The Student Room Group
<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>
<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>
<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

The Blair Years

I just thought I'd post this youtube video, a documentary about the Blair Years.

It's very easy for extremists, both left and right, particularly if they are young and don't remember the Blair years, to froth at the mouth over the New Labour administration. It was actually a very good government, won three elections on the trot and Blair was one of the most popular Prime Ministers we've ever had

[video="youtube;4YH_nA2tD78"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YH_nA2tD78[/video]

Scroll to see replies

bring back bush n blair.

they would have solved the ISIS problem
Reply 2
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Blair was a great man and somebody that had the resolve to at least attempt to tackle issues around the globe.

Ironically, he's less popular in his own party today than he is to the country as a whole (he's not nearly as toxic as the left think).
Reply 3
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
It's true that Tony Blair's Labour government wasn't all bad.

They brought in the minimum wage despite cries of "mass unemployment", rescued the NHS from the Conservatives, invested in education, and, whilst inequality increased, it would have been a lot worse if Labour were not in power to limit the rise of inequality through the welfare state and taxation changes. Indeed, Blair's taxation and welfare policies were fairly redistributional, although not redistributional enough. On the economic side, debt as a proportion of GDP also fell. Meanwhile, we saw a huge fall in child poverty and poverty in general fell too.

Nevertheless, failing to regulate the financial sector effectively and allowing vested interests to thrive, failing to tackle tax avoidance and engaging in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions outweighs this, by far. Blair also, instead of banning faith schools, allowed them to expand even further, and brought in tuition fees.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 4
Avatar for ottom
ottom
8
Original post by Rakas21

Ironically, he's less popular in his own party today than he is to the country as a whole (he's not nearly as toxic as the left think).


Amongst Labour activists perhaps but not amongst Labour voters.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 5
Avatar for Joshale
Joshale
19
always wondered how a labour leader and a republican leader got on so well
The Blair years were pretty terrible to look back on, although I remember them fully and they didn't seem too bad at the time. Very few lasting legacies, Labour presided over a housing boom which priced their own core voters out of home ownership, trapped millions in welfare dependency, their 'economic growth' was built primarily on unsustainable amounts of personal debt and irresponsible banking, which they did nothing to arrest.

Not to mention the war stuff (which I agreed with, but many do not). I can see why it's attacked from all sides really. Blair was only that popular because of the disaster of Major's impotent government would have had people lining the streets applauding just about anyone who was standing against him. Ed Miliband would have won a landslide against the Tories in 1997. John Prescott would have. Neil Kinnock probably would have.
Reply 7
Avatar for Mackay
Mackay
17
I'm a staunch Labour supporter, but one thing which continues to grate me is the left's refusal to admit that the rise in tuition fees was a necessity born out of the Labour administration, of which Blair and Brown spearheaded.
If Blair were running for PM again, I'd back him. He's a true man of the people! Interestingly he's Scottish yet he sounds like a right posho but I suppose going to Oxford does that to a man that and staying in Durham for a long time.
Original post by tehFrance
If Blair were running for PM again, I'd back him. He's a true man of the people! Interestingly he's Scottish yet he sounds like a right posho but I suppose going to Oxford does that to a man that and staying in Durham for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettes_College
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

Yes but he spent the majority of the formative years in England and thus, he has an English accent rather than a Scottish accent. Tony is a god regardless :adore:
Brilliant PM.
(edited 8 years ago)
War criminal no amount of minimum wage reforms will feed an orphan in iraq or bring back innocence to iraqi refugees to work as prostitutes in syria to feed their family .

John Major had lost his majority before election, Blair was nothing special. He didnt change the status quo like Thatcher or FDR he followed the same Tory Market Economics policy
Original post by James222
War criminal no amount of minimum wage reforms will feed an orphan in iraq or bring back innocence to iraqi refugees to work as prostitutes in syria to feed their family .

John Major had lost his majority before election, Blair was nothing special. He didnt change the status quo like Thatcher or FDR he followed the same Tory Market Economics policy


77% of iraqis are in favour of the war.

Blair fundamentally changed the position and status of the left wing in the UK, made the left wing electable, finally moved Labour away from Socialism, brought peace to Ireland, brought the Third Way to the United Kingdom. How that isn't changing the status quo I don't know.
Original post by democracyforum
bring back bush n blair.

they would have solved the ISIS problem


It was those two that CAUSED the ISIS problem in the first place. And what would they do if they were around? More hard handed interventionism? More wars? More legitimization of anti-western regimes in the eyes of their captive citizens?
He sent British soldiers to their deaths on a false pretext and helped create the vacuum that ISIS flourished in.
He stopped a SFO investigation into bribery payments for defence contracts because it was not politically expedient to upset the autocratic and backwards rulers of Saudi Arabia.
He befriended and went for a jolly in the desert with the terrorist and dictator Gaddafi.
Upon retirement, he offered advice to the autocratic, human rights abusing government is Kazakstan on improving their PR image.

I can see why he is revered by some but, personally, I don't think much of the guy.
Original post by neochartist
It was those two that CAUSED the ISIS problem in the first place. And what would they do if they were around? More hard handed interventionism? More wars? More legitimization of anti-western regimes in the eyes of their captive citizens?


Too simplistic.

In fact blairs been warning against the dangers of Islamic extremists for some time.

I'd actually gove some blame to the Iraqi people who when thy were given freedom they decided to start acting medieval
That and not realising that the Middle East is backward at best
(edited 8 years ago)
Great time. Everyone on benefits. Free money.

:wink:
Original post by MatureStudent36
Too simplistic.

In fact blairs been warning against the dangers of Islamic extremists for some time.

I'd actually gove some blame to the Iraqi people who when thy were given freedom they decided to start acting medieval
That and not realising that the Middle East is backward at best

Of course you could argue that the ME is backward, but if you were to beat democracy into all of the backward dictatorships and regions in the world we would have a long list, not to mention that this strategy rarely works especially in regions such as the ME where anti-American and anti-Imperial sentiment is so strong. It was exceedingly clear that there were ulterior motives at play, you only have to look at our and America's general foreign policy of looking the other way when it comes to regimes that are compliant with our demands economically, politically and otherwise (the example that comes to mind is Turkmenistan, a country repeatedly praised as an ally of the west as an anti-terrorism Muslim state and oil/gas partner; it has been a North Korea style dictatorship since the fall of the Soviet Union) and criticizing, provoking and even (in the case of Iraq) attack the regimes such as Iran right now that are non-compliant.

Furthermore though the Sunni minority were heavily involved in the Ba'ath party prior to the Saddam regime's fall. The obvious thing here to mention is that Iraq was a one-party totalitarian state, so the majority of people did not do this by choice but because they will have been intimidated into doing it or blocked from their occupation if they didn't etc. The Coalition Provisional Authority banned all Ba'ath party members from the the public sector (government, military, police and education system). This led to an alienation of Sunnis from all forms of public life and an effective dismantling of the Iraqi armed forces. You can't strangle a significant minority in a country you conquered by force and expect people to not take up arms. The current Sunni insurgency was completely expected by critics of this policy back when it was carried out.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
Blair was a great man and somebody that had the resolve to at least attempt to tackle issues around the globe.

Ironically, he's less popular in his own party today than he is to the country as a whole (he's not nearly as toxic as the left think).


Blair missed the biggest opportunity to really change our country. He did a lot of good things, a lot of left wing things and he massively increased social mobility. However he had a majority of nearly 200, he could and should have pushed through some really left wing programmes. Anti-tory sentiment was so high he could have done it easily as well.
We will never get that chance again.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you