Economically, the Labour Party is still very much to the left of the Democrats - Labour is still pledged to a National Health Service and an extensive benefits system.
And the Democrats are pledged to Social Security and other government benefits programs. Some would create an NHS style system if they could. What’s the difference?
Blair’s policies though are what is also known as the ‘third way’ - basically his policies are a mix and match from both sides of the spectrum.
And that sounds like what the DLC advocates. The DLC represents the moderate to right side of the Dem party. Howard Dean calls them the ‘Republican wing of the Democrat party’. That implies that the rest of the Democrats are left of that.
Whilst Labour has never really talked in detail about tax plans, you can safely bet that taxes will always go up under Labour because they are still committed so some vague socialist ideals. However the abolition of Clause 4 means Labour now has much more freedom and leeway.
They are still ‘officially’ the party of the workers’ unions.
I’d argue that in some respects the US system is more to the left than the UK, but in a messed up way, you pay for healthcare yet don’t have access to it, unless you pay privately.
But the Wiki quote you posted states Blair is too far right because old school Labour politicians criticise him for it, bear in mind that before Blair came along the Labour party was very hardline socialist, bordering on communist, but take Blairs general policies since taking office, tax increases, investment in the NHS, Welfare reform, these are all socialist policies. He’s even to the left on immigration, compared to the Tories manifesto.
I think it’s very difficult to compare like for like, Labour and the Dems, given the totally different climates they exist in, but New Labour is still a socialist party, just modified to make it palatable.
They haven’t re-nationalised, and do have a fairly right wing foreign policy, yet they remain fairly socialist on home affairs.
I’d argue that in some respects the US system is more to the left than the UK, but in a messed up way, you pay for healthcare yet don’t have access to it, unless you pay privately.
What is that old saying? “the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members” or something? So we pay for healthcare for the poor and the elderly, even if we can’t afford it for ourselves. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, as some famous person once said. (Adam Smith? :P)
The truth is, middle-class entitlements don’t fly here. Social Security being the exception. Since the vast majority of the country is middle class, it doesn’t make much sense for us to send our money to the governement just so they can send it back to us after skimming some off the top. It’s more efficient to spend it on ourselves, and as a benefit, it doesn’t lock us into voting a certain way.
But the Wiki quote you posted states Blair is too far right because old school Labour politicians criticise him for it, bear in mind that before Blair came along the Labour party was very hardline socialist, bordering on communist, but take Blairs general policies since taking office, tax increases, investment in the NHS, Welfare reform, these are all socialist policies. He’s even to the left on immigration, compared to the Tories manifesto.
I didn’t see that particular quote. I was looking at his domestic policies. Sure he’s shoring up the NHS, but isn’t he also allowing it to outsource some functions to private providers to cut back on waiting lists? That’s not something a hardline socialist would ever stand for. What exactly does ‘Welfare reform’ mean? That was a Republican rallying point in the 90s. What does ‘left on immigration’ mean? The mainstream of both US parties is pretty open towards immigration.
I think it’s very difficult to compare like for like, Labour and the Dems, given the totally different climates they exist in, but New Labour is still a socialist party, just modified to make it palatable.
They haven’t re-nationalised, and do have a fairly right wing foreign policy, yet they remain fairly socialist on home affairs.
‘social democracy’ is probably a clearer term for those kinds of policies than ‘socialism’ since socialism implies more nationalization. I agree that you can’t match Labour and the Dems or the Tories and the Republicans one to one, but I still think that politically, the Dems would fall in between old and new Labour.
What is that old saying? “the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members” or something? So we pay for healthcare for the poor and the elderly, even if we can’t afford it for ourselves. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, as some famous person once said. (Adam Smith? )
The truth is, middle-class entitlements don’t fly here. Social Security being the exception. Since the vast majority of the country is middle class, it doesn’t make much sense for us to send our money to the governement just so they can send it back to us after skimming some off the top. It’s more efficient to spend it on ourselves, and as a benefit, it doesn’t lock us into voting a certain way.
Middle class entitlements have never been an issue here, it’s the working class most entitlements were designed for, in order to qualify for free healthcare in the US you have to earn below 133% of minimum wage, is that right?
So if you earn 140% of minimum wage, you don’t, there’s too many loopholes in that system, in the UK everyone has access, and yes, we wait, but if you can afford it you have the option to go private. It sounds like a large number of people could suffer under your system.
I didn’t see that particular quote. I was looking at his domestic policies. Sure he’s shoring up the NHS, but isn’t he also allowing it to outsource some functions to private providers to cut back on waiting lists? That’s not something a hardline socialist would ever stand for. What exactly does ‘Welfare reform’ mean? That was a Republican rallying point in the 90s. What does ‘left on immigration’ mean? The mainstream of both US parties is pretty open towards immigration.
He’s outsourcing to reduce waiting times, something you fellas criticise the NHS for, I think it’s a prudent decision from Blair, he’s trying to balance service and cost.
Welfare Reform, over here it means making welfare payments more streamlined and efficient, ie Social Security, Family benefits, state pension entitlement, the whole thing was in a mess, people were claiming more than they were entitled, it’s basically a way of assessing individual entitlement as opposed to having a blanket payment.
Blair is very open on immigration, which is by design, not by default like yourselves because your borders are so open.
‘social democracy’ is probably a clearer term for those kinds of policies than ‘socialism’ since socialism implies more nationalization. I agree that you can’t match Labour and the Dems or the Tories and the Republicans one to one, but I still think that politically, the Dems would fall in between old and new Labour.
To be dead honest, at the last US election (which I followed reasonably closely), I’d come to the conclustion that the Dems and Reps had virtually the same policy on everything except tax and the situation in Iraq, I haven’t studied the minutae of the Dems manifesto, but I think it was commented upon on here, the Dems seperated themselves by having more ‘liberal’ views on the hot topics like Abortion and Stem Cell research. I didn’t notice any tangible differences in their domestic policies.
Subsequently if you argue the Republicans are akin to the Tories, then the Dems and Labour must be in pretty much the same position. But party politics have moved so much over here (as Deus said, the 3rd way), it’s hard to pigeon hole exactly where Labour sit.
Middle class entitlements have never been an issue here, it’s the working class most entitlements were designed for, in order to qualify for free healthcare in the US you have to earn below 133% of minimum wage, is that right?
So if you earn 140% of minimum wage, you don’t, there’s too many loopholes in that system, in the UK everyone has access, and yes, we wait, but if you can afford it you have the option to go private. It sounds like a large number of people could suffer under your system.
It’s 133% of the Federal poverty level, not minimum wage. The difference is basically the more children you have, the more you can earn an still be considered poor. Yes that does leave a hole. However, that hole can be closed without nationalizing the entire system.
I didn’t see that particular quote. I was looking at his domestic policies. Sure he’s shoring up the NHS, but isn’t he also allowing it to outsource some functions to private providers to cut back on waiting lists? That’s not something a hardline socialist would ever stand for. What exactly does ‘Welfare reform’ mean? That was a Republican rallying point in the 90s. What does ‘left on immigration’ mean? The mainstream of both US parties is pretty open towards immigration.
He’s outsourcing to reduce waiting times, something you fellas criticise the NHS for, I think it’s a prudent decision from Blair, he’s trying to balance service and cost.
But that’s just the sort of thing a Republican administration would do if we had the equivalent of the NHS here. Scrapping it would not be feasable, so they’d likely do things such as that. Democrats would likely be against it, because their union supporters who wouldn’t get a cut of the outsourcing would be against it.
Welfare Reform, over here it means making welfare payments more streamlined and efficient, ie Social Security, Family benefits, state pension entitlement, the whole thing was in a mess, people were claiming more than they were entitled, it’s basically a way of assessing individual entitlement as opposed to having a blanket payment.
‘social democracy’ is probably a clearer term for those kinds of policies than ‘socialism’ since socialism implies more nationalization. I agree that you can’t match Labour and the Dems or the Tories and the Republicans one to one, but I still think that politically, the Dems would fall in between old and new Labour.
To be dead honest, at the last US election (which I followed reasonably closely), I’d come to the conclustion that the Dems and Reps had virtually the same policy on everything except tax and the situation in Iraq, I haven’t studied the minutae of the Dems manifesto, but I think it was commented upon on here, the Dems seperated themselves by having more ‘liberal’ views on the hot topics like Abortion and Stem Cell research. I didn’t notice any tangible differences in their domestic policies.
That last election was kind of an oddball. You’re right that Kerry didn’t seem that far removed from Bush’s positions when he had one. He though he could win on Iraq, and the economy. In past elections the contrast was much more noticable, with Dems calling for a national healthcare syste (1988 & 1992), a nuclear freeze (1984)
Subsequently if you argue the Republicans are akin to the Tories, then the Dems and Labour must be in pretty much the same position. But party politics have moved so much over here (as Deus said, the 3rd way), it’s hard to pigeon hole exactly where Labour sit.
I kind of lost my original point, but I think it was that your parties aren’t as left of ours as you might think
:)
Looks like even more is coming out, apparently was just walking towards the train causually and even stopped for a newspaper. Have to wait to see the video myself to confirm this though.
