Tony Blair has changed - he's abandoned New Labour

The first part of the Prime Minister's Today programme interview, in which he talked about cash for peerages and resignation, will be the one that claims all the attention. The second section, in which he talked about the NHS and (much less convincingly) Home Office matters, is the part he wants us to be interested in.

But me? I liked the last bit. I found his reflections on how he had changed as a man fascinating.

Two thoughts struck me. The first is that the Prime Minister has travelled far beyond New Labour. He talked about his previous belief that he could please all the people and his desire to do so. Now he realises that this isn't possible. He says he regrets that he tried so hard.

Now, this is no small conversion. The possibility of pleasing everyone was central to New Labour's working method and ideology. Abandon this and you're effectively abandoning New Labour.

My second thought is this - we all talk about how fed up we are with the Prime Minister, but at least as important is that he is fed up with us. All of us.

You can almost hear him sighing as he explains, yet again, the answer to another one of our stupid questions or tiresome complaints.

I think he feels he would have made it if it hadn't been for us pesky kids.

Comments

[David Moss]

2 February 2107

Interviewed this morning on Cryogenic TV, Mr Finkelstein remembered the events of 100 years ago.

It was the best of times. The government had dissolved into a pupal state. The social services were able to just get on with their job. The teachers and doctors ditto. There was no government interference. Some services did a good job, some didn't, much as before. The police were marvellous and business, of course, had a rare old time. It was the first time that people generally noticed how irrelevant the government was. They knew this in Switzerland and some other countries already but it was news to the British. Welcome news, when it finally dawned on them that everything was up to them, not the government. No butterfly ever came out of the chrysalis. There was an enlightened, hands-off interim administration set up under Messrs Willetts and Field which survived for years by responding to most questions with the words "that's nothing to do with us, you sort it out". Otherwise, they encouraged people to set up local democratic institutions, to try to correct the worst of the post code lottery anomalies …".

Some of our younger viewers may be mystified but there once was a time when central government had targets for everything, even teenage pregnancies, and everything was therefore their fault … even teenage pregnancies. Those days are thankfully gone, now, forever.

[John Chuckman]

Tony Blair must be mentally unbalanced.

There can be no other explanation for his behavior, desperately clinging to power despite overwhelming public revulsion with him.

The very sound of his voice now is unleasant in the extreme, almost as bad as hearing Bush's pathetic, tongue-twisted twang.

[Marek]

There's no point discussing Blair anymore. It has already been done to death. Why bother? It seems like voyeurism.

There are many more interesting people around. In the best British tradition, it seems appropriate to be polite towards him and otherwise to ignore him.

[Laconian]

"Now, this is no small conversion. The possibility of pleasing everyone was central to New Labour's working method and ideology. Abandon this and you're effectively abandoning New Labour."

It was once central to Blair's working method but I am not sure it can reasonably be said to be characteristic of New Labour ideology. My reason for saying this is that, as far as I am concerned, the key feature that distinguishes New Labour from Old Labour is the recognition that policy is a means to an end rather than an end in itself - hence policies such as PFI that would previously have been unthinkable.

What could be more New Labour than abandoning one approach for a better one?

[IRJMilne]

Blair has four reasons to cling to power:

1- to take the flak for bad Scottish election results
2- to hit the 10 years mark
3- because he is absorbed in his job of running the country
4- to get Northern Ireland fixed within his premiership

He's good at his job of fronting for the civil service, to boot, so the civil service is probably not in a hurry to see him go.

One may or may not think he should go, but Mr Chuckman's assertion that only mental imbalance can explain Blair's retention of the reins of power is not correct.

Though I would add, some mental imbalance is virtually requisite in a national leader, and power accentuates such flaws in time. Was Thatcher balanced? Is Brown balanced? Heath? Benn? Tebbit?

[Neil Sills]

Mr Blair has abandoned New Labour... Hardly a surprise. The Australian Labor (sic) Party has also abandoned anything to do with labour principles (including the spelling) and both appear to have become spokespersons for their USA masters.

[Matthew Salter]

Overwhelming public revulsion? Which planet is this on? Maybe in your head John Chuckman. Let me remind you that the Labour Party were reelected in 2005 to a third term and when the small but vocal hysterical anti-democratic anti-War loudmouths are taken out of the equation, I think you'll find that your assertion is very far from being true. Maybe you're just using the Goebbelesque tactic of continually repeat a line in the hope that if you do, it will eventually come true. I have come to the conclusion that it is you whose mental balance is not all it should be.

[Steve]

Amazing!! There is still one left and his name is Matthew Salter! Perhaps he could be stuffed and put in a museum case for future generations to marvel at.

[Jack Humphries]

Bliar remains in power because he has dismissed anyone with integrity or intellect, not unlike Maggie by the late 80s, for whom such qualities would led to opposition to his anti-British policies. I believe he has performed beyond the call of duty - not for Britain or its peoples but for those he appears to serve not least the USA and the Carlyle Group for which he has probably made more impact Major and Howe combined. I admire his ability to remain aloof of qualities of honour and integrity; they are or were once recognised to be a prerequisite for true Britishness, yet seem to be in rapid decline this passed 2 or 3 decades as he maintains what to me are activities worthy of any traitor to country and people, are devoid of democratic foundation, and seek to exclude free speech and therefore I hope the current police investigation opens the can of worms that undoubtably exists beneath Downing Street and Whitehall. New Labour needs to uncover, admit, purge and restore health to its membership and policies before it can lay claim to providing for Britian what Britain has sorely lacked this passed 2 or 3 decades. It should begin with a proper democratic wholly representative (of the membership) election race the eliminates any smell of corruption so Britain can go forward in the true spirit of a Labour Party of social and national conscience once again wrestling the reins from those who for too long have written their epitaphs with Britons' blood. One hopes the Conservative and Liberal parties have the sense also to wrestle with their own demons so Britons can once again be known abroad for decency, honour and integrity.

[osisbs]

I congratulate Mr. Blair for subjecting himself to being questionsed. Here in the states the Mr. Humphreys would have been arrested and escorted out of the interview by thugs posing as security.

[David Moss]

There is some support for the "it's nothing to do with us" approach to government, indicated above, from an Irwin Stelzer article [1] in The Spectator which includes the marvellous Ronald Reagan instruction to his officials: "Don't do something. Just stand there".

Mr Stelzer finishes with: "If Brown is to have his entrepreneurial society of self-confident individuals, he will have to remove government from the centre of people’s lives. A period of silence, of just standing there, of doing nothing, might, just might, dissuade people from looking first to government when they have a problem. It would make No. 10 seem less important if everyone couldn’t read about its occupant every day, but it would also make for a healthier body politic, less demanding of its new prime minister".

Compare that with David Miliband's article [2] in The Daily Telegraph which includes the following: "David Cameron ... talks about social responsibility. But it is not enough to say that the world would be a better place if people showed social responsibility. This soon becomes a new code for malign neglect, the old Tory idea in fancier dress".

"Malign neglect"? Mr Miliband gives no examples of what he means by it. It just stands there on its own. Presumably, neglect of people by the government is, according to him, of itself, malign.

Ronald Reagan, Irwin Stelzer and I disagree [3]. Neglect can be benign. And the attentions of the government can be malign.

[1] http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/28993/browns-premiership-will-be-short.thtml

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/29/do2904.xml

[3] http://DematerialisedID.com/Miliband.html