« For markets in kidneys | Main | Counterfactuals »

May 12, 2007



You are spot on in your contention that Old Labour is, if I may paraphrase, shite, and that Blair's circle is verminous. "He's pretended that New Labour has been ...", however, seems dubious. You seem to imply that he's got the intellect to recognise the truth and has consciously decided to lie. I wonder: I suspect that he's pretty dim and that the concept of "lie" may be meaningless to him. He's a nasty, empty, actorish piece of work is my guess, who says whatever suits him without having any sort of internal calibration as to whether it's a fact or a fiction. The harm he's done us is going to emerge over the decades. It's quite possible that he will prove to have destroyed Britain: we'll see. God rot him.


...the verminous Alistair Campbell...

Careful, Chris - I got into a lot of trouble the other day referring to vermin.

Igor Belanov

How can you possibly say that the Blair governments have been 'better' than the 1974-79 ones? Surely you're not comparing like with like for a start. The whole economic and social context is different, far more favourable to 'New Labour' as the 70's were a decade of world-wide depression. Politically, Labour on had an absolute majority in parliament for 2-3 out of the 5 years it was in government. Blair has had huge majorities to enable him to govern without regard for politics. As for 'New Labour' having a substantive economic programme, I don't honestly think there's anything distinctive about it.


Igor Belanov of course is right - no previous Labour govt had anything like as favourable economic circumstances and only 1945 had anything like the parliamentay majority.

"Old-style social democracy is economically infeasible", or even "shite" as it is so elegantly described above? Depends on your defintion - social democracy in Scandinavia seems to me pretty close to older conceptions and that works.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad