Blair Pledges To "Make Poverty History"

[sandnsea]

IMHO, this is what we refer to as "framing". Despite being in the midst of the worst attack since WWII, Blair and the rest of the European leaders did not flinch, did not follow Bush down a path of vengeance. That is something, and we ought to grab on to it and shout it from the rooftops. When somebody does right, we ought to say so. And claim victory because we won this round.



Blair Pledges To "Make Poverty History"
8 July 2005

While Oxfam claims the G8 “didn’t go as far as they should have”, major steps forward were made in the G8 summit. The terrorists hope that vengeance would overtake the summit has failed, and in the words of Senator Kerry “Cold blooded killers will not for a moment stop the critical work of the G-8 nations in our commitment to end poverty around the globe.”

The immediate goals of the ONE Campaign and Make Poverty History campaign have largely been met. Aid to Africa was increased to $50 billion annually, they endorsed a deal to “cancel the debt of 18 of the world's poorest nations, pledged universal access to AIDS treatment, renewed their commitment to a peacekeeping force in Africa and heard African leaders promise to move toward democracies that follow the rule of law.” In addition, they pledged to set a date to end subsidies on farm exports, key in allowing third world farmers to compete fairly in a global market.

The ONE Campaign’s call to increase our federal budget by just ONE percent went unheard, however. While a summit document stated the European Union had agreed to Tony Blair’s suggested .07% of national income, it omitted the US. Current aid from the US is .16 of national income, the smallest of any G8 nation.

The latest talking point from the right is the “shock” that terrorism was not #1 on the G8 summit agenda. The fact that these are policies that will bring HUMAN BEINGS into the global community instead of the terrorist community completely escapes them. The fact that the terrorists are not swarming to Iraq, so we can “fight them over there”, escapes them as well. I’ve even heard some have the audacity to suggest that Britain, of all places, has not been focused on terrorism.

I am really not a praying person, but if I had to put all hope in the power of prayer alone, I would pray that the vengeance seekers would understand the wisdom in Tony Blair’s words, “All of this does not change the world tomorrow — it is a beginning, not an end…But it has a pride and a hope and humanity at its heart that can lift the shadow of terrorism and light the way to a better future."

LINKS:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1225

[mmonk]

1. Not if

bush has anything to say about it.

[politicaholic]

2. Nice. Another empty talking point making him look like he's a great man..

when the only way he could eliminate poverty is by eliminating capitalism and ya know what? That ain't gonna happen.

Another swiss cheese policy from the G8. Ya...hoo.

[sandnsea]

5. Then talk to ONE & Make Poverty History

Because they believe capitalism, fair capitalism, is essential to make poverty history.

[1932]

10. China has dramatically reduced poverty by moving AWAY from communism

and to a market economy.

I don't think there are many development economists who think that capitalism is the problem.

I think the line of thought that runs from Keynes to Galbraith to Stiglitz ends in place today that believes the problem is when conservatives focus on rapid privatization (The Washington Consensus, or "IMF Shock-Therapy" as Chávez calls it) rather than on creating jobs and competitive marketplaces, and none of them would argue for an end to capitalism.

And if you lined up all the world leaders on a spectrum, the British Labour government would definitely be on the good side of the spectrum on these issues.

[politicaholic]

17. You're right, but lets qualify your statement...

China is increasing jobs by opening its markets because communism doesn't work without export and trade pacts.

In the United States poverty is being created by sending jobs to China and other places where the workers are paid less. You look at the job numbers today and jobs are up right? Well, if you look closely, only in the service sectors. In the manufacturing sectors where a living wage is actually achievable jobs are down even after the WH reclassified Fast Food jobs as "manufacturing positions".

I'm not touting communism, I believe that without a fair government that has some balance between market freedom and government control will poverty be eliminated.

Perhaps I should have stated that.

[K-W]

18. China didnt have a communist economy, so your point is moot.

That they called thier facist party Communist, doesnt make thier authoritarian control economy communism.

They are moving from totalitarianism to crony capitalism.

[politicaholic]

24. Would my point be moot if I called it Maoism?

Semantic arguments are weak and petty. You need to try again before you 'moot' my point. Go take a debate class or something.

[K-W]

26. Of course it would be.

Semantics? You think your complete mislabeling of an economic system is semantics?

Of course your point would be moot if you called it Maoism, because your point was that China was moving to capitalism from an post-capitalist philosophy, something that is completely not true.

"You need to try again before you 'moot' my point."
Please explain how your point that China had moved from communism to capitalism is the same as the truth that China moved from totalitarianism to capitalism. They are two completely different things.

"Go take a debate class or something."
Why so I can learn how to accuse people who call me on my ignorance of political economy of dwelling on semantics?

[1932]

27. The state owned and controlled every industry. There were no marketplaces

setting prices, determining where resources were invested, etc.

[K-W]

34. Right, nothing even remotely close to communism.

A plain and simple totalitarian economy run by illigitimate government. Nothing even slightly communist about that.

Just in case some people are confused, communism refers to communal ownership of the economy, ie ownership by the PEOPLE, not a totalitarian party structure.

[mr blur]

11. Blair might not be "a great man", but

In his leadership of this campaign and his and Gordon Brown's initiatives and undoubted sincerity in their proposals to eliminate debt for poorer countries crippled by payments and to stop the planet becoming totally fucked by human stupidity, he has shown some of the qualities for which we wanted to elect his government in the first place.

What would you rather have seen today - this or Blair in a flight suit strutting around an aircraft carrier telling the world how he's going to bring Freedom to someone else in retaliation for some of his fellow citizens being slaughtered yesterday?

[sandnsea]

19. If they can't whine

They aren't happy. Bob Geldof called them losers, who think they can "cause world revolution by standing on top of park benches and hitting the police." I'm sick of them.

[politicaholic]

20. I would have liked to see him sit on the act rather than inflate it...

I mean, what did they really do? Do you really think that the deficite of a poor African nation effects the poor people at all. What are they doing about eliminating corrupt regimes? What are they going to do about strengthening the African Union? Kyoto still isn't signed and there was no cohesive resolution on Sudan or Kenya so what the hell did they really really achieve?

He might as well have been dressed like a clown pumping up his shoes with empty promises, dancing around the issues, and honking his nose to mask the sound of real questions asked by real reporters.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicaholic]

23. It seems your baby step approach is more conducive to thumb sucking...

You have no idea what I'd be bitching about on any issue. You assume too much my fellow DUer. Because I thought Saddam was an asshole, does that make me a republican? The fact that I feel the UN needs reform, does that make me a republican? No. Methodology is what separates me from the Moron Prince and Phony Blair.

I'm glad you're paying so close attention to my posts that you can accuse me of endless sniveling. I'm quite flattered actually. So flattered that I won't tell you to 'get a life'. Follow me. Let me be your God.

And how much accountability can a Canadian living in Seattle have on the impact of the G8 summit? I got tear gassed at the WTO riots. I stand in the gushing freezing rain every March for war protests. I send a portion of every paycheck to different democratic and humanitarian causes. I volunteer at a juvenal center. Am I accountable? Who the hell cares. I do what I can. I don't know who you are, but I doubt you're moving any frigging' mountains either.

My frustration lies with the accountability or lack there of of people who CAN make an impact and do it in a half assed agenda laden manner. Blair is not exonerated for his past deeds. He is still a lap dog who is blowing smoke to shadow his wet nose and his ears that are always perked in Bush's direction.

[Booster]

3. Sorry, Blair. This is like Bush declaring war on terrorism. Both

terrorism and poverty will be here until the end of time.

[sandnsea]

21. It's not in the US

There is no ABSOLUTE poverty in the US anymore, and I would venture a guess none in most, if not all, other developed and G8 countries. Nobody need live on a $1.00 a day. Even the homeless don't have to live that way, in the US at least, there are programs to assist them. Absolute poverty can be alleviated, quite easily actually. That will go a long way to reducing terrorism. Violence will never disappear entirely, true, but it doesn't mean you just fling open the doors to a free for all. That's actually freeper thinking and why they support everybody having a gun. They have no faith in humanity at all.

[1932]

4. I agree. I also believe a war on poverty is going to create the environ-

ment within which terrorism cannot thrive and that the G8 and Live8, and the political philosophies of people like Jim Wallis and Joe Stiglitz are the greatest offensive in the war on terrorism. A military war on terrorism will never end. But the end of poverty (and a globalization movement that doesn't concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the powerful) can dramatically reduce both the incentives for terrorism and the ability of peole to plot and carry out acts of terrorism.

[cynatnite]

14. Making poverty history is noble

This is something I would like to see every leader take on. The elimination of poverty would profoundly improve this world. Many of the ills in this world is linked to poverty and I believe Blair sees that.

bush would never see it unless it was drawn on a chalkboard and even then I have doubts. Spreading freedom doesn't mean shit if there's no food on the table.

[Double T]

6. Perhaps if bush weren't invited to any more G8 (then G7) conferences.....

maybe progress in getting important things done would be made possible.

[K-W]

7. Blair has no intention whatsoever of ending poverty.

Without the poor there are no rich and Blaire knows that as well as his populist opponants do.

[1932]

8. Then why is the Labour government reducing poverty?

[K-W]

9. Ending and reducing are two very different things. EOM

[1932]

12. Your accusation is still completely unsupported by every piece of evidence

available to you.

[K-W]

16. Actually, all of the evidence supports me,

Blaire is the one making the outlandish claim. But I guess if it makes you feel happy to think that Blaire is going to undue 100's of years of colonial economics to save starving Africans, then knock yourself out.

Blaire is just trying to pad his resume so he doesnt retire in disgrace.

Also, Blaire has 0 credibility, having lied aggregiously over the war.

[Vladimir]

15. Because it largely isn't

Or at least, the issue is far more complex than you make out. The article below dissects the matter quite well - Labour has had some partial success in combatting child and pensioner poverty, offset against a backdrop of rising social inequality.

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2005/03/poverty-and-inequality-in-britain-2005.html

[1932]

28. That blogger has an agenda.

And there's a logical inconsistency in the argument, I think. He says the only reason that old people are doing well is because the economy is sinking and fixed income seniors are doing better relative to decline at the top. Then he says, don't let the fact that everyone is doing better deceive you. Uh, which is it?

I think that that reads like an amateurish attempt at denial.

I'm also sick of people selling themselves as progressives criticizing baby bonds. When I see that, I find it an incredibly revealing indicator of credibility.

[Vladimir]

29. But he doesn't say that

what he says is...

A few results stick out. Pensioner poverty, measured as the number of pensioners living on below 60% of average income, has declined slightly under New Labour, from about 26% to 20%. Poverty for this group tends to move strongly with the economic cycle, since pensioners’ incomes are fixed when everyone else’s are free to rise. When the economy booms, pensioners are made relatively worse off; when it slumps, everyone else’s declining incomes cause pensioners to become relatively better off. It is, then, a marginal achievement that New Labour has broken this trend, though the decline is not pronounced, and fades next to cyclically-induced declines under Thatcher and Major.

i.e. normally pensioners are relatively worse off with a booming economy, as their incomes are fixed, but Labour has managed to break this trend somewhat. So actually, in this matter at least, he gives them some credit.

As for baby bonds... if they are your indicator of credibility, I would suggest you find a more acute one.

[1932]

30. Care to tell me what you think the problem is with baby bonds.

I did misread that paragraph. But the blogger is still withholoding credit that's due. 26% to 20% is almost a 25% reduction. That's significant -- especially, as the blogger points out, in an economy where the wealthy are also getting wealthier. Most importantly, they're doing it in a world, that if run by Tories, would be channelling way more wealth to the wealthy.

Furthermore, this blogger criticizes the fact that they don't instantaneously solve the problems of child poverty. That is short sighted. None of these problems can be solved instantly, and the point of the baby bonds is to create a long-term solution with a rock-solid foundation.

If not for the Iraq War, I wonder if Blair would be criticized for doing these things by progressives.

I know there's always an impulse to believe that no elected representative is good enough, no matter how good they really are. But I'd really love to run this experiment: remove the Iraq War and would progressives REALLY be criticizing Labour for baby bonds and eliminating devloping nations' debt?

[Vladimir]

31. Of course we would be criticising Labour

there were also the Kosovo and Afganistan wars for a start, tuition fees, PFI, its utterly odious immigration policy...

The thing about child trust funds (and lets be precise about this, since the governments drive on child poverty also includes things like child benefits and child tax credits, which are not baby bonds as far as I understand the word), is that they:

a) have only just been introduced, and hence have nothing to do with any poverty reduction so far achieved

b) are pretty much an irrelevance. 500 quid invested when a kid is born (250 for better off families), maybe to be topped up at 7 and 11, and only accessible at 18, isn't a method of combatting child poverty so much as widening the number of people in our society who have investments.

So the original blogger was not in fact criticising "baby bonds". No offence to my American friends, but using UK terminology when discussing UK issues helps avoid a lot of confusion.

on edit: the above should also make clear why I think child trust funds are a crap litmus test - they don't matter very much in the grand scheme of things. The governents flagship anti-poverty policy is the child tax credit, so even in that area of policy child trust funds are not that fascinating...

[1932]

33. Tuition fees -- that's another one I can't believe is criticized.

Baby bonds are something that very sensible progressives argue for in the US, and if the US had the same system for paying for education that the UK had I think progressives would die of shock.

[Vladimir]

36. Yes well that ignores context, doesn't it?

A measure is not progressive or reactionary in absolute terms - it is only such compared to what preceeds it, or what else is on offer. Tuition fees are progressive compared to the US system, but that is hardly a tall order. Considering that before them, no-one in the UK had to pay extra to go to university at all (it was funded wholly from general taxation) and indeed people got maintenace grants from the government while at uni, it was a reactionary move. And lets not forget Labour specifically pledged not to introduce top-up fees, was elected on a manifesto that contained that specific promise, and then introduced them anyhow. They are a bunch of rotten liars, and I don't care how many times they want to call themselves progressive.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bossy Monkey]

25. LBJ redux. Maybe he'll show us his scars... nt

[JI7]

32. this is good to see

a huge contrast from the Chimp who never misses an opportunity to spew the same empty ignorant statements about freedom, terror, etc. and whose biggest thing after the attacks on our country was to get people to go out shopping.

Blair is doing what we should have done when we had the world's sympathy. just imagine what we could have done with a true leader.

[jmatthan]

35. Gharibi hatao

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030814/mailbag.htm

"Cong’s tryst with ‘Gharibi hatao’"

"The late Indira Gandhi invented the Garibi hatao slogan. It brought rich electoral dividends to the Congress. Down the road, one of the dynasty leader’s family popped up in Italy’s rich people’s list from nowhere."

more...

This was the cry of Indira Gandhi, in the 70's, when she was Prime Minister of India - which means "Remove Poverty".

Succeeded - no way. Poverty increased several fold.

Slogans are just for carrying the illiterate masses along.

Such as "War of Poverty", "War on Terrorism".

In essence, the end result is just the opposite.

Geldof and Bono may feel good that they managed to get their slogan across - but the beneficiaries will be the G8 countries and the corporates!!

With Wolfowitz at the head of World Bank, there can be no other result.

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland