Tony Blair Stepping Down

[neonlyte]

He'll be gone on 27th June.

Been a long time coming but the 'fat lady has finally sung'.

Thoughts? I'll add mine later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6639945.stm

 

[rgraham666]

I was just reading about that in my morning paper. They summed my thoughts nicely.

He accomplished a fair bit of good, but his legacy is completely tainted by his decision to support Bush in Iraq.

 

[yevkassem72]

Well, a decade in power is long enough for any man or woman. Perhaps he will take time to reflect in retirement.

Not sure what to think of him, aside from the war was an awful mistake.

And perhaps Labor has been in power too long as well.

 

[vampiredust]

good riddance

 

[CharleyH]

He'll be gone on 27th June.

Been a long time coming but the 'fat lady has finally sung'.

Thoughts? I'll add mine later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6639945.stm

I don't really have any thoughts beyond that I see the party probably wouldn't be elected again if he didn't step down. I don't know anything about the probable replacement, but as a betting lady I'd place my money on the moderate to cool things down.

 

[Liar]

Well, a decade in power is long enough for any man or woman.

I think the yanks got it right there with their "two strikes and you're out" system.


Blair? As many other leaders whithout an expire date, he started out with good forward momentum, but grew old on the job.

 

[Grushenka]

I don't feel qualified to offer much more than personal opinions, but I did find this op ed piece interesting and would also appreciate any British citizenry opinions. (I know only Wilson's fiction and some biographies, nothing of his politics or popular status in England.)

A Player Who Never Found His Stage By A. N. WILSON, NY Times, May 10, 2007

A LITTLE over a decade after he came in as the young hope of a New Britain, Tony Blair, who is expected to announce his resignation date today, is a figure vilified and loathed by his own party and disliked by people in Britain at large.

There is, however, one good legacy he bequeaths us, and we should not be ungenerous in recognizing it. That is peace in Ireland. Both sides in the Northern Irish dispute hate the English, and both have good reason to do so. This hatred was a substantial reason successive British prime ministers, many of them doing their very best to undo the mistakes of the past, got nowhere with the Irish.

But the hatred was only part of the reason. Another was the phenomenon of language. The Ireland of James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Oscar Wilde, Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams is a place where words bounce, and fly and sing, often meaning several things at once, sometimes meaning nothing at all. Expecting the various parties in Northern Ireland to negotiate with such solidly Aristotelian figures as Margaret Thatcher simply wasn’t fair. Her word was her bond. Of course, both sides became entrenched behind barricades not only of barbed wire but of discourse.

Mr. Blair, however, is a boundlessly superficial person, and he was perfectly happy to swim about in the weird world of Irish politics where words could mean anything you liked. Most of his sentences would be untranslatable. They were even delivered in quite different accents, as though he was more than one person, which in a way he is.

This multifaceted quality was very useful in Ireland. He is a naturally pleasant, polite person. And he has courage. These qualities have been an essential ingredient in the Irish peace process. They have led to the Alice in Wonderland situation we now have, in which the government of Northern Ireland has been placed in the hands of two sworn enemies — the extreme Protestant minister Ian Paisley and the former I.R.A. guerrilla Martin McGuinness.

In other areas of British life, where you might have expected a politician of Mr. Blair’s apparent élan and ambition to make a difference, he has made no impact whatever. One of his weirdest displays of oratory — delivered this time by Mr. Blair in his role as semi-tearful revivalist preacher — was that he would “heal the wounds” of Africa. That was Blair the Redeemer.

Then there was Blair the Efficient, who told us he would improve the educational system, transportation, hospitals: in all these areas, Britain is in a parlous state, with railway accident rates reminding us of the 19th century and true literacy levels much lower than those of the Victorians. As many as one-quarter of British parents now pay for ruinously expensive private education for the children. That is the measure of Mr. Blair’s success with the schools.

Being a man of quick though skin-deep intelligence, Mr. Blair found out very quickly that there are in fact fewer and fewer areas over which British politicians, perhaps any politicians, have control in today’s world.

The economy in Britain has been so successful over the last decade because politicians have at long last had so little to do with it. Our Bank of England, rather than our Treasury, has controlled the interest rates. The largely non-British City of London, most of whose firms and institutions are now in American, German or Japanese control, is the bubbling center of British wealth, and has nothing to do with Mr. Blair or his likely successor, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer.

To make an impact — and there is no doubt that Mr. Blair wanted to make an impact as prime minister — he could play on only two stages: the theater of Europe as a member of the European Union, and that of the wider world as an acolyte of the United States. He quickly discovered that Europe was too amorphous for him to stand out beside the bigger players, especially beside the president of France, Jacques Chirac. It was inevitable that he would emerge as the Odd Man Out of Europe, the one who supported President Bush in his Middle Eastern adventures.

Some people think he did so out of religious conviction. Maybe. Commentators make much of Mr. Blair’s religion, but it has never been an issue of public importance in Britain, and it has made no obvious impact on his policies. (Abortion, the rights of gay couples to marry and adopt children, the rights of religious schools to determine their own curriculum — in all these areas the laws enacted by the Blair government have gone against the expressed views of the Roman Catholic Church, to which his wife belongs and which it is rumored he wishes to join.)

Iraq has been a fiasco, but I think he got involved in the calamity because, once again, he is superficial, decent and brave. The superficiality made him think it would be a quick and easy operation, like the military action in 2000 in Sierra Leone, where the British Army nipped in and out to remove a rogue warlord.

Alas, his disregard for truth — indeed it seems very unlikely he even quite knows what truth is in this case — led him to think it did not matter what reason he gave for sending in the troops. You have to concede that he has been brave in his unwavering support for the war, but not so brave as the many people who have died as a result of his and President Bush’s calamitous mistake.

 

[CharleyH]

I think the yanks got it right there with their "two strikes and you're out" system.


Blair? As many other leaders whithout an expire date, he started out with good forward momentum, but grew old on the job.

I think people forget that in a Parliamentary system you elect the party and not the man.

 

[Vermilion]

I think people forget that in a Parliamentary system you elect the party and not the man.

Except that Labour was blatantly elected on the basis of Tony Blair and now he's fucking off there's not a hope in hell that the country with vote for Gordon Brown, possibly the least appealing PM in existence ever.
I reckon even Tony would prefer Cameron to win than Brown.
x
V

 

[zschachwitz]

Except that Labour was blatantly elected on the basis of Tony Blair and now he's fucking off there's not a hope in hell that the country with vote for Gordon Brown, possibly the least appealing PM in existence ever.
I reckon even Tony would prefer Cameron to win than Brown.
x
V

quite apart from the fact that brown fucked my pension plan 10 years ago. I'm now getting 60% less than was projected in 1997; I suppose what I am getting is better than a whole load of poor sods who really have been fucked by blair's team - and where the Govt. has been criticised by everybody from the EU downwards. For further information, see here

 

[Vermilion]

quite apart from the fact that brown fucked my pension plan 10 years ago. I'm now getting 60% less than was projected in 1997; I suppose what I am getting is better than a whole load of poor sods who really have been fucked by blair's team - and where the Govt. has been criticised by everybody from the EU downwards

Brown fucked a lot of people - and not in the good way!
x
V

 

[wehstar]

I'm not convinced that Blair has done a bad job. Nobody can get everything right, and he appears to have not presided over too many complete disasters, considering how long he has been in.

Now Iraq is the major issue. Now in my opinion, OK so he got it wrong, but I do think that Blair felt he was doing the right thing. We all hope (I hope!) that when we are electing someone in, it is on the basis that they will make the decision that is right, as opposed to the decision that is popular. (They don't always do it of course, which is why alcohol is still legal!)

I really do think that he believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I seriously doubt that he would have talked about them so much knowing that in a few weeks it would all be proven wrong. If they were there, popular opinion may well have been different.

But then again what do I know; I don't follow politics.

 

[neonlyte]

In '93 (I know some of you weren't born then I won't tell if you won't) anyway... in '93, people of my voting persuasion were longing for a Labour victory. We didn't get it, that prick Kinnock 'celebrated' too early and the waving voters sought to seek the Welsh **** a lesson. We got Major and the agony column years where each week Major would bleet about the bastards trying to do him down. It wasn't politics - it was agony releived only by a git like John Major having the temerity to have an affair with another member of his cabinet (don't worry - it was a woman - her name escapes me, as does anyones who 'rat' on their spare part).

So '97 brought a stunning Labour victory. A beaming young looking Tony Blair (and one of the McBeth witches) standing triumphantly on the step of number 10 Downing Street. A new dawn. An end to selfish politics and selfish nationalism. The first act of New Labour (what ever happened to them?) was to give independance to the Bank of England. No more would interest rates be controlled by politicians whose ability to see beyond the end of their arms had always been suspect.

We (UK citizens) ought have been concerned when Blair invited Blur to a reception at Downing Street. We ought have been worrieds when pictures of his university band circulated in the press. We ought have been seriously alarmed when his eldest son was picked up by the police drunk in the street.
But we elected him again and again - even after he joined the coalition and helped destroy a once great nation that cradled civilization. Not to say that Saddam didn't play his part in the destruction, or that he needed to be removed; it is the mechanism that irks.

On the positive side, I still believe Blair jumped in (with both feet) on the day after 9/11 to prevent the neo-cons from attempting even more devastating retaliation. I know that's a 'pigs dream' - even the USA administration under GW wouldn't have seriously considered contaminating strategic oil reserves - but I have to cling to some hope that Blair's memoirs will lie to ease his (and my conscience). At least he had the guts to apologise - Ok, it was a grudging apology, but you can't expect a politician to admit he fucked up.

On the UK - forgive me those who live outside of the UK:
Transport: is a fucking nightmare. It is horrendously expensive to use trains but that is not (new) Labour's fault entirely. It stems from years of under-investment (under both political parties) and the absurd Conservative decision to break the nationalised railway network into four seperate companies, one owns the tracks and stations, one operates trains, another owns rolling stock (trains) and an overall authority controls train movements. Not even a child would consider such a plan - unscrambling it is virtually impossible, as a result it is cheaper to fly from London to Manchester (200 miles) than it is to take the train.

Roads: Road pricing is a political hurdle to far for any government. Stupid. Road pricing is essential. It is the only way to control traffic. (As an aside, I was astonished when in the USA recently to find the majority of drivers obeying the speed limits - we don't in the UK) The benefits far outweigh the constraints; the constraints only force drivers to comply with the law. If the law is followed, drivers have nothing to fear from road pricing. We've (UK) have moved beyond the law in too many respects, sometimes it is necessary to take the hard route to remind citizens they form part of a wider community.

Business: Interest rates reduced. Corporation tax reduced. Business booming. So clamp down on tax evasion by the wealthy percentile, it only serves to piss off the rest.

Health: The big issue. Blair promised to reform the National Health Service. He has done but the effects are slow trickle down. I (and my family) have received more NHS treatment than we deserve in recent years. The system works better each week. It's not perfect, and probably never will be, but it has improved beyond belief. The private health companies have effectively shown the way, the NHS is (slowly) moving in the same direction. I'm treated at a 'modern' NHS hospital, I get analysis, diagnosis, x-rays and medication all on the same day. Most of the population (thank God) doesn't need to visit hospital - they don't see the changes.

Education: Way to go. We ahve a generation to remove (past Labour education doctrine) before education can begin to recover ground. And we need families who care about children and who instill basic educational principles before their children ever enter school. Devising a system of 'child care' where working parents receive vouchers to 'care for' their children while the parents work is not a solution, it simply prices child care out of reach of families who really need to work. Introducing education fees and doing away with grsnts was a good move, it puts a value on education.

Social Welfare: What a mess. I have a partner who broke both wrists two in seperate accidents. She'd worked (part time) all her life. Trying to deal with the benefit system is a nightmare. Believe it or not, when asked to describe her disability, the forms ask if she can 'prepare a meal', 'carry shopping', and wash herself. For fucks sake. We've moved beyond this!

World: Blair's government got global warming on the political agenda. They got African debt on the agenda, and rightly or wrongly, they joined the USA in standing up to tyrants - the delivery may have been wrong, the execution was flawed, but someone had to stand up and be counted.

Blair: 7.5/10 but then I'm a Liberal Democrat.

 

[TheEarl]

To me, Blair is a failure because of the culture he cultivated. As Neonlyte pointed out, the welfare state is a mess. The disincentives to work are incredible and, as such, a large percentage of people are taking the government up on its open invitation to freeload. Admittedly, I am fairly hard right-wing in my economic views and believe that benefits are there to keep people from starving, freezing or otherwise dying of lack of resources, no more. However, I don't think anyone can object to my objection at the fact that it is more than possible to live very comfortably off the government, including luxuries such as a tumble-dryer, a new laptop and designer clothes, if you know the ins and outs of the system.

Plus, any man who forgets that the purpose of public office is to serve the people, rather than the other way around, is not one whom I want running the country. The Euro, the European constitution, the current thing-that-isn't-a-European-Constitution-despite-having-a-lot-of-the-features-of -the-European-Constitution-and-so-doesn't-need-to-go-to-a-referendum, university top-up fees, university fees, etc. These are all things which Blair either pushed through or attempted to push through, against the will of a majority of the people. A leader should not be concerned with his 'legacy', but with serving the populace and with the well-being of the country.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Earl, my 'disincentives to work' don't come from my government. I hate being on a disability and would love to get a job.

However, I know from bitter experience that the courtly life that forms most of the working world these days would simply drive me insane again.

If you want to get rid of 'disincentives to work' restore the idea in the business world that doing things counts for something. And get rid of the courtiers.

 

[TheEarl]

Earl, my 'disincentives to work' don't come from my government. I hate being on a disability and would love to get a job.

However, I know from bitter experience that the courtly life that forms most of the working world these days would simply drive me insane again.

If you want to get rid of 'disincentives to work' restore the idea in the business world that doing things counts for something. And get rid of the courtiers.

No offene Rob, but I hate it when people respond to that argument with the story of someone on disability/some other restriction who have to be on benefits, simply because that wasn't actually what I was complaining about. There are people in England who are healthy and capable of working and they are living very comfortably from benefits. What motivation is there for them to get a job as a toilet cleaner if they'll end up only pennies better (and in some cases, far worse) off for giving up their daytime television?

I'd be happy with doing things counting for, "I now have enough money to buy more than just plain survival. I can afford luxuries!" But then again, the communists of the board have referred to me as a 'Child-of-Thatcher' before.

The Earl