Someone from UK or someone knowledgeable about Brown and Blair...

[madfloridian]

Could you please read this article by Will Marshall from the PPI/DLC website, and tell me if it is pretty much as things are.....or if it is some spin.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/online-edition/columnists/33354/what-washington-will-make-of-prime-minister-brown.thtml

"What Washington will make of Prime Minister Brown

Will Marshall

It all worked out exactly as they’d planned. Over a now-famous dinner in 1994, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (somewhat less enthusiastically) agreed that Blair would seek the Labour Party’s leadership first, then hand off to Brown, who would content himself with the chancellorship of the Exchequer during Blair’s decade in residence at 10 Downing Street. Despite all the backstage maneuvering by their respective political consiglieri, this remarkable partnership held together for a decade and now the torch has been well and truly passed. "

Edited to put the PPI link.

http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

Blair and Clinton were two of the original founders of the Third Way, which was really not that opposed to the spreading of Democracy in the Middle East.

In fact there is an article at the site about Democracy spreading.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=450004&subsecid=900020&contentid=254371

[theoldman]

1. There are two ways to spread democracy.

You can let the people decide on their own or you can attack them and try to shove it down their throat. I do not think that either Blair or Clinton wanted to force democracy on anyone.

[madfloridian]

2. Probably not.

But they did not stop it from happening.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. What ARE you talking about? Corporatism is not democracy! That

was his one guiding light.

[Benhurst]

3. "Notwithstanding liberal anger over Iraq, Blair has won a special place in Americans’ hearts. "

Bullshit!

Send the nasty little war criminal to The Hague.

It's time for "New" Labour :hurts: to be flushed.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Mostly spin

For starters, the author has very rose-coloured spectacles about New Labour's domestic policy:


"Furthermore, by reforming vital public systems for health, education and transportation, Brown has been able to win public backing for public investment and – gulp – tax hikes. Updating public monopolies by adding elements of choice, competition for services and greater accountability for results has been key to Labour’s ability to retain the confidence of Middle Britain."

Enough to make you :puke:. The greater competition and 'accountability' (i.e. running public services like big mass-production factories and emphasizing meeting external 'targets' rather than responding with common-sense and flexibility to human needs has seriously messed up the services. Many of us are very bitter. The policies sometimes come across as just Thatcherism-without-unemployment (i.e. without unemployment as a key element of policy; not that unemployment isn't still a problem). That is better than Thatcherism-with-unemployment, but it's still bad. As I've said in other threads, imagine NCLB applied to education AND everything else.

It's a bit difficult to say yet how Brown will compare with Blair: my prediction is that he'll be almost as bad on domestic policy, but may be better on foreign policy as he doesn't seem to have the same imperialistic mission.

I should add that the "Spectator" is a very right-wing journal.

[madfloridian]

5. Thanks. I thought the Spectator was right wing.

"imagine NCLB applied to education AND everything else"

In my wildest nightmares the teacher in me can not imagine that.

:think:

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. Yes, I believe it is true.

Gore Vidal treats their wee compact (referring to it by a particular name) fairly discursively in his autobiographical "Point to Point Navigation", and even states Blair's excuse for not handing over the reins. IF my memory serves me correctly, it was to the effect that it wasn't him, it was the people, who wanted a manager, rather than whatever he designated Brown as. I can't remmber, unfortunately, though it was probably flattering, of course. Not that Brown would have been taken in, of course.

Incidentally, it is reported in today's Mail on Sunday (UK) that losing office has left Blair in a state of shock. Friends fear he is having for a personal crisis. He seems to want to do a Bush Snr, and be kept apprised of what's going on in government, 'sources' stating that he has bombarded former Downing Street aides with phone calls as though he is still in office.

Apparently, managed to get a wing of the British Museum closed the other day, so he could study religious artefacts in private. There's a certain irony in that.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Admittedly, I would trust the 'Mail on Sunday' even less than the "Spectator"

That being said, I am sure that losing office, even in the semi-voluntary way that Blair did, is indeed a painful experience for someone who had become so addicted to power.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Well, of course, they want their pals, the Tories, back in power, but

until the elctions, they always like to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, dishing the dirt on both. What really would terrify them, is if a Labour (as opposed to a corporatist) leader were to take over from Brown.