boring post again
Perhaps not but if alternative is just to steal Tories clothes and stay as a centre right party then what is the point. For all the power of Murdoch the television news coverage in the UK is in generally balanced and a move away from the centre right should see The Guardian return to support them for instance. Labour deserted their traditional base in past ten years in particular and todayâs election goes some way to restoring that balance imo.
Yeah I agree with that. What I wonder is how Labour as a party can return to a genuine left of centre position given how deeply invested they are in the right wing approach of the last ten years. Will Milibandâs victory be anything more than a cosmetic change?
I reckon it offers hope anyway. Donât reckon he is maverick lefty or anything like it but he is as far left as they would elect anyway and perhaps he knew this. Hate personality politics but for whatever reason I like what I see in him and my gut tells me he genuinely believes in core values and isnât power hungry at all costs. I believe prize for him isnât to be elected leader of party or to get Labour in Government but rather it is to bring about real change. In policy terms he has for example at least:
- Opposed war in Iraq,
- Is in favour of higher taxes for wealthy as opposed to attacking less well off
- Doesnât look like he will stick with existing trident policy
- Recognised fact that Labour came far too close to big business and let them dictate policy
Tv coverage may be balanced but pront media is overwhelmingly right wing, particularly in terms of circulation. You point on Labour standing for something other than Tory policies is valid but it was only when Labour modereated its message that it became electable.
Disagree. I think Labour would have got elected in 97 had they someone like Cook, Mowlam or Hain as leader myself. Tories were never going to get in again after 92.
Donât really see their print media as being anymore right wing than ours for instance. Guardian, Independent are two left leaning daily papers. Two more than we have probably.
I didnât mean that a Cabinet role was working for Brown. What I meant was he started working for Brown in his mid-20s and has been in full-time politics ever since, so I donât think heâs had any kind of a job outside of politics for any meaningful time, which Iâm pretty sure is what balbec meant too.
I think youâre doing a disservice to the domestic achievments of the Blair government, particularly in its first term. Spending on health and education was significantly increased, a minimum wage was introduced, civil rights legislation introduced for gays and of course heavy involvement in the NI peace process. Government spending as a percentage of GDP had significantly increased by the end of the second term. It was certainly a centre-left government. In retrospect, they were too close to the City though. Foreign policy was quite good too for as long as Clinton was in the White House, most notably Londonâs leading role in the Kosovo intervention, which I certainly supported anyway. I think he put too much store in maintaining the âspecial relationshipâ with the US when it came to making decisions about Iraq, and he made some very bad choices there.
Your point about Labour standing for something is very simplistic. Sometimes you have to make a choice between putting everything you stand for in your manifesto and leaving some of it out in order to win more votes. My opinion of what Blair did (and Kinnock and Smith before him had started to do) was to take them from being an unelectable left-wing party, to an electable centre-left one. I think providing an electable centre-left counterweight provides more of a genuine alternative than sticking rigidly to a Socialism that the public will never embrace. It will be interesting to see what his first moves as leader are in this regard. The fact that he didnât have the support of the Parliamentary Party that he will have to lead (and presumably much of his Shadow Cabinet, which will be elected by the PLP) might mean that he has to tone it down somewhat.
Iâll believe that if you can show me a quote from 2003 where he publicly opposed it.
Labour would not have been elected in 97 if someone like Kinnock or Foot had still been leader, regardless of the state of the Tory party. Labour should have won 92 but couldnât dispel the fears of the public (Media manipulated fears) with regard to taxes and spending. It was only when Smith and especialy Blair sold the âNew Labourâ concept that Labour became electable.
In terms of circulation their print media would be more right wing, Independent circulation is fairly small in UK as is Guardian. (just checked , combined circulation of both papers is less than The Times which is in turn lower than the Telegraph.)
He wasnât an MP in 2003. Bit hard to show you a quote when he wasnât a public representative braz in fairness. Think most accept he opposed it and he has said it himself.
Agree with you that Blair did some good things particularly in his first term. After 2001 though I think there was a definite shift and wouldnât call it a centre left government by a long stretch.
Ifs and buts I know but I really find it hard to believe that Tories could have won in 97 if Hitler was leader of Labour. They were on the slide big time and there was no way they could have been elected again. Bit like FF in Ireland now.
Print media tends to be fairly right wing in this part of the world. Look at our largest selling papers Irish Independent and Sunday Independent. Mail, Examiner, Irish Times could hardly be described as left leaning either.
What do you mean by electable hannibal? Acceptable to the media, ergo acceptable to the wealthy?
He has said it himself in the midst of a leadership campaign for the Labour Party where it hardly hurts him to say that. I would put zero weight on that.
I think the shift after 2001 was more palpable on foreign policy and civil rights issues (both of which I abhorred for what itâs worth). I think Blair was probably quite genuinely shaken by 9/11 to be honest, and it took him to some bad places policy wise. I still think that on domestic issues, it was very much a left of centre government. I guess weâll have to disagree on that one. I will try to dig out those spending as a percentage of GDP figures though. As long as you can strip out defence spending, itâs quite a meaningful statistic. Iâm fairly sure ours was quite low by European standards for example (at least until GDP crashed, which makes it temporarily less meaningful as a measure).
Economically a left of centre government braz? Thatâs not what youâre saying is it?
So youâd put zero weight on the fact that he said he opposed it and those around him have said he opposed it yet you believe he supported it why?
True the shift was most noticeable in those areas but really was remarkable for Labour government to be outflanking the likes of Ken Clarke and Tim Yeo on the right of British politics even on these issues alone. That isnât centre left it isnât even centre right.
Cook said that Blair liked to get on the plane to America looking like a world statesman after 9/11. Sums it up accurately for me.
In 1991/early 92 it was generally thought that labour could not lose the 92 election. Thatcher was gone, Major was the âgreyâ man and the Tories race was runâŚonly for the scaremongering media to intervene. Sun headline the day of the election spoke about everyone leaving if Labour won and would the last person pleae turn out the lights. Very little as interventionist as that in Ireland.
Yes the Irish media is more right wing than left, even the Irish Times would be regarded as a Liberal paper at best. The less said about the Daily Heil and Sunday Indo the better.
Partially yes WTB, nobody ever said politics was simple science. Take Fine Gael, FF are struggling like they have never done before and still FG are incapable of of capturing the imagination. Maybe it is more style than substance but that is the reality of modern politics,
The Indo had a front page editorial backing fianna fail for the '97 election. Youâre right itâs not as partisan in Ireland but itâs heading that way. Should labour stand a serious chance in the next election itâll be ugly.
Indeed. Constant agenda favouring Ahern in Independent Newspapers before last election. Not as blatant as one you mentioned but virtually every week there would be several pieces reminding us all why we would be fools to consider voting for anyone other than FF. Matt Cooperâs book was particularly interesting in revealing agenda of print media in recent elections here
Agree with you on Labour point also. No way will media stand for it and we really arenât ones to be throwing stones regarding British print media.
Not saying I believe he supported it. Just saying itâs very convenient for him now to say he opposed it, yet he continued to work in a political capacity for the Government of the day.
As I said above, I found their foreign and security policies to be abhorrent post 2001. Even mainstream Conservative opinion opposed ID cards.