Going through Mandelson’s memoirs the BBC highlights that he claims Labour achieved 80% of its aims. I could agree with that, but only because it gives me an excuse to play funny buggers with the 80/20 ‘rule’ – that 20% of the effort will get 80% of the work done, and the last 20% of work will require 80% of the effort.
In other words, if Labour’s achieved 80% of its goals in 13 years, then to get that last stubborn 20% would take another 52 years – assuming the Pareto Principle holds true.
65 years of Labour. Yikes.
Of course, this assumes that all problems are a simple question of time and money and that there are never any new problems created by devoting said time and money, and that there’s never any unintended consequences arising from solving said problems.
Nope, I think even with another 100 years Labour wouldn’t get that last 20%. There’s no ‘with just a bit more time it would have all been perfect’ here. They had a super majority, unbelievable public support until the Iraq War, a boom and seemingly infinite money coming from tax revenues. If something went wrong, who can they really blame?
Mark Iliff said...
19 Jul 10 at 1:48 am
If the Pareto Principle applied, the previous adbunglestration would have achieved 64%* of its goals in 4%** of its 13 years… or about 6 months.
Nah.
µ
* 80%x80%=64%
** 20%x20%=4%
Uncle Marvo said...
19 Jul 10 at 6:26 am
Bugger the Pareto principle. If they managed to 80% roger the country, I’d hate to think what they might have achieved with the other 20%.
JohnRS said...
19 Jul 10 at 7:09 am
If you look at the way they’ve trashed peoples rights, abused the legal system, attacked civil liberties and generally walked all over the populace I dread to think what another 20% of NuLieBore would do to us!!
But (as usual) I think Voldemort is lying – you can’t be 80% fucked, basically once its happening to you, you’re just fucked…which is where we all are now.
Marksany said...
19 Jul 10 at 7:14 am
I saw him say that on Marr yesterday.
I the same thought about the Pareto principal. But really they achieved 100% of their aim for 13 years : being in power.
R Grey said...
19 Jul 10 at 9:20 am
Politics reduced to meaningless soundbites.
Really can’t be arsed to listen to such trite, and they are all doing it.
Bruce said...
19 Jul 10 at 12:11 pm
Or to put it another way. They only put in 20% of the effort required.
Andrew Zalotocky said...
19 Jul 10 at 10:09 pm
Future historians will be astonished at how Labour totally squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity. In 1997 the economy was flourishing and most people didn’t see any serious threats on the horizon. It was a time of milk and honey – OK, designer lager and 125% mortgages – when people were so complacent they actually took Fukuyama’s “The End of History” seriously.
Blair had a mandate to reform the public sector and if he had only had the will to face down the unions he could have created a new pragmatic settlement that would have lasted for decades. But he blew it. He backed down in the face of opposition and left “throw money at the problem” as the only remaining option, then tried to cover it up with spin.
In foreign policy Blair did stick to his guns (no pun intended) and supported what he believed to be right regardless of the opposition. Yet in the debate over Iraq he relied on spin and subterfuge to make his case. He had a chance to make a lasting case for what he believed in and he blew it.
Worst of all for the British taxpayer he let Gordon Brown gradually take over the government. At the height of his popularity Blair could easily have found some pretext to get rid of Brown but he wasn’t willing to risk it. Bottler Blair made bottler Brown possible.
That’s what history will remember about New Labour: buck-passing, cowardice and an almost unbelievable ability to turn potential triumphs into disaster. They faced an open goal from two yards out and they sliced the ball into row Z of a stadium two hundred miles away, over and over again.
Jon said...
22 Jul 10 at 8:58 am
Andrew – your post will be copy/ pasted by future generations of school children. I think the pithiest, most balanced summary yet.
Also – please can we agree to stop calling him Tony Bliar, or it NuLiebore, or any other pretend- funny play on words. However good the argument you’re making, you just read like a bit of a plonker.
Mark Iliff said...
22 Jul 10 at 9:05 am
Hey, Jon, could you publish your email? It would obviously save embarrassment if we could check our opinions and phrasing with you before publication. Wouldn’t do to look like a plonker…
µ
Steve said...
22 Jul 10 at 11:06 am
Mandy was wrong. Labour achieved almost 100 per cent of their aim, which as all good socialists know was to screw the country for as much (and for as long) as they could.
chris strange said...
23 Jul 10 at 2:01 pm
During the 13 years they were in power they doubled the length of time that you can be locked up without even a charge against you 3 times, which makes one double every 4 years or so. At that rate by the time they had been in power for the 65 years it would ahve taken to accomplish everything else they wanted the length of time you could be locked up without being told a reason would be about 65536 years. Which is rather longer than the whole of recorded history. Good thing they are gone.