The state of Roz and the world
Sep. 7th, 2006 04:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rozkI don't know why I haven't been posting - I'm hard at work on the book, but that hasn't stopped me before, and I have been hitting some resistance on that too. I guess it is partly the endless changableness of the weather, and my fairly dire financial situation. (Staff changes at Heinemann meant that no reading came out to me for two months). On the other hand, my health is good - bar the odd migraine - and I had one of the best medical checkups for years the other day; when you get to be my age, it is truely gratifying to be told that you have the blood pressure of someone thirty years younger and a lot lighter, and that the odds are fiercely on your side and against heart disease. I guess sometimes one's brain hits a fallow patch.
******
There is a very good post by Teresa at Making Light about the woman outed by Cheney's office as a member of the CIA. It turns out that this was not only disgraceful and illegal, but quite specifically an act of spite towards someone whose job it was to look for WMDs and for links between Saddam and Al Quaeda and reported that she could not find any. Teresa writes with her usual forensic intelligence and withering scorn.
******
Which are what is needed for the discussion of the fall - for so it is, even if it takes months longer, of Tony Blair.
It is premature to write his obituary just yet - he still thinks he can carry on into next year, though my guess is that he will be gone within weeks - but I am too eager not to get stuck in now.
What I particularly hate about him is not Iraq, bad as that is, or his creeping privatization of everything the Tories never got round to, or his sponsoring of schools in which religious fanatics can teach nonsense like creationism, and persecute queer pupils, or his failure properly to reform constitutional matters that he promised to and either avoided - as with electoral reform - or messed up - as with the House of Lords. After all, there are some positive things his governments did which make up for a lot, though not for Iraq - the minimum wage, civil partnerships, increased rights for the trans community, a general feeling that minorities were to be respected and treated as equals that was refreshing after years of the Tories.
What I particularly hate is the way he seduced a lot of people, who had started off as idealists with some sort of commitment to social justice into becoming his accomplices. One of the reasons why I let my membership of the Labour Party lapse long before the 97 election was Clause Four, not because I was a fanatical devotee of the sort of nationalisation it had often meant, but because its abolition was a way in which he could stick two fingers up at the Labour past and make most members of the Labour party sign up for his doing so. He implied that a vote against him on this was a vote against beating the Tories and people persuaded themselves that going along with what he wanted was the right thing. It set a pattern of compliance which was an early step on the road to Baghdad.
He always had a coterie of creeps - at one point, my friend P was dating someone from one of the think tanks, and after a Prom, at which I bumped into them, I ended up at a party in Islington which was full of Blair's creepy fanboys and fangirls. They were all cooing and blethering about whether or not The Leader would ever go over to Rome - it was clearly erotic and naughty for them to think about such aspects of his life - and someone asked me what I thought.
I remember saying that I had been a cradle Catholic, and more importantly a Catechism Catholic, and that I was taught that to deprive the labourer of their hire was a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance and that I wasn't sure he could be relied on on that one.
And then there was Liberty.
During the period when I was one of the Deputy chairs, the chair was John Lyons, who is married to Sally, later Baroness, Morgan, one of Blair's staff. John and I did not get on - he eventually changed the organization's constitution to get rid of me - and in particular we had a row over the decision not only to sack a member of staff for being an anarchist troublemaker, but to deprive her of two thirds of her accumulated redundancy. Lyons blackmailed the rest of the staff into going along with this, by threatening to sack more people to pay for her. Most of the executive knew this was disgraceful - and I did eventually manage to claw back another third of her money - but none of them would oppose him openly, because most of them were careerists who were worried that to offend him, was to offend his wife, and thus the entire machinery of Labour party careerism. 'If I back you,' one guy, with a real record of commitment and achievement, said 'I will never get a Euroseat or a peerage'. He further claimed that the previous chair had got her safe parliamentary seat and her junior ministerial post by helping John beat me in the election - which, let us be clear, I did not believe because I don't think I could ever have one. Though she did try and persuade me that my status as a trans dyke ex-whore pervert might make me a liability to the organization.
What is most worrying about this is not just that Blair used patronage far more intensely that most Labour leaders to manipulate people, it is that he created an atmosphere in which people believed absurd things about his reach and his power, and that he surrounded himself with people who hero-worshipped him in a creepy way and to this day talk about him as if he were something special. It is also that he created an atmosphere in which, regularly, to appease him, people did trashy things at other people's expense as a way of making their own careers. And once you have done that once, made your bones, eaten forbidden flesh, there is no going back without repentance and atonement.
Look at Clare Short. She did what she was told and helped the leadership trash a leftwing woman like Liz Davies. That made it harder for her to say no when Blair asked her not to resign over Iraq, to stay on and do some good, and made it hard for anyone to respect her when he did not need her any more and fired her.
Blairism is not an ideology, it is a way of running the Labour party and the country that depends on seduction, corruption, patronage and the moral cowardice of people who knew better. We should probably be grateful that he has done nothing worse than he did with the power we allowed him to have.
******
There is a very good post by Teresa at Making Light about the woman outed by Cheney's office as a member of the CIA. It turns out that this was not only disgraceful and illegal, but quite specifically an act of spite towards someone whose job it was to look for WMDs and for links between Saddam and Al Quaeda and reported that she could not find any. Teresa writes with her usual forensic intelligence and withering scorn.
******
Which are what is needed for the discussion of the fall - for so it is, even if it takes months longer, of Tony Blair.
It is premature to write his obituary just yet - he still thinks he can carry on into next year, though my guess is that he will be gone within weeks - but I am too eager not to get stuck in now.
What I particularly hate about him is not Iraq, bad as that is, or his creeping privatization of everything the Tories never got round to, or his sponsoring of schools in which religious fanatics can teach nonsense like creationism, and persecute queer pupils, or his failure properly to reform constitutional matters that he promised to and either avoided - as with electoral reform - or messed up - as with the House of Lords. After all, there are some positive things his governments did which make up for a lot, though not for Iraq - the minimum wage, civil partnerships, increased rights for the trans community, a general feeling that minorities were to be respected and treated as equals that was refreshing after years of the Tories.
What I particularly hate is the way he seduced a lot of people, who had started off as idealists with some sort of commitment to social justice into becoming his accomplices. One of the reasons why I let my membership of the Labour Party lapse long before the 97 election was Clause Four, not because I was a fanatical devotee of the sort of nationalisation it had often meant, but because its abolition was a way in which he could stick two fingers up at the Labour past and make most members of the Labour party sign up for his doing so. He implied that a vote against him on this was a vote against beating the Tories and people persuaded themselves that going along with what he wanted was the right thing. It set a pattern of compliance which was an early step on the road to Baghdad.
He always had a coterie of creeps - at one point, my friend P was dating someone from one of the think tanks, and after a Prom, at which I bumped into them, I ended up at a party in Islington which was full of Blair's creepy fanboys and fangirls. They were all cooing and blethering about whether or not The Leader would ever go over to Rome - it was clearly erotic and naughty for them to think about such aspects of his life - and someone asked me what I thought.
I remember saying that I had been a cradle Catholic, and more importantly a Catechism Catholic, and that I was taught that to deprive the labourer of their hire was a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance and that I wasn't sure he could be relied on on that one.
And then there was Liberty.
During the period when I was one of the Deputy chairs, the chair was John Lyons, who is married to Sally, later Baroness, Morgan, one of Blair's staff. John and I did not get on - he eventually changed the organization's constitution to get rid of me - and in particular we had a row over the decision not only to sack a member of staff for being an anarchist troublemaker, but to deprive her of two thirds of her accumulated redundancy. Lyons blackmailed the rest of the staff into going along with this, by threatening to sack more people to pay for her. Most of the executive knew this was disgraceful - and I did eventually manage to claw back another third of her money - but none of them would oppose him openly, because most of them were careerists who were worried that to offend him, was to offend his wife, and thus the entire machinery of Labour party careerism. 'If I back you,' one guy, with a real record of commitment and achievement, said 'I will never get a Euroseat or a peerage'. He further claimed that the previous chair had got her safe parliamentary seat and her junior ministerial post by helping John beat me in the election - which, let us be clear, I did not believe because I don't think I could ever have one. Though she did try and persuade me that my status as a trans dyke ex-whore pervert might make me a liability to the organization.
What is most worrying about this is not just that Blair used patronage far more intensely that most Labour leaders to manipulate people, it is that he created an atmosphere in which people believed absurd things about his reach and his power, and that he surrounded himself with people who hero-worshipped him in a creepy way and to this day talk about him as if he were something special. It is also that he created an atmosphere in which, regularly, to appease him, people did trashy things at other people's expense as a way of making their own careers. And once you have done that once, made your bones, eaten forbidden flesh, there is no going back without repentance and atonement.
Look at Clare Short. She did what she was told and helped the leadership trash a leftwing woman like Liz Davies. That made it harder for her to say no when Blair asked her not to resign over Iraq, to stay on and do some good, and made it hard for anyone to respect her when he did not need her any more and fired her.
Blairism is not an ideology, it is a way of running the Labour party and the country that depends on seduction, corruption, patronage and the moral cowardice of people who knew better. We should probably be grateful that he has done nothing worse than he did with the power we allowed him to have.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 05:54 am (UTC)Because this is where libertarianism has always fallen for me - any society has to allow parental autonomy to raise kids as they want to, but total autonomy over children means that some kids will be trapped under dreadful parents. Adults, you can step back and say, well until it harms others, but adults can live independently, kids can't. So you get abuse ignored or you get valid-but-kooky parenting treated as abuse, and it's just brutally difficult. I hate having the state intervene with my family, but I would hate to live somewhere where children are not protected by the state. And this is really a question of what counts as abuse? Who decides?
Compulsary parenting classes and checks on children - how is this cutting into civil liberties of the parents versus protecting the rights of their children?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 04:29 pm (UTC)It is, I think, the best possible illustration of a hard fact: passing laws is only sometimes a solution to a problem.
In my view, laws are at best a framework in which problem-solvers are able to work. You have to enable people who solve problems by removing laws which would otherwise hamstring them; but creating new laws to empower them seems almost always a disaster.
There are no rules. You can't say: "If we do this, we will solve that problem." Each case has to be judged on its own merits by concerned and honest people who actually understand the problem.
The effect, otherwise, is to create yet another Machine of bureaucracy, which takes over and mangles us. Did you read the story of the guy who dropped his iPod in the loo on the plane?
Trusting the bastards
Date: 2006-09-09 10:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-07 10:57 pm (UTC)I hope that I haven't been imagining the stark terror I keep seeing in the eyes above the trademark grin. I hope he has spent his entire time in office scared shitless. And I hope that when he is out of politics, he is able to face the truth about himself and what he has done, and seek some kind of redemption.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 12:05 am (UTC)This is what Teresa has been saying about the Bush regime and its followers since the courthouse "riot" in Florida in November 2000.
Great post. I've sidelighted it.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 08:43 am (UTC)Indeed, one of the worst things Blair has done (as opposed to throwing way 2 of the biggest left wing landslides in history by do nothing)is a poodle like mindless obediance to the wishes of W - this is not to say I necessarily oppose all his foreign policies, but to decry the fact that the decisions have not been come to with the interests of the UK or humanity at large in mind but just following HMV,
Graham
Yeah to the above
Date: 2006-09-09 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-10 02:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 12:18 am (UTC)But then, as you know, Liz Davies did her own share of trashing leftwing women so, sadly, it's endemic.
The whole mindset needs to be challenged and changed.
Clare short
Date: 2006-09-08 11:27 am (UTC)Sadly, Clare has never impressed me. Hard-working. Yes. But in terms of intellectual rigour she always looked desperately out of her depth.
Which leaves her as a follower, not a leder. Tony's was simply the biggest, most-hopeful banner to follow and she willingly sacrificed most dignities and principles to that.
She, like Prescot, was there as a fig-leaf and not from merit.
Re: Clare short
Date: 2006-09-08 03:50 pm (UTC)I'm a bit late to this but, IIRC, Short resigned after the invasion of Iraq, because she realised she'd been deceived. (By which time it was too late for her to recover any credibility with those who might have supported her had she resigned before the war, as Robin Cook did.)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 12:53 pm (UTC)Ideals
Date: 2006-09-09 10:29 am (UTC)Would also like the Torys not to get in this side of the Greek Kalemds.
Bit of a bind really
MIKE