|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 12, 2006 23:04:44 GMT
Just lately Blair has been quite focused on trying to sort out his 'Legacy Reforms' including his latest education bill (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4760254.stm). He claims that whenever he has attempted reform in the past he has always wished he had gone further (although I think most of us are glad he didn't). However, in my personal opinion, they're just a cynical (and probably futile) attempt to stop the words 'Iraq' and 'Bush' springing to mind whenever society looks back on the Blair era. What are you opinion's on Tony's legacy? In my own view his legacy will be that he was the leader that abandoned the Labour Party's commitment to socialism (Clause IV anyone?), was elected under the false hope that a fresh-faced Prime Minister with 'big ideas' would be the savour of the nation (things could only get better back in 1997, remember  ) but ultimately ran a government that was every bit as sleazy, corrupt and morally dubious as his Conservative predecessors. He’s failed to deliver on manifesto promises such as electoral reform, has failed completely to sort out the House of Lords, has failed to reclaim any industry that fell to the excessive privatisation of the Thatcher years, went back on his promise not to introduce top-up fees, led the country into a needless war that has turned into the biggest political quagmire since Vietnam under false pretences and is now trying to push through unpopular and controversial reform bills in the vain hope people will remember him for them rather than the whole ministerial resignations, millennium dome, foot and mouth, Afghanistan, Iraq war, lying to the nation, WMD lies, Dr David Kelly affair, Hutton & Butler Reports, T W A T, Bush’s poodle and authoritarian terror legislation rhetoric that usually pours out whenever we look back at the last 9 years of Labour government. Unfortunately though the lack of convincing opposition during this period, a hapless Tory party still waging its own internal wars and a meek Liberal Democrat showing have done very little to provide an effective challenge to Blair up until the last election. However there is some hope at least, the way things are going for Tony at the moment there’s a strong chance we’ll see the back of him within a year or two and will go into a general election with a new leader at the helm of each of the main parties for the first time since 1979 (then again we all know how badly that turned out!) |
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Mar 13, 2006 10:15:18 GMT
We also seem to see Blair's legacy through the smirking face of David Cameron (does anyone else detest the way his smile never actually seems to leave his face?); he's basically ripping off everything Blair did pre-1997 - young, "charming" (if you must), and an incredibly irritating smirk on his face. I must admit that when he became leader I was prepared to vote Tory at the next election - thank the Lord I came to my senses.
As to Blair's ending legacy, I agree with Rob - the only things that will be synonymous with Blair are Iraq, WMDs, Saddam and the infamous line, "education, education, education." Then came the damned topup fees. Thanks to that idiot I going to have to pay three times as much as the rest of my family.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 13, 2006 10:22:47 GMT
I doubt anyone's going to remember anything much about Blair, actually; he'll fade into all the other far-right Tory governmnts of the last twenty years, and the only remarkable thing about him will be that he started on the wrong side. In thirty years he'll be forgotten, and as for his 'Legacy'... well, he's not likely to get half of it through parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 13, 2006 10:24:54 GMT
We also seem to see Blair's legacy through the smirking face of David Cameron (does anyone else detest the way his smile never actually seems to leave his face Agreed, Cameron's whole 'New Conservatism' ethos is remarkably similar to what Blair tried to do pre-1997 and by sticking a bunch of ex-leaders (IDS), media personalities (Geldof) and ancient Tory peers (Lord Hestletine) to research various policies areas he's not actually delivering a great deal. So far I can't say his clashes with Blair in PMQ's have been anything but lacklustre, far from putting an end to Punch and Judy politics he seems to have warmed to them like all Tory leaders of the past 9 years. I wonder how long his radical policies will last, all the previous leaders since John Major originally attempted a move to the left but were forced to turn back and push their stances to the right. |
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 13, 2006 10:37:13 GMT
I doubt anyone's going to remember anything much about Blair, actually Possibly not, but if they do remember anything it will be the Iraq war. Just as when we look back at Nixon's Presidency the Watergate Scandal is never far from our minds. Similarly, as is being discussed on the Polls board, John Profumo was embroiled in a scandal and even though he devoted the rest of his life to charity he is still best known for the Profumo affair. Blair has already carved his legacy in the Iraq War |
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 13, 2006 10:39:11 GMT
'New Conservatism' was Thatcher's idea, Rob, and Blair stole 'New Labour' from there. I'm still hoping for the New Whig party to show up.
As for Cameron, he's not done anything original, exciting, new, mature or stunning, but did we really expect anything else?
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 13, 2006 10:43:46 GMT
By 'New Conservatism' I mean Cameron's attempts to revamp the Conservatives and move away from Thatcher's shadow, not Thatcher's idea of 'New Conservatism' (which I'm well aware Blair shamelessly stole and adopted)
I didn't expect much from Cameron personally, but considering the huge media build up to his election and the speculation about huge radical change the last few months have been a rather epic anti-climax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 13, 2006 11:09:58 GMT
I understood what you mean. I just love the way both parties are desperately recycling an idea from 1979 and then using the word 'New'.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 16, 2006 8:41:03 GMT
Well, the Bill's first reading passed despite 52 Labour backbenchers rebelling, meaning that it was Tory support that got the Bill through...
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 16, 2006 9:28:45 GMT
I think Blair's most telling legacy will probably be in Parliament rather than round the country. Partly it's the ongoing air of contempt for Parliamentary procedure, but also there's a sense of the battle-lines being completely redrawn. It's clear that the Labour party will split three ways if the New Labour project continues on its present course, with the Blairite/Brownite core drifting towards the Tories, the moderate socialists drifting towards the Lib-Dems, and those further to the left forming up a large faction of their own.
This re-alignment possibly sounds quite dramatic, but in truth, it would just make the picture a little more honest.
As for yesterday's Education Bill, it was going to be really radical when it was first drafted, and now it's become so Torified that the Conservatives really didn't have any choice but to vote for it, and the Labour left had no choice but to vote against it. It effectively proves that Blair is Labour leader in name alone, and that he is now a Prime Minister without a party.
Out of interest, rather than 'providing a legacy' for historians to go round congratulating him for in perpetuity, isn't the job description of the office of Prime Minister to head up the Government of the country? I ask only because, after nine years, Blair still seems unable to grasp this.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 19, 2006 17:56:24 GMT
I believe people will actually remember Blair, but not necessarily for the best of reasons. Despite his numerous flaws, he has actually accomplished many positive things: Three general election successes (the only Labour leader to do so – the alternative was Hague/IDS/Howard); reform of the Labour Party making it electable (cf. the longest suicide note in history); House of Lords reform (see below); and reform of the judiciary (see below).
Although Lords reform has not yet gone far enough, he is not completely to blame (NB. the rejection of all options presented by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform by Parliament on a free vote and ongoing contention), and he has successfully removed the hereditary element to the Lords – at the time the most illegitimate aspect. Furthermore, he introduced the Appointments Commission (for the House of Lords) to vet candidates, which will in time have actual authority due to the recent controversy.
Reform of the office of Lord Chancellor was long overdue. The Lord Chancellor is a political appointment and is responsible for managing the judiciary, including judicial appointments. The judicial functions of the office will be in future be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice (as President of the Courts of England and Wales).
I agree that Blair’s reforms to make the Labour Party electable have transformed it into a modern Conservative Party, as demonstrated by the Education Bill.
I’m quite sure Blair will get his ‘legacy’ through Parliament on education and health. However, the form it will be in on entry into the Statute book and in a few years time is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 19, 2006 20:05:48 GMT
You’ve raised a few points here that I have to take issue with. First of all is this nugget: Three general election successes (the only Labour leader to do so – the alternative was Hague/IDS/Howard) Ergo he wasn't elected as much on the strength of his own policies but the weak (and arguably unelectable) nature of the opposition he faced. reform of the Labour Party making it electable (cf. the longest suicide note in history) I wouldn't really say Blair should take full credit for the reform either, Both Kinnock and Smith had begun to reform and change the party before he took over. Not to mention the fact that one of his key reforms was abolishing Clause IV, abandoning perhaps the most revered piece of Labour doctrine. A lot of what Blair did for the party was give it a figurehead who could absorb positive publicity and try to appear in touch with the Cool Britannia ethos that was building up in the mid-late 90s. To add to that I would point out that the aforementioned suicide note, the 1983 manifesto, wasn't really typical of Old Labour. We're looking at a period where the hard left was having a huge impact on the party and its policies (which happened to be out of touch with the individualistic sentiment of the 1980s), before Foot's election this was not always the case (Hugh Gaitskell’s leadership for example). It's also worth mentioning that it was Kinnock who took the crucial step of expelling Militant and confronting the hard left. Although Lords reform has not yet gone far enough... ...he is not completely to blame and he has successfully removed the hereditary element to the Lords I agree that Blair is not completely to blame for the failure of reform. However, considering the current ‘Cash-for-Peerages’ affair I can hardly say Blair’s record with regards to the House of Lords inspires much confidence. Not to mention the fact that he has made no progress whatsoever with electoral reform, another one of his 1997 manifesto promises which is never likely to see the light of day. I agree that Blair’s reforms to make the Labour Party electable have transformed it into a modern Conservative Party, as demonstrated by the Education Bill. Surely you’re contradicting yourself, you said earlier that Blair’s reforms of the Labour party were a positive thing but here you’re admitting that he’s simply turned his party into an imitation of the Tories therefore abandoning socialism and traditional Labour values and reducing the degree of choice the electorate has between the two main parties. I can’t see that either of these things is positive myself. I’m quite sure Blair will get his ‘legacy’ through Parliament on education and health. However, the form it will be in on entry into the Statute book and in a few years time is another matter. I can only hope that you’re wrong on that, one thing that is looking likely though is that if the bill does pass it’s not going to be a Labour Bill (arguably neither have many of his others, but this one won’t pass with the support of the so-called Labour Party). I believe people will actually remember Blair, but not necessarily for the best of reasons. Well, out of the reasons you’ve listed I can’t say that any of them are overwhelming enough to even partially obscure the fact that his lies and spin were largely responsible for dragging the country into a cocking stupid war that’s turned into a political quagmire. |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 19, 2006 20:21:44 GMT
Ergo he wasn't elected as much on the strength of his own policies but the weak (and arguably unelectable) nature of the opposition he faced. True, but then you could equally say that about Margaret Thatcher, who is being looked back on by the right wing of this country with teary-eyed nostalgia. I think from Will's viewpoint, anything that is not socialism is, ipso facto, a good thing.  Well, out of the reasons you’ve listed I can’t say that any of them are overwhelming enough to even partially obscure the fact that his lies and spin were largely responsible for dragging the country into a cocking stupid war that’s turned into a political quagmire. I agree entirely, but the point is that these are memorable. Memorable mistakes, yes, but still memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 19, 2006 20:31:35 GMT
True, but then you could equally say that about Margaret Thatcher, who is being looked back on by the right wing of this country with teary-eyed nostalgia. That's not a fair comment actually, I've spoken to a fair few righties that despise Thatcher as much as I do. She left the Conservative Party with a legacy of in-fighting and division that it's only just beginning to overcome. Her very memory makes voting Tory unthinkable for some voter demographics and her treatment of the economic wets and europhiles didn't win her any friends amongst that section of her party either. Plus I would question whether or not the weakness of the opposition was entirely responsible for her electoral success in 1983, had it not been for the Falklands War I question whether or not she would have won considering just how hated she was before the war. After all, following the 1980 party conference few in the press thought she would survive the rest of the year let alone another decade. I think from Will's viewpoint, anything that is not socialism is, ipso facto, a good thing. Even so, would he consider the lack of political choice for voters a good thing? I agree entirely, but the point is that these are memorable. Memorable mistakes, yes, but still memorable. But they hardly stand out when compared to Iraq, do they? |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 19, 2006 20:34:01 GMT
It was the Iraq errors I was referring to, in fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 20, 2006 10:49:34 GMT
It's Bush who'll be remembered for Iraq, not Blair. And I stand by my assertation that he's not done anything that's going to remain in the public memory for any great length of time.
Three general election successes are irrelevant in the general public's mind, especially when coupled with the complete lack of effective opposition. This could be made even less obvious by his 'reform' of the labour party to make it an effective continuation of the previous Tory governments.
Who, exactly, is going to rank 'reform of the house of Lords' as one of their top ten memorable political events of the century? It hardly compares to the poll tax, does it?
Ditto judiciary reform. The man in the street does not care about such things. He'll remember Thatcher breaking the miner's strike, because the effects are obvious and they have a clear influence on his life. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely he's much affected in even the very broadest terms by the reform of the judiciary, and certainly not in a manner that's going to make him sit up and pay attention.
For people to remember you, you either have to mess up truly spectacularly, or fulfill the promises everyone most wants. Iraq is the only thing Blair's done that could fit into the former, and frankly it's Bush who'll get the credit for that (Entirely fairly, given relative troop deployments). Bugger all fits into the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 25, 2006 17:53:38 GMT
I agree, and this is supported by the historically low turnouts at recent elections. However, there have been many historical instances where general elections were won because of weak oppositions.
I agree that Blair should only take partial credit for reform – he completed the change, and in all probability shifted the party more than Kinnock and Smith would have liked and indeed done. However, Kinnock would have been unable to continue Labour’s success in the same way as Blair.
Overall I think Kinnock should take the largest credit for the reform for expelling militant and confronting the hard left, as you said.
Virtually all Prime Ministers have followed similar policies on the House of Lords as regards appointing cronies, and the problem has been exacerbated recently by the lack of party funding (primarily due to historically low membership – a large source of funding in previous decades). Furthermore, the Conservatives and Lib Dems are also guilty of nominating cronies and bankrollers during Blair’s premiership. Blair was unfortunate enough to be detected by the Commission he established.
No Prime Minister will reform the system that got him into power willingly, so it is hardly surprising that Commons reform has not materialized, and I confidently expect it not to for decades to come. Furthermore, there is still disagreement on whether the replacement system should be proportional or hybrid, although such concerns were largely resolved by the Jenkins Commission.
We actually seem to agree here. Blair will be remembered primarily for Iraq, despite it being an American policy, and deserting traditional Labour principles.
Blair’s reforms were positive in the context of winning the 1997 and subsequent elections when the alternative was an Conservative Party that would not have survived one term under its present leaders and with poorly devised policies. I do agree, however, that the Labour Party has not altogether benefited from Blair’s transformation (of the Party), and the electorate especially so in terms of the lack of choice.
I agree that the majority of Blair’s achievements will not be remembered by the general public – I was speaking in a more academic context.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 25, 2006 19:32:46 GMT
I agree that Blair should only take partial credit for reform – he completed the change, and in all probability shifted the party more than Kinnock and Smith would have liked and indeed done. However, Kinnock would have been unable to continue Labour’s success in the same way as Blair. Only because, despite his changes, he was still a Labour leader at heart. Blair has cast aside most of the traditional Labour party principles in order to get his party back into office, sure they have been successful at the ballot box but at a hefty cost to their principles. Virtually all Prime Ministers have followed similar policies on the House of Lords as regards appointing cronies, and the problem has been exacerbated recently by the lack of party funding (primarily due to historically low membership – a large source of funding in previous decades). Furthermore, the Conservatives and Lib Dems are also guilty of nominating cronies and bankrollers during Blair’s premiership. Blair was unfortunate enough to be detected by the Commission he established. The fact that several key people within the party (including the Treasurer, Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister) were seemingly unaware of these loans makes the scandal much worse for Blair personally. The public perception that he's on the way out, coupled with the media's continual referral to Brown as a 'Prime Minister-in-waiting' really isn't doing Blair's position any favours. I admit he was unfortunate to be detected in the first place but the timing and circumstances have made things even worse. No Prime Minister will reform the system that got him into power willingly, so it is hardly surprising that Commons reform has not materialized, and I confidently expect it not to for decades to come. Furthermore, there is still disagreement on whether the replacement system should be proportional or hybrid, although such concerns were largely resolved by the Jenkins Commission. Should the next election result in a hung parliament (as I sincerely hope it does), there's always the possibility we will see PR. After all, had Labour been facing a hung parliament in 1997 they were already in talks to form a coalition with the Lib Dems with PR being a key concession. Of course the electorate went and gave Blair a ridiculously huge majority which negated the need for coalition. |
|
) but ultimately ran a government that was every bit as sleazy, corrupt and morally dubious as his Conservative predecessors. He’s failed to deliver on manifesto promises such as electoral reform, has failed completely to sort out the House of Lords, has failed to reclaim any industry that fell to the excessive privatisation of the Thatcher years, went back on his promise not to introduce top-up fees, led the country into a needless war that has turned into the biggest political quagmire since Vietnam under false pretences and is now trying to push through unpopular and controversial reform bills in the vain hope people will remember him for them rather than the whole ministerial resignations, millennium dome, foot and mouth, Afghanistan, Iraq war, lying to the nation, WMD lies, Dr David Kelly affair, Hutton & Butler Reports, T W A T, Bush’s poodle and authoritarian terror legislation rhetoric that usually pours out whenever we look back at the last 9 years of Labour government. Unfortunately though the lack of convincing opposition during this period, a hapless Tory party still waging its own internal wars and a meek Liberal Democrat showing have done very little to provide an effective challenge to Blair up until the last election. However there is some hope at least, the way things are going for Tony at the moment there’s a strong chance we’ll see the back of him within a year or two and will go into a general election with a new leader at the helm of each of the main parties for the first time since 1979 (then again we all know how badly that turned out!)
