The Blairite Agenda

[greenman]

The speech by Blair and those of his acolytes at the nulabour conference reveal what their "big ideas" are for the rest of Blair's term. So what positive, uplifting and practical things are they putting forward? Read and weep. (all quotes courtesy of the Beeb)

Blair -
"Mr Blair said he wanted his party to make Britain at ease with globalisation, forge a new consensus on public services and respond to public anger about crime and anti-social behaviour."

Clarke-
"Charles Clarke has vowed to "eliminate" anti-social behaviour and disrespect in society by the time of the next general election "whenever it comes""

"He said "responsive local policing" was the key to "tackling lack of respect in our communities".

"Neighbourhood police teams will be able to respond quickly to local concerns about anti-social behaviour.

"Their local knowledge will enable them to focus rapidly on troublespots and troublemakers, nipping problems in the bud before they take hold."

He also pledged more support for "parents who are finding it hard to raise their children right", backing education secretary Ruth Kelly's efforts to boost school discipline. "

Blears -
"Home Office minister Hazel Blears reportedly told a fringe meeting on Monday the government was considering videoing the behaviour of binge drinkers to show in public places, as part of a new "naming and shaming" initiative. "

So that is it then, the main focus of this great reforming government, its main enemy is the symptoms of social decay, ignoring the fact that it is largely the product of the selfish individualist dog-eat-dog consumer meritocracy that the Blairites present as an unchallengeable political reality.

Just a reminder of the reality outside this conference bubble - in my local council ward policing to meet current demand and "eradicate anti social behaviour" would probably eat up the whole policing budget for the district - beyond the rhetoric of "responsive policing" and "local teams" are the reality of ever thinner resourcing for ever more remotely controlled (step forward the Blairite idea for regional policing) reactive policing that can at the moment only respond to events at the top of the offending pyramid and ignores the calls for help of those vulnerable working and retired people living besieged by thugs and desperate addicts. The causes of the problem are social, cultural, economic and political - Nulabour talk about solving the problem with some fiddling with police administration and a few more hobby bobbies.

And beyond that - Blair concentrates in his speech on defending his Iraq debacle and playing to the gallery on crime and anti social behaviour (How will longer pub opening, casinos and social insecurity, sorry, "a flexible labour market", help with that?) whilst forgetting that we have just had demonstrated in the Southern US a tiny foretaste of the global devastation that climate change will bring (edited to add that when he did mention global warming it was as an excuse for announcing he was inclined to hand more public millions to his pals in the nuclear energy industry), conveniently forgetting the ongoing tragedy of global poverty. Not surprising really as he is more interested in saying to his pal Murdoch that the BBC is "anti-american" for reporting the truth about Bush's response to New Orleans, and brushing under the carpet the reality of the failure of the much trumpeted G8 summit.

They are a disgrace - apologists for the most reactionary and globally disastrous US regime in living memory, craven forelock tuggers before big capital and its interests, greasy massagers of Murdoch's ego and enablers of his ambitions. They are left with nothing to say except try to make people believe they can do something about social conditions without any major extra expenditure or challenge to the economic interests that influence them.

Time to go Tony.........

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

For all the phoney cod philosophy, Blairs agenda hinges around the same godawful shite reactionary shite as privatisation, war, ID cards and nuclear power.

 

[jiggajagga]

Blairism is like the new warehouse complex thats just down the road from me.
There is a warehouse there that is the size of at least 5 football pitches end to end, it looks fantastic, new and shiny.
When I asked how many hundred people were employed in the building the answer came back.....28!
That is Blairism. Looks good, sounds good but when you look closely there isn't much inside really!

 

[cogg]

The key impetus behind Blair isn't just "the symptoms of social decay" but a complete project of neo-liberalism. What has made it difficult to combat is their reticence in saying what they are actually doing. Instead they hide behind weasel words such as 'modernisation', 'pro-choice agenda'. Have a read (or re-read) of this IWCA article on Blair's trajectory from earlier this year:

http://www.iwca.info/cutedge/ce0005c.htm

 

[Jo/Joe]

Charles Clarke has vowed to "eliminate" anti-social behaviour and disrespect in society by the time of the next general election "whenever it comes

Has anyone seen the quote from Clarke? This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe it's true.

 

[tollbar]

The key impetus behind Blair isn't just "the symptoms of social decay" but a complete project of neo-liberalism. What has made it difficult to combat is their reticence in saying what they are actually doing. Instead they hide behind weasel words such as 'modernisation', 'pro-choice agenda'. Have a read (or re-read) of this IWCA article on Blair's trajectory from earlier this year:

http://www.iwca.info/cutedge/ce0005c.htm

Excellent article, I reccomend it to anyone who has not read it.

 

[greenman]

I agree, Cogg, the importance given to the attack on "social decay" is primarily gloss for public consumption, and to try and get the Mail on side. Blair remains a crusader for the neoliberal agenda.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Has anyone seen the quote from Clarke? This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe it's true.

Yup, they're going to beat respect into people.

 

[DexterTCN]

Has anyone seen the quote from Clarke? This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe it's true.

Yeah...I was going to write something about that as soon as I read the original post.

He has vowed to eliminate disrespect. Seriosly...that is taking the piss on such a major scale, it's fucking stupendous (sigh - the americanism of our politics)...get Paxman.

 

[Lock&Light]

Time to go Tony.........

Anyone who imagines that Brown will do anything very much different from Blair, has, IMO, very little understanding of British and world politics.

 

[DexterTCN]

Well...if i compare the 80s, 90s and 2000s...Brown sure seems to have been a good chancellor to me.

Frankly I'm a bit fed up with charismatic, idiosyncratic 'leaders'.

I want a boring cunt who gets the job done and doesn't act like an arsehole.

I mean come on, I'm not banging Brown's drum but seriously if it came down to (simplistically) Brown, Blair, Howard, or Kennedy?

 

[pin retaining]

The Blairite Agenda is the total destruction of Britishness.
To make all people equal ,Instead of making them all equally better he has lowered the goal posts so soon all will pass all exams without much imput, remember the defered succes cretin pass as much as the hard worker.

To keep the proles happy, lax on drugs, 24 hr gambling and drinking and endless "reality" shows which contain more and more sex/violence so the chavs can watch. and enjoy.

The poor get poorer, the middle class get poorer, upperclass get richer but the ones who come off best are Lying cunt blair, that greasy fat wanker presscot and all the other assorted little money grabing blair cronies & cunts, its fuck you proles we've got it and we're taking it, enjoy your spliff and alcohol and the downward spiral into the filth of your own making.

Fuck the NHS
Fuck Transport
Fuck Education because we the labour party elite don't have to mix with the proles ...we go private....death to the British and the proles 'cus we're all right Jack.

 

[London_Calling]

Not very much interested in high profile set-piece speeches.

Rather more interested in my Gran's new hip, in at least halting the slide to even greater disenfranchisment, in the politics of the real world.

In south London, I see a revolution in terms of infrastructure with new hospitals replacing old shite holes at Lewisham, Woolwich and Bromley. I see Kings with millions invested, ditto Mayday at Croydon - where I also see a new replacement school, what do they call them City Acadamies ?

I've never seen this level of basic investment in my lifetime and I doubt I will again. And it ain't for the moneyed middle classes.

And I know for people involved in the NHS it feels like a revolution.


Detest Blair for his foreign policies, but I can't deny what I see happening around here for yer average punter.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not very much interested in high profile set-piece speeches.

Rather more interested in my Gran's new hip, in at least halting the slide to even greater disenfranchisment, in the politics of the real world.

In south London, I see a revolution in terms of infrastructure with new hospitals replacing old shite holes at Lewisham, Woolwich and Bromley. I see Kings with millions invested, ditto Mayday at Croydon - where I also see a new replacement school, what do they call them City Acadamies ?

I've never seen this level of basic investment in my lifetime and I doubt I will again. And it ain't for the moneyed middle classes.

And I know for people involved in the NHS it feels like a revolution.


Detest Blair for his foreign policies, but I can't deny what I see happening around here for yer average punter.

The worm in the apple is that those hospitals and school buildings are being paid for by PFI.

That means that though the delapidated buildings are being replaced, by the time they're paid for and signed over to the public your children will have children, and those shiny new buildings will be manky and delapidated themselves.

Me, I'd rather not be piling debt on the head of my grandchildren just to help "new Labour" keep the cost of building public infrastructure off the balance sheet in the here and now.

 

[London_Calling]

So you think the public would have voted for higher taxes now to have paid for that infrastructure, or you think it prudent to keep the old infrastructure ?

 

[winjer]

The speech by Blair and those of his acolytes at the nulabour conference reveal what their "big ideas" are for the rest of Blair's term. So what positive, uplifting and practical things are they putting forward? Read and weep. (all quotes courtesy of the Beeb)

You missed his dodgiest bit:

The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. Don't misunderstand me. That must be the duty of any criminal justice system. But surely our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety. It means a complete change of thinking. It doesn't mean abandoning human rights. It means deciding whose come first.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you think the public would have voted for higher taxes now to have paid for that infrastructure, or you think it prudent to keep the old infrastructure ?

I think that, with a bit of creativity (municipal bonds perhaps?) and a little less involvement from the big construction companies in the design of the PFI/PPP contract system, we could have cut the public costs (to us and our descendents as taxpayers, not the exchequer) by a significant amount.
As it is, all we've done is contribute to forwarding the GATT agenda of opening up public services to private "competition", and we've sold our descendents possibility of having decent services so that we can grab them now.

I'd be in favour of PFI if I hadn't read quite so many papers and articles showing what a bad deal it is, not just financially, but in real terms like faulty design, shoddy workmanship and poor maintenance.

 

[Maidmarian]

Has anyone seen the quote from Clarke? This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe it's true.

(sigh) !

You SILLY person !

Of COURSE he`ll eradicate anti-social behaviour & disrespect.

Overnight !

(By re-defining them) !

 

[fela fan]

So you think the public would have voted for higher taxes now to have paid for that infrastructure, or you think it prudent to keep the old infrastructure ?

No, this point should be eliminated from public discourse forever! I've heard people say it in discussions for fucking years ago now. It's irrelevant.

We don't need to increase taxes, we could even decrease them and still spend more in the public purse. We just have to reallocate existing tax money away from huge costly nuclear bombs, and from huge costly illegal wars. The amount of money spent on this iraqi venture - hey, how many new hospitals would that have built? How many sports centres?

British politics is a disgrace, and it's always the punter on the street that loses out.

 

[fela fan]

So that is it then, the main focus of this great reforming government, its main enemy is the symptoms of social decay, ignoring the fact that it is largely the product of the selfish individualist dog-eat-dog consumer meritocracy that the Blairites present as an unchallengeable political reality.

And our freedoms that we must preserve in the face of evil monsters like saddam hussein who at this very minute is plotting an escape so that he can launch bombs onto mainland britain.

In my lifetime it seems politics gets uglier and uglier. Blair is positively the most revolting leader i've known, never mind his criminality.

Eliminate disrespect?? Yet more evidence that those in power succumb to the probing fingers of insanity.

 

[fela fan]

Detest Blair for his foreign policies, but I can't deny what I see happening around here for yer average punter.

Well, blair brought terrorism to our streets, so we need some nice big shiny new hospitals to help those caught up in the carnage of blair's making.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

And I know for people involved in the NHS it feels like a revolution.

Genuine question 1: How many people do you know who work in the NHS?
Genuine question 2: Do you know anything about dentist or optician coverage?

 

[London_Calling]

I think that, with a bit of creativity (municipal bonds perhaps?) and a little less involvement from the big construction companies in the design of the PFI/PPP contract system, we could have cut the public costs (to us and our descendents as taxpayers, not the exchequer) by a significant amount.
As it is, all we've done is contribute to forwarding the GATT agenda of opening up public services to private "competition", and we've sold our descendents possibility of having decent services so that we can grab them now.

I'd be in favour of PFI if I hadn't read quite so many papers and articles showing what a bad deal it is, not just financially, but in real terms like faulty design, shoddy workmanship and poor maintenance.

Yep, there are a lot of papers like that. As many as there are papers telling us year after year, how wrong Gordon Brown has judged economic performance.

You’d almost thing there’s money to be made in criticism.

I know we’re derailing someone’s thread here, but the issue for me is that nothing ever gets done – it’s why the PFI wards at the new Bromley hospital are replacing EIGHT WW2 Nissen huts, and why the school in Croydon with a non-leaking rook will be a novelty for the kids.

The British public expect European levels of provision at US levels of taxation, and if they don’t get it, it’s not their fault for voting for lower taxes it’s the Government(s) for being so rubbish – been that way for 30 years, at least.

So Government is obligated to find radical solutions and, for what it’s worth, as long as they’re reasonably grounded, I support economic radicalism, mainly because conventional solutions are failing.

As I understand it, PFI isn’t the end of the world. It might be more expensive, it might not – we’re really not looking at massive differences to the taxpayer.The main point is that the damn buildings are being built. Finally.

Final point is that your response partly presupposes the NHS will be a similarly financed animal way into the future, and I really don’t think that dream is sustainable for very much longer.

PFI will operate in a very diff NHS from the one we grew up with. IMO.

 

[London_Calling]

Genuine question 1: How many people do you know who work in the NHS?
Genuine question 2: Do you know anything about dentist or optician coverage?

Q1: I do know several people at several levels.

But unless you're arguing everyone at every level within the NHS is capable of grasping the nuances of policy, your question won't get us very far.

Q2: Enough to know you want to make a general point out of a area of coverage that's been siphoned off for particular reasons. Which is another way of saying 'disingenuous'.

Haven't got the time to respond any more to cheap point scoring. Cheers.

 

[greenman]

Interesting article on Guardian Website by Neal Lawson of the "centre left" think tank Compass. One could almost be forgiven for thinking he had just read that excellent IWCA theory piece linked early on in this thread.

Neal Lawson piece

From the point of view of responding to our resident Blairite apologist above, it would not matter a great deal if the PFI/PPP deals did offer as brilliant a deal as "London Calling" of rose coloured spectacles asserts - the point made by the IWCA peice and several intelligent posters on this thread is that they are a political phenomenon, sold as the best answer to a problem created by the same neo-liberal agenda that they further. Politics is about that, you know, looking further than the immediate marketing
And as for there being money in criticism? I'm sure there is more money to be made from apologetics, don't you think, LC?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep, there are a lot of papers like that. As many as there are papers telling us year after year, how wrong Gordon Brown has judged economic performance.

You’d almost thing there’s money to be made in criticism.

You making an assumption that I'm approaching the subject from a partisan position, I'm not. 've probably read as many papers and articles providing positive as negative analyses, but whatever the position, the statistics (especially in terms of PFI/PPP "value for money") speak for themselves.

I know we’re derailing someone’s thread here, but the issue for me is that nothing ever gets done – it’s why the PFI wards at the new Bromley hospital are replacing EIGHT WW2 Nissen huts, and why the school in Croydon with a non-leaking rook will be a novelty for the kids.

And yet for every positive story we have one (or two or three) negative ones. For instance, the Norwich and Norfolk hospital PFI, where beds have been reduced by over 15% (necessitating an expensive additional building programme), specialist services have been disseminated over north Norfolk instead of remaining centralised, and, from being located in the heart of the city, the hospital is now in the outer suburbs, with a deleterious effect on emergency journey times.

The British public expect European levels of provision at US levels of taxation, and if they don’t get it, it’s not their fault for voting for lower taxes it’s the Government(s) for being so rubbish – been that way for 30 years, at least.

Which doesn't at all address the question of why "the British public" expect such things, and unless you do address the matter, it is very difficult to get a handle on how things can be changed for the better.

So Government is obligated to find radical solutions and, for what it’s worth, as long as they’re reasonably grounded, I support economic radicalism, mainly because conventional solutions are failing.

PFI/PPP is not "economic radicalism". It is the surreptitious entry of capital into the public sector on capital's terms rather than on the terms of the public.
Given that no other alternative to the PFI/PPP model was actually investigated in anything but a derisory way, then it is impossible to know whether a less cost-intensive solution could have been found.

As I understand it, PFI isn’t the end of the world. It might be more expensive, it might not – we’re really not looking at massive differences to the taxpayer.The main point is that the damn buildings are being built. Finally.

I'm sorry, but we can already extrapolate, from debt-refinancing carried out by some construction companies involved in PFI/PPP, that the cost differences are indeed "massive". Enough so that such future incomes from PFI "mortgage payments" by health and education authorities are seen as very good collateral by lending institutions.

Final point is that your response partly presupposes the NHS will be a similarly financed animal way into the future, and I really don’t think that dream is sustainable for very much longer.

PFI will operate in a very diff NHS from the one we grew up with. IMO.

I make no such pre-supposition. Given the evolution of the NHS in my own 40+ years, to assume it would suddenly become static would be foolish.

 

[William of Walworth]

Don't know if he specified anything about these two things in his speech (probably not, presumably just vague waffle about relentless 'reform' etc.) but what Blairism means to me personally is probably :

1. Being denied my choice to remain a tenant in the Council flat that has been my home since 1991.
2. Being denied the pension rights that were promised to me (as a payoff for relatively rubbish wages) when I joined the Civil Service 17 years ago. That I could be able to retire on a moderately generous CS pension before I reach the age of 65!

I have almost no confidence that Brown would be any better on either of these two issues specifically.

 

[parallelepipete]

Has anyone seen the quote from Clarke? This is so fucking preposterous I can't believe it's true.

Sadly when I read that my first thought was "so the next general election is going to be postponed indefinitely, is it?"

My next thought was, "Like John Prescott pledged to reduce road traffic within the lifetime of the first Labour government?"

My third thought was unprintable.