Cross dressing with Rupert
It's not often that you get to write about the prime minister and transvestism in the same sentence but here goes.
Speaking to Rupert Murdoch and executives of his News Corporation last night, Tony Blair declared that political "cross dressing" was here to stay. Parties would steal each others clothes as the era of tribal politics was at an end. Divisions between right and left were no longer the ones that counted.
No greater evidence for that claim can there be than Tony Blair's closeness to Mr Murdoch himself. This trip to California was timed to ensure that the PM could go to Pebble Beach to speak to Rupert and friends. Those who know Murdoch's mind regard it as a "thank you". A bigger thank you may yet come in the form of an offer one day to sit on the board of News International. There he would join the former Spanish PM and fellow backer of the Iraq war, José MarÃa Aznar.
But who will The Sun shine on next? Rupert Murdoch likes Gordon Brown personally and they share a passion for hard work. However, he suspects that, unlike Tony Blair, Brown really is a socialist. Murdoch has not, on the other hand, taken to David Cameron and fears he may stand for nothing very much at all. Expect both men to jump through hoops trying to win Mr Murdoch's favour.
Although Rupert and Tony were thrown together by mutual opportunism, the intriguing thing is that they came together today because they agree on so very much.
I'm 
Comments
Nick,
In your post you state with conviction(no use of alleged, or sources have told me) that "Murdoch has not taken to Cameron and fears he stands for nothing at all".
What basis in fact do you have for this assertion. Has Murdoch said it publicly? I do not believe he has, he would not be so crass, as he is a man who covers his bets.
If he has not said this, why did you use such terminology?
Was Mr Blair paid a fee to make this speech? How much, and who by? Is this part of his holiday activities or his official duties?
We can discuss ideological transvestism until the cows come home (or, rather, in the time allocated to the final item on the "Today" programme) - but i'm sure i'm not alone in feeling extremely frustrated that Blair is putting more effort into such matters rather than making the kind of public statements and taking the kind of public action necessary to solving our current crises.
But then Blair always was a case of style over substance.
This is an innocent story in many ways, but to me it represents the really dirty side of politics. The sad fact is that Murdoch's news empire controls the voting habits of a very large chunk of the electorate, and influences even more. Whichever way you look at it, you can't avoid that fact. We have one man who through his media empire can seat or unseat a PM. That's really, really not good.
Is it really as bad as I think it is, Nick? Is modern democracy in fact a feudal system by other means?
David
To Bernard from Horsham - you must have missed this line which came out of an interview Murdoch gave last week: When he was asked what he thought of Cameron, he said: "Not much."
I’d say it goes much deeper than what the Prime Minister is suggesting. Personal, organisational, and national disputes are indicative of a deeper problem in Britain and across the world. A less partisan attitude focused on building positive consensus is likely to achieve more in the long-term.
Bruce Lee, the famous actor and martial artist, remarked that if something is useful, use it. If it is not useful, throw it away. In many respects, this attitude gives little attention to contrary and negative arguments and focuses on practical achievements we can all benefit from.
This principle was old when the Tao was young and, I think, one that we can all agree with. If we can embrace it, Britain may become more outward and forward looking and, together, we might achieve more. This way, we’ll be so busy enjoying life we won’t have time to be miserable.
Bernard you may not have seen an interview broadcast last week but in such Murdoch was asked what he thought about Cameron he said "..not much"
On the subject of Murdoch himself it always amazes me that whereas the parties are not allowed to take money from donors/supporters living abroad they are permitted to canvess the support and defer to the owners of the international media who do not live or vote in this country. No one seems to pass comment on the same!
I see no reason why Gordon Brown or David Cameron should jump through hoops to court the vainglorious Rupert Murdoch - or cosy up to any newspaper group or broadcasting corporation.
The media is not half so influential as it cares to believe. Journalists writing opinion pieces for newspapers that provide for online comments must be taken aback by the volume of dissenting responses. Readers, listeners and viewers do not necessarily conform to assumed stereotype and are far less susceptible to media manipulation than writers, presenters and analysts may suppose. The internet is increasingly providing a dynamic platform for grassroots debate and communication that the established media is powerless to control. Printed newspapers are in terminal decline.
A well-publicised snub to Murdoch, the announcement that the Tories will not bend the knee to any latter-day Citizen Kane, will provide Cameron with a far bigger boost in the estimation of Britain’s voters than any attempt at ingratiation.
Bernard of Horsham takes Nick to task for claiming that Murdoch "has not taken to Cameron", adding that he does not believe Murdoch has said this publicly.
Nick is right. In a recent widely reported American television interview, when asked what he thought about Cameron, Murdoch said "not much".
You know, Mr. Blair, you are so loved and admired in the States, why don't you just move there now?
We don't want you here.
Bernard: From an interview made on 22 July
For too long now this countries political agenda has been dictated by the media - Thomas Carlyle once said
Perhaps now is the time for the electorate to free themselves from the shackles of the opinion forming media. However, who do we turn to? Spinning politicians?
I like that feudal analogy.
In the past we had a Monarch, the land-rich Nobility and the Church (nominally representing the cares of the common man)... these days we have Prime Minister, the cash-rich Big Business and the Media (nominally representing the cares of the common man). With the media barons as distant now as the Pope was then and likewise exerting influence over people (rather than responding to their wants as the newspapers all claim they are doing)... how exactly have the electorate any more influence over the country than in feudal days?
Discuss.
Thomas Mansell has a good point - was this a private function (a sign of things to come?) or an official appointment - if the latter why when there is an international crisis which he is a major player in (by his actions and inactions) is he pontivicating in front of media moghuls! Crisis what crisis?
As usual TB expends a lot of energy to not say very much. His career as a political cross-dresser is well documented and he is spending time to justify his actions and lack of beliefs before spending time as an EU amabssador /UN leader /US lecturer (delete as inappropriate). It does demonstrate how he sucks up to Murdoch who owns a lot of media although may be less of an opinion former than he thinks.
I wish we had a PM who had a bit of self-respect.
Tony Blair is very comfortable in the adoration of his 'middle American' audience, of press barons, the Bush administration, big US corporations (Monsanto ?)
After 10 years in power, he is probably driven by this comfort zone priority, rather than "conviction" or the need to stick by Bush. He is just a part of this milieu.
Cunning israeli ruse, that truce. Hezbollah were threatening reprisals and hellfire (long-range missiles ?) but if they fire them during the truce, world opinion will shift back to the Israelis.
The Qana tragedy is a direct rerun of the American strike on a shelter during the Iraq war (being used as a military shelter according to the US). Like that earlier event, this too will quickly fade into the background - probably the US advice to Israel.
Bernard (in Horsham)asks why Nick thinks "Murdoch has not taken to Cameron and thinks he stands for nothing at all."
Nick may be referring to an interview Rupert Murdoch gave to the Charlie Rose television show in the US on July 21st. When asked what he thought of Cameron, he said "Not much...He's bright, he's quick, he's totally inexperienced...I do not know what substance is there or what he really believes."
Hope that helps.
"the era of tribal politics was at an end."
Surely the end of parties believing in anything more advanced than "what the tabloid editors will applaud" is turning politics into a solely tribal game? Whereas formerly you might have belonged to [Old] Labour because you agreed with their nearly-socialist policies, not you'll join them and vote for them solely because your Mum did, or because you think Tony's better looking than David?
The decline of politicians prepared to stand up for what they believe in saddens me. I intensly disliked the politics of Maggie, but I really admired the way she believe in something and tried to convince the voters of what she believed in - that was real political leadership, rather than the cynical spin-tastic manipulation which is all we seem to get from politicians today.
Who will the Sun shine on next? I'll be interested to see - but more interested by who the ±«Óãtv shines on next. I'm not too concerned by bias in the commercial press (which, let's face it, has to sell its opinions to the public to make money - or at least sell enough advertising to cover the cost of its opinions). I'd be far more worried by bias in a publicly funded news service - fortunately Nick appears to be just about walking the tightrope by indulging in harmful speculation about both Brown and Cameron!
When Murdoch was asked what he thought of Cameron he said: "Not much". Could be a clue to his views?
Political cross-dressing is a weird phrase to use and says much about the man who uttered it. There is much that is hidden from us by this man - he has some sort of strange aggenda which he is not sharing with the rest of us, but which concerns his future and place in history. That he will go down in history as possibly the most duplicitous politician ever known seems to be totally eluding him.
So, Nick, after the pantomime press conferences of the past few days, Mr. Blair has finally addressed the substantial matter of his trip to North America, which has been to trot across the continent like the Littlest Hobo to yap in Rupert Murdoch's backyard.
While everyone is commenting about the master-servant relationship that President Bush has established with the Prime Minister, it's nice to be reminded that Mr. Blair is maintaining loyalty to his first owner and how gratifying for us all that after years of scratching at the doors of News International they might find a basket at the bottom of the boardroom table for Bouncer Blair.
All we've got to show for it is a trite new phrase - "political cross-dressing" - that we can have parroted at us in the news and newspapers for days and weeks. Happily it is so devoid of meaning that our commentators will be able to project all they want onto it in a thousand columns of banalysis until we've all forgotten that the Prime Minister first coined it at a private gathering hosted by a media mogul who doesn't care to conceal the undue influence he wields over New Labour's leadership.
What an odd, slightly malaprop term for Blair to use - cross-dressing.
It reminds me of the strange, almost right, but a bit wrong kaleidoscope shaking analogy he once used.
Surely cross-dressing means taking on the appearance of a different sex?
In a political era in which even the difference between left and right is blurred; it seems strange to suggest that parties have different sexes associated with them.
And given that there are only two biological sexes, and 3 main political parties, which ones are the hermaphrodites - the Lib Dems?
I wish Freud were alive. I do wonder about Tony's sanity sometimes.
Interestingly though, this statement appears to undermine the message of the "Dave the chameleon" campaign. Apparently we're all chameleons now... and the right/left disctinction that formed the punchline to the ad apparently no longer exists.
Rupert Murdoch has stated quite publicly that he offers no support to Dave Cameron as the Tories have no political identity and no policies upon which to draw a comparison and conclusion.
Tony Blair is quite rwasonable in his evaluation of modern politics. Voters everywhere are uncertain of the differences between the main parties as they have railroaded towards the centre ground over the last 25 years, and is further correct in pointing out political theft of superior ideas.
David Cameron's answer to labour's successes is to flip flop his way out of trouble whenever his sticky fingers allow him to.
Dave always talks tough on the tougher issues at home and abroad, but as night follows day, he eventually flip flops back to labour's sensible stance.
This is why Labour has won a hat-trick of wins and holds the cheque- book of wealth re-distribution, and the Tories are given the Eurovision (EPP), Nil-points!
Gary
Is that the same Rupert Mudoch that Yo Blairs ex-spin doctor works for?
Surely Blair meant 'expediency' when he said 'cross-dressing', and was speaking of himself and his government
Here we are with dozens dying in Lebanon and Iraq and what is Blair doing but toadying around America. With luck Old Labour will waken up at the September conference and force regime change to allow Blair to go off and get a green card and blue passport and join the former Aussie in California.
Hopefully we'll get somebody with principles who will stand up against the wrongs perpetuated by the US armaments industry and the Bush and Blair puppet double act and recover some of the respect we have lost amongst our many friends in the Middle East and elsewhere.
If "cross dressing" is the case, then what's the point of multiple political parties? It was certainly clear at the last General Election that the key policies being debated were so similar that there was very little to differentiate them. The blandness creeps on, and we are now seeing more and more political scandals surface, which appear to be replacing real political debate.
This is "Hello" politics. I'm very depressed.
I could not care less, after Qana, about the smart imagery of cross dressing as part of Blair's post-PM career lecture-tour self-promotion.
Anyone who can rabbit on about political cross dressing and not realise that he is the most grotesquely morally attired politician in Britain at present (re Iraq and Israel for example) is as intelligent and as moral as Malvolio in yellow stockings, cross-gartered.
What an appalling observation to have to make that our politicians have to get the approval of a foreign newspaper owner to stand any apparent chance of success in forming a government. Are we really reduced to such a sad state of affairs when our so called leaders are seeking approval from a geriatric, meddler who is far to big for his boots, lots of money or not.
Murdoch, a foreign national and non-resident controls a large sector of the media in the UK. This empire must be split up: it would not be allowed even in the US. Murdoch is an eminence gris who controls Blair and his right-wing sycophants to the fascist Neocon cause. The sooner the British public wake up to this fact the better: but of course they won't because they get their opinions from the insipid Times, the boorish Sun, News of the World, Sky TV, etc., etc...
Thanks to everyone for the info.
Its not exactly what Nick alluded to, and not quite as damning, but I accept the point.
I will research more in future before hitting the keyboard.!!!!
Stewart is right there is no difference between Bush and Blair they both have no morals. Blair has damaged British value abroad so much that now general public abroad think Americans and British are the same.
If Blair leave the country we may reclaim our British values back.
I thought that part of the American trip was for TB to sus out the job prospects when he finally quits his present one!
Did Blair really refer to political cross-dressers in the sense that political parties would "steal each others' clothes" - like people who steal knickers off a clothes line? Or did you confect that interpretation?
It seems to me that the Labour Party has no dress sense at all, but at least they purchase or borrow their own shoddy garments.
RE
I believe Blair's going to convert to Catholicism once he has stepped down as PM. Murdoch is a Catholic. "Cross-dressing" is an interesting term indeed.
Isn't Rupert Murdoch like 105 years old or something?
I find it difficult to believe that Blair is proud of ASBOs, choice in the NHS, and the self defeating approach to the crisis in Lebanon.
ASBO's are based on the same kind of hearsay evidence used in Witch-burning trials in the Middle ages. When they are given out they fail to work half the time. Why not instead actually try people under a legal system that appeared to largely work ok until New Labour appeared.
If you are in an accident and rushed to casualty in an ambulance you do not care if there is choice in the NHS, you would prefer that you could get to an A&E department in your home town rather than going 30+ miles away.
I cannot see how us having an apparently uncaring attitude to the people of Lebanon is going to help us win any battle of ideas.
I agree that we have entered a period of cross-dressing in a political sense and Blair is probably partly responsible and no bad thing, however it is not a leader's role as far as I can see to be impressed with your own ideas and bravery, it is surely about achieving results and on any number of policy area's our current leader and his Party have failed in that.
Dave Jones: Perhaps we should ask Auntie to facilitate such a discussion. More importantly shouldn't the topic be "How can electorate exert more influence over the country than in recent times (without resorting to revolution)?"
I would suggest that the Politics team have an input but given that the fourth estate is far to powerful already it would seem a moot point.
Nick,
Did you catch Murdoch's Fox News at all while over here, and if so did you notice the congruity between its commentaries and Blair's soliloquys; Blair's speeches are surely meant for no one but himself.
Oh for the old Private Eye contributors now that Tony and the Dirty Digger have become so close. Hey, the Digger became a U.S. citizen so who's to say Blair won't? As a highly principled man Blair has to be attracted to the beliefs of America's religous right. After all, those who pray together (G&T) sometimes stay together.
Cross-dressing isn't new! In the 1950s we had Butskellism. Even in 1974 (of all years) the editor of Punch commented that parties were forgetting ideology and saying, "are we better managers than the other lot?" What happens is that the lack of choice given by the electoral system forces the parties into the centre, so voters whose feelings lie elsewhere are effectively disenfranchised. Blair either does not understand this, or prefers to ignore it.
Although this isn't new, it's more dangerous now that unions, guilds and trade associations also now no longer represent people. Democracy is dying in Britain. We need another initiative on the scale of the 1832 Reform Bill, or it will cease to function altogether.
Balair has been stealing Tory Policies for years now he should be arrested for being an ideas thief,
So should Ming Campbell who now espouses lower taxes a la Tory
ideas for years. Mind you the chances of Ming being in Govt to cut taxes are zilch..he may not even make the next Election if Cheerful
Charlie Kennedy has the bottle to make a challenge ( hic )
I have to agree with Chris (12:36 PM on 31 Jul 2006): "political cross-dressing" is a wierd choice of metaphor. As if Blair were preparing us for some revelation about himself. Some photographs, perhaps. Which would require some damage-limitation.
Nick I've been puzzled by Blair's last comment in his speech:
"For a leader, don't let your ego be carried away by the praise or your spirit diminished by the criticism and look on each with a very searching eye. But for heaven's sake, above all else, lead."
Does this mean lead us anywhere, anyplace anytime as long as he takes a lead. I don't know about that. He could be leading us up the graden path for all us followers know. And does he expect us to follow him and his example? Or just his party who don't seem to follow him that much these days?
Or just play follow my leader, "coz I know what's best for you."
Does he really? I think not!
I am deeply concerned that politicians are starting to talk about 'political cross-dressing'. It strikes me that it is the beginning of a grand coalition, which could lead to elections not being required to form a government. This could spell the end of democracy. Very fightening!
Nick, the Newslog is a great idea and it is working well, but I must say that it makes remarkably boring reading whenever you do a piece about TB.
A large portion of the 17 comments (so far) relating to your article emanate from the usual procession of Blair-hating conspiracy theorists who actually seem to believe that TB is some kind of Svengali like figure, who's every word is designed to mislead an entire nation and its media into looking the other way while he lines his pockets or starts another war.
The image of the cynical manipulator, developed of the years by the media in order to get a handle on TB, is even more damaging than the 'underpants outside the trousers' image of John Major, developed for the same reason by the same people.
Well, I wasn't going to say anything about Svengali figures but now that Howard has brought it up (31 Jul 2006 8.53pm) I will. It looks to me as if TB is the one who cannot function without his own Svengali figure: first Mandelson, then Campbell, Falconer (sort of, but not lean and mean enough) and now - may God help us - George Bush and his appalling crew (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton). TB is not his own man, it seems to me.
When the next 9/11 or 7/7 happens, don't ask why.
Blair is unable or unwilling to provide a useful analysis of the political situation. Marx is still as relevant as Einstein. The interests of the working class (and if you doubt there is such a thing ask then yourself who's printing Murdoch's papers these days, and where) are not the same as their masters. Where once the workers were corraled by force and Law, they are now hypnotized by Murdoch and his ilk. Watch the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists reading the Sun and the Mail every day on the Tube. Ask yourself why, in one of the most affluent societies in history, we have unemployed teachers and class sizes of thirty. What Marx did not anticipate (how could he) was that capitalism would provide the workers with sufficient commodities to make them willing wage slaves, trading their freedom and dignity for plasma screens and giving up the right to strike for the the right to risk losing homes that were once their rented and impregnable castles.
Blair is simply an egocentric public schoolboy who inflicted his facile career ambitions on the rest of us. God knows why he chose Labour, but I imagine it had something to do with Wilson being "cooler" than Heath when Blair was growing up. Of course he believes in cross-dressing. What's important to Blair is what Blair thinks, not the needs of those he is supposed to serve. (Serve! Just try to imagine it! - although I suppose that the open microphone and Blair's love-in with Murdoch show the man can certainly crawl when his OWN masters call.)
Blair might as well take his holiday. There is nothing he can do about Lebanon. He has proven to be totally ineffectual as a statesman. He might as well not exist. (So it would be nice if we could be spared the sick-making spectacle of his fatuous, lisping pronoucements on ±«Óãtv TV.)
It look like the U.K prime minister have no mind of his own....Just follows what ever his elder brother has to say. Of course you have to oblige the elders...right