If so, it ought to focus minds on Purnell's tenure at DWP, where the heartless, bullying "Welfare Reforms" that the subsequent Coalition government rightly got pelters for, were planned and introduced, under a Labour government.
I have largely resisted rushing to join the anti Burnham chorus, but if you're set on foregroudning "controls on immigration" and "Welfare Reform" and you're handing yet another New Labour Ghoul from the fag end of their tenure a job, you're not exactly changing course are you?
With every hour that passes it is looking more like the primary motivation for Andy Burnham in becoming leader of the Labour party and PM is to right the historic injustice of Andy Burnham not having already become leader of the Labour party and PM.
But hey, who knows, maybe James Purnell is *exactly* the guy you want to help you unravel "40* years of neoliberalism"
* it's 50 Andy. 50. And actually many of your guys were won over to the arguments well before 1976, due to hanging round the IEA and having their heads turned.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yeah it's good that a guy who isn't part of The Starmerism Disaster beat the challenge of a hard right party that got 15,000 votes and an extremist, far right, aggressively racist, party who got 3000 votes from more or less a standing start.
Eighteen Thousand Far Right votes
And maybe for once it's "good" that the media simplification narrative will immediately dub this victory "huge", "resounding", "enormous". But 18000 people voted for a mixture of Thatcherism, Powellism and Mosleyism. And that is a big number. And a very bad number.
and it matters now whether there's going to be that fabled "orderly transition" that would empower Burnham or a messy leadership squabble and enervating 2nd campaign in which the media and The City bombard the public with messages about the "risk" of any deviation from Starmerism
Restricting access to platforms, which, yes have dark corners & bad actors, but contain repositories of knowledge, resources and learning opportunities, while mandating Edtech product is typical of the New Labour mindset. What they want kids to learn is how to take instruction.
ok, overstating for effect and space constraints, but having spent 14 years in adult ed, with 7 in policy, which spanned the New Labour era, there was a zeal for learning "toolkits" and absolute fear that people might go off and find stuff out rather than stick to the programme.
Also, tangentially I often see things on You Tube like Cricket Clubs live streamed their games, including Junior teams. But "we" don't want those players using it? Or all the associated content that improves their knowledge, skills and awareness?
The thing is, when the media does vox pops and post industrial safaris and people say things like "there used to be good jobs here but there's nowt now for t'young 'uns." they don't mean "please run some schemes where you pay employers to take people on for training programmes"
And however much you put "BIG NUMBER" in your statement, you're doing the same thing governments have done since the late 1970s providing access to "Skills" to that people can access "Opportunities" in a Labour Market that you refuse to use the State to reshape for the long term.
People know that lots of people go through these schemes and their situation at the end is "now go and market yourself and hopefully someone will want your skills". And that's not secure enough and it doesn't have a sufficient relationship to actual work that needs doing.
For swivel eyed Thatcherites who destroyed the UK's Skills Base to break the Labour movement, breaking the UK's Knowledge Base is simply another price they're prepared for us to pay in order to stop the reproduction of analysis, counter narratives and dissenting voices.
Centrists who accepted all the "economic" arguments of Thatcherism, all the garnish used to dress a project that was about disempowering people and dismantling Social Democracy, will press ahead with it, while babbling about "World Class" and "STEM" and the "Knowledge Economy"
And 2 generations of Managerialists sent to colonise and suppress the Social Purpose of Higher Education have gone along with this "squeeze" while babbling about being "engines of regional economic growth" framing and presenting everything as Business Ontology.
Yeah, I remember the 1990s. There was no SkyTV, no pizzerias. No V Festival. No Euro 96. No Warner Village. You couldn't even get chocolate except at all the places that sold it. We had to make our own cable TV, using a cable and a TV, which we salvaged from our nan's Spitfire.
I'm not prepared to live in a country where ludicrous people try to pretend the 1970s was a bucolic decade of fountains and floral clocks and every high street had a Cheesemaker and and the 1990s was a dark time where you had to huddle round a frothy coffee at Wimpy. In old money
Who needs AI? We've got artificial stupidity to burn.
This is the thing about Burnham. He's not all that. But he knew earlier than those around him that the New Labour model was done. Now, they'd argue it wasn't because it got them back into power*. Well, yeah, then it immediately collapsed.
It's been frustrating watching Burnham for *15 years*. It was always a sort of apologetic rebellion. He didn't have the authority in 2010. Or in 2015 when he was still doing "Breakfast event at KPMG". Even the "King of the North" thing was more Tom Courtenay than Albert Finney.
And to be honest, that the Progress Mafia and dirty little schemers like McSweeney have been able to restore an utterly discredited, corrupt, intellectually and morally bankrupt politics which most people could see would crash and burn *again* doesn't say much for Burnhamism.