What Are Your Politics?

Call me a leftist libertarian and you won't be far wrong. I voted Lib Dem in the last election, though I used to be a member of the Labour party. So I am left of the current prevailing politics in the country, and am also concerned about attitudes towards law and order and social deprevation (and public transport).

As with all these things, there are quizzes on the interweb to tell you this if you can't decide for yourself. Can't be arsed to look them up now but I did one called Political Compass which said I was a libertarian socialist. Like Ken Livingstone apparently. It divides people into authoritarian / libertarian and conservative / socialist (or something).

Dinner parties - D if Pete is there and rudely pipes up to the host (who has slaved over a hot stove for hours) 'Emma doesn't like mashed potato'. I would quite happily have eaten it anyway, but oh no, Mr No Manners has to make everyone feel bad.

I know how reticent you can be in such situations Emma, and I did not want to see you eating something you didn't like. Dinner parties classic if I'm invited and not cooking. The one I went to last night was the tops.

I did the political compass as well - did someone post it here? I got as bottom-left as Wedgie.

My politics are far left I think. Somewhere between the Sandinistas and Ken Loach.

The point is, Pete, that according to Emma's Guide to Modern Etiquette it is rude to announce to your host that you don't like something they are serving you once it's been put in front of you. It causes embarrassment.

Obviously this doesn't mean that if you are veggie and you are given steak tartare you must eat it, just say 'For god's sake you fool, I am a vegetarian. Take it away!' Nor does it mean you must eat the offending food. You have many options e.g. don't help yourself to any or decline it when offered. If it's already on your plate, maybe force down a few mouthfuls then leave it, explaining that you are leaving room the the delicious pudding.

Is that clear?

I did that Political Compass thing working on the assumption that I was left authoritarian - and it put me in the Benn/Livingstone left liberatarian bit - probably because I wish no ill to gays and think the odd joint - or even the odd line - does no one any harm (see also my dad's legalisation plea in yesterday's Guardian). But that it didn't ask me whether I would ban private medicine and education, which would surely put me in the left auth camp, no?

I'm in favour of pudding. I'm a puddingist. Free pudding for everyone.

Tony Benn: Left Libertarian? Pffffff.

That's an interesting point about the compass: if memory serves Libertarian was defined by classic Left tags - drugs and sex-based rather than - say - the suppression of advertising or state limitations on free trade. I didn't spot it at the time, too easily associated Libertarianism itself with the Left.

I hate, hate, hate, hate arguing politics (or religion or vegetarianism) with an evangelist and anyone who's ever asked who I voted for has always, without fail, tried to argue me off my feet and convert me to their side. My dinner party politics evasion technique is to tell them that a lady doesn't discuss such matters, tap my nose and hope they take the hint.

Seeing as this isn't a dinner party or the office and I appear to have pretty much the same politics as most of the rest of you, I will say that I have pretty much the same politics as most of the rest of you and leave it at that.

When Shaun Woodward fled Con for NewLab whenever it was, and Blair made big unctuous welcome, Newsnight wheeled out Roy Hattersley and TBenn to comment. SW had explicitly bigged up, as the reason, the then-topical anti-gay Con lurch: RH and TB simply ignored this (I mean ,yes, the line may well be a vast feint and a fraud — but their sweeping past it w/o deigning to discuss/debunk says everything to me abt "old" labour... they always took "our" vote for granted because nowhere else to go; as a result, are endless end-run and deserve to be.)

No one on the left bears as much responsibility for the Blair takeover as Benn.

Me and Ramon have worked out a plot to slowly take over the world (I'd go into it but then you guys would know how to prepare against it, sorry), so I guess I'm a facist. I always vote liberal or Democratic.

I try to be as apolitical as possible, I sometimes vote green because that will make the major parties think about the environment and transport policies a little more, vote conservative at council elections...if I have to be anything I'll be right of centre. Anyway, that's my view, probably against the grain of this place, but not to worry, nevermind, oh well.

Yes, it's become too easy to see Benn as lovely old buffer, or the last honest man in British politics, and he's neither.

Hm... this smacks of Use Other Political Judgements, Please! perversity. You lads are well-informed and I guess I take your point, but I think you're being way too hard on Benn. WAY too hard.

Left. The exact candidacy and party varies with my mood.

RE: Benn/Woodward - Woodward's brother is gay, so this may account for his strong feelings abt Tory homophobia. As with Ivan Massow (gay businessman and defector from the Tories) you do wonder what took Woodward so long to realise that the Conservatives were not exactly sympathetic to minorities. I once saw Tony Benn on Question Time brilliantly demolish Section 28, so I'm sort've surprised at his indifference in this instance (also thought Benn was the only person to give Ali G as good as he got.) Hattersley is simply a useless fool.

Historically: many gay (male) tories, some of them v.not nice on ay other issue. Also: signif.sized libertarian/free-market wing of conservative party only ever toxic on this in pragmatic-gutless terms. Thatch = not bothered by homos; single gleam of acceptable human attitude in her? (My theory: like Queen Victoria legend re lesbians, Thatch so unable to imagine What Cd Be Going On she becomes tolerant by inadvertency...)

It wasn't so much the indifference as the failure to note that they were being slickly end-run: by not addressing the issue as blaired, TBn and RH present themselves as TBr Intended. They let themselves be played (Peter Kilfoyle not so very differently, about nine months ago). This is a WEAK area for Blairism, which can be turned AGAINST him: but his opponents on the left slide round and evade stuff like this, or just ponce about stupidly, and allow him to make the weakness a weird by-default strength. The rad left — which is where I am emotionally, to answer the question — is just utterly strategically, tactically and intellectually bankrupt, at the moment.And has been since 1968. Benn should have tried to CAPTURE Woodward, not spurned him: but he's an idiot, by some way the vainest coulda-been in British politics. (Obvously Woodward's a pretty inconsequential figure in himself, an inept clown, brother or no brother — but PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THEIR MINDS ARE A RESOURCE, a breach in stasis, a flash of mutable opportunity: but Benn is quite unintersted in such opportunities — he's more concerned with cocooning himself into homevideo history as the Gerrard Winstanley of the late 20th century...)

Definitely Left. Used to be more Left than I am now, and some of my views fluctuate (e.g., more moderate on gun control and foreign policy, almost socialist on some economic and tax issues, and very much a civil [as opposed to economic] libertarian). At heart I'm something of an anarcho-syndicalist (like Noam Chomsky and the Wobblies), but since that view of things is neither widely shared nor likely to become widely shared anytime soon, I'm more pragmatic. I really dislike the notion of royalty, or those who have notions of being royal, hence my intense dislike for the Bush Family (and similar feelings towards the Windsors [sorry if that offends, Brits])

A long way of saying that I voted for Gore, that Chimp-Boy is a usurper, and that Ralph Nader ought to have his nuts beaten with a frozen fish string for swinging the election to Chimp-Boy.

We've got I guess the nearest that we've had in my lifetime to a govt. that I could support (leftish coalition) & I still hate them. So my political position = Perpetually Bummed Out Malcontent.

post-foucaldian bitchslappist

I like Lee Kuan Yew.

Attacks on Tony Benn for what he's doing *now* seem to me very unfairly missing the point. He really is an old, retired man. Attacks on TB for what he did in 50s-80s: not missing the point, though I am still unsympathetic to them.

Meta-question is really (as with academia): WHY does almost everyone in certain circles / subcultures (eg. ILE) have similar politics? (This is not an invitation for tedious Tory Boy intervention saying - Oh, but I DON'T!!)

According to politcal compass i was left leaning centerist but almost off the scale libertarian. i put that down to the fatuous and confusing line of questioning.

i like to think I'm some kind of libertarian socialist (polite name for anarchist), but more than anything I'm and intelectual wuss who talks big but acts small and that's somehting I'm ashamed about.

Tadeusz, I wouldn't worry about offending any Britons by expressing a dislike of the Windsors. They're not exactly the most wildly popular of our institutions.

Speak for yourself. I luv the Queen. Though I do think she could improve her popularity by remodelling the monarchy in a way similar to the Burmese Royal Family.

pete don't you mean the *nepalese* royal family?

I think SLORC is the coolest name for a ruling junta ever!

people's prince = behave like disgruntled des moines macdonald's fry-boy gone postal

aren't the albanian seperatists in kosovo called KFUC or something?

No, the Burmese Royal Family - who are on a five yearly stipend which gets voted for at the same time as the election. They also vote for who the money should go for in the family, and whether they thgink the King is a God any more. Far more civilised.

Oh. Okay. I meant Nepalese. All those South Asian countries are the same to me (he said - destroying the work of the very institution he is ensconced in).

I'll second that emotion about SLORC - sadly, I don't they call themselves that any more, but no name has ever evoked the evil of the people concerned so perfectly. It's very Bond...

I want to join Geoff's party!

Chesterfield passed their own verdict on Benn, an 8.53% swing to the Lib Dems which gave them the seat. My own brief flirtation with hard- left socialism rather faltered when trying to envisage a nationalised music industry in the 80s, yuk...can you imagine!

I was all for a nationalised music industry in the eighties. Especially if it meant Billy Bragg would lead all the jobbing muso's out on to a long picket line and refuse to play anything until their demands were met. Hmm, I reckon Maggie could have held out over the threat of never hearing "Levi Stubb's Tears" ever again...

You don't have to imagine: I present... LATIN QUARTER!!

I guess i am a socialist but i beleive in personal liberty and idenity politics as one source of that liberation. I guess i am a collectivist anarchist if that makes sense .

In America you can't really influence political decisions but I try anyways. I am Scientific Moderate Progressive.

Stevo: your contribution is baffling. Benn wasn't standing (as you know); so what did the swing against a Labour candidate much more right wing than him mean? Hard to say. We'd need to see all kind of psephological evidence etc. 'Verdict'? I don't think so.

Yeah, what Pinefox said. Constituencies like media-whore mavericks, anyway. Partly cuz they have to bolster their bolshy rep by being more than usually licitous of local issues. This *particular* verdict was — if anything — pro-Benn.

Sorry to be so predictable, but according to the Political Compass site I'm left-libertarian. That'll do fine, I think.

back last year when the oz govt was introducing the gst, I seriously contemplated the idea of starting my own religion/political party - the isane church of impermanance, in order to avoid being taxed on caffeine, chocolate and ciggies -seems there's a nice loophole down here where you can claim tax-emeption if yr stuff is used in religious ceremonies...bah, just relaised this has little to do with politics, though it does influence my ideologies I guess.

Anarcho-syndicalist. Viva Makhno!!!

xoxo

Just did that political compass thingie, looks like I'm almost in the centre...2 steps into the libertarian, and one step into the left.

Where is the compass? Am I being stupid and can't spot the link?

When I was younger, I was very left-wing, completely communist, but then actually going and living in a commune went and cured me of all that foolish naivete. Communism = fantastic idea, but in real world, = always someone who says "Communism means I eat your food but I don't have to do your dishes."

Then I swung towards libertarianism. Now I've been making a disturbing gradual shift towards the right. I think it has something to do with turning 30. "If you're not a liberal at 18, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain" and all that. I wonder how far it will go...

http://www.politicalcompass.org

pinefox + mark s. re-Benn + Chesterfield. I have a connection with the Derbyshire North-East Labour Party where that partic. result caused a few raised eyebrows. Word I heard was that a)Benn was none too popular with party or constiuency not least through absenteeism b) Lib Dems knew the seat was vunerable as a result and targeted it big-time c) having continually slagged off nu-lab is it any suprise his former constituents went and voted LibDem.

Left-libertarian. Closer to Lib Dems than New Labour on taxation, public services etc. but more libertarian than Old Labour tended to be. Voted Lib Dem and strangely unexcited (as, it seems, is the local media) about Labour taking a seat that had been Tory for 37 years. Not quite as pessimistic as Sinker about the radical left. Worships Nick Cohen.

Sunlit: We possibly mean a slightly diff thing about who the "radical left" is, actually.

Stevo: OK, fair point. I know zero abt on-the- ground blab in Chesterfield: yr friend is probably totally on the money. But I still think (a) and (c) pull somewhat opposite directions, re Chesterfield's attitude to BENN HIMSELF. ie If you were REALLY REALLY anti-Benn — above and beyond reason perhaps — you'd vote FOR nu-labour.

I agree with all that - which is effectively why when I first saw the result on election night, I thought it was, in effect, a pro-Benn vote.

if i have my political terminology right, "left-libertarian" or "libertarian socialist" = chomsky-style anarchist. there is something a little uncanny about nearly everyone on this board being a left-anarchist.

the pinefox does have a good question. when i go to a hardcore (as in punk not techno) show i can be pretty sure just about no one in the room voted tory. though it's even weirder in a less-specific forum like this. i think fred is a right-winger.

When I very first went online—six years ago?—and was surfing to find what there was, I went into the Yahoo folder for POLITICS. It had just two sites. The White House, and the Chomsky Archive. The technology has political decisions sedimented therein: for example it's intrinsically hostile to state- centralised authoritarianism-moralism (as per eg the mid-20th C norm for most nation- states: China is the single remaining flourishing exponent...)

I'm not sure "left" is well-defined any longer. Not as a wanky and deluded "I'm- above-linear-politics" position, but just that what *I* (born 1960) mean by left compared to what eg Sunlit Robin C (born c.1980) means by it. The shortcut-assumptions are differently routed, and mine (since I.M.Old) are encrusted with all kinds of half-junked dreams and bewildering wistful nostalgias also... I know ppl who call themselves libertarian socialists who are also prideful (neo)Leninists. I fink this is totally dotty — but they just say (equiv: they can't write) that you have to zig before you zag.

Anarchists to me (at first gasp) means those nitwits in Class War: who think you end bullying in the workplace by throwing a brick at a policeman.

Pinefox + Mark S. re-re Benn + Chesterfield. Being a sad politico I've done a bit of digging around on Lib-Dem gain, to see if any light can be shed on competing pro/anti-Benn analysises...maybe of interest.

Chesterfield seems not as convinced 'old-Labour' as one might think with urban/industrial character + high % council house occupants(cf Skinner in neighbouring Bolsover). It never quite took to Benn who took seat in high-profile '84 by-election, result being gradual increase in Lib vote/decrease in Lab majority. Even during '97 Labour landslide Chesterfield 'swung' against Benn, with LD's getting close to 40%, who also made big gains in local elections. Thus in 2001 they heavily targeted the seat thinking it winnable.

Benn announced his retirement, and their followed a controversial selection process for his successor with local activist Helen Seaford being kept off the short-list by the NEC despite six nominations (no further info but this is usually cos Millbank thinks someone 'suspect'ie too left-wing). Reg Race was chosen, former MP for Wood Green '79-'83 and ironically a former Bennite turned nu-Lab robot, shortlisted by the Guardian's diary for 'Turncoats Turncoat' award for 'impeccable Blairite toadying'. Incidently Race was the first MP to say 'fuck' in the Commons during a debate on Sex Shops.

Paul Holmes took the seat becoming the first Liberal MP in Chesterfield since 1929. Holmes paid tribute to Benn in his maiden speach as 'highly regarded in Chesterfield as a good constituency MP' contrary to critical noises I'd heard. Nevertheless Benn won a rock- solid Labour seat in the dark days of the mid-80s and in the midst of a Labour landslide it was lost to the Lib-Dems. Perhaps it can be interpreted as both a rejection of Benn's brand of socialism, AND the control-freakery nu-lab electoral machine it inadvertently spawned.

(fuck-fakt = cool)

V.high preponderence of former Bennites now in trusted Blairite ranks (Meacher, Hewitt, Milburn, Byers, Darling, Race) = NOT AN ACCIDENT. Blairite control freakery NOW = Bennite exact ditto in late 70s early 80s/tho Benn of course failed to win total power — he just allowed his mostly youthful v.arrogant myrmydons to make life miserable for large sub-sector of older working-class labour people (packing meetings, harassing heretics, winning by bulying), while himself remaining untouched Sainted Xtian Leader Figure swanning abt above the fray taking zero responsibility for these tactics (and general careerist misbehaviour of his spear- carriers). Hnce Tony B = Tony B, 20 years on. When Benn lost, in stepped those on the right who — v.smartly — recognised that the SDP had no mass basis, and (over a decade) quietly ruthlessly and v.effectively replicated Bennite party-capture tactics AGAINST "Bennism" (and what still existed of the uncompromised left left). My reading = Benn's war on "Old Labour" — polytechnic ideology vs traditionalist methodism, if you like — was *completed* by Blair. In respect of speech content, Benn can pose as Blair's opposite: in terms of practice within the party, they're evil twins.

Obviously it's more complicated than this: and Speech Content isn't merely Nothing.

I think I can understand what Mark is saying re. Blair and Benn, though I also agree with the Pinefox that the swing to the Lib Dems was pro-Benn in a sense. It's all *very* complicated.

Relevance of my "full name" here to revolt into unashamed globalism and sheer luscious capitalism by ex-Communists (and, arguably, collapse of Old Labour in metaphorical / musical terms), anyone?

Read similar analysis from Tribune's Mark Seddon. add in fact Mandelson (+poss. Straw) are ex-communists. Millbank-Tendency's grip on power greater than Benn + co could have dreamed off but Tony B 1 + Tony B 2 related ? hmmm. tactics perhaps, policies not surely?.

Post-92 defeat party seemed in state of despair, talk of 're- alignment' with LDs, christ if you can't win in against Major in midst of recession etc 'Better the devil you know' said Tory-voting colleague. Smith(RIP) offered lacklustre 'one-more-heave' approach whilst stench coming out of the govt. got increasing unbearable -eg Lilley attacking single-mothers.

Blair got elected, with a clear mandate for 'reform' cos Lab thirsted for electability (hell I voted for him). Smith almost failed to temper Trade Union block-vote, Blair managed to ditch clause 4 and challenge a few sacred cows worth challenging in my view. But his fear of the party that voted for him, and awareness of need to placate 'middle-England', lead him to serious errors of judgement eg Livingstone, Alun Michael in Wales, and chronic lack of ambition. He didn't have to promise to stick within Tory spending limits for first 2 years, Kenneth Clarke certainly didn't intend to, but fear of 'Tax bombshell/Double Whammey' made him. Andrew Rawnsley's 'Servants of the People' paints convincing portrait of massively insecure individuals avoiding upsetting the apple-cart at all costs.

Labour in power 2 should be v. different. Restless backbenchers are already flexing muscles eg over tube, Tories in disarray, LD's increasingly taking over area to left. Don't see Socialist Alliance providing serious threat but a left-labour grouping not frightened of upsetting Daily Mail without looking like dinosaurs is poss. Principle prob imho is lack of decent analysis. Theres a vast amount of anger/disillusionment to tap into eg recent anti-globalisation riots and high % of young non-voters, but it's hamstrung by lack of credible constructive leftist ideological response to unease over 'late-capitalism'. In Holland Green-Left (whom I'm a member of) follow a loose 'libertarian-left'/environmentalist agenda, and could well end up in next coalition govt, but I've got to 'fess-up to being disillusioned by its worthy, fair-trade + sandals politics whilst becoming increasingly aware of too many contradictions between trad 'socialist' convictions and commitment to individual liberty.

"If you want me, you can find me..."

Joe Jackson guest spot piano solos: Classic or Dud?

Very interesting post, Stevo. I think the wind is turning that way: just look at the (justifiably) angry reaction by most of the party to Blair's ideas on privatising air traffic control, the London Underground etc. Arguably a coalition between Lib Dems, the less dinosaurish fringe socialists and the less ultra-environmentalist Greens could be the best challenge.

Your point about the contradiction between trad "socialist" ideas and individual liberty is interesting because it cuts into the reason why I'm not sure I'd call myself a socialist anymore: in its most extreme form (Morris through Hoggart to Morrissey) socialism actually says that you can't like, say, Destiny's Child and be a true socialist. This is obviously bollocks (but bollocks that soul-bashing Smiths fans arguably bought into as aspirational-insulation-against- Thatcherism) and why I tend to define myself more as a left- libertarian. As Mark says, the ex-Communists in nu-lab have *always* been left-authoritarian, just from two apparently different starting points.

Did Joe Jackson play piano on Scritti Politti's "The Perfect Way"? I assume that's what's being referred to (it was certainly what I meant: mid-80s-US-MTV-hit-and-sonic-anthesis-of-communism-recorded-by- ex-Communist and all that).

I'm sorry to say this, but fuck all this dithering and putzing around with hair-splitting angsting and self-justification. Left-anarchist, et cet. my ass. Everyone who's posted is a liberal. And not in any funny British history burdened sense of the word, neither. Period. Full stop.

"funny British history burdened sense of the word" = self-evidently korrekt sense of the word

obsessive idiotic self-damaging hairsplitting = defining characteristic of the Left in all nations everywhere

The foax others called ex-communists on my behalf: only if any were actual members of the CPGB.

NI minister John Reid is ex-communist, joined CPGB in '73, left for Labour (souce Roth parliamentary profiles). Mandelson - don't think he actually denies having been member (Peter Kilfoyle's book states that he was: see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Labour/Story/0,2763,401076,00.html). Straw.... only heard rumours, no hard facts. No big deal these days, even Lionel Jospin has been outed as former revolutionary Trot. Was Stalin a liberal too Sterling?

"funny British history burdened sense of the word" = self- evidently korrekt sense of the word
yeah sterling don't they have dictionaries in america.

> Was Stalin a liberal too Sterling?

Only if you believe the flatulence that certain of our Republicans vomit forth.

And by history burdened sense of the word I mean that there are British parties currently and historically with Liberal in their name. Which makes the generic character of the word far less evident. Oh, and to quote that dude who Jospin used to find intreguing (from his biog. of Stalin no less)... "In the old days in Russia we used to call anarchists liberals with bombs. If that is the case, then Stalin is simply a liberal with state power." (rough paraphrase, of course).

But "the generic character" of Liberalism in the Sterling-Trotsky sense is easily rendered inevident — by things burdened with history? — because it isn't politically coherent (unless you choose to strip out of politics a LOT of things that didn't ought to be stripped out). viz John Dewey (who saved Lev Davidovich's ass at least once) = a liberal; Stalin = a liberal (+ state power); Gladstone = a liberal; Chomsky = a liberal (+ bomb); [insert more yrself]
You CAN make an abstract, anti-political linkage ("They are ALL LIBERALS"), but only (really) to abut some super-Sectarian Excludo-Definition ("WE ARE [whatever]"). The chief psychological function of which is (basically) to DEFER action yourself, while denoucing the world for the taintedness of ITS actions.
Sterling may be making some completely difft point, of course. He hasn't actually been v.explicit about what HE takes the word to mean (generically/historically); nor (come to that) did he explicitly endorse the Trotsky provocation.

Yesyes the word can be arbitrarily broad. But what I meant orig. was simply that the hair splitting was getting a bit extreme for a group of fairly homogenous politics, voting either labor or lib-dem, feeling (for the most part) slightly squeamish, and just sorta soforth. Like the exact genus of politics you slap on yourself would affect the world in any fashion anyway. That's all.

Oh, and Chomsky at least is more like a liberal + the UN Charter + a very boring voice.

Well, that's interesting. It said exactly what I thought had been happening in my own beliefs. I've still stayed strongly libertarian, but I'm only 2 clicks into the left. God, if I get mugged one more time, I'll be a libertarian conservative, and god help me then!

Libertarian except on the environment. (Yeah. Sell the national parks and they'll be taken care of better. How idiotic can you be?)

Liberal,conservative,democrat,republican.What does it mean?Right and wrong is the question in any matter of importance.Fancy names and ever shifting dogma can't or should not change the truest things of life.Truth is always truth and anything less is not truth.Who decided Truth changed with the times?What is yours[or mine]based upon?

I just say Im a logicist, as I approach each issue objectively and think of it logically.

I could never define myself with any party, as all are very biased, and form all their opinions with a predisposition that the outcome opinion must be either "liberal" or "conservative," and none of their thoughts can fall into the side they haven't already associated with.

i definte myself by nots. not republican. not conservative.

in my neck of the woods that can be an easy distinction though. don't believe in execution? the state in the womb? prempatory strikes? well then you sure as hell aren't a republican!

Someone who has a frighteningly different political worldview to that of most people on this thread (despite the fact that many of us may have voted for him) is Tony Blair, who told the Sunday Telegraph in 2001:

"There is a very interesting debate which I used to study at university—I was not interested in it then but I'm interested in it now—between the concept of natural law and utilitarianism. I've shifted far more toward the first, having been for a long time for the second."

Anne Applebaum expanded this in a piece for Slate, saying:

'Natural law, for those who don't remember the argument, is the belief that there is an intrinsic order to the universe and a hierarchy of values: It is perhaps best described as the opposite of moral relativism and is associated with both Catholicism and certain strains of contemporary conservative thought.'

Blair continued:

"I'm far more of a believer in … the power and the necessity to make judgments about the human condition, as opposed to simply saying, 'Well, look, what's good for the greatest number is fine.' … I'm a great respecter of science and the ability of science to inform our perceptions of the world. But I think there is a danger sometimes that we look at everything just in terms of what its utilitarian value is."

Tony Blair's Quiet, Normal Life by Anne Applebaum

This astonishing comment was not widely remarked at the time TB made it, despite the fact that we can see such a philosophy being used to push through policies that are neither popular with the British people nor beneficial to 'the greatest number' anywhere in the world, but merely strike TB is being in accord with his perception of 'the natural order of the universe' (which is, of course, a Christian one).

The right wing paper Christian Order paper approved this position, but argued that Tony Blair doesn't walk it like he talks it, since he allows abortion and homosexuality.

Ben Rogers, spurred by the same 'Natural Law' statement, discusses Blair's 'philosophical illiteracy' in the Guardian.

confused.

the politics of SCORN!

Natural Law vs Positivism NOT Utilitarianism you dolt, Tony.

my prev statement: to ans the question?

momus- I didn't think Blair has any philosophy?

Nice post, Momus. As Ben Rogers says - there is no opposition between Natural Law and Utilitarianism.

I'd be interested to hear, though, where Blair's belief in "objective moral standards...written into the universe" is expressed in New Labour policy?

In his promotion of faith schools, certainly. But elsewhere, does this kind of moral conviction ever find a voice? Or is it silenced by Blair's slavish adherence towards focus groups and the concerns of key voters within targetted marginal constituencies?

yes, excellent post Momus. You -- and others -- might also be interested to know that another prominent "natural law" proponent is Clarence Thomas. Which, IMHO, speaks volumes about the worth of "natural law." (then there's the interesting case of the recently-deceased John Rawls, who tried to make "natural law" more liberal-friendly, but didn't really succeed [at least not with me].)

And dwh/savanorola was also correct -- the real quarrel is natural law v. positivism (or, as if one prefers, empiricism). it's rather frighteningly easy to graft "natural law" and "utilitarianism" together.