Quote: Mintball "I raised this around (IIRC) two to three months ago, starting a thread asking if a problem with our political/public discourse is not that many people see things so tribally, with the determination of slapping labels on everything they don't like, whether those labels are remotely accurate or not.
As I've consistently pointed out for years (yes, boring, but consistent) successive governments have followed an almost identical economic path for 30 years plus. At the heart of that has been ongoing deregulation and privatisation.
Now only a political imbecile would pretend that these were being key left-wing policies, yet much of the bleating you see here (and elsewhere) is precisely that the Blair/Brown administrations were left wing/socialist – even communist, FFS.
Equally, the Tory Party is not following much of the ideas of rather more old-fashioned ConservatismTelegraph[/i forums now).
The reality is that successive governments, particularly for the last 30 years, have kowtowed to big business and big finance, and they are who the country is now, in effect, run for. So if we want a label, I suggest (again) a supranational corporatocracy. This is what, for instance (as is being discussed in other threads), so wants a low-wage, casualised workforce, because it will benefit, although no national economy will.
Unfortunately, our political/public discourse has been dumbed down over the last three decades; we have a mainstream news media that, by and large, operates not to inform the public but to push the agendas of proprietors, yet many people take what they produce as gospel – perhaps either because they lack the critical facilities or simply because it suits them better as it fits in with their preconceived tribal ideas.
Equally, the 'blame game' is convenient if one wishes to avoid the economic realities of what ideology is actually behind what has happened. Which suits plenty of people. And indeed, the increasing virulence and stupidity of it also reflects some of what has been seen increasingly in the US from right-wingers over there.
And it will be difficult to move forward without a coherent understanding of what did happen, so actually trying to analyse the ideology etc has value. If you don't do that, how do you know what to avoid?
That's particularly relevant since history shows that trickle down (neo-liberalism) has been tried before – and failed before (including, but not limited to, the US in the 1890s under the name 'horse and sparrow theory', where it helped to create the Panic of 1896).
One problem is that some (note that word) on the right (neo-liberalism is not a left-wing ideology, even if it isn't a conservative ideology either) do not want such an analysis – because they want to go further with deregulation and privitisation and reducing support for the less well off etc etc.
So of course they're going to scream blue murder that it was all public spending etc etc etc. After all, when the facts are dead against you, what can you do but try to shout ever louder?
Also, I've asked twice (IIRC) within different threads about questions raised by [iThe Spirit Level[/i, which illustrates, on the basis of extensive research, that societies where there is a lower income gap (not a non-existent one but a lower one) are better societies for all. That includes having better outcomes on addiction, on crime, on education (even for those at the very top, who one would assume would be immune to anything happening below), health etc.
I've asked how, if the book's findings are correct, we deal with that. And also, if the book is factually incorrect, for the facts that show it to be incorrect. I do not recall a single response to that, yet it's at the heart of much of what is being discussed even here – with people claiming, for instance, that 'fairer societies' don't work, and then actually ignoring factual examples of where they do.
As I've said for some time, we've had a continuation of a core economic approach for 30 plus years. My problem, in this context, is where some people claim/pretend that the problems that caused the crisis in 2008 were only contributed to, in terms of government, by a single government. That's patently false, as we're agreeing, in effect.
On WMD, I failed to see the connection. But since you raise it again, my own, long-term view (I was opposed to the invasion well before it occurred) was that the so-called evidence for WMD, and for their use (45 minutes etc) was always extremely dubious.
But then again, I've also said for many years that Blair – and Dubya – should be in the dock in the Hague.'"
McBride & Campbell certainly did a great job of selling Labour ideology to a lot of voters. One of the greatest long cons ever played out.
