All label and no content
Issues of faith have clearly been consuming Mr Blair. Since leaving office, he has converted to Roman Catholicism. This requires much thought and reflection. After confessing serious sins, a convert must make the “Rite of Reception”, including saying that: “I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
And saying that requires thought and reflection? Wouldn’t you think it requires something more like the avoidance of thought, the abdication of thought? To say you believe all that the ‘Holy’ Catholic Church proclaims to be revealed by God is to say you believe something very all-encompassing, very broad, very dogmatic, and very evidence-free. What does that have to do with thought? Dogmatic belief is not the same thing as thought, and in many ways it’s the negation of it.
While Mr Blair may have changed the subject to talk about religion, he remains to his fingertips a politician. He knows that, while the fact of his religious faith is essential to making his initiative work, the content of it might get in the way.
Ah – well that would explain it. The fact of his ‘faith’ is essential while the content is a nuisance. That so often is the case, isn’t it – the word ‘faith’ is used as a self-congratulatory lapel-pin, while the actual literal things people are supposed (by clerics if no one else) to believe are tactfully not discussed. Blair’s ‘faith’ is all label and no content, at least for purposes of public discussion.
But if that’s the case – why call it faith at all? Why attempt to eat your cake and have it? What’s it all about – just having a place to go with the spouse and kids on a Sunday? If the actual content is too awkward to talk about…why hang on to the exoskeleton like grim death?
Who knows. The ways of the faithful are mysterious.
I guess God revealed to him that being a Catholic vastly improved his chances of becoming the 1st European president (what a ghastly thought – but probably not far from the truth!)
“What’s it all about – just having a place to go with the spouse and kids on a Sunday?”
Ask Alfie :-)!
It is a place to go each Sunday – where one can parade one’s latest finery.
It is a place to go where other like-minded rail lickers can see one thumping and beating one’s cra.
It is a place to go to be by the past electorate recognised. When alas, fame (like a thief in the night) has departed from ones door!
It is a place to be seen queuing outside the confessional box telling all (by ones actions) what a cleansing spiritual soul one intends carrying around.
It is a place to be (graciously/humbly) seen by all and sundry each Sunday – showing off ones offspring and pretending to the congregation how holy is ones family.
“The ways of the faithful are mysterious.”
Spot on OB.
‘…his chances of becoming the 1st European president…’
President? Next Pope but one for Tony.
I thought it was one of his former headmasters, but apparently it was Roy Jenkins who said of Blair that he had a “second class mind”.
And I think that is the problem, he was undoubtedly a fantastic and successful politician and a driven, charismatic statesman; but ultimately I think a lot of his failures can be traced to a lack of intellect, or at least what you would expect at this level. He is famously quickly bored with details and intricacies.
And I don’t even think he actually sees the contradictions in his position on faith.
Takes a real second class mind to sweep the board in three general elections I wish I was that stupid.
Oh bloody hell Richard – that’s incredibly weak, even by your usual standards.
Maybe you should consider a nuanced approach to some non-Blair contributing factors:
The unrepresentative first-past-the-post electoral system, creating ‘landslides’ out of less-than-40%-of-the-vote actual results.
The relative paucity of the opposition (oh no! here comes “the quiet man”! etc)
Gordon Brown’s seemingly ‘stable’ economy and ‘prudent’ budgets, (propped-up by off-balance-sheet, vastly overpriced, still-be-paying-for-them 25 years later PFI deals.)
The role played by Alastair Campbell and other “special advisers” in determining strategy, policy, and virtually every word to come out of TB’s mouth…
…oh bollocks. I’ve just realised I’ve wasted my time and gone and taken you seriously again. damn damn damn damn
To be fair, Andy, How nuanced is it to attribute Blair’s “failures” to lack of intellect?
That same system worked against the Labour party in previous elections,so much so that p.r was becoming a big isue within the Labour movement. Blair played the game on the pitch he had(not the one he wished he had) and won 3 masive victories, that is no small acheivement. The Tory vote all but collapsed mainly due to the fact that Blair was offering a viable alternative for the first time in 20 odd years, that does not strike me as a man who is stupid or a lap dog or a sycophant!
DFG,
Go and read Arnaud’s post again…there was a small, but necessary, expansion on the “lack of intellect” concept.
Blair went a very long way indeed on his own abilities/personality, but it is also apparent that his limitations lead to an over-reliance on a coterie of (rather dubious) advisers. And just look where that took us…?
Unlike a number of folk, I’m quite happy to accept that he sincerely holds many of his more ridiculous beliefs – that’s what allows him to come across with such, well, sincerity. (c.f. That world-class economiser-of-the-truth Bill Clinton’s famous “charm”). All the sincerity in the world, however, isn’t going to make those beliefs any more ‘accurate’ or ‘true’.
I’m not even going to bother to respond to Richard. I’d like to think I have 0.822% of a life.
Hold on, some context: Jenkins was reknowned for occasional dismissive intellectual snobbery. Probably justified somewhat by a parallel career as a first rate historian and biographer. Correct me, but most of this New Labout lot seem to have gone to Oxford, crammed Law to get the 1sts they desperately craved (or a 2:1 in TB’s case), and they’ve now done professional politics for 20-30 years. Smart yes, of course, but not of the same intellectual order as *some* in previous generations ?
Richard,
Having a second class mind does not make one stupid. I have a second class mind myself, at least I hope I do as I know I don’t have a first class one.
First class minds are rare, even in the most distinguished centres of learning. These are the people who make the break-throughs, whose insight extends further than the others.
Having a second class mind is perfectly adequate for the role of PM, as long as you recognise it and surround yourself with first class minds and listen to them.
However, if you delude yourself that you have a first class mind, then there is a danger you will embark on projects
which are beyond your capabilities.
Oh my! What have I done?
Arnaud, you are experiencing guilt. Don’t worry, it’ll be alright on judgement day.
Hmm, yes, winning elections as a measure of intellectual mettle? I don’t think so, especially considering Richard’s own propensity to be swayed by cheap talking points and emotional argumentation.
It’s all right Nick, well do I know what guilt feels like. Like all human beings -yeah even the unborn ones that currently dwell within their mothers’ wombs – I have been forever tainted by the original sin. The stink of my ancestral guilt has been following me since my conception after all.
But I have no fear; I will be in time cleansed of all sin by regular consumption of the flesh and blood of sweet baby (or other vomit-inducing epithets Richard like likes to give to his favourite schizophrenic vision-addled illiterate, I cannot be asked to check) Jesus and provided I don’t forget that consuming the flesh and blood of other – presumably less holy – unborn babies, or even stem cells without a hope in hell of ever amounting to a human being, is taboo.
“The Tory vote all but collapsed mainly due to the fact that Blair was offering a viable alternative for the first time in 20 odd years”
Although the 1992 election was very close with Labour ahead in the polls at points. It was widely perceived that there was a very late swing back to the Tories (‘Sun wot won it’ etc).
So it would be nonsense to say that Blair was offering the first viable alternative in years (since it was very close in ’92), although it would be correct to say there was a big swing to Labour in ’97.
In 1992 Labour won 11.56 million votes, more than the 10.72 millions they got for Blair’s re-election in 2001. The difference is that the Tories collapsed, losing nearly 6 millions voters between ’92 and ’01!
The total number of voters went down from 33.61 million (’92) to 26.37 million (’01). So there was no real swing; whoever voted for Blair in 1997 didn’t repeat it in 2001. New Labour didn’t bring durably any new voters to the fold during those years.
But I do agree, Richard, with your judgement of Blair’s cowardice when it comes to religious matters. And the recent events around the Olympics (and before that the EU treaty signing ceremony) showed that Brown is no more ballsy.
Well I don’t have the balls to do anything whatever, and I don’t consider balls to be a reliable index of courage, including moral courage.
Honest to christ. I can remember people shouting back at macho balls-talk at demos in the 70s; I would have thought the news would have seeped through by now. Hemingway is over, cojones are not a prerequisite for courage.
Just a tiny reminder – it is a ball-less woman who is responsible for every single thing that appears on this site. If it weren’t for this pitiful testicle-deprived cowardly tremulous feeble excuse for a human, you wouldn’t be reading or commenting on B&W. Not that I have the balls to say such a thing, of course.
B&W Golf Course.
Any persons (except B&W’s golf players)
caught collecting golf balls on this course will be prosecuted and have their balls removed.
Enjoyed this short succinct comment – of which was by me taken from B&W News.
“So Blair does God after all. One can only hope that he erodes trust in religion as much as he has in politics.”
Well said – Jim Watson (Gloustershire)
Lovely part of Britain (near the Cotswolds)!
Remonstrance accepted (I will not call it a “bollocking”), for “ballsy”, please read “courageous”.
As a tentative apology, I can only offer Eddy Izzard:
-Two languages in one head!? No one can live at that speed! It’s impossible!
-But the Dutch speak four languages and smoke marijuana…
It’s okay Arnaud! It was Richard wot started it (naughty, Richard!), and you echoed him. (Plus, as you say, other language.) And I wasn’t so much furious with you two as with the persistence of that stale old bit of male self-flattery.
Funny how racial epithets die out but sexist ones just stay on and on and on and on…
I shouted at a commenter at Talking Philosophy a week or two ago for referring to, and I quote, ‘(ahem) twunts’. ‘Ahem’ his – oh very funny, combine two sexist epithets into one and then pretend to disavow them by saying ‘ahem’ but use them just the same. Phooey.
Talk about label and no content!
I was on a technical help-line recently and somebody in Ireland gave good, efficient and effective instructions. when I thanked him for this he responded, ‘Sure, we’re the dog’s bollocks.’
I hope we can keep that one.
Don. I hope not. Wouldn’t ‘the best of the best’, or just ‘the best’ do as well? Why this emphasis on male sexual organs or accessories as symbols of goodness, courage, or any other trait that all humans may possess (or lack), whatever their genital equipment? It’s strikes me as crude and sexist. Time to change our clichés.
Arnaud of course balls are no index of courage you should know better tut tut, my reference was an obvious mis spelling of the word guts and yet you repeated it and added s and y making the offence even worse.
Arnaud those vote totals although correct are a bit misleading, because prior to 97 all Labour was doing was stacking up votes in seats that they allready owned, Blair gained the party seats in areas that they never even dreamed of winning in England and that is where elections are won and lost.
Richard attempting sarcasm is a bit like watching a chicken fly. Slightly embarrassing.
It has wings, yes, but somehow you don’t see it going very far…
“‘Sure, we’re the dog’s bollocks.'”
Ahem, says the general dogsbody, “we’re from the fine ‘red setter’ breed – to be sure, but nonetheless we still have to do all the drudgery work around here.” :-)!
Eric,
I will mourn the day ‘the dog’s bollocks’ passes from our idiom.
I don’t take that one amiss – I guess because I’m unfamiliar with it, so it just sounds surreal as well as funny. It’s like rat’s ass or cat’s pajamas – it sounds random rather than sexist.
Besides, bollocks means bullshit. You can have that one!
Maybe I should start saying I’m the ferret’s tits.
Well, OB, maybe. The Penguin Dictionary tells us that its primary meaning is ‘a man’s testicles’; secondary meaning (often as interjection), ‘utter rubbish’; from Old English ‘beallucas’, meaning testicles. Just so that we’re clear on it. However, perhaps, since Don has a very low grief threshold, we should let it be for now.
I like the “Dog’s Tegs” variant…
Geordie, isn’t it?
:-)
B&W is definitely “the dogs bollock’s”
– meaning, “simply the best.”
Those who appreciate academic abuse will recall Ted Honderich’s description of Blair’s christianity as “epiphenomenal”
“The Tory vote all but collapsed mainly due to the fact that Blair was offering a viable alternative for the first time in 20 odd years”
“prior to 97 all Labour was doing was stacking up votes in seats that they allready owned, Blair gained the party seats in areas that they never even dreamed of winning in England and that is where elections are won and lost.”
So it is only a ‘viable alternative’ government if posh people vote for it?
I take it you mean the people that pay all the taxes by posh people PM? People in the densly populated south east of England were sick of having their pockets picked to fund other parts of the U.K, Blair unlike Kinock or John Smith got this and by dropping the wealth envy rhetoric and taxation proposals Blair was able to gain the trust and votes of these people. One of the main reasons Labour kept loosing elections was because they would basicly be promising to raise taxes on people who were unlikely to vote for them and give the cash raised to people who were likely to vote for them.
So, I guess the deletion of the post asking whether Dog’s Ovaries is acceptable counts as a ‘No’ vote?
“I take it you mean the people that pay all the taxes by posh people PM? People in the densly populated south east of England were sick of having their pockets picked to fund other parts of the U.K”
Richard, I’ll takes that as a ‘yes’ then, only posh people count.
No, the deletion of that comment counts as a vote to delete all non-substantive comments by DFG, for the reasons I have given you.
Could you define what you mean by posh people P.M?