Ironic considering it was Blair who introduced the National Minimum Wage.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tony Blair on Nick Robinson's Show
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Ironic considering it was Blair who introduced the National Minimum Wage.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,602
Ironic considering it was Blair who introduced the National Minimum Wage.
Please tell me you know the difference between the minimum wage and a living wage.
Please tell me you know the difference between the minimum wage and a living wage.
I do. Please tell me that you understand the conceptual similarities between them.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,602
I do. Please tell me that you understand the conceptual similarities between them.
I can only think of one, it breaks the neoliberal rule that capitalism should be free of any constraints on its capacity to do as it pleases.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,847
Blair will one day be remembered for his achievemnets, but being honest many aspects of the new labour policies were from John Smiths time and the econonic successes down to Brown.
People forget, Blair was a fortunate MP who in reality would never have been PM if Smith hadn't died and Brown didn't opt not stand, brown was seen as a better politicion and had dealt Majors government embarresing blows in opposition (blairs tough on crime speach was browns idea).
He also recognised that if he and tony had fought for the leadership it would have split party loyalties and poasibly cost an election.
Blair implemented many social reforms,
But it is also true that the 13 years of New Labour did not transform the country as Attlee’s 1945 government had done. They left none of the radical and lasting institutional change. They did more to affirm than to challenge the Thatcherite idea of the smaller state, and they never did enough to challenge the supremacy of market forces.
London (The City) grew and Cities liken ours prospered, but this reliance on the finacial services did nothing to lift already decimated former industrial areas and what were Labour heartlands, many Northern towns saw better public services, but no real improvement to the them economically at a personal lever.
Pre the global colaspe in 2008 the IFS reported inequality from the richest to the poorest was the highest since 1961
His third way was a product of it's time in an unpresidented exception time of economic global growth meant that Blair and Brown were able to convert Labour to economic liberalism just as David Cameron copied New Labour and move the Tories to social liberalism but with the crash added austerity.
But after the economic crash, the accusation that Labour would not stand up to powerful moneyed interests, mainly for fear of being considered anti-business, damaged the third way idea and Blairs NL movement, eopel were fed up with it.
New Labour did great things, but neglected many people also in the process.
Blairs ego or as he calls it 'his faith and beliefs' was his downfall and is why, for now his legacy is tainted by Iraq, one day in the future he will be remebered as one of the best PM the country had, but his politics as with many othe politicl movements has run it's course for now.
People forget, Blair was a fortunate MP who in reality would never have been PM if Smith hadn't died and Brown didn't opt not stand, brown was seen as a better politicion and had dealt Majors government embarresing blows in opposition (blairs tough on crime speach was browns idea).
He also recognised that if he and tony had fought for the leadership it would have split party loyalties and poasibly cost an election.
Blair implemented many social reforms,
But it is also true that the 13 years of New Labour did not transform the country as Attlee’s 1945 government had done. They left none of the radical and lasting institutional change. They did more to affirm than to challenge the Thatcherite idea of the smaller state, and they never did enough to challenge the supremacy of market forces.
London (The City) grew and Cities liken ours prospered, but this reliance on the finacial services did nothing to lift already decimated former industrial areas and what were Labour heartlands, many Northern towns saw better public services, but no real improvement to the them economically at a personal lever.
Pre the global colaspe in 2008 the IFS reported inequality from the richest to the poorest was the highest since 1961
His third way was a product of it's time in an unpresidented exception time of economic global growth meant that Blair and Brown were able to convert Labour to economic liberalism just as David Cameron copied New Labour and move the Tories to social liberalism but with the crash added austerity.
But after the economic crash, the accusation that Labour would not stand up to powerful moneyed interests, mainly for fear of being considered anti-business, damaged the third way idea and Blairs NL movement, eopel were fed up with it.
New Labour did great things, but neglected many people also in the process.
Blairs ego or as he calls it 'his faith and beliefs' was his downfall and is why, for now his legacy is tainted by Iraq, one day in the future he will be remebered as one of the best PM the country had, but his politics as with many othe politicl movements has run it's course for now.
Blair will one day be remembered for his achievemnets, but being honest many aspects of the new labour policies were from John Smiths time and the econonic successes down to Brown.
LOL.
Not to take away from the collective nature of Government leadership but this is some Class A nonsense.
Everything Blair did was from other people. Lucky to get in really. Anyone could have won those 3 back to back elections and brought the most successful Labour Government ever.
What a rational and unbiased post.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,847
LOL.
Not to take away from the collective nature of Government leadership but this is some Class A nonsense.
Everything Blair did was from other people. Lucky to get in really. Anyone could have won those 3 back to back elections and brought the most successful Labour Government ever.
What a rational and unbiased post.
Never said everything, he can be praised for NI and NHS and social reforms, however the long standing acievememts bar NI and NHS reform still in place
Devolution - was already a comitment by labour since 70s.
Minimum wage - Smith had already put into policy in shadow cabinet
Ecnomic Reforms - Brown implenented or decided the changes to the BoE, Retaining the pound, changing interest rate to fall in line with the CSI not the RPI, Working Tax Credits
Fox hunting ban - labour policy years before.
The only other achievements still in place I can think of is
ASBOs - which have done lttle to stop crime
Academy and free schools - less said the better.
His vision of a self-consciously modern, multicultural, socially liberal country, has endured and Cameron's six years in government were shaped by it, but the third way vision,has for now been rejected by many, and not just in the UK, maybe in the future it will become prefereble again in political spheres, bit continually hoping for a blair or blir like return at present is as pointless as tge lefties wanting to use him as a way to insult others who do npt see theor view.
As I said in time he will be remembered as one of the most influential PMs in history, but for now he is seen as a either a legend or a twat depending.
Personally I see him as niether, and the present self described moderates in labour lile chuka and smith are not fit to be associated with Blair or Brown who were, true politicians not self interested careerist
The same guy who used to be Blackburn manager?
Seriously. it's well proven that money invested in the public sector has a multiplier effect meaning every pound invested generates around £1.70 in the supply of money. Obviously that means increasing public debt but you pay that back when government revenues start to increase. It's like the rags and their £500m debt. Of course it's a debt and they'd be better off without it probably but their revenues enable them to service it comfortably.
When Labour came to power in 1997, the ratio of net debt to GDP was around 37/38%. Brown actually reduced it to about 28% but then started pumping money into the public sector, so by the time of the crash it was up to around 36%. Obviously it then went up as the recession hit and GDP and government revenues both fell. Even though the Tories cut spending the debt-to GDP-ratio still went up as there was no economic stimulus from increased public sector expenditure meaning that growth and therefore government revenues failed to increase as quickly as needed. So classic Keynesian economics would have probably helped but now we've cut the public sector to the bone so we need a more radical solution to getting it back to working properly. I'm all for what the Labour party is trying to do in theory. I just don't like what Corbyn and his pitchfork bearing mob have become.
I don't understand why investment of £1 in the public sector equals £1.70 and where is the evidence of this? We currently have one of the greatest GDP debts ever and we are spending more in the public sector than we ever have. Look at any graph, UK government spending has only gone up in the last decade but our growth etc has definitely not been tied to that.
France has one of the highest governmental spends in Europe and it is growing at an amazing rate of 1.2% yet it also owes nearly 100% of its yearly GDP.... I can't find anything to support the statement that we can just invest in the public sector massively at great cost (debt) and that will give these amazing revenues. Like it or not, the purpose of the public sector is to support the country but it does not create wealth and business and currently the pro-public sector mob are the kind who want to hammer business??!
The public sector is funded by taxes and taxes are paid by wealth generation and wealth generation has nothing to do with whether my bins get taken out. You could argue people working in the public sector would benefit from increased investment obviously because they get paid to do it and pay some tax back... But where do you think that money comes from? Growth comes from attracting new business, new business finding new opportunities and new business paying tax to pay for the public sector.
Now I'd agree, there are many cases where cutting services does hold back the economy because of logistical reasons, IE sick people can't generate wealth nor can people who can't get to work. Right now however there is no correlation between services being cut and the economy for example contracting because it isn't contracting and public spending again is not being cut. Take away Brexit and we were growing away from 2008 very comfortably.
The most responsible way of running an economy is to control debt and where high debt levels exist, grow out of the problem. We are doing that and public spending has been tied to our growth. The result is the deficit is almost 0 and eventually we will be able to reduce our debt and not have to pay 10% of our tax just to service interest..... Maybe then we can use that 10% instead to maybe put it into the public sector?
The problem with Corbyn is he wants to vastly increase the public spend but unlink it from our current growth, world growth or any future state of our economy. That is highly dangerous and it honestly could destroy us, the biggest example we have of a high public spend, low growth economy is Greece and they are now (literally) paying the consequences.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
You’ve got to have a vibrant, innovative and ultimately thriving private sector to be able to deliver any form of social justice in the long term. Command economies do not work because they stifle risk, innovation and creativity. It might not say a lot about human nature, but apart from the presence of fossil fuels beneath our feet, the profit motive has been the single biggest driver of human progress.
To that extent, and lamentably, I broadly agree with Gordon Gekko.
To that extent, and lamentably, I broadly agree with Gordon Gekko.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The multiplier effect is a well-known economic fact taught at A-Level and if you don't understand it you really shouldn't be arguing economics.I don't understand why investment of £1 in the public sector equals £1.70 and where is the evidence of this?
It's simple enough to see in practice. If the government spends £100m to build a hospital, a lot of that will go in wages to the people who build it and in turn they'll spend some of that. There will be some 'leakage' as they pay tax (which increases government revenue) or buy imported goods but most will probably be spent locally. And the shops, pubs or restaurants they spend it in will also pay their staff. They might save some meaning banks will be able to lend a multiple of whatever they save. And so the cycle goes on. It's the same money being recycled but that process creates wealth.
But if the government doesn't spend that £100m then they end up paying welfare benefits, which mean much lower consumption and no revenue back in the form of taxes. So it entirely depends what you spend that borrowed money on and whether it's capital investment or paying out benefits.