-
no other left of centre party in any advanced economy had 13 years of continuous power in order to transform our society forever
To be fair, in a parliamentary democracy no parliament can ever make laws which constrain a subsequent parliament. By definition no change can be forever.
But I agree he had more latitude to make more positive change than most PMs and he didn't take the opportunity to build anything as legacy-orientated as the NHS or what have you.
ReekBlefs-
Yes, I accept your point above. However, by transformational change, I refer to the dissolution of the Lords and its replacement with a democratically elected body. Also. the introduction of P.R. Blair had a democratic mandate for both based on a manifesto commitment.
He refused both. The tories would have no choice but to live with the resulting change. There would have been no return to the existing status quo.
To be a socialist in England is to accept disappointment. Hence my scepticism regarding Starmer. Although, I am prepared to be suprised.
greytyke
Yes, Ian Dunt's stuff is well written and argued. I feel that we've had rhe shit kicked out of us for 14 long years. We now settle for anyone who appears to be vaguely competent and serious. Sadly, I fell that Starmer will be a Blairalike and that everything he can do will be undone by the Tories. The tragedy of Blair's time in power was that no other left of centre party in any advanced economy had 13 years of continuous power in order to transform our society forever. What a wasted opportunity!