CitySimon

Sounds like a fair compromise.

snowbunny

Have any of you seen _The Deal_ which is a docu-drama chronicling the beginning of Blair and Brown's parliamentary careers?

The Democratic race reminds me somewhat of that film.... only I don't know if either Hillary or Barack would budge. And I think Gordon got the arse end of the deal in all respects.

elfman

It was just an example, but whatever

I regularly read a broad spectrum of UK newspapers and the only people I ever see coming out with this witless "Nu Labour" crap are the Britain's-gone-to-the-dogs-there's-too-many-immigrants-it's-a-third-world-nation crowd. I never see it from anyone else.

And that is what exactly? Having had a look around there I wouldn't say I had anything against it or the people who post there. Looks a bit dull, perhaps, but at least it didn't appear to be populated by ignorant self-loathing morons.

Tootsie Frickensprinkles

Blair won the landslide in 97 on the platform of "New Labour". The label was deemed important in convincing the middle class that the Labour party were no longer Union run, anti nuclear Socialists. For better, or worse, true or not, it worked.

The term Nu Labour was coined as a derisory sneer by the likes of the daily mailers quite a few years ago now.

FWIW I think the labour party has lock, stock and barrel sold out, the bullshit of the ten pence tax bracket being just one prime example, higher education being another. Shifting in real terms the British political spectrum a whole step right.

snowbunny

_The Deal_ is now up for download on UKNova. For anyone not up on how Blair and Brown rose to power -- and how Brown considers Blair to be a Tory -- I'd recommend watching it. Not Oscar material, but it does cover some of the basics. I hadn't known about John Smith (I do now!).

CitySimon

But that's the point isn't it...

They won in '97 on the grounds that New Labour was no longer the extreme left of the mainstream political sphere (by shifting slightly right of their original position) so moving the centre further to the right and shifting some of the more moderate votes nearer their New position.

They can't keep doing that forever without disenfranching the people who still hold the ideals of Old Labour.

Based on some of the comments on here, including your "lock, stock and barrel sellout" comment, their appears to be a feeling that has already occurred.

lapin_windstar

NuLabour isn't a reference to Newspeak. It's just because it makes it sound like a tacky, disposable product with no content. I've seen it used by both those to the left and to the right of New Labour.
Meh, Labour hadn't ever been "extreme left". Even in the 1970s, the party membership was a broad coalition of various centrists and leftists across the spectrum. The problem was always the block vote of union reps voting on behalf of passive TU members.

That's why the cancellation of the block vote and the abolition of Clause 4 both had to happen under Blair - the first to break the TUs, and the second to wipe away the last nod to socialism (as opposed to a blend of centrist and social-democratic/christian-democratic policies). Even then, Clause 4 was always symbolic - no Labour government was going to nationalize the means of production. (Ironically, the Northern Rock takeover is one of the biggest nationalizations since Very Old Labour was in power!).

Like you say, Blair realized that aiming for the centre and disaffected non-ideological Tory vote was more lucrative than keeping ideological Labour voters, and that's why he dumped them. Anyone that's only getting disaffected now hasn't been paying attention!

BritGuyTN

Hmm, do you know my aunt?

shes a daily mail reader (obviously) and is always going on about how crime is terrible in the UK, and poles/asylum seekers etc

today she informed me that the americans are saying that crime in the uk is as bad as in the usa (according to the daily mail )

i proceeded to contrast the homicide stats for the city of chicago with that of the whole of england and wales

that soon put a bit of perspective on things

frrussre

So far nowt has changed recently: Hilary 1st choice, McCain 2nd.
Now if the snake oil salesman "Obama", tells us what he intends to do, other then the waffle & CHANGE, I might vote for him in 8 yrs.
Reg. Frank R.

YankeemovingAbroad

Prepare your self to vote for John McCain.But make sure you do so with a clear conscious.I can not vote to send another 18 year old kid off to Iraq to die or to return with out limbs, for a war that is unjust and sadly unwise.

When we vote for war as a nation we should do so while asking would I vote for military conflict if my kid were that soldier being sent to his/her /death.

If after evaluating the need for war to protect our nation from danger then we should be able at the very least to agree the decision for war is warranted. We all know this war was not and those responsible (McCain and republicans) must be held accountable.That does guide my conscious.

lapin_windstar

But Clinton's husband sent troops to Bosnia and to Kosova, and bombed Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia when there was no credible relationship between a threat to the US and the subsequent military action taken.

Clinton is a liberal interventionist who believes that the US military should be sent into some conflicts even when there is no "clear and present danger" to the US. In the case of Bosnia and Kosova, I think that decision was right. But if you want US troops only to protect your nation from danger - Clinton isn't your candidate.

BritGuyTN

For ****s sake, it all well and good you waxing lyrical about casualties in Iraq

BUT

WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT

YOU VOLUNTARILY SIGN UP

ITS THE ****ING MILITARY, NOT PRE-K TUITION

We've been in this conflict since 2002 in afghanistan, is 6 years not enough ****ing notice to give people to let them know that the military is not a walk in the park anymore?

like the idiots complaining 'my son died in iraq and all his joined up for was the free tuition' MORONS, ITS THE ****ING ARMY, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT

NOW

I DON'T agree with the war in Iraq, AND I don't support McCain stance on it BUT

Your christ-child obama WILL take away some of my current rights AND make me personally worse off to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars over an 8 year term if he gets in

AND YES, I left home with all my belongings in two black trash bags at the age of 17 and have worked my arse off over the last 12 years, so I AM a very big believer in personal responsibility and HATE all the people with a sense of entitlement who want something for free or a BAIL-OUT

This goes for organisations as well as people.

Should the government force mortgage companies to reduce the balance owed on the mortgages since the value of the collateral has gone down?

NO

YOU SHOULD NOT GET REWARDED FOR BEING GREEDY OR STUPID

Should the Fed bail out Bear Stearns/ give JP Morgan $30 billion

NO

YOU SHOULD NOT GET REWARDED FOR BEING GREEDY OR STUPID

ugacrew

One question, have you had your coffee yet?

Manc

this happens in the UK too.

John Prescott being made deputy PM for instance.

Xebedee

The American military has many kids in it who signed up because "Boonesville" offered no future to them after the mills all closed down. These same kids who believed wide-eyed all that the recruiters told them and that their best chance out of the economic small-town mess was the GI bill and college.
21st century canon fodder.
There is a draft - its inactive - every male here registers for it at 18.
Under penalty. That is sneaky.
Can you picture a scenario whereby it is reinstated? Could you have imagined one 10 years ago? What has changed here?
Hats off to you for standing on your own two feet.
People in the US dont get enough help from the Govt. Mainly because the corps are running the show here and there is no profit in charity.
I also pulled myself up and made it happen, but along the way it became very clear that not everyone is ambitious. Or able.
Thats quite simply just my experience tho.
The sum of which is all we are, right?