Blairs Legacy

As blair continues to rake in the cash from speaking tours, JPMorgan etc - whilst still remaining AWOL from his role as Mideast peace envoy, and while his wife continues to earn millions protecting people against "human rights" violations - peadophiles, terrorists, murderers, rapists etc all benefitting from a law forced through by blairs government (no conflict of interest there though...) I thought I'd take a look at his time in office.

The reason for this is because it appears that brown is reaping what blair sowed, although regarding the economy, brown only has himself to blame.

Whilst reading through some of the articles about blairs time in office, I was stunned by the amount of outright lies told by blair and his "aides"

I've found a couple of sites and will post them here to see what others think

The first site is here and whilst I acknowledge that it biased,all the statements were made by blair.

Perhaps one of the most important political topics of recent times is Iraq.
Here's what blair had to say about it.

Here's some more
Anyone starting to see a pattern emerge?

Then we have the list of lies and sleaze by his party during his time in power - that's if he really was in charge - I mean according to him he knew very little about what was going on:
Lies, sleaze, broken promises and corruption

And just for good measure, here's some more.

I'm not going to go into every broken election promise - the "No New Taxes" pledge will do just fine.
More than 150 stealth taxes

That's before we even begin to look at "edukayshun", crime, prisons, immigration, NHS, NHS Dentists etc etc.

Under blair, everything had to have a soundbite, everything had to have spin and no-one was allowed to challenge any of this - if they did, they were smeared in the most outrageous fashion.

The problem is, the hens have come home to roost for brown - this is all catching up with him, not helped by the abolishment of the 10p tax.

There is also his perceived close association with blair - people lost trust and faith in bliar and now seem to be projecting that onto brown.
But I think that's fair - after all he was one of the main players, and did his own share of promoting these lies behind closed doors, especially when it came to taxes, and the promised vote on the new EU treaty.

"Here's the new treaty, same as the old treaty" except in browns eyes - or that's what he tells us...

I'm not sure that the tories would be any better, but how could things possibly be any worse?

[edit on 15/4/2008 by budski]

I have to agree budski.

Although, I think Blair had a natural talent, gift of the gab with the media and knew when to drop out of power. Avoiding many unpleasentries and keeping a mediocre name for himself.

Whereas Brown has never really been too popular has he? I know many a person that resent him purely on the basis he is Scottish. I think Blair may have known that Brown could be the perfect scapegoat and used it to his own advantage.

Just my two cents.

The only problem with that is that blair is also scottish and was born at the Queen Mary Maternity Home in Edinburgh, although he's done a pretty good job of hiding that fact...

What is strange, the people that performed a coup and forced Blair to go now regret making such a move now. Lastest opinion poll showed Labour would only be trailing the Tories by 5 points if Blair was still in power. (instead of 16!)

Why?

Like him or not, Blair could govern the country and was a decent Prime Minister. He could make a decision, whether good or bad (even unpopular), Blair would come to a conclusion. This is why Brown is unpopular, the lack of decision making.

Troops are currently doing nothing in Iraq, so why keep them there?

Northern Ireland saved Blair's reputation in my opinion. We gave him the benefit of the doubt, he ended a civil conflict and brought peace. Plus, as the Labour left said, Blair was the first major Western leader to truly care about Palestine and got the Americans to understand the importance of getting a state.

As The Independent wrote, who were extremely critical of Blair's premiership, a Palestinian state would be Blair's great redemption. During Christmas, ITV aired a special report about Bethlehem and the citizens wrote to Blair and asked him to help them. Blair then walked the streets, met the citizens and told them he would give them their nation.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by infinite]

Is it really so strange?

People are fickle and always think the grass is greener somewhere else.

Personally speaking, I think blair did and does care only about his wallet - and some sort of historical legacy.

Whatever happened to his role as mideast envoy anyway?

Has he even been there lately?

Or is he waiting til his pal dubya has finished re-making the region in an image more to his liking

i.e. as a series of vassal states controlled by puppets...

reply to post by budski


He is currently in the Middle East where his office is.

People are fickle and always think the grass is greener somewhere else

I'm not "fickle" budski, after having someone in my family killed by the IRA and my parents fled Northern Ireland, I happen to think Blair did a good job in bringing peace to Northern Ireland I'm entitled to voice a positive reflection, but it seems the "Iraq*" card prevents anyone from mentioning a positive part of his administration.

My judgement is not clouded by one single issue and I can make critical remarks about certain policies; health, defence and European (we should of enter the Euro).

History will be nicer to Blair than Bush.

*I supported the Iraq war too



[edit on 15-4-2008 by infinite]

I don't know where you got the idea that I said YOU were fickle - I said people are - and that statement goes for people forgetting about what blair did and seeing him as some kind of saint in comparison to brown, and that really isn't the case.

I also find it interesting that people forget about the NI conflict and the release of terrorists from prisons, when blair speaks about the war on terror.

I find it even more interesting that the US couldn't care less about terrorism and the provo's raising huge amounts of money in america - until it happened to them.

That said, and hypocrisy from blair aside, it was about the best ending to the troubles that could be hoped for.

My judgement is not clouded by a single issue, and I'd appreciate a little less patronising - my father and his family are from the republic of ireland but I see no need to go into how they suffered throughout many generations.
My maternal grandfather and his family were from newry, and they too suffered, so please choose your words a little more carefully until you actually know something about me.

Quite how you made the connection between a fickle electorate and NI is beyond me, but perhaps reading and not responding emotionally might be in order.

History may very well be nicer about blair, but that still doesn't excuse the mess he left the country in, and nor does it excuse his lies, the sleaze and the broken election pledges.

Besides - history would have to treat blair pretty shoddily to make him seem anywhere near as bad as bush.

Blair is like every other Prime Minister who preceded him - he did good things and bad things. I think you have to examine both sides to get the full picture of Blair's premiership and not just one of them.

Northern Ireland is definitely a feather in his cap - but it wasn't all his own work. John Major and his government did a lot of groundwork too, which was important to starting the whole process off. Nevertheless, Blair handled the situation very well and got the outcome he wanted. I also think Labour's economic policy in the first few years was good - prudence, independent Bank of England and so on.

The negative aspects are always easier to talk about because, as buski has already said, people seem to have a 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' view on things.

As for the connection with Scotland... does it matter? It's part of the UK, so a Scottish person has a much right to become Prime Minister as someone from England, Wales or Northern Ireland does. Surely it's policies and activities in office that matter, not which part of the UK someone is from?

Originally posted by Ste2652

As for the connection with Scotland... does it matter? It's part of the UK, so a Scottish person has a much right to become Prime Minister as someone from England, Wales or Northern Ireland does. Surely it's policies and activities in office that matter, not which part of the UK someone is from?

This single issue has a lot of people, myself included, rather angry.
For instance, Scottish MP's sit on, and can vote on issues in both the Scottish Assembly and Parliament. English MP's cannot sit or vote on issues in the Scottish Assembly.
As a result, there are many benefits being given to people North of the border which the rest of us do not get, but which are paid for from the same pot of tax money we all contribute to.

reply to post by Britguy


Somehow i don't think that particular issue is going to be addressed by Gordo either.

Odd how our current prime minister once advocated an independant scotland, and now is remarkably tight-lipped on the subject.

[Originally posted by Ste2652]
The negative aspects are always easier to talk about because, as buski has already said, people seem to have a 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' view on things.

It not because it's easier, it's because the negative aspects of life are always so much more pressing than the positive.

After all, you don't really see the way that Tony leant a hand to dealing with the Northern Ireland issue as a problem really.

An outstanding problem would be something akin to having an inept chancellor of the exchequer having to deal with the calamities brought in by the guy who was doing it before him.

Who is now, incidentially, our new prime minister.

There seems to be a culture of 'pass-the-buck' in our political climate at the minute - it's as if the problems are too big and no one wants to ask for help.

And of course, this is where competitiveness fails.

edit; Importantly, we cannot simply say "Oh, well we'll get someone else in" because that's passing the buck onto someone else, and all of a sudden no one seems capable of doing the job and people start to lose the most important thing in politics - their conviction.

The grass may be greener on the other side - but it's only because they're using bio-chemical hormone enhancers on theirs.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

reply to post by Britguy


I think one of the main problems with it is that per capita spending is higher in scotland than it is in england where most of the money is generated - this has caused quite a bit of controversy, but isn't wholly accurate, except if the numbers are weighted.

The NHS is just one example of this:
www.bmj.com...

Originally posted by Britguy
This single issue has a lot of people, myself included, rather angry.
For instance, Scottish MP's sit on, and can vote on issues in both the Scottish Assembly and Parliament. English MP's cannot sit or vote on issues in the Scottish Assembly.
As a result, there are many benefits being given to people North of the border which the rest of us do not get, but which are paid for from the same pot of tax money we all contribute to.

There are a lot of myths and outright lies about what Scotland gets that England supposedly doesn't. It's a bit like the EU and the whole 'straight bananas' episode - the right wing press went mad about it, ranting about how ridiculous it was... and it was invented by a journalist to see what kinds of things people would believe about the EU.

Let's take top-up fees, perhaps the most common example trotted out by the tabloids when bleating about the West Lothian question. Yes, it is true that Scottish students don't presently pay any fees but all students in Scotland must take out loans for accommodation, living costs and the like. Students in England get much larger grants to cover this side of studying, and more are eligible for the help too. Living costs are far higher than tuition fees - a year's university accommodation costs around £1,500 per year for a basic room (more if you want better quality/privately owned property). Add to that travel expenses, food, university essentials (books - I know some courses have basic textbooks costing £50 EACH!), utility bills and the fact that most universities are located in cities (which are, by definition, very expensive places to live) and you'll find that living costs add up to more than the £3,000 per annum that students in England have to pay for their studies.

Is the system perfect? Not at all. I'm not a fan of devolution, except in Northern Ireland. But this fuss over Scotland is both misleading and, in some cases, plainly untrue. If you like Scottish policies, by the way, lobby your MP to get them adopted in England and Wales too!

I think the press like to focus on these issues as a way of targetting brown, and previously blair.

I've seen the government described in the press as "the scottish mafia" and whilst I don't really like the people in power, this is a step too far.

The figures are out there, but in many cases are skewed - for instance south east weighting is applied in some area's and not in others, in order to make it look true, when the information is usually inaccurate.

Edit to add:
This article seems to show that the SE supports the UK but fails to take into account many other factors such as the higher earning rates per capita.

[edit on 16/4/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski


Of course... I often wonder how long it'll be till London and the South East want to ditch the North of England because of the 'subsidy' idea too. They bang on about being English when there are some huge differences within England itself in terms of culture, politics and economics.

Scottishness does seem to be used as a weapon against Brown, and I find it a little sad if you have to attack his nationality to get at him... it's his politics that are important, not where in the UK he's from. The same goes with Blair.

Back on topic, anyway. Brown was interviewed by an American journalist yesterday on the eve of his visit to the United States (for our American readers: Yes, our Prime Minister is visiting the US right now! So is the South Korean president. Although you may not have noticed because the Pope is hogging the lime light ), and the journalist asked him whether it was difficult being Blair's successor (because he was so media friendly and pretty famous in the US), whereas Brown seems quite the opposite.

I thought that was quite an interesting question... Blair wasn't afraid to show emotion and give the media a bit of what they wanted (I'm sure you all remember the "People's Princess" speech about Diana, and Blair was happy to pose with his family) whereas Brown seems more 'down to business' and a little colder in public. Has Blair's premiership led to a kind of expectation of Prime Ministers to be semi-celebrities as well as serious politicians?

[edit on 16/4/08 by Ste2652]

Blair's primary legacy is peace between the Irish & British traditions in Northern Ireland.

Those who experienced the full horrors of that period (especially the early 1970s) of the 'troubles (1968 - 1997) will know the value of this even if others are impatient to forget.

There's also the no-so-small matter of our current economic situation where the UK 'enjoys' record employment & our unemployment fast closing in on post-WW2 lows (as a % of the workforce), a return, no less, to 'full employment' in all but name.

As opposed to the 2 deepest & most severe recessions this country has known in modern times & a return of record levels of unemployment and low employment numbers...... brought by the only credible opposition we have
(ie the tory party).

UK jobless total lowest in 30yrs, record empolyment since comparable stats began in 1971

Then there's this little gem which runs counter to the current over-blown tales of woe & disaster -

UK living standards to outstrip US for first time in a century

Brown has yet to emerge as his own man yet, he has made a start but it's early days.

As for all that 'Scottish' guff?
S'funny how those English people who claim to be so offended about this (short-lived) phenomemon have no problems when we had a (much longer period of) tory England dictating to a Labour electing Scotland and Wales.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


I agree with your sentiments

Britain was able to "punch above her weight" under Blair, but to honest, I do feel sorry for Brown. Especially since Darling went abit funny today and decided to knife him in the back...

If the Bank of England and Treasury rescue happens next week, and is successful, it will be a good confidence jolt for Brown. But, most of his problems are just about a government being in power for 11 years and people want change. As Blair said, Labour will be in opposition in the future, the party cannot govern forever.

He has done some good things - but I wonder how much of the process was down to him.
He was well known for hating the nitty gritty of politics, preferring to stand in the limelight and leave the minutiae to others - but that's what a figurehead is for I suppose.

I'm also a little surprised at you sminkey, trotting out that old chestnut about unemployment figures - especially from the guardian.

There are still 2.7 million people on incap who aren't being counted in your figures, so I wouldn't be blowing that trumpet too loudly myself.

There's also new labours much vaunted and trumpeted economic policies - what people fail to mention is that the economy they inherited from the tories is where they got the ability to take it to new levels, in a period where the vast majority of first world countries were experiencing excellent growth - it would have been pretty hard to mess that up.

The stealth taxes that were introduced under his leadership are the very same things which will eventually cripple the economy.

[edit on 17/4/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski


Love or hate Major, he did sort out the economy again and got some high levels of growth. Plus, public finances were in good shape too.

As for the inflation being low, Labour use a different index. Tories used the Retail Price index, which included the housing market. Labour go by the consumer price index.

I'm not a big fan of ANY politicians, but this next comment may be a little controversial to those who were around at the time, and even those who weren't.

John Major DIDN'T sort out the economy - thatcher did.
She made hard decisions that needed to be made and got the country back on its feet in a lot of ways.

Of course this led to some of the old "boom and bust" but in the long run we're all better off because of the things she did.

And let's not forget she was instrumental in helping to end the cold war - even if it was only by leading reagan around by the nose (a theory I don't subscribe to - IMO reagan was more effective than people gave him credit for)

She was a truly unpopular PM - but she didn't care, she did things for the greater good, even if they hurt at the time.

Major took things a step further, but he wouldn't have been able to without the foundations laid down by thatcher.

reply to post by budski


That's probably a lot like Greenspan in the US. Majorly unpopular, especially on these boards (with conspiracies and all).

But the man was an economic genius. He knew how to play the game and keep the economy as good as it could be. He wasn't the most popular guy, but he knew what he was doing.