http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14924465&fsrc=rss
The legislative prospectus set out in the Queen’s speech is described as ‘left leaning’ (on personal care and banker’s bonuses) and purportedly appealing to the Labour Party’s working class roots with ‘tough talk on immigration’. Is tough talk on immigration really a working class issue or is the Economist simply applying its own prejudices? The Economist’s assertion that Cameron is trying to win the centre ground is equally questionable given his hard line right wing agenda.
Brown’s strategy is likely to lead to changes in public spending not necessarily increases but differing priorities. The article itself assumes that new spending is unaffordable but this is only true within the neo liberal agenda that the Economist pursues. More laughable is the idea that Brown’s failure is his failure to further the Blairite revolution: - a vision that few beyond the confines of Whitehall ever saw as credible and which is now discredited. Witness the recent discontent over league tables in education or the concern over public service reform in general where there has been an ‘if it moves count it’ culture that has decisively failed.
On the basis of such dubious analysis why should anyone take the Economist’s views on succession in the Labour Party seriously? They have only one aim – to continue to ensure a neo liberal hegemony within Westminster politics. The left must guard against accepting this advice but a real debate is necessary.
