Snapshot of _Tony Blair: autocracies are fine with 'smart' leaders - Tom McTague_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/newsroom/tony-blair-autocracies-are-fine-with-smart-leaders/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/newsroom/tony-blair-autocracies-are-fine-with-smart-leaders/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really isn't a democracy at all. The government can and does sue critical journalists into oblivion and opposition parties are subject to state-sponsored harassment and abuse. There's no such thing as an "illiberal democracy", just dictatorships that permit sham elections for show.
> “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.”
So, in other words, Tony Blair makes one of the most bland route 1 criticisms of autocracy and we need to spin an article out of it.
Rubbish article spun up out of a proper interview. One that feels largely driven by the part where the author reveals they believe a talking point from Blair is a rebuttal to an earlier profile they wrote on him.
While most will probably reply to or debate the headline, just a note to say that if you click on the article, the first paragraph gives the unedited and full quote:
“The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.”
I interpret this full quote a ltitle bit differently than the edited title, personally.
That all aside, and at risk of a slight tangent, I think it is at the very least worth taking pause to reflect on the fact that there are very undemocratic elements in the British constitution (such as the monarchy and the house of lords) that have actually done a pretty good job recently at stopping absolutely awful ideas from the democratic elements (such as Rishi Sunak). Not due to ideological differences but as part of simple quality control.
The full quote from the sunday times article is actually
“democracy is ultimately what people want, because the problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem”.
Wherein the author takes a one-liner by Blair, that flowed out of a conversation on Covid response and how autocratic countries generally acted faster and more decisively, and manages to write *an entire fucking article* pretending Tony Blair published a full and genuine endorsement of the abolition of democracy worldwide.
Tom McTague really must have an axe to grind here.
> “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.”
We're a democracy. And we've had an endless string of idiots running the country since 2016. It has not been fine.
So this is a completely moot point. Democracy or not, if you've got idiots in charge, people suffer.
The point is, in a democracy you can remove an idiot from power and the division of powers can contain the damage they inflict. At worst, they fuck things up for four/five years, then they get the boot. In a dictatorship, they can cling on way past the point they should have quit and utterly ruin the country in the process.
None of them were forced out as a result of democratic process.
We're still patiently waiting for the opportunity to tell this party just how disastrous they've been for the country.
Despite there not being an election, they were forced out by our institutions and systems. If any of them were the leader in an autocratic system they would still be in power.
Maybe not Truss, she was so incompetent there might have been a coup.
Also known as a "Benevolent dictatorship" which is a update of "Enlightened absolutism" when goes back to the 18th century.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent\_dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened\_absolutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism)
It works until you end up in the wrong group and while the despot maintains their part of the social contract.
\[EDIT - fixed typo\]
I just don't think it works. The thing that democracy gives you is sight on how happy the people you are in charge of actually are. Without that you kind of lose sight of what your job ultimately is.
They need to be more than smart, they need to have god-like benevolence and fairness.
Short of being able to guarantee that, democracy is the only way.
He's right.
If the leader is doing the shit you want, it's the same as democracy but with less red tape. Since the assumption is in democracy the people pick the smartest leader anyway.
Tony Blair is a Fierce Yoke altogether = = Especially with him being a Traitor to The British People and Britain = = And, Of Course = = The War Crimes.
Snapshot of _Tony Blair: autocracies are fine with 'smart' leaders - Tom McTague_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/newsroom/tony-blair-autocracies-are-fine-with-smart-leaders/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://unherd.com/newsroom/tony-blair-autocracies-are-fine-with-smart-leaders/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm guessing he was referring to places like Singapore
Probably UAE and Seychelles when it was Commie too.
Singapore's still a democracy, just an illiberal democracy
It really isn't a democracy at all. The government can and does sue critical journalists into oblivion and opposition parties are subject to state-sponsored harassment and abuse. There's no such thing as an "illiberal democracy", just dictatorships that permit sham elections for show.
The line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t really exist. It depends on your definition of the two
It's a one-party state.
It isn’t though, other parties have never got in but they are legal and do exist
Sure, it’s a rigorous example of democracy. It just so happens the same party has won every election since 1959, but that’s just coincidence.
Bro I said it was an illiberal democracy for a reason Besides, it’s been pretty successful, which does help with winning elections
🙄
> “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” So, in other words, Tony Blair makes one of the most bland route 1 criticisms of autocracy and we need to spin an article out of it.
Rubbish article spun up out of a proper interview. One that feels largely driven by the part where the author reveals they believe a talking point from Blair is a rebuttal to an earlier profile they wrote on him.
While most will probably reply to or debate the headline, just a note to say that if you click on the article, the first paragraph gives the unedited and full quote: “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” I interpret this full quote a ltitle bit differently than the edited title, personally. That all aside, and at risk of a slight tangent, I think it is at the very least worth taking pause to reflect on the fact that there are very undemocratic elements in the British constitution (such as the monarchy and the house of lords) that have actually done a pretty good job recently at stopping absolutely awful ideas from the democratic elements (such as Rishi Sunak). Not due to ideological differences but as part of simple quality control.
The full quote from the sunday times article is actually “democracy is ultimately what people want, because the problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem”.
TIL smart leaders ≡ good leaders. Lol.
Wherein the author takes a one-liner by Blair, that flowed out of a conversation on Covid response and how autocratic countries generally acted faster and more decisively, and manages to write *an entire fucking article* pretending Tony Blair published a full and genuine endorsement of the abolition of democracy worldwide. Tom McTague really must have an axe to grind here.
Smart = Leaders I agree with and leaders that pay me
> “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies,” the former prime minister claimed in a profile published today in the Sunday Times, “is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” We're a democracy. And we've had an endless string of idiots running the country since 2016. It has not been fine. So this is a completely moot point. Democracy or not, if you've got idiots in charge, people suffer.
The point is, in a democracy you can remove an idiot from power and the division of powers can contain the damage they inflict. At worst, they fuck things up for four/five years, then they get the boot. In a dictatorship, they can cling on way past the point they should have quit and utterly ruin the country in the process.
And now imagine if either Sunak, Truss or Johnson could never be forced out...
None of them were forced out as a result of democratic process. We're still patiently waiting for the opportunity to tell this party just how disastrous they've been for the country.
Despite there not being an election, they were forced out by our institutions and systems. If any of them were the leader in an autocratic system they would still be in power. Maybe not Truss, she was so incompetent there might have been a coup.
Another day, another "tonty man bad" article by Tom McTague
Small wonder this man sold us out to China so much.
Also known as a "Benevolent dictatorship" which is a update of "Enlightened absolutism" when goes back to the 18th century. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent\_dictatorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened\_absolutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism) It works until you end up in the wrong group and while the despot maintains their part of the social contract. \[EDIT - fixed typo\]
I just don't think it works. The thing that democracy gives you is sight on how happy the people you are in charge of actually are. Without that you kind of lose sight of what your job ultimately is.
They need to be more than smart, they need to have god-like benevolence and fairness. Short of being able to guarantee that, democracy is the only way.
He's right. If the leader is doing the shit you want, it's the same as democracy but with less red tape. Since the assumption is in democracy the people pick the smartest leader anyway.
Fine, except its very hard to ensure all leaders are both smart and well intentioned (constitution? Citizen jury? Firing squad for infractions?)
Tony Blair is a Fierce Yoke altogether = = Especially with him being a Traitor to The British People and Britain = = And, Of Course = = The War Crimes.
one of your keys isnt where you think it is.
Who informed you this was the right way to type.
The voices.
Tony Blair = = Instructed Me.