Bliar
"There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter. Only one government, this one." So says Blair, under whose government the independent Office for National Statistics was abolished. The "unemployed" doesn't factor in the 2.6m people on incapacity benefit. "Better health and education" is spurious considering the numbers of people cathcing infections in hospital and the dumbing down of exams. Crime may be lower overall but there's been a huge increase in violent crime. As for economic growth, it's been positive in every quarter since 1973 apart from one flat quarter in 1990.
posted by Whispering Walls at 1:11 pm
8 Comments:
You tell em WW.
Why has noone mentioned the Cheshire Cat? Disappeared leaving only his smile.
Oh, anmd by the way, interest rates are up. Some legacy.
... and more wars, more service personel killed, less liberty, more red tape, more taxes and less respect.
I was nearly sick listening to his awful speech. Such a bloody actor.
From The Guardian section on The Blair years: Andrew Roberts: "People don't tend to judge prime ministers on obscure statistics. What they remember are the big things, and Tony Blair's big things will be peace in Northern Ireland, democracy in Iraq and the flinging out of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and other great achievements that he's had in the course of his premiership."
Peace in NI is excellent: a process started by John Major. Roberts' statement is rather bullish about Iraq and Afghanistan: it's unclear whether democracy can be sustained in Iraq without the military presence and Al Qaida and the Taliban are still wreaking havoc in Afghanistan.
Clearly rapacious capitalists such as yourself would be unhappy with nothing less than pure, unadulterated red-in-tooth-and-claw market forces and devil-take-the-hindmost economics and the wholesale demolition of the welfare state. Some of us don't view socialism as a dirty word, and also believe there is such a thing as society. Much of the deterioration in our society had already happened under Thatcher, who Blair was stupid enough to try and emulate. Much of the rest of the damage has been done by US global corporations who would have flourished even if Stalin had been in power as they pay little notice to things like laws and customs - just the almighty dollar. Maybe you should read some George Monbiot and get a wider perspective on the world.
Is he the "moonbat" who believes in a world parliament? In my view, smaller government is better and we've ceded too much of our legal system to Europe. As for corporations: they set up, they grow, they may become global, they may sell off parts which then grow etc. The corporate world is in constant flux. If entrepreneurs have an idea, get funding and employ people, I see that as positive rather than negative for society and providing a more interesting set of opportunities than simply being employed by the state.
Maybe if you are too narrow-minded to consider reading George Monbiot, as you have clearly made up your mind about him in advance, then try Joe Stiglitz and 'Globalisation and its discontents'. And see how wonderful the market economy has been for the developing countries forced to move to that model away from the state.
Your point about entrepreneurs is well made - the whole point of being a global mega corporation is to eliminate the small business and exert monopoly dominance. Business can be a force for good, but just like human citizens they have to be governed by laws and operate within boundaries. Otherwise what would be to stop us just stealing and mugging from poorer people than us.
Corporations are fast becoming our masters, when they should be our slaves. Your facile dismissal of a 'world parliament' shows you don't realise that certain global problems, like climate change, need global solutions. Or would you just leave it in the hands of the CEOs like Michael O'Leary of Ryanair ?
It also ignores the fact that for many of the world's poor there is a de facto 'World Parliament' at the World Trade Organisation which seems to exist purely to keep US multi-national interests served, and the poor will just have to get along the best they can, because when you reduce everything to cash, their human lives start to look like pretty expendable resources.
Corporations are great - just don't expect them to deliver improvements in the environment, healthcare and the elimination of poverty since they don't show up on a balance sheet, and when all is said and done, that is the only thing that they measure, because that is the only reference point that they can deliver to. And it is their agents, like Rupert Murdoch, who have been giving Blair his instructions from Day One.
I hope I'm open-minded...and agree that business must operate within a legal framework. Also agree that the WTO is not ideal, nor indeed the IMF whose response to Asian economic problems in the past has been questionable. The problem with these "global" (non-corporate) bodies is that they are not accountable to anybody. At least shareholders can vote. Look at the criticism directed at Wolfowitz at the World Bank: he's still hanging in there. Look at the UN: we're a member but we were perfectly happy to flout its authority regarding Iraq. I agree that the power of global corporations can be daunting but I think that they can be held to account by individuals.
Post a Comment
<< Home