Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I think there's a tendency to just remember Blair, his closest allies, and Iraq and completely forget that that government was a force for good in many instances.
Keir Starmer's time is up
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Big picture economic indicators don't really support that. Yes, there was some increase in investment in the NHS and one or two other areas, but much investment took the form of the disastrous PPP, a mechanism designed to shift wealth upwards not downwards. Macroeconomic indicators show a society in which the rich continued to get richer while the majority stagnated at best as the profit vs wages balance shifted inexorably further towards profit. By the time Brown was done, the UK had been perfectly primed for Cameron's 'austerity' years.
ETA: It's not just Blair. It's a problem anywhere when ostensibly left-wing governments win power but fail to address structural issues. You saw similar in New Zealand with Jacinda Ardern. Whatever well-meaning things she may have attempted, when she left power, New Zealand was a more unequal society than it had been when she came into power. That's an index of failure.
Last edited:
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
You're doing the thing of taking it in isolation. Yes, many things could have been done better. But the state of British politics is such that flawed policies were still the best the country has seen in the past 50 years. The British people aren't going to elect people who will do what you want - history is proof of it. Take what you can out of it. At least schools were built, hospitals were upgraded. I don't know what economic indicators you're looking at, but the last time we debated this I could find multiple sources saying more people were lifted out of poverty in the Blair years than in the 25 years before it. (and since, naturally) Income inequality between 1997 and 2010 was largely flat. Only the very richest were significantly out of sync with reality, but that is a global phenomenon. PPP is better than letting school ceilings collapse - even the Tories have admitted if they'd kept the Labour schools maintenance policy it never would have happened.
The number of pensioners and children living in poverty fell during Labour’s time in office. But the exact level it fell by depends on which measure of poverty you use. We’ve written more about the various ways poverty can be measured here.
The number of pensioners living in relative poverty fell by over a million from 1997/98 to 2009/10, after housing costs have been factored in. If you don’t factor in housing costs, the drop is around 500,000.
But in looking at that same measure—relative poverty—the number of children in poverty did not fall by over a million. The number fell by around 800,000 from 1997/98 to 2009/10, before housing costs are factored in, or by around 300,000 after accounting for housing costs.
If you look at absolute poverty, then the number of children in poverty fell by well over a million (in fact, over two million), regardless of whether you factor in housing costs or not. The same goes for pensioners (almost three million).
It should be noted that the figures do not include Northern Ireland before 2002/03 (after which they are UK-wide), meaning that the level of child and pensioner poverty prior to 2002/03 will be slightly understated.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes the fall in pensioner and child poverty during Labour’s time in office as significant, but points out there were other groups did not see the same level of change. For example, relative poverty actually rose among working-age people with no dependent children (from 12% to 14% over the same period). That said, the level of poverty among the UK population as a whole fell under Labour, regardless of which measure you use.
fullfact.org
The number of pensioners living in relative poverty fell by over a million from 1997/98 to 2009/10, after housing costs have been factored in. If you don’t factor in housing costs, the drop is around 500,000.
But in looking at that same measure—relative poverty—the number of children in poverty did not fall by over a million. The number fell by around 800,000 from 1997/98 to 2009/10, before housing costs are factored in, or by around 300,000 after accounting for housing costs.
If you look at absolute poverty, then the number of children in poverty fell by well over a million (in fact, over two million), regardless of whether you factor in housing costs or not. The same goes for pensioners (almost three million).
It should be noted that the figures do not include Northern Ireland before 2002/03 (after which they are UK-wide), meaning that the level of child and pensioner poverty prior to 2002/03 will be slightly understated.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes the fall in pensioner and child poverty during Labour’s time in office as significant, but points out there were other groups did not see the same level of change. For example, relative poverty actually rose among working-age people with no dependent children (from 12% to 14% over the same period). That said, the level of poverty among the UK population as a whole fell under Labour, regardless of which measure you use.
Labour's record on inequality and social mobility: 1997 to 2010 - Full Fact
In a video on Labour's inequality record Tony Blair lists statistics on topics from the NHS to poverty. The figures are all broadly correct, but also don't include overall income inequality.
fullfact.org
ETA: I don't want that to come off as defending Tony Blair. As a human being, he's indefensible. I'm arguing the Blair government did some good, and despite the wishes of several PMs over the years they're not despots. Yet. I take the view that the good was done despite Tony Blair, not because of him.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They did lift some people out of poverty, yes. But I think them being a force for good is a strong claim. UK's Gini coefficient went up in that period and there were whole swathes of working poor who did not benefit at all. It was a sticking plaster approach. Working tax credits are a good example of that. Yes, they benefited a lot of people, but they didn't address the reasons why people were earning so little in the first place or why they couldn't find an affordable place to live. Those kinds of measures, like PPP, are hidden subsidies for the rich, and they do nothing to address structural inequality.
That was the Blair government's biggest failing imo. Its failure to acknowledge that rising inequality is a social ill in and of itself. In fact, they flat-out denied it. At the same time as raising some of the very poorest people out of poverty, they also swelled the numbers in prison by around 50 per cent. While increasing the number of university places, they removed the principle that university education should be paid for through taxation. And they cheer-led a house price bubble that made many parts of the country completely unaffordable to most people. They did too many bad things domestically for me to consider them a force for good. A bit less bad than the Tories, sure, but that's an extremely low bar.
That was the Blair government's biggest failing imo. Its failure to acknowledge that rising inequality is a social ill in and of itself. In fact, they flat-out denied it. At the same time as raising some of the very poorest people out of poverty, they also swelled the numbers in prison by around 50 per cent. While increasing the number of university places, they removed the principle that university education should be paid for through taxation. And they cheer-led a house price bubble that made many parts of the country completely unaffordable to most people. They did too many bad things domestically for me to consider them a force for good. A bit less bad than the Tories, sure, but that's an extremely low bar.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
100%. Blair should be measured on what he could have done with that majority and economic situation, at least as much as what he actually did. He was in a position to radically improve the lives of the entire country, and didn't.
gosub
~#
I thought judging Blair had been outsourced to God
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Ultimately yes, but I think its fine for us down here to regard 1997 as one of the great missed opportunities of all time.
PTK
Paul Kegan
Liz Davies said something along the lines that the problem was not that Blair was not going far enough in one direction, it was that he was going in the other direction. The Blair-Brown regime strengthened the position of the capitalist class and weakened that of the working class.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The new constituency boundaries favour the tories so that shammer needs a poll lead of 12.7% or greater for Labour to achieve a majority UK general election: find your new constituency – and see how it would have voted in 2019
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
He did when he resigned. Well he cheered me up anyway
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Seeing as though 50 years takes us back to 1973, right into the period when workers took a higher share of GDP I'm calling bollocks on this.
No it wasn't, inequality increased, less than under Thatcher, and at not that different than under Major. And the policies New Labour pushed - like PFI - have proved immensely harmful down the road. The current situation workers fond themselves in has much to do with the actions of the New Labour government
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Cite, please. I've tried to back up that opinion myself in the past and failed miserably to find any evidence of it from a credible source. (It's the internet 2024, you can find multiple iffy sources to back up any fever dream your heart desires) The GINI coefficient is the usual statistic and has largely been flat, allowing for a minor bulge when the bankers laughed and took our money in 2007/8. It rose the most during the Thatcher to early Major years and was fairly flat from thet middle of the Major government up to 2007. It hasn't really budged more than 10% since the mid 90s. You can certainly make an argument that it was the Major government that was around when it levelled off, but it was more down to early-mid 90s macroeconomics than policy.
I'd honestly like some useful figures that say otherwise, because I've argued from your position before and failed to back it up. The best I could do was that the ultra-ultra-rich have got ridiculously moreso, but it's a global trend that's pretty much the same everywhere. You cut it back to the "merely" rich and the gap hasn't actually moved as much as it feels like.
You're talking about what the status quo was and I'm talking about what government policies have done. Income inequality started its rise from the mid 70s on the back of policy from the early 70s. So yes, worker's share was at its high 50 years ago. And declined ever since.
I think it's harsh to focus on what was a rather small increase in working poor in poverty, compared to the really quite large decrease in children and pensioners in poverty. Obviously it shouldn't have been an either/or choice, but the choice of their focus was not, imo, wrong.
I will agree 100% that the wasted opportunity is probably the most infuriating political decision of the past 30 years. So much more should have been done, and Blair himself was probably the main anchor holding the rest of the party back. But I'm not going to let the anger at that stop me from seeing it was still the best government the country has had in quite some time. I think if we're arguing what might have been, Labour having a coherent brexit policy in 2017 is almost as great a lost opportunity. (and I say that as a remain voter - the populace had its say and there should have been a coherent plan to implement it rather than let the Tories claim the whole for themselves)
And finally, to be back on topic, Kier Starmer is a cunt and I expect him to be worse in every conceivable way than the Blair years. I had thought that maybe the party had learned about sticking their noses in foreign wars, but then we saw his Israel policy and... facepalm We're doomed to repeat all our mistakes. Labour well to the right of the 1960s Conservative Party. At least New Lab was only trying to be like the Tories, not fucking outdo them.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Gini’s pretty useless, though; if it’s only looking at declared (household) incomes it’s no surprise that it doesn’t really reflect the obvious regressive wealth transfers we see under neoliberalism. The crooks don’t really do declared incomes, do they?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
You cannot remove the huge increase the top 10/5/1% have seen and then say that inequality has not increased, nor can you exclude the effect of GFC as the very policies new Labour supported were part of the reason it affected workers in the way it did (and has since).
Tthe Gini-coefficent from 1990 has been much more flat than the huge rise in the 80s, but over the whole period 1997-2010 it rose. As did both the top percentile and top decile income share and share of wealth (Piketty Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Ch 9 & Chi 10). There was also a transfer of capital from public to private hands (Piketty again).
Bingoman
Well-Known Member
Looks like labour will have a by election in Rochdale
news.sky.com
Sir Tony Lloyd, Labour MP for Rochdale, dies aged 73
The politician, who spent over 40 years representing Greater Manchester, was diagnosed with leukaemia.
news.sky.com
gosub
~#
On the XI thing..
China’s Xi Jinping backs ‘just cause’ of Palestinian statehood
China believes in an ‘independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital’, Xi says.
Opinion | Will Yemen’s Houthis keep China from being a global diplomatic power broker?
Escalating provocations by the Iran-backed Houthis threaten trade and energy security, and also weigh on China’s credibility as a mediator in the region and globally.
www.scmp.com
China’s Response to the Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea
A complex interplay of economic factors, limited military capabilities, and geopolitical dynamics shape China’s cautious response to the Red Sea crisis.
thediplomat.com
Counter view How two-faced Xi Jinping is exploiting war in Gaza to beget China’s new order | Simon Tisdall
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
Well he did a good job at stopping the Brexit plans.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Yeah, I was just thinking how well that went
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Does he think this is a good look?
'I'm a liar and I didn't believe anything I was saying at the last election, but you should believe me now.'
'I'm a liar and I didn't believe anything I was saying at the last election, but you should believe me now.'
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is a fair criticism. But still, given its shortcomings, if your Gini coefficient is going up, that's a decent indicator that inequality is probably rising rapidly. And the point that involving private finance rather than using public borrowing leaves a legacy well beyond 2010 is a good one. That involves a transfer of wealth from public to private that is ongoing and whose full consequences may take many years to play out. Looking it up, the contracts generally had 25-30 year timeframes, so most of the original contracts are still going.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I struggle to work out what he wanted - or wants now - beyond 'me in power'.
ska invita
back on the other side
he remains an undercover agent for the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency obvs
oh and to lower taxes for the rich
Starmer and his shadow cabinet have been pretty clear what they want haven't they? Reheated Blairism in an even ranker microwave.
ska invita
back on the other side
i think its as simple as that he's a two faced unprincipled greasy pole climbing politician
Similar threads
