Is this why Blair is hanging on?
- Thread starter jiggajagga
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Meanwhile, it looks like the voters are getting really sick of his slavish adherence to the Washington Consensus on foreign and economic policy, with no obvious benefit to the electorate and plenty of obvious drawbacks.
Best defence against terrorism is a split with US, say voters
Anotherfolky
New Member
Azrael said:
Thatcherism didnt strip mine civil liberties, and what country were you living in during the 1980s exactly?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Maybe having education for all and any sort of public health service is 'left wing' even if they've been privatised?Imagine said:
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
2 junior ministers have resigned this morning.
So it begins!
What odds he's gone by the end of the month?
Me? Evens.
So it begins!
What odds he's gone by the end of the month?
Me? Evens.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Wilson?
Magneze said:
The most recent was Harold Wilson in 1976.
I think, for the most part, Blair actually believes a lot of his rhetoric, this is a parallel with Thatcher, another "conviction politician" that the media and the "great leader" fetishists loved.
A number of 'Faustian pacts' have taken place, though, with people who do not 'believe' in the same way as Blair does, and the whole post-1997 New Labour experiment is the result of an alliance between sometimes contradictory and opposing forces. The looming price of these pacts is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore for some of those making the pacts, be they labour politicians, union leaders or voters.
Blair, Giddens, and the other followers of the 'third way' surrendered almost completely to Thatcherism and neo-liberalism, but justified their surrender in terms of "what works" and "sweetening the medicine".
In foreign policy terms, Blair's poodleism is not an aberration as regards the foreign policy of the neo-colonialist British state, it is a depressing continuation. He sells it to himself on the basis of being a "moderating influence" on rampant US imperialism, and on a dodgy, paternalistic, white-mans burden, social-christian, 19th Century liberal-imperialist outlook. Thatcher and Blair have both been able to override objective 'national interest' where necessary, in pursuit of their messianic ideological dogmas.
So Blair does not aim to "destroy the left", he truly believes in a "left" that is basically 19th century capitalist love-in, liberal imperialist Whiggism - Cameron is obliging by turning the "right" into a 'green',Cobbett-lite, protectionist parody of 19th Century Toryism - a Primrose movement for today.
Even Marxism, of a kind of RCP, corrupted ultra-determinist version is definable in the New Labour project - where the development of the productive forces must be encouraged at whatever cost to workers and environment and the state strengthened (in a fascistic-corporatist fashion reminiscent of the 1930s) to forward the day of social utopia, where labour and capital are reconciled in the white heat of global technological revolution.
The Blairites are like the "Borg" in Star Trek - they do not wish to destroy the 'left', but assimilate it. Just look at how much Blairism is found in those who are presented as 'alternatives' within the labour orbit - from Gordon Brown to the assimilation expert Neal Lawson (and look where he was coming from) and his "Compass". The Campaign Group and those selling anything recognisable as historic socialism are a tiny minority. This is disguised by the centre left tribalists at the labour conferences voting through toothless social democratic resolutions. They may vote through resolutions to salve their consciences, but they stick to Blairs Faustian pact with the fickle swing voters and the City and don't really want to frighten Worcester woman or the markets by rocking the boat too much,....
If the left is to avoid assimilation it must re-invent itself and re-find its natural constituency. For most, at this time, that will be outside the confines of the labour party.
A number of 'Faustian pacts' have taken place, though, with people who do not 'believe' in the same way as Blair does, and the whole post-1997 New Labour experiment is the result of an alliance between sometimes contradictory and opposing forces. The looming price of these pacts is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore for some of those making the pacts, be they labour politicians, union leaders or voters.
Blair, Giddens, and the other followers of the 'third way' surrendered almost completely to Thatcherism and neo-liberalism, but justified their surrender in terms of "what works" and "sweetening the medicine".
In foreign policy terms, Blair's poodleism is not an aberration as regards the foreign policy of the neo-colonialist British state, it is a depressing continuation. He sells it to himself on the basis of being a "moderating influence" on rampant US imperialism, and on a dodgy, paternalistic, white-mans burden, social-christian, 19th Century liberal-imperialist outlook. Thatcher and Blair have both been able to override objective 'national interest' where necessary, in pursuit of their messianic ideological dogmas.
So Blair does not aim to "destroy the left", he truly believes in a "left" that is basically 19th century capitalist love-in, liberal imperialist Whiggism - Cameron is obliging by turning the "right" into a 'green',Cobbett-lite, protectionist parody of 19th Century Toryism - a Primrose movement for today.
Even Marxism, of a kind of RCP, corrupted ultra-determinist version is definable in the New Labour project - where the development of the productive forces must be encouraged at whatever cost to workers and environment and the state strengthened (in a fascistic-corporatist fashion reminiscent of the 1930s) to forward the day of social utopia, where labour and capital are reconciled in the white heat of global technological revolution.
The Blairites are like the "Borg" in Star Trek - they do not wish to destroy the 'left', but assimilate it. Just look at how much Blairism is found in those who are presented as 'alternatives' within the labour orbit - from Gordon Brown to the assimilation expert Neal Lawson (and look where he was coming from) and his "Compass". The Campaign Group and those selling anything recognisable as historic socialism are a tiny minority. This is disguised by the centre left tribalists at the labour conferences voting through toothless social democratic resolutions. They may vote through resolutions to salve their consciences, but they stick to Blairs Faustian pact with the fickle swing voters and the City and don't really want to frighten Worcester woman or the markets by rocking the boat too much,....
If the left is to avoid assimilation it must re-invent itself and re-find its natural constituency. For most, at this time, that will be outside the confines of the labour party.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
This has been the British establishment's favoured way of neutralising any sort of opposition to it since time immemorial.greenman said:
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
6 PPS have resigned so far...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5319328.stm
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
harold wilson did and bugger, bernie got there first. However, the ultimate aim in his mind in doing so was to shaft Sunny Jim by dumping the coming storm on him, and he sure as fuck managed that!Magneze said:
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
great post greenman
For myself I have little sympathy with the labour "left" for their faustian pact. I think they faciliated him too long. They are a rump, and even socialists usually make the same classic economic mistake as capitalists in that they still treat "free" goods (nature - the earths resources) as income not capital.
Spot on about Cameron too.The tories are playing a clever game and have been fortunate with the latest events, But if Camerpm gets in he will be every bit as unpopular as Blair sooner or later.
For myself I have little sympathy with the labour "left" for their faustian pact. I think they faciliated him too long. They are a rump, and even socialists usually make the same classic economic mistake as capitalists in that they still treat "free" goods (nature - the earths resources) as income not capital.
Spot on about Cameron too.The tories are playing a clever game and have been fortunate with the latest events, But if Camerpm gets in he will be every bit as unpopular as Blair sooner or later.
Similar threads
