Is there a difference between Labour and Conservative Parties?

[Louis MacNeice]

Blairism wanted to/needed to break with Thatcherism at the level of political branding. Thatcherism was passed its sell by date. Blairism provided an all new box in which to market what remains essentially the same product. If you like, Thatcherism was branflakes; Blairism is branflakes with a few smallish sultanas added.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Random]

Blairism wanted to/needed to break with Thatcherism at the level of political branding. Thatcherism was passed its sell by date. Blairism provided an all new box in which to market what remains essentially the same product. If you like, Thatcherism was branflakes; Blairism is branflakes with a few smallish sultanas added.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

But it is in that smallish sultana that we all live

 

[belboid]

Thatcherism was open class war.

Where as Blair just got upset and said the unions weren't serious.

dear me, such a sad lack of thinking. Thatcher won and Blair created a social consensus based specifically around her ideas, her vision of society, but with a few extra quid for 'the poor'. If you think that is 'a million miles' from Thatcher, then you seem to have a poor sense of distance (not to mention your rejection of the past 10-15 years of SWP thought)

 

[Gmart]

Labour represent the poorer section of society, and spend more in that regard until economics tells them not to - then they run out of ideas.

Conservatives instinctively look out for the richer section of society and have no qualms about cutting all funding to the poor so long as the rich are ok.

The results are much the same, tho Labour have tried so hard to please the rich that they seem to have forgotten the poor recently. This sounds like the Conservatives...

Thus they are both the same and there is STILL no party prepared to take on the vested interests which prevent proper change.

 

[butchersapron]

Where do you get these mad ideas from?

 

[tbaldwin]

Blairism wanted to/needed to break with Thatcherism at the level of political branding. Thatcherism was passed its sell by date. Blairism provided an all new box in which to market what remains essentially the same product. If you like, Thatcherism was branflakes; Blairism is branflakes with a few smallish sultanas added.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

What a load of wank Louis.
So basically you see no difference between Blair and Thatcher on gay rights despite section 28.
On social policy despite NL being responsible for a massive increase in social spending and thatchers 12 year war on the print.steel,miners and health unions etc.
No wonder so few people take the hysterical left seriously.

 

[tbaldwin]

Labour represent the poorer section of society, and spend more in that regard until economics tells them not to - then they run out of ideas.

Conservatives instinctively look out for the richer section of society and have no qualms about cutting all funding to the poor so long as the rich are ok.

The results are much the same, tho Labour have tried so hard to please the rich that they seem to have forgotten the poor recently. This sounds like the Conservatives...

Thus they are both the same and there is STILL no party prepared to take on the vested interests which prevent proper change.

Good post....a rare voice of sanity on u75.

 

[butchersapron]

Where do you two live -1945?

 

[belboid]

increased spending (lets ignore the fact that it is going to priovate enterprises and consultant tosspots) AND gay rights.

Thats 21st century socialism. Apparently. Not woolly right-wing liberalism at all, oh no no no.

 

[Zachor]

Thatcherism was open class war.

Where as Blair just got upset and said the unions weren't serious.

Thatcherism in my opinion started out as a much needed kick up the arse to a complacent and bankrupt society which went far too far and ended up causing damage which is still negatively affecting how we act as a society and as a nation.

Maybe a Govt led by a Heathite in 79 would have sorted out the obvious problems without turning us into a sandwich bar economy which Thatcher did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

er yeah its rubbish.....Labour have massivelly increased public spending and this has led to loads more doctors,teachers,nurses etc as you well know.

Which doesn't alter the fact that if you review the historical record, it has indeed been Labour governments that have initiated the most severe (percentage-wise) cuts in public spending. Of course, if you look at the economic situation at the times this has happened you may draw the conclusion that the cuts were necessary, and that some of them were directly resulting from the policy fuck-ups of previous governments, but that doesn't change the inescapable fact that the cuts took place under Labour governments.

 

[Zachor]

increased spending (lets ignore the fact that it is going to priovate enterprises and consultant tosspots) AND gay rights.

Thats 21st century socialism. Apparently. Not woolly right-wing liberalism at all, oh no no no.

The trouble is too much of the increased spending has been wasted.

Does our society really need 'real nappy officers' or would we be better off increasing the number of health visitors and district nurses?

 

[belboid]

what it doesnt need is cunts like you

 

[Zachor]

what it doesnt need is cunts like you

Neither does society need dogmatic lefties who mutate quite quickly into tyrants.

The fact that you haven't addressed my point tells me all I need to know.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Left and Right are a bit vague - I was looking for examples of principles which were different...

For example believing in a smaller government rather than a bigger one.

The issue here is that belief in smaller government hardly ever becomes a reality under a tory government

Or higher spending rather than lower - which has been mentioned.

Events, however, have a way of making mock of spending priorities, whatever the ideology of the individual party.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Juts how many times are you going to do this thread btw?

As many times as it takes the wise and sagacious GMart to re-educate us to the rightness of his views, hence his re-hashing of all his threads on a regular basis.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What a load of wank Louis.
So basically you see no difference between Blair and Thatcher on gay rights despite section 28.
On social policy despite NL being responsible for a massive increase in social spending and thatchers 12 year war on the print.steel,miners and health unions etc.
No wonder so few people take the hysterical left seriously.

You show me the difference in their attitude towards the primacy and efficiency of the market and I'll take back my bran flakes analogy. All your examples show is that:

1. Blairism recognised quite rightly that certain gay rights can be popularly promoted within a market system; Thatcherism's populist touch had been waning for some time.

2. Blairism did nothing to redress the attacks on print, steel, and mine workers because the defeats inflicted on organised labour met it's own needs; providing a weak partner in the party political realm, a disempowered opposition in the industrial sphere and a social and economic fig leaf when required.

3. Social spending without accountability or democratic controls can produce greater inequality and sharper concentrations of privilege.

Where is your evidence that Balirism hasn't kept on ploughing the Thatcherite furrow which would have us all as atomised, self seeking consumers pursuing our individual and familial needs in the all powerful and always virtuous market place. Alan Millburn (a man who benefitted massively from a very different political consensus), speaking on this morning's Today programme, was quite clear in seeing more rather than less of this sort of 'sharp elbowed' behaviour as the way to tackle inequality.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[tbaldwin]

Louis.
All you have done is play to the same old rotting gallery.
Where is your evidence that Blairism has just kept ploughing the Thatcherite furrow.....I think we all know that Blair was hardly Left wing.....but an analysis that says he just kept ploughing a Thatcherite furrow may impress other orthodox lefties but is just plain hopeless when it comes to connecting with the wider population.Basically cos its dishonest.

Over the top bullshit about the LP has not exactly been a recipe for success for you orthodox lefties has it?
In many ways the IWCA seem to have learnt mistakes from the not so revolutionary left but on this you sound equally as pathetic.
Pretending your opponents are worse than they are and pretending your organisation is bigger or more succesful than it is has been the way on the far left for too long. About time you all realised IT DOESNT WORK.

 

[FreddyB]

New Labour continued the Tory schemes of moving service provision, housing, healthcare, education, etc out of social control and into the private profit making sector. They were new (I was actually very excited in '97 when NL won. thick cunt I was) and they did rebrand but they had such a ludicrously long honeymoon period because of the implosion of the Tories they could do damn near anything anyway. And did.

PFI is hugely significant in my view - Hospitals can turn a profit, albeit an artificial one that has nothing to do with their actual function of healing people. That is mad but at the same time now completely normal.


Does anyone think that the Tories being in power will have an effect on union action/militancy?

 

[Random]

Where is your evidence that Blairism has just kept ploughing the Thatcherite furrow?

What anti-union legislation has Labour repealed?

 

[tbaldwin]

Thing is when people wank on about pfi they seem to overlook the fact that private individuals and companies have been milking the public sector since the begining. Look at how much pfi has cost and then look at how much drugs companies have made from the NHS.

 

[tbaldwin]

What anti-union legislation has Labour repealed?

Cant remember offhand but i am sure somebody else will know on here. And i do remember they did but not as much as the tu's wanted.

 

[FreddyB]

Thing is when people wank on about pfi they seem to overlook the fact that private individuals and companies have been milking the public sector since the begining. Look at how much pfi has cost and then look at how much drugs companies have made from the NHS.

So it's the normal way of things, a person might just as well be opposed to gravity?

Great.

 

[tbaldwin]

So it's the normal way of things, a person might just as well be opposed to gravity?

Great.

The drug companies have been milking the NHS for years keeping prices as high as possible and not really giving a damn about the consequences.
Other private companies have also seen as people who control budgets in the public and voluntary sector as a real soft touch. Added to that there has always been huge corruption...pfi is shit but to pretend it has been some huge difference leading to private involvement in the public sector is pathetic.

 

[belboid]

Thing is when people wank on about pfi they seem to overlook the fact that private individuals and companies have been milking the public sector since the begining. Look at how much pfi has cost and then look at how much drugs companies have made from the NHS.

so, that makes it alright? For you, becoming even worse thqan before is becoming more socialist! And you wonder why people call you a rotten liberal (and worse)

Cant remember offhand but i am sure somebody else will know on here. And i do remember they did but not as much as the tu's wanted.

wrong. the one and only one they actually repealed was on the POA's right to strike, which they replaced with a no strike agreement! the rest are still on the statute book, all of them.

 

[FreddyB]

The drug companies have been milking the NHS for years keeping prices as high as possible and not really giving a damn about the consequences.
Other private companies have also seen as people who control budgets in the public and voluntary sector as a real soft touch. Added to that there has always been huge corruption...pfi is shit but to pretend it has been some huge difference leading to private involvement in the public sector is pathetic.

Who says it's huge in itself? It's hugely significant to this discussion. Labour far from reversing the bleeding of the public sector have invented their own new and exciting way of doing it. Look, more hospitals, aren't we wonderful!

 

[butchersapron]

It's ok for me to mug you because someone else is going to mug you again down the road. Fucking hell, is that all you have left balders?

 

[tbaldwin]

It's ok for me to mug you because someone else is going to mug you again down the road. Fucking hell, is that all you have left balders?

No idea what point your trying to make? You seem quite confused.

 

[butchersapron]

A common reaction to your posts i believe.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis.
All you have done is play to the same old rotting gallery.
Where is your evidence that Blairism has just kept ploughing the Thatcherite furrow.....I think we all know that Blair was hardly Left wing.....but an analysis that says he just kept ploughing a Thatcherite furrow may impress other orthodox lefties but is just plain hopeless when it comes to connecting with the wider population.Basically cos its dishonest.

Over the top bullshit about the LP has not exactly been a recipe for success for you orthodox lefties has it?
In many ways the IWCA seem to have learnt mistakes from the not so revolutionary left but on this you sound equally as pathetic.
Pretending your opponents are worse than they are and pretending your organisation is bigger or more succesful than it is has been the way on the far left for too long. About time you all realised IT DOESNT WORK.

So where did Blairism attack the market, reinstitute trade union authority or place social spending under greater accountability? Where is the fundamental shift from Thatcherism to Blairism? It can be easily seen in the move from the post war consensus to Thatcherism, but you have yet to show it between the Major and Blair governments.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice