labour, but not as we know it

[matt]

So comrade Hain has been forced out, and be sure he will not be the last. Friend Blair has taken the corporate shilling (to the tune of $500K). Taxpayers are to be landed with Northern Wreck and the Olympics is heading for triple or more budget. Can any of us who actually voted for change in 1997 say we are satisfied? As my Ocker mate would say "bunch of arse mate" Why do we allow these lying, cheating, schemeing scumbags to stay in power?

Just today the police have said that they want to target youngsters before they commit crime! Is that 1984 or minority report? Holding people without charge for 41 days? No worries! shoot to kill policy? Thats just fine! We appear to have sat back and allowed a facist state in through the back door!

Am seriously not pleased.

Rant over

Matt

[Boojum]

Is this New Labour, Mr Blair?
Is this New Labour, Mr Blair?,
If this is New Labour, Mr Blair
If anyone wants me I'll be over there.

[wolfie]

I'm probably going to ruffle a few feathers now, but I can say, hand on heart that I don't regret voting them in. Northern Rock was just miss managed by its management, it put all its eggs in one basket and is now paying the cost. Whatever action was taken then no one would have been happy.

For myself, the leveling of the age of concent and the outlawing of discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the community was a real step forward. The treating of people with cancer or HIV as having a disability so their employers could not just sack them was something which is taken for granted now, but back then, things were alot different. These are positive things and should not be dismissed.

Would the Tories have done that? Would they hell. Lets not forget it was the Tories who brough in Section 28 and all that crap.

The truth is, if it was not for Iraq, most people would look at the Blair years in a favourable light.

W. (throwing the cat amoungst the pegions since 1971)

[gwenifer]

Hear , hear Brumwolf!!!

[matt]

Please don't misunderstand, I fully agree that the situation would almost certainly be far worse had our centrist friends not beaten that other lot, but there was so much more that could have been done if the political will, and the balls to take the really hard decisions had been there.

This may be a little controversial but how about re-nationalisation of gas, electric, water, telecoms for a start. The privatisation thing was at best an experiment that didn't work. Bringing them back under a labour government centralised control would have been yes very expensive, but surely worth doing to ensure that those members of society most at risk (the very young and very old perhaps?) had government controlled pricing on lifes essentials, maybe even dare I say it.....free?

And I'm pretty certain making Beardie pay his taxes once in a while might have helped - not that he is alone by any stretch!

Yes there have been benefits but there could have been so much more!

[wolfie]

matt said:

This may be a little controversial but how about re-nationalisation of gas, electric, water, telecoms for a start. The privatisation thing was at best an experiment that didn't work. Bringing them back under a labour government centralised control would have been yes very expensive, but surely worth doing to ensure that those members of society most at risk (the very young and very old perhaps?) had government controlled pricing on lifes essentials, maybe even dare I say it.....free?

NOOOOOOO!!! Remember in the glorious days of BT where you could ask for a phone line and maybe in a few months you might get one? Or if you had to call someone in central London and if it was ranining there was a very high probability that you'd get cut off.

As for the gas and electricity, we are running out of gas. The other groups who can afford to build the infrastructure and impove what we have is the private sector, who is going to tolerate their taxes increasing to pay for a powerline hundreds of miles away?

I would agree with you on water, that was a privatisation too far, everyone needs water.

[matt]

This is only personal opinion, but for me it is precisely because we are running out of gas, oil etc that we need to take tough decisions that are not necessarily private industry friendly. As to BT oh yes I remember those days well, but again we are at a point when tough decisions are coming up about upgrading completely the telecoms infrastructure. We are only just making do now as internet usage increases so more bottlenecks appear. Again I am not certain that private industry will make the decisions in a timely enough manner.

Again, there are no rose tinted glasses here (I would like to think!) Britain in the '60's and particularly the 70's had enormous challenges, but these are not those days, and with the experience gained from having these utilities in private ownership there may be a better chance of making re-nationalisation work. Of course we would have to find some way of decreasing cronysim within the corridors of power, and also increase accountability at the very highest levels to even stand a chance.

As to taxes, were the many many loopholes plugged that might help, but I thinkwe all have to face up to increased costs somewhere, whether that is taxation or increasing bills for fuel, water, transport, food etc. etc. whether the costs are incurred from the government or the private sector, it is the consumer who picks up the bill. The advantage of paying for all this through taxes of course is that the very worst off, who are coincidentally the most severely affected by increases in bills, tend to pay the least tax.

Just a thought

[gwenifer]

I'd agree that water privatisation was a bridge too far (sorry!!) but also the railways were too. Trouble is that once legislation has been passed it is hell's own game to change it. We often think in terms of one government doing something (privatising) then the next government coming along and unravelling it, but it doesn't work like that. laws are changed and can't just be overturned or changed back, they are law. Can't remember where I saw it but I'm sure there is a link somewhere on the parliamentary site to a legal explanation of laws and why they can't be easily rescinded.

[matt]

This is exactly what i mean by tough choices. You are absolutely correct, these would not be easy things to change but they would not be impossible. It would be extraordinarily painful for the country and the ecoomy in the short to medium turn, but I feel (and it is only opinion of course) that the long term gains would be far greater. Of course, this would rely on a government who looked further than the next election, which is perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome.

I freely admit that I am talking ideals here, and as we all know, ideals are never easy to acheive. Brumwolf, I think you would agree that there was a time when the anti-discrimination legislation that you rightly mention was considered by many to be a far off ideal, but it was passed. Anything is possible if the will is strong enough in the right places.

[wolfie]

I'm not so sure about the railways, the system was run down and was seriously on the verge of breaking down. The railways were damaged beyond repair when Beeching took an axe to the branch lines and all those "un profitable" tracks.

What was forgotten was those small blanch lines fed people into the trunk lines which made the system profitable. I wonder how dependant we'd be now on the car if that one set of events did not happen?

[matt]

Agreed, the railways, along with the other key utilities were pretty shambolic, but would it not have been better (with hindsight of course) to correct those mistakes within public ownership rather than rely on the profit centred vagaries of private ownership? I just do not see what benefits privatisation has brought that could not have been acheived by overhauling the system as it stood. As taxpayers we are still paying for the railways in terms of subsidies to the operating companies, and in terms of maintaining the infrastructure which makes no sense to me.

I know that I am being naive, but the stated aims of privatisation have simply not been acheived. The private sector does not offer "best value" when taking over the running of areas such as these. I know our beloved leader is desperate to balance the books, and that he is having to deal with horrific mismanagement by the last lot, but I feel that the needs of this country would be better served by centralised control.

My dream is that everyone is this country could have their basic requirements met in terms of shelter (including heating), food, education, healthcare, water without having to worry at the end of every week if there will be enough to get by. I am not talking luxuries here, just that no-one in 21st century britain should be forced to decide between heating and food to take one example. Ideally I would extend this to a global proposition but that is I think a whole other thread!