Tony Blair.

[DarkPhenyx]

I have developed a new tactic against the neo-Con love fest with Tony Blair. I start tellign them all about tony.

I like reminding them that he is a member of the labor party, the equilivant of the American Democratic party. nad that he was once described as the British Bill Clinton.

Did you know you can actually make their head spin around and pop?

[economic justice]

1. Except that

The British Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International. So, in that respect, they are FAR from our Democratic Party.

[mmonk]

3. Closer to the Social Democrats

but they are 3rd wayers as well as some Democrats.

[emad]

17. 3rd wayers or fourth reich?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. Oh, no. The Labour party are certainly not lefties,

anything you see is a remnant of a long gone socialist past. The people in control are dedicated pragmatic centrists. Never fool yourself into thinking that the Labour party is anything more than a machine for getting elected.

[economic justice]

7. For some it is...

There is still very much a socialist presence in the Labour Party. I mean REAL ONES and not the neo-socialists like Tony Blair, whose recent re-election as vice president of the Socialist International was scandalous.

[jonoboy]

8. I was shocked

by that election . Blair more than anyone has continued the Tory sell-of of state assetts.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. Like I say, I'm very much afraid they're remnants.

Just ask my dad. He's a Scottish Trade Union Rep of 35 years standing and he's seen Labour go from Socialist to Socialites. Heartbreaking, man.

[Kinkistyle]

10. Kind of like the Liberal Democrats in Japan

The ruling, Liberal Democratic Party in Japan is anything but. Populated by old time cronies, racists and have ties to the closest thing to a religious conservative party in Japan, the Komeito.

[jonoboy]

2. the Conservatives seem to love him

but then again he is hardly a true Labour Prime Minister, more like a young conservative who has hijacked Labour and dragged it the right.

But what can you expect from a man who openly admires the frightful Margaret Thatcher, who purposely sent a thousand young Argentinian conscripts to a watery grave on the Belgrano, just so she could be re-elected.

[economic justice]

4. I agree

He truly WAS the British version of Bill Clinton. Blair hijacking Labour is truly the right word. I'm still a Tony Benn fan.
http://www.tonybenn.com/

[AP]

19. He didn't drag it right. He went precisely to the place where he could

ensure election and reelection.

I wish the UK could elect and reelect someone farther to the left than Blair. But they can't.

To make real change in the UK, so that it can sustain more liberal politics, Labour is going to need time in power, rather than time in opposition.

Two things people don't realize about Labour:

(1) Before Blair, the Labour party had NEVER won reelection. The UK is deeply conservative, institutionally, and, as Billy Bragg says, nostalgia is the opiate of the masses. Labour had a history of getting into power, acting like they'd never lead agian, doing everything they could, and then being spun by the Tories as incompetent extremists.

(2) In 1983, the party almost went extiinct. The big reason: one of the planks in their platform was government ownership of the means of production. Yes. They were a REAL socialist party. Not even your average labourer thought this was a wise idea. Labour lost the labour vote in 83. Labour obviously hadn't read their history of American populism. Populists in the US in the late 19th century ran on a platform so hostile to urban industry, that urban laborers (probably justifiably) saw their interests align with capital rather than with the populists.

The UK has an oppressed working class, which makes socialism attractive. However, the best form of government is a liberal democracy, in which progress is encouraged by having a level playing field, and a strong social safety net, and everyone has en equal chance to reap wealth as the rewards of their labour, regardless of your class. That is the direction Tony Blair has taken Labour. He has to work within a system which is deeply conservative. Can you imagine how hard it is to talk about level playing fields and equal economic opportunities in a nation which has a monarchy? It is not easy at all.

So, if you take a snapshot of Blair, he may not be the most liberal politician ever (even though, by my favority measure of liberalism -- the growth in wealth/employment of the bottom three quintiles -- even a snapshot looks good). However, if you compare where Britain was when Blair started, to where it's going to be when he's finished, you just might see the most solid, and the greatest shift from the right side of the political spectrum to the left side of the political spectrum than ANY country has experienced in the late 20th and early 21st century, and this is during a time when the large corporations are throwing their weight around all over the globe, more aggressively than at any other time in history.

[T_i_B]

21. Yet again, a false argument

Before Blair, the Labour party had NEVER won reelection.

Yet again you are being economical with the truth AP. Here are some UK election results since 1945.

1945 | Seats | % of vote

Labour govt | 393 | 47.8 Majority = 146
Con | 213 | 39.8
Lib | 12 | 9.0

Labour landslide, any idea why AP? Cos I can tell you that 1945 Labour was staunchly socialist.

1950

Labour govt | 315 | 46.1 Majority = 5
Con | 298 | 43.5
Lib | 9 | 9.1


So that's a wafer thin majority, but election nonetheless, the 1951 result is interesting too

Con govt | 344 | 48.0 Majority = 17
Lab | 295 | 48.8
Lib | 6 | 2.5

So Labour win the popular vote, but get less seat than Churchill's tories. Bummer. Now fast forward to the Wilson years.

1964

Labour govt | 317 | 44.1 Majority = 5
Con | 304 | 43.4
Lib | 9 | 11.1

Labour get a wee majority so this is what Wilson did in 1966.

Labour govt | 363 | 47.9 Majority = 96
Con | 253 | 41.9
Lib | 12 | 8.5

So there you have it. Labour have won re-election in the past, even increasing their majoritys. Therefore your argument is untrue. Here's the link and apologies for the messy attempt at a table above but it's worth a try.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm

[tinnypriv]

22. AP has this humourous knack

For talking shit and making it sound like Roses. I gave up refuting it a long time ago.

Good post :thumbsup:

[AP]

23. And did they win the next election? Those were all one-termers

Why don't you want to talk about 1983?

And what did all those one-term labor victories do for the working class and the middle class?

In 1996, the UK was like a second-world country. There was no middle class, and the working class simply existed to make rich people richer.

Now things are changing. And it isn't socialism that is finally changing things.

[T_i_B]

24. I simply pointed out where your argument was false.

The world has moved on since 1983 but all, too often I see "new" labour stuck ina 1980's timewarp still trying to defeat the socialist ememy within, silence any dissent from the left and trying to replecate the victories of Margret Thatcher.

As to your argument about Britain having changed radically since 1996, that is nonsense. Nobody who actually lives here would belive that for so much as one second. The middle class was as big then as it is now, and it had a better chance of affording a mortgage back then too.

And what did all those one-term labor victories do for the working class?

As to what these Labour goverment did...

End of capital punishment,
Legaization of Abortion
National Health Service
Welfare State
Clean Air Act
Independence for India

Do you want me to carry on here? Because your argument is so far detached from reality and history that I really so have to wonder what you have been smoking. Now remind me again, why did Atlee beat Churchill in 1945? And would you have voted Labour back then?

[AP]

25. Have you lived outside the UK?

Talk to people from Sweden, Holland, the US, Canada...who have lived in the UK pre-96.

A sentiment many have is, "where the hell's the middle class?"

I didn't say Britain has changed radically since 96. My point was that Britain BARELY changed at all from 1900 to 1996. The Tories had created their little world of wealth-preservation, and anyone who wasn't rich basically existed on their ovedraft, and got paid super-low wages, and had no class mobility, and accepted shoddy public services, and paid their flat TV tax.

By the way:

End of capital punishment resulted in Tories arguing labour was soft on crime, which resulted in Tory victory in the next election, which resulted in crazy anti-terror laws used to put a lot of people from Bellfast in jail.

What you're seeing now, especially in terms of reforms of the court system, those are the REAL improvements in the justice system in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Facts needed here

Capital punishment was abolished in 1965. Labour won the 1966 election. When the Tories did surprisingly win an election in 1970, the accepted reason was the economy - see eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/ge70.htm , or google for things about the devaluation of the pound and the phrase "the pound in your pocket"

There were significant changes in Britain during the 20th century, mostly during Labour governments. See Thankfully_in_Britain's list, plus the legalisation of homosexuality. Thatcher and Major did increase the size of the middle class, by selling off council houses and nationalised industries belong their market value.

No one ever complained about the lack of a middle class in Britain. If anything, many people complained that it was too middle class.

What legal reforms are you appreciating? Labour's attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury? The permanent application of the Terrorism Act, meant to last 28 days at a time, to London since February 2001 (yes, before 9/11)? The cutting of legal aid to asylum seekers, who are certainly not going to be able to afford legal representation any other way?

[AP]

27. Why couldn't labor ever win a second term?

And how much can you change society when you're in opposition more than you're in power?

If labour wasn't responsible for capital punishment being abolished and then lost in 1970 as a result (after being accused of being soft on crime), then I'll have to have a word with Sid Blumenthal because he got it wrong in The Clinton Wars.

As for legal reforms, the UK hates their immigrants which is why Labour makes asylum difficult. However, without much fanfare, Blair did change the rules for immigrant spouses which were draconian under the Tories. You used to have to show your love letters to a bureaucrat to prove it wasn't a sham marriage. Under Labour, you didn't have to do anything. If they take a lot of heat for asylum so that they don't scare little old tory voters, I understand, because Blair made thousands of immigrants lives easier and more dignified by totally changing the law for immigrant spouses. As for asylum, at least Labour judges in the House of Lords are issuing extremely enlightened opinions about, for example, whether spousal abuse can form a legitimate asylum claim (Shah/Islam I believe was the case). Yep, those are Tony's labour judges. (I honestly don't know which ones he appointed, by I credit the whole party -- it's nice to be in power so that you can appoint Law Lords.)

Breaking up the LCD so that judge, prosecution and defense aren't under the purview of the same person was deeply democratic, and will have a huge influence on British government for centuries to come.

House of Lords reform, by the way, is also extremely democratic and will reap democratic rewards. That's Blair's baby too. People complain that he's not doing enough. That he's done what he's done is remarkable.

I'll say again, before now, Britain had two classes. The wealthy and the poor. Call the poor working class or middle class, doesn't matter. It's not like the US. In the US right now the middle class is disappearing. That's part of the conservative project. In the UK, building up a real middle class is part of the liberal project.

The middle class is the class that builds up a reasonable amount of wealth so to create options, opportunities, and political power. If nobody was complaining about the lack of a middle class, it's because they didn't realize how important it was. Blair knows how important it is. Clinton knows how important it is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. As TiB showed, they have won second terms before

Blair was the first to get 2 'landslide' victories in a row.

I'd love for you to tell your mate Sid that he's got it wrong about the 1970 election.

Perhaps he was projecting American politics onto the UK system, as you appear to. The Law Lords are not considered political; so, for instance, we find, in a description of the Pinochet judges, that Browne-Wilkinson, appointed under the Tories was "liberal but safe", and Hope, also appointed during a Tory government, is a "lively liberal", while Millett, appointed under Labour, is a "conservative".

The present LCD is not responsible for prosecution or defence in the courts (those are handled by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is funded by the Home Office, and private lawyers, who may be funded by legal aid, but are not chosen by any branch of the government). What Blair wants to do to the LCD is to remove the judicial part from the legislative chamber. The impact of this is uncertain - half of the current law lords think it's a bad idea:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,9061,1077991,00.html
"The law lords' response said it was vital the proposed supreme court should be properly resourced and located in a building reflecting its importance. They noted that the government did not appear to have prepared a business plan or made a proper cost estimate.

They also highlighted judges' concerns that the planned abolition of the 1,400-year-old role of the lord chancellor would leave them open to political interference"

I do appreciate that Blair got rid of most of the hereditary peers; I'm annoyed that he wants no elected members in the House of Lords at all, and is now trying to get rid of the final hereditary peers (who were elected by the other peers), despite his promise that he wouldn't do that until they could be replaced by members elected by the general public.

Your Humpty Dumpty use of 'middle class' will get you nowhere in discussions. You have to use generally accepted definitions if you want a meaningful debate with someone.

As for asylum: it's a shame to see Blair and Blunkett pandering to the worst features of the British character.

[AP]

30. try this at home:

Do you want to break down the Shah/Islam (1999) judgement according to which judges were appointed by Labor? If asylum is an important issue to you, you might as well be aware of which party appointed the judges who issued one of the most important pro-asylum opinions in years in the highest court in the UK. Again, I'm going to guess that it's good to be in power so you can appoint the kinds of judges who do that.

Pinochet was another matter.

The CPS, the selection of judges, and the management of public defenders was all coordinated by LCD. Removing the Law Lords from legislative chamber is a separate issue, which Blair is right about. I'm not surprised that the Law Lords don't want to give up the extra power, but they're probably the last people you'd ask for an opinion on this issue. And which half did you think are against the idea? Wouldn't happen to be the conservative half, would it?

It amazes me how people who don't like Blair have to resort to leaning so far right to be outraged by him. Basically, I'm guessing, your saying that Blair is wrong about Law Lords reform because a bunch of conservative judges still want to be legislators and the highest court in the land?

I read a good article about how the UK is leaning toward the Wisconsin (?) model -- ie, no senate. Per capita representation only. So they want to phase out importance of Lords all together. In the US some scholars accurately point out that the US Senate is one of the most undemocratic bodies in the world. So, I think it's kinda clear that Blairs goal with Lords reform is more democracy. Nostalgia, being the opiate of the masses in the UK, clouds judgement, perhaps.

Why don't you want to argue that there has been no real middle class -- ie, people with built up income, you have more options, who aren't living off their overdraft? I know that this kind of middle class is a relatively new experience for brits, and you might not have the terminology to grasp it yet, but, since this is the core of liberal progress in the UK, I don't think you should so easily dismiss it.

As for asylum, you know what Blair has changed: every election I remember in the UK, Tories play the immigration card days before the election, and a couple immigrants get knifed the next night. That was the level of discussing immigration. Blair doesn't have the luxury of dealing with an enlightened population. They're on a hair trigger. It's the easiest sentiment to exploit in British politics. If you have to play it cleverly, I'm not happy but I get it. And if you want to know where their heart is on immigration, I'd look to the immigrant spouse entry rules -- that rule change had a huge impact on people's lives, and those rules were cruel, and they affected a LOT of people. Labour changed those rules. And you can be happy that the Law Lords are populated by more enlightened judges too who are issuing a decent opinion now and then on asylum matters that really make a difference in the lives of, for example, battered women.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Here we go

Islam/Shah law lords:
Steyn, Hoffman, Hope: appointed pre 1997, all allowed their appeals
Hutton: appointed 1997 (so could be Tory or Labour era), allowed the appeals
Millett: appointed under Labour, dismissed the appeals

'Supreme Court' opinions:
For new proposals: Bingham, Steyn (pre 97), Saville (97), Walker (post 97)
Against new proposals: Nicholls, Hoffman, Hope (pre 97), Hutton (97), Millett, Rodger (post 97)
No opinion: Hobhouse, Scott (post 97)

I don't think there's a discernable pattern there.

The CPS is related to the Home Office (which does the police and prisons too), not the LCD. There's no such thing as a 'public defender' in England; solicitors and barristers get legal aid (yes, from the LCD) for clients who cannot pay their own way. This provision of legal aid is proposed to go to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, along with the administration of the courts, so there's no change there.

I'm not leaning to the right to criticise Blair; I'm to the left of him. The notable thing about the law lords' opinion was that the six feared the new system could increase political interference.

Blair's plans for the Lords are for no elected members at all, just appointments. It's not very democratic, and most MPs wanted at least some elections to the Lords. Blair doesn't want any rival to the Commons with a mandate - he wants to concentrate power under the Prime Minister.

The phrase "middle class" dates back to 1766. Do you really think it's an American invention? Search for references to "Victorian middle class". If you can find some references for the non-existence of a British middle class, post them. Having grown up 'middle class', and knowing my family history, and British history, fairly well, I know it's been significant for over 100 years.

No, I don't remember any knifings before elections. Being intolerant of immigration has been a Tory attitude; that's why it's so disappointing that Blair stoops to it. A change on one aspect of immigration doesn't define the whole policy; there are a lot more asylum seekers than spouses coming into the country.

[AP]

33. There is a trial public defender program in the UK

I forget how they do it in E&W. In the Scotland, they were doing it by date of birth.

I'll check, but I'm sure in E&W the trial program was organized under LCD.

Are you arguing that dividing up LCD duties is not more democratic?

Are you arguing that separating Law Lords from the legislature is not more democratic?

Are you arguing that the US senate isn't slightly undemocratic?

What do you think about having a middle class which doesn't live off their ovedrafts?

You really didn't notice the knifings? If you care so much about asylum, I think you'd notice something like that.

PS -- so long as you're doing the research, you might as well add your links. I'll admit, I'm just going from memory here. But when I have to find something, I sure as hell will provide my link.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. You're right, there are pilot public defender programmes

in both Scotland, and England and Wales; but since they have been introduced by Labour, and mean the defence counsel being directly employed by the government, rather than being chosen by the defendant from independent laywers, I don't see they help your argument about Blair dividing off those who run the courts from those defending the accused.

LCD legal duties are not being divided up. The duty of being the speaker of the House of Lords is being separated from the head of the department, and the right to sit as a judge taken away (I'm not sure how much any recent Lord Chancellor has used that right).
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3894.asp

Removing the law lords from the legislature may be more democratic. They will be chosen by a commission; under Blair's scheme, all members of the House of Lords will be chosen by a different commission. So there's not much in it.

I don't argue anything about the US senate, and it's irrelevant to the subject of Blair.

Living off borrowed money is a recent feature of Britain. This has continued to increase under Blair, eg
http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/News/1135158
"British borrowers are in record arrears totaling over £60bn after personal debt soared over the past two years"

Knifings: no, I don't remember any knifings happening right after the Tories talk about immigration in an election campaign. There have been some at various times in the last few years, and the widespread bigotry against asylum seekers here is apalling. It is not helped by both Labour and Tory spokesmen calling for 'toughness' against them.

Previous references:
Law Lords appointed pre 1998: http://www.lawteacher.net/Articles/0501a.htm
Opinions on Supreme Court: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/05/nlords05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/05/ixhome.html
Islam/Shah judgement: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990325/islam01.htm

[AP]

39. A few points.

Just the ones that are still outstanding:

Discussion of the US Senate was part of the discussion about what to do with the lords. The senate is so far from the one-person/on-vote principle, modern governments are trying to avoid it.

How much has British economy grown? If debt is rising at a lower rate than the economy is growing, (ie, if it's decreasing as a percentage of the GNP), then the situation is actually improving. I could be wrong, but I understand that Blair is growing the wealth of the middle class immensely.

You do so well with the searches, I think you'd be able to find the Tory-induced assaults on immigrants.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. try this:

the 'slide show' at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2708701.stm#

No one has ever suggested a Senate, or anything approaching it, in Britain. That's why it's irrelevant.

[AP]

49. one person - one vote is totally relevant.

Bicameral representation came from the idea that wealthy property owners should get a lot of power in the gov't, so to offset the wishes of the masses.

Governments forming now say, let's just give power to the people -- unicameralism.

As I understand it, this is the essence of Lords reform.

In any event, Britain today is more democrat than Britain in 1996 because of Lords reform.

[tinnypriv]

35. What the living fuck?

Labour has won two terms before.

What are you smoking?

Don't bother replying unless it's to say:

Yeah, TiB is right, sorry.

I'm not interested in diversionary tactics.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

36. Labour won second terms in 1950, 1966 and 1974 (Oct)

[T_i_B]

38. It is a bit daft expecting Blairites to debate honestly

Which a shame if you ask me, but AP does tend to prove that to be the case. Here is a good article by Roy Hattersley, a fellow Wednesdayite here illustrating quite brilliantly how "new" labour tries to mislead in debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1051721,00.html

When in doubt or difficulty, the prime minister always completes a diversion from the facts by traducing his critics. So he told David Frost that newspapers have often reported the Hutton proceedings inaccurately. No examples were given. For a moment, I felt proud, not because Tony Blair had worked for me in his leftwing days, but because it is people like me on whom he has honed his skill at misrepresentation. The finest flowering of that talent came during his visit to this year's meeting of the Trades Union Congress when his speech rejected "the fantasy of an extreme leftwing government". He was about to face criticisms of foundation hospitals, top-up fees and a two-tier workforce. The implication that only Bolsheviks have reservations about those policies illustrates how flimsy the rational arguments in their favour are.

It has to be admitted that defenders of the Project make up in affrontery what they lack in probity. Yesterday Tony Blair, who came into parliament supporting nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Community and a massive extension of public ownership, announced that he had "always been on the modernising edge of the party". Perhaps Dr John Reid will soon claim that he has been Labour all his life. After his statement last week that critics of the government "come together under the banner FWW - Fed-up With Winning", we can only assume that he will say whatever is convenient at the moment.

The desire to remain in permanent opposition is not the most damaging smear that is spread across the government's critics. Any Labour party member who has doubts about the Project is dismissed as outdated. For years, hoping that rationality would break through, I suggested that ideas should be judged on their merits, not on their age. Then I realised that the more intelligent members of the government knew that to be true, but found it inconvenient. The argument against PFI is not that everything should be publicly owned or that we should follow the precedent of 1945, but that it is a wasteful and expensive affectation.

Last week John Reid complained that the government's critics were dogmatists, not ideologues. It is the belief that private enterprise and the market produce efficiency that displays indefensible dogma. And the notion that competition, which the government wants to extend to hospitals and schools, is the answer to the problems of performance and accountability, is hardly modern. New Labour has moved through space not time - to the right, not to the future.

[AP]

44. Nobody disputes that New Labour has moved to the right.

Their platform in '83 was that the government would own the means of production. Not even labour thought that was a good idea.

I've said it a thousand times. Structurally, the UK could not support sustained progressive change in any meaningful way for the entire 20th century. In Blair's own words, for Labour, it always ends in tears.

Compare Britian to most other European countries. Life is not good for the non-wealthy in the UK. It's a tool for holding back progress -- oppress the majority of peole, have the accept low wage jobs, convince them that there's no social mobility. Blair is changing the UK institutionally so that it can sustain progress. I know you don't believe it, but it's true.

You know, spend an afternoon in Manchester, and then spend and afternoon in Stockholm, and you start to wonder why parents in the UK hate their children. Well, they don't hate their children. They just get a little stressed when having a child drives them into poverty. In Stockholm, parents (mothers and fathers) get something like 6 or 8 months parental leave. In Stockholm, there's a safety net so that having a child isn't going to ruin your life.

If you're not poor, or not paying attention in the UK, you might not notice these things. But these little things are part of the reason the "middle" class is so oppressed in the UK. These are the little things the Blair government is changing. But you still have to make the changes incrementally. What use is it to try to change EVERYTHING at once, and then kicked out by Rupert Murdoch. Then you're left with nothing, which is why the UK at the beginning of the century wasn't so different from the UK at the end of the century for most of its citizens. Furthermore, I don't think it's possible in the UK to change things much faster then they're happening. There is just too much to change. But you know that Blair's on the right track because this last summer proved that the RW'ers were riding his ass big time, aiming for a vote of no confidence.

[Spentastic]

60. Balir and growing the middle class

Does this look like growing the middle class to you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3245969.stm

It looks to me like creating a new class of serf to me.

I wish I could find the GNP answers you asked for but I'll guarantee that the economy has not doubled since 1997.

Personal debt has.

[AP]

63. Wages, employment and home equity are probably increasing.

Also, people are probably seeing something worth leveraging their futures for.

The housing issue is interesting because lots of people with houses, are going to do well thanks to the increased value, but people who are buying houses are taking on lots of debt.

But I do agree, banks are still ripping people off with the overdrafts and it's hard to discourage consumerism and encourage savings when people are feeling positive about the future.

I think what it comes down to is increased wages and lowered unemployment. I think people in the US would be stunned by the low salaries for college graduates in the UK.

[Spentastic]

65. Yes, AP you finally begin to get it

The things that worry you are getting worse under Tony Blair

People are getting in debt to subsist.

Record personal debt

Record student debt (will get worse due to tuition fees)

Record mortgage lending

Additionally the housing stock is being concentrated, with the rich buying it up as equities falter. This is forcing those in debt to rent rather than buy. Blair and Brown have done little or nothing to stop this. In fact Blair knows a good stunt when he sees it hence his wife buying a couple of extra flats.

Interest rates went up today. They may go up in the future. Those with high debt will be crucified. The rich will then consolidate more of the property market.

When David Blunkett pulls the ID card stunt you'll see what New Labour is about.

[AP]

67. Record employment and higher wages are the key things, though.

But as soon as people have money, the vultures come out and try to get it.

In the UK, the banks have unbelievable power, and there is still a consumer culture that is driven by the corporation with such a grip on society, but you have to change society, and have real democracy before the people can compete with those institutions. That's why the other big part of labour's project is to change the institutions of government so they're more democratic. And also, becoming part of the EU increases competition, which makes it harder for banks to exercise monopoly power.

You cant' not have economic progress because you don't want the consumer culture and the banks to turn into wealthier vultures, by the way.

Like I said, the key is record employment, and higher wages. That's what democracy is all about.

It's not that I'm finally getting it. It's that we're having a dialogue.

[T_i_B]

28. Can you even read your own posts?

In 1996, the UK was like a second-world country.

Now things are changing


That is what you wrote AP and it has no basis in fact. Things are not changing in the UK other than that people are being put off politics by the actions of vermin such as yourself. See the below article for details. And things did change in the previous 90 years. in 1906 there was no universal healthcare, no protection of the enviroment, imperialism unbounded, the chance of war in Europe and real grinding poverty with no welfare safety net. I suggest you read up on British history.

Like I keep saying, your posts have virtually no basis in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/10/16/do1601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/10/16/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=153764

As the main opposition party continues to implode, consider this: the largest and fastest-growing political party in Britain has no leader, no MPs and will be fielding no candidates at the next election. Yet over the past 40 years it has steadily gained public support. It is the No Party. Back in 1964, more than 80 per cent of voters identified with one of the political parties. Now nearly half of the electorate cannot bring themselves to identify with any of the parties.

Strong allegiance to the parties has similarly plummeted. Disaffection is even greater among the young. Out of 1,000 voters interviewed by ICM, just one person under the age of 34 described herself as a very strong supporter of the Conservative Party. The other parties did little better.

Disenchantment with established party politics in Britain is widespread and particularly acute among No Party supporters. Four in every five think that none of the traditional parties "has any really new or attractive ideas for tackling problems in the country" and nearly two thirds think that "whichever party is in power, it makes little difference to what actually happens in the country". Partly as a result, No Party voters show little enthusiasm for the electoral process. While almost 90 per cent of people who strongly support a political party would be certain to vote in a new general election, less than a quarter of No Party supporters are sure they will bother. Traditional political parties and indeed the democratic process are both vulnerable to falling turnout and greater volatility.

If only committed supporters were to vote in any general election, the outcome could be guessed at now: another Labour victory. But the turnout might struggle to exceed 30 per cent. Clearly, unenthusiastic though they are, some unaligned voters do turn out, and it is their votes that will determine the outcome of the next election.

[AP]

31. Labour wins first second term ever: Blair

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1813/18130580.htm

My bad. Blair's the first Labour PM to win second consecutive term.

"THERE was simply too much instant history crammed into a day - Tony Blair became the first ever Labour Prime Minister to win a second successive full term"


Instead of implying I don't know my history, why don't you prove to us what you know about history and explain why the sentence above is true.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2499061.stm

New Labour's immaculately crafted 1997 election campaign was built with such care because we had lost four elections in a row, had been in power for only a tiny part of the last one hundred years, and were determined to undo that past.

New Labour's drive to win again in 2001 came from the simple truth that Labour had never, ever won two consecutive full term elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_2001_General_Election

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I'm not sure which bits are quotes

and which bits are you, AP. But if you haven't worked it out, the relevant point is that in 1950 Labour did win reelection, after a full term, but with such a small majority that it was weak.
"The general election of 1950 had slashed Attlee's majority to just five seats. ... With the Government looking increasingly unstable, Attlee dissolved Parliament at the beginning of September and called the election for 25 October 1951" http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/background/pastelec/ge51.shtml

In 1966, Wilson went for an early election, thinking, correctly, that his support in the country was strong. So 1964-1966 was a short term, rather than a full term, Parliament (maximum is 5 years; a 4 year Parliament is also considered 'full term'). 1966-1970 was full term.

In Oct 1974, Wilson tried the same thing, only a few months after the previous election; he won some seats from the Tories, but only got a bare absolute majority in the Commons. Labour stayed in until May 1979, so that was a full term government, after an extremely short one.

1997-2001 was a full term government; 2001-present is assumed to be one, since there's a huge Labour majority in the Commons. If, for instance, Blair had lost a vote of confidence over Iraq (and he might have, if the extent of distortion in the dossiers has been known then), it too could have been a short term parliament.

So the assumption is that this will be the first time Labour has 2 consecutive full term administrations.

[AP]

40. Break it down: number of years Labor led to years Tories led in 20th C.

My original point was that you cant change society if you're in the opposition all the time.

If you don't know what I'm quoting, just open the articles and read them.

I'll bet that Blair does go the full term.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

42. Currently 35 years tories to 23 years Labour since 1945 (3 to 2)

But 17/17 to 1979. Blair will be in for years to counteract the 18 years of hell (79-97)

[AP]

45. Leave out Blair, and it's close to 2:1 Tory, and I believe, but I'm...

...willing to hear other theories -- the Labour gov'ts were always frought by having to react to Tory institutional control (eg, of the House of Lords).

Also go back before 1945, and give me the Conservative to liberal ration, because the tone of 20th century british politics hasn't only been set post 45.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. pre 1945:

1900-1905 Con
1905-1915 Liberal
1915-1922 Liberal-led coalition
1922-1924 Con
1924 Labour
1924-1929 Con
1929-1931 Labour
1931-1935 Labour-led coalition
1935-1945 Con-led coalition

[AP]

50. Are we disputing then that British politics in the 20th cenutry was

predominately controlled by conservatives, and that the government instutions in place in May 1997 were largely a reflection of a world contructed by conservatives to preserve wealth for the wealthy, and transfer a great deal of wealth created by the working class to the wealthy?

Really, is there any dispute about this?

Can we agree that Britain, in 1997, had a great deal of work to do to play catch up to many of the more liberal economies and governments in Europe (especially in terms of making life better for the working and nascent middle classes).

I'll concede that, given the last 3 years in the US, the UK has probably passed the US in terms of having a liberal economy and liberal government, so, if the UK was playing catch-up with the US, they caught up, but largely thanks to the fact that we're experiencing a little bit of a fascist relapsce to 1895 here in the US.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. Anything before 1945 doesn't matter much IMO

You have to cut it off somewhere, and 1945 was to me, the beginning of the modern british political era. And I can't be bothered to find the figures. I'm lazy.

[AP]

52. Sadly, in Britain 1645 matters...which is what Blair is trying to change.

That's my whole point about Blair. Tradition and nostalgia are the opiates of the masses in the UK. Sometimes it's hard to see progress happening in front of your face.

By the way, I think that my subject line is pretty funny. But it's also deadly serious. Blair isn't confronted merely with a government that is a product of a 20th century of the conservatives' influence (resulting in a wealth and power preservation society at the cost of the working class). He's dealing with CENTURIES of that conservative imprimatur which needs to be undone.

[AP]

53. Has everyon gone to bed early in the UK?

Perhaps you're having a late tea?

[T_i_B]

54. Ever heard of time difference?

Either that or we are all just bored of your incessant bullshitting.

[AP]

57. Personal atttacks. It was only half nine when I wrote that.

Right?

I'll assume it was more along the line of "nothing to say except for personal attacks" that explained the sudden silence.

[T_i_B]

43. That's not suprising

"Break it down: number of years Labor led to years Tories led in 20th C."

Now where were the Labour party in 1900 AP? They had only just been formed and they only had 1 MP. To go from that to government in 1924 turing the moderate Liberal party into a 3rd party is one hell of an achevement. The tories had a head start in that they had been around the top since the days of George III. The Labour party has only been in existance since about 1893.

The challenge now is to get the Liberal Democrats on the same rapid rise that Labour had back then. Although I am not optimistic that you will be able to understand why the Labour party got so popular so quickly in the early part of the 20th century.

[AP]

46. Replace whatever liberal party there was, if there was one.

My argument is that the UK is deeply, institutionally conservative, thanks to RW domination of government, and that, even when in leadership, the tone of the liberal govt's has always been one of being in opposition.

I know that it's hard to have perspective when you're in it, but my perspective on Blair is that he brought the UK into the 20th Century, just in time for the 21st century.

I feel like I have to say little more than "House of Lords" or "Monarchy" to make this point. However, the reforms go so much deeper, and they're very subtle.

You don't have any idea how radically maternity leave and paternity leave could change society.

(One thing that I find so appalling in these debates over Blair is how you hard core anti-Blair people so consistently try to attack me personally. My hope is that we can actually have a dialog and learn something from each other. But when you say things like "I am not optimistic that you will be able to understand" I think maybe you really don't have anything intelligent to offer. If you did, you wouldn't attack me personally.)

[AP]

48. By the way, Labour's rise was because of industrialisation and

oppression of the working class. Now you have a middle class that is oppressed, and it happens that Labour is the party for those people, just as it was willing to speak up for the industrial labourer who were oppressed back then.

It's the same people doing the oppressing today -- the wealthy, connected, and the large corporations. They make their money different ways today -- wage slavery, unemployment driving down (service) wages, transfer of huge sums of taxpayer wealth to arms dealers, and indebtedness to the banks. However, the far left is hodling labour to a poltical purity test that makes sense for 70 years ago, and it's hampering the government's ability (just a little bit, not seriously) from creating, empowering and protecting from corporate theft, the middle class that is forming now.

[T_i_B]

55. I take it you do not read your own posts

First you claim that the Labour party NEVER won re-election prior to Blair, you make tons of spurious claims about Britian that have no basis in historical fact and then you try to pretends that you never made the arguments about the Labour party and election reults prior to 1979.

And another quick history lesson, The Liberal party has actually been around since the days of the glorious revolution (when they were known as the Whigs and the other mob as the tories.) The Whigs defined themselves as Liberals under the leadership of Charles James Fox (One of the greatest politicians this country has ever produced) and became the Liberal party after the great reform bill of 1832. (The great reform bill incedentally is IMHO the single most important bit of legislation ever passed in this country)

In Vicorian times the Liberals were the party of government, contrary to your claims. They had such prime ministers as Lord James Russell, Viscount Palmerston and of course, the great William Gladstone. In the 1906 general election they won a massive victory over the tories, in 1909 David Lloyd George introduced the "peoples budget" which heralded the start of the social security system.

David Lloyd George became PM and was a good one, but the Liberal party did get eclipsed by the Labour party to the point that by the 1950's you could fit all their MP'sin the back of a taxi cab.

So there you have it, a quick potted history of a party you appear at times to deny the very existence of. If you could be bothered to read British history, check the facts before you post drop the arrogance and stop trying to patronize us we might be less nasty to you.

[AP]

56. My posts 50 and the cites in post 31 adddress your first paragraph

Are you denying that Britain's gov't is institutionally conservative and leans towards being undemocratic? Are you denying that many of the dramatic reforms being made now are to make it more democratic?

Are you denying all those articles I cited which call Blair's victory historic?

And again with the personal attacks. I've never seen so many people, so stubborn, so angry, and so unwilling to have a dialogue. I'm not surprised you have such strongly-held, but uninformed opinions. You don't seem willing to listen to other viewpoints, which you prefer to dismiss through character attack rather than reason.

[T_i_B]

58. You have no idea what you are talking about

First you made the following claim

Before Blair, the Labour party had NEVER won reelection.

This has been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt. The facts have been posted, and yet you refuse point blank to take any notice of them. You try to make claims about 20th century politics which I have put into their correct context by bringing up British political history, yet you still continue with the revisionism. You try to make claims that the British are in effect a bunch of seething facists yet you are at a loss to explain why Atlee won his landslide in 1945 or why the Labour party overtook the Liberal party (quick hint, Britain has been an industrial nation since the industrial revolution so it's not mere industrialization).

Before you try to make such sweeping statements about this country may I suggest that you read up on your British history, and you might even like to try living here. (although I doubt that you would want to) I always find it amusing that you try to accuse the rest of us of being ignorant when the opposite is actually the case. next time, base your views on the facts, not the other way around.

[AP]

59. You know where I got that impression? From a solicitor. +

We were sitting in his office in London talking politics, and he, a British man, said, "you know, Labour has never won reelection before?" A smart, educated person who spent his entire life in the UK...I presumed he knew what he was talking about. Woops. Then I read the articles, and I think it's safe to say, the truth wasn't far off. They've never had two full terms, and before Blair, they'd only be in power for half the time the Tories have.

So sue me.

But nobody wants to admit that the UK is, institutionally, very conservative. That part's undeniable, which is why, I suspect, you're focusing on the slight factual error and the personal attacks rather than the implications.

By the way, why do you think this solicitor had the perception of Labour as failures? Could it be because you look back on the century and you see that society hasn't changed much? That it looks like labour has really gotten much done? Why is it a shock that a liberal government can hold their shit together to win a second election?

[T_i_B]

61. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

may I suggest two things

1) Get a lawyer who can get his facts straight, well either that or remember what your lawyer says to you.

2) Do your research properly before you post.

And like I keep saying, your arguments have so many factual errors in them that they cannot be taken seriously. You have been caught out like this before now where you have said something that isn't true and tried to attribute it to a conversation you once had with the high and mighty after being taken to task by those of us who actually live round here. You never learn.

And no, I don't accept that this country is conservative, pragmatic yes, but when you can't even accept that the Labour government of 1945 did anything good for Britain then your argument just seems very hollow.

[AP]

64. I didn't say Labour NEVER did anything good. But I stand by the argument

that you can do more good by having a party that's capable of leading rather than institutionally the party of opposition, and Labour has not been sufficiently competitve with the Tories since WWII until Blair.

As for being caught out before, care to give the examples.

I don't think I've even been caught out on this one.

Why do you never want to engage. You're one stubborn, opinionated person. I'm not saying I'm right. But I do believe that you cold learn something if you were more willing to engage and less willing to resort on personal attacks when you're not hearing what you want to hear.

[Spentastic]

62. Yes the English are essentially idiotic servants of the aristocracy

"institutionally, very conservative"

Is the NHS "very conservative?"

Are other reforms made by the traditional Labour party "very conservative"?

I'll point you at a Government that is "very conservative". It's the one headed by Blair.

AP just to get this clear the Lords reform of which you speak. Law Lords? Or the bit where Tony said that the Lords should remain appointed in dircet opposition to his earlier pronouncements?

[AP]

66. Having an NHS is not conservative. But turning it into what it was by 97

is very conservative.

If you want to start a thread on the HoL, maybe that would be the best way to do this (Politics and Campaings?). For now, I'll just say about those to SEPARATE issues --

(1) It is democratic and it is smart to separate the Law Lords from the legislature. It's very unwise to have as your top court a body that also is part of the legislature, even if the legislative body of which they're members is largely symbolic. This is where the UK can learn from countries that borrowed from and improved on the English model.

(2) HoL reform -- this is an interesting issue, because the British have an opportunity to improve on the improvements of the British system. The US Senate was meant to one up the HoL -- a representative body elected (or, originally, seleccted by state legislatures) to offset that power of one-person/one-vote. A nice idea two-hundred hears ago when governments were transitioning from aristocracies to democracies, but democracies which still deferred to wealth.

Well, now, progressive governments are realizing that, if you're truly committed to democracy, a unicamereal legislature isn't that bad of an idea. The US Senate, people accurately are begninning to notice, is the sorce of a lot of regressivity and conservativism. There is a scholar in the US who just wrote a book about how the US Senate has been standing in the way of just about every important bit of legislation that was eventually adopted in the US for the last 100 years. It's preventing the US from moving forward so that it can compete effectively in the world.

So, there is at least one state in the US that has a unicameral legislature, and, I understand that a few new democracies which have formed in the last 50 years have dropped the Senate/HoL equivalent and have gone for unicameralism.

I think this is the struggle Blair is having. They want reform, they need to go slow/transition, but why give people any temporary body, creating expectations, when you really want to end up with the most democratic end point, which is unicameralism?

[Spentastic]

68. Oh right

Now I get it. It's like invading a country to secure British interests so that the Conservatives don't win.

It's another long term act conservative talk liberal Blair strategy.

AP, is there any point at which you'd balk at how Blair acts? He spins and twists. Turns backs on promises and generally acts likea conservative. You seem to give him the benefit of the doubt. If I am wrong and Blair is a great hope then fine, as long as I don't topple him it'll be gravy.

However if you are wrong and Blair is in fact a right wing interloper there will be NO left leaning power in the land.

That's why TiB and I take it personally I believe. Your outlook is low risk. Mine is fraught with danger.

[AP]

69. I have the same criticisms of Blair that I had of Clinton. However...

...when the fascists and the far left were at Clinton's throat, I ran to his defense because I saw what the battle was over: some progress vs fascism. The fascists won. We got Bush. I'm worried that the same will happen to the UK.

I guarantee you Bliar is no right wing interloper. I think the type of progress that Blair wants to bring to the UK is so sublte, yet so desperately needed, and so contrary to tradition, that, if you're in amongst it, you don't get it. One of the Brits I know personally who is most anti-Blair is a liberal who doesn't understand what a classist she is (she's always mocking accents, and she's very proud of her blood line, yet she considers herself a social liberal in the extreme -- she really doesn't get that it's all about jobs and wages -- and I'm not trying to substitute facts with anecdotes, but I think that she's sort of emblematic of an attitude that I find unhelpful).

How do you show someone how desperately important it is not to have a House of Lords, when you've been living with it for centuries? How do you tell someone that the LCD is a threat to democracy when you've had it for centuries? How do you argue that these seemingly little changes are going to be the firmest foundation for a progressive future? And how do you convince peopel they have to sit tight and wait for the big changes until after the foundation is firmed up? Otherwise, it's just a Pyrrhic victory, easily undone by the next Tory government. It isn't easy to make those arguments.

Here's one of the problems with UK gov't: if you control the legislature, you control the executive. Therefore, whenever you're in control, you can change everything. Therefore, if you really want to make changes that are progressive, you have to change institutions. You have to make society change so that you have a society which forces its representatives to work towards progress. OK, I'm not going to be able to get into this in enough detail. Suffices to say, changing the institutions so they can support more liberalism is exactly the most important thing to do. And making changes that change society are crucial. It's the case that once you give someone something really good, it's hard to take it away. You can give someone the NHS, but then you can always defund it, and make it into someting that does more harm than good. Maybe this is a bad example, but, when you give people maternity and paternity leave, you're giving them something that's hard to take back, and you can't defund it. And it has a much bigger impact on society than you might think. It makes parenting less of a burden, which decreases unwantedness, which then has a ton of knock-on effects, like lower crime-rates, less misery, bettern national mental health. If you look at what Blair has done to society, there are thousands of tiny little things like this which Labour is trying to achieve. These little things mean a lot.

I think in 40 years, Britain (and Europe) is going to be one of the best places in the world to live. It's going to far outstrip the US (especially if the US doesn't elect the best president we've ever had in 2004), and alot of the things that will create that Britain will be things that are being laid down right now, which people don't really see clearly today.

As far as insitutional conservativism goes, the US is going through all the same stuff. Redistricting. The media (FFC deregulation). Conservative courts, a Senate which stands in the way of progress, regressive taxation centralizing power and wealthm, a de facto coporatocracy. A lot of this stuff is the result of institutional conservativism, or, at least, institutions which are so easily manipulated by fascists. It's hard to wrap heads around the core issues and vital strategies needed to undo the insitutional conservativesm.

Nonetheless, I just wish it were more obvious to people who's on their side and who isnt'. It saddens me that people think someone like Blair isn't on their side, or that someone like Edwards is right wing, yet someone like Dean or Arnold or Gavin Newsom is on their side. This should be the obvious part of reality.

[jonoboy]

5. Tony Benn is a great man

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=459669

perhaps Blair will end up in a war crimes court

[minto grubb]

12. War crimes court...

I have heard people say that Thatcher should be tried, not just for the way she handled the Falklands war, but what she did to England when she was in power.
I just felt that although she mismanaged things awfully, that is no reason to try her. The Belgrano may have been pointing the wrong way when hit, but there was a war on. God alone knows how many bombers were shot down on the way home in World War Two.
I do feel, though, that Bliar (note spelling) shoud be made to answer for the claims made that set British troops on course for Iraq.
To lie when in office should be grounds for immediate dissmissal.
Comments so far on Bliar being a Conservative in all but name, I strongly agree with.
It seems to me that almost the entire British left is stuffed with phoneys, but that is beyond the scope of thi post.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

16. If you declare an exclusion zone, then sink a ship outside of it

that's sailing away from the conflict zone, basically a training ship. Don't be surprised when they call you a war criminal. Personally I'd try her for crimes against the state.

[AP]

20. I'd slap that biotch for visiting Pinochet when he was under house arrest

and then I'd find something to try her for for helping Pinochet kill thousands of his citizens.

[T_i_B]

9. Most of the time I find things like this

Admittedly I live in a very tory part of britain, but the right wingers I know think that Blair is a conniving effeminate poltroon who is selling out to the EU, and the left wingers I know think that Blair is a conniving effeminate poltroon who is selling out to the US.

Now as a moderate Euro-sceptic I tend not to worry about the EU as much as some do (Blair is not about to take us into the Euro you see) but I do worry that Blair is following Bush without question, regardless of the damage being done to British interests.

Oh, and BTW, with PFI, foundation hospitals, immigrant bashing, warmongering, civil liberty clampdowns et al "new" labour is hardly a progressive party these days. Blair has had two landslide majorities and he has grown arrogant, out of touch and indeed the Blairites are increasingly contemptuous of the people that they are supposed to serve. The result is a labour party virtually identical to the conservative party they replaced. A situation which means that I would sooner be circumcised with a chainsaw than vote tory and sooner drink the contents of a colostomy bag then vote "new" labour. British democracy is in a dire state at present. :grr:

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Thanks for making me spew

my breakfast with that last line. I can tell you don't like these people but is it really that bad?

[onebigbadwulf]

11. Yeah

except Clinton would never get bullied into going into an oil war.

[Spentastic]

13. Er?

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Tony Blair is every bit as neo as the likes of Rummy. Hence the moniker his party adopted in order to get elected. New Labour. Sound good, but unfortunately has nothing to do with traditional Labour values.

Tony Blair is the classic wolf in sheeps clothing. He lulls the masses to sleep with his charisma and pretty speeches while he sells the future of the country to vested interests.

Whilst we're at it, I think a discussion about how Bill Clinton and the third way affected the democratic party might be in order. The current electoral challenges faced by Democrats may be in part be due to the loss of identity caused by third way pandering to the centre. It may win you one or two elections but becoming your enemy in order to win is no victory.

[Dude_CalmDown]

18. Has everyone seen this video yet?

http://www.stupidvideos.com - Endless Love - currently #44. McChimp and the Poodle singing endless love to each other. It makes me laugh out loud every time I watch it.