Tag New Labour

Michael Foot

The Labour Party of Britain was born in 1900 as the confederation of three labor-oriented political parties, and stood as the bastion of the establishment left in British politics for most of the 20th century. Though Labour led the government a number of times, the ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in the 1980s diminished the party’s political strength and popularity. The leader of Labour in the early 1980s was Michael Foot, who passed away this week at the age of 96. The disastrous election loss in 1983 shook up Labour, forced out Foot, and led to the rise of Tony Blair and what is called “New Labour” — a more centrist, if not outright conservative, platform that has held the government since the mid-1990s (although it is widely expected that the Conservatives are likely to return to power in the next general election).

In reading the several obituaries and blog posts I ran across, I was most impressed by this quote from Foot that reminded me very of why there was, and still is, a need for social democratic politics and political parties, not just in the U.K. but all over the world:

“We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. The is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer, to hell with them. the top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.”

British and American liberal politicians alike need to be shaken from their from their cozy alliances with “the top” and restored to their roots as the champions of the working man. The passing of Foot, like the passing of Ted Kennedy, reminds us that there are too few people like them left.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Blair’s Legacy Is A Four-Letter Word

blairpoodle.jpg

Tony Blair’s permanent summer vacation starts next week, and the British press are indulging in the obligatory “legacy” and “last days” stories.

The overwhelming consensus is that Blair’s decision to support George Bush so closely on Iraq has nearly overwhelmed anything and everything else he accomplished as PM. Blair had already been PM for several years when the Bushies stole the 2000 election, and his initial splash on the world stage was very different than the lockstep lickspittle position he found himself in after 2001. “New Labour” and the “Third Way”, which had hallmarked his relationship with Bill Clinton, took distant backseats. Still, the overall popular sentiment in Britain is that Blair did a good job on most things EXCEPT Iraq, and he leaves office with much higher public approval ratings than Dubya will.

Here’s a piece from 3QuarksDaily contributor Matthias Matthijs that considers the successes and failures of Tony Blair as well as the prospects for his “heir apparent” Gordon Brown (link goes to an interview with Brown in this week’s Time Magazine). Matthijs says don’t expect much different from Brown.

This brief story from the BBC frames the legacy question in Blair’s appearance before the House of Commons liaison committee last week, during which Blair himself was given the opportunity to present his spin on how his administration went and why he did the things he did. Blair said that he always did what he believed was the right thing. It’s that very notion of falling back on his own inner sense of “right vs wrong”, which, not surprisingly is shaped by his devout Christian faith, that failed him so badly.

This piece in The Guardian by author Martin Amis (one of my favorite writers, BTW), is a much closer look at Tony Blair. Amis was allowed to tag along with Blair recently and get substantial 1-on-1 time with him. Amis writes about the visible ebbing of power from Blair in these final days, and about the strange and rarified world the PM lives in (and, in one of my favorite parts of the article, how incredibly different that world is from the world of the President of the United States). In this article, Blair’s own whip-smart mind and his self-awareness come through — the comparisons to Bush’s lack of curiosity and his need to be surrounded by fawning sycophants who keep up the illusion of his imperial throne are powerful.

If you read all three pieces, I think you’ll be left with a very good and well-nuanced sense of Blair and his mostly unwanted legacy. Blair is still a young man in terms of political careers, much like Bill Clinton, so it’s unlikely that he’ll disappear entirely from the world stage. Blair has always had to endure comparisons to Clinton, but most of the time those comparisons are apt. Bill Clinton has done some very interesting tap dancing since 2000, but his circumstances are quite different than Blair’s (I don’t think anyone expects Cherie Blair to turn up as the next Labour PM), so Blair has the chance to chart a different post-power course. For his sake, I hope he puts as much distance between himself and George Bush as possible and recovers some of his promise.

Comments:
Very early on in his PM tenure, Tony Blair was lucky enough to see Princess Diana smash into a wall. The cowboy experienced a similar benefit when the planes smashed into the WTC and the pentagon. Lucky men both because otherwise, their countries would have hated them much earlier.
Posted by Karan [URL] on 06/19/07

Well, it looks like Bush still has his hooks in ol’ Tony. Word is that he’s going to be named a “special envoy to the Middle East” by the Bush Administration.

Kind of pathetic, really.
Posted by Brian [URL] on 06/21/07

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site