The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation speech

Listen to him – even if you can’t stand him

By Sholto Byrnes Published 09 September 2009 15:33

Tony Blair led the first in a series of seminars hosted by his Faith Foundation on Monday night. Judging by the reaction so far, anything useful he might have said in his speech at the RSA in London is being drowned out by a chorus of outrage that he should think himself fit to have delivered it. Now that Blair is openly "doing God", there are indeed many questions.

If his faith is so important to him, why did he wait until he left Downing Street to convert to Catholicism? I raised this at the time in the New Statesman, and Blair's subsequent response in a BBC interview -- that it would have caused a "palaver" if he had done so in office -- does not begin to answer it. No daring Daniel he, evidently.

Most obviously, how on earth could he square his Christian beliefs with his bellicose actions? (My former colleague at the Independent on Sunday, the great Alan Watkins, regularly used to refer to him as "the young war criminal".) And to what extent were these beliefs guiding his politics?

Leaving all that aside, he appears to have made a quite astonishing admission in a Q&A at the end of his speech. According to Andrew Brown in the Guardian, "he mentioned that he had not properly understood the role that religion played in the Middle East while he was prime minister. Only once he had moved to Jerusalem did he see this." This is such jaw-on-the-floor stuff that it's difficult to know what to say, although it will only confirm the view of those who are sickened by the very idea of a Tony Blair Faith Foundation. (Isn't there also something rather embarrassingly self-aggrandising about naming a foundation after yourself?)

And yet, whatever one thinks about all this, the work and purpose of the foundation should not be dismissed because of justified reservations about our former prime minister. The TBFF is not out to proselytise, but to increase interfaith understanding and, most importantly, to act in partnership with religious and non-religious development organisations such as the UK's DfID. "The Foundation will use its profile and resources to encourage people of faith to work together more closely to tackle global poverty and conflict," says its mission statement.

The foundation is, for instance, already very active in the fight against malaria in Africa. It may irritate some that health care is being provided by faith agencies, but I doubt that it matters to those whose lives are saved. No one should let cavils about the means stop them welcoming the ends in this case.

Lastly, Blair was correct to point out in his speech that "to ignore the role of faith is to be blind to a dimension of the world that plays a part in the thinking and attitudes of billions of people". Recognising and engaging with this fact matters -- even if you think those billions are deluded, and you can't stand the man behind the statement.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Religion Tony Blair

More from Sholto Byrnes

View the discussion thread.

6 comments

Wed, 2009-09-09 18:04 — amanfromMars

"The Foundation is, for instance, already very active in the fight against malaria in Africa."

Err? I thought that was Bill and Melinda Gates territory? What a swizzing spiv.

Mon, 2009-09-21 13:41 — Richard Betts (not verified)

It is easy to carp like so many of his critics; there is a wrold of difference between running a major country and sitting on the sidelines being paid to commentate.
Of course Iraq was a mistake, in teh way it was done, but I respect his willingness to stand by his decisions and agree with the comment above that his domestic policy was not all bad. Our only choice was a washed out Conservative party or Blair in 1997, and compared to many politicians who have come in on a rebound, Blair showed courage, versatility and leadership with a British party very difficult to lead at teh best of times. I did disapprove of some of his family decisions when in office and the messages they sent, but I am much more sypathetic than all these ugly smears.

Yes, this Foundation could just be a self-aggrandising piece or PR; or could it just be an excellent initiative on a vital topic by someone uniquely placed to help? I am all for it: it shows the same political courage the Blair always showed before and after he was PM. Nobody likes this project because the secularists are stupid about religion, and the religionists are sectarian. But maybe it is actually pragmatic and very necessary. A lot could come of it - we'll see. And no, I am not part of the project, nor a Labour party member, just a school teacher who wants to see the helpless helped.

Mon, 2009-09-21 13:42 — Richard Betts (not verified)

Mon, 2009-09-21 13:43 — Richard Betts (not verified)

Thu, 2009-09-10 16:32 — ukpoliticalreform

Blair is trying desperately to create a different image of himself by creating this foundation. Many fantastic foundations doing excellent charitable work were founded by tyrants. Just look at the name Rockerfeller. The original John D who amassed such a vast fortune was said to be involved in very questionable dealings and methods but put his name to religion and good causes. Some think that the film in which Daniel Day Lewis portrays an evil oil baron is based on John D Rockerfeller. OK Tony is no oil baron but he is definately a Liar and he is being well rewarded financialy for his part in the west entering into a war which is not about democracy but about protecting and controlling oil pipelines.

Fri, 2009-09-11 05:13 — Craig Young (not verified)

I may be deeply critical of Blair's actions in Iraq, as well as actions that compromised civil liberties during the Blair and Brown administrations. Iraq aside though, he did do a lot of good in terms of his domestic policies.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps he believed in seperation of his particular religious beliefs from his particular role as Prime Minister of a multicultural, multifath nation, otherwise being concerned that he might be seen to prefer one set of sectarian religious values over another.