Tony Blair admits mistakes

In amongst all the self-serving detritus that one might expect from an interview with Tony Blair, there are a couple of examples of what I never thought would come from the mouth of that arrogant arse - he actually admits his mistakes. But before we get too excited, let's consider what he actually has to say.

First up, fox-hunting. The Guardian challenges him on whether it was a mistake:

"I think yes on balance it was in the end. Its not that I particularly like hunting or have ever engaged in it or would. I didn't quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life." Blair accepts that the ban was "not one of my finest policy moments".

I'm prepared to agree with Blair on everything he says here; I don't like fox-hunting either (in fact I find it pretty sickening) but for others, it is an important part of their lives and while I struggle to understand why, I don't think it should be banned. To do so is draconian; it represents a tyranny of the majority (assuming, of course, that a majority actually support a ban on fox-hunting). It should never have been passed as a law.

But given Blair himself now accepts this, will we see him campaigning to have his mistake rectified and the ban rescinded? I'm not going to be holding by breath on that one.

The second mistake is far more revealing of Blair and his attitude to politics. On the Freedom of Information Act:

"It's not practical for government," he says. "If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations. Everybody knows this in their walk of life. Whether you are in business – or running a newspaper – there are conversations you want to have preliminary to taking a decision that are frank .

"And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."

Brilliant. So the people politicians represent should be denied the freedom to scrutinise them and understand the way in which they came to various decisions because it might be a bit embarrassing for those politicians. What absolute, arrogant wank. The point of government is not to operate in such a way that it avoids potential future embarrassment for politicians; good government involves operating in such a way that it is always doing the best for its people, and as such it should always be able to stand up to even the closest of scrutiny.

Blair shows that for him, government was not about working in the interests of the people, but rather in winning cheap, crowd-pleasing victories (such as through banning fox-hunting) and in making the process of government more convenient for those in power rather than those being governed. His ideas are fundamentally arrogant, and it is this arrogance that has ensured that his legacy is one of failure. He could never succeed in governing others as he was always governing in his own interest.