UK Politics - BoJo and chums
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
- Status
Also in the civilised meaning. She only cares for her own good and not for public affairs.She is literally an idiot. (well, with the barbaric meaning)
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-news-keir-starmer-labour-party-future-latest
Apologies for linking the Express. But I heard Blair talking this morning on the radio and this was the only story I could find not behind a paywall.
Tony Blair wants to instigate a political revolution. Sort of along the lines of the French model with Macron – a radical centre “party” that’s progressive. And he has brought in a number of notable figures into his big tent. A few Labour nobodies, but perhaps the most notable are Tories – Ruth Davidson and Rory Stewart among them. Not clear yet as to whether this would actually be a new party.
The thing that frustrates me about Blair is that I think most of his ideas are actually fundamentally good. He is also very pragmatic and not an idealist. And he is right when he says there are too many people in the Labour party who treat the NHS as a religion. Just as he is probably right to say that there is a large gap in British politics at the centre for a party with a progressive programme. He lays the blame for the current state of affairs at Corbyns and Johnsons feet. Corbyn would have destroyed the Labour Party had he, or one of his disciples taken over. And Johnson has turned the Conservatives into the Brexit Party.
The problem is, of course, that Tony Blair squandered all of his political capital on that frivolous war. And I am not sure enough people are willing to listen to him, even if he is actually talking sense about how we might be able to go forward.
Apologies for linking the Express. But I heard Blair talking this morning on the radio and this was the only story I could find not behind a paywall.
Tony Blair wants to instigate a political revolution. Sort of along the lines of the French model with Macron – a radical centre “party” that’s progressive. And he has brought in a number of notable figures into his big tent. A few Labour nobodies, but perhaps the most notable are Tories – Ruth Davidson and Rory Stewart among them. Not clear yet as to whether this would actually be a new party.
The thing that frustrates me about Blair is that I think most of his ideas are actually fundamentally good. He is also very pragmatic and not an idealist. And he is right when he says there are too many people in the Labour party who treat the NHS as a religion. Just as he is probably right to say that there is a large gap in British politics at the centre for a party with a progressive programme. He lays the blame for the current state of affairs at Corbyns and Johnsons feet. Corbyn would have destroyed the Labour Party had he, or one of his disciples taken over. And Johnson has turned the Conservatives into the Brexit Party.
The problem is, of course, that Tony Blair squandered all of his political capital on that frivolous war. And I am not sure enough people are willing to listen to him, even if he is actually talking sense about how we might be able to go forward.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Promising to do things that are obviously beyond one's power is rather stupid.
The thing is committee and opposition MPs lean on ministers to agree to do that,
knowing full well that it is a distraction from the minister's main duties and that the
failure to do that will give them a rhetorical stick to beat the minister at the next review.
A wise minister won't fall onto that trap, but alas we don't have many of them.
He had ten years as Prime Minister to do exactly that, but he chose not to do that.
According to my account, he made at least eight other betrayals.
(a) personally betrayed Protestantism for Catholicism
(b) betrayed NI for supposed peace at any price
(c) betrayed socialism for financial capitalism
(d) betrayed UK democracy for European Union
(e) made concessions to the EU in hope of becoming its Presidency.
(f) betrayed the poor for the millionaire class
(g) run down regulation in favour of international corporates
(h) run down UK manufacturing in favour of internationalism
Its presidency is rotated around the member states, is it not? So I am not sure there was ever a chance of Blair's actions having any effect on that.
Blair, who (of course) avoided any prison time or heavy fines, has no issue blaming Corbyn, and the british public deserves what it gets for living in a dream.
He meant the position now held by low-weight puppet Ursula.
He meant the position now held by low-weight puppet Ursula.
Meanwhile, the govt is planning to strip back more environmental laws, on the grounds that they are "fundamentally flawed", but who wants to bet that they won't be replaced?
Also, NHS privatisation has been linked to a rise in avoidable deaths. Who'd have thought that privatisation would not lead to a rise in standards? Anyone?
Also, NHS privatisation has been linked to a rise in avoidable deaths. Who'd have thought that privatisation would not lead to a rise in standards? Anyone?
EnglishEdward
Deity
I can only suppose you typed raised instead of raided, 's' an 'd' being adjacent on keyboards.
Reverting to @ Samson's summary of Liz Truss' statement:
I find that really quite appalling.
Spending money we don't have, and burdening the next generation with debt, pretending to be a great power is in my mind quite immoral.
And challenging China is a mug's game for a large island and a few other bits country like the UK.
EnglishEdward
Deity
When people, including Tony Blair say that, I regard that as a code word/euphenism for privatisation.
It is all rot about progressiveness.
Since leaving the House Of Commons Tony Blair has completed his metamorphosis into a rich right wing wealthy self interested businessman.
I trust him even less than before.
If private health care was working so great, you'd suspect it would have better results in a country with the resources of the US than something like Britain.
The incentive for private health care for the poor or those with little money, isn't about health care at all, but avoiding (hopefully) the loss of income automatically deducted for state health care. In other words, the person with little to no money will just not bother with their health, and get a little more to spend until they get ill and then die.
The incentive for private health care for the poor or those with little money, isn't about health care at all, but avoiding (hopefully) the loss of income automatically deducted for state health care. In other words, the person with little to no money will just not bother with their health, and get a little more to spend until they get ill and then die.
EnglishEdward
Deity
@ Kyriakos
Yes, that is true, but the private sector also likes the idea that the government raises money
from the people by taxation, and then directly pays the private sector to provide health care.
And there are all sorts of insurance companies that would like to move in on a revenue stream.
Yes, that is true, but the private sector also likes the idea that the government raises money
from the people by taxation, and then directly pays the private sector to provide health care.
And there are all sorts of insurance companies that would like to move in on a revenue stream.
I think Blairs achievements as PM were on the whole a good thing (leaving aside the mess in Iraq). His government did advance education after years of Tory underfunding. Suddenly schools had IT suites. And new ones were being built. In health too, the state of the NHS was pretty good after a decade of Blairism and new hospitals were common. Yes he did use private means to achieve that. And the reason is he was a pragmatist. He didn’t have some pathological or religious ideal that all of the NHS had to be under the public umbrella all of the time. If the private sector could do bits of it cheaper and more efficient, then his view was sign me up. It delivers better value money for the tax payer and achieves a better service. His government also went further than any other in advancing a peace deal in Northern Ireland. They also equalised the legal status of marriage for gay people. They introduced the minimum wage and even made it the political mainstream – which was miles away during the Tory governments of the 90s. And most of the employment law under Maastricht is now part of the political consensus.
I think on a lot of these things, you could say that Blair was a red Tory. But you have to remember that the UK as a whole has not voted for a socialist government since 1945. And no one in the Labour Party has ever achieved more than Tony Blair – he did win 3 consecutive terms after all. People like Tony Benn – who incidentally split the Labour Party back in the 80s – is held up as the darling of the Labour Party. I really do not know why. He achieved far less (unless you count actually splitting the Labour Party). And he never won any elections (even the leadership bid). And he never made any sort of impact on society because he was never in government. Blair did. And the left wing of Labour have spent every second since he left trashing his record. Much of which I think is unfair. He made a great deal of difference to poorer people through Sure Start centres, working tax credits and other policy initiatives. You can always argue that some of these ideas turned into negatives, but at least to begin with they did actually help. We didn’t have food banks for starters.
I think on a lot of these things, you could say that Blair was a red Tory. But you have to remember that the UK as a whole has not voted for a socialist government since 1945. And no one in the Labour Party has ever achieved more than Tony Blair – he did win 3 consecutive terms after all. People like Tony Benn – who incidentally split the Labour Party back in the 80s – is held up as the darling of the Labour Party. I really do not know why. He achieved far less (unless you count actually splitting the Labour Party). And he never won any elections (even the leadership bid). And he never made any sort of impact on society because he was never in government. Blair did. And the left wing of Labour have spent every second since he left trashing his record. Much of which I think is unfair. He made a great deal of difference to poorer people through Sure Start centres, working tax credits and other policy initiatives. You can always argue that some of these ideas turned into negatives, but at least to begin with they did actually help. We didn’t have food banks for starters.
I suppose this had nothing to do with Blair forcing student tuition fees (including for EU and English students) - which soon meant that many people were unable to study and/or had to direct themselves away from the humanities.
Isn't student debt in the UK a legacy of Blair?
It really really did not. It just meant that instead of borrowing the money at government rates, and the state having the flexibility to change and/or close facilities as required the building happened using money borrowed at corporate rates (significantly higher than the government can get) and we are tied into paying high fees for 20 odd years, even when the hospital closes because it is not needed. And any changes have to go through the management company with takes ages and costs ~100 times as much as if it could be done in house.
We also get things like when when Virgin health ran out of budget for the sexual health services they just stopped providing them, including long acting contraceptive implants for vulnerable people. It really is a tragedy what the privatisation of the NHS is doing , and Blair did more of it than Thatcher.
[EDIT] And then I read this, I would bet all I have it is a vast underestimate:
NHS privatisation linked to 557 ‘treatable’ deaths in five years
Oxford University researchers found relative spend on outsourcing was associated with deaths from certain illnesses
The study, funded by the Wellcome Trust and published in The Lancet journal today, is billed as the first full assessment of NHS privatisation in the wake of Andrew Lansley’s 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which encouraged more outsourcing.
The researchers measured how much NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) across England spent on outsourcing from 2013 to 2020, and compared it with how many people died from ‘treatable’ illnesses – meaning deaths considered avoidable with effective healthcare.
On average, they found every additional 1% of annual CCG budgets that went on outsourcing was associated with a rise in treatable mortality of 0.29 deaths per 100,000 population the following year. The researchers say 557 additional deaths during the years 2014 to 2018 might be attributed to changes in outsourcing.
The Paper:The study, funded by the Wellcome Trust and published in The Lancet journal today, is billed as the first full assessment of NHS privatisation in the wake of Andrew Lansley’s 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which encouraged more outsourcing.
The researchers measured how much NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) across England spent on outsourcing from 2013 to 2020, and compared it with how many people died from ‘treatable’ illnesses – meaning deaths considered avoidable with effective healthcare.
On average, they found every additional 1% of annual CCG budgets that went on outsourcing was associated with a rise in treatable mortality of 0.29 deaths per 100,000 population the following year. The researchers say 557 additional deaths during the years 2014 to 2018 might be attributed to changes in outsourcing.
Last edited:
PFI was a way of loading the costs of building new hospitals onto future generations. He was dishonest and amoral, not pragmatic
Its interesting you should say this. Yes - this was a cost inflicted by Blair - the leader of the Labour Party - the party of the working classes - against the middle classes. And its a cost many of them - champagne socialists if you will - have never forgiven him for.
Working classes pay too. I've certainly not forgiven him and I earn considerably less than the average salary.
Exactly who paid what is a question I cannot answer, but it certainly had the effect of deterring more of the working class than the middle class from higher education. This hurt the whole of the UK as it has a less well educated workforce just as the country needs a educated workforce to compete globally.
Of course there's differences and exceptions to the generalisations I made. The more general point though is that whilst things like tuition fees, PFI and a whole load of other things get held up by some as a rod to strike the back of Blairism. My point is simply that poorer people were a lot better off under him than they were or are under the Tories. And he has done more to advance the less well off than any PM probably since Atlee. Yet rather than be lauded he is demonised by large sections of the left wing. Who have done almost precisely nothing to help poorer people in their entire history in UK politics. Excepting 1945.
- Status
