Blair critics make me mad
I enjoy being off work, at least for a while. At first it’s all about catching up with sleep and going on nice walks. Before too long it’s about not getting up until 15.00 and not opening the curtains for five days, but thankfully I am rarely off for that long. Unfortunately though, even if I am off for a single day, there is the chance that I might forget myself and tune into the phone-ins on Radio 5 Live.
I have my radio tuned in there to catch the football, which is what’s on in the evenings when I tend to be in the car. I forget that during the day the station opens its phone lines to people who seem to actively enjoy shouting unfiltered bile to the entire nation, as if there’s a switch in their brain which simultaneously compels them to screech rubbish and dial national radio stations.
Today’s question was about Tony Blair’s donation of the entire proceeds from his memoirs (at least £4.6m) to the Royal British Legion to help them build a rehabilitation sports centre for injured service personnel.
That’s right. A man who could potentially earn an 8-figure sum writing his life story has decided to donate the entire amount to charity. A generous gesture, no? Well, no, not if you were one of the many boiled-blooded scream-mongerers who rang in this morning. I simply couldn’t believe the self-righteous harping and the frankly stupid remarks from what seemed like the majority of people ringing in. It made me, genuinely, ashamed to share a country with some of them.
Now, having worked for a time answering the phones at a radio station, I understand that a lot of people who ring in to daytime radio shows are at the polar ends of the normality spectrum. But I just don’t understand the pure hatred directed at a man who led the country for a decade, did so with a thumping democratic mandate which he won three times over, and then donated several millions of pounds of money which he rightfully earned to an exceedingly good cause.
Of course people are angry about the decision to go to war in Iraq. I disagree with that decision myself. But that decision was taken honourably, and the man who took it led his party to a general election victory two years later. The reaction to this donation made it seem as if Bernard Matthews had left his estate to the Cute Little Turkey Wurkeys Stroking Society. Shouts of “hypocrite” and “blood money” abounded, from people who clearly had never heard Mr Blair speak with such compassion about troops, and who probably don’t go about handing out millions to charity.
More seriously, it re-awakens the Iraq debate, and displays two worrying trends.
Firstly, it once again shows the lack of understanding that a lot of people (or at least those ringing radio shows) seem to have about how democracy works and what the relationship between electorate and elected is all about. We don’t elect governments (or councillors) to do everything we want, whenever we want it. We elect them to listen, take soundings, and then make their own decision based on what they think is best. That’s what representative democracy is all about. Sometimes, unfortunately, it means doing things that will annoy a lot of people. But if they annoy too many people then the next time there’s an election the electorate can undo them.
Unfortunately this concept seems to have been lost to some people, and it’s especially clear on issues like Iraq. We elected Labour in 2001 to make decisions. They made a decision over Iraq even though many people thought that the decision was wrong. It was their decision to make though, and the way our democracy works is to put that decision making power in the hands of the people we elect. Contributors to the phone in today seem unwilling to accept that the decision was valid just because it went against what they thought. This is worrying, especially given the tough decisions coming up over spending cuts, and shows a potential gap between the reality of our democracy and what people understand democracy to be.
The second worry is the incredible personal vitriol handed out to Mr Blair. Even the newspapers are hinting that this multi-million pound donation, the biggest single donation in the history of the Royal British Legion, is blood money. I am staggered that Mr Blair isn’t being universally praised for a gesture of unrivalled generosity. This is a huge sum of money, and yet so many people today were suggesting that Mr Blair was some kind of robber from the public purse simply for being able to earn that money in the first place. And all this hot on the heels of the Brown baiting which made me feel a bit queasy during the general election campaign. Why the hell would any sane person want to be PM if the best they can hope for as a legacy is either obscurity or hatred?
Mr Blair was Prime Minister for 10 years. I didn’t agree with a lot of what he stood for, but he’s definitely the top PM in my lifetime so far for the good he did. I don’t care how much he rakes in or what he chooses to do with it now that he’s a private citizen. That he has given up every penny from a highly lucrative book deal to support a worthy cause is something I doubt almost anyone else would do. I probably wouldn’t! The criticism, from people who clearly have enough time during the working day to ring in radio shows rather than run countries, is maddening in its wrong-headed intensity, and upsetting in its jaw-dropping personal hysteria. Criticise the guy by all means, but for God’s sake do it with some grace.
Some people were even suggesting that the Legion turn the money down! There’s so many people cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces that I must be the only 5 Live listener in the UK to have a nose at all!
Anyway, rant over. I’m listening to Radio 2 tomorrow.
Rick

August 17th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
You’re absolutely right – whatever one might think of Blair, this is a very charitable act, and worthy of praise.
I find it interesting that he’s done it, just as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, et al are all getting together, and planning to give 50% of their fortunes to charity.
After all, there’s surely a certain point in the acquisition of wealth when one realises that the amount in the bank could never be spent, and that even if they left the entire fortune to their descendents, they could probably never spend it all either.
Giving to the needy, or to worthy causes, is a fine thing to do, and perhaps tells us something of the humanity in all of us. Or maybe in some of us…
According to a rumour I heard (and I don’t know if this is true), Elton John has allegedly bequeathed his fortune (after his death of course), to an equally worthy cause – the poor and needy children of… David Beckham!
Yup – those who have been criticising Blair have definitely got their priorities right!!
August 17th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
“the top PM in my lifetime so far” – erk, I suppose so, but what a shower to choose from! I still think of the man as ‘B-LIAR!!111′ but this was a good gesture, no doubt about it. He’ll still be the man who took us into an illegal war that killed a million people, however, and it’s not at all absolution.
August 20th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
You are so right on this one. And the nature of our democracy is a sensitive thing. Too many referendums is a dangerous thing. On single issues people are open to persuasion by dangerous people with the sorts of views you hear on talk-ins and in the pages, much to our shame, of what passes for a newspaper nowadays.
August 21st, 2010 at 3:35 am
Rick,
Your post is very true. The problem is, most people think they could do a better job themselves. Of course, taking the plunge is a different matter.
But on another note, why don’t you just go and join the Labour Party as you are clearly so desperate to do. Yes, you will always be treated as an outsider, a vacuous careerist, and a ship jumper by your new socialist peers; but at least you will be true to yourself.
Otherwise good post.
August 21st, 2010 at 10:40 am
Eh? I think you’ve misinterpreted something (a lot of things!) if you think I am desperate to join the Labour party. I’m really not.
I was a member once actually, but then Iraq / university fees / ID cards etc etc led me to leave.
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Interesting. So, you absolutely vow to the people of Prestwich that you would “go out of this world feet first with your Lib Dem membership card in your pocket” before joining the Labour Party?
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
No, of course not, and I don’t see how anyone can realistically make that promise.
What I can say is that right now, and unless things dramatically change, I really don’t want to join Labour or any other party. I am quite happy in the Lib Dems. I have been elected to serve as a Lib Dem until 2011 and I will keep that promise, then it’s up to the electorate to decide whether they want me!
I don’t intend on “going out of this world” feet first or otherwise for decades yet, so who knows what will change in terms of both my world view or the policies of the parties?
I think it’s a silly promise for anyone to make, and typical of out of date tribalism that Labour and the Tories seem to have in droves.
For instance, there are people I know (Councillors, in fact) and people I know of (like MPs) who have represented their party in elected positions for decades, as their parties have changed policies all over the place. I don’t think it’s likely that these peoples’ views have changed in exactly the same way as their party’s views, and yet there they are still trumpeting the cause all the same.
Of course there’s something to be said for party loyalty, but only so much.
30 years ago Labour were all for unilateral nuclear disarmament and nationalised industries. Not any more, and yet there are plenty of Labour people now who were Labour people then. The same transitions have been made by the Tories (in different ways), and of course my party didn’t exist 30 years ago. Who knows where the parties will be in 30 years time? Not me, or you. And who knows what I will think in 30 years time, after all those experiences? Which party will best represent what I believe then? It could be any of them, or a new one that doesn’t even exist.
Why is it considered better to stick with a party than to stick with principle? Why is crossing the floor considered so terrible if a party and a person diverge? So long as the electorate get to vote on that person’s future, that’s the important thing.
But, just to re-iterate, I certainly wouldn’t join today’s Labour party! Right now I am a Lib Dem, and there’s a difference between us and the other parties, even if we’re in coalition with one of them. That’s where I’m staying for the foreseeable future.