« | Home | »


Tags: | | | |

In an interview with Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Tony Blair told an audience packed with eastern seaboard celebrities how he is writing his memoirs. ‘Instead of doing this as “I met such and such five world leaders on such and such a day and they said such and such,”’ he explained, ‘I’m writing it more as, if you like, a personal journey. This is how, as a human being, how I felt and I thought and why I acted as I did.’ Presumably he added the caveat ‘as a human being’ partly to remind his audience that he definitely isn’t the poodle or robot that some said he was when he followed Bush into Iraq.

Blair, who appears unable to have his fill of social life in New York, said his memoirs wouldn’t be ‘a means of sort of self-justification’. Of course not. There’s no ‘point in getting into that’. Though actually it seems as if there’s to be quite a bit of self-justification after all: ‘What did I learn and what are those lessons for the future? . . . What it’s like to be in one of the very senior positions of authority and power, which is an enormous privilege but a hugely onerous responsibility? And how does it actually affect you personally?’ At least Barbara Walters, the presenter of the sappy daytime chat show The View, was impressed. ‘I’ve found this exchange tonight one of the most fascinating I’ve ever seen,’ she said.

Michael Horgan, the Vanity Fair correspondent who wrote up the evening at MoMA for the magazine’s web site, concluded: ‘The night ended with a question about causes for optimism around the world. Blair said he sees many, in fact.’ He didn’t say whether he saw any in the country he used to be prime minister of. The party that he led is now possibly the least inspiring political entity on earth. Gordon Brown may be (nominally) in charge of the Labour Party, but it got to where it is thanks to Blair.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Stephen W. Smith:
    The French Intervention in Mali
    7 February 2013

    ‘Depending on what counts as military intervention, France changed the course of history by force in sub-Saharan Africa about thirty times between 1945 and 1990.’

    Bruce Whitehouse:
    What went wrong in Mali?
    30 August 2012

    ‘The Republic of Mali has long been seen as the exception to the dictatorships or civil wars that have seemed the rule in West Africa since the end of the Cold War.’

    Jeremy Harding: Algeria’s Camus
    4 December 2014

    ‘Camus liked to hector the settlers, whose behaviour reflected the structural injustices of colonialism. All the same, he felt that certain misconceptions in metropolitan France needed straightening out.’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement