Lefties 9: This will succeed through its success

[taffetacat]

Is everyone on Twitter now?

Interesting link onebat, only skimmed but am I right in thinking they're going to refocus SureStart on "people who need it most"?

I think that will be a real shame, specifically if means testing, higher earners are just as likely to need community support even if they don't need the financial elements.

Will have a proper read of all the stuff after supper. Theresa May, Caroline Flint and Ming Campbell on QT tonight!

i really really don't like caroline flint at all. she came across as truly utterly thick last time she was on QT...

where the fuck is shirley williams and women politicians of her ilk when you need them eh?

yup and was great. and endearing at the end when she kind of blushed and told jezza that she didn't think she should tell him who her favourite labour leader candidate was.

she's fabulous.

Caroline Flint is awful, May not much better.

the rape thing is kinda getting me down.

Prolesworth

You will be pleased to know that Boris Johnson has fulfilled his manifesto commitment on rape crisis centres (and has consequently done way more for victims than Red Ken ever did).

www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812971-mayors-pound-375000-for-new-rape-centre.do

This, amongst his many other towering achievements, such as dismantling Labour's PFI disaster on the Tube, so many more transport police, and best of all, keeping council tax low. Boris is a brilliant Mayor. I trust you will be voting gleefully for his re-election.

Just been catching up and nodding in agreement with you all.

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....(can you tell I'm reading Campbell's diaries, and fancying him quite a lot )

God, I love Shirley Williams. For so many things. That's it isn't it? All those slightly crumpled, but real politicians, where have they gone? We seem to have some kind of cloning factory which mass produces tall, dark haired, slim, shiny-faced clever but ultimately charmless men.

Has Jon Cruddas definitely said no? (although I think we also need to find some oliticians without silly names for HIGNFY et al to get their claws into) (not that the poor man's name should hold it against him, but y'know....)

I really, really don't get that rape thing. Why have they done it? I have skim read the paper this morning (before DH took it to work with him) but still couldn't understand what the point of it is. It sounds such a retrograde step.

Don't love Shirley Williams too much. She is wonderful in many ways, but she did kneecap the Labour Party by splitting its right wing off into the SDP, one-time haunt of Adonis and an outrider of New Labour.

The only possible good thing about the rape thing might be that a currect (mis)perception that things have swung too far in favour of the complainant is one of the elements hamstringing prosecutions. This might make it easier for the prosecution to marshall a proper hearing for its case.

But it is a shit development overall, I imagine.

currect current

Is there a thread about the rape thing in the feministy area. If not I will start one

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

Will go read

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

lol at Third Way of moderate crumpling.

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.