dagblog - Comments for "War on "Neoliberals" & (UK? US?) aftermath"

Huh? Obama didn't get any

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:06:14 +0000

In reply to The introduction of universal

Huh? Obama didn't get any Republican votes. He compromised with himself, settled for terms he didn't need to, and they're still trying to cripple it and destroy it ever since. Hillary's biggest problem was Robert Byrd (D), who wouldn't let her pass the bill under reconciliation - exactly what Obama used to pass his. With friends like Dems, who needs enemies.

there's related discussion in

artappraiser — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:40:58 +0000

In reply to War on "Neoliberals" & (UK? US?) aftermath

there's related discussion in the 100+ replies to this tweet:

Early indications are that @UKLabour is pointing towards a continuing ideologist as leader rather than a path to power...
— Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) December 30, 2019

The introduction of universal

Flavius — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:10:34 +0000

In reply to Britain is obviously

The introduction of universal health care was intelligently handled.

In May 1940 the Conservative Chamberlain government was seen to have failed - no possibility of calling an election - so a coalition government took over : Churchill and Attlee. While continuing war the coalition planned for the future peace under the so called Beveridge Commission one of whose principal members was Harold Wilson the future PM.

In 45 Labour won committed to introduce National Health which had been one of Beveridge's main recommendations.

Attlee surprisingly put Nye Bevan in charge. Surprisingly because Attlee and Bevan had been bitter enemies during the War because , as a labor leader Bevan had actually led strikes that impeded the government.

Also surprising because the national organization that represented doctors was determined to fight the introduction of the National Health Service and it seemed that a fighter like Bevan would not be able reach an agreement with the militant doctors.

(When Clinton was elected in 92 I read Michael Foot's biography of Bevan to see what light it might cast on Hillarycare)

Theoretically Bevan didn't negotiate with the doctors, claiming that under the British system of Parliamentary government no individual could alter position that had been voted in to place by the Government. But if you read Foot;s history that was a distinction without a difference. For example Bevan agreed that while all NHS doctors were "government employees" in the hospital , they could also provide private medical help from home.

Conversely Hillary was felt by her staff to have rebuffed those Republican Senators were willing to meet her half way.

The British success in implementing National Health may well have influenced the continental governments that introduced their own govt, program just after the war .

"You can't beat something with nothing". So Obama/Pelosi correctly settled for Obamacare to show that if they couldn't go the whole hog, they'd take what they could get.

They split the vote in 2016,

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 15:38:32 +0000

In reply to Britain is obviously

They split the vote in 2016, they'll try to split the vote in 2020. Not that exceptional.

Britain is obviously

rmrd0000 — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:00:06 +0000

In reply to War on "Neoliberals" & (UK? US?) aftermath

Britain is obviously different than the United States. You I think the battle being waged by Democratic voters in the United States is focusing on a candidate who can win. Biden, the moderate, leads the national polls, It is unclear how he will do in a state by state contest. I get the feel that Democrats, as a whole are more Conservative than many European parties on some issues. There is no major effort to dismantle universal health care, for example.