Create a custom theme
0
Is Tony Blair a Signpost or a Weather vane?
Posted by
,
20 February 2005
·
81 views
Its now been almost a month since I announced PoliticalBritain.com in my blog entry 'CTerry Needs You!' The entry created a vast amount of interest which pleased me considerably, but I was unable to move forward because I could not find a portal system which suited me enough to build a site from and I'd rather not use a CMS until IPD came out. As such Political Britain has been put somewhat on the backburner, but I thought considering the popularity I'd give a sample of what I hoped to acheive with Political Britain in the form of a sample article.
Articles will compose the main bulk of Political Britain. Political Britains primary aim is to get the nations youth more involved in the political process. I believe Politics is perceived as difficult to understand, and/or not worth bothering with by the majority of the youth- only 4/10 young people participated in the last election. The problem comes from one central issue I feel. While there is a great deal of media on current affairs, coming from newspapers, documentarys, and so forth, there is very little information available on the history, or general ideas behind the politics of the nation. In Europe they teach this in secondary school. Kids are taught why things are the way they are. Considering the importance of politics in day to day life this makes sense. As a result ignorance on political issues is rife.
When I set out to write an article on Political Britain I must keep the following things in constant mind:
1. To attempt a balance on both sides of the argument, I am not here to impose my particular belief onto anyone. Admittedly this will be difficult, as I believe true objectivity is impossible. You can only have relative objectivity. With only one writer and no editor this will be a particular problem. It is quite likely I will attempt to find someone right wing (probably Rikki- who has shown a special interest in this project) to read over things and tell me if there's anything that jumps out and says 'Oh ######, I'm biased!' Of course this will still not result in an absolute objectivity, but it will help me get closer.
2. To explain why the issue is important and why it has come about.
3. To leave the article as open ended as possible- in order to allow for the development of the readers own political ideals, rather than imposing a set idea.
As such I shall now begin my article, once you have read please feel free to make any comments you feel are relevant, or may be helpful. I will attempt to take any constructive critisism on board.
Is Tony Blair a Signpost or a Weathervane?
There is an advert for the BBC's question time with Tony Benn- that staple of British Socialism- where he says "There are two types of politician- signposts and weather vanes. Signposts have strong beliefs. They take things and they point in a single direction, constantly going in a certain direction. Weather vanes read the focus groups and then point in the direction that they dictate. I have a lot of time for signposts- whatever their political affliction- I have no time for weather vanes." What Mr. Benn is saying is quite obvious. Politicians are either born and raised with certain ideals, and continue to champion those ideals whatever the prevailing political climate for the rest of their days, or they look at public opinion and attempt to appeal to whatever it is that the public is saying it desires from the government.
Mr. Benns position on this issue is quite simple- as you'd expect from a man who has resolutely clung to the ideology he has and thought so hard to be its exponent. Tony Benn was a man who was made by a Lord by the death of his father, banning him from being a MP, he fought for peers to be able to renounce their peerages, a law brought in at 6pm on July 31st 1963. Benn renounced his at 6:22pm.
However, as with most things the issue of the Weather Vane Vs. The Signpost is rarely quite so simple.
Tactics is a necessary part of modern day politics, if politicians do not appeal to the masses then they will not get elected. In 1981 Benn ran for the position of Deputy Leader of Old Labour. He lost, by a margin of 1%. Benn was known for his extremely left wing views, even within the Labour party, and this was at a time when Labour was being nicknamed the 'Looney Left' by the right. If Benn had gotten the position it would of been used by the right to show even further evidence of this. They may well of stuck to a single path, a single ideology, but they would not of made any gains. Quite the opposite.
Fast forward 20 years and Tony Blair is Prime Minister, at the head of New Labour. Many people would argue that Blair is a weather vane. During the 80s there was a growth of a group within the Labour party called the 'Soft Left', who believed in moving towards a more centrist Labour party, arguing that this would bring in more votes. Blair was active in this part of Labour. There was certainly evidence that it was true. 4 MPs from this branch- Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers, and Shirley Williams split off and formed their own party- the Social Democrat Party, pursuing a more centrist agenda. The party quickly allied itself with the then Liberal party, the Liberal/Social Democrat alliance grew quickly in power. In the 1983 election the Liberal/Social Democrat alliance gained 25.4% of the vote. That may not sound like much, but the last election was a landslide for Labour, and they won about 36% of the vote. The alliance declined in power over time time and eventually merged to form the Liberal Democrats, as Labour began to pursue a more centrist path (25.4% share of the vote is to this day the largest share the Lib Dems have ever held- though it is predicted they may get as much as 27% next election, it should also be noted that because of the way Britains election system works the 1983 election heralded 23 seats for the alliance, in 2001 when the Lib Dems got a 18.3% share they got 52 seats)
Many would argue that this is the ultimate form of weather vaning. In 1994 when Blair came to be leader of the Labour party and heralded the era of New Labour, he had Clause IV of the partys charter rewritten. Clause IV basically stated what Labour was founded upon- the ideal of being a Socialist party.
With the amount of spin that comes out of New Labour, and the spectacular move from the left to the centre it would be easy to describe Blair was a signpost. Seeing the direction Thatcher had taken British politics and trying to as closely match her policies as possible- but this would simply not be true. If Blairs primary motivation was simply to get into power and earn a big fat paycheck then he would constantly do whatever it takes to have his government match the opinion polls. He does not do this. If he did we would not of invaded Iraq- the majority was always against the idea. If he did he would not be so enthusiastic about the EU. Yet at the same he can not be described as fully a signpost either. He has changed tack on the idea of a referendum on the European Constitution for example. New Labour also has a habit of seeing what the Torys are about to say and then saying it first. In January 2004 the Torys declared that they would fire many civil servants. In March 2004 Brown released his pre-budjet report, and in doing so announced that he was going to fire a bunch of civil servants. This has happened repeatedly. The Torys have said "We will introduce more choice into the education system!" And Labour will do the same. As such in order to differentiate themselves from Labour the Torys have to move further to the right, resulting in an image of a party that is not all that nice. As the Tory chairman said in 2002 "Do you know what people call us? 'The nasty party'!" I doubt that Blair would enter politics simply for the money. While politicians do indeed get a high wage (about £55,000 a year for a MP, and £150,000 for the PM, with year on year rises in pay above the rate of inflation- something that is inevitable when you have a group that sets its own pay) Mr. Blair could easily be getting twice as much as that. Blair has a law degree. He is trained as a lawyer. Cherie Blair is also a lawyer- a barrister in fact. And she earns twice as much as he does. Blair obviously has to have passion for the job- 14-18 hour days and the level of pay attests to that.
It also somewhat comes down to how you view the public of Britain. If you view as them well informed, sensible people then being a weather vane is probably the best thing. You are carrying out the will of the people, crafting the country in their vision. On the other hand if you view the public as idiots, then you will probably want to ignore them and get on with things. Of course if you view the public as idiots it is unlikely you will want to participate in the democratic process because no ones going to vote for you.
There is also the argument of the lesser evil. If you asked someone in the 80s to pick either Thatcher or Blair, those within Labour, the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance would probably select Blair, on the simple fact that he is the 'lesser evil'. If Labour had stuck to their socialist leanings it is unlikely they would gain power, or at least as much as they have, and the Torys would continue to rule. What is the lesser evil? Conservatism? Or centrism? This approach has also happened in the States with Blairs still best buddy- Clinton. Clinton was pretty extraordinary in terms of American Politics. There have only been two democrat Presidents since 1969. Clinton is one. Jimmy Carter was the other. From 1969-1977 and then 1981-1993 it was straight Republican rule. Therefore Clinton, holding office for 2 terms, was pretty special. Clinton didn't just get elected by accident, he followed a popular President. After the first Gulf War Bush Srs. approval rating was at 93%. Clinton campaigned on traditional Republican ground- the economy was one, taxes another (Bush Sr. raised taxes after promising not too), he campaigned against 'Deadbeat Dads' and single mothers. Once in power he did this and more, however while he did this he did some things that were decidedly democrat- often outside the view of the public. He liberalised abortion law for example. Blair has done a similar thing. On the one hand he's supported ID cards, refused to raise income tax despite the demands of the left, gone to war in Iraq and kept to a free market economic model, on the other he has banned fox hunting, introduced more gay rights (in a debate in which one Tory MP declared that the bill was 'Encouraging Abnormality') put environmentalism and Africa on the agenda, introduced a minimum wage and put more money into urban centres than any government before him. The problem with Clinton was that when Bush came into power he kept the things Clinton did that he liked, and stripped the liberal stuff away, after all most of that was done out of the public eye, and so its not like anyone missed it. Clintons liberal legacy is gone, only the conservative Clinton is left. That said, for 8 years he managed to improve life for the average all American working class guy than a second term for Bush Sr. ever would.
It is unlikely that the same will happen to Blair- at least not with the current state of the Conservatives, but it underlines a simple fact of this tactical attempt at being the lesser evil- people forget the liberal things, they remember the conservative.
So is Blair a signpost or a weather vane, and if he is one or the other is that necessarily a bad thing? Signposts don't tend to get elected unless they happen to point the same direction as the public, and even party shows some form of vaning. Take the Lib Dems. Last year as their popularity grew they realised they actually had a chance of gaining power. As a result they decided they needed to widen their base in order to appeal to a larger populace. As a result they eradicated some policys. The Lib Dems no longer state that if they were in power they'd introduce legalised euthanasia. Nor do they state that in power they'd introduce legal same sex marriage, or legalisation of marijuana, in fact there are some fears among Lib Dem supporters that we are on the cusp of some sort of 'New Liberal Democrat' party. At the end of the day Lib Dem supporters have asked themselves- what is more important? Stating these things and being ignored, but being smugly pleased with how right you are? Or having the power to pursue other, more important policies. Radical decentralisation, for example.
At the end of the day the Lib Dems have had to say the latter, and to an extent all partys must, yet at the same time partys must not stray too far from their base, or they will lose the support they have so long enjoyed. It is a balancing act. Whether or not Blair has balanced correctly or not I leave up to you.
Articles will compose the main bulk of Political Britain. Political Britains primary aim is to get the nations youth more involved in the political process. I believe Politics is perceived as difficult to understand, and/or not worth bothering with by the majority of the youth- only 4/10 young people participated in the last election. The problem comes from one central issue I feel. While there is a great deal of media on current affairs, coming from newspapers, documentarys, and so forth, there is very little information available on the history, or general ideas behind the politics of the nation. In Europe they teach this in secondary school. Kids are taught why things are the way they are. Considering the importance of politics in day to day life this makes sense. As a result ignorance on political issues is rife.
When I set out to write an article on Political Britain I must keep the following things in constant mind:
1. To attempt a balance on both sides of the argument, I am not here to impose my particular belief onto anyone. Admittedly this will be difficult, as I believe true objectivity is impossible. You can only have relative objectivity. With only one writer and no editor this will be a particular problem. It is quite likely I will attempt to find someone right wing (probably Rikki- who has shown a special interest in this project) to read over things and tell me if there's anything that jumps out and says 'Oh ######, I'm biased!' Of course this will still not result in an absolute objectivity, but it will help me get closer.
2. To explain why the issue is important and why it has come about.
3. To leave the article as open ended as possible- in order to allow for the development of the readers own political ideals, rather than imposing a set idea.
As such I shall now begin my article, once you have read please feel free to make any comments you feel are relevant, or may be helpful. I will attempt to take any constructive critisism on board.
Is Tony Blair a Signpost or a Weathervane?
There is an advert for the BBC's question time with Tony Benn- that staple of British Socialism- where he says "There are two types of politician- signposts and weather vanes. Signposts have strong beliefs. They take things and they point in a single direction, constantly going in a certain direction. Weather vanes read the focus groups and then point in the direction that they dictate. I have a lot of time for signposts- whatever their political affliction- I have no time for weather vanes." What Mr. Benn is saying is quite obvious. Politicians are either born and raised with certain ideals, and continue to champion those ideals whatever the prevailing political climate for the rest of their days, or they look at public opinion and attempt to appeal to whatever it is that the public is saying it desires from the government.
Mr. Benns position on this issue is quite simple- as you'd expect from a man who has resolutely clung to the ideology he has and thought so hard to be its exponent. Tony Benn was a man who was made by a Lord by the death of his father, banning him from being a MP, he fought for peers to be able to renounce their peerages, a law brought in at 6pm on July 31st 1963. Benn renounced his at 6:22pm.
However, as with most things the issue of the Weather Vane Vs. The Signpost is rarely quite so simple.
Tactics is a necessary part of modern day politics, if politicians do not appeal to the masses then they will not get elected. In 1981 Benn ran for the position of Deputy Leader of Old Labour. He lost, by a margin of 1%. Benn was known for his extremely left wing views, even within the Labour party, and this was at a time when Labour was being nicknamed the 'Looney Left' by the right. If Benn had gotten the position it would of been used by the right to show even further evidence of this. They may well of stuck to a single path, a single ideology, but they would not of made any gains. Quite the opposite.
Fast forward 20 years and Tony Blair is Prime Minister, at the head of New Labour. Many people would argue that Blair is a weather vane. During the 80s there was a growth of a group within the Labour party called the 'Soft Left', who believed in moving towards a more centrist Labour party, arguing that this would bring in more votes. Blair was active in this part of Labour. There was certainly evidence that it was true. 4 MPs from this branch- Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers, and Shirley Williams split off and formed their own party- the Social Democrat Party, pursuing a more centrist agenda. The party quickly allied itself with the then Liberal party, the Liberal/Social Democrat alliance grew quickly in power. In the 1983 election the Liberal/Social Democrat alliance gained 25.4% of the vote. That may not sound like much, but the last election was a landslide for Labour, and they won about 36% of the vote. The alliance declined in power over time time and eventually merged to form the Liberal Democrats, as Labour began to pursue a more centrist path (25.4% share of the vote is to this day the largest share the Lib Dems have ever held- though it is predicted they may get as much as 27% next election, it should also be noted that because of the way Britains election system works the 1983 election heralded 23 seats for the alliance, in 2001 when the Lib Dems got a 18.3% share they got 52 seats)
Many would argue that this is the ultimate form of weather vaning. In 1994 when Blair came to be leader of the Labour party and heralded the era of New Labour, he had Clause IV of the partys charter rewritten. Clause IV basically stated what Labour was founded upon- the ideal of being a Socialist party.
With the amount of spin that comes out of New Labour, and the spectacular move from the left to the centre it would be easy to describe Blair was a signpost. Seeing the direction Thatcher had taken British politics and trying to as closely match her policies as possible- but this would simply not be true. If Blairs primary motivation was simply to get into power and earn a big fat paycheck then he would constantly do whatever it takes to have his government match the opinion polls. He does not do this. If he did we would not of invaded Iraq- the majority was always against the idea. If he did he would not be so enthusiastic about the EU. Yet at the same he can not be described as fully a signpost either. He has changed tack on the idea of a referendum on the European Constitution for example. New Labour also has a habit of seeing what the Torys are about to say and then saying it first. In January 2004 the Torys declared that they would fire many civil servants. In March 2004 Brown released his pre-budjet report, and in doing so announced that he was going to fire a bunch of civil servants. This has happened repeatedly. The Torys have said "We will introduce more choice into the education system!" And Labour will do the same. As such in order to differentiate themselves from Labour the Torys have to move further to the right, resulting in an image of a party that is not all that nice. As the Tory chairman said in 2002 "Do you know what people call us? 'The nasty party'!" I doubt that Blair would enter politics simply for the money. While politicians do indeed get a high wage (about £55,000 a year for a MP, and £150,000 for the PM, with year on year rises in pay above the rate of inflation- something that is inevitable when you have a group that sets its own pay) Mr. Blair could easily be getting twice as much as that. Blair has a law degree. He is trained as a lawyer. Cherie Blair is also a lawyer- a barrister in fact. And she earns twice as much as he does. Blair obviously has to have passion for the job- 14-18 hour days and the level of pay attests to that.
It also somewhat comes down to how you view the public of Britain. If you view as them well informed, sensible people then being a weather vane is probably the best thing. You are carrying out the will of the people, crafting the country in their vision. On the other hand if you view the public as idiots, then you will probably want to ignore them and get on with things. Of course if you view the public as idiots it is unlikely you will want to participate in the democratic process because no ones going to vote for you.
There is also the argument of the lesser evil. If you asked someone in the 80s to pick either Thatcher or Blair, those within Labour, the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance would probably select Blair, on the simple fact that he is the 'lesser evil'. If Labour had stuck to their socialist leanings it is unlikely they would gain power, or at least as much as they have, and the Torys would continue to rule. What is the lesser evil? Conservatism? Or centrism? This approach has also happened in the States with Blairs still best buddy- Clinton. Clinton was pretty extraordinary in terms of American Politics. There have only been two democrat Presidents since 1969. Clinton is one. Jimmy Carter was the other. From 1969-1977 and then 1981-1993 it was straight Republican rule. Therefore Clinton, holding office for 2 terms, was pretty special. Clinton didn't just get elected by accident, he followed a popular President. After the first Gulf War Bush Srs. approval rating was at 93%. Clinton campaigned on traditional Republican ground- the economy was one, taxes another (Bush Sr. raised taxes after promising not too), he campaigned against 'Deadbeat Dads' and single mothers. Once in power he did this and more, however while he did this he did some things that were decidedly democrat- often outside the view of the public. He liberalised abortion law for example. Blair has done a similar thing. On the one hand he's supported ID cards, refused to raise income tax despite the demands of the left, gone to war in Iraq and kept to a free market economic model, on the other he has banned fox hunting, introduced more gay rights (in a debate in which one Tory MP declared that the bill was 'Encouraging Abnormality') put environmentalism and Africa on the agenda, introduced a minimum wage and put more money into urban centres than any government before him. The problem with Clinton was that when Bush came into power he kept the things Clinton did that he liked, and stripped the liberal stuff away, after all most of that was done out of the public eye, and so its not like anyone missed it. Clintons liberal legacy is gone, only the conservative Clinton is left. That said, for 8 years he managed to improve life for the average all American working class guy than a second term for Bush Sr. ever would.
It is unlikely that the same will happen to Blair- at least not with the current state of the Conservatives, but it underlines a simple fact of this tactical attempt at being the lesser evil- people forget the liberal things, they remember the conservative.
So is Blair a signpost or a weather vane, and if he is one or the other is that necessarily a bad thing? Signposts don't tend to get elected unless they happen to point the same direction as the public, and even party shows some form of vaning. Take the Lib Dems. Last year as their popularity grew they realised they actually had a chance of gaining power. As a result they decided they needed to widen their base in order to appeal to a larger populace. As a result they eradicated some policys. The Lib Dems no longer state that if they were in power they'd introduce legalised euthanasia. Nor do they state that in power they'd introduce legal same sex marriage, or legalisation of marijuana, in fact there are some fears among Lib Dem supporters that we are on the cusp of some sort of 'New Liberal Democrat' party. At the end of the day Lib Dem supporters have asked themselves- what is more important? Stating these things and being ignored, but being smugly pleased with how right you are? Or having the power to pursue other, more important policies. Radical decentralisation, for example.
At the end of the day the Lib Dems have had to say the latter, and to an extent all partys must, yet at the same time partys must not stray too far from their base, or they will lose the support they have so long enjoyed. It is a balancing act. Whether or not Blair has balanced correctly or not I leave up to you.
