Papa Smurf never compromised on his ideals, and never got anywhere near the position to put them into practice. Blair delivered a lot for the working class from the back seat of a limo.
One of the things companies like Cambridge Analytica do, is target voters unlikely to change who they vote for, and convince them to not bother voting at all by convincing them that ‘both sides’ are just as bad as each other.
Agreed. But that in no way changes the facts. I unlike many did not claim there is no difference. Only that the move to the right allowed the opposition to move even further to the right.
As I say. I am old enough to remember thatcher run for PM. (Was young). She had to present privatisation of national resources with care. Starting with one that allowed more competition with privatisation. IE the most logical. And still it was a fight for the party to make it seem practical.
But in corbyns time ( he was not perfect not claiming he was. Pointing out the change in attitude)
The idea of nationalising anything takes that same fight, and care. Society has spent 40+ years with no party arguing the value of left of center ideas. Just less right of center. So we are now faced with an overton window where voters consider anything left to be extream.
Of course it is also fair to say the post WW2 Labour Party moved the window drematically left. But it is hard to argue that society did not inproove for many from that move. (Of course I’m not that old so can only compare the history data generated post that move)
It is very hard to argue that most of society. And definatly younger parts of society. Have an improved life now it has returned towards the right. Only the top 10% or so gained from this move long term.
My assertion was that not everything Blair did was wrong. You posted a link saying this article disagrees, but the article literally starts with saying not everything Blair did was wrong.
And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:
In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.
You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn’t read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.
I did, I just wish a hadn’t. I’ve read my fair share of this type of moral absolutist drivel in my time but I went through this one anyway despite the conclusion being clear from the get go.
What are you talking about? If he’s reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he’s a slightly less blue than Tories. That’s a fact. Labour party should support workers, he’s supporting Blairism.
Nah, this is a little less blue team. The guy who won’t support striking workers is not a red.
Pragmatism ≠ sellout.
Papa Smurf never compromised on his ideals, and never got anywhere near the position to put them into practice. Blair delivered a lot for the working class from the back seat of a limo.
He also allowed the overton window to move to the point the left no longer exists.
One of the things companies like Cambridge Analytica do, is target voters unlikely to change who they vote for, and convince them to not bother voting at all by convincing them that ‘both sides’ are just as bad as each other.
Agreed. But that in no way changes the facts. I unlike many did not claim there is no difference. Only that the move to the right allowed the opposition to move even further to the right.
As I say. I am old enough to remember thatcher run for PM. (Was young). She had to present privatisation of national resources with care. Starting with one that allowed more competition with privatisation. IE the most logical. And still it was a fight for the party to make it seem practical.
But in corbyns time ( he was not perfect not claiming he was. Pointing out the change in attitude)
The idea of nationalising anything takes that same fight, and care. Society has spent 40+ years with no party arguing the value of left of center ideas. Just less right of center. So we are now faced with an overton window where voters consider anything left to be extream.
Of course it is also fair to say the post WW2 Labour Party moved the window drematically left. But it is hard to argue that society did not inproove for many from that move. (Of course I’m not that old so can only compare the history data generated post that move)
It is very hard to argue that most of society. And definatly younger parts of society. Have an improved life now it has returned towards the right. Only the top 10% or so gained from this move long term.
Corbyn hated the EU, and demanded Article 50 be invoked the day after the referendum. Let’s not forget that.
https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
Papa Smurf? As in: entirely blue with a red hat?
https://jacobin.com/2021/04/tony-blair-working-class-new-labour-inequality
This article tells a slightly different story.
Does it? This article starts with several examples admitting that
Maybe read the whole article.
My assertion was that not everything Blair did was wrong. You posted a link saying this article disagrees, but the article literally starts with saying not everything Blair did was wrong.
And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:
In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.
You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn’t read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.
I did, I just wish a hadn’t. I’ve read my fair share of this type of moral absolutist drivel in my time but I went through this one anyway despite the conclusion being clear from the get go.
What are you talking about? If he’s reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he’s a slightly less blue than Tories. That’s a fact. Labour party should support workers, he’s supporting Blairism.