Trump Thread

[Pannonian]

The bolded - the substance - is actually the key issue, but I'll admit to needing to read more about the issues before I can make an absolute judgement. Blair was indeed to the left of any American president since LBJ, so all relative factors need to be normalized. So I'll pose a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to say that, for example, Blair's administration did a lot to reduce visible homelessness (rough sleeping), but its simultaneous underinvestment in social housing limited the long-term effectiveness of its policies? If not, why?

2. Do you believe a Blairite platform would be adequate to the needs of the present moment? If so, why? Are there any elements of the Corbyn platform you would prefer to the enactments of the Blair administration?

1. Here's a read for you. Early on, Blair took personal charge of the issue of homeless. To reduce the visible homeless, he moved them off the streets and into rented accommodation, but he also addressed the causes of homelessness, namely the social issues that led to this state. I can't remember if social housing increased under Blair.

2. None realistic. Times a big number once you factor in Brexit, which Corbyn is in favour of but which Blair opposes. Under Blair, a lot of left wing causes had increased funding in real terms to an extent that I've never seen in any other government (I can remember back to Thatcher). If you were young or old, poor, or serving the human infrastructure (eg. teachers, health service, police), you had it good under Blair. If you were in the middle, you also had it good, in terms of the stability that you got in return for the slight tax increases. None of Corbyn's platform that may be attractive to me is realistic, and I care about realism. Blair's achievements were, of course, realistic, as he's actually done them and they're on historical record.

To translate it to US terms, would you support someone who was nominally speaking in a centre right language, but who could offer the same combination of competence and a willingness to think in centre left terms? Someone whom the centre right can take to in identity, but who will and can enact centre left policies. Sometimes it's not just a matter of how far to the left someone is on the spectrum.

[Montmorency]

1. Here's a read for you. Early on, Blair took personal charge of the issue of homeless. To reduce the visible homeless, he moved them off the streets and into rented accommodation, but he also addressed the causes of homelessness, namely the social issues that led to this state. I can't remember if social housing increased under Blair.

Is there an analysis that showed it worked beyond the short-term? As I read there has been a major resurgence in homelessness over the past decade. Blair can't be blamed for any Conservative policies but he can be criticized for any inadequacies of his own administration.

Unfortunately Google fails to bring up much granular information on the subject, but I see here that

The Conservative dominance in the council housebuilding stakes is in fact a quirk of housing policy history. Council housebuilding dropped away as a significant part of country’s output under Margaret Thatcher’s government – falling from 55,200 in her first year in power to just 400 in John Major’s last. This was due to the introduction of the Right to Buy and spending restrictions which prevented councils from building at scale.

The incoming Labour government under Tony Blair did nothing to reverse this position initially. In fact, it took until 2009, under Gordon Brown’s government and then housing minister John Healey, to start any changes. They set in motion plans to give councils control of their own rental income rather than passing it to the Treasury under a model known as self-financing.

Under Blair, a lot of left wing causes had increased funding in real terms to an extent that I've never seen in any other government (I can remember back to Thatcher).

Setting Blair's priorities against Thatcher's of all people can't be informative either historically or in abstract.

If you were young or old, poor, or serving the human infrastructure (eg. teachers, health service, police), you had it good under Blair. If you were in the middle, you also had it good, in terms of the stability that you got in return for the slight tax increases.

What about the people who didn't have it good? How is the legacy to be assessed in the ongoing historical record?

Blair's achievements were, of course, realistic, as he's actually done them and they're on historical record.

Whether he did the best with what was available is controversial.

None of Corbyn's platform that may be attractive to me is realistic, and I care about realism.

What makes something realistic or unrealistic in your opinion, do you think it is possible to change that, and how? Why haven't Margaret Thatcher's policies been the most realistic ones in British history?

From my vantage all proposals of impact are unrealistic until Brexit is resolved - but what then?

Tony Blair, for his part, supports parts of Labour's manifesto.

To translate it to US terms, would you support someone who was nominally speaking in a centre right language, but who could offer the same combination of competence and a willingness to think in centre left terms? Someone whom the centre right can take to in identity, but who will and can enact centre left policies. Sometimes it's not just a matter of how far to the left someone is on the spectrum.

I care about realism too, and to my knowledge such a fantastical unicorn has never manifested in American history. On rare occasion Left politicians have governed according to left rhetoric, and much more frequently Right politicians have governed according to right rhetoric. In 50 years the best we've had is someone like Obama who pairs center-left rhetoric with center-right governance, which is suboptimal to say the least.