open Democracy News Analysis - the blair legacy - Comments

Paul Edwards on "What's Left Now?"

Paul Edwards — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:21:31 +0100

This article, as an outsiders view of New Labour, scarcely reflects any of the reality of life under the New Labour government which was and is essentially a home of uncritical Free Market thinking dressed up in a thin social democratic disguise to make itself palatable to an electorate that remains hungry for social change.

Most of its social programmes are either seriously underfunded, such as its promises on child poverty and social housing, or not funded at all, these being in New Labour parlance, "aspirational".

The voluntary sector remains grossly underfunded while New Labour makes increasing demands for it to take over what were formerly government welfare responsibilites and has attempted to co-opt the sector for its own purposes under the heading of "partnership".

In terms of climate change, New Labour touts itself as being a "leader" while, in reality, it has done little or nothing concrete beyond issuing a list of targets without real funding behind them and that it immediately undermines by such activity as the planned Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, the planning of new and ugraded motorways and the stimulation of the market for new cars.

In terms of civil rights, it has enacted the most draconian set of anti-terrorism laws in Western Europe which are mostly used in attempts to quel legitimate political protest and even against the otherwise legal activities of private citizens.

It is hard to see where New Labour significantly differs in its actions from the previous Conservative government. If New Labour is really the shining example of "The Third Way" then that way can only be the recently and heavily discredited way of the unfettered Free Market and the Neo-Cons that the rest of the World is so anxious to leave behind.

whoever on "What's Left Now?"

whoever — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:38:31 +0100

I am amazed that anyone in 2009 would still consider the vacuous concept of a "Third Way" to be worthy of serious consideration.

It's all here, all the old mistakes. Repeated, over and over again. For example:

"...comprehensive organisational and communicational overhaul of a Labour Party that was becoming far too entrenched in past platitudes"

Let's see, here. In 1994, the Labour Party was led by John Smith, and was consistently ahead of a discredited Conservative government. It had suffered a third electoral defeat after a modernisation process which began in 1989. This modernisation was not described as the "Third Way" but it was in this period that New Labour emerged, in practice, if not in name. Most post-1997 policies came from the 1988-1992 period. Not later.

What then adds further insult to injury is Dessewffy's insistence that lack of "alternative identity" is the real problem facing the left. Quite simply, it is a lack of a cohesive and workable "alternative ideology" which is the problem, as the "Third Way" has obviously failed as a common benchmark for social democratic policies.. Not only this, the "Third Way" language in application has been so dismal, so uninspiring, it has eroded the loyalties and commitment of the labour movement generally.

Giddens thought, in his vaguely woolly way, that civil society and NGOs would replace class as the solid base for political identification and involvement.The people who remain in the Labour Party have not only been subjected to Giddens-esque gobbledegook in the last 15 years. They have also seen a disastrous war in Iraq, the abandonment of public ownership in various forms and the debasement of politics for business purposes. The Third Way has been nothing but a disposable fig-leaf on the emerging face of oligopoly and the accelerating entanglement of government with business and financial interests.

And of course, we see the connections with business here as being vital to the future. Well, the author is Hungarian - and if there's one party in the EU which has had its hands in the till, it would have to be the Hungarian Socialists, with their fingerprints all over the property deals, EU handouts and construction projects undertaken in the name of neo-liberalism.

What would the "green new deal" mean in relation to a country such as Hungary, with minimal budget for R & D, and barely the capacity to maintain existing government services? It's another trendy buzz-word, absolutely devoid of meaning outside the context of a large advanced economy with clusters of high-tech research.

The arguments for socialism and democracy have become stronger in recent years, yet the vehicles to achieve these are being systematically squeezed out of democratic processes. Examples of actually existing socialism exist all over Europe on a local level, but let's not mistake social realities with the author's intentions. The author's version of progressive politics is an elitist elegy to his own vanity. Philosophical conservatism sums up the journey that he and his friends such as Peter Mandleson have taken - where they have firstly capitulated, and then aggressively pursued the mores of the conservative land-owning business class, in a way which is contemptuous of the poor and excluded.

Let's be honest here - if the author actually believes what he is writing here then he is a fool who will not let events contradict his own desperate clinging. If he is writing from cynicism, then I am saddened but not surprised. And I'm not sure which is better.

Richard Lawson on "Tony Blair : farewell letters"

Richard Lawson — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:42:33 +0100

...your name will go down in history. "Blairean". As in "He was a Blairean disappointment."

Anthony Barnett on "Gordon Brown: an intellectual without an intelligentsia"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:10:49 +0100

I've responded to Martin Wolf on OurKingdom here: http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/06/27/fts-martin-wolf-slams-intellectuals/

martin.wolf@ft.com on "Gordon Brown: an intellectual without an intelligentsia"

martin.wolf@ft.com — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:21:22 +0100

If Brown is an intellectual without an intelligentsia, then he is in a wonderful British tradition. The last thing any country needs is an arrogant, usually ill-informed and predominantly literary set of dreamers that believes it is an intellectual elite, thinks itself "progressive" and believes it knows best how the country should be run.

jon.dunn on "London and Washington: Tony Blair’s special relationship"

jon.dunn — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:59:11 +0000

An interesting comment you make regarding Blair and his attitude and Bush and cohorts. Isn't it correct that Blair stated that he was impressed with Thatcher's monitary policies. Maybe he did know what republican conservatives stood for. Maybe he was one and didn't quite understand that he was. Just a thought.

its-no-joke on "Tony Blair and centralisation"

its-no-joke — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:15:20 +0000

What you write really hits home. I spent the day at a public inquiry into a planning appeal so it all feels real. I have a large-ish house that has just come vacant, but is impossible now to let because it is 50 yards from a large and noisy road.

It's listed and needs money spending on it so I need rent for it. So after a year of trying to let it without success, I agree to a plan by a local businessman to turn it into a restaurant, with no serious alterations. He applies for planning and after eight months of silence is summarily refused without even site visit by the planners.

The reason is not traffic, or car parking, or listed building concerns, or licensing, but pure and simply the new diktat from Ruth Kelly that ``sustainability'' must now override all other considerations. And there is a risk that a new restaurant in the countryside might be visited by people in CARS. Which is not ``sustainable''. No matter that 90,000 cars a day go right past it on the main road. No matter that people go to restaurants in towns by cars, too.

It's bonkers and terrifying news for the countryside's economy. After much shouting the planning officer agreed to consider a resubmit if the plan included -- get this -- a minibus service from the local town. Another five months will go by before they decide.

tcp_1 on "Tony Blair and centralisation"

tcp_1 — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:21:13 +0000

London is a real victory for decentralisation, yes.

but... note alos the attempt to make London government merely an agency: the near-impossibility Ken has in raising finances is the biggest set of restraints. You can't have responsible local autonomy without fiscal decentralisation.

As a London cyclist, I am a great beneficiary of Ken's straight-jacket: it has encouraged him to focus on transport as a revenue-raising tool. The congestion charge has made cycling a pleasure, as has his investment in cycle lanes.

But ... again, note the tight leash he is on. Remember the PFI and the tube? Ken may operate London's transport, but he does not have the authority to determine its overall, long-term shape. Again, this is the behaviour of an agent, not a principal.

David Page on "Tony Blair and centralisation"

David Page — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:17:53 +0000

Love the charts. But what about London? Blair kicked and screamed and tried to stop Livingstone. Now even he can see the power and energy of autonomous regional government. This was a significant act of albeit unwitting decentralisation.

boltonlad on "Religion in Britain in the Blair era"

boltonlad — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:26:18 +0000

Tony Blair has led a Government that has shown no respect whatsoever for Christian/ Catholic values, not once in 9 yrs of government, as far as I can see.

When it comes to any moral issues like reducing or reviewing outdated abortion laws he sits on the fence or even worse votes with the secularist/ atheist view.

His Government has used political correctness to try and control society..

His Government introduced multi-culturalism, that has also divided the nation and created religious and cultural ghettos.

His Government through devolution have broken up the union and divided the nation leading to a rise in English, Scotish and Welsh nationalism.

His Government have led us into several wars that had nothing to do with us and led to the deaths of 100,000s of innocent civilians

His Government have introduced at least 8 new gay rights laws and repeatedly bowed down to the gay militant gay rights lobby, even if it means riding roughshod over the beliefs and values of faith communities and the silent majority to appease them....

His Government have done nothing to protect Asian British women from abuse i.e.. forced marriages and honour killings and the like, they have consistently turned a blind eye to this known problem.

His Government have been the most arrogant government in history completely ingoring public opinion and the majority view...

This Government have put new labour cronies in the House of Lords, not on merit but how much they donated to the party!

His Government have controlled the nation with sleaze and spin, shamelessly telling one untruth after another!

His Government will go down in history as the most atheistic/ secularist liberal Government ever..

His Government did absolutely nothing to support family values, in fact it seems they done everything they could to undermine the traditional family unit and family values.

Blair might claim to be religious but he is certainly not a Christian on the evidence I can see.

He will be judged by his actions not his glib claims.

He and his Government have consistently behaved like trendy secularist/ atheistic liberals. with...

In my opinion BLAIR IS NOT A CHRISTIAN! One day when he meets his maker..... God will say 'I don't know you'!

My view on Tony Blair is good riddance as your legacy is that you brought far more harm than good to the British Nation and its society......

If I ever meet Tony Blair... I would say to him... I'm sorry but have no respect for you, as respect must be earned......may God forgive you for what you have done to our once great nation.....

scarys.world.domination.inc on "Religion in Britain in the Blair era"

scarys.world.domination.inc — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:02:01 +0000

S.henderson, you seem to have missed tha part about the increase in faith schools, the teaching of creationism and the ghettoisation it encourages. These practices need to be ended. Now.

s.henderson on "Religion in Britain in the Blair era"

s.henderson — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:44:52 +0000

At the end of reading this I thought-- where's the meat? The point about Tony Blair being religious is silly. Which bit of the Anglican o Catholic church supported the Iraq war. I must have missed that.

I see only one example of religious influence on politics in the article (25% non-faith limits dropped). In the same week church groups have lost amendments in the house of lords on gay rights and the act on religious haterd was stymied last year.

As an atheist myself I see a lot of bluster from religious groups and too much deference from the press and on the news. I don't see them making any headway in government though.

Gerard Killoran on "Blair’s foreign-policy legacy"

Gerard Killoran — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:30:55 +0000

'Felix Blake is the pseudonym of a former British government official.'

Well if I wrote this rubbish, I'd want to stay anonymous too.

'In Kosovo, it is hard to find any Kosovo Albanian who does not love - yes, love - Tony Blair for what he did. People name their children after him.'

Do they Felix? I'm sceptical.

The refugee crisis in Kosovo was caused by the Nato bombing campaign. Kosovo Serbs (non-people in Felix's account) fled into inner Serbia in large numbers to escape the cluster bombs and depleted uranium.

Blair is a proven liar and serial war criminal who should be in the dock - with advisors like 'Felix' beside him.

davidwatton on "Blair’s foreign-policy legacy"

davidwatton — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:29:34 +0000

Dear Felix

It's a shame that you feel the need to hide your true identity on a website named 'Open Democracy'.

I feel your comments on Kosovo are disingenuous: it has been well documented that the NATO bombings precipitated the bloodshed rather than preventing it. The real reason behind NATO involvement was because, like Saddam, Milosevic was not a leader that the West could control and needed to be made an example of. (See the excellent 'Guardians of Power' by David Edwards and David Cromwell for details of the real story.)

More to the point, the Blair government's much-vaunted ethical policy was simply a media fiction based on a careless remark from Robin Cook and a complete sham. Read Mark Curtis for more on this.

Tim P on "Blair’s foreign-policy legacy"

Tim P — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:01:24 +0000

Humanitarian intervention died because Blair was allied with someone who did not believe in it, and in fact opposed many of its facets. Action in Kosovo was possible, because Blair was allied to Clinton, a fellow advocate of multilateral humanitarian interventions. Bush put humanitarian concerns at the bottom of his list, although once the initial reasons became redundant, it moved up. Humanitarian intervention when there is clarity in the motivations to intervene, but this certainly did not exist prior to Iraq. Blair probably wanted to remove Saddam as much for humanitarian reasons, but allied with someone who relied solely on WMD related propaganda meant that this was never going to sell it..

Tim

http://www.historic-quixotic.blogspot.com/