man gives millions to charity; nation's press unite in condemnation

Any time there's a big Tony Blair story, it's like throwing sodium into a lake. The nefariousness of our former Prime Minister is the one topic that the nation's press, from left to right, violently agree on. But this story - broken on his terms, and concerning an act that some people might, if they're not thinking straight, interpret as an act of decency - is particularly explosive. The press have taken it as an outrageous insult to their integrity, and reacted accordingly.

Blair's decision to give away several million pounds to charity is interpreted - paradoxically - as yet more evidence of his greed, allowing the media to recycle lipsmacking speculations about his supposedly Saudi-style riches. The Telegraph puts his post-office income at £20m; even you take that plucked-from-the-ether figure seriously, you might still consider the fact that he's just given a quarter of it away to be mildly impressive.

The other angle is the "blood money" one (even the BBC feels compelled to give this stupid phrase prominence in its reports). The idea is that's he's trying to salve a filthy conscience, wash the blood from his hands, etc. Somewhat difficult to grasp, this one, because if you've been reading the the Guardian and the Mail for the last few years you'll have been under the impression that Blair is an ice-hearted psychopath to whom conscience is a stranger.

Then there are the accusations this is mere "spin"  - yes, every moth-eaten cliche has been dragged out for another outing. But this is, as scientists say, unfalsifiable - how could he have done this without it being interpreted as such? By donating privately, maybe, though I'm not sure that would have been possible, and anyway, the more public acts of charity the better, in my view; it encourages the others (I wonder if George Bush will feel compelled to follow suit).

A political scientist ought to write a paper about why it is that the worst pathologies of left and right converge on this figure. Sadly, the deranged reaction to Blair's donation was entirely predictable - though as ejoch points out below, it's the amount as well as the tone of coverage that's so striking.

Diane Abbott, of all people, showed that you don't have to have been a supporter of the Iraq war, or think Blair was a decent PM, or even like the man, to accept that this is an act of generosity, welcome it, and move on.

(To follow this blog - and me - on Twitter click here.)

Comments

[Marie]

I think the decision to give the money to charity is admirable. But I think the choice of charity is tactless.

[ashcash]

Brand Blair is still a money making machine.
This donation should be seen in that context.

[Ian Leslie]

The idea that anybody's choice of charity might be "tactless" or "tactful" is a new one. Is it like wearing the wrong colour to a wedding or something? I suppose that, Fawlty-style, it would have been better to give the money to a charity that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR.

I wonder just how much he'd have to give away before, even "in context", his critics deem it generous?

It's clear to me that the only truly honourable course of action for TB would have been to keep the money. Then everyone would feel much better about the whole thing.

[ejoch]

Totally agree with you Ian. I just waded through two pages in the Times, all about Tony Blair's various sources of income, wondering if there was a point somewhere in the offing. There wasn't. Mystifies me that his giving millions to charity should generate any copy other than a brief paragraph of approval.

[Bob]

Are ashcash and Marie stooges posting on here to make your point for you?

[ashcash]

"I wonder just how much he'd have to give away before, even "in context", his critics deem it generous?"

Mr Blair whilst well meaning showed extreme and total disregard for the means to achieve his ends. The world was on the verge of changing in the meantime. Nothing Mr Blair will do financially will make him look generous.

The moral (code for fair) world now just cannot stomach Mr Blair "immorality". The issue is not one for money, it is one of identity.

On a seperate note, Mr Blair's document has been created to clarify his thinking, on his world view. Hardly anything to do with you, me or Tom Dick and Harry. The book is expected to be a flop. Add Michael Howard vocal support into the investigation into the the David Kelly incident and saga....and to me atleast the Blair donation (and it is unclear what this is - see The FirstPost) is no more than a sharp defensive move. Nothing wrong with that mind. Distasteful though still.

[CW]

Its great that he donated that money to charity. Still, it doesn't change the fact that he should face a war crimes tribunal for his crimes against humanity. So should G W Bush. I doubt it will ever happen though.