Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In defence of Blairism, by Tony Blair
Going on this, "Blairism" means grabbing power at any cost and not much else....
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/in-defence-of-blairism-by-tony-blair/
Until 1997, the Labour Party had been in existence roughly 100 years. But during that time, it had rarely been in Government. In fact, at that point, it had never won two full terms of power, let alone three; not with even the Attlee Government. This was because we could win power by dint of the unpopularity over time of a Conservative Government; by appealing to the need for change; and by burnishing our values as better and in a sense more moral than those of the Tories.
But the problem was that once in Government, where hard choices had to be made, and where supporters had to be disappointed as well as indulged, we fell short. In particular, significant elements of the Party saw the process of governing with all its compromises, pragmatism and embrace of changing times as implicit betrayal of our principles.
We were sometimes more defenders of the status quo than changers of it; and where we made change it could be less driven by practicality and more by ideology. At our best as with the creation of the NHS idealism and realism came together perfectly. But elsewhere, as with our adherence to the nationalisation of industries long after it was clear it was inefficient, or the refusal to countenance a legal framework for unions, we confused defending interests with defending values. In this way we fought for the traditional methods of doing things even though it was clear on hard-headed analysis that those methods stood in the path of progress for those we claimed to represent. As a result, the public liked what we stood for in broad terms, but distrusted us as a Party of Government.
I wanted this to change profoundly. I could see that the chief characteristic of the modern world was the scope, scale and speed of change. So our values had to be applied in that context. Whats more, we had to apply them rigorously, unafraid to challenge old thinking even if it came from within. And where there were new problems and new contexts we had to be first to face up to them, again with rigour.
But the problem was that once in Government, where hard choices had to be made, and where supporters had to be disappointed as well as indulged, we fell short. In particular, significant elements of the Party saw the process of governing with all its compromises, pragmatism and embrace of changing times as implicit betrayal of our principles.
We were sometimes more defenders of the status quo than changers of it; and where we made change it could be less driven by practicality and more by ideology. At our best as with the creation of the NHS idealism and realism came together perfectly. But elsewhere, as with our adherence to the nationalisation of industries long after it was clear it was inefficient, or the refusal to countenance a legal framework for unions, we confused defending interests with defending values. In this way we fought for the traditional methods of doing things even though it was clear on hard-headed analysis that those methods stood in the path of progress for those we claimed to represent. As a result, the public liked what we stood for in broad terms, but distrusted us as a Party of Government.
I wanted this to change profoundly. I could see that the chief characteristic of the modern world was the scope, scale and speed of change. So our values had to be applied in that context. Whats more, we had to apply them rigorously, unafraid to challenge old thinking even if it came from within. And where there were new problems and new contexts we had to be first to face up to them, again with rigour.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1221 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In defence of Blairism, by Tony Blair (Original Post)
T_i_B
Dec 2015
OP
merrily
(45,251 posts)1. "Blairism:" From the wiki of Al From, founder of the DLC:
........
From played a prominent role in the 1992 election of President Bill Clinton and served as Domestic Policy Advisor to the Clinton Transition prompting USA Today to write: "The ideas at the crux of the Clinton candidacy were largely drafted by the DLC."[15]
.........
In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand known as The Third Way became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.[17]
In April 1999, he hosted an historic Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.[18]
......
In 2013, From authored The New Democrats and the Return to Power. President Bill Clinton authored the foreword. In the book, From outlines for the first time the principles at the heart of the [New Democrat] movement and why they are vital to the success of the Democratic Party in the years ahead. The book received praise from President Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who said, it should be read, re-read and underlined by anyone who wants to know what it takes to be successful in American politics today."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From
A footnote from the above article (video no longer on you tube)
"Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - Tony Blair's Remarks To Al From Tribute Dinner." 16 June 2009 on YouTube.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)2. it's a "hollowing-out" of politics: just take power, and *maybe* redistribute some state revenue
to cronies
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)3. Oh, another word for fascist coup and all-around corruption!
I did wonder...
Ironing Man
(164 posts)4. on the other hand...
the Labour governments under Blair and Brown tripled spending on the NHS and wider public health, instituted a redistrabutive tax credit system that put.s some £30billion in the pockets of the poorest 25%, not far off doubled education spending and had a spectacular effect on waiting times and effects in the NHS and massively improved attainment in Education.
Blair is also the only Labour leader to win an election between 1975 and 2020 at the absolute minimum, with 2025 looking only marginally less fantastical.
but hey, Iraq right?