Labour's progressive deficit

Mike Ion Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:01:15 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The Labour government `contributed almost nothing new or imaginative to the pool of ideas with which men seek to illuminate human nature and its environment.' Have a guess which Labour government this refers to?

To find out click here.






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Labour's progressive deficit | 50 comments (50 topical)

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#1)

by JR on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:11:43 PM GMT

Absolutely. People should remember this when they go on about Blair. In fifty years time, he'll be considered a hero just like Attlee is now.


Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#2)

by jkitleft on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:39:56 PM GMT

Attlee was crucially that bit more radical. Radical doesn't mean being Attleeite or Thatcherite. You can be radical centre. Blair's two radical policies were Minimum Wage and the Northern Ireland peace process. Attlee's radical policies were the NHS, laying the basis for the welfare state (therefore initiating the post-war concencus and changing the weather in a way Blair hasn't), nationalisation of the utilities (such as coal, steel), extending national insurance, helping to found NATO and the UN, independence of India, Burma, Sri Lanka, in a major decolonisation programme, ending Britain's role in Palestine, creation of British Railways.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#3)

by Glass House on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:45:17 PM GMT

You don't think that the Human Rights Act or Devolution were radical?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#7)

by jkitleft on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:55:18 PM GMT

the Human Rights act has been counter-balenced with 'anti-Terrorism legislation'. And because of a crappy campaign in the North-East, as you pointed out, We have failed to take devolution further, it's more like some Regional elected bodies, some elected local mayors


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#9)

by Glass House on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:08:01 PM GMT

Well, of course we could all pick things to 'counter-balance' the radical things. I'm not a big fan of some of the stuff the government's done around civil liberties, but they don't make the HRA or devolution any less radical.

Scottish and Welsh parliaments are a huge change to the UK constitution.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#15)

by jkitleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:19:22 PM GMT

Well, they are a huge change, yes. And it's a Welsh assembly


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#16)

by jkitleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:20:10 PM GMT

changes they are, good changes, but need to be extended further to secure his domestic legacy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#5)

by Mikael on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:49:12 PM GMT

Attlee is a hero... Blair, I fear, is a zero...

Attlee was, for your information, a man who deeply cared for the T.U. link. I am glad he's one of your heroes, Blair doesn't seem to have much respect for him or his legacy.

You could always check out my post on the subject.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#10)

by JR on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:50:15 AM GMT

Without Blair, Attlee would have no legacy since the Tories would have won 7 general elections in a row and destroyed the NHS.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#11)

by e10rifles on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:58:24 AM GMT

You do know that we were leading by a mile in the polls before Blair took over, don't you?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#12)

by Glass House on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:09:18 AM GMT

like before the 1992 election?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#17)

by jkitleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:21:35 PM GMT

i'm sorry, how would a different leader turn a 179 seat majority into a Conservative majority? The Conservatives lost the 1997 general election in September 1992.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#18)

by Glass House on Tue May 08, 2007 at 06:02:35 PM GMT

You shouldn't underestimate just how scared the electorate were of us before Blair. As shown in 1992, the Tories were perfectly capable of using that fear to turn bad polls around.

Also, you shouldn't assume that everything that went wrong for the Tories between 1994 and 1997 would have happened anyway. The press printed stories that it wouldn't have done if they were still scared of Labour and the Tories did things that they wouldn't have done if they weren't so dismayed by Labour's poll ratings.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#19)

by jkitleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:15:22 PM GMT

You shouldn't underestimate that there was a recession (as i said on a different thread Thatcher, not Major's fault) and people had negative equity on their homes etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#23)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:18:44 AM GMT

Like the recession in the 80s that still returned a Tory government?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#33)

by jkitleft on Wed May 09, 2007 at 05:53:49 PM GMT

but the Aliance/ Liberal Democrats stood no chance. In the 80's they split our vote dramatically.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#4)

by grayee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:16:12 PM GMT

Devolution is radical but not Human Rights?  Neither is "Socialist" unlike many of Attlee achievements?


Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#6)

by Mikael on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:49:44 PM GMT

Would you consider yourself a Socialist, John?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#8)

by Glass House on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:06:19 PM GMT

Ooooooooh. I think we might be out to get one of Mikael's denunciations...

* goes to get popcorn *


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#13)

by Mikael on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:39:36 PM GMT

Nope, I have come to quite like John Gray. This was a serious question - until you stepped in that is! The only thing I "denounce" is the political deficit of Miliband-Bloggers


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#14)

by Glass House on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:54:46 PM GMT

"political deficit" - making up nonesensical phrases now?

Clearly my fascistic New Labour ways are too much for the English language as it currently stands to cope with.

Go on make up some more phrases! I think that market can be a tool of social good! It drives you crazy. Just let loose man! It'll make you feel better.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#20)

by Mikael on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:05:53 PM GMT

"forward not back"... fine use of our language, eh???

"Political deficit", call it what you will... You know what I mean; I meant that you're lacking a message!


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#24)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:22:36 AM GMT

"Forward, not back" is not my phrase? I wonder why you would try to characterise it as such.

Still don't know what having a "political deficit" means?
A deficit of understanding of the present political situation?
A deficit in understanding the broad sweep of political history?
A deficit in knowledge of political philosophy?
Or simply disagreeing with Mikael the student?

I know which one I'm going for!


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#26)

by Mikael on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:26:18 AM GMT

"Mikael the student".  Display of prejudice- but I'll let it slide!!! If I am not wrong, JR is a student, but that doesn't make his Blairism any less "working-class" in your eyes. I would have thought that this kind "Prolier-than-thou" competition was something we left to the "far-Left". And you say don't answer questions/bring up points seriously.

All the rest of the above apply to a certain extent. How could you possibly accept the term "progressive deficit" but not "political deficit". Blairite rubbish and empty claims, like "forward not back"...


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#27)

by Mikael on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:27:48 AM GMT

"Ooooooooh. I think we might be out to get one of Mikael's denunciations...
* goes to get popcorn * "

This is of course a great way to answer a question which, for the record, wasn't directed at you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#28)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:29:21 PM GMT

What makes you think I'm displaying prejudice towards students? I'm a graduate!

You still haven't said what you mean by "political deficit"


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#29)

by Mikael on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:32:44 PM GMT

Since you literally beg for an full explanation, I implied that Miliband/his blogging cronies suffered from a deficit of a - and in their - political message and philosophy. Clear!?!


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#30)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:36:12 PM GMT

Why do you think Miliband (and myself, since I assume that I am included as a 'blogging crony') lacks a political philosophy?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#31)

by Mikael on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:59:22 PM GMT

You lack a "political philosophy" - most of it is clearly unashamedly "copy-pasted" from an old Thatcherite election Manifesto.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#32)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:07:20 PM GMT

I'm pretty liberal economically, although I certainly don't think that makes me a Thatcherite. Liberal economics has been around for generations.

Sympathy for liberal economics doesn't make you right-wing. It's what you want to do with the wealth created by that economy that places you on the left or right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#35)

by Mikael on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:40:55 PM GMT

I suppose you want to re-distribute it, etc.

But that's not enough. Creeping privatisation of education and healthcare are part of all this. The state re-investing (tax) money into these services is one of the ways to actually do so. Blair has been eroding them, hence, I assume he doesn't play by his own supposed rules!

The ball is now in your court! :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#36)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:07:41 AM GMT

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're point is. Do you think that the government is not putting money into education and healthcare?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#37)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:45:23 PM GMT

No, that's not what I think. What I think is that it doesn't do so a sufficient extent. Furthermore, I think that this Labour government - I repeat, "this Labour Government" - is deteriorating the quality/restricting the long-term accessibility of the services in question by gradually privatising them. Ah, now I get it - "gradually privatising" that the "Gradualism" you were referring to.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#38)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:36:31 PM GMT

You think that Labour hasn't put enough money into Education and Health? How much do you think would be enough? In what way do you think quality and accesibility is being eroded by what you characterise as 'privatisation'


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#39)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:44:27 PM GMT

Last time I checked, I didnt find it to be enough. But I don't want to "figure-drop", so allow me some time to refresh my memory/re-examine available data - I will get back too you. Well as far as Education is concerned, the introduction of "Top-Up fees" by a Labour Government - a Labour Governemnt - is an answer in itself. Now, with regards to Healthcare, if I'm not wrong the "public" (a word treasured by many a Blairite) must now pay for services which, previously, were entirely "free-of-charge".


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#40)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:46:46 PM GMT

Neither of your examples are privatisation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#41)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:55:39 PM GMT

True, I admit. Look at it this way then: Healthcare - to mention only one of the two services - when publicly owned is delivered without the almighty "profit motive". Without "example-dropping", there is point right there, isn't there? Now, when privately owned, it will cease to be provided for the benefit of the many (which, by definition, must be the case of a state-owned institution; I mean, what other point could there possibly for the state to provide "it" in the first place) and turns into a source of profit for the few. From the point of view of a Labour Governemnt, that's slightly problematic, isn't it? Especially so for a Labour Government which came to power on, among other undelivered things, a platform "for the many, not the few".


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#42)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:09:22 PM GMT

There's no reason why something can't be a source of profit for the few AND of benefit to the many. The food industry doesn't feed us out of the goodness of it's heart - it does it to make a profit. But that doesn't mean that we don't benefit from it's existance.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#43)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:12:28 PM GMT

Errr, some people actually have difficulties to afford even the most basic "food-stuff".


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#44)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:14:45 PM GMT

And what would your solution to that be?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#45)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:25:00 PM GMT

Oh, I'm glad you ask. I would, of course, suggest the nationalisation of all large super-markets and, more generally, the food industry (agriculture, cattle rearing, meat-packing etc.) so as to be able to apply measures of democratic control over both the amounts of food produced and put on the market - as well as, but that goes without saying, prices. This would truly benefit "the many, not the few". I am a Marxist, you see.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#46)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:38:02 PM GMT

That's it really isn't it? Our disagreement isn't really about the minutia of charging and stuff like that, it's just very different views of how the economy is best run for the benefit of the many.

I believe that running a fairly liberal economy allows faster growth than one in which the state plays a huge role. The extra tax revenue from growth can then be used to tackle inequality.

You believe in a state-run economy which produces more equality as an immediate outcome. I also suspect that you would challenge my assumption that a liberal economy grows faster?

Would that be right?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#47)

by Mikael on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:18:22 PM GMT

Yes, that's broadly speaking the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Assuming, of course that you acurately described your own views - I can, again, of course, only trust that you did. :-) I would of course challenge your claim as to the idea that a "Liberally run" economy (as you put it) would grow faster. I believe that, by setting targets, and abiding by a scientifically determined plan, economic could be stimulated fairly easily as well as very successfully. I am convinced, furthermore, that the method I just laid out would be far more successful - it would also help if it were carried out properly - than the vague notion of "profit". That is, among other things, why I defend the "old" Clause IV. Need I expand?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#48)

by jkitleft on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:14:29 PM GMT

Clause 4 was never acted on. That's why Smith thought getting rid of it was 'redundant', he would have possibly left his imprint on it, but wouldn't have replaced it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#49)

by Glass House on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:19:26 PM GMT

So, can we agree that being economically liberal-leaning doesn't make me a 'Thatcherite' or mean that I lack political philosophy?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#50)

by Mikael on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:08:14 PM GMT

Yes, we can, of course. Though I don't understand -really, I meant it - why you're not a member of the LibDems if that is the case. I mean, the LibDems believe in a "free-market" economy spiked with vaguely redistributive measures. And, what's more, they don't bother themselves with notions of Socialism, Nationalisations and strong Trade-Union(s)/ism (I know you're in Unison, that's not what I am after!). So, why is that?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#21)

by alexhilton on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:24:20 PM GMT

Abolishing the death penalty - wasn't that part of the Human Rights Act?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#22)

by jkitleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:32:53 PM GMT

abolishing it for treason and piracy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#25)

by Glass House on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:23:44 AM GMT

Abolishing the death penalty full stop in a pretty good achievement


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's progressive deficit (#34)

by jkitleft on Wed May 09, 2007 at 05:54:47 PM GMT

absoloutely.


[ Parent ]

Labour's progressive deficit | 50 comments (50 topical)