Sir! Keir! Starmer!

You usually have a better comeback, right?

Come along now, you can do it.

‘B’. It begins with ‘B’.

Say it out loud, it is the first stage of acceptance….

Come along now, you can do it.

‘B’. It begins with ‘B’.

Say it out loud, it is the first stage of acceptance….

You seem to be keen to attribute an opinion to me that I do not hold. Why on earth would you presume that I have a problem with using Blair’s name? Now, be a good boy, grow up a bit, and try answering my response, if you’re capable.

I was in a meeting that was interrupted to watch Blair go from Richmond Terrace to No 10, what a relief, we thought. First thing he did was keep on the Tory’s Chief Inspector of School, Chris Woodhead (‘relations with a 17yo student could be instructive’), then dropped Clause 4. He derided teachers on grounds that were completely fictitious to get the Mail vote and it looks like Starmer has learnt that lesson. When the polls say there’s only a few percentage points between them, they mean politically as well as voting intentions.

‘Thick as mince’ and ‘idealogical’ in the same sentence. Chapeau!

Clause 4 was rewritten before Blair went to number 10, and arguably that helped get him there. Under Corbyn the “for the many, not the few” line from the rewritten Clause 4 became a key campaign slogan.

I’ve heard nothing from Starmer that is “deriding teachers”, even as he has wisely sidestepped the obvious elephant trap set for him, as the government seek to blame everyone but themselves for their poor approach to getting more kids back into classrooms.

May 3rd, Long-Bailey weighed in with her support of the National Education Union’s five tests setting conditions to be met before schools could reopen. The union gained significant support for these conditions, including from many Labour MPs. But Starmer refused to endorse them, or to use them in his questions to the prime minister on the subject of school reopenings.

As I said, obvious Elephant trap.

Supporting relatively unprotected workers on the front line and parents who, quite rightly, are currently reluctant to send their kids back to school is an ‘elephant trap’? These are life and death issues, not just impression management or market share of the votes.

These are life and death issues,

But not ones Starmer is in a position to do much about, unfortunately. Also complex, and for an opposition which wants us to get through this thing, pointless getting tied unnecessarily in knots over.

Anyway, at least we’re not debating the 1951 Tory manifesto (free developers to build houses sure, end nationalisation, oppose socialism. Not notably Corbynist), or forcing 50 point lists of Labour achievements (doubled health spending, similar on schools, civil partnerships, access land, human rights act, decreased homelessness by three quarters, stopped milosevic, free prescription for cancer patients, nursery places for under 3s, winter fuel allowance, devolution, Yadda Yadda… I could google.)

I’ve been following this closely… Starmer has stuck to the line that the government has not supported or planned for the return properly, and has not listened to teachers, heads and others. The “non-engagement” approach by some unions can’t be supported unequivocally by Starmer if has any political nouse at all. I’ve been very impressed with the communication from my other half’s union, as it happens, but the public don’t read that, they read papers and watch TV news.

There is a whole other thread about this though. Sorry for the sidestep.

That’s why I can’t get my head round the objections from the sixth form. In policy terms he’s shown no intention to change much

Outside of his promises about the green new deal there’s very little we know about his policy stance. Aside from that though, it’s less about what he will do and more about how. The concern is that he’ll take the Blair approach of minor reforms to the existing system with not much attempt to change it. There needs to a be a fundamental reform of the corrupt system where money and power travels upwards and disappears into the pockets of a tiny few at the top. Something that can’t be immediately reversed when the next lot of tories come back.

When the tories came back in 2010, not much had fundamentally changed since 1997. Sure we had devolution and things like a minimum wage, but fundamentally the economic system was unchanged, so when they wanted to roll back the state and impose austerity, it was incredibly easy for them. Whatever Starmer does needs to be more than just showering more money at the lower half. It needs to fundamentally redress the balance of power away from the oligarchs and back to the people. And with the likes of Lord Sainsbury behind him, there’s a strong suspicion that a Starmer govt will be another missed opportunity, just like Blair.

Anyway, at least we’re not debating the 1951 Tory manifesto (free developers to build houses sure, end nationalisation, oppose socialism. Not notably Corbynist),

Sigh. The point, obviously missed, was that people talk about appealing to the centre as if the centre is fixed. We all know that most of Corbyn’s proposals were resolutely mainstream, but he did a poor job of communicating that.

t he did a poor job of communicating that.

He did a poor job of many things. There’s a whole thread.

When the tories came back in 2010, not much had fundamentally changed since 1997

Eh?

Except for the massively increased spending on education and the NHS, specifically concentrated in poorer areas, the minimum wage, Sure Start, increased workers rights, huge expansion of higher education, devolved regional government, the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland

You’re right. Not much had changed at all

And the way to embed change (for example the minimum wage) is to prove that it works and make it political suicide for any other party to propose undoing that change to our system. You can’t just legislate that a future government can’t undo your “good work”, it doesn’t work that way… and if it did democracy becomes weaker.

You’re right. Not much had changed at all

You completely missed the point. I’m not talking about increased spending. Go back and read it again.

He listed changes beyond tax/spending increases. Go back and read it again.

Binners I’ll save you the bother. I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about power. Blair did very little to strengthen democracy and empower the people. In many respects he watered it down with his obsession with contracting out government work to private interests. It’s easy to throw money at people, but that’s just a temporary sticking plaster. Nothing will ever change until the power balance between the people at large and the tiny few at the top is redressed.

Blair did very little to strengthen democracy and empower the people.

increased workers rights, huge expansion of higher education, devolved regional government, the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland

The current health crisis has made it clear to me how important the devolution that Scotland, Wales and NI have now really are. If I lived in any of those places, I’d be clamouring for more of that, not having it removed. That’s how you embed changes and strengthen democracy.

increased workers rights, huge expansion of higher education, devolved regional government, the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland

human rights act, civil partnerships, access land/right to roam or whatever, repealed Section 28 on promotion of homosexuality in schools…

Blair did very little to strengthen democracy and empower the people.

He set up the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies and devolved power to them.

Have a look at what is happening at the moment with the COVID reaction of Scottish, Irish and Welsh assemblies. Very different to Engerland. If it weren’t for Blair, they’d be being told what to do by Boris. As it stands, they’re not. So if I was Welsh, Scottish or Irish I’d be saying a big thank you to Tony right now.

To say that he didn’t strengthen democracy is ridiculous

He wanted to go further and devlove more power to the English regions, but the regions rejected that in ballots, for some reason

I know this is all terribly inconvenient for the re-writing of history thats been carried out by the left since, but there you have it

What have the Romans ever done for us?!

Scottish devolution was in the 1997 Labour manifesto.

He set up the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies and devolved power to them.

Great. I’m unfortunate enough to live in England though, along with most of the UK population.

He gave the regions the option to vote for devolved regional assemblies. These they rejected.

He tried! Again… democracy in action. He gave the regions the option to vote for it. They said they didn’t want it.

What more would you have liked him to do?

You can’t make a claim correct by ignoring what contradicts it

Hold on, is that Donald?

What more would you have liked him to do?

I can think of one thing I would’ve liked him to have not done: actively participate in the death of half a million Iraqis. But hey, he gave us Sure Start so that’s ok.

He did a poor job of many things. There’s a whole thread.

Feel free to contribute there. I was talking about the centre-ground and the fact that it’s not fixed.

He gave the regions the option to vote for devolved regional assemblies. These they rejected.

So first off, if I remember right, the English regional assemblies were essentially powerless and didn’t even come near to the powers the devolved nations had, which is why they were rejected on account of them being another layer of pointless bureaucracy. Secondly, he didn’t apply the same principles in the devolved nations to England as a whole. We were left with our unaccountable and anachronistic antique version of ‘democracy’, with all the weaknesses and loopholes which allow a tiny number of powerful people to set policy in their favour. Why was that I wonder?

I’m not saying devolution was a bad thing, quite the opposite, but it’s amazing to see how people in England readily accept their own disempowerment, and then point to Scotland to defend Blair when really they should be asking why they also didn’t get the same. It’s very weird. I guess the English just like being shafted by their government. It would explain a lot.

another layer of pointless bureaucracy

That was exactly the attack line used. Untrue, but effective.

…anyway, the point is that new Labour were not the Tories and did things very differently. And I’d if Starmer’s Labour get a go my opinion is they’d be better for most people than Cummings’s Tories.

Sorry did someone just shout “what about Iraq”? What about Sierra Leone? What about Milosevic? Call me an old leftie but I’d prefer a government that would rather topple than snuggle up to fascist dictators, as risky as that obviously is. But not really very relevant to Starmer.

but it’s amazing to see how people in England readily accept their own disempowerment,

They also voted for Brexit and then 5 years of Joris Bohnson.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t teach it to windsurf

And seeing as you’re all getting misty eyed about devolution as the pinnacle of Blair’s achievements, let’s not forget the main point that in terms of promoting progressive government for the whole of the UK, it’s been an unmitigated disaster, resulting in the likely breakup of the UK and near permanent Tory rule. Nice one Tony!

Your point was that the last Labour government was just about increased spending… we disagreed with you. That is all. I never voted for them, but clearly they had a political purpose beyond just ‘spend more’, and their achievements went well beyond changing the tax/borrow/spend balance… you should stop reading the tabloids.

resulting in the likely breakup of the UK

Thats a win, not a disaster.

near permanent Tory rule

we had that before 1997 as well, thanks Foot/Kinnock etc

Call me an old leftie but I’d prefer a government that would rather invent a story about WMD to justify a disastrous war that left half a million dead and created a state run by religious fanaticstopple than snuggle up to fascist dictators, as risky as that obviously is.

Your point was that the last Labour government was just about increased spending…

And as I pointed out, the only real structural reform was devolution which only applied to a small minority of the population, and an even smaller proportion of the economy, resulting in some very negative effects for those of us residing in England. From pretty much any viewpoint outside of the narrow interests of the devolved populations, devolution has been a terrible policy. The principle was sound, but the outcomes for England have been disastrous, due mainly to the failure to reform the English democratic system as well as those of the devolved nations.

Care to submit any more evidence in support of Blair’s positive legacy because I’m not sure devolution does the job? Blair did more to forward the tory cause than any tory prime minister since Thatcher. It’s no surprise he was such a fan of her.

only real structural reform

independence of the Bank of England. And loads of legislative reform as pointed out with positive impacts on the lives of most. But keep on saying they’re no different to the Tories. I might even allow myself a small sigh.

People have listed a few. There are more. But there is little point bringing them up with you, is there Dazh. I never voted for New Labour… but I can look at the ills and successes of that Blair/Brown government in retrospect without applying some weird “just about the spending” or, “no different to the Tories”, or “no lasting change” paper thin, dare I say, “sixth form” narrative.

[ I hate that term, because it underestimates sixth formers, but hey. ]

Busy day for SKS.

Thomas Gardiner has quit as Labour’s head of governance and legal.

In unrelated news, probably, the EHRC report was delivered to SKS’s desk this morning.

independence of the Bank of England.

How did that take power from those at the top and return it to the people? From where I’m standing it did the very opposite.

There are more.

Are there? Most of the stuff listed above are policies which may have benefitted people (not denying that, I never have), but did nothing to change the way the system works.

dare I say, “sixth form” narrative

So wanting stronger democratic accountability is a sixth form thing now is it? Like I said, some of us enjoy being shafted. How dare we question our place.

Starmer isn’t Blair, or even Brown. Start up a thread about their failures if you want… I have plenty of negative things to add to that if you do…