| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
06 May 2005 03:13:04 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
The prime minister cannot long survive this election
Polly Toynbee
Friday May 6, 2005
The Guardian
The story of the night is the defection from Labour by those marching
over to the Lib Dems - and some even to the Tories. Labour MPs never
believed those opinion polls giving them an eight or 10 point lead.
What they found on the doorsteps was profound anger focused on the
person of Tony Blair himself. Today, he alone bears the blame for this
haemorrhage of seats.
Polly Toynbee
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/123c0abef89f93a0
http://snipurl.com/8hyd
http://snipurl.com/8hyc
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
06 May 2005 10:20:27 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spam Gangree" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
06 May 2005 03:13:16 PM |
|
|
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Due to be prayed for by Gastrich 11.3.2011
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
07 May 2005 07:47:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
07 May 2005 05:04:49 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
08 May 2005 05:30:44 AM |
|
|
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
08 May 2005 06:27:25 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a 67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
It just shows how fucking dumb us Brits are.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
08 May 2005 06:29:20 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a
67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so
unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
It was the same after Eden. Harold Mcmillan then becme Prime Minister.
Explain, in that case, why the Labour party got far fewer seats than
Conservative.
It's the same scenario now with parties switching labels.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
08 May 2005 12:25:44 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2005 04:29:20 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a
67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so
unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
It was the same after Eden. Harold Mcmillan then becme Prime Minister.
Explain, in that case, why the Labour party got far fewer seats than
Conservative.
It's the same scenario now with parties switching labels.
IIRC the big issue of the day was nuclear weapons with Labour
anti possession and the Tories pro
In those days the Tories fought elections in the same old
way and won in the same old ways. They used the fears of
union control and nationalisation claiming Labour would ruin
the economy. The economy usually went bust soon after
the election but they managed to engineer a boom just in
time for the next one. They were finally ousted when several
scandals could not be covered up leaving Wilson a major
economic headache as the economy overheated again. Blair
got in the sam way after another series of Conservative
scandals and of course record public debts- the supergun
affair being just one. Brown took the sensible course and
got those massive debts down first in the first term.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
09 May 2005 07:59:11 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
Brown took the sensible course and
got those massive debts down first in the first term.
Not yet high noon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1479397,00.html
Leader
Monday May 9, 2005
The Guardian
The Labour party may have been luckier than it realises. It went into
last week's election basing much of its appeal on sound stewardship of
the British economy: the 50 consecutive quarters of growth the country
has enjoyed, along with the record levels of employment and generally
subdued inflation. This "Goldilocks economy" - not too hot, not too cold
- was certainly one of Labour's strongest cards in the campaign, and the
most difficult for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to trump. In
that sense the timing of the election and the state of the economy were
in perfect sync for Labour. But the government may be about to lose its
rhythm.
Article continues
Last week's election meant that the Bank of England put off the monthly
interest rate setting decision of its monetary policy committee until
noon today. The economy's steady growth and shrinking spare capacity had
begun to build momentum in favour of higher interest rates - similar to
the US, where the Federal Reserve has embarked upon a series of rate
rises. But independent economists are now expecting the Bank to keep
rates on hold, because of fears the economy is about to enter a rough
patch. That is because the much-loved British shopper - responsible for
80% of the economy's growth since 1997 - seems about to hang up his or
her credit cards. Then there is the housing market, which shows distinct
signs of cooling: Halifax reported on Friday that house prices have been
static since January, while the annual pace of house price increases is
at its slowest since 2001. A surge in bankruptcies, insolvencies and
repossessions also send pessimistic signals.
None of this, though, is hard evidence that the economy is about to
enter a slowdown. True, the deceleration in consumer spending is
surprising, given the buoyancy of the labour market and the fact that
the Bank has not raised interest rates since last summer. But a trough
in growth later this year is possible. In that case, whoever is then
chancellor of the Exchequer - Mr Brown or a successor - will need to
keep their fingers crossed for two things to happen. One is that the
Bank is willing and able to cut interest rates. The other is that tax
receipts hold up throughout the rest of the year, to enable the
government to keep borrowing within the Treasury's already optimistic
forecasts. Otherwise, gloom about the economy is being overdone in the
City and elsewhere. Of course the sky could always fall in. But assuming
the Bank of England does its job - both today and over the rest of the
year - there's no reason yet to run and hide.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Brown is useless.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
09 May 2005 05:15:15 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 8 May 2005 04:29:20 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a
67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so
unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
It was the same after Eden. Harold Mcmillan then becme Prime Minister.
Explain, in that case, why the Labour party got far fewer seats than
Conservative.
It's the same scenario now with parties switching labels.
IIRC the big issue of the day was nuclear weapons with Labour
anti possession and the Tories pro
In those days the Tories fought elections in the same old
way and won in the same old ways. They used the fears of
union control and nationalisation claiming Labour would ruin
the economy. The economy usually went bust soon after
the election but they managed to engineer a boom just in
time for the next one. They were finally ousted when several
scandals could not be covered up leaving Wilson a major
economic headache as the economy overheated again. Blair
got in the sam way after another series of Conservative
scandals and of course record public debts- the supergun
affair being just one.
Brown took the sensible course and
got those massive debts down first in the first term.
LOL !!! After wasting our gold reserves !
The success of Brown is due to his allowing consumer debt to reach the
dizzying heights it has reached.
He is a useless chancellor.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
09 May 2005 09:39:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2005 11:15:15 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 8 May 2005 04:29:20 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 7 May 2005 15:04:49 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:13:16 +0100, Spam Gangree
<spam.gangree@boggietown.gov> wrote:
I saw Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
where?
there on the stair
where on the stair?
right there
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> with clogs on
well I declare!
going:
On 6 May 2005 01:13:04 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Blair alone bears the blame
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1477907,00.html
His party got 36% of the vote - yet he is Prime Minister with a
67
seat overall majority.
Yes. He lost the unpopularity contest, despite being so
unpopular.
Isn't demacracy wonderful.
Of course the last Conservative government made such a mess of
the country (as usual) and were so corrupt and sleazy that they
would vote for anything that the tories. I vowed never to vote
Conservative over 40 years because I thought them undeserving
of power and my opinion has hardened since. I don't suppose you
will remember the 13 wasted years under McMillan?
It was not such much Blair was unpopular but that the tories
were very unpopular indeed and still are.
But Blair is a Tory just like Eden.
So it is not true that Blair is less unpopular than than the
Conservative party and Howard? Explain, in that case, why
the Conservative party got far fewer seats than Labour.
It was the same after Eden. Harold Mcmillan then becme Prime Minister.
Explain, in that case, why the Labour party got far fewer seats than
Conservative.
It's the same scenario now with parties switching labels.
IIRC the big issue of the day was nuclear weapons with Labour
anti possession and the Tories pro
In those days the Tories fought elections in the same old
way and won in the same old ways. They used the fears of
union control and nationalisation claiming Labour would ruin
the economy. The economy usually went bust soon after
the election but they managed to engineer a boom just in
time for the next one. They were finally ousted when several
scandals could not be covered up leaving Wilson a major
economic headache as the economy overheated again. Blair
got in the sam way after another series of Conservative
scandals and of course record public debts- the supergun
affair being just one.
Brown took the sensible course and
got those massive debts down first in the first term.
LOL !!! After wasting our gold reserves !
That's the problem with Gold, it is dead weight that earns
no interest, costs too much to keep secure, and its value
is unpredictable. No doubt if its value has fallen after he sold
it you would now be praising him for his foresight? It fell after
I bought my Kruggerands but fortunately I eventually got rid of
them for a small gain. Not a good investment, it was a foolish
purchase.
The success of Brown is due to his allowing consumer debt to reach the
dizzying heights it has reached.
He is a useless chancellor.
That was the consumers choice not his. Much of this debt BTW is
mortgages and short term credit card use often paid off by end of
month as we do on the rare occasion we use it.
He still managed to bring down the fools gold legacy of massive
public debt left by the Conservatives. Even the take in taxes
as a percent of GDP is less than under Thatcher.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Tony Blair alone bears the blame |
09 May 2005 07:56:52 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 8 May 2005 04:29:20 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brown took the sensible course and
got those massive debts down first in the first term.
LOL !
Rags seldom turn to riches
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1479399,00.html
Inequality has not been reduced and the government has yet to face up to
dismantling Thatcher's legacy
Madeleine Bunting
Monday May 9, 2005
The Guardian
After a bruising campaign, Tony Blair looks and sounds grimly exhausted;
the fun has gone out of winning elections. He wouldn't be human if he
hadn't been asking himself over the weekend why he hadn't bailed out a
year ago: what's it all for? And that is the question which dogs not
just him personally and his occupancy of No 10, but also the Labour
party's unprecedented grip on power.
Article continues
He has led Labour into the longest period of government in its history.
He has secured a third, historic term. But the very scale of this
achievement only intensifies the scrutiny of just what Labour has done
and plans to do with the power it has proved so adept at winning. What's
it all for? Managerial initiatives around public-sector reform won't
earn Blair accolades in the history books. There is a jarring mismatch
between the huge success at the ballot box and the timidity of how
Labour has used that power to reshape this country and the life chances
of future generations.
That timidity emerged starkly in two recent reports, which warranted
much more soul-searching within the Labour party than they got in the
election rush. It's crucial that they get to the top of Blair's in-tray
because they offer a damning indictment of a government that claims to
be progressive.
The first charge against Labour came from the Institute of Fiscal
Studies' annual report on poverty and inequality. While it confirmed the
much-celebrated fall in child poverty and pensioner poverty, it went on
to chart inequality and pointed out that although it has been falling
since 2001, it is falling so slowly that it has only managed to reverse
the rise between 1997 and 2001. Its bitter conclusion is that the "net
effect of seven years of Labour government is to leave inequality
effectively unchanged".
Labour has succeeded in redistributing some wealth from the middle
classes to the poorest, but it has done no more than halt the trend of
increasing inequality. What has been left intact has been the huge
wealth and income growth built up under the Tories in the 80s and 90s.
Let's be clear about what is at stake: the sharp rise in inequality
between 1979 and 2001 was unprecedented in Britain and internationally.
Only New Zealand ever came close to Britain's dramatic deterioration and
it wasn't sustained there over such a long period. By 2002-03, the top
10% in income distribution in the UK got more of the total share of
income than the bottom 50%. The top 1% had a bigger share of income than
at any time since the 30s. In international comparisons, Britain was
second only to the US. Look at "marketable wealth", such as housing, and
the figures since the mid-90s are much worse.
The rise in inequality and the appalling rate of child poverty were the
most pernicious legacies of the Tories. They reversed half a century of
increasing equality. The consequences of that inequality in terms of
lost life chances for several generations of children brought up in
poverty and for sharply increasing health inequalities were spelt out in
the course of the 90s in volumes of definitive research. That evidence
played a crucial role in shifting the British electorate towards Labour
in the mid-90s. As the British Social Attitudes surveys showed, the vast
majority of people, more than 80% by 1996, thought the income gap too big.
The scale of the challenge for Labour when it came into power in 1997
was huge. No one expected it to be turned around in a term - restoring
inequality to 1979 levels was a project that would take a generation.
But in 2005, after Labour has been in power for eight years, it's
shocking that there has been no progress. The fact that throughout the
eight years of Labour government inequality was higher than it had ever
been under Thatcher seems an astonishing political failure for a
progressive government.
Questioned on the issue by the Commons liaison committee this year,
Blair's mealy-mouthed response was that "sometimes figures can be
misleading about the gap between the wealthy and the poor". He has
lamentably failed to grasp the issue, yet the public anxiety about
inequality has held pretty steady since the 90s across the political
spectrum - 82% still think the income gap is too large (among them a
remarkable 71% of Tories). Here was a political consensus that a
progressive government could have championed.
The second report is arguably even more disturbing. The myth used to
legitimise inequality in the US and the UK is the "rags to riches" story
of social mobility. It's a myth that assuages the guilt of the
privileged while giving (illusory) hope to the aspirational. It's a myth
that makes great telly, which is why we were all cheering on Tim
Campbell and Saira Khan in BBC's The Apprentice.
But away from reality television, the chances of making it from the
bottom of the heap to the top in the UK are tiny and have got much worse
since the immediate postwar period. A son born in the 50s had a chance
of improving on his father's income and position. A generation later,
that chance was smaller, according to the Sutton Trust's study of
intergenerational mobility in which the UK bumps along with the US at
the bottom of the international league. Furthermore, the expansion of
higher education since the late 80s has done nothing to improve
mobility. Those who get to enjoy the opportunities it brings are not
drawn from across the British class system but from a disproportionately
large slice of the affluent middle classes. Given the introduction of
tuition fees, the danger is of mobility seizing up altogether.
Equality of opportunity is the leftwing equivalent of a dog-whistle
issue. It's the kind of subject that stirs up backbenchers and party
members to real passion. I believe them when they say it's what keeps
them in their horrible jobs, pilloried by the public, ignored by their
leadership. What I can't understand is why they've given Blair and
Gordon Brown such an easy ride on the issue, and have been willing to be
fobbed off with improvements on child and pensioner poverty. The hope is
that now, emboldened by a slimmed-down majority, they might be more
assertive.
Geoff Mulgan, in his recent, elegantly brutal assessment, accuses New
Labour of not facing up to the most powerful interests - "the London
media, the super-rich, big business and the City". It is they who form
the tiny minority with the most to lose if Thatcher's legacy was to be
finally dismantled, and, for example, the top rate of tax raised. New
Labour, Mulgan concludes, didn't offer "a strategy for transformation.
It was mainly a way of winning elections."
Reducing inequality and increasing equality of opportunity are
strategies of transformation. Blair has no more elections to fight and
nothing left to lose - he is in the last-chance saloon - in providing a
more fitting political epitaph for a progressive government than Mulgan's.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
