Probably, his last speech as the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair's speech was truly elegant and full of wisdom. There are many things which our prime minister could and should learn from him.
Here are some abstracts from his speech worth pondering:
About Politics, Economic Efficiency and Social Justice
They taught me that most of politics isn't about politics, in the sense of meetings, resolutions, speeches or even parties. It starts with people. It's about friendship, art, culture, sport. It's about being a fully paid up member of the human race before being a fully paid up member of the [Labour] party. ...We proved that economic efficiency and social justice are not opposites but partners in progress.
About Political Values
Values unrelated to modern reality are not just electorally hopeless, the values themselves become devalued. They have no purchase on the real world. We won not because we surrendered our values but because we finally had the courage to be true to them. Our courage in changing gave the British people the courage to change. That's how we won. 10 years after, government has taken its toll. It does. It's in the nature of the beast.
About Responsibility Towards the People
I spoke to a woman the other day, a part-time worker, complaining about the amount of her tax credit. I said: hold on a minute: before 1997, there were no tax credits not for working families not for any families; child benefit was frozen; maternity pay half what it is; maternity leave likewise and paternity leave didn't exist at all. And no minimum wage, no full time rights for part time workers, in fact nothing. "So what?", she said "that's why we elected you. Now go and sort out my tax credit." And, of course, she's right.
About "Letting Go"
In government you carry each hope; each disillusion. And in politics it's always about the next challenge. The truth is, you can't go on forever. That's why it is right that this is my last conference as Leader. Of course it is hard to let go. But it is also right to let go. For the country, and for you, the party.
About the Past, the Present and the Future
So now, 10 years on, this party faces the real test of leadership: not about what we've achieved in the past; but what we can achieve for Britain's future.
About Globalisation and Change
In 1997 the challenges we faced were essentially British. Today they are essentially global. The world today is a vast reservoir of potential opportunity. New jobs in environmental technology, the creative industries, financial services. Cheap goods and travel. The internet. Advances in science and technology. In 1997 we barely mentioned China. Not any more. Last year China and India produced more graduates than all of Europe put together. We used to feel we could shut our front door on the problems and conflicts of the wider world. Not any more. Not with globalisation. Not with climate change. Not with organised crime. Not when suicide bombers born and bred in Britain bring carnage to the streets of London . In the name of religion. A speech by the Pope to an academic seminar in Bavaria leads to protests in Britain.
The question today is different to the one we faced in 1997. It is how we reconcile openness to the rich possibilities of globalisation, with security in the face of its threats. How to be open and secure.
And again, there is a third way. Some want a fortress Britain - job protection, pull up the drawbridge, get out of international engagement. Others see no option but to submit to global forces and let the strongest survive.
Our answer is very clear. It is, once again, to help people through a changing world by using collective power to advance opportunity and provide security for all. To reconcile openness and security as we reconciled aspiration and compassion, not as enemies but as partners in progress. Over the next year we are reviewing every aspect of our economic policy, not because we were wrong in the past, but because whether in tax and spending, regulation, planning, enterprise, the question is not about our competitiveness in the last 10 years, but in the next 10. If we fail, and without change we will, then believe me: change will still be done; but in a regressive way by a Conservative Party.
The question today is different to the one we faced in 1997. It is how we reconcile openness to the rich possibilities of globalisation, with security in the face of its threats. How to be open and secure.
And again, there is a third way. Some want a fortress Britain - job protection, pull up the drawbridge, get out of international engagement. Others see no option but to submit to global forces and let the strongest survive.
Our answer is very clear. It is, once again, to help people through a changing world by using collective power to advance opportunity and provide security for all. To reconcile openness and security as we reconciled aspiration and compassion, not as enemies but as partners in progress. Over the next year we are reviewing every aspect of our economic policy, not because we were wrong in the past, but because whether in tax and spending, regulation, planning, enterprise, the question is not about our competitiveness in the last 10 years, but in the next 10. If we fail, and without change we will, then believe me: change will still be done; but in a regressive way by a Conservative Party.
About Leadership
Distance this country and you may find it's a long way back. So all these changes of a magnitude we never dreamt of, sweeping the world, are calling for answers of equal magnitude and vision. All require leadership. And here is something else I've learnt. The danger for us today is not reversion to the politics of the 1980s. It is retreat to the sidelines. To the comfort zone. It is unconsciously to lose the psychology of a governing party. As I said in 1994, courage is our friend. Caution, our enemy. A governing party has confidence, self-belief. It sees the tough decision and thinks it should be taking it. Reaches for responsibility first. Serves by leading. The most common phrase uttered to me - and not at rallies or public events but in meetings of chance, quietly, is not "I hate you" or "I like you" but "I would not have your job for all the world". The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision. They won't forgive not deciding. They know the choices are hard. They know there isn't some fantasy government where nothing difficult ever happens. They've got the Lib Dems for that.
About Government's Responsibility
Government isn't about protests or placards, shouting the odds or stealing the scene. It's about the hard graft of achievement. There are no third-term popular governments. Don't ignore the polls but don't be paralysed by them either. 10 years on, our advantage is time, our disadvantage time. Time gives us experience. Our capacity to lead is greater. Time gives the people fatigue; their willingness to be led, is less. But they will lose faith in us only if first we lose faith in ourselves. Polls now are as relevant as last year's weather forecast for tomorrow's weather. It's three years until an election. The first rule of politics: there are no rules. You make your own luck.
About Social Justice and Equality
The true believer believes in social justice, in solidarity, in help for those not able to help themselves. They know the race can't just be to the swift and survival for the strong. But they also know that these values, gentle and compassionate as they are, have to be applied in a harsh, uncompromising world and what makes the difference is not belief alone, but the raw courage to make it happen.
Why Winning Matters:
There's only one tradition I hated:losing. I hated the 1980s not just for our irrelevance but for our revelling in irrelevance. And I don't want to win for winning's sake but for the sake of the millions here that depend on us to win, and throughout the world. Every day this government has been in power, every day in Africa, children have lived who otherwise would have died because this country led the way in cancelling debt and global poverty. That's why winning matters.
To read the full text of the speech: Tony Blair's Valedictory Speech
Would our government and our prime minister have the same raw courage to change and provide social justice to all; eliminating discrimination and marginalisation of the lesser, the minority and at the same time uplift the living standards of the people, everyone, whatever race or creed or color?
Equally, the danger for us today is not reversion to the politics of the 1970s; the NEP and Rent-seeking. It is retreat to the sidelines; to the comfort zone. It is unconsciously to lose the psychology of a governing party.
Alas, I am not pessimistic. I am pragmatic. Our leaders are synonymous with the popular phrase: Cakap Tak Boleh Serupa Bikin.
It's our icon! The Malaysia bukan(Tak) Boleh ideology; it;s tak boleh boleh!
Equally, the danger for us today is not reversion to the politics of the 1970s; the NEP and Rent-seeking. It is retreat to the sidelines; to the comfort zone. It is unconsciously to lose the psychology of a governing party.
Alas, I am not pessimistic. I am pragmatic. Our leaders are synonymous with the popular phrase: Cakap Tak Boleh Serupa Bikin.
It's our icon! The Malaysia bukan(Tak) Boleh ideology; it;s tak boleh boleh!
4 comments:
And then he will shut u up by saying 'We have our own way of doing things', 'Don't question my noble intentions' and 'Baru 10 minit turun padang, sudah mau hukum saya'. What else can say you say?
mavesm:
IdidNOT read the rest ofthepost,just the Heading ALONE!
Iassociate Blair as theBrit leader second-in-commandtoUS President Bush whowenttowar in Iraq,maybesoon Iran,under thepretext ofallegedpossesionofWMD byIraq.
UYou're advisingpeace-lovingMalaysianleadertoemulate theBritlaeder.Godsaveoursouls,ISAmentoallthatt!
IcanrepaetLi coln'sGettysberg addressbut it doesmakemea100% freedomloverordemocrat!:)
Yes, Blair's speech was good. But the thing is, Blair did not inherit a party like UxNo along with his post. That makes a big difference. :-)
Desi, read his speech and see the differences in terms of intellectual knowledge and leadership.
Alliance with the Americans in defence of terrorism is a political decision necessary to thwart certain adversarial circumstances.
You probably had shut your mindset to those happenings at WTC and the spread of terrorism worldwide.
There is more than meet the eyes.
I think Helen's pointer must be weighted.
Howsy and mmudahlupa are just jesting; like me.
Post a Comment