After ten years in office. the reins are now to be handed over to our robbing chancellor Gordon Brown!

Any thoughts/refelctions?

Personally I don't think he has done a bad job, September 11 2001 changed everything and put him in a position few British leaders have been confronted with since the last world war. He certainly had had success in Northern Ireland before that and largely eliminated the threat of the IRA on our shores, and generally as a person I have always felt of him as an intelligent, calm, freindly man who has certainly moved the country on from the Major days...

And he is a keen tennis fan :D

:yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

:party: :party: :party: :party:

:dancer1: :dancer1: :dancer1: :dancer1:

:chesire: :chesire: :chesire: :chesire:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I assume that is in salute of him being a keen tennis fan then roflmao

how much more fuel tax will get put on with Brown as PM then do you reckon :P

I think he made a bad decision with the Iraq War, or at least handled the whole situation badly.

On the whole I would say he was a pretty good PM, and that expectations were a little high in 1997.

Whether it's Gordon Brown or David Cameron as PM in a few years time, I guarantee they won't be a patch on Tony Blair.

surely that will be up to his chancellor?

Other than the IRA peace accords (which Major had started to move forward with in 1995, and which I would give a huge amount of credit to Mo Mowlam and Bill Clinton for their actions there), the War in Iraq and the introduction of the minimum wage (which was actually a European treaty which Blair signed us up to) what is Blair going to be remembered for? What has he done? how has he moved Britain on from the Major years.

oops - i forgot the introduction of tuition fees...... :unsure:

Devolution in Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland? :P

Leading the most consistently strong and stable economy the U.K has had in decades?

Mixed feelings about the man and his legacy. Ultimately whilst he did bring about some good changes, and at long last much of what he did reflected the attitude of the people, he is for me a man who missed some golden opportunities and made some big blunders because of three major faults - a desire to be liked, a combination of an aversion to the boring details with a preference for following convictions, and an extraordinary self-belief in his 'messianic' powers of persuasion.

We had a lot of talk about changing public services - and the current model is not sustainable for the future with an aging population and the new economies of India and China breathing down the neck of the indolent west, that's for sure, but he spent the money first and tried to change it later. One should have come as a condition for the other. Things are better, sure, but he has not got value for money which will come home to haunt us.

PFI - even the Tories, who thought of it, did not put it into practice because they recognised that the market would want too much money. Blair and Brown went for it because it enables expenditure to be kept off the public balance sheet enabling Brown to bleat on about prudence and leave the poor beggars who will have to pay for it to vote for/against the next generation of politicians.

Iraq - he could see the top of the hill clearly enough, why it would be nice to have a Saddam-free world, but he did not give the other side a thought - whether it would really be better without Saddam. That was criminally negligent. There was an ace programe about him the other night and a former FO aide described how Chirac gave 4-5 calm reasons for not invading Iraq to Blair that all turned out to be true - when asked what the plan for the future was he apparently satisfied himself with the notion that the Americans had "done a lot of work". The trouble was that Tony had not wanted to offend his nice new friend Dubaya who was smarting after 9/11 and had sold himself to the plan too early and for nothing in return - at the very least he should have said that any support was conditional on seeing and having a hand in a programme for dealing with Iraq after the war that would work, and that if there was not one he could not support the war.

Cash for access/peerages - Bernie Ecclestone, need I say more..

In the interests of balance...

Northern Ireland - that does seem to have been a success, and says a lot for his obvious patience and personability, but it may have contributed to his belief that he could persuade other more disparate people in other parts of the world.

House of Lords - he has not finished the job, which is a very difficult one, but getting rid of hereditary peers was very important. The fact that we had a hereditary principle for selecting politicians sent such unfortunate messages out that getting rid of it was IMHO vital. yes, what's left is a jumble, but you try and work it out!

Freedom of Information - such a good idea that they are now trying to stop it working!

I am distinctly underwhelmed about his departure.

Unfortunately for him the disaster that is Iraq will overshadow everything else about his time in office.

There was a good piece in the Guardian the other day which ranked the post 1830 Prime Ministers in terms of achievement - so first rank, second rank, third rank & failures.

Blair was third rank which sounds about right.

oh yeah, devolution - which in Scotland is relatively successful, although has caused a few issues with the possibility of a separate English parliament. Welsh devolution is highly interesting - the Assembly has very few powers, and it was interesting that they scheduled the referendum on Welsh devolution after the Scottish one in the hope that they would be able to ride a tide of nationalism. Even then the referendum in Wales was only very very narrowly in favour of devolution. but yes, devolution is one....

I'm not an economist so i don't know much about the economy, but yes, you're right - there has been a long, uninterrupted economic growth, although unemployment is rising again, Also, household debt is rising - so people in the UK tend to be in more debt than they were 10 years ago, and productivity is decreasing.

To be fair, i'm not a big fna of Blair. I think he made the mistake of pandering to the media early on in his premiership, and that led to short-termist solutions for big problems. I also he think he slowly turned his role in to that of a president in some ways - I miss the days when we had political heavyweights in the cabinet - jack straw, robin cook, mo mowlam, david blunkett. I think he made some awful decisions about Iraq which I feel may end up reverberating in this country for many years to come.

However, I don'y necessarily think he was better or worse than any other PM in the last 50 years. But i do think that evaluating his premiership by saying "well, he seemed like a decent sort of chap" is a bit redundant. Look at his policies, look at his decisions, look at the effect that his premiership will have on this country for the next 10 years......edit: like Barrystar has done :ok:

I agree with your post.

He has turn the post of PM into a bit of a Presidency, good or bad?

Time will tell, I tend to think he was a good PM, but only time will tell whether the things he has done were for the best or not.....

goodbye new Labour.

personally i think the presidentializing of the post of PM has been a bad thing. We do not vote for the PM - i personally, did not vote for Tony Blair, I voted for my local MP. I also didn't vote for Brown - his consitutency in Scotland voted for him and then Labour voted him as their leader. Therefore, for that 1 person to have so much power seems like a bad idea to me - there aren't the same system of checks and balances in this country as there are in France or places where they have a president.

However, I also don't think it was just Blair in went in this direction - Thatcher did as well an it was only really 'cos Major has no control over his party that he moved back towards cabinet responsibility.

I think you're right and I think history will judge Blair, but i think history tends to remember the bad stuff:

Major - divisions over Europe
Thatcher - Falklands (good thing) and the miners strike
Callaghan - 3 day week/winter of discontent
Eden - suez crisis

i could go on, but the point is that i think Blair will be remembered for Iraw - 'cos that's just how life goes :shrug:

Can't agree with that - Gordon Brown was its architect just as much as Blair, even more so as I imagine that he provided more of the intellectual (?) content.

Gordon Brown won't talk about it, but he won't change much. How could he as the most powerful and invasive Chancellor in living memory? He won't say that he got it all wrong over the last 10 years.

I think we'll see a big difference in presentation, but in substance...... nah

Don't forget also that the Labour party is £23m in debt - where's Gordy going to find the money? Will he be able to think of looking for it in places that Tony didn't?

Just heard him speak as new PM - all about the need for change. So he does think that the last 10 years with him as Chancellor have been shite then?

Changes, changes, changes... it's all politicians blather on about, but inevitably the only changes involve us shelling out more money. That's life and the fact is, there's very little room with which Brown, just like Blair, can manoeuvre and I doubt he'll make any significant changes.

As someone who understands politics, but is content to only judge politicians on the impact they have on my life, I think Blair's been a decent enough PM. Like Jo says, they're generally remembered for the bad things - look at Clinton, who may well have been the best President for a hell of a long time, and a lot of us only remember him for Monica Lewinsky - but I agreed with going to Iraq.

I was all for going after Saddam as well so it is difficult to criticise the decision to go in - I had imagined that they had a plan to make things better. I like to think that if I had been told that the plan involved allowing vast number of looters onto the street within 24hrs of the fall of Saddam and then fiddling around whilst the Iraqis tore themselves apart I would have been against.

In the final analysis, I think I am entitled to criticise the powers that be for their apparent lack of foresight as to what to do when the war was won.

I like to try and be fair and to remember politicians for good and bad. Usually the good things are small - Callaghan said that he was most proud of introducing 'cats' eyes' on the road because they had saved so many lives. It is usually with unsexy infrastructure or systemic changes that politicians do what they should really want to do - change peoples lives for the better. The big issues of the day frequently turn out to be less significant in later years and amount to willy waving between testosterone ego-fueled politicians arguing about the effects of inevitable cock-ups. However, bad decisions do often end up having long term effects - the Iraq cock-up is one of those, so too is over-spending with a return, but an inadequate one.

Obviously, Iraq turned out to be a worse decision than anyone could have imagined, but at the time I felt it was important for this country to keep good relations with America. As much as the Brits might like to think they're a liked and respected worldwide force, they're not, and need a 'bigger brother' around to take care of any difficulties they may get into.

So for that reason, even with hindsight, I'm unsure I'd have changed my mind on the issue. I was against the War in Iraq, but paradoxically, in agreement with the Brits joining it once the Yanks had stormed in, if you catch my drift.

Incidentally, I really dislike the Americans (constantly interfering, Iraq being a good example of this, but more pertinently their meddling with Colombia in the 90s when Escobar was at his prime) and it's with pity that I feel this country needs their support.

Yes Wise - me too, I thought we ought to stand shoulder to shoulder with our greatest allies. But we have not always done that. We refused to go into Vietnam with them under Harold Wilson.

Put it this way, if your best friend asked you to join him in putting your cock in a waffle iron you would decline politely wouldn't you?

The other point is that TB was in a position to try and execise some influence on the original decision - although we probably ought not to over-estimate his ability to do that.

Depends if 'waffle iron' was a euphemism, I guess... after all, they are two things women tend to do ;)

...and more saliently, if this friend was the guy who stopped me being beaten up by the other kids at school, then I'd probably prefer to just cope with a charred cock.

I wasn't in this country for Vietnam, but I also applaud that decision - my overriding feeling is simply that I understand why Blair did send troops to Iraq. I wasn't in full support of it, I just saw why he'd done it and realise that it would have taken a brave man to turn the other cheek. Add Iraq to Vietnam and there'd surely be growing unrest amongst our American 'allies'?

That's all fair Wise - and I understand why he did it. I don't like the 'hows' though - cooking up a case on WMD that was, if not dishonest, flakey and inadequately examined, and banging on about morality and hard choices.

You made the point - it would have been tough to say no, Blair took the less difficult option.

With hindsight, if we had said no I think that the Americans would forgive us and think that we were right and wish that their president had done the same - but hindsight is a great thing.

(Waffle Iron was not a euphemism)

True - I'm certain Blair did it purely for the same reason as I specified, i.e. to keep good relations with Mr. Bush. While a bit of honesty would have been nice, it'd also have left him open to accusations of cowardice, ass-kissing etc, which no matter how true, would have been a bit of a PR disaster. No matter how much we slate his excuses, I think deep down the public would prefer them, which leave a slight whiff of credibility lingering, to simply saying "I don't wanna p*ss off the Yanks".

Anyway, we're hardly poles apart on this, and as a non-Brit, patriotism and pride don't come into it so much. I did in fact adore the hostility shown to the Americans by us Colombians when they stuck their noses in over Escobar, Rodriguez and the guerillas. If I was English, no doubt I'd have been furious at Blair's decision.

Shame - would have been a good one :whistle:

Well, a fair deal of bitching and negativity unsurprisingly, no wonder people are discouraged from going into politics, it's all so negative! roflmao

I thought the standing ovation and nice words from the opposition leaders was a nice touch too yesterday.

I think you'll only see how good Tony Blair was now Gordon Brown is in charge, my money is that he may well make quite a fool of himself at times, certainly not as slick as Tony. And probably not as popular as a person either, the amount of people who moan about the taxes on fuel duty etc. in this country - Brown is the man responsible, he may well suffer with fallout from that...

Anyway, you guys who moan about Blair (and presumably the rest of the Labour government) tell me what the difference is in the opposition at the moment? I see it as perhaps a sign of his legacy that the Tories are trying to turn into Labour if nothing else roflmao

Politics has become all about winning, instead of policies. That is very bad news for politics full stop

Blair's mediocre legacy will inevitably be severely tarnished by the catastrophe that was the Iraq war.
I always thought the justification for the war was unsound epistemologically speaking-you have to have a sound unequivocal reason to take up arms against a nation or risk undermining of the principle sovereignty, international cohesion
and creating a situation worse than the one which initially presented itself.
It's not that i doubted Blair's sincerity, it's his logic or lack of it regarding Iraq that was so disheartening.

He failed to grasp the nettle of reform of public services like health and education while he was still very popular-these problems are unresolved long term and will have to be tackled at some point in the future.

Anyone who thinks devolution is a massive success should watch with interest the relationship between the new Scottish parliament ans Westminster-and the West Lothian Question has never been successfully answered.

I think Blair and Cameron represent the end of political ideology and the belief in politics as a means for social change. What we increasingly have is an extraordinarily unedifying battle for the centre ground-undermining the most important tenet of democracy-CHOICE.

Blair's legacy is hardly mediocre whichever way you look at it. Devolution has been the biggest constitutional change in a century, so while I do agree that bad things are remembered more I must say his legacy won't be JUST the Iraq war. Also the West Lothian question has been answered. A referendum was set up to ask the people of North East England if they wanted their own Regional Assembly and they said nay. Their position is pretty clear.

Also I must say that for me the Welsh Assembly has introduced some brilliant reforms. Higher Education in Wales goes from strength to strength with the limit of top up fees here, Welsh universities become ever more popular and prosperous. Free prescriptions for under 25s, abolition of school league tables, as well as the work that is pumped into Cardiff. Which is a great captiol of Wales and is widely regarded as one of the most cultural and fulfilling cities in Europe.

i don't think that referendum answers the West Lothian Question. I would say holding a referedum on whether the english people want and english parliament would answer it. Isn't it unfair that a scottish MP gets to vote on English issues (i believe they were allowed to vote in the tuition fees vote, except a few who actually abstained) but english MPs have no say in scottish issues?

And can you see the other issue of devolution? how is it fair that if i go to unversity in scotland i have to pay fees, but if a scottish student goes to uni in england they don't?

Re: devolution. Isn't the entire point is that different areas give their own answers to different issues? Im not quite sure I understand what you mean about the tuition fees. I don't really know about the rules in Scotland. I go to uni in England and pay more out of choice. So, no I don't feel it's unfair.

As for the West Lothian Question, well yes you're right. But England is a lot bigger than Scotland in terms of population. There aren't that many Scottish MPs compared to English MPs anyway. Not THAT many English only issues get brought before Parliament in relation to the larger, broader debates that get brought in that affect all of the U.K and even the world. Therefore the answer would be having regional assemblies to deal with local matters and attaching proper attention to them. An English Parliament imo is an inefficient way of doing things.

But like I said the people who were asked say no to that. Seems they're not bothered by the West Lothian question to me.

Tony Blair's assessment:

Good Points: managed to steer the Labour party from the wilderness and into power after a long awaited period fo Thathcerite materialism and economic lies

Bad points: turned the Labour party into Tories, so what was the f*cking point?

End of."

Perfectly put SB,
you've encapsulated the pointlessness of the Blair project!

Yes SB did some up Blair aptly.

Unfortunately..or not...depending on who you are; politics is played out in the centre these days, so it's all about who can do the same things but best, perhaps the lesser of two evils. Difficult to say sometimes.

With respect Serena,
even Blair supporters wouldn't claim Blair to be one of the greatest PM's ever and his impact in terms of social change, reform and the positive impact on peoples lives is mediocre at best.
When stood next to the likes of Churchill, Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher his impact upon our nations character is not great. I wouldn't even rate Blairs premiership as high as say Baldwin or Macmillans.

Take Thatcher for example-i'm on fan of hers, but that's beside the point, she changed many things which effect peoples lives quite profoundly. The trade union reforms that Thatcher brought about have effected working practice and the power of trade unions significantly-altering the very psyche of much of workplace in this country.
If it's harder to strike, unions have lass power -if they have less power those who own the means of production have more-it's a simple equation which governs industrial relations to this day-you don't have to be a Marxist to understand or believe that.

In historical terms devolution is tiny in terms of the effects it has on the lives of people-of course the English aren't directly effected at all.
And i am at a loss to see how 'the West Lothian question has been answered' by giving other people the opportunity for devolution.
To have Scottish MPs voting on policies for England while English MPs can no longer vote on policies for Scotland (as was previously the case in many areas of legislation) is a constitutional absurdity that has never been resolved since Labour MP Tam Dalyell first posed the ‘West Lothian question’.
To have a Scot, elected by a Scottish constituency, as Prime Minister in the English Parliament while the SNP is in power in Scotland on a platform of national independence will propel this unresolved conundrum to the top of the political agenda. Those who disapproved of devolution will soon have the pleasure of witnessing Brown dither, duck and dive to avoid SNP opportunism.
It will also put fuel behind the movement for Scottish independence. Alex Salmond will magnify every possible Scottish disadvantage and grievance, putting Prime Minister Brown on the back foot at every opportunity. And if Scotland did eventually vote for independence, that would simply spell the end of Labour’s prospects of ever forming another government-now what sort of a foot note to Blairs premiership would that be?
As SB pointed out Blair is Thatchers child -he gained power by selling the soul of the Labour Party-what's the point of power without principle

However -free prescriptions for the under 25's in Wales-you just can't fool the children of the revolution can you!

I never said he was the best, but he's a very good PM. And the impact he has had on people's lives in subjective. So is whether he has been medicore or not.

And with respect also, we haven't lived under many of the undoubtedly great PMs you mentioned so we can only judge their legacy not what they were actually like to live under. Time will tell Blair's legacy, devolution is a journey not an endpoint. So we will see how it ends.

I don't really see what's so wrong with Blair stealing Thatcher's clothes either. He's done it better and more diplomatically than her imo.

The West Lothian is hardly an "absurdity." And most people don't seem to give a damn about it. I outlined in one of my earlier posts why it isn't all that bad imo.

Also there are greater pressing consitutional problems imo. Such as the multiple plurality voting system, which is used for General Elections. Which is totatlly ludicrous. I see the West Lothian system as several rungs below that in terms of an "issue" of democracy.

I agree you didn't say Blair was the best, i didn't mean to imply you did, it was my preamble which does suggest you did say something along those lines-the first part of my post was intended to contextualise Blairs premiership with other PM's.

The west lothian question is an absurdity, for the precise reasons i outlined, but i'm not claiming, it's the biggest issue at all, it's just one of my many objections to devolution and was made in connection to that broader point.

Blair has a certain charm and has had some successes, i voted for him myself.
There are many points that could be made about why his stealing Thatchers clothes is wrong, the biggest is having all the parties the same-if there is little choice-how can you have democracy? Ok they're not exactly the same but in historical terms very very similar.
Democracy necessitates choice-it's the fabric of the political system, the danger in any society is that if people do not think change can happen politically, they may use other less desirable means to achieve their ends.

Im sorry but I just can't agree that it's absurd. An unforunate situation perhaps, something to adress but hardly an insult to democracy.

Also I don't agree that devolution is tiny from an historical standpoint either; in terms of political effects or the effects in people's lives. Most politics textbooks and experts will agree it's possibly the greatest constitutional change, in statute at least, since the Act of Union in 1877. It's a daring an enigmatic move by Blair and only time will tell how far reaching the effects will be. It opens the door to possible devolution in the regions of England also, particularly the north/south divide that still exists.

Having all the parties the same isn't Blair's doing either. You seem to be out to get him :lol: It's happening in many countries, a side-effect of globalisation perhaps? But politics is moving towards the centre in general and the extreemes are disappearing. In the U.S the Republican and Democrat parties are becoming more similar, from what I've read. In fact regional differences are separating party politics in the U.S more than party itself. Democracy necessitates choice is a good way of putting it...but the only way to change the way party policy is, is to be become active in politics and try to make things happen. Are you a member of a political party out of interest? As I feel if more people in our country cared about politics, the percentage of the general pop voting is going down each time, then perhaps people power could do something. But as it is, I don't think enough people are interested. Hence why there is so much academic discussion, but so little movement in the dynamics of British politics.

Thanks :D Blair Witchc Project morelike, or is it the Blair-Bush Project? roflmao

I spent 4 years studying politics at degree level, and that was the best I could come up with; they gave anyone a degree in 1992 ;) roflmao

You are so right. Everthing has swung towards the centre. I recall reading this article by a Japanese Professor with the unfortunate name of Fukuama (well it was unfortuneate with my pronounciatio). in abotu 1990 who said that as far as politicla ideologies were concerend it was "The End of History". He said that the world would move towards a more central Liberal democratic ideology and then what would be the point of being political? I remember as young(er!) idealistic woman of some 25 years old hoping that that would not happen and that there would be soem point to politics - for me the extremes make it worthwhile and provide debate and hopefully some progress as a result fo the debate. I also recall being highly politcally motivated and interested at the age of 14, it was very us and them back then as in left and right, and these 'wishy washy' people in the middle. I was into CND and such, quite left wing but then I was a child who grew up in a working class community that had the life and soul crushed by Thatcher's extremeism.

It felt like there was something to fight for back then though, now it all seems pointless. I spent a good 15year sof my life beign a very poilitical person and now I hardly am, in terms of interest in current affiars and domestic and world politics that is. Obviously i am still interested, but tend to reflect on the past as more interesting than the future. Shiftign the consenus to a permanet slightyl right of centre state is not for me and is so boring really - and guess who many say did that? Thatcher! It's true if you read up, she craftily did so without us realsiign it and after she had doen it in many ways Labour had no alterntive but to change their postiion on th epolitcal spectrum too. I am a major Thatcher detractor, but I must say that mamanging to shift consensus is a major poltical achievement and she deserves a round fo applause for doing that in politicla terms. Not a round of applause though for what ensued as a result though! roflmao

Hmmm...I voted for Blair in 1997, then went off him very quickly, and found myself demonstrating against his policies on several occasions (against tuition fees/abolition of student grant, and then against Iraq war).

However, with the exception of the terrorist threat which has been inflamed due to UK foreign policy, I have to admit the country is in a better state than it was in 1997. The performance of economy, minimum wage, working family tax credits, investment in education, peace in Northern Ireland and devolution have all made Britain into a better place.

Whilst I was glad to see the back of him, and I'm fairly happy with Gordon Brown so far, I think that we need time for a bit of perspective to look back on the Tony Blair era.

There's a fair few negative things, but Blair did change this country for the better, and did a whole lot better than the Tories would have done. He could have achieved more had he not lost his way for the last 3-4 years I thought (the mistake on going to war in Iraq made him lose focus on domestic policy). Hopefully Gordon Brown will continue the clear sense of purpose he's shown so far and stick to some of his old labour principles at least on affordable housing, taxation and reducing poverty.

All i'm going to say is that it's very easy to rebel against something, but very difficult to make the actual decision.

Anyway, as regards the war in Iraq, well TB was just a bit unlucky really. The only party that was going to oppose the war was the Lib Dems, and they just won't get in. People will just have to live with the fact that we would have gone to war in iraq whether it was a tory or labour government in charge...

I certainly think it was better to have Tony Blair than "grey" John Major in 1997, better to have Blair than Hague in 2001 (remember the desperate "Dump the Pump" campaign? The real people who mattered saw to a proper rebellion a few months later with the blockade roflmao ), and certainly better to have Blair than dracula Howard in 2005 (would not trust him as far as I could throw him)!

Politics is not about beliefs anymore, or even improving the country as a whole. It's just power. That's why politics hardly matters to a lot of people any more.

The book if i remember (i could get this wrong)
Was called 'The end of history, and the last man standing'
and as you say, modern western societies have all been moving towards liberalism-they aren't yet there, but the egalitarian precepts of the French revolution, Thomas paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Utilitarian philosophers etc etc,
have driven western societies like the UK for many years.
But liberalism (By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship — from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law) has to be underpinned by, not superimposed upon democracy.
Without true democracy (which gives individuals a real choice-not just variations of the same thing) groups will inevitably hard done by.
the undermining of democracy in part by Blair and now Cameron will inevitably lead to political reaction ism-which itself undermines liberalism-the two are inextricably linked.