Tony Blair’s record-setting tenure as a Labour prime minister of
Britain is examined in Part I of this highly critical CBC documentary.
** BLAIR AND WHAT HE MEANS. Arguably the premier politician on the planet, Tony Blair and his departure this week as prime minister of the United Kingdom prompt some thinking about the nature of politics and the state of play as America slowly begins tapping toward the exits in Iraq. Rather than write a biography or even a huge essay on Tony Blair, which I obviously haven’t the time to do, I’ll be bringing these questions up from time to time. They’re of particular import as the Bush era grinds agonizingly to its close. And, of course, Blair is a key ally of California’s governor.
The CBC documentary is very critical, not the way I would do it, and comes at Blair from the left. But it’s valuable because it’s well-done, providing a chronological view, and it provokes thought. How wide a net does a leader need to cast in making decisions? What is an acceptable level of sleaze in political fundraising? How did Iraq go so wrong?
Blair, as you may know, reinvented a moribund political party, won three national elections, the only Labour politician to do so, beginning with his landslide win in 1997, largest in 165 years, and quickly became a major world figure. (As the new Mideast envoy, he’s continuing on the global stage and will continue to be a key player with regard to that part of the world which has become so overwhelmingly important in US presidential politics.)
Probably only Bill Clinton of the world’s politicians can hope to match Blair in terms of political skills, intelligence, speaking ability, and durability. Under Blair, Britain “modernised” as “Cool Britannia,” and indicators on the economy, the environment, and crime continued to improve throughout his decade-plus as British prime minister. He made Britain a more inclusive society. And he settled the bloody, decades long conflict in Northern Ireland. Blair and Clinton formed a strong working partnership as Blair became a global player.
Fatefully, Blair became quite the interventionist abroad. He took Britain to war, in one form or another, five times. First when he and Clinton decided to conduct an air war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when the Iraqi dictator proved intransigent on weapons inspections and other matter. Next when, at Blair’s determined instigation, NATO launched an air war to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and bring down the Serbian dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. Then Blair intervened in the African nation of Sierra Leone, with British forces landing to end a brutal civil war.
Then came 9/11, and Blair, who had formed an unlikely friendship with George W. Bush, was quick to spring to America’s side. British resources, notably intelligence, and forces, including its crack special ops forces, were instrumental in helping America overthrow the Taliban’s theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan and rout Al Qaeda from its redoubt.
Then came Iraq. And that’s a matter for tomorrow.
** THE AIR BOARD FLAP. It’s hard to make out exactly what’s going on with the shake-up late this week at the California Air Resources Board. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was unhappy about the board’s decision to defer air quality action in the Central Valley for more than a decade, which made his promise to sue the US Environmental Protection Agency unless it grants California its customary waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement the state’s landmark law cutting tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases look more than a little dodgy. There is a dispute over who is responsible for the board’s rather paltry opening round of regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Some say the board was doing what top staffers in the Governor’s Office wanted. Others say no.
What is clear is that Arnold Schwarzenegger knows that the implementation of California’s climate change plan will require a blend of strong regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the development of new technologies, and the use of market mechanisms in the form of a cap and trade system.
The plan, although it has its origins in a gubernatorial executive order two years ago, with much work done by Schwarzenegger’s Climate Action Team, is largely arising from AB 32, the law authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who was relatively new to the issue, and former LA Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who authored the tailpipe emissions law discussed below. Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata are left-liberals who wanted the law to focus primarily on command and control regulatory solutions. Schwarzenegger, as a centrist Republican, is more market-oriented. His office offered a raft of amendments to the bill last year before it was signed.
But when I read the proposed law, it was clear that it was actually rather vague. And that it could accommodate a baseline regulatory approach coupled with the flexibility of market mechanisms in the form, among other things, of a carbon trading market. Schwarzenegger did sign the bill without further heavy amending. So the task since then has been to develop the exact blend of regulation and market. I think the differing sides are pretty close, probably closer than some advocates believe.
** THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET. The Legislature’s budget conference committee began bridging the gap yesterday, with Democrats scaling back on their upgraded spending hopes and agreeing to many of the cuts proposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Legislative Republicans want more cuts, but haven’t been especially forthcoming about what they might be.
Meanwhile, the state’s constitutional deadline of June 30th comes today and leaves at midnight. It’s a deadline almost always honored by the breach rather than the observance. Here’s what state Controller John Chiang has to say about how the state will fund things before the Legislature adopts a new budget and departs for a summer vacation.
Chiang: “The State has enough cash to pay bills that come due at the end of June and we can keep payments flowing for some essential services. But despite having cash on hand, starting July 1, I am prohibited from making payments to school special education programs, community colleges, local governments, small businesses and state vendors until a budget is in place.”
Nevertheless, Chiang, on behalf of the state, still has the authority to pay for basic funding for schools, health and welfare programs required by federal law, constitutional obligations, state employee payroll, and continuous legislative appropriations. The elected officials won’t get paid, however.
Your posts are welcome in the Forum.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
I think Bill Clinton is cooler than Tony Blair.
I don’t know about that. Blair is much cuter. lol
Good Christ! That “documentary” sounds as if it’s written by Michael Moore.
The three sides, haha, are not too far apart on the budget. We’re all waiting to see the Republicans offer more than rhetoric when they talk about their “cuts.”
I can’t quite decide myself. Is Tony Blair a cautionary tale? Or a great man?
Mr. Bradley scribed:
Bill Bradley :
I guess I should have bet you they won’t just get minimum wage.
I never said they would. I said there was a court ruling stating such and that the prior controller, you remember him, had found a way about it. I then wondered if the new controller would do the say.
You, for the 4,457 time, told me I was incorrect.
Given what I wrote, the bet would have been about the ruling and for the 4,457 time you would have been wrong!
Now, can I take the rest of this afternoon off?
Nah, you told Wilbur he was wrong and they’d only get minimum wage, which I had to correct even though I’m trying to avoid the discussion this weekend.
Perhaps he is both.
>Jack Aubrey :
I can’t quite decide myself. Is Tony Blair a cautionary tale? Or a great man?
Jun 30, 2007 11:54 AM
Ditto. Call for budget cuts. Fine. Spell them out.
>Capitol Boy :
The three sides, haha, are not too far apart on the budget. We’re all waiting to see the Republicans offer more than rhetoric when they talk about their “cuts.”
Jun 30, 2007 11:37 AM
It’s the Angelides for Governor campaign last year. Oh, we’re going to save $X billion in efficiencies and balance the budget.
But what were they?
They’d tell us after the inaugural.
Hey, he’s got an Oscar!
>Capitol Boy :
Good Christ! That “documentary” sounds as if it’s written by Michael Moore.
Jun 30, 2007 11:35 AM
Mr. Bradley, sir…
My complete comments to Mr. Wilbur:
Sacramento Solon :
Wilbur,
Perhaps I’m wrong, but seem to recall a fairly recent case in which the courts ruled that state workers were only entitled to minimum wage if there was no budget in place.
Prior Controller found some way around that, wonder if the current one will as well.
—————-
Think I pointed out that there is a ruling…which I belive there is. Also stated that prior controller had worked around it, he did. Next wondered whether new dude would do the same, the answer is about.
Where did I say for a certainty that state employees would get minimum wage?
The work around deals with the inability of current State Controller’s Office technology to spin out the warrants. Once the vaunted technological upgrade, 21st Century, goes on line that will no longer be a problem.
Now, once again I ask, might I have the rest of the day off?
Mr. Bradley,
To put you to sleep for the rest of the afternoon..
Unable to find case cite, however here’s what I did find and the link to where I found it:
Monday, August 04, 2003
Prior Weeks’ Budget Q&A
San Diego State University is committed to providing the campus community with the most accurate information possible about our budget situation. Below are answers to several budget related questions recently submitted by members of the campus community through SDSUniverse’s “Budget Q&A.”
Budget Q & A – August 4, 2003
Q: Governor Davis approved a 2003/04 state budget package on Aug. 4. What does that package mean for SDSU’s budget situation?
A: Although the campus has not yet received the final details, we do not anticipate much variance from the adjustments made by the California State University Board of Trustees and Chancellor in response to the legislative budget the Governor approved over the weekend. In attempting to respond to a $38 billion deficit, the legislature reduced an additional $84.5 million from the CSU. In order to address a portion of the additional reduction, the Trustees acted July 16 to increase the State University Fee 30% for all students rather than the 25% increase for undergraduate and 20% increase for graduate students proposed by the Governor last spring. This increases the total campus resident fees this fall to $1,244 for undergraduate and $1,349 for graduate students from last spring’s $1,007 and $1,088 respectively. This late fee increase, after most of our students have registered and paid for the fall, will not be billed and due until after census. As in the past, the campus will be allocated a portion of its fee increase revenue to adjust State University Grant awards to cover the full amount of the fee increase. The full year benefit from last spring’s fee increase combined with the increase for the fall will generate almost $11.5 million to offset a campus shortfall for 2003/04 of more than $27.2 million including unfunded mandatory costs.
The CSU will offset the balance of the added reductions by decreasing the system’s planned enrollment growth from 7% to 4.3% which equates to $60 million for the CSU. In the case of SDSU, instead of our budgeted enrollment increasing from 27,201 FTES in 2002/03 to 28,675 FTES in 2003/04 (1,474 FTES or 5.4%), it will be adjusted to increase to 28,223 FTES (1,022 FTES or 3.8%) which is very close to our actual 28,242 FTES in 2002/03. The legislative budget included language directing the Department of Finance not to include any funding for enrollment growth for the CSU or UC in its 2004/05 budget request. The decrease in the planned campus enrollment growth funding for 2003/04 adds $2.5 million to the $11.4 million program reduction already allocated for 2003/04. The allocation of the $11.4 million as well as current CSU budget information may be found at http://bfa.sdsu.edu/fm/bp/. The Cabinet Budget Committee previously recommended and the President approved the use of one-time reserves for any added budget shortfall so this added shortfall will not impact current year operations. Within the next few months, the Cabinet Budget Committee will recommend how the additional $2.5 million should be permanently addressed in 2004/05.
Budget Q & A – July 28, 2003
Q: How does this situation compare to the budget crisis in the early 1990s?
A: The magnitude of the anticipated budget reduction to the CSU and to SDSU is not as great as it was in the early 1990s, although the anticipated state budget shortfall could be much greater. The cumulative percentage increase in the State University Fee over a two-year period would be considerably less (38% now vs. 68% in the early 1990s) but just as sudden. Rather than providing support for enrollment growth of 5.4% as is currently proposed, in the early 1990s, instructional funding and actual enrollment decreased more than 20% to correspond to the budget shortfall. Given a longer planning period, the campus is better prepared this time. A limited non-faculty hiring freeze has been in place since November 2001, and the campus has adopted what has been referred to as a culture of discipline, cooperation and open communication.
Budget Q&A – July 21, 2003
Q: How is the budget shortfall going to affect faculty workloads?
A: Our student-faculty ratio will increase by about 1.0 bringing it to about 19.5:1. Some faculty will be teaching additional course sections, but most faculty will teach additional students in class rather than teach additional course sections.
Q: How is the budget shortfall going to affect staff workloads?
A: Staff workloads have been increasing with the growth in enrollment over the past two years. It is likely that staff workloads will further increase in 2003/04.
Budget Q&A – July 14, 2003
Q: Is it possible university employees will be paid minimum wage if the state budget is not approved?
A: In the absence of an approved budget, the California Supreme Court ruled in June 2003 that state employees including CSU and UC employees may only be paid the minimum wage. State Controller Steve Westly has determined in order to accomplish the minimum wage mandate, major modifications to the payroll system are required, and that it would be August before these modifications are ready for payroll production. Therefore, SDSU employees can expect that even in the absence of a state budget approval, they will receive their regular pay on the August 1, 2003 pay warrant. However, if by August 20, 2003 there is no approved budget, the minimum wage will be in place for the pay warrant dated September 1, 2003.
State Controller Steve Westly has said he will apply the California minimum wage of $6.75 per hour rather than the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. Once a budget appropriation has been adopted by the Legislature and approved by the Governor, employees will receive retroactively the difference in pay between the minimum wage and their regular pay. We do not yet know how soon these retroactive payments could be made as they will require individual manual calculations done by the Campus payroll staff. This impending action also raises many questions about voluntary deductions such as TSAs, 401K, deferred compensation and benefit deductions such as dependent health care. We believe the State Controller will hold these deductions in abeyance during the minimum wage payment period.
http://www.sdsuniverse.info/story.asp?id=5881
Now, fearful that you will come looking for me, I shall seek protective cover.
Love, Solon
Sacramento Solon has retreated to his “undisclosed location.”
As well he should have after all that rot.
The CBC doesn not mention that their main source, clare Short, comes from the far left, Tony Benn wing of the Labor Party. Mr. Blair gave her one of the least consequential slots in his coalition cabinet. I believe she leaked classified materials and quit the party.
The second part of the documentary is tomorrow, I take it.
My culinary pal Solon must have had a few early nips at the sherry before postings those boring qs&as. The Kid Family is having a nice chianti tonight, goes well with tri-tip.
Oh, and the constitutional budget deadline passes tonight without notice or apology. Some day California may get its fiscal house in order, but there is always an excuse to not do it this year…
Hardly. I suggest you read what I write before delivering your rote spin.
Mr. Kid,
Sorry to have bored you. I had originally responded to a posting by Wilbur on yesterday’s forum. Mr. Bradley asked that I continue the post here since he had recently posted something here about the topic. So, if I bored you, it’s all Bradley’s fault. But, you probably figured that.
And, yes, someday California will get her fiscal house in order. That day will happen when people wake up and realize that there is no need for requiring a 2/3 vote on the budget. The feds don’t and I believe we are one of only two or three states that do. If having a budget was important to people, it would be done.
Finally, I’m sober. And that doesn’t mean that I’m finally sober!
Bill,
Thank you. I know you didn’t find my stuff boring!
Bill, of course I read what you wrote. At least this time you recognized the impasse, but your cursory treatment enables the view that reaching an agreement is all that is required, not fixing a long festering problem that will limit our quality of life.
My consistent point has been that the popular “post-partisan” canard is masking a fundamental dysfunction of governance. There are times where real decisions must be made and real priorities must be set. The budget is the best and latest example of that failure, one that pervades our politics and does not bode well for our future.
I am sorry you feel my post is rote spin. I guess I need to communicate better.
BTW I think Solon is technically right about the state of the law, but in contrast to that UC piece Westley was widely reported elsewhere to have stated that he interpreted the White v. Davis ruling as leaving him discretion as to whether to explode the payroll computer trying to get it to do this, which infuriated the antitax theocracy behind the suit. I suspect that is the continuing state of affairs. Law says one thing, reality says another.
I agree with KK.
Chianti does go well with beef. However, I prefer California wine so try a Sangiovese next time.
The structural defecit is a problem but it’s not going to be resolved with good budget… I predict a budget by July 13. And, I hate making predictions.
What sayeth sooth?
Wilbur,
Thanks. I agree.
Enjoy your Sunday.
JC:What sayeth sooth?
Why in the world wuld NWN SOOTH care about when there is a budget?…he is a big thinker with a haunting subversive wit…heck, he is the only man that understand me…
Blair and Iraq would seem to be a case of Britain’s Grand Strategy (hang with USA no matter what) coming with a huge price tag when USA leadership is deceitful, reckless and incompetent. Had Bush and Cheney chosen a more nuanced approach in response to 9/11, Blair might very well have emerged five years ago as the envoy for peace in the Middle East that he may officially become only now.
Here comes your reality check from the left:
Bill Bradley: “Probably only Bill Clinton of the world’s politicians can hope to match Blair in terms of political skills, intelligence, speaking ability, and durability.”
Neither can touch Fidel Castro on those counts. And while Blair exported troops for an imperial oil war, Castro’s troops helped the liberation movements of Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Angola. Blair sent weapons of mass civilian destruction to Iraq, Castro sent doctors and nurses to southern African countries and Venezuela.
Blair re-made his party just as Clinton turned the Democrat Party into a more centrist corporate-friendly machine that betrayed its working class base.
Blair as a Middle East envoy is a joke. He has no crediblity as a fair player and is not inclined to push for what’s really needed to stop the Palestinian’s suffering under Israeli occupation – a one state solution that is non-sectarian, non-religious and democratic.
Paul Burton, you crazy nut, you! Castrol. lol
Castrol is a motor oil. A better choice than what I meant, Paul’s nutty Communist dictator choice, Castro. lol
Good piece on independents over at WashPo: http://tinyurl.com/258q9o
Second part of the Tony Blair documentary is today?
Second part of the Tony Blair documentary is today?
Here is a summary of the mundane issue about paying state employees during a budget impasse:
It comes from White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 538
Hap,
Thanks.
Guys, that question goes into the who gives a … file. With all that’s going on, the underlying trivia with regard to precisely why state workers will still get paid in a low-key budget stand-off is of extraordinarial minimal interest.
Paul, I don’t include dictators like Castro, Saddam, or Kim il Sung in the running as great politicians.
Seizing power through military means and maintaining it for 50 years by killing and imprisoning your political opponents does not make one a great politican.
Doh!
If the Air Board truly wanted to go after the low hanging fruit it would have mandated a dramatic tree planting program, required white roofing, and eliminated “blacktop” from the roads.
Bill – you’re so picky.
Although there are dictators who have displayed real political skill – Tito comes to mind.
Good point. But I’m just talking about the contemporary scene. And Tito was not exactly Pol Pot.
Hap, actually tree planting is a very mixed bag with regard to the greenhouse effect. Many trees are short-lived, and release their carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere when they die and decompose. And they detract from reflectivity, rather than add to it.
The best thing to do with regard to trees is maintain and add to existing concentrations of forests, especially the long-lived ones.
“they detract from reflectivity, rather than add to it.”
Clearly we need shinier trees. *g*
Re: progress in implementing AB 32’s goals, I was greatly disappointed that the “feebate” (a revenue-neutral measure that would impose a fee on inefficient vehicles, and use the revenue to fund a rebate on efficient ones; the “balance point” would automatically adjust from year to year to maintain neutrality and encourage the ongoing climb of efficiency), which is a major effort of my own Assemblyman (Ruskin), didn’t make it through the Assembly, thanks to a couple of conservative SoCal Dems. I think the earliest it can come back for another round is next January.
It’s really a common-sense measure, an easy way of helping the market reflect the reality of the costs imposed by inefficiency. Terribly disappointing that even something that simple can’t get through.