One of the themes of my summer holiday with my sons was how the individual remains peculiarly human however great the consqeunce of their actions. The theme focussed most heavily on Hitler, as we found places in Munich where he had undoubtedly been and where we could now stand. I can't say we all shared the same sensations as a result: I am all too aware that no person can ever fully comprehend another's feelings. But there was no doubt that we all sensed the paradox that someone who created such an enormous tyranny could walk the streets we did, have a favourite restaurant that's still in existence and must as a result have enjoyed himself, just as we could. History is made by people.
In another sense I felt that at the weekend. I was standing in the queue in a coffee shop and realised that they person ahead of me was Andrew Lansley - Lord Lansley as he now is. It was disconcerting that someone whose work I so despise for the damage that it has caused to the NHS in this country should appear so superficially similar to me, down to the fact that we were both dressed in the rather stereotypical way of men of a certain age who I have spent too much of their lives wearing suits to work. So there is this person, who is hardly an ogre, but whose work was truly destructive, as a result of which he was awarded a peerage.
So what did I do? Well, nothing, because I decided he was entitled to family time as much as I am and I guess it was his son who was with him. But what was curious was how, in that situation, it would have been very hard to pick him out of a crowd. All of which reminded me just how much more powerful ideas can be than the person who creates them.
If evidence of that was needed yesterday saw the end of the political career of the man who created Lansley: David Cameron announced his departure for what will, no doubt, be the corporate sunset. He appeared crumpled, lost and rather small in the interview on ITN where he announced his decision. Once more the paradox was apparent: whatever Cameron's thinking was its impact will outlive his career.
It's an important point. The person is important: it should never be said otherwise. This is why playing the person is legitimate in politics. But never forget the ideas, because they are more powerful. In which case it would be good if the left could coalesce around ideas that might be competently delivered without too much ego getting in the way. I am not optimistic on that point though.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
By coincidence, I’ve spent quite a lot of time recently reading about Clem Attlee. He’s often voted the best Prime Minister of the twentieth century and there is no doubt that the reforms carried out during the first two years or so of his government set the social agenda for the next thirty years or so (until Mrs T). However, he became PM almost by default and it’s often forgotten that ‘his’ great ideas were actually those of Beveridge, a Liberal. At the time, Churchill was considered the great statesman, not Attlee, who was a pragmatist rather than an original thinker. It was the ideas which survived the test of time.
Interesting to me, because I feel that the war in Labour is between ideas and image. The conventional wisdom is that unless you get the image right, you will never be able to implement the ideas. I think that is wrong. As we are seeing, the pursuit of image for its own sake defeats itself. You have to start with ideas and create the image from the ideas.
Agreed
Profound.
Michael
“… unless you get the image right, you will never be able to implement the ideas.”
is not equivalent to:
“the pursuit of image for its own sake”
because if you are pursuing the right image to enable you to implement your ideas, then you are evidently not pursuing image for its own sake.
Richard
Thanks for this really interesting posting. It’s great to get some insight into the real person behind the ideas that just keep coming.
As a visitor, I once stood behind you at the TUC, and chose not to speak because I had nothing pertinent to say, beyond some anodyne comment like, “Thanks for what you’re doing.”
But I will take this opportunity. Thanks!
Thank you
David is right – even if we cannot/will not lead, it is always open to all of us to serve as followers.
I.e – we can at least let our leaders know that we ARE following them and why.
It’s a proud and good thing to do to help a leader to see s/he is not alone and fighting a lost cause.
So we DO and CAN have a purpose!
David (and Richard),
I can recount a story – to my detriment -of the dangers of speaking to someone “famous”.
My wife is Czech, and one year, 1992, I think, we – myself, my daughter and I – were waiting in the Departure Lounge to fly to Prague.
Well, one of our fellow passengers was the actor, Herbert Lom – in real life, a Czech aristocrat – whose work I’d always a admired, so I approached him to speak to him and express my admiration.
My daughter even to this day laughs at me over this, as she said a look of almost angry terror came over him, she says, and for the rest of the wait and the flight she assures me he kept eyeing me warily, with a haunted look if I even so much as glanced in his direction!
Lesson? Some people do not relish their fame, and would welcome a dose of anonymity.
Yes, i suspect if I had chosen to say something to Richard he would have replied with a courteous “Thank you” and I would then have spent several minutes looking at my shoes. Much easier by email.
I don’t bite, I promise
Actually, I’m better than that: I like talking to people
I have never thought myself more than a person with an affliction for writing
That’s a great little anecdote Andrew for a thread about egotism. I like the way you got yourself in there twice.
I still say that the problem with the Left is that they no longer believe in people anymore. They’ve almost given up on them and seem to want to pander to their deeper and more self-interested selves (like the Tories).
More importantly the Left seems to think that it cannot get people to think differently – that it cannot change them, that there is no other way to live.
This is why in my view Labour and the Left are in such a mess.
Hitler and for that matter Attlee and Churchill, all did time in WW1. Hitler was a bad case of PTSD and shell shock untreated and let loose. Attlee was a truly heroic figure and Churchill too displayed remarkable courage. As for famous people we once met Edwina Currie, don’t mention the eggs and also Screaming Lord Sutch at Huntingdon when he was contesting a bye-election. We promised to vote for him but did not mention that we were only visitors.
It’s significant that Attlee did time in WW1 as an officer, leading men. I expect people know of Churchill’s quote “A modest man, who has much to be modest about” and it’s true he lacked Churchill’s charisma. Apparently the two worked well together during the coalition government. Attlee has been described as a moral socialist, but he also had the ability to keep the big characters in the Labour Party together and to lead them, which meant the “modest man” was responsible for the great welfare changes of the twentieth century.
The very last bit is puzzling.
Who is indulging their ego instead of ideas? Corbyn? Smith?
Surely there is only a battle of ideas, e.g. Trident, no Trident, accept result, re-run referendum.
(Competency is effectively a dead issue now, because Smith has by now shown himself not to be more competent than Corbyn.)
I take it, then, that you didn’t take one of your readers’ advice to give Lord Lansley a good ol’ wedgie. Disappointing, Richard!
I didn’t heed that particular advice
Reverting to the topic of your blog (yes, I know – how tedious!), it reminded me that Shakespeare (as so often happens) got there first
“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”
Indeed
One of the interesting aspects of leadership, be it in industry, politics or whatever, is the incidence of cronyism. If a leader is just a wee bit charismatic (and short on grey cells) they seem to be drawn to folks that agree with their point of view, when in fact,the opposite is required.
My favourite story as a kid was the king’s new set of clothes. Too many of our estwhile leaders are walking around with their naked ambition on display, and immune to well thought out and progressive commentary that is dismissed as “off the wall”.
Hence the rise of leaders that offer easy solutions to complex problems.
Full marks, Richard, for maintaining this blog and shouting from the rooftops “…but you are wearing no clothes!”
That is my role
And I intend to carry on with it, even if the odd feather is ruffled as a result