Blair and Marr – by James Sale
I admit I have not read the book. But I did watch the Andrew Marr interview of Tony Blair on BBC 2 last night. And what a view! It is difficult even with the hindsight of nostalgia to see what Blair actually achieved in office. Or why he even was in office: he said himself that he had had no big desire for it. Major nailed him early on with the sobriquet, Phony Tony, and that is exactly who he still seems to be.
If his own testimony can be believed – a big if – he commented himself that his nature hadn’t changed. No, it seems, alas, not.
People who talk baloney when they are not pure barking usually do so through one (or all) of three mechanisms: blame, projection and denial. All three activities poison the soul and potentially corrupt the listener, especially in Blair’s case as he is, undeniably, dangerously persuasive.
It was good to have one’s own prejudices reinforced. I have long maintained that the only thing worse than having Blair PM was having Brown. So after all the hoo-ha about Brown’s massive abilities we learn that Brown is to blame for the failure of New Labour, and in fact for the failure of so many of Blair’s policies.
What Andrew Marr – an extremely fine interviewer in general – failed to ask Blair at this critical point was: if Brown was to blame, then how come he endorsed his candidacy for the leadership when quite clearly since 2004 he had become a complete liability? How can anyone give unreserved support publicly to a future leader of the country knowing that they are not up to the job either in terms of the precious agenda Blair claims he was committed to, or in terms of their emotional stability? So we learn that Brown had no emotional intelligence. Right? OK! I see.
Thus we come to projection: the attributing to others the very defect we have, but never find, in our self. It would appear on the surface that Tony has masses of emotional intelligence; even Andrew Marr, mostly stony-faced, mostly concealing his massive contempt, allowed himself the occasional wry smile as the master went through the theatrics of appearing to respond, intelligently and emotionally, to the most probing of questions.
But as Marr was aware: this is the ‘Tony act’ or rather acting. We watch Olivier, we watch Gielgud, and we think that was a mighty fine performance, and so with Tony. He worked himself up a little about the unnecessary dead, but once you reached his core argument that under Saddam Hussein an equal number would probably have died, you realise you are into Stalin territory: one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic. So why not join John McCain and bomb Iran? The Holy Roman Empire opens up before us.
The worst problem of all with Blair, though, is undoubtedly the constant denial about any possible wrong-doing; the certainty that because he believes something then that justifies the course of action he embarks upon. Such a puerile belief about belief is hardly worth refuting. The idea that you could consider that you may be wrong seems by Blair to mean that we – the country and all his critics – should now seriously consider that they may be wrong. I cannot have done wrong, he says, because there must be two sides to this argument, and people who consider I have done wrong should now consider that other side! How tortuous is the denial – and how absent is the possibility that he feels what having done wrong, made a mistake, might ‘corporeally’ mean. After all, this kind of mistakes means people in large numbers, including your own countrymen, die.
Tony Blair is the tragic embodiment of the frustration of the hopes of this country. He came to office with a mandate to walk on water – he could have done or achieved almost anything: the people were all fully behind him. If only – if only – he had done something noteworthy, some good of which we could all be proud, something in the national interest. But no, it seems all we are left with are a series of book publications from dysfunctional Labour functionaries.
Let’s wait with quiet piety then for the Brown tome – it will be weighty.
