The British Politics Thread
-
Yeah, they did. But no one wanted to know.monkey wrote:It wasn’t just Blair either, his capitalist-hugging stuff was common in America and Europe and no one foresaw it all turning to shit like this.
Anyway, yes, Tony Blair gave us a lighter version of neoliberalism, but neoliberalism nonetheless. -
mistercrayon wrote:Yossarian wrote:mistercrayon wrote:Did they reverse the shutting down of industry in the north and midlands?
No, but then:
https://fullfact.org/economy/did-labour-decimate-manufacturing/
Those were the structural problems that were necessary to fix though. I think this was exacerbated by the increasing reliance of London (which is already a centre of govt).
The rise of Chinese manufacturing wasn’t a structural problem, it was a shifting of power. It’s not remotely clear that anyone could have changed that. -
JonB wrote:
Yeah, they did. But no one wanted to know.monkey wrote:It wasn’t just Blair either, his capitalist-hugging stuff was common in America and Europe and no one foresaw it all turning to shit like this.
Anyway, yes, Tony Blair gave us a lighter version of neoliberalism, but neoliberalism nonetheless.
I suppose that this leads to a conversation about how we define neoliberalism. To me it means putting faith in markets as the ultimate solution to all societal issues. There were certainly times when Blair leant hard into neoliberalism, but also others where he went the other way. I’d personally see it as more mixed than just lighter neoliberalism. -
The main political demand of neoliberalism is to maintain the markets and make sure they keep functioning, enacting 'business friendly' policies, and creating investment opportunities through privatisation, deregulation and tax cuts. It's also about running public services like a business, focusing on quantifiable targets, viewing citizens as customers, and so on.
The idea that neoliberalism is about reducing the overall role of government and letting the markets take control is part of the ideology, but more some libertarian fantasy that can never actually happen in practice. This is why bailing out the banks was still in line with neoliberalism, despite appearing to go against those principles - the most important thing in fact is that the market be supported at all costs.
I think Blair had a notion of maintaining the standards of public services, but always within that remit of neoliberalism, and with those neoliberal priorities in mind. Which is why I'd call it a lighter version. -
It's just a baby and the bathwater issue. Blair, Brown and associates were clearly too invested in the market and bought into the whole belief that deregulation and private investment equals prosperity. But there was no appetite in the country for widespread economic restructuring when the economy was growing and things were improving. And the whole Western world was experiencing sustained growth.
They should have had an industrial strategy (especially for industrial Northern towns) based on developing high-end, specialist, manufacturing and engineering start ups. They also shouldn't have relied on foreign investment to replace government spending, they brought private money into the NHS, they didn't build enough fucking houses, there's a whole list of shit they did wrong.
But then there's schools and health and poverty a whole list of other stuff that we now take for granted. LD accused him of this earlier
He definitely didn't do this. In fact he's probably the last leader of Labour or the Tories that hasn't tried to look tough on dirty foreigners taking our jobs. All that horseshit came out as a reaction to what was seen as Blair's openness on immigration.pandering to the right on immigration -
Eh, he and Brown utterly capitulated to capital. Witness the famous prawn cocktail offensive when nu Labour went on their hands and knees to finance & big business to fellate them and assure them they weren't into any of that lefty socialism shit.
The only time he had the balls to go against public opinion and received wisdom was when it came to bombing the shit out of people in the name of freedom.
Whether you call it neoliberalism, monetarism, Thatcherism or Blairism whatever it was it was a fucking betrayal. And beyond that, it didn't work. There was no 'knowledge economy' to replace manufacturing, there was just shit mcjobs, servile service industry slavery and a whole heap of bureaucrats and box-tickers to impede everyone else in their jobs. His luck held for a while, but the crash was inevitable, virtually built into the system. But then it's the lefties who are the dreamers isn't it?
Good old Tone was just a realist. He bailed before having to deal with that of course, but he always had a great instinct for self protection and ensuring his career remained undamaged. -
Blair and Brown both continued Jons definition, there's no disagreement there. 5 successive PMs over 40 odd years all buying into the same shoddy plan.
-
He sold out to Murdoch, therefore he pandered to the man who produced so much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric we're drowning in. He demonised all Muslims as terrorists. It was only his general desire to be as bland and inoffensive as possible that made him seem vaguely tolerant (and the subsequent rise of genuine racists in the political centre stage)
This reinvention of freedom fighting Tony Blair, who was a great bloke really is bullshit. He was a cynical opportunist who did whatever worked and fucked off before it became apparent that it wasn't actually working and the whole concept was built on nothing.
I'd like to add that I don't feel that way about anyone who ever served New Labour, plenty of good men there, and there were good things done in office. But the empty shell who fronted them, that hideous Joker-esque leer permanently plastered on his face, his unquestioning faith in his own rightness ... he was a cunt.
Imo, etc. -
LarryDavid wrote:There was no 'knowledge economy' to replace manufacturing, there was just shit mcjobs, servile service industry slavery and a whole heap of bureaucrats and box-tickers to impede everyone else in their jobs.
I would disagree with this. The U.K. is a world leader in academia, medicine, science, we punch way above our weight in technology, Google’s building Deep Mind here for a reason. Not to mention finance, obviously.
Edit: creative industries too. /edit
The idea that all that replaced manufacturing was shitty service jobs is a bit of an oversimplification. And I’m still unconvinced that manufacturing could have been saved anyway. Again, we couldn’t compete with China, and most manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation anyway. -
Yossarian wrote:
I would disagree with this. The U.K. is a world leader in academia, medicine, science, we punch way above our weight in technology, Google’s building Deep Mind here for a reason. Not to mention finance, obviously.LarryDavid wrote:There was no 'knowledge economy' to replace manufacturing, there was just shit mcjobs, servile service industry slavery and a whole heap of bureaucrats and box-tickers to impede everyone else in their jobs.
The idea that all that replaced manufacturing was shitty service jobs is a bit of an oversimplification. And I’m still unconvinced that manufacturing could have been saved anyway. Again, we couldn’t compete with China, and most manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation anyway.
They weren't really replacements for manufacturing though. What replaced jobs in the industrial heartlands is what Larry said. Call centres and shops. A lot of what you mentioned is focused in London. -
Still hurts.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/a-factory-doomed-from-the-first-1168810.html
Brighter now, with offshore energy and other gubbins, but that was a real blow at the time. -
Aside from finance and to a large extent tech, it'd be fairer to say the South East for most of this, but point taken.
Still, we do now have a knowledge-based economy, but it's true that Blair, like practically all of our leaders, did ignore the Londoncentric nature of this economy. -
Mass manufacturing has always been about production as cheap as possible within the law (stretching where possible). It was inevitable that once the world stabilised enough post war and tech made shipping possible that it would move to nations with cheaper wages and slacker laws.
That's nothing to do with Blair or Thatcher, it happened in America as well, you think it's bad up North, move to Detroit.
The replacement industries Yoss listed (and I would add The Arts, industrial design and architecture) were already based in large cities, London being the largest but other cities including Northern cities are included.
The real issue is that these industries don't really warrant the same number of employees that manufacturing or mining once did. The end of manufacturing and mining industries and the introduction of tech into others like farming resulted in most low to non-skilled labour entering the service industry.
The only way to get the likes of manufacturing back is to use trade tariffs to make China etc nonviable. Basically what Trump is doing.
Or do brexit bad enough that the pound drops so low we are making Boglins for Chinese kids, flip reverse it on them. -
Well, you manufacture different things. A good example is Siemens making wind turbines in Hull, and Tube trains in Goole. The first added 1000 jobs to the city, most of them skilled jobs, and the second will add 700. Both will create even more in the supply chain. This is a look at the effect of the turbine plant.
It's obviously not the whole answer, but it can certainly be part of the mix. -
What I would say didn't help during the Blair years is that schooling was too focussed on academia. Skilled doesn't have to be degree level so there is an argument there and I suspect a lot of the jobs you mention Dante probably didn't need a degree, HNC would likely suffice.
I also think it helps now the BBC has moved out of London, there are now more media and design jobs North of Birmingham as a result. I'm even contemplating moving to Leeds myself.
Basically Thatcher/Blair couldn't hold the tide but could have likely built something better. I still don't know what you do with those unskilled, uneducated though.
The South isn't immune to this either, if I go to Bedford town centre mid week I likely see the same sights as yourself.
Homelessness, closed shops, betting shops. People wondering around in a Dawn of the Dead like sense of draw to the shops, like they don't know what else to do.
There are people here who absolutely couldn't hold down a job now even if it was there, too long out of it. They can't walk down the street without shouting at each other over minor things.
Edit: I'm waffling now -
Question for Yoss.
Is there a way to hide this The New Populism stuff on The Guardian website? I've no interest in it, I just want the normal news at the top of the page. -
No, I’m afraid not.
-
Speaking of , how have people done on the populist questionnaire? I'm closest to Obama and least like trump.SFV - reddave360
-
I was closest to Pablo Iglesias and least like Trump.
I expect a most people will be least like Trump. -
Supposedly I'm most similar to AMLO- THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT, who sounds like a brilliant potential wrestling persona.
-
I want to game the system now and see how to be trump and least like a human.SFV - reddave360
-
Left and right wing popcornchickenlist.
-
The lack of fastfood entrepreneurs & avatars seems like a major flaw in the methodology of this quiz to me.
You are most like: Ronald McDonald
You are least like: The Hamburgler -
Boringly it seems really hard to be non populist left. Probably because it’s hard to give a shit about everyone and not give a shit about everyone.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836