“Politics of the anger in the era of the loud-mouth”

Tony Blair in his interview with Lionel Barber in the Financial Times magazine (subscription, some articles free) today says three important things.

1. “The purpose of this is not to make money, it’s to make a difference,” he says of his work for the Kazakhstan government.

2. He is bustling with impatience to take a more public role. Does he miss being prime minister? “Some days. Probably because I forget what it was like.” Then he realises his answer sounds phoney. “No, no, it’s the opposite. It is when there are big issues that you want to be there.”

3. We live in “the era of the loud-mouth”, he says (he still does sound bites). “There is an interesting debate – in the west particularly – between the politics of the anger and the politics of the answer.”

Matthew Parris provides the analysis. His column in The Times today (pay wall) is outstanding. Here’s a flavour:

Barclays are bankers. We hate bankers. Whatever it is they’re said to have done, we’re pretty sure it was dreadful and they’re undoubtedly guilty of doing it. The whole lot of them. We started being angry with them even before the exact nature of their dark deeds was revealed.

For all of us, press and public, the sequence is becoming a habit. First the anger. Then a scramble to find out what precisely it is we’re going to be angry about. And finally a bit of hasty cramming so we can express the anger with fluency and apparent authority. Again and again, that has been the story for the past four or five years. We seize upon an abuse, rip it out of context, kick aside the caveats and explanations, stamp our feet, pucker our faces with rage, do a little homework on Wikipedia — and shout. Somebody must swing for this!

On this, he’s right.

Update: Guido Fawkes highlights another paragraph of Parris, which is a bit right too.

Photograph: FT

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• "I'm not going to do ANYTHING for you"
• When Brown feared that Blair wouldn't go ahead with Iraq
• What to do about Syria?
• "It’s almost as if New Labour didn’t happen"
• Top 10 Useful Words For Which English Has No Equivalent

• greggf

  “We can’t afford to be left on our own.”

  This perhaps sums up Tony Blair’s motivation, his politics of the answer.
  However, if anything the social mood – maybe the politics of anger – is pulling in the opposite direction, even in Britain this is exemplified by the movement for Scottish independence from the Union.
  The problem for TB is that he’s too late but cannot see it; the optimism and confidence that could have fostered Blair’s ambitions have vanished as the incipient depression threatens to engulf the occidental west just as surely as it grips Japan.

• Happeh

  The audacity of these propagandists trying to paint this era as “politics of anger” or making fun of people as “frothing at the mouth know nothings” is astounding. The people of today engaged in discussion are only doing what they saw their elders doing over the past 10 years.

  Tony Blair, George Bush, and the Main Stream Media all jumped around screaming and frothing at the mouth about how Muslims were coming to get us over the past 10 years.

  Of course all of the young people growing up then, who are the adults now participating in political discussion, think the way to express their position is to jump around screaming and frothing at the mouth.

  Maybe a sociologist should explain to Tony Blair that human young emulate the behavior of the adults, and if Tony Blair expects people to be honest and discuss issues calmly and rationally, he should model that type of behavior himself for the public to follow.

  Or he can keep telling lies like how his work for the torturers in Kazahkstan is not about money, while moaning about how his detractors are only motivated by anger ,and not a rational, healthy hatred for torture and anyone connected with it in any way.

• porkfright

  Whenever I read revelations from any of our priceless political class or their reportites, I find myself wondering how ordinary people come to be ruled by those who seem so out of touch with everyday realities.

• sheffieldutd

  Blair. Is. Wrong.

• http://twitter.com/francessmith frances smith

  i read this yesterday, and was so irritated by it, i left no comment.

  but then i woke up in the night and thought of the van morrison album “no guru, no method, no teacher”

  and therein lies your problem john, your guru is no guru. this simplistic nonsense about people being angry is complete nonsense.

  we have every right to be angry about the financial sector, in reality we should be even angrier, the problem is not enough anger directed at the right people, and too much anger manipulated by the right wing media, who your non guru, blair, loved.

• http://twitter.com/francessmith frances smith

  or just in case my message is not fully understood, your teacher is no teacher, your wise man is no wise man.

• passtherockplease

  I am not sure this is the politics of anger, I figure that what people are saying is that when we had a booming economy that it was ok for the 1% to take a dispropotionate amount because they were helping us. What people have realised is that for the vast majority they were not helping us but fleecing us. It is like a old wound which keeps getting poked since every so often another revelation comes out to show what they were up to.

  John I think you’ve missed the issue. No one believes that these people have our best interest in mind, They don’t believe they are fair minded. They feel they are parasites which is why the contempt,,

  I do like the politics of the loud mouth I think it is fitting. For example was the guardians pursuit of the Hacking scandal being Load mouthed or was it the constant denials the corruption of the police. I think the audacity of it all mean that people don’t believe hence they shout.

• No_Key

  “We live in “the era of the loud-mouth”, he says (he still does sound bites). “There is an interesting debate – in the west particularly – between the politics of the anger and the politics of the answer.” ”

  Yes. Tony.

  The Proles really should shut up now and leave the important stuff, “the answer” to you and your honest ilk.

• Kippers

  A couple of points.
  1 As someone has already pointed out, Blair was very much part of the “politics of the loud mouth” exactly ten years ago. He was very much part of the two years of hysteria (from 9/11 onwards) about threats and terrorism and WMD. Some of things said back then (by newspaper columnists, MPs, ministers) made very little sense. I wonder whether they actually understood what they were saying when, for example, they said that we have to attack Iraq because of security alerts at airports or accused opponents of the invasion of iraq of beng pacifists. They were given some talking points and got angry to order – I’m not even sure they used Wikipedia.
  2 “A little homework on Wikipedia”. It’s possible to access agreat deal of information on the internet now. You can look up what Blair said about PFIs or the financial sector or Iraq ten years ago and compare with what actually happened and or with what he is saying now. And then you can discuss this info more easily with people and communicate it. Some people get angry about some of the rubbish Blair has said at various times? Yes, some of them do. Is that surprising? Blair and Rentoul need to wake up. It is easier now for people to follow and research what politicians are up to and talk about it and they need to get used to that.

• Kugelschreiber

  As an EU disliker, I wonder whether anyone has every written a book called something like “THE ADVANTAGES OF THE EU, written for the British EU hater” , you know, something that might actually PERSUADE me to change my views?

  Or is it really TRUE that the Europhiles are really only in it for their own personal interests & advantage?

  For me, one of the GREATEST curses of the EU is the free MIGRATION of WORKERS.
  In effect, this forces our OWN workers to spend hours doing nothing more useful than LOOKING UP ADDRESSES in a YELLOW PAGES book and then COPYING those ADDRESSES onto ENVELOPES.

  (This is a typical WORK PROGRAMME activity, which people are forced onto when VAGRANT EUROPEANS come and TAKE THEIR JOBS)

  How does this help British people? How does it help British people when their YOUNG PEOPLE are in effect , exiled from their OWN COUNTRY, being forced to leave behind their FAMILIES & travel ACROSS EUROPE in search of A JOB?

  (because the European has TAKEN what should have been THEIR job in their OWN area)