Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

BIG CON NEO-CONS:Bliar's Third Way.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

socialist

unread,
May 17, 2004, 9:21:24 AM5/17/04
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

http://www.Dumpblair.co.uk quotes an article from http://www.wsws.org

The Third Way


By Jean Shaoul, World Socialist Workers Website (WSWS) 31 March 2003


Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled his plans for Britain's
essential public services in an article entitled "Where the
Third Way Goes from Here" on the Progressive Governance Web Site
(www.progressive-governance.net/php).

Blair's policies are aimed at turning public services over entirely to
the free market and in so doing ending all attempts to lessen the social
inequality and hardship created by the profit system and removing all
restrictions on wealth accumulation. That he took time out from drumming
up international support for his illegal war against Iraq to draw up
his blueprint underscores that the drive to war and colonialism abroad
is intimately bound up with the systematic impoverishment of working
people at home. A fabulously wealthy financial elite, in whose interests
Blair's government rules, dictates both policies. Yet his blueprint for
the opening of a second, domestic front, received only cursory attention
from a media desperate to conceal this fundamental truth. The Third Way

Blair starts his proposal by making a fundamental point about the economic
and political context for his strategy. "In the global economy", he
writes, "the optimism of the late 1990s has dissipated. Financial markets
have fallen. The risks of deflation and prolonged slowdown exacerbate
structural problems in much of Western Europe and Japan. Trust towards
those in authority has diminished, and the legitimacy of politics is
under greater threat than ever before."

His task therefore is to find new sources of profits for the corporations
and reduce their costs. This he describes in truly Orwellian fashion
as defining "the next phase of progressive politics" - a revitalised
Third Way.

When Blair came to power in May 1997, he presented the Third Way as an
alternative to both state-run services and wholesale privatisation. In
reality, this signified nothing less than Labour's break with its historic
commitment to a programme of social reforms. The Third Way meant, he
insisted, "acceptance of fiscal and market disciplines," a "rights
and responsibilities approach based on conditionality in welfare,"
to be "strong on law and order" and a commitment to diversity - i.e.,
encouraging private provision - in the supply of public services.

This has led to "targeted assistance" as opposed to universal benefits,
and a variety of measures, most notably the New Deal, aimed at getting
the majority of benefit recipients off welfare and into the workforce
in order to expand the pool of cheap labour for big business.

One of the government's first attacks was in higher education, with
the ending of student grants, the introduction of annual tuition fees
(£1,100) and increased student loans. It has rebranded the Tories'
Private Finance Initiative (PFI) as Public Private Partnerships (PPP)
whereby private corporations are given the job of building and running
public sector projects and services. The government has signed more than
£3.9 billion in 2000-01 and £3.6 billion in 2001-02 worth of PFI deals
in transport, the criminal justice system, health, education, etc.,
with many more in the pipeline.

Successive cuts in Corporation Tax have made Britain the tax haven of
Europe. The wealthiest have seen their income tax fall, while the broad
mass of the population are paying an ever greater percentage of their
income in a variety of different consumption based taxes on insurance,
travel, petrol, energy, etc.

But this is not enough: Employers want more tax breaks and support
schemes. Following Bush

Blair's new policy is also dictated by the need to adjust to the
political realities that flow from the installation of a far right
Republican administration in the White House. He, like the rest of the
European powers, initially underestimated the significance of the new
Washington regime, its rightward lurch and the financial gangsters that
back it. Now, forced to acknowledge that it is very different from the
Clinton administration, he must make the appropriate adjustment.

"While the Third Way provided a transatlantic bridge to the Clinton
Democrats, the contours of US politics have changed fundamentally post
September 11th and following the collapse of the dot.com bubble. Within
Europe, the grip on power that governments of the modernising Left
enjoyed in the late 90s has been weakened," the prime minister writes.

In other words, the mood has changed, and Blair has to dance to the
tune of the corrupt layer around Bush. He knows full well that if he
does not give big business more of what it wants, then the media and
the right wing corporations that control it will surely turn on his
government. And he will find himself targeted for opprobrium by Rupert
Murdoch's News International and others who presently portray him as a
politician of Churchillian stature.

Blair insists that what remains of the post-1945 welfare state must go,
supposedly on the grounds that is has failed to promote either equality
or meritocracy. Blair cites research from centre-left academics such as
Professor Julian Le Grand from the London School of Economics to show
that the more prosperous layers benefited most out of the expansion of
state education and the National Health Service. According to Le Grand,
"The provision of free state education has created neither equality
of use, cost nor outcome. Indeed, it is possible that it may even have
created greater inequality."

This for Blair provides the excuse to dismantle the welfare state,
abandon any notion of the social provision of services, and promote
rampant individualism. "Reform of the state should be the core animating
idea of the progressive governance agenda this year," he writes.

(Without implying that Professor Le Grand would endorse Blair's use of
his statistics, it is interesting that Blair appeals to intellectuals
and academics to provide a "progressive" cover for his reactionary
policies. "We need to connect more with intellectuals and academics from
every field of human endeavour," he insists.)

Public services, if they are to exist at all, must be turned into
commodities and citizens must become consumers who purchase them. From
here on the sole purpose of the state is to bankroll corporations and
the financial elite. Blair's programme

Blair poses a series of questions that function as a trailer for his
right-wing pro-business programme.

He begins by asking how the European socio-economic model (aka government
provision of welfare and public services) is to respond to "a more rapid
and destructive change"? His implicit answer is that it cannot and so
social insurance will have to go.

He then asks, how much of the cost of training, decent pay and
conditions and environmental costs can the private sector legitimately
be asked to bear without imposing unnecessary social costs that
damage enterprise? Obviously not a lot, and so there must be even
greater deregulation, including enabling employers to hire and fire at
will. His ominous reference to "employer provided benefits" means above
all lightening the "burden" of their occupational pension commitments
upon which workers depend.

Next, how should further and higher education, transport, the physical
infrastructure and pensions be funded? Blair's prescription is to
change the balance between tax funding and user charges by extending the
"principle" of road pricing and tuition fees for students to all aspects
of service provision. This would end the notion of pooling costs and
risks among society and between generations. Everyone must pay as they
go or take on debt to pay for what they use. He argues for "innovative
ways" of getting business involved in financing education and training
so that it can tailor the school curriculum, vocational and work-based
training to meet its needs.

Blair suggests, "We must develop an acceptance of more market-oriented
incentives" throughout the public sector. In education, he shamelessly
champions "new entrants to the Clinton Democrats, the contours of US
politics have changed fundamentally post September 11th and following
the collapse of the dot.com bubble. Within Europe, the grip on power
that governments of the modernising Left enjoyed in the late 90s has
been weakened," the prime minister writes.

In other words, the mood has changed, and Blair has to dance to the
tune of the corrupt layer around Bush. He knows full well that if he
does not give big business more of what it wants, then the media and
the right wing corporations that control it will surely turn on his
government. And he will find himself targeted for opprobrium by Rupert
Murdoch's News International and others who presently portray him as a
politician of Churchillian stature.

Blair insists that what remains of the post-1945 welfare state must go,
supposedly on the grounds that is has failed to promote either equality
or meritocracy. Blair cites research from centre-left academics such as
Professor Julian Le Grand from the London School of Economics to show
that the more prosperous layers benefited most out of the expansion of
state education and the National Health Service. According to Le Grand,
"The provision of free state education has created neither equality
of use, cost nor outcome. Indeed, it is possible that it may even have
created greater inequality."

This for Blair provides the excuse to dismantle the welfare state,
abandon any notion of the social provision of services, and promote
rampant individualism. "Reform of the state should be the core animating
idea of the progressive governance agenda this year," he writes.

(Without implying that Professor Le Grand would endorse Blair's use of
his statistics, it is interesting that Blair appeals to intellectuals
and academics to provide a "progressive" cover for his reactionary
policies. "We need to connect more with intellectuals and academics from
every field of human endeavour," he insists.)

Public services, if they are to exist at all, must be turned into
commodities and citizens must become consumers who purchase them. From
here on the sole purpose of the state is to bankroll corporations and
the financial elite. Blair's programme

Blair poses a series of questions that function as a trailer for his
right-wing pro-business programme.

He begins by asking how the European socio-economic model (aka government
provision of welfare and public services) is to respond to "a more rapid
and destructive change"? His implicit answer is that it cannot and so
social insurance will have to go.

He then asks, how much of the cost of training, decent pay and
conditions and environmental costs can the private sector legitimately
be asked to bear without imposing unnecessary social costs that
damage enterprise? Obviously not a lot, and so there must be even
greater deregulation, including enabling employers to hire and fire at
will. His ominous reference to "employer provided benefits" means above
all lightening the "burden" of their occupational pension commitments
upon which workers depend.

Next, how should further and higher education, transport, the physical
infrastructure and pensions be funded? Blair's prescription is to
change the balance between tax funding and user charges by extending the
"principle" of road pricing and tuition fees for students to all aspects
of service provision. This would end the notion of pooling costs and
risks among society and between generations. Everyone must pay as they
go or take on debt to pay for what they use. He argues for "innovative
ways" of getting business involved in financing education and training
so that it can tailor the school curriculum, vocational and work-based
training to meet its needs.

Blair suggests, "We must develop an acceptance of more market-oriented
incentives" throughout the public sector. In education, he shamelessly
champions "new entrants to the schools market" [emphasis added] i.e.,
private schools.

He also wants to see more private sector provision of healthcare so that
patients have a choice. The nature of that "choice", where shortages are
the rule not the exception, becomes clear in the next sentence where he
advocates "adopting radical approaches to self health" - meaning to take
out private insurance or pay for your own treatment. Already there are
plans to turn the National Health Service (NHS) into an insurer alongside
competing private insurers that would purchase healthcare from both NHS
and private hospitals.

Blair also espouses "new forms of co-payment in the public sector,"
implying there will now be user charges for health, education and other
social services on top of the tax revenues that are already given
over to private corporations. He proposes to extend the principles
underlying the establishment of Foundation Hospital Trusts, or "public
benefit corporations" - whereby public hospitals are to be free from
government control and allowed to seek private finance and form joint
ventures with the private sector, while remaining publicly funded -
to all public services.

The government is soon to legislate for a new type of company, a public
interest company (PIC) that will include not just former public agencies
but also charities and the voluntary sector. Rationalised with the
rhetoric of "local control", "stakeholder involvement" and "freedom from
government interference", it signifies the end of a planned universal
and comprehensive service and allows the private sector to take over
service delivery - while cherry picking and cream skimming the services
it provides and the patients it treats.

Blair goes on to say that he believes that we "should no longer
presume that work is the 'be all and end all' of life," but seek to
"meet an increasing public demand" for flexible working - a "year off"
and "exercise entitlements to paternity and maternity leave". Here he
is appealing to socially privileged layers who are the only ones who
could conceive of such an option. But then he goes on, "our conception
of an active labour market should be less fixated with paid work as the
determinant of participation, and treat volunteering, caring and unpaid
employment as equally deserving." Here he is preparing the working
class for necessity of looking after family members who are elderly,
sick, or disabled and/or the requirement to undertake voluntary work
for those in receipt of state benefits.

Similarly he advocates an extension of the New Deal whereby people in
receipt of benefits are forced out of welfare and into workfare whether
in the voluntary or private sector, thereby providing a subvention to
the low wage paying corporations.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

0 new messages