Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

I despise Tony Blair (and Third Way)

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:58:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Tony Blair is the UK champion of Third Way. Third Way is a movement I despise (the Clintons are also known for it) for the way they (Democrats and Labour) left the blue-collar leftists and populists behind. It is the holier-than-thou "pragmatism" - "no we can't" politics.

This is what bothers me:

"I think there is a combination of factors behind these movements which are happening both sides of the Atlantic. Part of it is the flatlining of lower and middle income people, the flatlining in living standards for those people, which is very frustrating. It"s partly an anger for sure at the elites, a desire to choose people who are going to rattle the cage."

So he acknowledges that people want change. But, he says it can't happen - and he expects the centrist elite to keep control.

"But it"s also a loss of faith in that strong, centrist progressive position and we"ve got to recover that."

And the way he thinks we should recover it is by trying to undermine the Labour leader who beat the Blairites a few months ago in an act of flipping off democracy, and saying "no we can't" to Corbyn and Sanders.

And the worst quote of all:

"One of the strangest things about politics at the moment " and I really mean it when I say I"m not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say, having spent my life in it " is when you put the question of electability as a factor in your decision to nominate a leader, it"s how small the numbers are that this is the decisive factor. That sounds curious to me."

So fvck fighting for the values many people want. We want to only "play it safe" by abandoning millions of people who were at the forefront of our parties - both Labour in the UK and Democrat in the US. This "electability" thing is utter bullsh!t. Did Blair see all the people registering in the Labour Party when Corbyn took the lead in the leadership election? Does he see the people registering to vote as Democrats, or voting for Sanders as independents in the open Primaries?

No, he wants to preserve the ways no one is excited by - where people just trudge out to vote against the Tories or Republicans when told to, and not for Labour and Democrats. Maybe he should learn it's not a good campaign strategy to continually acknowledge problems, and then say it's too hard to fix and try to quiet it down. Keep telling the populists to shut up and vote for the "moderate" - who isn't as much pragmatic as they are not trying to shoot for bigger changes.

And that's why I won't identify as a Democrat until Sanders or someone like him is elected - not on the point of following the establishment or choosing the easy candidate - but when there's a candidate that tries to actually fight for the people after winning them over. If I were in the UK, I would ask any leftists to rightfully tell the spineless Blairites to fvck off.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 8:50:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
You're completely mischaracterizing his position. First of all, he's not opposed to change, nor is he saying that all change is impossible. He's against using limited resources to pursue policies that have very little chance of being implemented under current political conditions. You may disagree that such policies are politically unfeasible (which is an empirical question, not an ideological one - one which you should be able to discuss without becoming so emotional), but to criticize him for his pragmatism as such is just insane in my opinion. Bernie's supporters do not seem particularly interested to learn whether or not Bernie's platform is realistic. Sometimes the question does arise, but usually as an afterthought, as it clearly does not rank high on their list of concerns. It's true that Bernie has a large following, but is it large *enough* to make his policies a reality? The distinction between "large" and "large enough" is an important one, and deserves serious examination, not just "hey, look at all the people that are voting for Sanders. He's clearly unstoppable".

Even if Sanders gets elected, he'll almost certainly have to compromise on a lot of his positions, unless somehow congress veers two standard deviations to the left. The president is not, as some Sanders supporters seem to believe, a dictator that can just go ahead with whatever policies seem ideal to them. He has to work with congress, which is currently controlled by Republicans. If Sanders is not willing to work with Republicans, he will achieve nothing. This idea that Blair is in favor of preserving the status quo, and opposed to all policies that would upset the status quo, is just nonsense. What's he's against his trying to address our problems with policies that are too extreme to make any difference, because they will never be passed.

So I ask you, who is more arrogant and sanctimonious: the person who is realistic about the improvements that can currently be achieved, or the uncompromising ideologue who expects questions of "electability" to be put aside in order to make room for their One True Leader's grand march to victory?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 9:00:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 8:50:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're completely mischaracterizing his position. First of all, he's not opposed to change, nor is he saying that all change is impossible. He's against using limited resources to pursue policies that have very little chance of being implemented under current political conditions. You may disagree that such policies are politically unfeasible (which is an empirical question, not an ideological one - one which you should be able to discuss without becoming so emotional), but to criticize him for his pragmatism as such is just insane in my opinion.

I have no problem with people saying they want to be pragmatic. I do have a problem with people saying that they can't fight for the wishes of the many because it would be too difficult to get anything through. I have a problem with giving up as a default position.

Bernie's supporters do not seem particularly interested to learn whether or not Bernie's platform is realistic. Sometimes the question does arise, but usually as an afterthought, as it clearly does not rank high on their list of concerns. It's true that Bernie has a large following, but is it large *enough* to make his policies a reality? The distinction between "large" and "large enough" is an important one, and deserves serious examination, not just "hey, look at all the people that are voting for Sanders. He's clearly unstoppable".

Never said he was unstoppable. Don't know why you're saying that here regardless.

Many of Bernie's supporters voted in 2008 for candidates considerably right of him. In Iowa he got the majority of Obama's 2008 supporters who returned to vote. So this also assumes that only the base for him will vote in 2016. If you do that, apply it to every candidate.

Even if Sanders gets elected, he'll almost certainly have to compromise on a lot of his positions, unless somehow congress veers two standard deviations to the left. The president is not, as some Sanders supporters seem to believe, a dictator that can just go ahead with whatever policies seem ideal to them. He has to work with congress, which is currently controlled by Republicans. If Sanders is not willing to work with Republicans, he will achieve nothing.

And Hillary Clinton called Republicans the enemies she's most proud of making, whereas Sanders called them opposition - not enemies - shortly after. Do you think they'll work with Clinton better?

This idea that Blair is in favor of preserving the status quo, and opposed to all policies that would upset the status quo, is just nonsense. What's he's against his trying to address our problems with policies that are too extreme to make any difference, because they will never be passed.

Giving up as a default position.

So I ask you, who is more arrogant and sanctimonious: the person who is realistic about the improvements that can currently be achieved, or the uncompromising ideologue who expects questions of "electability" to be put aside in order to make room for their One True Leader's grand march to victory?

The irony being that Sanders seems more willing to work with opposing views and be far less hostile to the GOP than Clinton.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 10:55:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:58:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Tony Blair is the UK champion of Third Way. Third Way is a movement I despise (the Clintons are also known for it) for the way they (Democrats and Labour) left the blue-collar leftists and populists behind. It is the holier-than-thou "pragmatism" - "no we can't" politics.

The other Third Way is so much better.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:56:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:58:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Tony Blair is the UK champion of Third Way. Third Way is a movement I despise (the Clintons are also known for it) for the way they (Democrats and Labour) left the blue-collar leftists and populists behind. It is the holier-than-thou "pragmatism" - "no we can't" politics.

This is what bothers me:

"I think there is a combination of factors behind these movements which are happening both sides of the Atlantic. Part of it is the flatlining of lower and middle income people, the flatlining in living standards for those people, which is very frustrating. It"s partly an anger for sure at the elites, a desire to choose people who are going to rattle the cage."

So he acknowledges that people want change. But, he says it can't happen - and he expects the centrist elite to keep control.

"But it"s also a loss of faith in that strong, centrist progressive position and we"ve got to recover that."

And the way he thinks we should recover it is by trying to undermine the Labour leader who beat the Blairites a few months ago in an act of flipping off democracy, and saying "no we can't" to Corbyn and Sanders.

And the worst quote of all:

"One of the strangest things about politics at the moment " and I really mean it when I say I"m not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say, having spent my life in it " is when you put the question of electability as a factor in your decision to nominate a leader, it"s how small the numbers are that this is the decisive factor. That sounds curious to me."

So fvck fighting for the values many people want. We want to only "play it safe" by abandoning millions of people who were at the forefront of our parties - both Labour in the UK and Democrat in the US. This "electability" thing is utter bullsh!t. Did Blair see all the people registering in the Labour Party when Corbyn took the lead in the leadership election? Does he see the people registering to vote as Democrats, or voting for Sanders as independents in the open Primaries?

No, he wants to preserve the ways no one is excited by - where people just trudge out to vote against the Tories or Republicans when told to, and not for Labour and Democrats. Maybe he should learn it's not a good campaign strategy to continually acknowledge problems, and then say it's too hard to fix and try to quiet it down. Keep telling the populists to shut up and vote for the "moderate" - who isn't as much pragmatic as they are not trying to shoot for bigger changes.

And that's why I won't identify as a Democrat until Sanders or someone like him is elected - not on the point of following the establishment or choosing the easy candidate - but when there's a candidate that tries to actually fight for the people after winning them over. If I were in the UK, I would ask any leftists to rightfully tell the spineless Blairites to fvck off.

I will start by saying i dislike blair as a politician. He is responsible along with Gordon Brown for reckless spending that left our country in a recession and with a record budget deficit that is only now beginning to be reduced significantly. They did a shocking job with the economy by increasing spending so recklessly in boom time when the downward trend set in Britain's spending levels were unsustainable and had to be cut. Blair also led us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and made stupid concessions of British sovereignty and border control to the eu.

However Blair won Labour 3 elections. The question I ask of the left is this. If you had chosen David Miliband, a blairite back in 2010 you would be in government now without question. Instead you have the conservatives and Cameron who you despise. Rather than learning your lessons and select Kendall or Burnham who would win in 2020 you select an enelectable socialist. It's living in a fantasy. You have to be strategic. Get some of what you want rather then none of it.

David Cameron is very close to the centre. He is a nice bloke and is doing a great job but is too close to the centre for many Tories. However they realized after 3 defeats under leaders considerably to the right they needed some one to win an election. I confidently predict a conservative win in 2020. Then I expect Labour to realize being in power is better than rambling about socialism from the sidelines and appoint a blairite candidate to win in 2025. It's better to be in power then opposition.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:19:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
@last post I would vote Cameron over Miliband.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:26:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 2:19:43 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
@last post I would vote Cameron over Miliband.

Do you mean ed Miliband (The left winger) or his brother he beat in the leadership contest David miliband (the centre left blairite)?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:37:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 2:26:54 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:19:43 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
@last post I would vote Cameron over Miliband.

Do you mean ed Miliband (The left winger) or his brother he beat in the leadership contest David miliband (the centre left blairite)?

Well, Ed. I don't know much about David, but I can't assume him being too much different policy-wise. And if his ability to lead is anything similar, the answer does not change.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 2:57:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 2:37:38 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:26:54 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/28/2016 2:19:43 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
@last post I would vote Cameron over Miliband.

Do you mean ed Miliband (The left winger) or his brother he beat in the leadership contest David miliband (the centre left blairite)?

Well, Ed. I don't know much about David, but I can't assume him being too much different policy-wise. And if his ability to lead is anything similar, the answer does not change.

I'm surprised you dislike ed as he is considerably to the left. The reason he got the leadership was support from trade unions who had a big say in the leadership contest at the time. I agree though he is an awful leader.

I doubt you would like David. He is a Tony Blair protege with very similar views. He would definately have appealed to the centre like Blair and got Labour back in power. David acknowledged the need for spending cuts, did not plan tax significant tax rises and did not plan to increase private sector regulation. He is also a strong leader and comes across well to voters and performs well in tv debates.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:29:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:58:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Tony Blair is the UK champion of Third Way. Third Way is a movement I despise (the Clintons are also known for it) for the way they (Democrats and Labour) left the blue-collar leftists and populists behind. It is the holier-than-thou "pragmatism" - "no we can't" politics.

This is what bothers me:

"I think there is a combination of factors behind these movements which are happening both sides of the Atlantic. Part of it is the flatlining of lower and middle income people, the flatlining in living standards for those people, which is very frustrating. It"s partly an anger for sure at the elites, a desire to choose people who are going to rattle the cage."

So he acknowledges that people want change. But, he says it can't happen - and he expects the centrist elite to keep control.

"But it"s also a loss of faith in that strong, centrist progressive position and we"ve got to recover that."

And the way he thinks we should recover it is by trying to undermine the Labour leader who beat the Blairites a few months ago in an act of flipping off democracy, and saying "no we can't" to Corbyn and Sanders.

And the worst quote of all:

"One of the strangest things about politics at the moment " and I really mean it when I say I"m not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say, having spent my life in it " is when you put the question of electability as a factor in your decision to nominate a leader, it"s how small the numbers are that this is the decisive factor. That sounds curious to me."

So fvck fighting for the values many people want. We want to only "play it safe" by abandoning millions of people who were at the forefront of our parties - both Labour in the UK and Democrat in the US. This "electability" thing is utter bullsh!t. Did Blair see all the people registering in the Labour Party when Corbyn took the lead in the leadership election? Does he see the people registering to vote as Democrats, or voting for Sanders as independents in the open Primaries?

No, he wants to preserve the ways no one is excited by - where people just trudge out to vote against the Tories or Republicans when told to, and not for Labour and Democrats. Maybe he should learn it's not a good campaign strategy to continually acknowledge problems, and then say it's too hard to fix and try to quiet it down. Keep telling the populists to shut up and vote for the "moderate" - who isn't as much pragmatic as they are not trying to shoot for bigger changes.

And that's why I won't identify as a Democrat until Sanders or someone like him is elected - not on the point of following the establishment or choosing the easy candidate - but when there's a candidate that tries to actually fight for the people after winning them over. If I were in the UK, I would ask any leftists to rightfully tell the spineless Blairites to fvck off.

Amen! Notice I have a Tony Benn quote as my signature, so that should summarize my view on the so called "Third Way"
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 9:27:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:58:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Tony Blair is the UK champion of Third Way. Third Way is a movement I despise (the Clintons are also known for it) for the way they (Democrats and Labour) left the blue-collar leftists and populists behind. It is the holier-than-thou "pragmatism" - "no we can't" politics.

This is what bothers me:

"I think there is a combination of factors behind these movements which are happening both sides of the Atlantic. Part of it is the flatlining of lower and middle income people, the flatlining in living standards for those people, which is very frustrating. It"s partly an anger for sure at the elites, a desire to choose people who are going to rattle the cage."

So he acknowledges that people want change. But, he says it can't happen - and he expects the centrist elite to keep control.

"But it"s also a loss of faith in that strong, centrist progressive position and we"ve got to recover that."

And the way he thinks we should recover it is by trying to undermine the Labour leader who beat the Blairites a few months ago in an act of flipping off democracy, and saying "no we can't" to Corbyn and Sanders.

And the worst quote of all:

"One of the strangest things about politics at the moment " and I really mean it when I say I"m not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say, having spent my life in it " is when you put the question of electability as a factor in your decision to nominate a leader, it"s how small the numbers are that this is the decisive factor. That sounds curious to me."

So fvck fighting for the values many people want. We want to only "play it safe" by abandoning millions of people who were at the forefront of our parties - both Labour in the UK and Democrat in the US. This "electability" thing is utter bullsh!t. Did Blair see all the people registering in the Labour Party when Corbyn took the lead in the leadership election? Does he see the people registering to vote as Democrats, or voting for Sanders as independents in the open Primaries?

No, he wants to preserve the ways no one is excited by - where people just trudge out to vote against the Tories or Republicans when told to, and not for Labour and Democrats. Maybe he should learn it's not a good campaign strategy to continually acknowledge problems, and then say it's too hard to fix and try to quiet it down. Keep telling the populists to shut up and vote for the "moderate" - who isn't as much pragmatic as they are not trying to shoot for bigger changes.

And that's why I won't identify as a Democrat until Sanders or someone like him is elected - not on the point of following the establishment or choosing the easy candidate - but when there's a candidate that tries to actually fight for the people after winning them over. If I were in the UK, I would ask any leftists to rightfully tell the spineless Blairites to fvck off.

Everyone in the uk hates Tony Blair. He did win Labour 3 elections though and at one time was really popular. He was good at appealing to centrist voters which Labour needs to win elections. His successors Brown and Miliband were poor uninspiring leaders too far to the left to compete with the moderate centre right conservative party leader David Cameron. Cameron is generally popular and appeals to voters.

Jeremy corbyn meanwhile only appeals to Labour's core supporters, trade unions and the far left. He is not going to win an election. Conservative party supporters actually infiltrated the labour leadership contest to vote for Corbyn as they new how unpopular he would be with centrist voters.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.