Simon Jenkins, the columnist and former editor of The Times (of London), is capable of making a strong argument at times and he tries to do so with his thesis that the Blair government continued much the same policy mix as Margaret Thatcher. Yes, really. Jenkins argues that in some ways, the Blair government was more enthusiastic in privatising certain industries than the Thatcher one (he says Mrs T. was opposed to selling off the railways, but I am not sure that is true). Even without the odd quibble, it is a quite persuasive piece of writing. However, in the light of this week’s events as related by Perry de Havilland below, Jenkins spoils his piece by this piece of utter nonsense:
Although Blair made a spirited bid after the 2001 election to make Europe, as he put it, ‘the cornerstone of the new parliament’, he found it merely a source of dissension with Brown. He signed the Maastricht treaty as promised in his manifesto but did not implement it and eventually ceded to Brown a de facto veto not just over the euro but over further European integration. Blair’s 2005 presidency of the council of ministers was a fiasco. Under him Britain remained semi-detached from Europe and beyond Thatcherite reproach. His glee at being let off the hook by the French and Dutch referendum votes against the 2005 constitution was ill-concealed.
I think even Jenkins probably feels a bit of a twit about those words. Because it appears Blair was pretty keen to transfer more sovereignty to the EU all along. The idea that he was pleased at the outcomes of the referendums in previous years is not borne out by his sly actions.
I think what Jenkins meant was that Blair was pleased to be let off the hook by the Dutch and French referendums, because he knew that if Britain had one, he would certainly lose. He didn’t want Britain and himself personally, to be blamed for the failure to “Advance Europe” as usual. So he was relieved when Holland & France took the pressure off him.
Oh but he’s a devout believer in Europe make no mistake.
He also knows that it runs the same way he has run Britain for the last 10 years.
A small unelected group of advisors and bugger Parliament and the People.
If the people cause problems by voting in the wrong way, either another path to the same ends is found (hence the treaty) or the electorate are invited to vote again, and get it RIGHT this time, as in Ireland a while ago.
Along with Parris, I think Jenkins is losing his marbles a bit. Well he was an enthusiastic backer of the Dome once upon a time was’nt he.
Foolish, citizen?
Why, Margaret Thatcher was one of us all along!
Didn’t you know?
Even John Major opposed the way the railways were changed. With franchises to run services for X number of years (the new “railway companies” did not even own the trains, which were leased from some thing or other, let alone the track). The Civil Service interpreted a E.U. regulation as meaning that the track and the service could not be owned by the same private company, actually (in this case) the E.U. regulation could have been interpreted to allow just this (if subsidies to track and service had been kept distinct), but Mr Major did not press the point (as he should have done).
True the track company was briefly made private, but the new “Rail Track” was destroyed by the Labour government (it amuses me that people demand the renationalization of the raileways when they have already been renationalized).
As for Mr Blair the government of which he is Prime Minsiter has increased government spending as a percentage of the economy (especially if one takes account of Mr Brown’s rigged stats).
Mrs Thatcher (after the terrible 1979 – 1982 period when government spending and taxation greatly increased) managed to reduce government spending as a percentage of the economy.
On regulations. Mrs Thatcher reduced regualtions (although there was some increase after the Single European Act of 1986) and Mr Blair has greatly increased them.
On the E.U. Mr Blair has (in several agreements) given away over a hundred veto rights, and now has accepted a legal idenity (as a state) for the E.U. that will allow it to sign treaties with other nations and with international bodies (treaties that will contain who-knows-what to be imposed on the United Kingdom).
On Simon Jenkins – everything from the “nationalization of Britain” (by which he meant trying to limit the wild spending of certain local councils) to the “dome” (which is actually a very expensive tent) shows that this man is without merit.
I rather resent someone who makes a good living by writing books and articles that are filled with things that are not true.
I forgot to mention the “market reforms” of health and education that Mr Blair and co first got rid of and then brought back in a different form.
For those of us who think that “internal markets” and other such are like “playing with toy trains in your attic whilst thinking you are running a real railway company” (Ludwig Von Mises attacking the Marxists who came up with these ideas back in the 1920’s) this area is not wildly interesting.
However, I will make a non libertarian point.
The Daily Telegraph had a front page story (a couple of weeks ago) about a report that showed many subjects had been turned into politics.
History – poltical “debates” not fact learning.
Physics, biology, chemistry – facts and lab work out, political “debates” in.
All this was supposed to make the children (sorry “students”) more interested and motivated, because the subjects would be more “relevant”. And the examinations have been changed to allow good grades to be given to people who do not really know very much.
As I said not a libertarian point (libertarians would expect government schools to be terrible and government examinations to be debased – it is places like Bavaria that are harder for us libertarians to attack), but I still think it is sad that “education, education, education” has been so undermined.
As soon as Blair said “Education education education” it was inevitable.
The sad thing is that, far from being “motivated” by all this political stuff, the children are bored to tears (teacher friends have been telling me this for some time).
The children know that the political “discussion” or “debate” is phony (it is just agit prop designed to reach a pre determined conclusion) and they also know that they are not being taught the various subjects.
They are left ill prepared for “A” levels by the pathetic G.C.S.E.s (brought in under Mrs T. and further debased under Mr Blair – so perhaps Simon Jenkins has a point there) so A levels have to be debased as well (so that pupils “students” ) can get better and better grades.
Which leaves the universities (at least in certain subjects) in a mess.
Nor is all this just in the subjects I have mentioned. For example, the study of English literature has been virtually destroyed in the government schools.