Gordon Browns Economic Miracle?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Achieved no real growth in income for the poorest fifth of the population, according to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. And a decrease in social mobility even from the post Tory level, according to LSE research...tbaldwin said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not attributable to new Labour. It's a combination of the business cycle and snide book-keeping.tbaldwin said:
Not attributable to new Labour.
Now quote the statistics for the ones over and above "natural wastage" who've left the NHS prematurely
And when the rsults of the investment pan out in 10-15 years time we can either crow or sneer, but to boast about it now is premature. We don't know whether the extra investment will have any effect.
Which is good.
Is the kind of sneering stupidity I expect from you, given the difficulty you seem to have analysing anything beyond taibloidesque political reportage.
What have new Labour done for us? As little as any centrist government with no commitment to class politics could get away with, given the mess their predecessors left.
Unemployment maybe statitsticly at its lowest but it might be worth looking at the kind of employment a lot of people are in, I'm guessing very casual and precarious.
Also, on the inflation statistics I suspect that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. It seems to me that on my rule of theumb yardsticks (beer and public transport) prices have doubled in the last decade or so. I'm not sure how much the cost of housing is counted in the stats. The rise in house prices has made it VERY difficult for first time buyers and those in the private rented sector, even IF they have decent enough paid jobs.
Also, on the inflation statistics I suspect that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. It seems to me that on my rule of theumb yardsticks (beer and public transport) prices have doubled in the last decade or so. I'm not sure how much the cost of housing is counted in the stats. The rise in house prices has made it VERY difficult for first time buyers and those in the private rented sector, even IF they have decent enough paid jobs.
Barking_Mad said:
Depends on whose definition you trust.
The minimum wage has gone up 20% in 2 years. More and more money is being poured into various schemes to help the most disadvantaged in the UK, sadly a lot of this is being wasted by middle class liberals , who are usually first in the quee to say "NL really hasnt made a difference"
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
It's because the media and the left insist on engaging with this false argument at face value. It's not "permitted" to say that both him and Blair are two peas from the same political pod with the same neo-con agenda.Pickman's model said:
We've been here before:
Thatcher V Heseltine
Major V Lamont
Blair V Prescott
Blair V Brown
How many times will people take these "good cop, bad cop" acts at face value?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I wouldn't even call it a centrist government. It's actually firmly on the Right.ViolentPanda said:
poster342002 said:
Yeah Tony Blair is the bastard son of Margaret Thatcher and your mum is Hitlers daughter if she asks you to tidy your room.
Balir must be a very cunning right winger to introduce a minimum wage and raise it by 20% in 2 years,repeal anti union laws,introduce the minimum income guarantee and educational maintenance allowance and equalising the age of consent.... Yes what a Thatcherite......
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Oh yes - the minimum wage that is the equivalent of a handful of crumbs thrown to the servants along with an instruction to "be grateful".tbaldwin said:
You know what? I can't be arsed to answer this type of "broken record" posting anymore.
poster342002 said:Oh yes - the minimum wage that is the equivalent of a handful of crumbs thrown to the servants along with an instruction to "be grateful".
You know what? I can't be arsed to answer this type of "broken record" posting anymore.
So do you think the minimum wage was a bad idea?
And do you think the Tories and Thatcher liked the idea?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
A few things, oh man of the people.
1) Rightwing politics and a minimum wage aren't inimical. It would depend on what variety of rightwing politics Blair espoused. Given that he keeps revealing his authoritarian streak, then he could very well be "right wing" and still in favour of the NMW.
2) Blair had very little to do with the age of consent changes, except that he voted for them They certainly weren't one of his "projects".
3) He may not call himself a Thatcherite, but ge's been effusive in his praise of her and her methods.
4) What you call "educational maintenance", others call "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Without even bothering to get into the changes in HE funding you can see how FE (arguably one of the most important sectors for re-skilling/re-training) has been decimated.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
A minimum wage people could LIVE on would be a good idea. A tokenistic minimum wage that wouldn't feed a fly, but which merely enables politicians to say "look - a minimum wage! Aren't we good to you!" isn't.tbaldwin said:
I don't care what the Tories and Thatcher think about it - it's not relevant to the dicussion.
poster342002 said:
Radical rhetoric, but you claimed Blair was right wing. Now you say you dont care what the Tories thought about the minimum wage...
The minimum wage has been good news for loads of low paid workers and the Tories would never have bought it in.
tbaldwin said:
Winston Churchill was a fan of a minimum wage I read once.
it's all about how different sections of capital have different priorities.
No Thatcher wouldn't have a minimum wage in but that doesn't undermine Blair's right wng credentials.
It's the same as pro/anti getting rid of that funny money with the German woman's head on it. SOME of capital is for, some against. It doesn't make the Euro debate into one of left and right.
ViolentPanda said:
Thanks VP man of the left elitists...
1 Blair is not authoritarian. But even if he was would that neccesarilly make him right wing.
He might be slightly authoritarian on some issues,so are most people.
Would you describe Stalin or the SWP etc as Right wing?
2 Your avioding the fact that Blair has a very different attitude to gay rights to the Tories who bought in clause 28 etc.
3 So what he has said that he admires some parts of Thatchers determination to get things done. It doesnt make him a Tory any more than someone who comments that Mussolini and Hitler got the trains going on time etc is neccesarily a full on fascist.
4 None of the wanky left proposed anything as good on education as the EMA. They were all too busy pretending that H/E students were part of some deprived minority group.
tbaldwin said:
Authoritarian and politicly/economically right wing are different. Correct.
Blair is on the right on economic as and he more authoritarian than libertarians - go and have a look at the Politcal Compass.
tbaldwin said:
Bookmarked for later, off to the gym now!
Please will you stop re-defining "right wing" to fit your argument. How can the "Liberal-left" be "right wing" for example?
Isambard said:Authoritarian and politicly/economically right wing are different. Correct.
Blair is on the right on economic as and he more authoritarian than libertarians - go and have a look at the Politcal Compass.
Bookmarked for later, off to the gym now!
Please will you stop re-defining "right wing" to fit your argument. How can the "Liberal-left" be "right wing" for example?
Definitions of right wing and left wing etc. Often say more about the prejudice of people throwing out the insults than the people they dismiss as right wing etc.
My prejudice in calling Liberal Lefties right wing is based on the fact that many of them ( but by no means all) i have come into contact with are hypocritical wankers.
Its like that Cockney rebel he is in an organisation called workers power but in reality he opposes the idea of workers control and wants to control the workers.
He though is really no different than a lot of people on here who talk about Socialism etc but are opposed to Ordinary people having control over their lives and are totally against what they sneeringly dismiss as POPULISM.
Of COURSE Blair and NL are different than Thatcher and the Tories were on the issue of homosexuality. Thatcher tried to keep in power by holding forth “the enemy within” whether that was ethnic minorities, the trade unions, elected local authorities or indeed lesbians and gay men with their being links between the latter 2.
After 1979 a lot of the left retreated into local government in London and other major cities. They attempted to create rainbow coalitions to draw in different (but overlapping) sections of society that were under attack from the Tories. There’s a debate to be had about to what extent it descended into “lifestyle politics” and we’ve had it on Urban 75 a bit, but that’s another thread, or threads!
Key positions in the Conservative Party had been taken over in a targeted manner (it’s not just “trots” who do entryism) by evangelical Christians who have a fundamental dislike of homosexuality. This dislike coupled with the desire to divide the “opposition” led to a number of dry runs before Clause 28 itself. It has to be said that Thatcher, as much as I loathe her, was persuaded into Clause 28 rather than went for it big time herself. She knowingly had gay staff, colleagues and advisers, of course she did.
Blair and NL on the other hand didn’t have this need to divide people, they tried to play the “big tent”. It suited their move of the LP to the right. They saw lesbian and gay voters as part of their mosaic of support. PARTICUARLY it should be noted (waves at Rednblack if he is reading ) middle class lesbians and gay men who felt that their “rightful” place in society was only denied to them because of their sexuality. Coupled in the late 90s with increasing affluence for many and an increasing social and cultural acceptance of homosexuality in Britain (the TV show Queer as Folk being the milestone) there was no need to be anti-gay and whilst Blair might be a Christian he’s more the bossy vicar (a la Private Eye) than a screeching happy-clappy and prepared to turn a blind eye.
After 1979 a lot of the left retreated into local government in London and other major cities. They attempted to create rainbow coalitions to draw in different (but overlapping) sections of society that were under attack from the Tories. There’s a debate to be had about to what extent it descended into “lifestyle politics” and we’ve had it on Urban 75 a bit, but that’s another thread, or threads!
Key positions in the Conservative Party had been taken over in a targeted manner (it’s not just “trots” who do entryism) by evangelical Christians who have a fundamental dislike of homosexuality. This dislike coupled with the desire to divide the “opposition” led to a number of dry runs before Clause 28 itself. It has to be said that Thatcher, as much as I loathe her, was persuaded into Clause 28 rather than went for it big time herself. She knowingly had gay staff, colleagues and advisers, of course she did.
Blair and NL on the other hand didn’t have this need to divide people, they tried to play the “big tent”. It suited their move of the LP to the right. They saw lesbian and gay voters as part of their mosaic of support. PARTICUARLY it should be noted (waves at Rednblack if he is reading ) middle class lesbians and gay men who felt that their “rightful” place in society was only denied to them because of their sexuality. Coupled in the late 90s with increasing affluence for many and an increasing social and cultural acceptance of homosexuality in Britain (the TV show Queer as Folk being the milestone) there was no need to be anti-gay and whilst Blair might be a Christian he’s more the bossy vicar (a la Private Eye) than a screeching happy-clappy and prepared to turn a blind eye.
Isambard said:
Most of the antiblair hysteria comes from people who are politically not that far away from him on most issues.
Its the mutterings of the Liberal Lefties who are in reality very like him,that gets so much coverage.
Of course then he has to contend with the consistently right wing mail etc.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Whoo, if that had been at all accurate it might have been relevant, but as I don't pose as a "left elitist" (I'm neither) in the manner that you pose as a "man of the people" then it isn't relevant at all, is it?tbaldwin said:
It's hilarious the way you attempt to smear people, and is of a piece with the quality of your arguments.
True, however, some of his "law and order" ideas place him firmly on the right.
More blah blah irrelevance to support your contentions? I am surprised.
This is a prime minister who has presided over the abrogation of habeas corpus, who supports the curtailment of right to trial by jury, and whose wonks are already formulating ever greater policy inroads into our civil rights. To say he's "slightly authoritarian" is as pisspoor a description as saying that Fred west was "slightly murderous".
BTW, as I've mentioned to you before, just tacking words like "most people believe" etc to the end of your opinion doesn't make it more valid. Only hard evidence does that.
I wouldn't use the two examples in the same sentence for a start. I'd describe Stalin as a totalitarian "nationalist" socialist, and the SWP as a bunch of reactionary chancers.
That must have been why he agonised with the religiouses for so long about which way to vote, then
. Different by degree, maybe. Different by attitude? Time will tell.He's also said (more than once) that he admires her as a person and a politician.
Did anyone claim that, or are you (as is usual) introducing some spurious bullshit in the hope of deflecting criticism of your half-arsed ranting?
1) The EMA is a good idea. Unfortunately, if you dismantle the FE sector through lack of funding then whether the EMA is a good idea or not becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?
2) Your generalisations about H/E are geting tedious. Either use facts or don't fucking bother, because your fist-shaking and faux class politics convince no-one.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
Just what I expected.
You've nothing substantive to say so you open your arsehole and fart out insults.
Well done.
ViolentPanda said:
I think probably by mistake you have hit on something here. Increased spending is not neccesarily leading to the improvements in public services that it should,and why is that?
Probably down to the middle class liberal scum,i keep talking about.
The kind of people who want to blame it all on the govt or the rich but when they are in a position to actually do something for disadvantaged people they fuck it up time and again.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
"...by mistake...".
See what I mean about sneering?
You just haven't got the grace to ever concede that anyone besides you has a clue, have you?
And instead of your childish rants about "middle class liberal scum", why not target the proper reasons why the extra resources may make little difference?
Come on, let's see if your sparkling insight can root out the biggest single factor that may mean the extra resources make fuck all difference.
I generally reckon that Gordon Brown and TB are two sides of the same coin. Though I wonder and have no idea whether he's actually in on the whole neo-liberal agenda. guess, probably.
There's no sign that Gordon Brown really wants to change anything. It's part of the usual subtle strategy to present him as the only alternative to TB, so that once again, just as Labour is the only alternative to the conservatives, Good cop bad cop.
There's no sign that Gordon Brown really wants to change anything. It's part of the usual subtle strategy to present him as the only alternative to TB, so that once again, just as Labour is the only alternative to the conservatives, Good cop bad cop.
ViolentPanda said:
Well Violentpanda, I would concede you do have a clue. Your not quite as stupid as a lot of people on here. But what you still seem to lack is honesty,i may be wrong but that is the way it appears to me.
Like a lot of people you are clever enough to realise there is something wrong with the ideology of "Scapegoating Politicians" but your not intellectually brave enough to take the next step.
And that next step means looking at a lot of people who are in the position to do something positive but dont.
It means looking not only at the hierarchical way the public and voluntary sector is run but looking at people at all levels in those organisations.
It also means looking honestly at Crime and the Liberal lefts pathetic record and statements on the issues.
It means not dismissing out of hand as "man of the people" etc anyone who recognises that Socialism without Populism is like Shoes without Feet.
My insight and experience is that there a load of people who find it very easy to blame politicians for all the ills.
Because that is so much easier than taking responsibility for your own actions or lack of them.
Similar threads
