View on Tony Blair's legacy

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:30 am

Well Tony Blair retires as British Prime Minister on June 27th and instead Britain now will be run under the "great" team of Gordan Brown and Harriet Harman. Brown has been elected into office without consultation from the general public and without being voted in by MPs.

However, I was wondering what peoples views on his legacy are. Is he tainted forever due to the Iraq war or will people remember him for constitutional reform, improvements in healthcare, education etc.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:40 am

he will be remembered for the war although he shouldnt be. Making monetry policy independent was genious. The amount of money available is great. Target schemes are good in principle even if they need to be tidied up a bit. Just the war was a big mistake.

You make Gordon sound so undemocratic, Labour were voted in so under the impression that Tony would not fight another election. Much better view than the lady that was not for turning.

However am i the only one that realises Gordon is the same as John Major in terms of being a puppet for his master.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:43 am

i personally wont remember him for the war. he has done a lot of great thing for this country and has led the labour party through 3 election victories (even while the war was ongoing) for him to be elected back into parliment while public opinion was against him and still have a workable minorite speaks for itself.

but to answer the question. What ill remember him for how he stopped the troubles in ireland, something that i never thought id see in my lifetime

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:44 am

nagerous wrote:Brown has been elected into office without consultation from the general public and without being voted in by MPs.

there was a vote in the MP's and it was found the competition for the PM seat wast strong enuff for a competition.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:47 am

shame he wasnt able to sort out the middle east as well as he had hoped though. I think he tried so hard on that issue. Incidentally how much do th US population know about british politics becuase to be honest i know little (beyond basics) of what issues elections are fought over and exactly how representative the system is in your country.

Nephilim · Post by **Nephilim** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:27 am

boberz wrote:shame he wasnt able to sort out the middle east as well as he had hoped though. I think he tried so hard on that issue. Incidentally how much do th US population know about british politics becuase to be honest i know little (beyond basics) of what issues elections are fought over and exactly how representative the system is in your country.

it's a good point there. i'm a lifelong US citizen, like to consider myself informed. and i would say i know next to nothing about blair's positive contributions. the perception of him here is that he is hated over there b/c of the war. i recently watched "The Queen" and got at least a sense that he began as a reformer (education and constitutional reforms were mentioned in the film).

i'm not very familiar w/ your system or politicians....but i voted anyway

(we should have another thread for opinions on "The Queen")

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:16 am

boberz wrote: You make Gordon sound so undemocratic, Labour were voted in so under the impression that Tony would not fight another election. Much better view than the lady that was not for turning.

Yes but the way Labour were voted in can hardly be seen as true democracy. For instance there was only a 59% turnout for the 2001 General Election and only 42% of the votes were for Labour yet Labour some how manage to win a large majority. This highlights the democratic deficit in British politics. Kinda going off track here as this thread is regarding Blair's legacy but I felt a need to raise that point.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:33 am

nagerous wrote:
boberz wrote: You make Gordon sound so undemocratic, Labour were voted in so under the impression that Tony would not fight another election. Much better view than the lady that was not for turning.

Yes but the way Labour were voted in can hardly be seen as true democracy. For instance there was only a 59% turnout for the 2001 General Election and only 42% of the votes were for Labour yet Labour some how manage to win a large majority. This highlights the democratic deficit in British politics. Kinda going off track here as this thread is regarding Blair's legacy but I felt a need to raise that point.

I only count those 59% as being allowed to have any say in democracy and i think a none of the above box would solve that issue somewhat. Also i assume youy support a partial or full implementation of proportional representation and i think if we wanted that debate we would need another thread but i will say that it is flawed and one of the reasons that Hitler was succesfull in becoming a dictator.

But on topic, Blairs legasy; what about the person that broke traditions of politis and left the traditional left/right wing debates

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:39 am

True by removing clause IV of the labour party and moving the party from the far left to the centre ground, Blair has brought about convergence of ideologies. Now it is hard to tell the difference between parties with both Labour and the Conservatives fighting elections on virtually the same issues. However, I don't believe that issue was caused solely by Blair and instead just represents the political climate of the time i.e Francis Fukuyama's end of ideology thesis that liberal democracy has triumphed as the best form of government.

Regarding the question over PR, I do advocate a form of it under the Additional Member System (AMS) and I am also a fan of the AV+ electoral system as opposed to the FPTP. I don't think PR should be ignored just because of what happened with Hitler because there are a lot of reasons regarding Hitlers coming to power, these include his control over the media and the political climate at the time.. wall street crash and legitimate grievances regarding Versailles.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:08 am

gimil i agree - three election victories for labour, more money for schools and the NHS, more social housing, northern ireland (especially that)... he has done a good job. But Iraq overshadows it all, and it's what he's going to be remembered for. Imagine if he'd said no to bush... he'd have his own plinth by now.

chewyman · Post by **chewyman** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:12 am

He'll be remembered for Iraq, it's the same with almost all leaders who took their country to a major war. Thatcher is maybe the exception, although the Falklands War comes pretty close to breaking even with her right-wing politics.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:13 am

boberz wrote:he will be remembered for the war although he shouldnt be. Making monetry policy independent was genious. The amount of money available is great. Target schemes are good in principle even if they need to be tidied up a bit. Just the war was a big mistake.

You make Gordon sound so undemocratic, Labour were voted in so under the impression that Tony would not fight another election. Much better view than the lady that was not for turning.

However am i the only one that realises Gordon is the same as John Major in terms of being a puppet for his master.

I agree completely with this. Tony Blair may have done many good things (perhaps not as good as initially promised) for Britain at home but, just as we here on CC remember our bad rolls more than the good ones, the Iraq War is an irrevocable stain on his legacy because it was such a bad decision.

nmhunate · Post by **nmhunate** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:16 am

Tony Blair was the best lap dog that the USA has had in the last few years. We will miss him once he leaves... Yo, Blair!

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:17 am

nmhunate wrote:Tony Blair was the best lap dog that the USA has had in the last few years. We will miss him once he leaves... Yo, Blair!

That is also true...

flashleg8 · Post by **flashleg8** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:26 am

I think his biggest legacy will be a further disillusionment of the left with Labour and thus the whole parliamentary party system. Three massive majorities in parliament and very little to show for it. Every reform he implemented "he wished he went further" (his own words) - what stopped him?

Labour have introduced some worthy policies (minimum wage, partial reforming house of lords, massive investment in education and committing to keeping the NHS) but have been found wanting to use their unheard of majorities to drive forward radical change. Tony worried too much about polls, opinion focus groups, re-election and international appearance to focus on implementing lasting change. We've squandered the change and I think we will regret not using these "golden years" of a booming economy and a feeble Tory opposition to our advantage.

Too much statesman-like talking and spin and not enough action.

I think fickle Middle England will defect to the Tories now they look more electable, and the socialist left will continue leaving Labour in droves. The New Labour project will hopefully realise this and seek to regain the support of the left and drop this flirtation with the centre ground.

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:27 am

nmhunate wrote:Tony Blair was the best lap dog that the USA has had in the last few years. We will miss him once he leaves... Yo, Blair!

I couldnt agree more with this statement for this im afraid i cannot be sad that Blair is leaving.

He did do some good, but in my honest opinion, his influences were more destructive even if under the scenes.

Certainly way down south the outlook of the war and many of the goverments spending over the last few years is bleak at best.

But worst of all he has spent his time kissing the Americans ass. Now i personally have nothing against the americans. And i disagree with people who dislike them just because they have the biggest guns at the moment. But to suck up to them? i cant agree with that.

Just my two pence.

(Why are all the good threads started as soon as i decide to leave?)

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:33 am

Thats a sound argument Flashleg. When Tony first came into power he promised us a huge program of constitutional reform but reform has only been 'half-baked and half-hearted.' Sure enough devolved assemblies have been introduced in Scotland and Wales have been introduced which is great but other aspects of the constitutional reform program have been missing. This includes removing the Lord Chancellor from his position of power. Currently he straddles in all three parts of Government, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. This creates an elective dictatorship as Halisham would argue. There were promises to curb his powers but these have never been introduced. Promises were also made to change the election system as mentioned earlier but these were never delivered, perhaps because the flawed system that always worked the conservatives way was now working in favour of Labour's system. The freedom of information act was also meant to represent a huge change in policy for the UK but when it was introduced it was so watered down that it was pointless. Another promise never introduced was actual Lords reform, sure all but 92 hereditary peers were removed in 1999 but no electoral element has been introduced. This is because Labour offer peerages to whoever they feel like it and won't be able to do this with an elected Lords. Blair's credibility has been seriously undermined by this and the cash for peerages scandal.

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:34 am

I was a keen admirer of Blair when he first came into power as I believed change would finally be made. However, his relationship with George Bush and recent authoritarian legislation like the Counter Terrorism Act of 2005 and Identity Cards has unfortunately made me lose faith in our political system.

IamaEuropean · Post by **IamaEuropean** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:41 am

It's strange to see a balanced view of Blair. Normally people just slag him off.

I think it's a shame that he'll be remembered mostly for Iraq and Afghanistan (not the first Prime Minister to send British troops there) when you think about the good things that he has done. And he's a nice enough person.

I wouldn't do the job.

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:50 am

nmhunate wrote:Tony Blair was the best lap dog that the USA has had in the last few years. We will miss him once he leaves... Yo, Blair!

Very true indeed.

Anyway, I'm Conservative so I didn't think much of Tony Blair anyway.
David Cameron is much better! Hug a Hoodie today! You know you want to...

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:59 am

Thanks for all your opinions by the way guys, I'll try and take them in for my politics exam tomorrow, which is the last of my A levels

.

Minister Masket · Post by **Minister Masket** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:14 am

nagerous wrote:Thanks for all your opinions by the way guys, I'll try and take them in for my politics exam tomorrow, which is the last of my A levels .

Cheater! He got us to do his work for him! CHEATER!

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:29 am

Minister Masket wrote:
nagerous wrote:Thanks for all your opinions by the way guys, I'll try and take them in for my politics exam tomorrow, which is the last of my A levels .

Cheater! He got us to do his work for him! CHEATER!

not really a cheater, I love debating politics and it is great to hear other peoples views on social, economic, religious and political issues.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:25 pm

im starting that course in september (along with others) and am also interested.

I believe that it IS a good thing Labour came into the centre and didnt stay far out left. Tis may be another legasy: In my opinion the traditional voting structures of regions will change soon and therefore the parties have to move forward. Why should the tory's neccesarily want low taxes, labour social justice, liberals PR, UKIP out of europe, and BNP - well that aint changing; they realise politics is more than a tradition that is passed on through the breast milk of mothers it should be the widest forum for debate and representation in the country.

However once they have been elected why should we strip them of power by using PR, it causes weak instable governments and at the first sign of trouble everyone complains and we get a new government. I understand my Hitler argument doesnt hold up on its own, but it succeeded in firing the debate.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:47 pm

boberz wrote:However once they have been elected why should we strip them of power by using PR, it causes weak instable governments and at the first sign of trouble everyone complains and we get a new government. I understand my Hitler argument doesnt hold up on its own, but it succeeded in firing the debate.

I don't think the Hitler argument works at all. The Nazis got 37% of the vote in July 1932. With all the other parties in Germany at the time, it's perfectly possible that the Nazis would have got an overall majority under a first-past-the-post system. Mentioning Hitler in the context of PR is just bringing out a bogeyman where it's not relevant.

Also, PR doesn't in and of itself cause weak, instable governments - that's more a reflection of a particular country's politics, not the voting system. The British governments between 1975-79 and 1992-1997 were weak and unstable, and that was under FPTP.

FPTP also delivers strong governments without a genuine mandate, like Britain between 1979-1992 and 1997-present, and those governments can (and often did) push through policies that didn't have the assent of the majority. Iraq and privatisation come to mind.

Anyway, as far as Blair goes - well, it's mostly already been said in this thread by flashleg8. I'll say also, Blair had hung on for at least a year too long, creating unnecessary instability in the government. Having said that, the changeover to Brown has been better than I'd have bet on 10 years ago. I always imagined Blair would eventually get toppled in some way or other, like Thatcher.

View on Tony Blair's legacy

What will be Blair's enduring legacy?

View on Tony Blair's legacy

Re: View on Tony Blair's legacy