-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Sounds like he wants to form a new party, though he has previously denied this.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Maybe his GHod is telling him should do just that.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think he does. Writing articles for the American press would be a funny way of going about it if he did. I think that his reading of the current situation is spot on though. If only the centre, on either side of the Atlantic, had a politician who was untainted and as good as communicating as him.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
It really isn't. It's the same post-mortem bemoaning the death of the center that nearly everyone of note penned immediately after the results of the U.S election, penned about four months late.
The only difference is some trademark Blair stuff about how the populist left will inevitably fail against the populist right and thus 'detract' from the 'more progressive' parts of the left's program.
There are no solutions offered to stop the rise of populism in the West. And, truth be told, I don't think Blair is capable of ever fully coming up with a long-term solution. Because what he doesn't understand is, to the rising populist left (which is assuredly growing - under the radar compared to its counterpart on the right, but still growing), the 'progrressive parts' of the left's program were never really leftist in nature as much as they were attempts to mask the fact that the traditional left had been forced to shift radically right in order to accommodate the shifting Overton window that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union. That progressivism was (and is) a mask for Tory-lite economic and social policies, a minority-friendly, feminist, sexually-liberated version of politics that did little more than *tinker* with the essential elements of what the left once stood for - economic redistribution of wealth and political power, equality for all, the provision of social and welfare systems to each and every man and woman, the inalienable right to security and dignity in an otherwise exploitative capitalist system.
The fall of the USSR led to such a victory for the Thatcher/Reagan consensus that it forced the old left to die and be replaced by Blair's New Labour and the Third Way, with major economic and foreign policy differences between the parties falling away, and instead being replaced by minor differences over social policies as the main bone of contention. In good times, people accepted that consensus because it worked - technocratic policy-making, economic arguments for immigration and EU integration, market-based solutions to social problems and New Labour-esque centre-leftism indubitably worked for the golden years of the late 1990's and early-to-mid 2000's, and provided people with sustained increases in their standard of living and economic status across the board.
But it stopped working when the financial crisis hit, the great recession dawned and the Tories gained office. And I don't think Tony has had any answers as to what to do about it since those events occurred - the populist left certainly doesn't care for many of his supposedly leftist 'progressivist' aims, given the absence of what they see as real substance in those aims; and people in general don't either, I think.
So he's just shouting into the breeze, offering few real solutions and no new perspectives whatsoever.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
If Tony were being honest with himself, he'd look to Martin Schulz, over in Germany, as an example of a politician from the centre-left *really* trying to come up with a novel approach to keeping centrist politics fresh.
Schulz recently took aim at Germany's decade-old labour market reforms, the 'Agenda 2010' employer-friendly set of labour laws that helped make Germany the strongest exporter in the Eurozone. Those laws indubitably worked from the perspective of turning Germany around from the proverbial sick man of Central Europe burdened by the costs of reunification (throughout the 1990's and early 2000's) into a manufacturing powerhouse - they are largely responsible for Germany having the lowest unemployment rate in Western Europe and for posting a record rate of growth over the past five years. They are also so popular among the political classes and business elites that they enjoy unparalleled cross-party support right across the CDU (Merkel's party), the SPD and most other German political organizations and commentators, regardless of affiliation.
And, to top it all off, they were passed a decade ago by the considerably popular Gerhard Schroeder....then of the SPD, Schultz's *own* party.
In short, Agenda 2010 was the sort of sacred cow in German politics that Tony Blair would *never* have criticized if it were a Labour initiative in the UK.
And Schulz trashed it.
He decried it for promoting the rise of low-paid, insecure jobs even in areas that used to be secure and lucrative once. He pointed out that Germany has seen rising inequality, declining social mobility and a dying sense of public good in the years since the reforms were passed - the legacy, he said, of a 'neoliberal mainstream' that had implacably set itself against workers' rights and welfare in its eternal quest for growth above all else. He described the rise of fixed-term employment contracts and the reduction in unemployment benefits as the entirely unwanted, detrimental consequences of Germany pursuing the growth model laid out in Agenda 2010. And, to top it all off, he initially refused to clarify if he was suggesting merely reforming the Agenda 2010 laws or scrapping them entirely - a move which sent shockwaves throughout the chattering elite.
The German employers' association witheringly attacked his speech, calling it unfounded and ill-suited to the aim of helping Germans in and out of work. German economists (including Merkel's advisors) roundly criticised him for daring to attack the sacred cow of German politics, which his own party had passed. German political scientists and historians, intellectuals and business owners, all came out and questioned his unprecedented move.
And, in the end, it didn't matter that the intellectuals and business owners criticized him - in fact, it possibly helped. Because his popularity has been soaring ever since that day. He surged ten percentage points in the weeks after the speech - his rise continues unabated right now, and according to some polls, he now leads Merkel in personal popularity, with his party already having climbed above Merkel's CDU for the first time in many years in terms of popularity and expected vote share.
And this surge didn't need attacks on immigrants, on refugees, on ethnic and religious minorities, on women, on the 'other' that the populist right is so determined to demonize and destroy.
It didn't even need an (outright) attack on wealthy individuals or business owners, something I'm sure is inconceivable to Blair and his kind, and something which would indeed fit the bill of outright populism from the left-hand side of the spectrum.
But it *did* need an honest, genuine desire to question why things are going wrong. Why your party might have been wrong in espousing the things it did, why the majority of people's lives are stagnating or getting worse even as the economy *apparently* recovers and why so many people are increasingly living poorer, meaner lives while the chattering intelligentsia all proclaim things to be back on the up-and-up in between tweeting in support of their social causes over an organic, fresh-brewed coffee at Starbucks. And it required being willing to go against your own party's past actions if that was what was necessary to acknowledge that the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades is truly dying out - slowly but surely.
Tony wouldn't have been that honest about questioning his own sacred cows, and those of the New Labour project. He preferred (and prefers) to bleat about progressivism in the center, and to airily prescribe plans of action using the same pre-selected, focus-group tested political buzzwords that offer nothing, mean nothing and are ultimately worth nothing.
And I say this as someone who would have voted New Labour without a second thought during Blair's heyday, and who voted Liberal in 2011 and 2015 here in Canada (albeit with increasing regret both times - I'll probably end up with the NDP next time around, if they're strong enough in my riding).
We need a better centre-left - with the emphasis being on the 'left' part. And, if this doesn't appear, you will *definitely* see the rise of the actual far-left continue - and people like me will switch over if it genuinely appears that the centre-left has learned nothing from the death of the post Cold-War consensus.
Schulz recently took aim at Germany's decade-old labour market reforms, the 'Agenda 2010' employer-friendly set of labour laws that helped make Germany the strongest exporter in the Eurozone. Those laws indubitably worked from the perspective of turning Germany around from the proverbial sick man of Central Europe burdened by the costs of reunification (throughout the 1990's and early 2000's) into a manufacturing powerhouse - they are largely responsible for Germany having the lowest unemployment rate in Western Europe and for posting a record rate of growth over the past five years. They are also so popular among the political classes and business elites that they enjoy unparalleled cross-party support right across the CDU (Merkel's party), the SPD and most other German political organizations and commentators, regardless of affiliation.
And, to top it all off, they were passed a decade ago by the considerably popular Gerhard Schroeder....then of the SPD, Schultz's *own* party.
In short, Agenda 2010 was the sort of sacred cow in German politics that Tony Blair would *never* have criticized if it were a Labour initiative in the UK.
And Schulz trashed it.
He decried it for promoting the rise of low-paid, insecure jobs even in areas that used to be secure and lucrative once. He pointed out that Germany has seen rising inequality, declining social mobility and a dying sense of public good in the years since the reforms were passed - the legacy, he said, of a 'neoliberal mainstream' that had implacably set itself against workers' rights and welfare in its eternal quest for growth above all else. He described the rise of fixed-term employment contracts and the reduction in unemployment benefits as the entirely unwanted, detrimental consequences of Germany pursuing the growth model laid out in Agenda 2010. And, to top it all off, he initially refused to clarify if he was suggesting merely reforming the Agenda 2010 laws or scrapping them entirely - a move which sent shockwaves throughout the chattering elite.
The German employers' association witheringly attacked his speech, calling it unfounded and ill-suited to the aim of helping Germans in and out of work. German economists (including Merkel's advisors) roundly criticised him for daring to attack the sacred cow of German politics, which his own party had passed. German political scientists and historians, intellectuals and business owners, all came out and questioned his unprecedented move.
And, in the end, it didn't matter that the intellectuals and business owners criticized him - in fact, it possibly helped. Because his popularity has been soaring ever since that day. He surged ten percentage points in the weeks after the speech - his rise continues unabated right now, and according to some polls, he now leads Merkel in personal popularity, with his party already having climbed above Merkel's CDU for the first time in many years in terms of popularity and expected vote share.
And this surge didn't need attacks on immigrants, on refugees, on ethnic and religious minorities, on women, on the 'other' that the populist right is so determined to demonize and destroy.
It didn't even need an (outright) attack on wealthy individuals or business owners, something I'm sure is inconceivable to Blair and his kind, and something which would indeed fit the bill of outright populism from the left-hand side of the spectrum.
But it *did* need an honest, genuine desire to question why things are going wrong. Why your party might have been wrong in espousing the things it did, why the majority of people's lives are stagnating or getting worse even as the economy *apparently* recovers and why so many people are increasingly living poorer, meaner lives while the chattering intelligentsia all proclaim things to be back on the up-and-up in between tweeting in support of their social causes over an organic, fresh-brewed coffee at Starbucks. And it required being willing to go against your own party's past actions if that was what was necessary to acknowledge that the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades is truly dying out - slowly but surely.
Tony wouldn't have been that honest about questioning his own sacred cows, and those of the New Labour project. He preferred (and prefers) to bleat about progressivism in the center, and to airily prescribe plans of action using the same pre-selected, focus-group tested political buzzwords that offer nothing, mean nothing and are ultimately worth nothing.
And I say this as someone who would have voted New Labour without a second thought during Blair's heyday, and who voted Liberal in 2011 and 2015 here in Canada (albeit with increasing regret both times - I'll probably end up with the NDP next time around, if they're strong enough in my riding).
We need a better centre-left - with the emphasis being on the 'left' part. And, if this doesn't appear, you will *definitely* see the rise of the actual far-left continue - and people like me will switch over if it genuinely appears that the centre-left has learned nothing from the death of the post Cold-War consensus.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I would agree that it does not offer solutions but I think that it identifies the current situation better that most at the moment.
I disagree that "'progrressive parts' of the left's program were never really leftist in nature", I think that the early Blair governments achieved a lot and were progressive.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I don't think it identifies the current situation any better than the huge mass of articles about the subject that came out post election-day, and the constant stream of articles coming out that look at Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and the AfD through the same 'rise of right-wing populism' lens.
As for his achievements, there were some in there. The minimum wage. Fewer pensioners and children living in poverty at the end of the New Labour era than there were at its beginning. A comprehensive overhaul and replacement of hospital A&Es across the country.
Yet, for each one, there are asterisks that have to be applied that preclude them being the unbridled 'progressivist' triumphs that I think Tony is talking about. The minimum wage was too low then, is still arguably too low now, is badly enforced and has a lot of loopholes. Pensioners and children living in poverty decreased, but inequality continued to increase across society throughout New Labour's time in office, a trend that has not changed since the 1980's. The NHS received investment and funding, but also saw the introduction of PCTs, payment by results and a wide range of other market-based reforms that were initially rejected as being antithetical to the functioning of the NHS when Labour assumed office in 1997.
If Tony's talking about the left's progressive triumphs and programs while warning against the 'populist' left, I think these asterisk-accompanied achievements aren't what he's talking about (and bringing them up bring up all sorts of distinctly less 'progressive' Labour policies, like its acceptance and encouragement of the growing inequality in the housing market throughout their time in office, to name just one). I think he was talking about the left's relative obsession with racial, gender-based and sexuality-based progressivism, where Labour's record is reasonably unblemished (the amendment to the Race Relations Act, the MacPherson Report, the Equality Act and so on) and where the Left has recently focused its efforts (Hillary's campaign being a prime example of this).
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
That's not too far off the mark but I think the world needs more breeze shouters. Lot's more really. As you say, I don't think he is offering the way forward but neither does he purport to. These days he really is just a voice from the sidelines even if he secretly yearns for the spotlight (and he does). But he certainly has one thing right in my opinion in that we have to move away from the extremism back to the centre or we are all fudged. Not exactly breaking news but the more that say it maybe the more that will believe it. It is a message that is a bulwark against the tide of narrow mindedness on both sides and frankly I don't care who says it. There is no traditional left or right now as far as I can see. Those categories mean almost nothing now even though the media still persist with them. Except for the main bullet points on either side the waters are so muddied as to make such classification on any particular topic nothing short of a google search to see how you feel about it.
I am not that well travelled compared to some, but I've been around to a fair few countries, maybe 20 or so for work or what not. People are the same everywhere really is one thing I took from my travels. The other thing I took from my travels is that people are the same every where. The differences between us are nothing. We have to move away from the separatist path we are on (also I had some wine)
Last edited:
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
If you're approaching it from the angle of needing more voices of any kind to shout for centrism, then I think that's generally true, but that including Tony Blair as one of those voices is counterproductive. He's far more likely to turn people off the idea of centrist politics, since he appeals to very few people these days. His own party is returning to its pre-Teflon Tony roots and hates him for taking Labour to the right, the centrist southern middle-class homeowners he courted for his great 1997 and 2001 victories are more comfortable voting Tory and the far-right just calls him either a cuck (American terminology) or the ineffectual, bitter former salesman for Brussels laws and mass immigration.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Wow, now i know you are on a wind up. Untainted how? have you forgot that this is the man who took us into a illegal war on a lie, and in the process led to the death of nearly 200 British citizens and the wounding of many more. I have a very good friend who's son was killed, you try telling him that Blair is untainted and he would knock your teeth out.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
I don't think it was meant that Blair is untainted.
Rather that he is tainted yet is still a great communicator, and what is needed is someone with those communication skills whilst being untainted.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Well it did not read that way to me but i am sure Milo will confirm either way. And his communication skills ( if that is what some think he has) include lieing through his back teeth to all and sundry ( but of course his GHod will forgive him).
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Social democratic and democratic socialist parties have belatedly re discovered their roots and are giving up the inner urban chic policies that were so beloved in the naughties. Tories loved it when Labour's attention shifted to gay rights and gender equality because it meant people were taking their attention away whilst their grubby free market policies were being played out. Blair and Co were collaborationists in the neo liberal revolution, simply because they were never true Labour in the first place. It has always astounded me why Blair and Mandleson never just applied for Tory pre selection, I mean they both had the right accent and went to the right schools. As the neo- liberal bubble bursts and more people are exposed to lives of hopeless poverty, as happened in America, watch the worm turn.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yeah, I think you misinterpreted that one mate. I concur with Hot Shot Tottenham.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Well in that case i will apoligise to Milo.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
It doesn't make him wrong though.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
No, but I never said he was. I also didn't say he was right - he's just part of the global wave of hand-wringing that's accompanying the retreat of centrist political thought.
Your point was that we need more people shouting about the merits of centrism in these uncertain times. I agree to an extent - but my counter-point to that is that Tony Blair is not the man to recruit if your aim is to shift the public mood, because he appeals to very few people nowadays.
Conor Burns (MP for Bournemouth West) famously stated that Thatcher had once remarked to him that New Labour was her proudest achievement. In times when the political lines are being electrified and staked into the ground in ever-more-forceful ways, the last thing you need when advocating centrism is someone associated with the brand that journeyed from left to right, and who personified the focus-group politics that people are now evidently getting tired of.
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Centrists are basically right wing apologists. Remove some token 'progressive' social policies, and most are exposed as free marketeer in orientation.