"How much difference may depend on how well Labour impressed on voters and future policy-makers the necessity of Sure Start and the need to make them all as good as Carousel." The Verdict p166
It is ironic that when I come to talk about one of New Labour's successes, Blair barely mentions it in his memoirs at all. The announcement that the coalition intend to extend Sure Start to allow the poorest 20% of families to receive 15 hours of free pre-school education a week from the age of two (rather than three) is to be applauded. It was also a labour Party manifesto promise. Given the sweeping cuts across the public sector it is a thorough endorsement of one of New Labour's early initiatives.
In a book about leadership, perhaps a straightforward success story is simply too undramatic to warrant much attention, but, Sure Start represents New Labour making a real difference by embarking on some old fashioned social engineering. Research indicated that less intelligent children from well-off backgrounds had overtaken brighter children from poor backgrounds by the age of six. Sure Start aimed to bring under 5s from poor backgrounds up to the same educational standards as their contemporaries from better off backgrounds at the point they started primary school. The success of the programme is best indicated by its popularity with middle class parents.
Childcare provision has doubled in Britain, with a mixture of private provision and 3500 state centres in the most neglected areas. This also allowed many parents to get training or a job for the first time. In 2008 a team of researchers from Birbeck University concluded that the programme was working. “In [Sure Start] areas children showed better social development, with more positive social behaviour and greater independence, and parents showed less risk of negative parenting and provided a better home-learning environment.”
The test, of course, is to see how well they do through school.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Tuition Fees
"But he suffers [Ed Balls] from the bane of all left-leaning intellectuals. As I have remarked elsewhere, these guys never 'get' aspiration. They would deny it of course, but they see the middle class - apart from the intellectual part of it - as an unnatural constituency...they would think that a person worried about their tax rates was essentially selfish, and therefore by implication morally a little lost." p484
I admit I have more than a little sympathy with the Ed Ball's school of thought. It is not that I don't 'get' aspiration. I am aspirational. However, as somebody who came from a working class background with none of the advantages of educated parents or friends to guide me, I saw what a lottery life was. Aspiration was all very well, but in the face of enormous cultural pressures and even opposition, my friends looked, almost entirely to the state for our opportunities and, in providing good schools and free universities they gave us the chance to pursue our ambitions. The aspiration to build a better life needs to be nurtured with opportunity. It should not be a lottery and barriers to opportunity need to be removed. Opportunity brings with it the weight of a social agenda. You are being backed by the state. It provides individuals with a legal and material framework to succeed in their goals and, in exchange, those individuals should recognise their debt and pay appropriate levels of taxation.
The problem is, that aspiration in one generation can quickly become privilege in the next generation. The private school, the foreign holidays and the enormous opportunities that money can buy. Is there anything worse than the self-made man who pontifcates about how he did it all by himself and other people should try doing the same. Often these people don't seem to recognise their own immense achivement. They are often exceptional people and have achieved what would be extraordinary in any walk of life but more so given their own circumstances. Luck, of course, can also play a big part in anyone's life, but rarely in the story of the self-made man. Nor is luck recognised by the most privileged groups in our society. The luck of being born rich and in a country where their inherited privileges are protected by the state should place a heavy social responsibility upon that person.
Blair wanted his legacy to be a new tradition that would create a permanently electable Labour Party. But can you build anything by pandering to the market driven aspirations of people only interested in material wealth and by extension self-indulgence. It may have been where "the people were heading" (p485), but that doesn't mean you couldn't have tried to change their direction. This was not leadership but following the crowd. This lack of ambition is best illustrated by his rebuff of Ball's suggestion that tuition fees be repaid with a progressive graduate tax dependent on income. Blair argues, "I didn't like this at all. It broke the essential link between what a student got and what they gave back." When did paying tax turn into a retail transaction where you only pay for the goods you consume? Can you really claim to be a progressive politician or party if you don't believe in a progressive tax system?
We have to be more ambitious than this. As the banking crisis has shown, we can't afford to simply pander to the self-interested anymore.
I admit I have more than a little sympathy with the Ed Ball's school of thought. It is not that I don't 'get' aspiration. I am aspirational. However, as somebody who came from a working class background with none of the advantages of educated parents or friends to guide me, I saw what a lottery life was. Aspiration was all very well, but in the face of enormous cultural pressures and even opposition, my friends looked, almost entirely to the state for our opportunities and, in providing good schools and free universities they gave us the chance to pursue our ambitions. The aspiration to build a better life needs to be nurtured with opportunity. It should not be a lottery and barriers to opportunity need to be removed. Opportunity brings with it the weight of a social agenda. You are being backed by the state. It provides individuals with a legal and material framework to succeed in their goals and, in exchange, those individuals should recognise their debt and pay appropriate levels of taxation.
The problem is, that aspiration in one generation can quickly become privilege in the next generation. The private school, the foreign holidays and the enormous opportunities that money can buy. Is there anything worse than the self-made man who pontifcates about how he did it all by himself and other people should try doing the same. Often these people don't seem to recognise their own immense achivement. They are often exceptional people and have achieved what would be extraordinary in any walk of life but more so given their own circumstances. Luck, of course, can also play a big part in anyone's life, but rarely in the story of the self-made man. Nor is luck recognised by the most privileged groups in our society. The luck of being born rich and in a country where their inherited privileges are protected by the state should place a heavy social responsibility upon that person.
Blair wanted his legacy to be a new tradition that would create a permanently electable Labour Party. But can you build anything by pandering to the market driven aspirations of people only interested in material wealth and by extension self-indulgence. It may have been where "the people were heading" (p485), but that doesn't mean you couldn't have tried to change their direction. This was not leadership but following the crowd. This lack of ambition is best illustrated by his rebuff of Ball's suggestion that tuition fees be repaid with a progressive graduate tax dependent on income. Blair argues, "I didn't like this at all. It broke the essential link between what a student got and what they gave back." When did paying tax turn into a retail transaction where you only pay for the goods you consume? Can you really claim to be a progressive politician or party if you don't believe in a progressive tax system?
We have to be more ambitious than this. As the banking crisis has shown, we can't afford to simply pander to the self-interested anymore.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Page 480-7 - Tuition Fees
'We had a manifesto commitment not to allow top-up fees, it was true, but frankly it would have been absurd to postpone the decisions necessary for the country because of it.'
No, it's not Cable and Spineless, ditching yet another manifesto promise. It is Tony Blair justifying his own about-turn on tuition fees following the 2001 election.
The 2001 Labour manifesto stated that, 'We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them.' That is about as clear a declaration as you ever get in politics, but, as Blair explains, the promise had only been put into the manifesto because 'worries that we were planning to do this [introduce tuition fees] had been circulating among the PLP and NEC and, David [Blunkett] felt that we had to kill the story.' Quite right too, it would have been extremely inconvenient for Labour supporters to know the truth that they were planning to introduce tuition fees. So, what we are being told is that Blair was considering introducing fees but it would have been extremely awkward to admit it with an election coming up. After all, they didn't want to upset the membership because somebody needed to deliver the leaflets and it wasn't going to be Tony.
Remarkably, considering the excellent economic conditions during the time, 'shortly after the election the challenge for our universities became clear.' I must have missed this sudden and inexplicable 'run' on our universities, but, following the Labour victory, Blair started formally exploring the introduction of fees. He argued that the success of American universities was 'due to their system of fees...their bursary system allowed them to help poorer students and their financial flexibility meant that they could attract the best academics.' For Blair, our economic well-being relied on world-class universities producing a competitive level of 'human-capital.' This may be true, but, while fees might produce a few institutions that can attract the best in the world, it is not entirely relevant to the largely parochial aims of most of our universities.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with churning out over-qualified admin staff. Education should not all be about career opportunities and all education enhances our life and in turn our society. If you have read Ulysses you may want to punch James Joyce but you are not likely to go around punching old ladies. However, with 59% of graduates in the last two years failing to find a job in a field related to their degree and with graduate unemployment hitting 44%, one must question the wisdom of encouraging young people to begin their adult lives with debts up to £30,000 that will take up to 30 years to pay off. Inevitably, it will encourage students to consider the job prospects of their degree courses, but what a grubby country we will have when the arts and humanities have disappeared from out universities and we are left with only sensible vocational degrees. Who knows, old ladies beware, perhaps gangs of literature students will soon be roaming our inner-cities with an eye to feeding their modernist literature habit.
No, it's not Cable and Spineless, ditching yet another manifesto promise. It is Tony Blair justifying his own about-turn on tuition fees following the 2001 election.
The 2001 Labour manifesto stated that, 'We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them.' That is about as clear a declaration as you ever get in politics, but, as Blair explains, the promise had only been put into the manifesto because 'worries that we were planning to do this [introduce tuition fees] had been circulating among the PLP and NEC and, David [Blunkett] felt that we had to kill the story.' Quite right too, it would have been extremely inconvenient for Labour supporters to know the truth that they were planning to introduce tuition fees. So, what we are being told is that Blair was considering introducing fees but it would have been extremely awkward to admit it with an election coming up. After all, they didn't want to upset the membership because somebody needed to deliver the leaflets and it wasn't going to be Tony.
Remarkably, considering the excellent economic conditions during the time, 'shortly after the election the challenge for our universities became clear.' I must have missed this sudden and inexplicable 'run' on our universities, but, following the Labour victory, Blair started formally exploring the introduction of fees. He argued that the success of American universities was 'due to their system of fees...their bursary system allowed them to help poorer students and their financial flexibility meant that they could attract the best academics.' For Blair, our economic well-being relied on world-class universities producing a competitive level of 'human-capital.' This may be true, but, while fees might produce a few institutions that can attract the best in the world, it is not entirely relevant to the largely parochial aims of most of our universities.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with churning out over-qualified admin staff. Education should not all be about career opportunities and all education enhances our life and in turn our society. If you have read Ulysses you may want to punch James Joyce but you are not likely to go around punching old ladies. However, with 59% of graduates in the last two years failing to find a job in a field related to their degree and with graduate unemployment hitting 44%, one must question the wisdom of encouraging young people to begin their adult lives with debts up to £30,000 that will take up to 30 years to pay off. Inevitably, it will encourage students to consider the job prospects of their degree courses, but what a grubby country we will have when the arts and humanities have disappeared from out universities and we are left with only sensible vocational degrees. Who knows, old ladies beware, perhaps gangs of literature students will soon be roaming our inner-cities with an eye to feeding their modernist literature habit.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Page 4 - Through the Eye of a Needle
...'every waking moment had been bent to eliminating the challenges, making sure the vehicle was fit for the voyage, the engine sparking, the passengers either on board or shouting impatiently from behind us, not barring the way ahead.'
Who are the passengers? Ineffective members of the team? I don't think so, I think he is referring to us, the Labour voters! Whichever way you consider it, it's not a flattering description and suggests, in Blair's world view, something contractual, a rather vague and transient relationship. We are to be managed and herded onto the 'vehicle', an odd choice of word - very New Labour to not want to be too specific about what type of transport we'll get, although voyage does suggest a boat doesn't it, or at a push, maybe a camel? It would be appropriate as there is an old Middle East joke which says a camel is a horse designed by committee.
At least these passengers have got 'on board' and want to take 'A Journey' (a bit (New) laboured Tony). His full contempt is for the other 'passengers' who are left behind to shout impatiently but most importantly not block Blair's rise to power. Now, my first question is, can they be passengers if they are not on board? Do you become a passenger the moment you buy a ticket? Is it possible that they bought a ticket but became upset when they realised they were expected to take an alternative route to the one originally advertised (geddit? - painful isn't it?). Yes, I think Blair's greatest contempt is for the traditional Labour supporters and members. It leaves me with an image of Blair speeding away with those he has duped fading in his camel's rear view mirror.
It's at this point he begins to sound like a slightly manic evangelical preacher. 'Hadn't we fought a great campaign?' Well, yes. 'Hadn't we impaled our enemies on our bayonet like ripe fruit?' What bayonet? No, I don't think so and if you don't mind me saying so it's slightly disturbing to hear you speak like this. Enemy? Considering the campaign aimed to win over Tory voters, it seems a little strong, especially when 'enemy' was John Major - hardly an evil tyrant. Although, I suppose, by then the Tories were rotten and pretty inanimate. Perhaps he is referring to the old left wing of the Labour Party, that really had been a bloody rout. 'Hadn't our strategies, like something derived from destiny, scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts?' What? Now you really are scaring me. 'Derived from destiny'? Hadn't they been derived from opinion polls and focus groups in marginal Tory seats? 'Scattered the proud'? Neil Hamilton? 'Imagination of their hearts'.
If anyone has any idea what he is talking about, please let me know.
Who are the passengers? Ineffective members of the team? I don't think so, I think he is referring to us, the Labour voters! Whichever way you consider it, it's not a flattering description and suggests, in Blair's world view, something contractual, a rather vague and transient relationship. We are to be managed and herded onto the 'vehicle', an odd choice of word - very New Labour to not want to be too specific about what type of transport we'll get, although voyage does suggest a boat doesn't it, or at a push, maybe a camel? It would be appropriate as there is an old Middle East joke which says a camel is a horse designed by committee.
At least these passengers have got 'on board' and want to take 'A Journey' (a bit (New) laboured Tony). His full contempt is for the other 'passengers' who are left behind to shout impatiently but most importantly not block Blair's rise to power. Now, my first question is, can they be passengers if they are not on board? Do you become a passenger the moment you buy a ticket? Is it possible that they bought a ticket but became upset when they realised they were expected to take an alternative route to the one originally advertised (geddit? - painful isn't it?). Yes, I think Blair's greatest contempt is for the traditional Labour supporters and members. It leaves me with an image of Blair speeding away with those he has duped fading in his camel's rear view mirror.
It's at this point he begins to sound like a slightly manic evangelical preacher. 'Hadn't we fought a great campaign?' Well, yes. 'Hadn't we impaled our enemies on our bayonet like ripe fruit?' What bayonet? No, I don't think so and if you don't mind me saying so it's slightly disturbing to hear you speak like this. Enemy? Considering the campaign aimed to win over Tory voters, it seems a little strong, especially when 'enemy' was John Major - hardly an evil tyrant. Although, I suppose, by then the Tories were rotten and pretty inanimate. Perhaps he is referring to the old left wing of the Labour Party, that really had been a bloody rout. 'Hadn't our strategies, like something derived from destiny, scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts?' What? Now you really are scaring me. 'Derived from destiny'? Hadn't they been derived from opinion polls and focus groups in marginal Tory seats? 'Scattered the proud'? Neil Hamilton? 'Imagination of their hearts'.
If anyone has any idea what he is talking about, please let me know.
Friday, 8 October 2010
Page 3 - 'Slow-motion suicide'
1st May 1997. Election day and the Tories are in a lot of trouble. Blair wisely had resisted any talk of a landslide, but a 25 point opinion poll lead meant even Blair was secretly confident of a big victory. Sleaze and divisions over Europe had plagued the Conservative campaign. It had been a complete shambles.
But, had it been like watching '...an escape artist who ties concrete blocks to his legs, puts on handcuffs, gets into a lead box, has it sealed and jumps into deep water? You think, How's he going to get out of that? - and you realise he isn't.' How did he 'jump' into the water with concrete blocks on his feet, never mind the fact that he has got into a lead box? I can't really buy the idea of the Conservatives as an escape artist, they were not trying to deliberately thrill the audience, they had just proved to be incompetent. There was something Norman Wisdom rather than Harry Houdini about it all. It just doesn't work does it?
I think Campbell's diary entry is much closer to the mark. It had been a long battle, stretching back to at least 1994 and he captures the relentless quality of it all, 'It was as if we had been fighting a 15-round fight and as the bell rang for the last round, the other guy just didn't show.' I'm not sure about opposition not turning up - wasn't it more like the other guy was having to defend himself from jabs by his own cornermen between rounds?
Typically, Mandelson avoids any overblown metaphors and simply states that 'the Conservatives were bereft of policy, direction or a positive message for the British people...'. prosaic but to the point.
However, my favourite quotation about the Tory defeat is attributed to John Major in Andrew Rawnsley's book, 'Servants of the People.' - I think it says it all about 1997, Major is reported as saying, 'If I had stood unopposed, I would have come second.'
If you can do better than the politicians and pros let me know or why not let me know your favourite memories or quotes from the 1997 election?
But, had it been like watching '...an escape artist who ties concrete blocks to his legs, puts on handcuffs, gets into a lead box, has it sealed and jumps into deep water? You think, How's he going to get out of that? - and you realise he isn't.' How did he 'jump' into the water with concrete blocks on his feet, never mind the fact that he has got into a lead box? I can't really buy the idea of the Conservatives as an escape artist, they were not trying to deliberately thrill the audience, they had just proved to be incompetent. There was something Norman Wisdom rather than Harry Houdini about it all. It just doesn't work does it?
I think Campbell's diary entry is much closer to the mark. It had been a long battle, stretching back to at least 1994 and he captures the relentless quality of it all, 'It was as if we had been fighting a 15-round fight and as the bell rang for the last round, the other guy just didn't show.' I'm not sure about opposition not turning up - wasn't it more like the other guy was having to defend himself from jabs by his own cornermen between rounds?
Typically, Mandelson avoids any overblown metaphors and simply states that 'the Conservatives were bereft of policy, direction or a positive message for the British people...'. prosaic but to the point.
However, my favourite quotation about the Tory defeat is attributed to John Major in Andrew Rawnsley's book, 'Servants of the People.' - I think it says it all about 1997, Major is reported as saying, 'If I had stood unopposed, I would have come second.'
If you can do better than the politicians and pros let me know or why not let me know your favourite memories or quotes from the 1997 election?
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Page 2 - New Labour 5, Old Labour 1
Two World Wars and One World Cup
I think it is interesting that Blair raises the old football adage, that football is, 'a game played with a round ball, two teams of eleven players, forty-five minutes in each half and the Germans always win.' to describe the Labour party's fear that it would never win another election. (I'm not sure it is an old football adage, just a weak Des Lynam style joke, but then Tony was never really persuaded people he was proper football fan, did he?)
It reminds me how, a couple of years into the Blair government, a London politics lecturer reminisced with me about how he had seen the future when, a young team of Millbank types, including future Secretary of State, James Purnell, had completely wiped the floor with his football team. Supremely confident, very young, well organised, supremely fit and apparently not averse to some less than statesmenlike activities to gain an advantage.
In the early years of New Labour they seemed like the political equivalent of 'the Germans'. I was working in a lowly position as a PA to one of the ruling Labour Group's Committee Chairs (Chair had only recently replaced Chairman, as the first shoots of political correctness pushed through the political wasteland and gave the Daily Mail plenty of material to get outraged by). Whilst Gazza cried (again) and penalties were missed in Euro 96, the ruthlessly efficient 'Germans', including Jame Purnell and Stephen Twigg ran rings around the Labour old guard. They were ruthless in front of their goal, of removing old style Labour supporters and lowering the red flag. Twigg, of course, would go on, in what would was voted as the third greatest ever TV moment ever, unseat Michael Portillo during the 1997 election rout.
Unfortunately, the looney left tag that was attached to Islington was an embarrassment to the modernisers and getting rid of it seemed more important than its proud, but at the time deeply unfashionable record of supporting minority groups and pushing a strong equal opportunities agenda. Such causes are pretty mainstream now but at the time were constantly attacked by the Tories. In many ways Twigg benefitted enormously from the brave policies of councils such as Islington, as he became the first openly gay man to be elected to Parliament.
After 34 years of almost continuous control, Labour lost Islington in 1998.
Rules is rules -
So Mr Blair, can you tell us straight, no quibbling, yes or no, are there rules in politics?
'The first rule in politics...' - Ah! The first rule, so are there more?
'is that there are no rules...' - but doesn't that mean there are rules...I thought you said there are rules? It's as if Escher had decided to stop the doodling and go into prose, you're making my head hurt,
'at least not in the sense of inevitable defeats.' What? Quick, make a u-turn! So there are rules, but only one rule in this particular niche of politics and that rule is that there isn't a rule but then that suggests you think that there are rules, after, all in other areas? Have I understood you?
Even by the standards of politicians I think, at least, three opinions in one sentence (20 words) is an exceptional performance.
...and finally...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSHdyZckZg&feature=player_embedded#!
I think it is interesting that Blair raises the old football adage, that football is, 'a game played with a round ball, two teams of eleven players, forty-five minutes in each half and the Germans always win.' to describe the Labour party's fear that it would never win another election. (I'm not sure it is an old football adage, just a weak Des Lynam style joke, but then Tony was never really persuaded people he was proper football fan, did he?)
It reminds me how, a couple of years into the Blair government, a London politics lecturer reminisced with me about how he had seen the future when, a young team of Millbank types, including future Secretary of State, James Purnell, had completely wiped the floor with his football team. Supremely confident, very young, well organised, supremely fit and apparently not averse to some less than statesmenlike activities to gain an advantage.
In the early years of New Labour they seemed like the political equivalent of 'the Germans'. I was working in a lowly position as a PA to one of the ruling Labour Group's Committee Chairs (Chair had only recently replaced Chairman, as the first shoots of political correctness pushed through the political wasteland and gave the Daily Mail plenty of material to get outraged by). Whilst Gazza cried (again) and penalties were missed in Euro 96, the ruthlessly efficient 'Germans', including Jame Purnell and Stephen Twigg ran rings around the Labour old guard. They were ruthless in front of their goal, of removing old style Labour supporters and lowering the red flag. Twigg, of course, would go on, in what would was voted as the third greatest ever TV moment ever, unseat Michael Portillo during the 1997 election rout.
Unfortunately, the looney left tag that was attached to Islington was an embarrassment to the modernisers and getting rid of it seemed more important than its proud, but at the time deeply unfashionable record of supporting minority groups and pushing a strong equal opportunities agenda. Such causes are pretty mainstream now but at the time were constantly attacked by the Tories. In many ways Twigg benefitted enormously from the brave policies of councils such as Islington, as he became the first openly gay man to be elected to Parliament.
After 34 years of almost continuous control, Labour lost Islington in 1998.
Rules is rules -
So Mr Blair, can you tell us straight, no quibbling, yes or no, are there rules in politics?
'The first rule in politics...' - Ah! The first rule, so are there more?
'is that there are no rules...' - but doesn't that mean there are rules...I thought you said there are rules? It's as if Escher had decided to stop the doodling and go into prose, you're making my head hurt,
'at least not in the sense of inevitable defeats.' What? Quick, make a u-turn! So there are rules, but only one rule in this particular niche of politics and that rule is that there isn't a rule but then that suggests you think that there are rules, after, all in other areas? Have I understood you?
Even by the standards of politicians I think, at least, three opinions in one sentence (20 words) is an exceptional performance.
...and finally...
I've just found this clip on u-tube regarding the Jackie Milburn story, you decide! Why was a newspaper interview being filmed? Can you explain?
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
'My predominant feeling was fear' - Page 1
Tony Blair was afraid. Labour had won a landslide victory, a majority of 179 seats, and yet at this moment of opportunity, TB's 'predominant feeling was fear.' After being handed such an enormous mandate surely we had a right to 'believe all things were possible'. Blair clearly did not. Not only did expectations have to be controlled but so did the celebrations. Even the crowd outside Downing Street to cheer the new prime minister had been 'carefully assembled, carefully managed.' The spontaneous throng of supporters were the campaign team, hurried over from Millbank. Already, nothing could be taken at face value.
It is understandable that a new government should be so concerned with setting the right tone but this was a timid response to the national euphoria and set the tone for the government, much as TB does in his memoirs: 'I had never, held office' - ok, some honesty, it was a big leap, ''not even as the most junior of junior ministers.' Ok, Tony, we believed you, you had never held office. 'It was my first and only job in government' - we know it was your first job! he's not padding the very first paragraph, is he? Is there a lack of substance? Even the first line is amiguous, 'On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time.' When did Blair become prime minister for a second time? Did anyone read this through?
A failure to get the message across, little substance and a lack of self-belief. Ring any bells?
Check out the crowd outside Downing Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm
On a happier note, I would just like to say how pleased I am that the Tories are experiencing such discomfort over the child benefit announcement and some embarrassment because of the rapid tax allowance u-turn which, I understand will cost more money than the original cuts. Has the well-oiled machine become a little gin-soaked at the conference? The announcement by Osborne on breakfast TV, without, it would appear, consulting senior members of the cabinet (particularly obvious, if you tuned into a classic Paxman interview with Theresa May last night) seemed very New Labour. However, a more striking legacy of New Labour on display would appear to be the Tories decision to disregard the interests of their core support. Will the yummy mummies in the shires be as loyal as traditional Labour voters were?
It is understandable that a new government should be so concerned with setting the right tone but this was a timid response to the national euphoria and set the tone for the government, much as TB does in his memoirs: 'I had never, held office' - ok, some honesty, it was a big leap, ''not even as the most junior of junior ministers.' Ok, Tony, we believed you, you had never held office. 'It was my first and only job in government' - we know it was your first job! he's not padding the very first paragraph, is he? Is there a lack of substance? Even the first line is amiguous, 'On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time.' When did Blair become prime minister for a second time? Did anyone read this through?
A failure to get the message across, little substance and a lack of self-belief. Ring any bells?
Check out the crowd outside Downing Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm
On a happier note, I would just like to say how pleased I am that the Tories are experiencing such discomfort over the child benefit announcement and some embarrassment because of the rapid tax allowance u-turn which, I understand will cost more money than the original cuts. Has the well-oiled machine become a little gin-soaked at the conference? The announcement by Osborne on breakfast TV, without, it would appear, consulting senior members of the cabinet (particularly obvious, if you tuned into a classic Paxman interview with Theresa May last night) seemed very New Labour. However, a more striking legacy of New Labour on display would appear to be the Tories decision to disregard the interests of their core support. Will the yummy mummies in the shires be as loyal as traditional Labour voters were?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)