There's something about the spat between Clarke and Blair that should be deeply embarrassing for New Labour. It's not that the two disagree. What's embarrassing is what they agree upon.
Clarke says Blair has lost purpose and direction. Blair says he ain't. Both agree that governments should have "direction."
But why should they? Is this yet another example of their unthinking managerialist ideology? Managerialism is always "striving", "progressing", "moving forward", "facing new challenges." As Pick and Protherough say in this magnificent book, "to managerialists, the best is always yet to come."
Or is it a glimpse of their Fabian legacy - the belief that socialism is something to be edged towards, rather than accomplished?
There are, though, at least two traditions which say that governments don't need direction. There's the proper Conservative one, which says government consists in providing the means for people to live in peace together, not about imposing direction upon them. As Michael Oakeshott said in this great essay (word doc):
Governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration.
Or there's the technocratic tradition, which says that after nine years in office, government should be about consolidating achievement, not about moving forward.
But then, what achievements has Blair got to consolidate?
I had a boss who used to talk about "moving forward opposite the present situation". Do people still say that when they wish to windbag?
As for TB, he let GB set up the MPC. None other that I can think of.
Posted by: dearieme | June 27, 2006 at 01:58 PM
Have you read the Chosen One's outing on Cif?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1806669,00.html
He's obviously decided self-parody is the new way to, um, make things new - again.
Posted by: Shuggy | June 27, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Btw, dearieme - you're the man for the quotes. Who was it that said, "There are two kinds of fools - the one who says, 'It is old, therefore it is good' and the other who says, 'It is new, therefore it is better'"?
Posted by: Shuggy | June 27, 2006 at 10:37 PM
Shuggy - the quote is from William Ralph Inge, who was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, although it's oftem misattributed to Churchill.
Posted by: Unity | June 28, 2006 at 12:15 AM
Thanks to insights gained here, I've only just begun to appreciate the pernicious consequences of the pervasive "managerialism" inflicted by NewLab ministers on the public services under Blair's embracing mantle of "reforming modernisation". Without need for further comment, I offer this as compelling evidence:
"The NHS needs to become more like Tesco and Toyota in order to treat more patients and reduce its debts, according to a report published today. . . The report, called 'Lean Thinking for the NHS', calls for pioneering techniques from car maker Toyota to be brought into force."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2225783,00.html
Posted by: Bob B | June 28, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Who said that there are two kinds of people: those who think that there are two kinds of people and those who don't?
Posted by: dearieme | June 28, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Ha ha - now this time I'm sure that was you, dearieme.
Posted by: Shuggy | June 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM
If only, Shuggy, if only.
Posted by: dearieme | June 28, 2006 at 05:32 PM