Tony Blair: The Cristiano Ronaldo of Politics

What does Tony Blair actually believe?

In that last post I mentioned I'd been watching a documentary about the Blair/Brown years. At the point of writing I'd only watched up until the third episode, so the Iraq War hadn't been fully dealt with. Since then I've watched the last two.

What struck me the most was the emotion, especially of Blair. It's easy to forget these politicians are human beings. When you're reminded of this fact it's hard not to feel a greater sympathy. It also returned me to a topic I've considered a few times over the last few years. Namely: what does Tony Blair actually believe?

He can be difficult to pigeonhole. Is he a Neocon? A globalist Europhile? Is he a Marxist revolutionary hidden beneath the guise of a moderate centrist? Is he a Tory Boy in Labour clothing?

(In fact, I'd forgotten about this last one. I remember, vaguely, from my teenage years accusations that he was a Tory - a child of Thatcher, that had somehow snuck into the Labour Party to transform it. A lot of the footage from the 1980s and early 90s I'd never seen before, and watching it, it was very easy to see why people would have thought so. He was indeed very "Tory Boy" back then. I can see why he fooled so many actual Tories into thinking, "Don't worry, we can give him a few years running the country, he's basically one of us.")

Anyway, I've generally come to the conclusion that Tony Blair doesn't really believe in anything. These documentaries only confirmed this notion. (The "Tory Boy" recollection being the clincher.)

What I think defines Blair is personal ambition. A sheer desire to be successful. It's easy to assume that politicians must have some kind of ideology. Some worldview that they want to implement. However, this isn't really how humans work. We have an inbuilt impulse to be successful. A will to thrive and survive. A gorilla doesn't become the dominant gorilla because he wants to implement capitalism or communism in the jungle. He just does it because it's his nature. He doesn't know why he does it. He doesn't stop to ask.

We're all like this to some degree. If I play football I want to win. I rarely stop to consider why. I just do. And, of course, we all know people that are very competitive. That can't stand to lose even if it is just a friendly game of football. We naturally want to win in life, whatever we find ourselves doing - some people more so than others.

If we take a very driven footballer as an example, let's say, Cristiano Ronaldo, we can see how extreme his will to win is. The lengths he goes to. The amount he pushes himself. His eagerness, you could even say need, to score the most goals, or win the most trophies. To be the centre of attention. But why does he do this? Is there a grander purpose to it all? Does he want to acquire all this fame, money and reputation so he can implement some utopian political world order? Of course not (at least, I don't think he does!). He just wants to be successful. It's human nature. And in the field he finds himself in: football, that means scoring goals, breaking records and winning trophies (along with signing mega contracts and sponsorship deals).

(Actually, as another aside, there was a nice moment in the Euros last night where Ronaldo unselfishly passed to set up a goal for another teammate, from a position where he would've normally had a shot. It was almost a redemption arc, noted and memed by people on Twitter. As if, in the winter years of his playing career he's suddenly realised he can get a deeper joy from being a team player, as opposed to the star attraction.)

I think Tony Blair is a Cristiano Ronaldo type politician - and in politics one of the benchmarks is "progress". Particularly for politicians born in our era of history. So I think if he has a political leaning it's more just a vague attraction to the notion of "progress." His messianic (this term was actually used to describe his personality in the documentary series) ..his messianic desire to be personally successful manifesting as a need to be on the progressive side - that is, the winning side, in terms of historical narrative - of any particular issue.

If we look at some of his defining themes or decisions we can see this.

Pro EU/wanting Britain to join the Euro

At the end of the 20th century the general consensus was that nation states were an outmoded thing of the past, and that big regional blocks (if not single world governments) were the natural way of the future. So, naturally, Blair took the side of progress.

Iraq War

Likewise here. We'd reached the end of history after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The march of democracy was inevitable. It was just a case of pushing over the last few dominos of the past, with their little Hitler-esq rulers. Again, the right side of history was obvious.

Technocratic Solutions

Blair has always been a big technology guy, be it digital IDs or whatever else. Alas, a recurring sentiment you'll often hear from Blair when he addresses forums, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, goes along the lines of this:

"Listen, I don't have a clue about mobile phones, I have to get the younger guys to help me use the damn things, but, y'know, it's the future, and we have to embrace it."

Normally, it's the job of older people to be a break on change - partly as a consequence of this natural confoundment at the latest trends and fashions. However, the 1960s generation - the boomers, so-called - absolutely defined themselves as change-agents. In complete opposition to the old fuddy-duddies and squares that were the previous generation - who resisted the "inevitable" march of progress that came in the 20th century. So, the hippie generation grew up with this ingrained way of thinking, "..When I'm older, I'll be down with the kids - even if I don't quite understand what exactly it is they're doing. I'm not going to make the mistake the previous stuffy generation made, when they stood ignorantly in the way of progress."

So, as technology is viewed as the future, and pushing against it is seen as luddite, once again, Blair chooses to be on the side of progress.

Thatcherism

Finally, we can return to the "Tory Boy" accusation that I'd so forgotten and disregarded. Here too, the same was true. Thatcherism and the liberalisation of the markets was the future. The Labour Party, on the other side, very much stuck in the past. So we see yet another variant of Tony Blair seeking to be on the winning side of history.

And the notion of "winning" really defines Blair. He won three terms, and in his various Labour speeches he returns to the theme time and again. That desire to be successful overriding everything else. A few months ago I posted on here, recollecting a memory of someone calling Blair the literal Anti-Christ. The comparison with the Devil, and labels such as the "Dark Lord," pop up in relation to Blair quite commonly online, at least in more conspiratorial spheres. Obviously, it's a tad silly. However, there is definitely a slight Faustian spirit to Blair. The will to power, the ambition, the sheer desire to breakthrough and achieve success.

I've criticised Blair many times in the past. I think I've been wrong to ascribe malign intentions though. Watching the documentary series I couldn't doubt the humanness and sincerity. I have to admit it seems like he sincerely wanted to achieve peace in Northern Ireland, and I don't doubt he wants it for the Middle East now.

I always think the human ego is like a wild horse. It can get you to places, but you have to learn to tame it and keep it under control. Some people advocate the complete suppression of the ego. The rationale of this initially feels attractive, but to me it always seems like a rejection of life. A desire to retreat into neutrality and nothingness, instead of actively seeking goodness. I think the wild horse of the ego can be employed for good and for bad.

The sheer horsepower of Blair (and Ronaldo) is impressive to behold.

Euros during the Euros

I've been watching a documentary series about the Blair/Brown years. It's hard not to be impressed by Gordon Brown. Weighty, intellectual, that dour Scottish sense of moral purpose. I can't help but like him when I see this younger footage. Even when he's doing things that I don't agree with, like making the Bank of England independent.

Blair, not so much. Though, even with Blair, you have to admire the sheer will to power.

Watching the series just reminded me how much the issue of Europe figures in each political era though. In this case Blair having a zeal for taking us into the Euro. Of course, as ever, no one actually voted for this. The issue becoming visible only after the landslide win ..a win that was all about a "New Britain," not a "New Europe."

We see the same in the Major era. The ERM was all about streamlining European currencies in preparation for the Euro. The public, again, weren't told that was the case. The line was that it was good for the economy - that pegging ourselves to the Deutsche Mark would instil economic discipline. In the end it crashed the pound and cost the country a lot of money. Yet, despite failing, less than ten years later the Euro was fully underway regardless. Fortunately, without Britain (in my opinion).

It's incredible to watch so many politicians throw away so much political capital on this ideological vision of a new world. It's unceasing. And politicians that don't believe in this vision - who just want to deliver for their voters - constantly have their hands tied, as they're having to fight a constant rearguard action. How much time and money and effort have we all spent just to keep Britain as Britain? Just to hang on to the status quo, in the face of this undemocratic undermining of the nation state.

And it is undemocratic. Nobody ever voted for an EU flag, parliament and anthem. It's always a constant salami slicing; shaving off our sovereignty bit by bit. Inching us ever-onward into the EU. Before you know it the family silver is halfway out the door, and when you realise it's going you're told that somehow you'd agreed to this - and that you're just making a big fuss in trying to stop it.

Just this morning I saw a tweet from Rory Stewart urging Labour to re-join the EU Customs Union after they win. Stating, in capital letters, it's NOT the same as re-joining the EU. Again, that salami slicing. Feigning that this will be the last cut ..after that, no more. We know - from experience - this is never the case though. That people like Rory Stewart want us fully in the EU, in spite of their protests.

Likewise, it needs to be reminded, that not only did the British public vote to leave the EU, and vote Boris in at the last election to Get Brexit Done, but, even now, Labour have to pay lip service to this as re-joining remains so unpopular. So, again, as in the past, whatever they do, they will have no mandate for it, and will have sneaked it out the door once again.

Finally, this is another thing that's so annoying (I've talked about this on here before). The constant word twisting. Endlessly we're asked "What are the tangible benefits of Brexit?" This idea that sovereignty and who governs us and how aren't that important. That pro-EU advocates are just so much more pragmatic and realistic. It's such a dishonest line though, as the EU advocates are just as invested in an abstract ideology. As the history above shows, they're obsessed with building their vision of a new world. And it doesn't matter what the economic risks are, or how much political capital they waste on it. They're just much less upfront about this. They pretend they don't believe in the EU project, as they endlessly pursue it.

When you look at the big picture (as you sit watching these political documentaries) it's impossible not to see this, but many people on Twitter live only in the latest TV moment. The argument reduced and fixated on the latest little salami slice.

The Alchemical Election

Go home, return to your farms and villages. The battle is lost..

Here we are, in an election campaign, and so far, I've posted nothing. Normally, in times like these, I'm posting daily, charting the action. So, what's up?

What's up is we're in praying for a miracle territory. Labour are heading for total victory, and our forces are fleeing in disarray - divided and betrayed. The Tories, either by incompetence or design, have surrendered parliament, and Reform have stepped onto the battlefield like Viking berserkers, swinging swords in all directions, sparing not even the most ardent of Brexiteer Tories.

Peter Hitchens, like a wise wandering druid, has been begging people to vote tactically, to block Labour, but no one is listening. (Actually, I'm sure some people are listening, but I'm being melodramatic - let me have some fun.) Whilst the online right cry for "zero seats," all bloodlust and mindless emotion.

Obviously, as you can see from my framing of things, I think Peter Hitchens is broadly correct. However, at the same time, Reform can, no doubt, win some seats -- and that would be a huge breath of optimism in an otherwise bleak, black fog. So, now the chaos has begun, I'm not quite sure what to state publicly.

With that in mind I'll just state what I'm doing personally.

Farms and Villages

Where I live there are two constituencies: Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, which is my constituency, is a super-safe Labour seat. So, consequently, my vote will probably make very little difference. Middlesbrough South is a little more interesting however. That seat flips back and forth. Currently, it's Conservative, and Simon Clarke is the MP. As far as Tories go, he's one of the better ones. So, if I lived there, I would definitely vote Conservative. In fact, on election night I'll probably be paying more attention to this seat than my own.

As for my own, I'll likely vote Reform. Also, as a side note, my current MP is Andy McDonald, which adds another minor tactical dynamic. I don't like Labour and have plenty of criticisms, but he's a bit more of a Corbynite than a Blairite, so potentially he could be a thorn in the side of Keir Starmer at some point over the coming years. And, he is at least sincere in his views, as much as I would disagree with them. So, if both seats stay the same, I would happily take that as a win right now. Making my vote even more of a free spin.

Re-Farm

I actually donated £50 to Reform a day or so before Nigel Farage announced he was running. When I did it I felt a little bit like an alchemist throwing mercury into the fire. With the writing seemingly on the wall regarding the election it just felt like it needed something. Obviously, £50 in the grand scheme of things isn't very much. However, I think all the donations people made that weekend did make a difference. It seemed like Reform were testing the public mood to see if the support was there, and it seems it was.

Ever since then I just think, "alchemy," whenever I tune into the election. There's no overall narrative, you just hope that somehow people get things right in their own constituency. That somehow we get a bit of magic that upsets the apple cart. I always believe that, if you give the British public options, they'll get it right more often than not. I'm not especially optimistic this time round - we could end up with a bit of a nightmare. We do at least have a bit of fizz in the cauldron though now.

This is partly why I'm not as mouthy and vocal as I normally am. All you can really do is just go back to your farm, village or constituency and cast your vote ..and trust people in other parts of the country to do the same. It's very difficult to tell other people what to do when the options they have locally may be completely different to your own, and when things may be changing in ways that make it difficult for outsiders to grasp the vibe in a particular area.

I know where I live. I might, over the next few weeks, take a deeper look at some of the other seats on Teesside. Beyond that I really don't know ..and I definitely don't trust polls enough to start painting by numbers.