Nick Cohen: review of Blair’s “A Journey” and why it won’t persuade the blind

  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
  • Comment at end

    26th September 2010

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    Nick Cohen has an excellent article here of, it says, Tony Blair’s “A Journey”. [I take issue with only two elements of this, indented below in red, on Iraq and the banking crisis, for the reasons I give.]

    Mr Cohen’s article is not so much a review of A Journey as a review of why Blair’s journey means nothing to his enemies.

    The most successful Labour PM EVER seems condemned to a life as a pariah within his own land by littlies; creatures  with the political nous and intellect of gnats.

    So who ARE these insects, fellow-travellers all?

    Those of the mindset of the mad alliance of haters aka social liberals and their press; aka three-times beaten Conservatives and their press; aka extremist, lying bigots of the Left and Right; aka civil libertarians who turn a blind eye to Blair’s lack of FREEDOM of association; aka deniers who refuse to recognise any threat from Islamism, fundamental or otherwise. They are even to be found in numbers within his own political party. A party whose new leader – HAH! – leader? – disowns Iraq. He insists he was against it even if not an MP at the time to show us the true, argued colour of his vote. So easy to say. So easy, Mr Minor Miliband.

    And so from all quarters pours blind, destructive idiocy. My words, not Cohen’s. In case Mr Cohen agrees anyway, I’ll repeat them –


    I hope Mr Cohen will have no objection to my using his post in its entirety below. [I can’t find it at The Australian, btw. Perhaps it was all too much for those down under to cope with too.]

    My bolding below: I could embolden most of it, but will try to limit my anti Blair rage.

    Review: Tony Blair: A Journey

    From the Australian
    By Nick Cohen

    EARLIER this month a small and sinister act of intimidation took place in central London. Tony Blair was due to sign copies of his autobiography at the Waterstone’s bookstore in Piccadilly. In the normal way of things, readers would have shaken his hand and bought an autographed copy to show their friends. Blair’s readers could not meet him, however. Fear of violence stopped the book-reading public going to a shop to meet the man many of them had helped elect as prime minister.

    The Stop the War Coalition had promised a demonstration. For good measure members of the neo-Nazi British National Party had promised to come along for a protest of their own. If a previous Stop the War fracas at a Blair book signing in Dublin was a guide, it would have turned nasty. The alliance of white far-leftists and Islamist clerical fascists, who had come together in an echo of the Hitler-Stalin pact, was delighted. Blair was becoming “a pariah the world over”, it crowed. He “cannot go anywhere near the general public without there being protests and attempts to make a citizen’s arrest”.

    To have believers in the one-party Marxist state, the one-religion Islamist caliphate and the one-race ethnically cleansed nation as your enemies is a badge of honour any politician should be proud to wear. Unfortunately for Blair, his enemies are not confined to the thuggish fringe. The mainstream repeats the conspiracy theories of the fascists and the Trotskyists so faithfully it is hard to tell who is following whom; whether the extremists’ ideas have taken over the mainstream or whether the extreme is an exaggerated image of the furies of the liberal centre, like a disfigured reflection in a fairground mirror. With the left and right-wing newspapers, as with the far-left and far-right parties, differences between supposed political opposites have broken down. When a generous Blair announced that he would give the proceeds from A Journey to the British Legion, a charity that looked after injured soldiers, the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror ran this headline: “Tony Blair should amputate a limb and give that to the British Legion.” This miserable thought might have appeared just as easily in the conservative press. On the day he released the book, the right-wing Daily Mail had the headline “Crocodile tears – and STILL no apology: Tony Blair’s memoirs go on sale pushing his self-serving justification of the Iraq war”. The liberal press said much the same.

    Throughout his career, Blair has made the BBC forget its obligation to impartiality. It was so exalted when he ended 18 years of Tory rule in 1997, its “corridors were strewn with empty champagne bottles”, as one presenter said. How long ago all that seems. Having treated Blair with an adulation no leader in a supposedly commonsensical democracy deserves, the BBC compounded the offence and further compromised its principles by turning on him with demented bitterness. I lost my respect for it when I sat in its studios and watched senior presenters, driven half-mad by Iraq, tear up every rule in the book to rig debates and bias programs.

    Britain is now in an absurd position where to go on air and say a good word about a well-mannered, centrist politician, who won three elections, is to make a daringly transgressive statement. I do not want to do my country down in an Australian paper, so I will be as polite as I can be in the circumstances. The case of Tony Blair has shown its cultural and media grandees to be parochial, unprincipled, vindictive and stultifying conformist. They have allowed their self-righteous hatreds to push them into adopting the arguments of every totalitarian fanatic and psychotic bomb-maker on the planet. If your family came from Britain, and you are thinking of returning to your ancestral home, I really would not bother.

    Journalists, artists and broadcasters do not weigh the pros and cons of Blair’s decision to commit Britain to the removal of Saddam Hussein, they do not discuss the pros at all. They have wiped from their memories what knowledge they had of the Baathist genocide of the Kurds in 1988, the deaths of one million in Saddam’s unprovoked attack on Iran, the 75,000 who died after his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, the 50,000 who died after he suppressed the Shia uprising in 1991, the daily terror the Baath inflicted on Iraq for decades and the disease and malnutrition Saddam’s hoarding of the proceeds of the oil-for-food program bought. The fact Shia and Sunni representatives of the most racist, misogynist and homophobic movement the world has seen since Nazism have slaughtered Iraqis since 2003 counts for nothing, too.

    The horror is Blair’s fault.

    The consensus in Britain is that he is a blood-soaked murderer, a liar who tricked Britain into an “illegal” war at the behest of George W. Bush, who was himself a puppet of what they euphemistically call the Israeli lobby. Instead of showing remorse, the greedy charlatan grows rich with fees and directorships from US firms while the men he sent into battle are killed and maimed.

    To put it another way, Blair has a lot of convincing to do with this book.

    For all the accusations of spin and artifice thrown at him, A Journey is unquestionably Blair speaking in his own voice. A competent ghostwriter could never have written this. Platitudes abound. No cliche is left behind. Sentences begin reasonably, then run out of control, as if they were cars with slashed brake cables. As the title suggests, Blair wants to show readers what it was like for an inexperienced opposition politician to move to the centre of world affairs. He talks about his fear when he became prime minister, and how he worried that he and the British Labour Party would not be up to the job. He admits blunders and describes how he manipulated opinion to achieve worthy goals. Every politician goes through what Blair went through, but few have given us such a candid description of self-doubt. All refreshingly honest, you may think, until he describes how the jetsetting life of a statesman “played havoc” with his bowels. “You need to eat healthily and with discipline” to cope, he confides.

    I am very typically British. I like to have time and comfort in the loo. The bathroom is an important room, and I couldn’t live in a culture that doesn’t respect it. Anyway, that is probably more than you ever wanted to know.

    So it is, but sophisticated readers should not forget that the candour and the clumsiness are parts of the explanation of why Blair was such a success. Blair thrived in the lowbrow modern world. He loved it and, more to the point, respected it. Although he came to Downing Street from the upper-middle class leftish suburb of Islington – think Sydney’s Paddington but with more art-house movies – he was not of it. Long before September 11, I and many others had come to despise him. We loathed his populism, hated how he pandered to the tabloid press with ever-harsher measures against criminals and asylum-seekers. We thought that it was just a cheap deceit to win votes. We did not feel better when he realised that he was sincere. British Labour people are not like their comrades in Australia. There is no British equivalent of Kevin Rudd or Bill Hayden. The British Left does not depose leaders who look like losers, it loves them. Until recently, its most revered figure was Michael Foot, who led Labour to one of its most crushing defeats. By contrast, we suspect that winners will sell us out. This book tell us what we already learned the hard way: Blair was as keen on selling out the policies of the old Labour Party as he was on trampling on the delicate sensibilities of intellectuals.

    The opening chapters describe what he calls “the project” to modernise Labour. I suspect Australian politicians will read and learn from them because, as a professional who could work an electorate, Blair was a maestro. His management of government was another matter. For years, the titanic feud between Blair and his chancellor Gordon Brown hobbled British domestic policy. Blair did not do what any self-respecting Australian Labor politician would have done, and stuck the knife deep into Brown’s back, but allowed hostile briefings and tantrums to dominate government.

    His account of the soap opera is entertaining. But inevitably his story of the consequences of September 11 dominates the book and will ensure that A Journey is read by millions, whatever the critics say.

    Blair gives a crisp and compelling analysis of the depths of the problems the world faces. Militant Islam is not all of Islam, he insists, and, of course, he is right. But he explains with surprising shrewdness how elements of Islamist ideology capture millions who do not follow its murderous tenets. Just as mainstream liberals, who think themselves moderate men and women, echo the screaming hatreds of the totalitarian demonstrators who would stop the public going to London bookshops, so notions of a war against Islam infect otherwise sane Muslims. In his chapters on Iraq, he makes a point Western commentators hardly ever mention. In Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the extremists have a further advantage. They will willingly slaughter any of their countrymen and women who hope for something better than theocratic tyranny, along with any and all innocent bystanders who happen to be near them.

    Blair’s chat-show chumminess falls away at these moments. He is no longer the grinning celebrity on the sofa but an urgent advocate of the need to fight radical Islamism with the inspiration and moral commitment we brought to the struggles against fascism and communism.

    Will his eloquence justify the conduct of the Iraq war? It cannot for two reasons. Even as someone who went from loathing to respecting Blair because of Iraq – a rare political journey, I grant you – I cannot accept his dismissal of the chaos that enveloped Iraq after the invasion. As he says, it was brought by al-Qa’ida and Iranian-backed militias who were desperate for liberation to fail. But his explanation for the failure of the US, Britain, Australia and their allies to foresee the danger is too brusque. He says in effect, “If someone had warned us, we would have acted differently.”

    His tone is the same when he briefly mentions the banking crisis. “Had regulators said that a crisis is about to break … we would have acted. But they didn’t say that.”

    It is not good enough. Elected leaders, not regulators or generals, govern democracies because the best of them sense crises before they break. In his foreign policy and in his economic policy Blair did not stop to think about unforeseen events preventing Iraq’s transition to democracy or blowing a hole in his booming bubble economy. He did not prepare for the worst. Indeed, he could not bring himself to imagine the worst.

    [Here, on the post-war chaos in Iraq I beg to differ with Mr Cohen. Blair was NOT the senior partner. His was not the decision to make as to handling the postwar situation. And two,  on the banking crisis – his were NOT the decisions to take. Gordon Brown famously refused to let Tony Blair see budgets until the last moment, far less listen to him if he thought a brake was required on any part of economy. Apart from that, the banking crisis was hardly all Brown’s fault. The banking crisis in Britain resulted from high-risk mortgage decisions in the USA, and its repercussions here, largely due to globalisation. Few countries escaped.]

    The second reason he will never convince his enemies is that they already have an explanation for the horrors and repression he fought against neatly tied up and ready to deliver whenever the need arises. It is the West’s fault, they say. If bombs explode in European cities, or teachers are murdered in Afghanistan for showing girls how to read and write, if Shia Muslims are slaughtered in Pakistan, or Iraq finds that the 35-year hell of Baath fascism is replaced by the fresh hell of Shia and Sunni religious fascism, those who do the killing are not to blame. Foreign policy promulgated by Blair and Bush is the “root cause” of the world’s travails instead.

    They will train their sights on Blair however well he writes. Perhaps one day some will realise that, like the guns at Singapore, their artillery is pointing in the wrong direction.

    Nick Cohen is a columnist on the London Observer. His most recent book is What’s Left? How Liberals Lost their Way.

    Recent related posts:

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the priviledge of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

    AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

    AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

    8 Responses to “Nick Cohen: review of Blair’s “A Journey” and why it won’t persuade the blind”

    1. little ole American Says:

      Cohen does a good job, but I disagree with him in the same area you disagree. The Prime Minister and our President had “experts” (like Gordon Brown and in the US, Barney Franks) who are “supposed to”
      be watchdogs of the finances. Barney Franks kept reassuring President Bush (who tried to sound the alarm on more than one occasion) that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were perfectly fine. LIAR!!!
      On Iraq, our president and PM Blair did not have a crystal ball that would tell them what would happen after the invasion. They would have to trust in the Iraqis to be able to take back their country and form a government that would allow them to have hope for the future of their children. Under Saddam, there was no hope. There is no question, the egotistical, narcissitic, insane (not to mention his goulish sons) dictator would have continued to pursue nuclear power and other weapons of mass destruction. It was a fact that Saddam supported terrorist organizations. One day, the security organizations will be able to release more classified information and I believe it will vindicate both Bush and Blair. In the meantime, with the little information these lefties spout as gospel, will just have to be ignored. One good thing about these protests though, is that the price of a “signed” copy of Blair’s book has gone through the roof.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        @ litttle ole American.

        That’s what Blair says in his book. Something like – those who criticise us over the aftermath should ask themselves if they’d have preferred the alternative – doing nothing. That too, TB says, had consequences. Saddam, Blair insists, would not have done NOTHING if left alone. And he also points out reputable figures which show that at least half of the deaths in Iraq up to 2006 were Muslim upon Muslim, not the west on Muslims, pointing clearly at Iran as the main source.

        What’s the price of a signed copy, then? Haven’t been watching this.

    2. Peter Reynolds Says:

      I was hoping you might have a well thumbed, almost worn out copy for me but I fear it would be full of highlighter,almost every word “emboldened”.

      Let me see, perhaps the local Oxfam shop will soon have copies, or there’s the library! I’ve never used my card since the day I got it.

      I should probably just wait until it’s remaindered at 50p a copy. After all, if it’s as full of universal truth as I’m sure you would have me believe, those truths will still be true in time.

      It’s good to see you back in best, high octave, ranting and raving form. I feel your pain under the torrent of “blind, destructive idiocy”. At least good ol’ Tone can rely on you to hold forth that trusty shield of (what did Jonathan Aitken call it) against the press and everyone else whose name doesn’t begin with a Z.

      I really must get myself a copy. I expect I’d enjoy it!

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        You know, Pete, I haven’t even finished Blair’s book yet. So YOU’RE not having my copy, you tight fisted so-and-so! I started Mandelson’s book some time ago, and haven’t finished that either. And Melanie Phillips’ ‘World Turned Upside Down’ (which TB must have read recently, since he’s beginning to get it on Islamism/Jew hatred issues.)

        Despite the thoughts of some close to me I DO have other things to get on with apart from sorting out the world and taking a look at the stories of those who have had a go. (Phillips’ is some education, btw.)

        Your Tory associate Jonathan Aitken called it the “simple sword of truth, if I recall correctly – yes, here it is.

        Now, Peter, you’re not wary of mentioning truth, are you, just cos you’re a conservative, me ol’ mate!?

        That was before they found Aitken guilty and banged him up (in July 2001), probably in the cell of his mate, your other Tory friend the awful novel writer – Jeffrey Archer, who used his cell time to make more millions on scribbling, in 1999.

        so there you are, I DON’T rant about etc… I appreciate and admire some people. That’s my problem.

      • Peter Reynolds Says:

        Melanie Phillips! Melanie Phillips!

        I can’t remember whether you’ve mentined this wicked harridan’s name before. I am apoplectic with rage at this idiotic woman’s deliberate, calculated, evil campaign of misinformation about cannabis.

        Here’s her original nonsense in The Spectator (NB the comments):

        My response:

        Her latest, appalling rubbish in the Mail which starts off as a ridiculous rant about George Michael (He’s said from the beginning that his problem is with prescription drugs not cannabis) then descends into lies and utter deceit about God’s herb:

        When the lies reach such a level of absurdity it’s better not to dignify them with a response.

        Now I’m not a violent man but I might well make an exception for this bitch. She is the epitome of slag journalism. I despise her.

        • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

          FGS, Pete, get a bit of balance here. It’s hardly the stuff of threats of hitting a lady just because she disagrees with you on cannabis. I know you exaggerate for effect, of course. PEACE be with you, upon you … or whatever else they say, as they inhale.

          You clearly haven’t read Melanie’s book – The World Turned Upside Down. It is an absolutely brilliant diagnosis of the illness the western world is suffering from. All linked to supporting sources. And she is of the right politically. A Tory, or at least she always was, until she noticed that they too are doing nothing about the biggest problem facing society in this country and the world today – blind capitulation to a creeping, foreign, destructive religious/political philosophy. I just KNOW you’d agree with her on this.

          Pop down to the library – ask them for a copy of her book and a copy of TB’s A Journey. Then it’ll cost you nothing but an open-mind to get informed, me ol’ mate, me ol’ pal.

          Slag journalism? Well ALL of the Daily Maul is that.

      • Peter Reynolds Says:

        Balance? Where Melanie Phillips is concerned that word can’t exist on the same page. It would produce immediate nuclear fission based on the collision of the dark matter that makes up the harridan’s brain with the reality that the rest of us live in.

        I wan’t threatening to hit her. I was thinking more of a sort of extended torture session using techniques that even George Bush would have disapproved of. Maybe some extreme sado-sexual humiliation involving animals – oh no, it would be wrong to disrespect even the lowest form of animal life by proximity to her. Perhaps one of those extremely slow acting poisons that paralyses first but keeps the victim fully conscious through hours, perhaps days of intense agony?

        I can tell you think I am going over the top but quite seriously, if you read the absolute gibberish that the harridan has written about cannabis, you will see that I could never respect any opinion or information she might offer. Anyone who is capable of such nonsense is totally beyond any trust. Anything she says should be disbelieved unless it can be independently verified.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s