The Labour party risks getting stuck in an "electoral cul-de-sac" if it takes a "pre-New Labour" direction under its new leader, Lord Mandelson warned today.His comments were seen as a warning against the election of Ed Miliband, who has positioned himself to the left of his brother David as the pair have emerged as frontrunners to succeed Gordon Brown.The former business secretary - and architect of New Labour - warned that the party risked a long period in opposition if it swung to the left and failed to recreate the wide-ranging coalition that took Tony Blair to power in 1997.Mandelson's intervention could give a boost to David Miliband's campaign at the start of the week in which MPs, MEPs, party activists and members of affiliated organisations will start voting in the postal ballot to elect a new leader on 25 September.
The Labour party risks getting stuck in an "electoral cul-de-sac" if it takes a "pre-New Labour" direction under its new leader, Lord Mandelson warned today.
His comments were seen as a warning against the election of Ed Miliband, who has positioned himself to the left of his brother David as the pair have emerged as frontrunners to succeed Gordon Brown.
The former business secretary - and architect of New Labour - warned that the party risked a long period in opposition if it swung to the left and failed to recreate the wide-ranging coalition that took Tony Blair to power in 1997.
Mandelson's intervention could give a boost to David Miliband's campaign at the start of the week in which MPs, MEPs, party activists and members of affiliated organisations will start voting in the postal ballot to elect a new leader on 25 September.
... under its new leader, Lord Mandelson ...
Guess which 2 words don't fit well together for me?
My Lord and Master! In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
oh and:
The hatred of Blair is over the top High-profile book launches are meant to be a bit of a circus. But it is hard to find a parallel for the mixture of hype and hatred that will attend the publication of Tony Blair's memoirs on Wednesday. (...) For many of the most ardent Blair-haters in Britain, however, a discussion of political style is beside the point. Their indictment comes down to a single word: Iraq. And yet, for all the horrors that flowed from the 2003 invasion, the hatred and contempt that is directed at Mr Blair is way over the top. He probably made the wrong call in backing the American-led campaign. Even by the most cautious estimates, about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion. Millions have been turned into refugees. And as American troops withdraw, there is a significant chance that the country will slide back into civil war. But Mr Blair made his fateful decision on Iraq for reasons that were both honourable and understandable. Most of the leading figures in British politics - in both main parties - agreed with him. Robin Cook, the former Labour foreign secretary, was unusual in speaking out against the plans for war. So the decision to back the invasion was not an isolated act of Blair-inspired lunacy. It reflected the conventional wisdom of the British political establishment. It is clear, in retrospect, that, after easy military victories in Kosovo and Bosnia, Mr Blair became dangerously complacent about the risks of military action in Iraq. But he was hardly alone in his misjudgment. The years after the Kosovo war were the heyday of liberal interventionism on both sides of the Atlantic and on both sides of the political spectrum - fed by guilt at the west's reluctance to intervene in Rwanda and the Balkans.
High-profile book launches are meant to be a bit of a circus. But it is hard to find a parallel for the mixture of hype and hatred that will attend the publication of Tony Blair's memoirs on Wednesday.
(...)
For many of the most ardent Blair-haters in Britain, however, a discussion of political style is beside the point. Their indictment comes down to a single word: Iraq.
And yet, for all the horrors that flowed from the 2003 invasion, the hatred and contempt that is directed at Mr Blair is way over the top. He probably made the wrong call in backing the American-led campaign. Even by the most cautious estimates, about 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion. Millions have been turned into refugees. And as American troops withdraw, there is a significant chance that the country will slide back into civil war.
But Mr Blair made his fateful decision on Iraq for reasons that were both honourable and understandable. Most of the leading figures in British politics - in both main parties - agreed with him. Robin Cook, the former Labour foreign secretary, was unusual in speaking out against the plans for war. So the decision to back the invasion was not an isolated act of Blair-inspired lunacy. It reflected the conventional wisdom of the British political establishment.
It is clear, in retrospect, that, after easy military victories in Kosovo and Bosnia, Mr Blair became dangerously complacent about the risks of military action in Iraq. But he was hardly alone in his misjudgment. The years after the Kosovo war were the heyday of liberal interventionism on both sides of the Atlantic and on both sides of the political spectrum - fed by guilt at the west's reluctance to intervene in Rwanda and the Balkans.
Shorter Rachman: Serious People are Serious People.
and the cherry on top:
My guess is that, in a few years' time, the Blair years will be remembered for a lot more than Iraq. They will be seen as a period of prosperity and optimism in Britain - certainly compared with what was to come. In 20 years' time many Britons may look back on the Blair era with considerable nostalgia.
Maybe you remember the party rather than the hangover; but do you remember the party over the ethylic coma? Wind power
So the decision to back the invasion was not an isolated act of Blair-inspired lunacy. It reflected the conventional wisdom of the British political establishment.
Unintentional irony - always the best kind.
"we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"
Guardian - Ha-Joon chang - We lost sight of fairness in the false promise of wealth
We have to question an assumption that has dominated economic thinking over the last three decades - namely, the belief that maximising market freedom is the best way to generate wealth. From this assumption came the argument that even committed egalitarians should let markets rip, because that would give them the maximum wealth to redistribute. In Britain, the natural "progressive" conclusion was the New Labour strategy that you regulate the City as little as possible because that will maximise the wealth it generates, which means more money for equality-enhancing programmes like Sure Start. Sadly that assumption has been proved wrong. After three decades of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, growth has slowed down, rather than accelerated, in almost all countries.
From this assumption came the argument that even committed egalitarians should let markets rip, because that would give them the maximum wealth to redistribute. In Britain, the natural "progressive" conclusion was the New Labour strategy that you regulate the City as little as possible because that will maximise the wealth it generates, which means more money for equality-enhancing programmes like Sure Start.
Sadly that assumption has been proved wrong. After three decades of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, growth has slowed down, rather than accelerated, in almost all countries.
Mandelson, Blair, Brown; they and the whole NuLab Thatcherite neocon triangulation fantasy was wrong and has broken on the rocks of its contradictions. Yet, despite the ruins that lay all around, they insist their blasted path of good intentions will not lead to the ruin it signposts. If Labour is to ever win again, it needs to avoid listening to the siren voices of the ghosts of NuLab luring them to their doom.
Right now, the dream team that is emerging is that of the two Eds, MiliBalls you mights say. Milib-Ed is making the best noises about turning his face against the past, but Balls is certainly talking a good progressive game. keep to the Fen Causeway
