|
July 25, 2004
This is put into play in Australia to suggest that the Mark Latham ALP is a socially conservative and neo-liberal party--a variation on the one we have in power in SA. It is one in which the appeal to large numbers of middle-class, socially conservative voters outweighs the social democrat agenda concerned to help people at the bottom of the ladder largely through taxes and public service investment.
Is this what the Third Way now means in Australia?

Steve Bell
The UK article says that Blairism is just Thatcherism softened for a soppier age. Here is the relevant bit:
"If we have a third term of Blair, where will the country end up? There is no need to consult the crystal ball, because we have a road map, the five-year plans spewing out of government. Virtually every part of the rhetoric is familiar to those of us who covered the Tory administrations of the 80s and 90s - more choice and less bureaucracy in schools and hospitals; an end to 60s liberalism in the criminal justice system and the classroom; tough asylum policies; bobbies on the beat; "prison works"; no attempt to reverse privatisations, even when they proved a disaster. Abroad, we see a deep suspicion of Europe in general and France in particular. Though he is being cautious in public, it is clear that Blair would much prefer to see another term for Bush and his neo-con clique in Washington, than a moderately progressive Democrat in the White House. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't Labour politics."
The key difference here is that a Latham ALP would prefer to see a moderately progressive Democrat in the White House, rather than another term for Bush and his neo-con clique in Washington.
Let's be honest folks. Is there going to be that much difference in governance if the Coalition loses out to a Latham ALP?
|
so true it scares even me