love one another – and be led in that singing by head honcho Tony, smug grim plastered all over his eminently punchable phiz.
I suppose I ought to be shocked that he’d gone 14 years (he entered Parliament in 1982)in a hive of realpolitik and managed to hang onto his idealism. I mean - how did he manage that? Such preposterous naivety should surely have been burned out by the reality of Westminster. But I’m not horrified. Instead I think about what an awful process of realisation he must have had that he cannot achieve his dreams and I understand why he looks so tired, irritable and burned out in his public appearances.
I feel sorry for Tony Blair.
I bet you never thought you’d hear me say that, did you? But I do, I pity him. Somehow he managed to keep the youthful idealism which so characterises the student common-room politics of
inskauldrak, raggedhalo and others long after real-life experience should have stripped them away with the ongoing effects of reality. Thinking back over his seven year tenure I suppose it might be possible to chart his process of disillusionment. It mystifies me how he could have managed to hold onto these beliefs. I suppose that that sense of overwhelming self-satisfaction and superiority which he presents must have led to him being able to dismiss others caught up in the web of reality. “They’re little people,” he must have thought. ”They lack my superior socialist principles. I shall succeed where they have failed because I’m just gosh-darn better than them.” That delusion must have kept him going all these years, and now it has been shown up in the harshest possible light as the fallacy it was.Of course, I wouldn’t want you to think that pitying him makes me like him one iota more. He’s still the same mendacious, oily little creep that he was seven years ago. He’s still the same insincere, glib little bastard who tried to turn the funeral of Princess Diana into a party-political broadcast. But now he’s a disillusioned insincere, glib little bastard. His fall must have been hard.
The kindest thing we could do is vote him out.*
*And if I were in charge, this is what you'd get.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The nation's had a LoboTony
Date: 2004-07-09 04:00 am (UTC)I suppose I ought to be shocked that he’d gone 14 years (he entered Parliament in 1982)in a hive of realpolitik and managed to hang onto his idealism.
Why be surprised by that? He prays after all. There's only the merest difference between thinking you've a hotline to God and thinking you are God. He's certainly has a Jesuitical ability to deafen himself to reason and blind himself to evidence of his own hubristic errors of judgement.
I'd say he has always had all the genuine idealism of one of Stalin's propagandists - a view apparently shared by the leader he succeeded, if recent commentators are to be believed. That much criticised Demon-Eyes Tony 'New Labour, New Danger' seems ever more prophetic.
Re: The nation's had a LoboTony
Date: 2004-07-09 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 04:11 am (UTC)I suspect he gets a lot of 'yah, you suck' mail. I would be curious as to the effect of a genuinely pitying letter expressing your sorrow at his loss of trust/naivity.
Not that we'd ever see the response of course.
There's a part of me that suspects that a non-snide letter saying this could actually break him, if it got as far as his desk rather than stopping at a secretary!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 04:13 am (UTC)Active involvement in politics is something I tell people to do, so I'd better not be hypocritical when my turn comes around :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 04:18 am (UTC)Shove a re-draft up on here if you do?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 04:19 am (UTC)Consider a biography...
Date: 2004-07-09 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 05:14 am (UTC)Never trust a leader who wants to name anywhere after himself. So expect to see the New (Labour) Town of Blairchester opening on a greenfield site near you soon - although not if Jarvis have anything to do with it....
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 05:15 am (UTC)And you have to admit that Davidgrad sounds a pretty nice place to live.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:08 am (UTC)It happens a lot when people are promoted over their abilities.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:23 am (UTC)And whilst I could not be described as TB or Labour's number one fan, he does head a relatively competent and progressive government - just remember for a moment quite how much worse the Tories were and would still be if they got back in. Which they won't because they are a bunch of incomptent weirdos who make Labour look relatively amazing.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:49 am (UTC)2 - It's still a lot more ethical than the Tories ever managed.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:56 am (UTC)The only foreign policy which makes any sense is "What is best for us." Anything else is a nonsense.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 07:18 am (UTC)Your initial counter to this might be to have a 'Long term strategy'?
Fine. But there is still a difference between a selfish and self-interested approach and ultimately, the latter is historically the one that has found more success.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting you think selling Anthrax is justifiable. You might be a Tory git ; ), but you're not as evil as you make out *pinches Dave's cheek affectionately*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 07:21 am (UTC)"i don't think anyone likes shooting penguins. But, as it has to be done, we may as well enjoy it."
Now Mr Wade, I expected better of you...
Date: 2004-07-09 08:02 am (UTC)And in terms of the penguins, you have not given any argument as to why they must be shot. Of course, I'm biased as I rather like the cute little guys ; )
Re: Now Mr Wade, I expected better of you...
Date: 2004-07-09 08:07 am (UTC)I doubt you take me that seriously when I claim that socialism leads inevitably to Gulags, so why should I listen to your argument now?
Enlightened self-interest is indeed the most successful foreign policy, and so therefore falls under the remit of "What is best for us". An "Ethical foreign policy", however, is a bloody stupid idea and TB deserves a firm kick to the plums for ever putting the ginger philanderer into the position in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 07:39 am (UTC)Which leads me to your second point. You know I take the diametrically opposite view from you on foreign policy. I'd happily discuss further why I think , but sadly I can't as I have to go and catch a train back to London. Another time, perhaps.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 01:09 pm (UTC)And, sceptical mistrustful cynic that I am, I still believe that he never did believe that. I believe that he believed that the electorate would believe that he believed that and, as a consequence, would believe that themselves.
Gosh, it's like Bernard's "need to know" speech, isn't it?