Blair got the chance to reprise his refrain from the 90s, always: we have to cast off things from the past, and become a party of the future. Something he still seems to believe.
This was always a grating euphemism hiding behind a truism. What he meant was: we need to move to the right because that's what people want now, and recent history shows it works.
It seemed/seems like he thought/thinks in terms of historical determinism. History is moving inexorably to the right, to the centre, from the left, and we have to follow or be left behind.
Very much the spirit of that age, that political-economic problems had now been figured out by painful trial and error, and there was a known solution, so we should head there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There was never any prospect of deals that would prevent our overall access and trade from falling. Other deals would be too shallow, because of the difficult choices they would throw up or sovereignty-reducing. And the non-EU world is too far away and ‘small’.
It’s useful to play the game of pointing out that deals they hoped for have not materialized but we shouldn’t concede the implicit point that those deals would have delivered what was claimed.
Some of the more sophisticated Leavers would argue that the iron law of trade gravity - tendency to trade much more with countries close to you - would be abolished and we would enter an era of global, weightless, digital trade.
Hannan objects to us being 'lectured about keeping the peace in NI.' Congressman points out that some have talked about scrapping the Good Friday Agreement. Some - including Dan Hannan in fact: express.co.uk/news/politics/…
He says - back in 2018, when he still worried that it might stop Brexit, that the GFA had "failed".
This is the kind of thing that convinces US politicians who pay attention to the Northern Ireland issue that they need to keep paying attention to it: Brexiters are not neutral and trusted partners in NI peace:
Labour seems to be, in reality, at least 3 different parties. With as much animus for each other as they have for their actual electoral opponents.
Fault lines: how much nationalisation / antisemitism / women's rights / Brexit / the Blair legacy / the role of unions in decision-making / industrial relations / foreign policy / PR or not / electoral pacts under FPTP / how much redistribution.
In the face of an unprecedented attack on the economy, on economics, truth-telling, a disastrously run pandemic, cronyism, the culture war attacks on education.... you might hope that the many Labour parties can see much more in common with each other, united and oppose.
Devolving spending may help solve regional inequalities. Or it may not.
1. the local income per head problem is a microchosm of the national income per head problem! Highly intractable and not nearly as amenable to policy as some of your swashbuckling dirigiste columnists would have you believe, as though growth miracles were to be had everywhere.
2. finding and driving through policies that work requires a political elite that a) accepts reason and evidence and understands that b) its electorate does reason and evidence too. Why is this magically going to appear at the local level if it is painfully absent nationally?
Quite interesting that they appointed Haldane.... and that he accepted. It would not take a genius to discern from his speeches as a central banker that he doesn't share the government's politics.
But then, what are the government's politics? The 'levelling up' agenda is part of their cosplaying as egalitarians.
Andy Haldane will already understand the issues very well. What levelling up can and can't mean if it is to be coherent. He did not let the BoE's preference for collective communication inhibit him, and I doubt he will be any different in government.