At no point did he say to himself: “I will announce the bloody thing and leave Gordon Brown to fight it”.Nor is Mr Blair threatened by the prospect of a challenge from any figure, from his Chancellor downwards. Not so long ago, he announced that he planned to chair Labour’s election committee, hardly a move from someone intent on pulling out before the campaign got under way.Mr Blair also seeks to formalise the roles of his old allies Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers in the run-up to the election. So he said: “Months ago!” And why? Because it was an issue of such enormous public interest. Planned for ages! Michael Howard, in a courtroom scene we have all seen many times before, said, “That’s interesting.

At the end of last week a paper was circulated with all major government speeches scheduled, and there was no mention of it.” That seemed quite serious to me, but I was only watching. Goodness knows what it seemed to Archangel Blair with his long, white pinions fluttering quietly to settle in the ordure around him.simoncarr75 hotmail
More from Simon Carr. He was asked when he’d decided to give Tuesday’s speech on immigration.Mr Blair went through a number of preliminary responses but none seemed to fit. We need more of it.And then there was the exchange that silenced the Labour backbench The prime minister went a little white. In recent times only The Sketch has risen to such heights of moral pronouncement. “If he thinks the fact that we voted for the war somehow disqualifies me from asking legitimate questions then he grossly misunderstands the nature of our parliamentary democracy!” he thundered.

In response he came back with a number of counter-punches that shook the prime minister to the roots of his teeth. Only low, pagan creatures could have enjoyed the experience and I was, frankly, startled to hear myself chuckling. Tony Blair, so long accustomed to soaring above the political firmament like an archangel was brought down to earth with a bump that knocked the structure out of him. You could actually see the struts and staples by which the wings had been attached to his back. Half way through prime minister’s questions there, I came over quite elegiac, almost obituarial. Consider Bertrand Russell’s absurdly utopian plan for a world government to ensure world peace.

No one with any grasp on reality would think this a credible solution.Philosophers need to understand and accept the limits of their expertise. There is no issue or problem of public concern which does not have a philosophical dimension. But nor can philosophy alone fully illuminate the world around us. Philosophers may be experts on the moral theory of warfare, but to apply it they need to know specific facts about the situation on the ground and the likely outcomes of the various options available.Philosophers need to be more modest about how much they can contribute, and I cannot help but be immodest if I claim to follow this injunction better than many others have.. Am I arguing against myself or do I simply think I am immune from the errors of most philosophers?
To answer that, I need to explain where I think philosophers tend to go wrong.