Tony Blair

[InsaneApache]

I'm celebrating, so ner! :balloon2:

Tony Blair.

Is the UK better now after a decade under the 'holy one'?

IMO Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(UK_politician)) would have made a much better fist of it. Blair squandered the legacy of the eighties, a lot of ordinary people went through financial hell back then.

So, was Tony a winner or a loser for the UK?

I'll keep my council for the moment. Some of you may be surprised.

Thoughts?

[HoreTore]

No idea about the UK, but he sure has made this country worse by influencing/brainwashing our PM to think that "privatization is the new pink".

Hang the both of them, I say.

[InsaneApache]

:laugh4:

[Geoffrey S]

I think things needed changing. I think he went about it in all the wrong ways, though.

[KukriKhan]

For us yanks, he was great.

For the UK, I leave that judgment to UKers.

For the world in general, I think he did more good than bad.

Congrats again on the new Apache. :thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I still think Tony was one of the better post-war PM's.

His first half was better than the second half though, when some of his worse qualities started to gain more prominence.

[Scurvy]

Good-ish, the last term has been unfortunate, but that aside generally positive...

:2thumbsup:

[rory_20_uk]

He had belief in what he was doing. Sadly that allowed him to divorce himself from reality.

There was also too great a trend towards media-friendly government with a view that saying an action plan was in the pipelines was in many ways better than considered thought on how to deal with the problem.

Giving the Bank of England autonomy was a great idea; I hope that we see a similar setup for the NHS soon.

Devolution was OK in principle. In practise the devolved areas should have had to fund the reality that they wanted, and give up seats in Westminster on all votes that did not concern them.

Blair became frustrated that goals in the centre did not correspond to change in the periphery. So more tests and forms were created to make things better. This of course meant more service was done to the forms than to the supposed results. A more measured, slower response would have helped aviod this.

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

A scumbag.
What he believed is irrelevant. He was prime minister, a servant of his nation, not his feelings.
I doubt history will look upon his idiocy kindly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Generally bad, no principles, no connection to reality, good in a crisis, which he or his ministers created, good at foriegn policy, until Iraq.

Unquestionably the country is worse off now than when he came to power, with more national and personal dept, a bloated private sector, too many laws, failing health service, failing education, cripled public services and cripled armed forces.

Most of this though can be at least halted by slashing paperwork, removing target based wages and making lots of patriotic speeches and then following through on them.

[English assassin]

Of course its no better. What exactly have we got for the extra billions spent on public services? Education:diddly. Housing: less than diddly (although that may be due to half of Eastern Europe living here now) Police and defence? It would be a nice idea. Health: some marginal improvement, to be fair, but not what you would expect from the billions pumped in. Pensions and care for the elderly: diddly. The constitution ****** around with, more infringement of our liberties than Michael Howard ever dreamt of, and a foreign war we didn't need.

Yeah, a great record.

Whether Smith would have been any better I don't know, but at least I could see why he was in the labour party. Blair's big idea was that the world would be a better place if we were all a bit nicer. So it would, but we aren't all nice middle class public school* educated barristers are we Tony?

* translation: private school

[Geoffrey S]

I'll definitely agree that for the billions government pumped into all kinds of education, health and other public stuff very little has improved.

[Pannonian]

Of course its no better. What exactly have we got for the extra billions spent on public services? Education:diddly. Housing: less than diddly (although that may be due to half of Eastern Europe living here now) Police and defence? It would be a nice idea. Health: some marginal improvement, to be fair, but not what you would expect from the billions pumped in.

The government's screwed either way though on spending. Put in the money but allow the civil servants a free hand on how the money is spent, and money disappears like snow in a desert. Put in the money, but demand strict oversight to see that it's all accounted for, and the civil servants complain about red tape.

The main problem with Blair was that he never had a coherent programme for making Britain a better place, only to perpetuate the existing tendencies of British society. Whether one agrees with them or not, the only coherent programmes to come out of Blair's reign were distinctively Brown's (the focus on addressing social problems at childhood before they appear later).

[econ21]

I think there are two questions here:
(1) what has the Labour government achieved?
and
(2) what was Tony Blair's own contribution to those achievements?


1. What has the Labour government achieved?

On the bigger, first question, I think the scorecard is pretty good:

The economy: seems fundamentally sound; we've enjoyed decent stable growth without interruption - which is pretty good by post-War UK standards (when I started studying economics in the early 1980s, the textbooks were full of stories of a long term British economic decline and enviously comparing us with Germany or Japan). Inflation is low; jobs so buoyant, we can afford to employ half of Eastern Europe as EA rightly observed. How much of this was due to Labour? Who knows? But at least they did not mess things up, like Thatcher did with her bust and boom or Major with the ERM debacle. Labour has encouraged stability, by moves such as making the Bank of England independent, and generally been more market friendly than might have been expected. The Tories biggest card used to be public doubts over Labour's economic competence. The Blair government's biggest achievement has been dismissing that.

Poverty: there's been a fair amount of redistribution by stealth, contributing to big falls in child (800,000) and pensioner poverty (1m). Changes in benefits, tax credits and the minimum wage all play a role (as, of course, does the buoyant economy).

Crime: 35% fall overall. How much was due to labour? Again, who knows? But record police numbers (and increases in the severity of sentencing) probably did not hurt.

Education: Record literacy and numeracy results; record every other kind of test scores too (GSCE, A-level). People can argue whether tests got easier, but personally my opinion is that university students now are well ahead of my generation (and they need to be, due to global academic advances in disciplines). How much was Labour? Perhaps not much, but things like the literacy and numeracy hour were probably very effective. The higher salaries for teachers and other increases in educational funding may have played a role too. The big boost in numbers going into Higher Education is due to government quotas going up. Free pre-school places is a gain.

Health: Massive amounts of money going in. A lot going to pay staff, but arguably they need it (the economic growth implies real labour costs will have to rise, if you don't want the public sector staffed by duffers). A lot of specific improvements in other areas - reduced waiting lists, cancer treatments etc.

International aid: doubled under Labour, with Britain taking a lead in helping the poorest countries.

Northern Ireland: the peace there is perhaps Labour's greatest achievement for Britain. The government can't claim all the credit of course. But Blair's personal skills and determination, along with those of his Northern Ireland ministers (Mowlam; Mandelson etc), did play a role in keeping the frustrating stop-go peace process going.

Foreign affairs: the intervention in Sierra Leone seems to have been very successful. Kosovo and Afghanistan more mixed; Iraq awful. Britain's relations with Europe, the US and most of the world seem pretty good.


2. What did Blair contribute personally?

On the second issue, how much of the above scorecard was personally due to Tony Blair, it is almost impossible to say. He worked very closely with Gordon Brown, so I don't expect too much change at least in domestic terms. Perhaps Brown or Smith (or Kinnock) would have done similar things if given the chance. But Blair's main personal achievement may have been in making these achievements possible - or palatable - to the British public. By his charm and deft handing of some issues - such as Diana's death - he managed fickle public opinion (including scares such as the fuel protests). Most other potential Labour leaders probably would have been told to sling their hook earlier.

Where Blair came unstuck was largely over Iraq. I am not sure whether other potential Labour leaders would have avoided becoming ensnared in Bush's bizarre Iraq project, but they would not have been the big cheerleader that Blair was. Blair's last service was to take a bullet for Labour and become the lightning rod for all the public discontent over the government - allowing Brown to enjoy a honeymoon. I feared Blair would take Brown down with him, but due to the difference in personalities and style, the new PM has a fighting chance of winning the next election.

Could another Labour leader have won three terms? With the Tories on self-destruct until recently, perhaps. But then one should not underestimate Blair's contribution in unnerving the Tories and sending them into self-destruct. With a weaker Labour leader (a Kinnock or Smith), they might have smelt blood after one term and got the discipline/sense to put up a credible leader. Perhaps, like Thatcher, one of his biggest contributions has been in neutering the opposition for a period and ultimately spawning an opposition leader in his image. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, David Cameron.



PS: Belated congratulations on the Grand-apache, IA. :balloon:

[Geoffrey S]

Blair's last service was to take a bullet for Labour and become the lightning rod for all the public discontent over the government - allowing Brown to enjoy a honeymoon. I feared Blair would take Brown down with him, but due to the difference in personalities and style, the new PM has a fighting chance of winning the next election.
This, is crucial. Whatever did or didn't go wrong during his terms, it's not the Labour Party but Blair personally who will be held responsible. Brown has kept a clean image throughout. Cameron is designed to go after someone like Blair, with little policy and all personality, and what policies he follows are reactive (to the incumbent and public) by nature; can such a political lightweight take on a genuine heavyweight like Brown?

[rory_20_uk]

This, is crucial. Whatever did or didn't go wrong during his terms, it's not the Labour Party but Blair personally who will be held responsible. Brown has kept a clean image throughout. Cameron is designed to go after someone like Blair, with little policy and all personality, and what policies he follows are reactive (to the incumbent and public) by nature; can such a political lightweight take on a genuine heavyweight like Brown?

So, after a decade it is not the Party but one man, allowing all Labour supporters to quietly attach their flag to the next leader who will of course right all wrongs.

Considering we are already partly drowning under paperwork thanks to Brown - we've got the longest tax guide in the world, and the number of mistakes because of it increases by leaps and bounds with repayments to some and failure to collect from others.

But no fear! Now he runs the whole country. I'm sure we'll have some more regulations to help straighten out other matters. The NHS for one hasn't quite got enough targets :wall:

Brown may be a heavyweight, but he's got his own massive flaws. Cameroon has the apparent staying power of gossamer and then there's the others.

These two exemplify why I don't vote: there's no one who I can vote for with a clear conscience

~:smoking:

[Geoffrey S]

So, after a decade it is not the Party but one man, allowing all Labour supporters to quietly attach their flag to the next leader who will of course right all wrongs.

Considering we are already partly drowning under paperwork thanks to Brown - we've got the longest tax guide in the world, and the number of mistakes because of it increases by leaps and bounds with repayments to some and failure to collect from others.

But no fear! Now he runs the whole country. I'm sure we'll have some more regulations to help straighten out other matters. The NHS for one hasn't quite got enough targets :wall:

Brown may be a heavyweight, but he's got his own massive flaws. Cameroon has the apparent staying power of gossamer and then there's the others.
I largely agree with you, but unfortunately that doesn't prevent the likely outcome of prime minister Brown in future due to a lack of any feasible opposition.

[macsen rufus]

Meh, maybe I read "Private Eye" a little more than any other print organ, but to me "billions pumped into..." health, education, housing etc really equates to "squandered on PFI deals that don't deliver." Which was Brown's doing, I admit. I think the phrase "urinated on to a vertical brick-built structure" about sums it up.

I had hopes of Blair before he was elected, but they rapidly evaporated. I found his personal style intensely smug, self-satisfied and condescending. With Iraq he plumbed the depths.

I think Northern Ireland will be the shining high point of his legacy, and that is not to be sneered at one jot. :bow:

[Tribesman]

we've got the longest tax guide in the world, and the number of mistakes because of it increases by leaps and bounds with repayments to some and failure to collect from others.

Rory , you have a point .
I have worked in many countries with many different tax systems .
Britains gets more and more complicated every year , the purpose seems to be to raise more money while being able to give a headline figure that appears to show you are taxing the population less and less .
In the "youth crime" topic I mentioned two professions that you should never skimp on . In Britain having an accountant is essential (and you can even write it off against tax:yes: )

[seireikhaan]

Rory , you have a point .
I have worked in many countries with many different tax systems .
Britains gets more and more complicated every year , the purpose seems to be to raise more money while being able to give a headline figure that appears to show you are taxing the population less and less .
In the "youth crime" topic I mentioned two professions that you should never skimp on . In Britain having an accountant is essential (and you can even write it off against tax:yes: )
Hmm, really now? *Heads off to UNI to get accounting degree
Actually, accounting is one of the things I'm considering for a degree when I graduate high school. Perhaps I'll move to Britain to strike it rich...

[macsen rufus]

In Britain having an accountant is essential (and you can even write it off against tax )

... and I can't think of any better proof that our tax system is FUBARed :laugh4: