A weak man who bends to power, not political vision

[muriel_volestrangler]

Tony Blair is psychologically incapable of building a fairer society
...
To judge Blair against traditional ideological benchmarks is an impossible task, and not simply because he cultivates ambiguity in order to sustain broad electoral appeal. The confusion arises because he is driven not, as many suppose, by the desire to realise any specific political vision, but by his own peculiar calculus of power. By this I don't mean the power of office so much as the power of those he fears might deny it to him.

Blair's experience of opposition led him to conclude that Labour could only govern by making a binding accommodation with power. But what others saw as a necessary expedient of opposition, Blair has transformed into a permanent logic of government. This is the true meaning of "elected as New Labour, govern as New Labour". Labour can govern, but only by deferring to forces more powerful than it. Dismissed at the outset was the idea that government could be used to change power relations in any significant way.

Power, and the need to accommodate it, is therefore the unifying principle of Blairism. It explains why the government has cosied up to big business (strong) and marginalised the trade unions (weak). It explains Blair's determination to keep Rupert Murdoch onside, even when it means watering down media ownership rules or backsliding on Europe. It explains both the good and the bad in his approach to public services. The good is the extra investment that comes from the realisation that the nation's electoral pivot, middle England, does not want to pay for private health and education. The bad is reform designed to replicate within the public sector the advantages the aspirant middle classes enjoy in the marketplace.

Most of all, it explains Iraq. There is no power quite like a superpower, and Blair's decision to go to war reflected a fear that any deviation from the American position would provoke the vengeful wrath of transatlantic conservatism. He was not emboldened to defy public opinion by the courage of his convictions, but by the calculation that, whatever the risks, it would ultimately prove to be the line of least resistance.
...
David Clark is a former Labour government adviser

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1447014,00.html

I think this sums up Blair excellently (and Clark has a lot of knowledge of him). I don't buy the theory that appears occasionally on DU that Blair is being blackmailed in some way by Bush; I just think he genuflects in the presence of power - media, electoral, or international.

On edit: added link to The Guardian - sorry.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Do you have link for this article? Thanks. Interesting...

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Oops

added in original post. Thanks for noticing.

[mr blur]

3. Yep - that would seem to be Bliar.

I always feel that he still can't quite believe he's PM and that if he doesn't "behave himself" he'll find himself back on the back benches where he belongs - and where he can't do any more harm.

[Briar]

4. Yes, excellent analysis

This is what I sometimes call the Public School mindset. Charm and appease the big boys who have the power either to make your life miserable, or to help you with their approval and influence.

[keymaker]

5. Excellent analysis

... he is driven not, as many suppose, by the desire to realise any specific political vision, but by his own peculiar calculus of power. By this I don't mean the power of office so much as the power of those he fears might deny it to him.

Given his lack of a specific political vision some explanation is necessary as to why, in his estimation, the need to secure political office and then to retain it is important at all. His behaviour over the years seems to have been consistent with the need for purely personal aggrandisement so that his membership of the Labour party itself can be seen merely as the most likely vehicle for achieving it. This in turn suggests that he is controlled by undiagnosed mental abnormalities such as attention deficit disorder and megalomania.

... he was not emboldened to defy public opinion by the courage of his convictions, but by the calculation that, whatever the risks, it would ultimately prove to be the line of least resistance.

This would probably have been a mistake had the Tory opposition done what might reasonably have been expected of them - to uphold the importance of adherence to international law. This can't be passed off as political judgment on Blair's part - he has been exceptionally lucky to have met only the supine acceptance by Parliament of an immoral and illegal adventure abroad.

km

[D-Notice]

6. "Supine acceptance by Parliament"

That's what happens when it's full of career politicians who can't/won't think for themselves