Reply #10: He has a Straussian mentality

[muriel_volestrangler]

that he and his close advisors (NB: not the Cabinet, but the people he's gathered around him) know best, and so it's acceptable, in his eyes, to manipulate public opinion, including by lying, to achieve the aims he thinks best. That goes for the general political process of gaining and hanging on to power, and also for major policy decisions like getting rid of Saddam, so that the USA could get permanent bases in the Middle East and threaten anyone there if they need to - because the oil had to keep flowing from the area.

And he's found kindred spirits in Bush and his gang. What's more, they are more powerful than him - and he sees keeping in with them as vital, because that gives him the chance of influencing a larger power (and he thinks he has more influence than he really does).

There may be a small bit of blackmail - about the UK's nuclear deterrent. This basically depends on the Americans - and its replacement certainly does. Although he's hanging back from saying he'll order a new generation of nuclear missiles from the USA, I'm sure he wants to, and will if he hangs on the power, whatever the feeling in the country. He is not one to get rid of a weapon. He's sure he would know if it was justified in using it. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush had said "if you don't back us on this, that's the end of nuclear cooperation". Others might have said "fine - we don't need nukes", or "we'll cooperate with your successor", or "we'll do a joint programme with the French", but not Tony.

Yes, "elitist authoritarian" does describe Blair well - though he'd think he's got there through natural talent, and that his advisors are wise. But he doesn't believe in sharing decision making with the cabinet, let alone parliament or the people.

No, he's not my leader. If anything has a moral right to control the country, it's the House of Commons. We need reform make the Prime Minister more accountable to it - in the short term, by taking away power from Blair's cronies, so that the cabinet gets back some (at least they're a bit more representative than one man and his chosen few - this might restore our democracy to the state of the 1950s), and in the longer term with proportional representation.