Bogeyman Blair has one redeeming feature
Francis Sedgemore, Friday 10 September 2010 at 0:49 UTC
As pop-political interviews go, Tony Blair’s recent hour of television limelight was mildly interesting, with the former prime minister giving a pretty good account of his political career to date, and plans for the future. But, such is the intensity of feeling among Britain’s bourgeois liberal-left, few will be convinced by Blair’s narrative on the Iraq war and other matters of import over which he presided during his 10 years as the rent-free resident of 10 Downing Street, London SW1.
Less than a month after one bunch of farty malcontents took to the letters page of the Groan to voice their grave disapproval of Blair’s public memoir-flogging, yet another group of culturati have used the same organ to have a pop at the most impressive British prime minister in decades, and with stunning originality and impeccable legal authority damn the man as a “war criminal”.
Never mine, Tone, it could be worse; at least you’re not Jewish. Your detractors would no doubt spontaneously combust if you were.
Shana Tova, Mr Blair!
Feed the writer! 
Friday 10 September 2010 at 13:57 UTC
“…at least you’re not Jewish”.
It’s not the first time, Francis, that you are feeding my rather dryish brain with ideas.
I shall sort it out, no worries.
Friday 10 September 2010 at 14:00 UTC
Always pleased to serve the Elders.
Friday 10 September 2010 at 15:49 UTC
“impressive British prime minister in decades”
Pish and tish. He wasn’t especially impressive. Let’s break it down:
1) He happened to be leader of the Other Lot back when the Government consisted of incredibly unpopular Tories. A chimp in a tuxedo could’ve beaten John Major in 1997.
2) He spent a lot of money on public services, which was probably a good thing, though he didn’t manage to privatise as much of them as he would’ve liked, which was also probably a good thing.
3) Family tax credits and EMA were a pretty good redistributive blag.
4) He remained leader while the Other Lot (i.e. the now unelectable Tories) farted around for a decade.
5) Northern Ireland. And most of the groundwork for that was laid by Major.
So basically I’d give him a B- on domestic stuff. OK, but not great. All he had to do was avoid any major clusterfcks on the international stage, which he rather spectacularly didn’t.
And when did “impressive” become something we ask for in politicians anyway? Attlee wasn’t “impressive” but he got the job done.
Saturday 11 September 2010 at 04:00 UTC
Now I readily admit to writing pish and tish on occasion, but one does well to read my text for traces of irony, even if it’s a pretty crap implementation of same.
Tony Blair was a most impressive prime minister, in the sense that he made an enormous impression on the British people.
Blair was a product of his age, and that age was defined by the failure in the 1970s of British social democracy, and Thatcherism. The stage was set for a Blair, and certainly not a John Smith or Gordon Brown.
In the late 90s Britain was certainly ready for political change, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on John Major, who even then was seen as a capable prime minister who achieved a fair amount during his limited tenure.
New Labour brought about a massive investment in infrastructure, and that had a positive effect on the economy, even though much of it was bought on PFI tick. The fatal flaw in the New Labour ideology was to rely on Thatcherite managerialism, which contributed to further administrative and moral decay as the mediocre were increasingly elevated to positions of influence in the public and private sectors.
There is much not to like about Tony Blair, and my respect for the man is, as I’ve said on a number of ocassions, grudging. But in many ways the boy done good.
Sunday 12 September 2010 at 01:39 UTC
Hi Francis
Not sure you can trace managerialism back to Thatcher.
Surely the obsession with scorecards, targets and KPIs that characterise the new managerialism began in the US.
Probably Robert MacNamara was the first to introduce rigorous private sector modelling into the public realm. The Harvard Business School, the dreaded MBA, and the rise of the otherwise excellent MS Excel spreadsheet are also to blame.
But over here the Blair government was the first to really buy into all this nonsense, and the private sector have sort of fed off them to the point where every medium to large organisation in the UK is now obsessed with form-filling, box-ticking, bench-marking and performance-appraising. How spirit-crushingly dreary! The maverick has lost out out the drone.
Interesting that Blair still stands by the need for targets in the Marr interview.
Sunday 12 September 2010 at 04:04 UTC
Managerialism in the UK can be traced back to Thatcher, who with others on the right of the Conservative Party imported a great deal of American corporatist political ideology.
Tony Blair’s contribution to this ideological shift was to extend strangulation by Excel spreadsheet to death by PowerPoint presentation.
Monday 13 September 2010 at 12:33 UTC
Corporatist political ideology?
Yes. But, nonetheless, Thatcher’s Free-Market Small-Statism ≠ Labour’s Target-Driven Managerialism.
Very different roots indeed!
Monday 13 September 2010 at 12:40 UTC
“Thatcher’s Free-Market Small-Statism”?
Free market maybe, but never small-statist, despite the ideological noises made by Thatcher and her comrades.
Different roots, to a degree, but much of the core mentality was shared between Thatcherism and New Labour. Certainly little discontinuity between the two.