I wasn't expressing any kind of personal preference between Blair, Brown or Cameron (or between Conserative/Labour), but while Brown isn't that different to Blair at the moment it is possible that he could diverge slightly from the current set of policies and in fact Cameron/Conservatives actually would have slightly different set of policies to Labour. A radical perspective can argue there is no real difference in these (they are all mainstream capitalist) but in reality there would be differences that would impact directly on people's lives. It is hard to make a firm list of these in advance because the Conservatives are being very cagey about their policies at the moment, but potentially there could be quite a divergence on, for example tax/public spending, ID cards, benefits, health, education, immigration policy and so forth.
Blair to stay in post for another year
- Thread starter Groucho
- Start date
Wha?Kaka Tim said:
If Brown was head-to-head with Cameron Blair would have resigned and would not be contesting the election.
Or are you in a round-about way saying that Blair wants Cameron to win? If Blair didn't like and disagreed with Brown that much why has he kept him as his Chancellor for a decade?
What do you base this on?Kaka Tim said:
What good things have Labour done that the Conservatives would never have done? What bad things would the Conservatives have done that Labour haven't?
How does that follow, praytell?
Getting rid of one individual and keeping everything else the same. Yep, there's a surefire recipe for "significent genunine (sic!) change"
Kick Blair out and Brown will just continue Blair's work with slightly different rhetoric.
I think he means, if Blair stood against Cameron, do you think that Blair would win? Or something to that effect.TeeJay said:Wha?
If Brown was head-to-head with Cameron Blair would have resigned and would not be contesting the election.
Or are you in a round-about way saying that Blair wants Cameron to win? If Blair didn't like and disagreed with Brown that much why has he kept him as his Chancellor for a decade?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
On first sight, I read this headline as "Blair to stay in post for another war" ....
If the election was tomorrow, I think Blair would win but Brown wouldn't, based on 1) Brown's lack of charisma and 2) the suspicions of middle england about Brown. Cameron has yet to actually set out a full range of policies or be pinned down on certain issues (eg tax, health, education, immigration) so an election tomorrow could be different from an election in two or three year's time. The basic factor is who can win the 'middle ground' on UK domestic policies - and at the moment Blair is still ahead of Brown and Cameron on this IMO.In Bloom said:
Just again, I'd like to emphasise that this isn't based on my personal preference or support, just calling the 'odds' as I estimate/guestimate them.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
And this "middle grund" continues to shift further and further to the right...TeeJay said:
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
In Bloom said:What do you base this on?
What good things have Labour done that the Conservatives would never have done? What bad things would the Conservatives have done that Labour haven't?
How does that follow, praytell?
Getting rid of one individual and keeping everything else the same. Yep, there's a surefire recipe for "significent genunine (sic!) change"
Kick Blair out and Brown will just continue Blair's work with slightly different rhetoric.
Well we'd still have the poll tax, they'd be no minimum wage, they would not have put extra money into public services, age of consent for homosexuality would still be 21, the shitty PFI and privatisation were getting now would be even more shitty, they would have been far more reluctant to reign in railtrack, no windful tax on utilities and extra revenue would have gone in tax cuts for the rich. Nu -LAbour are not Tories. They're shit - but a different kind of shit.
Im not saying that kicking out Blair would lead to some libertarain socialist wonderland, I am deeply cynical about 'democracy' in this country and think the LAbour party are a shower of shit - but by kicking out leaders you place limits on the power of their sucessors - otherwise you get the likes Pinochet and Ceausescu - who both thatcher and blair would emulate if allowed to.
What you seem to saying is that there's no point trying to get rid of BLair becasue it would change very little - maybe not but it would prevent it from getting worse. And what is the realistic alternative?
TeeJay - you seemed to be auggesting that Blair would be a better bet than Brown - I just wanted you to clarify your position.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Despite evidence to the contrary, I don't believe government should be treated as a choice of turds. Labour have sat comfortably by being "better than the Tories". Their strip-mining of civil liberties is treated as preferable to the strip-mining of the welfare state. I find both equally repellent, don't believe one should ever be traded for the other, and in the long run, giving positive support to your own side's corruption does more harm than getting the other by default.Kaka Tim said:
Labour has used the threat of the Tories to have a free hand, but if the price of keeping the Tories out is the destruction of progressive ideals across the board, it's too bloody high.
blair is the devil we know whereas brown is the devil we dont know its hard to say how brown will do .as seems likely he will not become leader un contested so how much will labour be split.brown must be cursing blair because being tarred with the same brush he cannot escape his share as an architect of nu labour and realisastion of tradional labour voters of what nu labour is about
A "better bet" in the sense of calling the odds or probablities as I see them (like a bookie would), rather than saying that I support or prefer one over the other.Kaka Tim said:
Just to make the discussion a bit more realistic: rather than talking about Blair being leader at the next election, there is a real possibility that a "Blairite" will challenge Brown for the leadership and might well win, not least if enough Labour Party members think that the Blairite stands more chance of winning the next election than Brown does.
Also, while people here might not see any difference between "Blairite X" or Brown (and the Labour Party) and Cameron (and the Conservative party), the electorate will, rightly or wrongly, actually see a range of differences in their policies and will feel differently about them as leaders.
However, I myself will be supporting the Greens: at the last general election there was no GP candidate in my area to vote for but I did help out (eg leaflets etc) up in Lambeth and was pleased to see the vote continue to increase both there and elsewhere.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
*cough* David Milliband *cough*TeeJay said:
TeeJay said:
The poll tax, minimum wage and all the other positive things you have listed were a result of people fighting for those things, not because Labour benevolantly bestowed them upon us (the poll tax was gotten rid off before Thatcher resigned, by the way, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?)Kaka Tim said:
It wouldn't prevent anything from getting worse though, if Brown gets into power, he will just carry on Blair's work. Same politics, same party, same structures.
IMO He isn't ready for leadership yet - hardly any public profile and no serious cabinet or other posts yet, but is more in the picture either as the 'next but one' - especially if Labour have an election disaster and (let's say for the sake of argument) Brown leaves under a cloud.AnnO'Neemus said:
Having said that I do sometimes wonder vacuous politics-free-zones like Yvette Cooper (DM's other half?) hold any kind of position in the scheme of things after hearing her utterly lightweight contributions on the radio the other day. The kind of people who can manage to trot out the government line on things but seem utterly devoid of either their own convictions or any depth at all. I guess they must be very good "policy wonk"/third-way-bullshit-merchants who write good soundbites and have the right nu-urban 'look' that got everyone so orgasmic circa 1996 to 1999. Or maybe I am missing something?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
In Bloom said:
The poll tax was instrumental in getting rid of thather and was ditiched by Major some six months into his premiership (but hey, lets not get the facts get in the way etc ..
) and yes of course positive change is as a result of people fighting for them. Brown will very likely try and carry on many of Blairs polices - but he will know there are limits to how far he can go - becasue of mass opposition by ordinary people. I dont really think we're disagreeing with much here.poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I won't. They have no class analysis of the world's problems and appear to see environmental issues as something "we all" should pay for (regardless of class or wealth) to rectify rather than by targeting the big powers. I, as a low-paid worker, am growing increasingly pissed off at the raft of blunt-intsrument taxes being proposed by the green movement which take no account of the impact on the poor such measures would have. It's seems more and more a case of going for "low hanging fruit" rather than tackle the rich and powerful.TeeJay said:
I take the view that the greens are no part of the left in any meaningful sense of the word. That much of the left has opportunistically begun tailing them is simply an indication of the dire state of the left and progressive politics generally in the UK.
You obviously haven't read Green party policy about eco-taxation.poster342002 said:
For example here's a quote:
"...VAT is a regressive tax and achieves no social or environmental benefits and therefore does not fit with the principles of green taxation. It is also highly bureaucratic and a severe burden on the very sorts of small, locally based businesses that a Green economy would rely on. For these reasons the Green Party would phase out VAT. This saving on consumption tax would also help to balance the regressive nature of the more indirect environmental taxes.
National Insurance is an unfair tax because it is only levied on 'earnings' and not on unearned income and is therefore biased against money earned in exchange for work. A Green government would phase out National Insurance contributions and replace them with higher rates of tax on income beyond the Citizens Income threshold..."
link: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2002/budget_comment.html
"...Road fuel prices don't reflect the huge hidden costs of road transport – its contribution to climate change, pollution-related ill-health and so on - which now amount to perhaps £15 billion a year and maybe a lot more. Fuel should cost more so that road transport pays its true costs.
Of course fuel tax must be progressively increased, but under two conditions: firstly there must be overall tax reform that redistributes wealth downwards so that eco-taxes don't impact unfairly on poorer people; and secondly we must invest hugely in alternatives to the car so that people have proper choices in mode of transport..."
link: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2004/FAIR ON FUEL, fair on the future Jun 04.htm
I could go on and give tons of examples, but it would be better if you actually had a look at actual Green Party policies (eg here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/ ) rather than making up stuff about them which is completely untrue.
Talking about the "green movement" and the "Green Party" as if they share identical politics is a bit like claiming that anyone from the Labour Party to far left revolutionary marxist groups share identical politics because of being labelled as "the left". If you actually think of yourself as being interested in politics then you should check up on the actual facts before making judgements.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Teejay, Treelover,
Respectfully, I remain highly dubious and yet to be convinced.
I'm afraid I have heard a lot of reactionary, neo-con "tax the poor 'til the pips squeek" drivel put out under a green gloss in recent years from a number of different sources. Maybe not sanctioned by the Green party, but gleefully advanced by a lot of eco-minded middle class types. It's nasty politics and it's not being challenged properly from the left.
Respectfully, I remain highly dubious and yet to be convinced.
I'm afraid I have heard a lot of reactionary, neo-con "tax the poor 'til the pips squeek" drivel put out under a green gloss in recent years from a number of different sources. Maybe not sanctioned by the Green party, but gleefully advanced by a lot of eco-minded middle class types. It's nasty politics and it's not being challenged properly from the left.
Poster,
But surely you'd admit that the 'green movement' is not the same as the Green Party? We can hardly be blamed for every press release put out by an environmentalist NGO, or the Sustainable Development Commission, or god knows who?
Thats like saying "I heard a Manchester United fan being sexist, and I know you support Manchester City - but hey, they both have 'Manchester' in the title, so you're probably sexist...."
i.e. a bit tenuous.
By all means criticise GP policy or actions - but don't just envelop us with the 'green movement' umbrella and therefore totally write us off due to things we haven't done!
Matt
But surely you'd admit that the 'green movement' is not the same as the Green Party? We can hardly be blamed for every press release put out by an environmentalist NGO, or the Sustainable Development Commission, or god knows who?
Thats like saying "I heard a Manchester United fan being sexist, and I know you support Manchester City - but hey, they both have 'Manchester' in the title, so you're probably sexist...."
i.e. a bit tenuous.
By all means criticise GP policy or actions - but don't just envelop us with the 'green movement' umbrella and therefore totally write us off due to things we haven't done!
Matt
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
That is indeed true. Point conceded. I should have been clearer, as I more meant the "green movement" as a whole than the green party per-se.Matt S said:
I do believe, however, that the Green Party ought to distance itself more from some of the reactionary nonsence going out under "green cover" at the moment.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Fair question. For a start stuff Polly Toynbee's nosepeg and don't vote Labour under any circumstances, while getting a campaign going that makes it clear they're being lost because Labour's become an ugly authoritarian socialist-big business hybrid. Unless the Labour party undergoes a vigorous de-Stalinisation process, set up an alternative and give them Labour's votes.Kaka Tim said:
Most important of all, why the fuck aren't Trade Unions pulling their funding from Labour? Labour constantly go on about the value of their Middle England converts. Why the hell doesn't progressive opinion demand the same respect from them. Blair's excuse for all his repugnant measures is that progressive change would loose him support. Start showing him in a serious way that authoritarian measures loose him public support.
Labour's membership has halved since 1997, but why is that half staying silent?
You already have the Green Party, Respect, the Lib Dems, The SSP, Plaid Cymru and assorted other left parties or candidates that appear around election time.Azrael said:
What is your argument for setting up yet *another* party and why would it be any more worthwhile or successful than any of these?
I'm no fan of Blair but the alternative frightens me and has caued the odd nightmare or two. Given Gordon Brown's horrendous recent economic record, love of single mothers and determination to subsidise Africa, I think it's safe to say that the rot will continue if he becomes Chief Comrade. On the other hand, perhaps we'll have a replacement Chancellor that actually knows what he is doing.
poster342002 said:
I've noticed some of this as well, I think, but I don't think it's the green party that is trying to create a "revolution of lowered expectations" . Actually, I think the green party's manifesto is a very well thought out set of policies, trying to make our system work in a much saner fairer and human-oriented way. (I doubt many people read it though.) And green and anti-capitalism are natural allies, because, really if you want to reduce fuel emissions, you need to find ways of making it unnecessary for everyone to drive to work in the morning, which means trying to design our society so that we do the minimum rather than the maximum amount of work.
And that's the fundamental problem. Our whole system, historically, was created out of the need to maximise a monarch's revenue. And from this starting point, we have the whole political credo that economic growth is an intrinsic good, though it isn't, that unemployment is bad, and employment is good. These are sort of true at the moment, because of circumstances, but they're not necessary truths. At the moment, if the economy shrinks, then it means people start going bankrupt and cant pay their mortgages, and lose their houses, and eventually a housing crash, and so on, - (but actually, arent quiter a lot of people quite glad the tories created an almighty crash, giving them a second chance to get on the ladder.) But really, it needs honest thinking and speaking about what we're about and what we're trying to do. And I reckon the greens aren't bad. If only people would vote, not on the basis of what other people say, or what they think are likely outcomes, or what the papers and the polls say, but on the basis of what they think is right, democracy might even work..
Similar threads
- Poll
