Warning: rant ahead

For the first time in yonks, I'm actually going to write something political in my blog, because I'm really irritated by something I've just read whilst browsing Google News and I wish to rant.

So, this is Tony Blair, talking the other day to a group of business leaders who might want to take over academies when he finally manages to ram his school reform through:

“Any of you who have ever put through a change programme either in your business or in your organisation or your school knows that, basically, it’s hell while it’s happening. But if it is the right thing to do, then it’s amazing how afterwards people actually settle down and wonder what all the fuss was about.”

Now, I've been spending too long writing politics essays on what constitutes responsible leadership and whether democracy is really democratic for this not to piss me off.

Firstly, this endless talk about 'the right thing to do' is a perfect example of what David Runciman (my favourite politics lecturer) calls 'the politics of good intentions'. I'm not going to reproduce my Weber essay here (though it's available on request in the unlikely event you're interested). But basically, this kind of politics is irresponsible, because it justifies whatever Blair does by reference to his good intentions. He thinks he's doing the right thing, and that's his justification for ignoring public opposition. He thought he was doing the right thing, and that's his justification when it all goes horribly wrong (see Iraq). Nowhere is there provision for him actually to be held accountable for anything he does.

Secondly, the idea that after he's managed to force his programme through people will "settle down and wonder what all the fuss was about" strikes me as immensely patronising. It implies that he, as our wise and beneficent leader, knows best, and eventually, parliament and the general public will realise that he was right all along. That's not how democracy's supposed to work! To me, if you're having 'hell' getting reforms accepted even by your own party, then that should tell you something - and something other than 'People are so stupid'. And this is one of the problems with parliamentary democracy. Okay, so the fact that the government has to get its bills through parliament does sometimes force it to make concessions - maybe even quite major ones (see the anti-terror legislation). But, in some form or another, the bill almost always gets through, even if it was initially opposed not only by all the other parties (who generally represent more than half the electorate) but also by a substantial proportion of the party in government - and even if this opposition was based on having fundamental problems with the principles on which the bill was based (eroding civil rights, privatisation, etc).

Of course, there are some people who would argue that this is exactly how democracy should be, but forgive me if I'm not willing to accept that just yet. Still, maybe when Blair passes an Enabling Act and solves all his problems at a stroke, I'll look back on 2006 nostalgically as the golden age of democracy...