[CRTHD]

Blair was the acceptable face of Labour, with non-Labour voters.

If Labour are to win another election, they have to attract the non-core vote. That is why they need "a Blair".

Miliband senior could have been just that. But Labour members "blew" that chance because they wanted a true leftie in charge.

At least they are sticking to first principles and not going for "power at any cost".

[flobadob]

The JP Morgan consultant is in the Telegraph today rejecting banking regulations. Rather than changing laws and regulations and undoing all of Thatcher's good work, he says we need to examine cultural norms and regain the basic values of what society is all about.

When I wrote the above paragraph, it was supposed to be sarky, but looking at the interview, it doesn't appear at all exaggerated. I sometimes find it difficult to believe that a Labour government was headed by a man to the right of Margaret Thatcher who thinks that the solution to the banking crisis should consist not of legislation and regulation, but some sort of vague introspection.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...wont-help.html

[flobadob]

Originally Posted by CRTHD

Blair was the acceptable face of Labour, with non-Labour voters.

If Labour are to win another election, they have to attract the non-core vote. That is why they need "a Blair".

Miliband senior could have been just that. But Labour members "blew" that chance because they wanted a true leftie in charge.

At least they are sticking to first principles and not going for "power at any cost".

Then what's the point of Labour? If you want Tory policies, you should vote for the Tory Party. New Labour didn't just water down traditional Labour policies - it actually went further to the right than Thatcher. It deregulated faster than her, and it privatised faster than her. Its foreign policy was more militaristic than her too.

[BomoLad]

Originally Posted by flobadob

Then what's the point of Labour? If you want Tory policies, you should vote for the Tory Party. New Labour didn't just water down traditional Labour policies - it actually went further to the right than Thatcher. It deregulated faster than her, and it privatised faster than her. Its foreign policy was more militaristic than her too.

But that's a very narrow view as to what being 'left' means, isn't it?

It seems the whole world has moved on, political ideologies have changed, except for the British left-wing who seem to think all that matters is nationalisation and pretending it's 1972 again.

Blair was nowhere near as Thatcherite as his accusers would say. That's just typical over-exaggerative nonsense. He was moderately 'Thatcherite' in some areas but in other areas such as the minimum wage, efforts to drive down unemployment, larger investment in public services - he was very much with a left-wing social conscious.

Yet the left seem to just want to hold on to outdated ideals. The left is the blame for Thatcherism, let's make no bones about that. It wasn't that she was a beloved leader who won three general elections because people were convinced she was the better path for Britain. Although that may have been true and to a larger degree in the early part of her administration. She won because the left, like today, wish to bizarrely revert everything back to outdated ideals.

It's 2012 and even in light of the financial crisis anyone who stands for election on the platform of re-nationalisation of industry will be rejected by the electorate and distroyed at the polls. The left need to move on or accept their stubbornness will lead to right-wing Tory governments. That's the choice.

To repeat, Blair was nowhere near as right-wing as his detractors would have everyone believe. He was economically to the right of most in his party but socially he delivered more than people give him credit for.

[flobadob]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

But that's a very narrow view as to what being 'left' means, isn't it?

It seems the whole world has moved on, political ideologies have changed, except for the British left-wing who seem to think all that matters is nationalisation and pretending it's 1972 again.

Blair was nowhere near as Thatcherite as his accusers would say. That's just typical over-exaggerative nonsense. He was moderately 'Thatcherite' in some areas but in other areas such as the minimum wage, efforts to drive down unemployment, larger investment in public services - he was very much with a left-wing social conscious.

Yet the left seem to just want to hold on to outdated ideals. The left is the blame for Thatcherism, let's make no bones about that. It wasn't that she was a beloved leader who won three general elections because people were convinced she was the better path for Britain. Although that may have been true and to a larger degree in the early part of her administration. She won because the left, like today, wish to bizarrely revert everything back to outdated ideals.

It's 2012 and even in light of the financial crisis anyone who stands for election on the platform of re-nationalisation of industry will be rejected by the electorate and distroyed at the polls. The left need to move on or accept their stubbornness will lead to right-wing Tory governments. That's the choice.

To repeat, Blair was nowhere near as right-wing as his detractors would have everyone believe. He was economically to the right of most in his party but socially he delivered more than people give him credit for.

But anyone who stands for banking regulation won't be. After all that happened in the banks, Blair is still saying "no regulation - let's all go on as before". It's astonishing that the state has lent billions to the banks, money they wouldn't get from any other source, but people like Blair (who is a paid consultant for JP Morgan and Zurich, by the way) say that the tax payer and the government should just close their eyes and let them get on with it. Looking at British politics from continental Europe, it's amazing how right-wing both of the parties are. Privatisation hasn't been taken half as far in most northern European countries. And the privatisation of public services has never been shown to bring any savings - it was only done to hand over some of the taxpayers' money to private companies.
I don't think the banks should have been given a straight bailout. The Chancellor should have said, "Can you get the money elsewhere? No? Right, we're going to nationalise you. We'll cover your debts and pay your shareholders a nominal amount - their shares are junk without our money in any case."

[CRTHD]

Originally Posted by flobadob

Then what's the point of Labour? If you want Tory policies, you should vote for the Tory Party. New Labour didn't just water down traditional Labour policies - it actually went further to the right than Thatcher. It deregulated faster than her, and it privatised faster than her. Its foreign policy was more militaristic than her too.

I'm just saying it as I see it.

I'm not and never will be a Labour voter regardless how far to the right it goes. They will always spend* (and consequently tax) more than the Tories.

*In my eyes, Labour always waste far too much tax-payers money (often in shrouded bribes to floating voters).

[BomoLad]

But it's typical again of the left rather than look at things in the round, to just focus on one issue. Banking de-regulation wasn't invented in Britain nor was Tony Blair the sole proponent of it. Western economies almost as one, regardless of which side of the spectrum the parties came from, all moved along the same way. It's what happens. Consensus evolves. The left in this country, again, just want to pretend we should be governing as if it's 1972 again.

Rigid adherence to principles is admirable but the world moves on. Would any government had been sensible to allow the rest of the world to deregulate their banks and for one to sit there saying 'Nope', arms folded?

People speak as if banking de-regulation was a New Labour innovation. ANY British government would have done exactly the same because it happened over a long period of time and largely without objection.

I think Blair is right in the sense that it seems 'get the banker' is as much to do with revenge or righting of wrongs than it has finding solutions to problems. I agree reform is needed but too many are trying to use it as an excuse to settle old scores.

[flobadob]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

But it's typical again of the left rather than look at things in the round, to just focus on one issue. Banking de-regulation wasn't invented in Britain nor was Tony Blair the sole proponent of it. Western economies almost as one, regardless of which side of the spectrum the parties came from, all moved along the same way. It's what happens. Consensus evolves. The left in this country, again, just want to pretend we should be governing as if it's 1972 again.

Rigid adherence to principles is admirable but the world moves on. Would any government had been sensible to allow the rest of the world to deregulate their banks and for one to sit there saying 'Nope', arms folded?

People speak as if banking de-regulation was a New Labour innovation. ANY British government would have done exactly the same because it happened over a long period of time and largely without objection.

I think Blair is right in the sense that it seems 'get the banker' is as much to do with revenge or righting of wrongs than it has finding solutions to problems. I agree reform is needed but too many are trying to use it as an excuse to settle old scores.

America and Iceland is not the rest of the world. Many other countries, like France and Germany, kept their banks regulated.
In the early 2000s I did some translation work for the Czech National Bank, which issues banking licences. At the time I asked one of the managers why there were no British banks in Prague, although there were German ones, French ones and Dutch ones, and he told me that some had applied to open branches, but because of the poor standards of transparency in the British regulatory system, they hadn't been able to issue a single licence.
The way you put it, it's as if New Labour was just going with the flow and doing the global thing. Britain just went backwards under New Labour. The other successful economies of Europe saw the benefits of oversight and intervention rather than an unregulated dash for short-term profits.
And you say that people would reject nationalisation, but that was what the bank bailout was. A massive nationalisation. The difference being that the only thing that got nationalised was the debt and the risk, not the assets.

[penelopesimpson]

I wouldn't trust Tony Blair to put the cat out

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

I wouldn't trust Tony Blair to put the cat out

Blair's probably more trusted to put the cat out than Osborne though

Chancellor George Osborne reunited with fat cat Freya who disappeared three years ago
Downing Street has a new resident – the long-lost cat Chancellor George Osborne and his family had assumed has vanished for ever.

Tabby Freya was just a few months old when she went missing from the Osbornes’ Notting Hill home three years ago.

Mr Osborne, wife Frances and their two young children Luke and Liberty searched the streets of West London and put up ‘lost’ posters, but to no avail.

http://rightsanimalnature.blogspot.c...ited-with.html

[penelopesimpson]

Originally Posted by gummy mummy

Blair's probably more trusted to put the cat out than Osborne though



http://rightsanimalnature.blogspot.c...ited-with.html

Oh, lovely.

Didn't Cherie mastermind the disappearance of the Downing Street cat? Presumably only room for one cat in that household.

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Oh, lovely.

Didn't Cherie mastermind the disappearance of the Downing Street cat? Presumably only room for one cat in that household.[

Apparently. I'm not sure whether she was just being 'catty' or whether she had her claws out for some reason.

[Scratchy7929]

Originally Posted by biggle2000

We only need to hark back to 1992. Labour had been ahead of the Conservatives since 1989 right up until the election day and still lost. Opinion polls are just that, opinions. Whenever I am asked on exit who I voted for I always say Labour even when I vote Tory and I am sure I am not the only one.

The Tories haven't won an election since 1992 (overall majority) (that's 20 years ago)

[riceuten]

Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle

heres a scenario

what about Tony Blair to replace Ed milliband?

I reckon Labour might have better prospects in the election

Reckon ? From what ? I think most people would see it for what it is - a former leader - like Thatcher - unable to let go.

[riceuten]

Originally Posted by CRTHD

Blair was the acceptable face of Labour, with non-Labour voters.

If Labour are to win another election, they have to attract the non-core vote. That is why they need "a Blair".

Actually, if they delivered the core vote 100%, they'd win handsomely. The problem is that a proportion core vote vote Tory/UKIP/Lib Dem for a variety of reasons (some of them are stupid enough to believe the drivel in their newspapers) thereby starving them of the votes. All Labour needs to do is to go Back to Basics and they will win again.

Originally Posted by CRTHD

Miliband senior could have been just that. But Labour members "blew" that chance because they wanted a true leftie in charge.

Nope, and nope. The Conservative papers would have been all over him like a rash about being the 'heir of Blair'. Ed is only a 'lefty' in the fevered imagination of Express and Mail column journalists.