Blair moves to the right, not to the future

Fantastic article.A fellow Wednesdayite scores a goal!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1051721,00.html

When in doubt or difficulty, the prime minister always completes a diversion from the facts by traducing his critics. So he told David Frost that newspapers have often reported the Hutton proceedings inaccurately. No examples were given. For a moment, I felt proud, not because Tony Blair had worked for me in his leftwing days, but because it is people like me on whom he has honed his skill at misrepresentation. The finest flowering of that talent came during his visit to this year's meeting of the Trades Union Congress when his speech rejected "the fantasy of an extreme leftwing government". He was about to face criticisms of foundation hospitals, top-up fees and a two-tier workforce. The implication that only Bolsheviks have reservations about those policies illustrates how flimsy the rational arguments in their favour are.

It has to be admitted that defenders of the Project make up in affrontery what they lack in probity. Yesterday Tony Blair, who came into parliament supporting nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Community and a massive extension of public ownership, announced that he had "always been on the modernising edge of the party". Perhaps Dr John Reid will soon claim that he has been Labour all his life. After his statement last week that critics of the government "come together under the banner FWW - Fed-up With Winning", we can only assume that he will say whatever is convenient at the moment.

Last week John Reid complained that the government's critics were dogmatists, not ideologues. It is the belief that private enterprise and the market produce efficiency that displays indefensible dogma. And the notion that competition, which the government wants to extend to hospitals and schools, is the answer to the problems of performance and accountability, is hardly modern. New Labour has moved through space not time - to the right, not to the future.

We should have announced that we are modernisers too, but the changes that we meant to make would be consistent with the social democratic ideal. Because of our failure, the government has consistently got away with intellectually indefensible policies. If you doubt how indefensible they are count how many times this week the champions of the Project will be forced to defend it by abusing its critics.

Blair doesn't even know what he's saying, any more. He sees the U.S in turmoil over privatization and he's eager to continue the same mistake in a country that is primarily socialist AND has a higher level of education, per capita, than the U.S.A. This should be fun to watch.

or was blair just a con man?

a higher standard of living. They forget what they were fighting for when the new office gives them a higher income and political influence. It exposes them to a better standard of living and thus, they develop different priorities from the constituents who voted them in. What they don't realize is that those benefits don't last forever, though certainly, with crony capitalism, the time period can be extended, much at our expense. It's this tiering of living standards which is creating the resistance to change. Those at the top, who have the power to make the changes, don't really want change that will hurt them financially. What incentive do they have?

His family was always fairly well off (he went to a private school), and his wife, a very successful lawyer, has made more than him ever since he went into politics. Maybe the 'power corrupts' idea can be applied, though.

the socialist Brits were happy when he was elected. It looks like he triangulated the election from the left, just like Bush triangulated it from the right.

Bush pretended to be a "compassionate conservative" until reaching office where he proceded to be the exact opposite, thus keeping the right wing very happy indeed.

Blair campaigned as "new" labour and is fond of pointing out that he is governing as "new" labour, although I don't remember a war on Iraq being in his manifesto at the last election. :eyes:

That said the Labour party supported him as they had been out of power for a loooooong time and they desperatly wanted power. What has happened though is that it has been power at any cost and that virtually all Labour values have been dumped by Blair to the end of getting Tony Blair more power. Even if he did a few good things in his first term his performance since the last election has been very poor and "new" labour has become a party without any principles, a party that has lost its very reason for existance or any real purpose other than as a Tony Blair fan club.