From an external perspective, Tony Blair’s status as a persona non grata among Britain’s intellectual elite continues to captivate observers of UK politics. This disdain is often attributed to his controversial decision to ally with George Bush in the Iraq war. However, this explanation only scratches the surface of the deep-seated animosity felt by liberal Britain.
A significant factor contributing to Blair’s unpopularity with the left is his success in transforming the Labour Party into a viable electoral force. By shedding the rigid doctrines that had long kept Labour on the political sidelines, Blair made the party appealing through pragmatic policies that eschewed cumbersome ideologies.
This transformation is something for which Blair is unlikely ever to be forgiven, especially as his recent comments on the Labour Party’s current troubles sparked intense backlash. His critique, particularly poignant amidst the ongoing power struggle against Keir Starmer, was met with fierce rebuke.
Nonetheless, Blair’s open letter, offering a blueprint for revitalizing Labour, contained sage advice. His insights, though controversial, could serve as important lessons for leaders beyond the UK. However, such suggestions are likely to provoke strong reactions from the gatekeepers of conventional wisdom in other political arenas as well.
He will never be forgiven for that success, which is why his intervention in Labour’s disintegration last week drew such a vicious response, especially from those engaged in a slow-motion coup against Keir Starmer.
Former British prime minister Tony Blair
But the open letter Blair published outlining his ideas to reboot the party contained plenty of sound advice that our leaders should heed, too – and which would draw a rabid response from the guardians of groupthink here as well.
In particular, his insistence that a state should prioritise its own needs has infuriated his enemies. This is the same crew that have eagerly embraced being kind to yourself and who unconditionally champion all strains of navel-gazing woo-woo.
Their shtick is as pronounced here as it is in the UK, as an entertaining parliamentary spat showed.
The Taoiseach was uncommonly forthright when berating Richard Boyd Barrett over the Occupied Territories Bill.
‘Do you give a continental if the US goes south because of what we do here?’ he asked in refreshingly unadorned prose.
He knew the answer, and the reason for it: it’s all about the campaign, he complained.
Opposition parties should always be campaigning, and besides whatever principles might underpin their position on trade with Israel, they also understand the difficult position in which it places the Government.
They understand the revulsion the Irish public feel at the conduct of the Israeli military in Gaza and now in Lebanon, some of whose actions have drawn criticism from once-steadfast allies in the US and Europe.
Sentiment here was further deepened by the conduct of an Israeli minister around detainees from the latest flotilla intercepted by Israel’s forces.
Many of those held included Irish citizens, and the braying of extremist politician Itamar Ben-Gvir was condemned globally.
Itamar Ben-Gvir shouts at a detained man who has his hands bound
But it appears his odious behaviour triggered the latest push from within Cabinet to publish the Occupied Territories Bill, despite the potential risks it poses to the economy here.
Given this country’s dependence on multinational investment, the recklessness of pursuing a law which will impact our own wellbeing in ways that are unknown or not fully understood, should be blindingly obvious.
But this administration, like its immediate predecessors, has shown a persistent weakness for submitting to luxury thinking best left to the Opposition.
Disgust at the Israeli government’s actions is widespread and sometimes justified, but imperilling Ireland’s interests to push legislation with a negligible economic impact isn’t responsible.
Nor is maintaining climate policies that can’t meet impossible targets, but which place unsustainable pressure on businesses and individuals, another point made by Blair.
The Environmental Protection Agency predicts greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 25% here by 2030, not the 51% the State is obliged to meet by law.
That’s because the original target was off the wall, as even tangential acquaintance with reality showed from the outset.
That aim was plainly unattainable for any government that didn’t want to sink its own economy, yet it was championed in a classic case of Ireland wanting to be seen to be world leaders in virtuousness, an old failing.
Richard Boyd Barrett
The Taoiseach rightly took Deputy Boyd Barrett to task for the performative virtue the left specialise in, but the problem is it’s a weakness that long since pervaded the corridors of power, too.
Mainstream politicians like to snigger that People Before Profit politicians will never be near power to implement their extreme policies, but in some cases they don’t need to be because the political centre have been so willing to trumpet them.
Immigration is another prime example. It’s not that long ago Minister Darragh O’Brien accused Deputy Carol Nolan of threatening social cohesion for asking a straightforward question about the effects of immigration on housing. This was at a time when any questioning of Ireland’s immigration policy drew the Pavlovian response from official groupthink of ‘far right’.
Now, many of those policies have come into the mainstream, primarily as a result of the message voters sent to parties, and in particular Sinn Féin, in the local and general elections of 2024.
As in the case of Israel and climate action, defenders of the status quo on Ireland’s established positions employ whataboutery and easy moralism to try and stifle debate.
But a State can be compassionate while also prioritising the needs of its own people first.
And the days of making dissent shrink by browbeating people with guilt are near an end.
Loving yourself is a prized principle in the progressive gospel.
It’s one those responsible for the governance of the State must embrace wholeheartedly, too.
When did it become a crime to like O’Leary?
A HEADLINE on the website of a national newspaper reported that Darragh O’Brien ‘admits’ to admiring Michael O’Leary.
If ever a word betrayed a world of prejudice, it was that one.
Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary
Because O’Leary isn’t approved by the consensus. He’s forthright, occasionally rude, and his airline has stringent rules it enforces without fear or favour.
That last point is a particular problem for those who seek to fuss over rule-breaking in other parts of our lives.
But if Michael O’Leary is loathed by official Ireland, that’s just one more example of it misunderstanding – or simply ignoring – the will of the people.
As someone who has flown Ryanair scores of times, I can recall one incident in over 20 years of someone getting outraged at a check-in desk.
It was five in the morning in Dublin Airport, back in the days before digital check-ins and apps, and some jackass on his way to a Six Nations game hadn’t got his boarding pass with him. He huffed and he puffed but eventually admitted defeat.
People can follow rules. They understand the Ryanair bargain: good value is guaranteed but the passenger must uphold their end of the deal. And we do, in our millions.
Own goal: Politicians can’t play both sides in row over match with Israel
JUST how easy and hollow it is to spout blandishments about complex geopolitical issues with tangled roots, is illustrated by the stance of two ministers on Ireland hosting Israel in Dublin next October.
Patrick O’Donovan and Charlie McConalogue, the Minister and junior in the department with responsibility for sport, say the game should go ahead, but they won’t be attending. They might think they have freedom for this manoeuvring because the game comes under the auspices of the FAI, but it’s an entirely unsustainable position.
If the match goes ahead, it will attract protests and many fans will stay away as an expression of their disgust. That’s their prerogative, but ministers don’t get the luxury of playing both sides; they can’t wish for the game to go ahead, but implicitly protest at the presence of Israel by not attending.
It appears increasingly likely they won’t face that dilemma, with growing indications the match will be played at a neutral venue. This will spare the Government some of the headaches that would attend the match being played at the Aviva, but it will undoubtedly have repercussions down the line for Ireland’s ambitions of hosting major events.
So be it, say the protesters, but the fall-out will also affect sportspeople in future. What if someone feels strongly that Israel should be participating in international sport, that the conduct of one despised government shouldn’t define a nation, a religion, or an ethnicity? Can their voices be heard?
