26 April 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/25/tony-blair-offers-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-our-future/
Is it better that the country be governed by a philosopher king and his best solutions, or by the people and their values?
Is it better that the country be governed by a philosopher king and his best solutions, or by the people and their values?
SUMMARY
1. Contrasting Political Philosophies of Tony Blair and Frank Field
Background and Ideological Differences
Tony Blair and Frank Field represent two distinctly different approaches within the Labour Party. Frank Field, influenced by a fading Christian socialist tradition, emphasised the dangers of rationalism in politics and advocated for acknowledging human nature's limitations and promoting self-interested altruism. In contrast, Tony Blair operates a global governance organisation, viewing government as a tool that functions best under competent leadership, irrespective of the democratic quality of the system.
2. Blair's Governance Philosophy
Pragmatic, technocratic, focus on competence over form
Blair's approach to politics is highly pragmatic, focusing on competence over the form of government. He suggests that non-democratic systems can function effectively if led by smart individuals, although this perspective overlooks the broader implications of such governance styles. Blair supports his view by pointing to exceptions like Singapore and the UAE, which he sees as examples of effective governance due to competent leadership.
3. Critique of Competence as a Sole Leadership Quality
Effective leadership requires strong moral beliefs
The notion that only competence should drive government is critiqued. Competence alone, without a strong value system, is seen as insufficient for effective leadership. Historical policies like the poll tax and the Covid lockdowns are cited as examples where competent leaders may still make poor decisions if they lack a robust guiding philosophy.
4. The Role of Values in Politics
Solutions flow from values
The article argues against the idea that there are definitive "right answers" in politics, suggesting instead that solutions depend significantly on the underlying values and priorities.
For instance, Frank Field's approach to reforming the benefits system was deeply rooted in his values, focusing on promoting work and individual freedom over reducing inequality.
5. Dangers of Technocratic Governance
Real choice requires that the "why" must precede the "what"
There is a significant criticism of reducing politics to mere administration without underlying principles. The article expresses concerns about technocracy, where politics is merely about managing public opinion to support "the right" policies, which could lead to a lack of genuine political choice and engagement.
6. The Potential Perils of a Labour Election Win
Leave people free to learn from their mistakes
The commentary expresses fear that a Labour victory could lead to governance by those who are overly confident in their moral and intellectual positions, leading to incessant interventions in personal freedoms under the guise of achieving societal perfection.
7. Preference for Human-Centred Governance
Ultimately, the author expresses a preference for leaders like Frank Field, who, despite their flaws, are seen as more in tune with human nature and less likely to pursue overly ambitious or unrealistic goals at the expense of practical consensual governance. Humanity over execution competence, a trust in the people, if reform is needed it is rather to "the system".
Glossary of Terms
- Christian Socialism
An ideological perspective within Christianity that combines elements of socialism with some Christian ethics, focusing on social justice and welfare.
- Rationalism in Politics
A belief in reason and logic as the primary sources of authority and legitimacy in political decision-making and technology for execution. Cf. a more conservative belief in people and values adaption by consensus.
- Technocracy
A system of governance where decision-makers are selected based on their expertise or technical knowledge rather than popular support.
ARTICLE
I don’t generally wish to send traffic to The Telegraph’s competitors, but if you can bear it, I urge you to have a look at The Times’s interview last weekend with Sir Tony Blair. Then contrast his approach to politics with the sadly departed Frank Field’s. Two Labour Party figures, two Christians – and yet how different their worldviews.
Frank Field came from a Christian socialist tradition that has almost died out in the Labour Party – more’s the pity, as it was the source of most of what is good in that party’s philosophy. Field wrote in his final book last year of Michael Oakeshott’s “emphasis on the danger of rationalism in politics”, of the need to recognise the limits inherent in human nature, the importance of “a sense of self-interested altruism”.
Blair runs a global governance organisation. Not surprisingly, his philosophy is quite different – and we must take it seriously given his obvious influence on Keir Starmer. He sees government in entirely instrumental terms. “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” Here, competence is the only test for good government: the important thing is not the system, but having “smart” people in charge.
Look around the world, though, and neither democracies nor authoritarian states seem to be particularly good at giving political power to smart or competent people. The system doesn’t select for that. The odd exception, like Singapore or maybe the UAE, about both of which Blair speaks approvingly, doesn’t disprove the general point.
But in any case, competence and smartness are not the most valuable qualities for leadership. Able and intelligent people can become prey to intellectual fads just as easily as anyone else – maybe more so – and take the most terrible decisions. Consider the poll tax, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, net zero, or the Covid lockdowns, if you doubt me.
Blair seems blind to this. Indeed he goes on to claim that “politics works when policy comes first and politics comes second. When you ask what’s the right answer to a problem and then you shape the politics around that.”
He isn’t, of course, unique in thinking this. This centrist dad worldview, the idea that men and women of good will from all parties can get together and find the indisputably right answer to our difficulties, is widely shared across the so-called centre ground of politics, from the Blairite Left to the supposedly “One Nation” Right.
It’s still wrong. There aren’t unambiguous “right answers” to problems in politics. Everything depends on the value system you bring to them.
Suppose you are trying to reform the benefits system, as Frank Field spent much of his life trying to do. If your priority is to encourage work, aspiration, and individual freedom, then you will arrive at one set of solutions. You’ll come to quite different ones if your primary aim is to reduce inequality and make sure absolutely no one can slip through the net.
Or: if democracy, national cohesion, and immigration control are your top priorities, then you probably supported leaving the EU. If you favour diversity, migration, and being part of a bigger power bloc, then you probably didn’t. It depends what you think is more important. The value system, the politics, comes first.
This is why competent administration, the capable managerialism that so many seem to wish for, simply isn’t enough on its own. In the end, however well done, it must fail. It’s no good being good at doing things if you don’t know why you want to do them. There has to be a value system that visibly drives actions.
And you have to win the arguments in public for that value system. That’s how to bring people with you. If instead you take the view that there are self-evidently “right” policies supported by all sensible people, and then reduce politics to the task of shaping public opinion so it supports them, that squeezes out political choice and turns politics into a technocracy. Blair says the country has had too much politics: I say it hasn’t had enough.
Yet that isn’t even the worst consequence of this way of thinking. It’s: where do you stop? If you think every problem can be solved by clever people, then why not try to solve every problem?
But there will never be an end to problems – which means there is no limit in principle to what the government can do. The only constraint is a practical one, and AI, digital currencies, restrictions on speech, or China’s emerging social credit system show that the limits to social control are weakening all the time.
So that’s the politics I fear if Labour wins the election: that of the moral improvers, the politicians who think they know best, and will not give up trying to make us live as they think we should. Give me the Frank Field’s any day. I’d much rather be governed by normal capable human beings who may have flaws but who understand human nature, than by relentless high-achieving busybodies with noble goals. Those people will never leave us alone until they have achieved perfection – and they never will.
Frank Field came from a Christian socialist tradition that has almost died out in the Labour Party – more’s the pity, as it was the source of most of what is good in that party’s philosophy. Field wrote in his final book last year of Michael Oakeshott’s “emphasis on the danger of rationalism in politics”, of the need to recognise the limits inherent in human nature, the importance of “a sense of self-interested altruism”.
Blair runs a global governance organisation. Not surprisingly, his philosophy is quite different – and we must take it seriously given his obvious influence on Keir Starmer. He sees government in entirely instrumental terms. “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” Here, competence is the only test for good government: the important thing is not the system, but having “smart” people in charge.
Look around the world, though, and neither democracies nor authoritarian states seem to be particularly good at giving political power to smart or competent people. The system doesn’t select for that. The odd exception, like Singapore or maybe the UAE, about both of which Blair speaks approvingly, doesn’t disprove the general point.
But in any case, competence and smartness are not the most valuable qualities for leadership. Able and intelligent people can become prey to intellectual fads just as easily as anyone else – maybe more so – and take the most terrible decisions. Consider the poll tax, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, net zero, or the Covid lockdowns, if you doubt me.
Blair seems blind to this. Indeed he goes on to claim that “politics works when policy comes first and politics comes second. When you ask what’s the right answer to a problem and then you shape the politics around that.”
He isn’t, of course, unique in thinking this. This centrist dad worldview, the idea that men and women of good will from all parties can get together and find the indisputably right answer to our difficulties, is widely shared across the so-called centre ground of politics, from the Blairite Left to the supposedly “One Nation” Right.
It’s still wrong. There aren’t unambiguous “right answers” to problems in politics. Everything depends on the value system you bring to them.
Suppose you are trying to reform the benefits system, as Frank Field spent much of his life trying to do. If your priority is to encourage work, aspiration, and individual freedom, then you will arrive at one set of solutions. You’ll come to quite different ones if your primary aim is to reduce inequality and make sure absolutely no one can slip through the net.
Or: if democracy, national cohesion, and immigration control are your top priorities, then you probably supported leaving the EU. If you favour diversity, migration, and being part of a bigger power bloc, then you probably didn’t. It depends what you think is more important. The value system, the politics, comes first.
This is why competent administration, the capable managerialism that so many seem to wish for, simply isn’t enough on its own. In the end, however well done, it must fail. It’s no good being good at doing things if you don’t know why you want to do them. There has to be a value system that visibly drives actions.
And you have to win the arguments in public for that value system. That’s how to bring people with you. If instead you take the view that there are self-evidently “right” policies supported by all sensible people, and then reduce politics to the task of shaping public opinion so it supports them, that squeezes out political choice and turns politics into a technocracy. Blair says the country has had too much politics: I say it hasn’t had enough.
Yet that isn’t even the worst consequence of this way of thinking. It’s: where do you stop? If you think every problem can be solved by clever people, then why not try to solve every problem?
But there will never be an end to problems – which means there is no limit in principle to what the government can do. The only constraint is a practical one, and AI, digital currencies, restrictions on speech, or China’s emerging social credit system show that the limits to social control are weakening all the time.
So that’s the politics I fear if Labour wins the election: that of the moral improvers, the politicians who think they know best, and will not give up trying to make us live as they think we should. Give me the Frank Field’s any day. I’d much rather be governed by normal capable human beings who may have flaws but who understand human nature, than by relentless high-achieving busybodies with noble goals. Those people will never leave us alone until they have achieved perfection – and they never will.
