Political Meanderings...
I have been meaning to put something down about a comment made on nannyo’s blog where she said:
“In the UK everybody seems so cynical and unconvinced by it all and so damned jaded that I forget that it should be about hope and making things better!”
(In reference to the Democrat Conference and rabble-rousing speeches made, before I get accused of mis-quoting).
Now at the time I was a little riled by this, but in retrospect I suspect I may be more cynical than most.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,9236,1279069,00.html
Anyway, what concerns me is very well put by the article above in some respects- this government’s apparent inability to actually do anything. They would certainly appear to the sometime casual observer to be much more concerned with style over substance. To me, the major achievements of this government would seem to be giving the Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, devolution and, well, Iraq, the Millenium Dome, Wembley, the creation of the RDAs and several civil service efficiency / function reviews none of which I have much faith in producing the goods.
I would suggest that this government is not prepared to actually govern, but is content to make itself popular enough to remain in power.
This is probably shown even as far back as 1997- being elected with a massive majority is never good for democracy, but in addition I would suggest that Labour were less elected from being Labour, more because they were the only reasonable alternative to the Tories who people were bored by. Blair’s moving of New Labour policies to the centre ground was indicative of this, the people effectively elected a continuum government from the previous one, simply with a new leader at the helm who had such an apparent mandate to govern that he didn’t seem to want to consult parliament half the time, despite that being the manifestation of his mandate.
Tinkering and spin gets in the way of what the government should be doing. I am by no means left wing, yet still I can appreciate that no matter the reasons for it occurring, such a large democratic mandate is something which should be being used for the good of whichever party gains it. I can appreciate that focussing upon a second term was a worthwhile aim, but surely it would have been worth taking more risks and pursuing a more high-minded agenda of ‘social democracy’ and reform, as it would have needed a cataclysmic event to prevent a second term being gained. I believe it would have been better for politics to pursue such an agenda, with the respect and ultimately the interest of the people being maintained. Plus, as Iraq has shown, Blair does have the will and ability to win battles in the face of adversity, but seems to be unwilling / unable to judge the correct arenas to put this into practice in.
In regard to the Tories, it is again indicative of Labour’s unwillingness to govern that they have pursued their quarry continuously almost as though still in opposition. Keeping Hague / IDS / Howard on the back foot will keep you in power but again this is not governing this is maintaining power.
Thoughts?
All in all, thoroughly unsatisfactory. I could go on, but I better actually do something today- sometimes I find myself getting totally carried away by things I can do nothing about…
“In the UK everybody seems so cynical and unconvinced by it all and so damned jaded that I forget that it should be about hope and making things better!”
(In reference to the Democrat Conference and rabble-rousing speeches made, before I get accused of mis-quoting).
Now at the time I was a little riled by this, but in retrospect I suspect I may be more cynical than most.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,9236,1279069,00.html
Anyway, what concerns me is very well put by the article above in some respects- this government’s apparent inability to actually do anything. They would certainly appear to the sometime casual observer to be much more concerned with style over substance. To me, the major achievements of this government would seem to be giving the Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, devolution and, well, Iraq, the Millenium Dome, Wembley, the creation of the RDAs and several civil service efficiency / function reviews none of which I have much faith in producing the goods.
I would suggest that this government is not prepared to actually govern, but is content to make itself popular enough to remain in power.
This is probably shown even as far back as 1997- being elected with a massive majority is never good for democracy, but in addition I would suggest that Labour were less elected from being Labour, more because they were the only reasonable alternative to the Tories who people were bored by. Blair’s moving of New Labour policies to the centre ground was indicative of this, the people effectively elected a continuum government from the previous one, simply with a new leader at the helm who had such an apparent mandate to govern that he didn’t seem to want to consult parliament half the time, despite that being the manifestation of his mandate.
Tinkering and spin gets in the way of what the government should be doing. I am by no means left wing, yet still I can appreciate that no matter the reasons for it occurring, such a large democratic mandate is something which should be being used for the good of whichever party gains it. I can appreciate that focussing upon a second term was a worthwhile aim, but surely it would have been worth taking more risks and pursuing a more high-minded agenda of ‘social democracy’ and reform, as it would have needed a cataclysmic event to prevent a second term being gained. I believe it would have been better for politics to pursue such an agenda, with the respect and ultimately the interest of the people being maintained. Plus, as Iraq has shown, Blair does have the will and ability to win battles in the face of adversity, but seems to be unwilling / unable to judge the correct arenas to put this into practice in.
In regard to the Tories, it is again indicative of Labour’s unwillingness to govern that they have pursued their quarry continuously almost as though still in opposition. Keeping Hague / IDS / Howard on the back foot will keep you in power but again this is not governing this is maintaining power.
Thoughts?
All in all, thoroughly unsatisfactory. I could go on, but I better actually do something today- sometimes I find myself getting totally carried away by things I can do nothing about…