Lefties 9: This will succeed through its success

Btw - did anyone read the interview with Diane Abbot in the Guardian today?

It sounded as though she was channelling mn. Which made me smile. I can't imagine Diane doing a Sarah (and watching mn).

Indeed, the mass scramble for the "Exit from Responsiblity for War" is not that edifying. On the other hand, it's perhaps an acknowledgement of some things.

For example, my theory about the war is that entry into it was structurally determined by the principles underlying New Labour, themselves determined by the experience of electoral defeat in four elections. The major determinant was, I think, a feeling that Labour had to show itself very willing to accommodate established power; the markets, the "special relationship"; not be seen as too radical, or wanting to rock the boat too much.

So, entry into the war wasn't an accident, a temporary aberration, and it can't be put down to individual egomania (of Blair), which I think some apologists have tried to do.

I see the stepping away from the war as a signal that there is a feeling that that accommodation went a bit too far, and a recognition that it alienated a lot of the core vote.

It would be really interesting to hear what psephologists have to say about who did, or did not, vote for Labour this time. Did they lose core voters?

In my dreams, I see a lot of the bits of New Labour I'm not so fond of as having been determined by the wishes of the over-powerful C2s. And, again I come back to my hope for PR and a diminution of that power.

Warning - all this is just pondering - I have nothing, at all, to justify any of these opinions!!

Fascinating article jackstarbright, and absolutely true. I have seen Surestart staff doing everything in their power - including going door to door - to get local communities involved only to be met with suspicion. There is such a lot of stigma with accepting help - perceived as interference - from government agencies. What a shame they lost their original focus. The centre I was most familiar with mostly provided free classes - baby yoga etc - to professional women on maternity leave.

hello lefties, just popping in quickly again. Wish I had more time to contribute on all the clever and interesting things you are all saying.

However saying as I have tonnes of work to do plus 9 people staying at my house this weekend, I'll just say that I'm FOR crumpled politicians.

earthworm have you read this Guardian article by Norman Glass - one of the originators (along with Yvette Cooper and Gordon Brown) of Surestart? It cover the initial purpose of Surestart and how it moved away from this focus.
.

I have worked for Surestart and every single person I knew agreed that they weren't really reaching the people they needed to reach. I realise that many people have good experiences of Surestart, but am not sure that the vast sums spent on it could not be better spent elsewhere.

Highlander - your DH can justify his enormous salary because he studied for seven years (or however long it is), knows lots of important stuff, takes on a lot of responsibility and does a job that few people could manage. He is valued more than a cleaner because lots of people could do that job as it doesn't require any specialised skills/knowledge. His academic nature is prized because relatively fewer people have it.

Mumsnet campaign for the cessation of ironing in politics starts here?

i wonder if I'm soft-crumpled, or hard-crumpled ....

isn't it that what's wrong with politics that we don't like them crumpled?

shirl can be as crumpled as she like she still rocks.

sorry, thast should be Question Time

really enjoyed newsnight last night.

going back a bit to a living wage..........

DH and I happen to be born 'brainy'. we've both got good basic and post-graduate degrees. Academia just happens to be our skill. As a research scientist (taking a lengthy career break) I don't get paid much. DH, on the other hand is a doctor, and gets paid a mint, totally within the NHS.

Given that's it's just luck that DH is academic - why does justify his enormous salary? Why is his academic nature valued so much more in society than, for example, the hospityal cleaners? And before anyone wades in with 'ultimate patient responisbility', sure his job can be stressful, but he's been trained to cope with it.

I personally think the salary gap needs to close. A lot.

HVs come to your house and stick their nose in. if you're already feeling a bit isolated, they are of no use whatsoever.

At a Surestart centre, you get out of the house and meet other mums, who are acknowledged to be the best support. There's a range of services that you can use for you and your baby. I cannot believe the present govt is going to axe them.

Bucherest

"That whole surestart etc aimed at the people who most need it was what caused ructions when TB first became leader, with the more socialisty types (Prezza) spitting his buns out over the very idea..."

I've always seen Surestart as symbolic of the struggles between New Labourites and more traditional socialists. What fascinates me is the original idea was born in the treasury 1998 and died in 2005 due to either political expediency or because the socialists won the argument or some combination of the two. Maybe I should get a copy of Campbell's diary?

[Sorry - I'm a non-leftie lurking]

I see Netmums has welcomed the promise re HVs. Well, I can certainly see the need for HVs, but I think a lot of HVs themselves might question the idea that cuts in Surestart funding should pay for them. Ideally they should be working together, with HVs having services to refer women in need to - need not just defined as financial, either. My postnatal depression with DS1, and likely recurrence with DS2 if I hadn't had couild have been far more expensive to the NHS if I hadn't had support via Surestart.

I also think there's an importance in a Surestart centre offering nice stuff like somewhere for your child to play, in contrast to the Health Visitor who can feel like someone else interfering - actually my main health visitor was quite good but I had some real issues about the system of intervention she was part of.

lol at Third Way of moderate crumpling.

Eleison - am pondering globalisation bit of what you posted. My instinct is agreement with what you say. Including the increase of managerial-type government, accentuation of "seeming" differences.

(Mind you, a little bit of me still thinks "Well. You can say what you like about managerialism, but it sure beats the driven craziness of the Thatcher years." Which is just the "Thatcher's child" talking.)

But there was a poster arguing against the assumption of globalisation. (Saying it's not a done deal, assuming it is is conceding the struggle). She was interesting.

Just popping that in quickly, in the interest of provoking debate, as I nip out.

I get that tangent Animula- was just thinking more about the SDP as I hoovered,

I suppose the SDP breakaway could be seen almost as paving the way for a Blairesque New Labour scenario- was reading that according to various opinion polls/public opinion the SDP were hugely liked by the general public, and had there been a PR election at the time, they would have won something like 600 seats based on how "liked" they were across the spectrum. That they failed to do anything substantial with that popularity, but maybe cleared the way for people within the Labour Party to even contemplate NewLabour (but to do it within the party rather than as a breakaway faction is perhaps a positive point in their favour. Maybe they did the Labour Party a favour in the end, even though I'm sure that wasn't their intention. They made Blair possible, and Blair love him or loathe him, made Labour electable. Which brings us back to where we are now.....Someone electable, but nice, and less crumpled than Shirley, but maybe more crumpled than the Milis.

I have never heard "Bojo" before - it is VERY funny. Simple things = joy, sometimes.

Yes, animula, and it is being crumpled that makes Shirley Williams wonderful. She is of a pre-slick political generation, correspondingly more authentic (or at least seemingly so).

The polished look of New Labour is very alienating, but although it led the way, all parties are now thus and it is hard to see them becoming otherwise. Politics has become image-led, because of media saturation, but also because of the possibly irreversible growth of managerial government. If globalisation and whatever other developments constrain govts always to act merely managerially they can only be distinguished in appearance.

I'm still a bit hopeful that a PR system might pull us a little away from this politics of seeming, into a more radical choice.

So ... I went to the avant-garde exhibition at Tate Modern a while back, and was struck by how unprofessional and grubby so much of the art they made looked. So much of it was, obviously, prototypical, made form (perhaps inadequate) materials to hand, from what already existed, although, obviously, making something "new". I mean, the whole thing was utopic, and linked to this "coming" society - whatever that might be.

And I did ponder on Marx and his quote about how we make history/revolutions slightly inadequately, from what is to hand. (It's surprising how many Left theorists say much the same thing).

And it struck me that I was used to seeing things like Damian Hirst's work - glossy surfaces, playing with the professional "finish" of scientific, technological, mass-produced objects.

Anyway ... to get to the point ... New Labour versus SDP. Similar in many ways, but, my goodness, New Labour was a great deal less crumpled than the SDP. Lots of the appearance of professionalisation, along with the much vaunted professionalisation and streamlining of the party-machine.

It is truly off at a tangent. I do wonder if we are a bit over all that now. I wonder if it was supposed to signal emotional distance, pragmatism, and so on, and now seems to signal compromise and insincerity.

On the other hand, DC and co., along with politics in USA, would suggest it's still popular.

Ha proles I see you were on the case with that ages ago

Will go read