Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 002)
    How does everyone feel about the prospect of Blair becoming EU President?
    It will never happen because that man divided the EU with his pursuit of the illegal war.

    EDIT: He should be sorting out the Middle East because he is the Quartet envoy
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 002)
    Aaarrrrggggghhhhh! What did I say about mentioning he who must not be named!!
    SORRY! I must have missed that post! D:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    Saying whether his terms in office were good or bad is quite difficult to do. For the entirety of his term in office the UK was in economic growth. Unemployment fell, hospital waiting times fell and we avoided a recession that hit most other western nations. The city I'm from (Liverpool) changed immeasurably under his watch from a city that was imploding to one that was booming. His achievements are many.

    There were a lot of things that went wrong, too, but with the exception of the Iraq war they were mostly insignificant. That's some exception though.
    I think that's what's made Labour, or more specifically Blair, so polarising. Mostly, Blair / Bro (apparently, I've been forbidden to say the chancellor because of the OP? :confused: ) had a decade of boom years, but Labour's problem was the same problem as it was in the 1970's - unsustainable spending, and the failure to regulate the banks.

    The Tories had it spot in when they said that Labour have had 13 years to clean up the mess (hypocritically, the Tories left :rolleyes: )- but didn't do so. Instead the rich got richer, at the expense of the taxpayer, while the poor were only marginally better off under Labour.

    There is no doubt that the country has benefited economically under Labour. Absolutely no doubt. Spending in areas increased massively, waiting lists shortened (as you said), but Labour's problem was they continued spending long after they should have stopped doing so.

    When the recession kicked in, Labour made the situation with it's fallacy logic of spending it's way out of a recession. Labour brought us to growth in early 2010 - but for how long would they have had the growth before they would have had to slash and burn, and cut their losses?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    How on Earth could he be as bad as Stalin or Hitler?? :lolwut:

    How on Earth could any British Prime Minister have been as bad as Stalin or Hitler? :curious:
    Shhhh! Don't feed the troll!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 002)
    Blair was for the good of the Labour party. Agree?
    (Original post by 002)
    Blair was for the good of Britain, and indeed the world. Do you agree?
    (Original post by 002)
    Blair transformed Britain from the dark days of Tory Poverty, neglect and oppression of the poor into a fairer society for everyone. Agree or Disagree?
    (Original post by 002)
    Blair enhanced Britains relationship with the US, making Britain one of the most feared and envied countries on the planet. Do you agree or disagree?
    This attrition questioning is extremely irritating. Agree or disagree?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthestig)
    Disagree, the win in 1997 was inevitable. John Smith or Gordon Brown would have won it.

    I don't like Blair, man of few principles with a god complex.
    Absolutely spot on. By 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism and Majorism, people were becoming increasingly annoyed and hostile of the government that had dominated the last two decades. They wanted change, and they wanted it big time.

    Labour knew if they were going to be electable again they had to dump many of the unpopular policies. Michael Foot swung them too far to the left, and was decimated in the 82 election because his policies didn't reflect the attitude of the country.

    Blair's refreshing charisma, albeit made him look slippery, was necessary if Labour was going to win in 1997. Labour knew also if Brown contested, he would have lost, albeit very narrowly, to the Conservatives - because he was too much Old Labour, and his lack of charisma meant he was unpopular and unelectable.


    Why do you think Brown didn't become PM by election?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    I think that's what's made Labour, or more specifically Blair, so polarising. Mostly, Blair / Bro (apparently, I've been forbidden to say the chancellor because of the OP? :confused: ) had a decade of boom years, but Labour's problem was the same problem as it was in the 1970's - unsustainable spending, and the failure to regulate the banks.
    There was no reason to suspect that the spending needed to be sustained. They inherited creaking infrastructure and sought to replace it, and their having done so will benefit the UK for many years yet. A large proportion of their additional spending came in the form of long term investments (capital spending, education, etc.), and debt didn't really become a serious issue until the credit crunch. I've yet to hear a credible economist argue that bailing out the banks was a bad idea, so why would we blame the at the time incumbents for doing it?
    The Tories had it spot in when they said that Labour have had 13 years to clean up the mess (hypocritically, the Tories left :rolleyes: )- but didn't do so. Instead the rich got richer, at the expense of the taxpayer, while the poor were only marginally better off under Labour.
    On what basis do you state that the poor were only marginally better off?
    There is no doubt that the country has benefited economically under Labour. Absolutely no doubt. Spending in areas increased massively, waiting lists shortened (as you said), but Labour's problem was they continued spending long after they should have stopped doing so.
    What, when the economy stalled and every major economy began to spend increasing amounts to stabilise the banks and prevent a major downturn?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    This attrition questioning is extremely irritating. Agree or disagree?
    Disagree, if you don't like it read a different thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    Absolutely spot on. By 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism and Majorism, people were becoming increasingly annoyed and hostile of the government that had dominated the last two decades. They wanted change, and they wanted it big time.

    Labour knew if they were going to be electable again they had to dump many of the unpopular policies. Michael Foot swung them too far to the left, and was decimated in the 82 election because his policies didn't reflect the attitude of the country.

    Blair's refreshing charisma, albeit made him look slippery, was necessary if Labour was going to win in 1997. Labour knew also if Brown contested, he would have lost, albeit very narrowly, to the Conservatives - because he was too much Old Labour, and his lack of charisma meant he was unpopular and unelectable.


    Why do you think Brown didn't become PM by election?
    Foot had the problem of image and a hostile press that said he looked like Worzel Gummidge, etc and that a vote for him would be a vote for Soviet Britain

    He wouldn't have lost as badly in 1983 had there been no SDP split and no Falklands War. The country was taken in by mass hysteria from winning back the Falklands that many conveniently forgot how unpopular Thatcher was beforehand.

    Brown didn't win in 2010 because of a combination of factors:
    1. Tired government, Labour had been in power with pretty much the same faces for 13 years
    2. The lingering anti-Iraq War protest vote which had gone to the Lib Dems
    3. The media turning its back on Brown and Labour fuelled by his gaffes
    4. "Cleggmania" and the debates
    5. Biggest of all - the financial crisis of 2007/8

    Had Brown been leading Labour in 1997, he would have won. Brown was a popular guy you've only got to look at the poll bounce he received after he became PM and for a few brief months with the floods response, etc, he was doing well. Had he called a snap election in 2007, it's likely he would've won a small majority, perhaps he might have gained a handful of seats.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    Wasn't that Gordon Brown who spent our taxes like water - and got almost nothing out of it? After all Brown controlled the money - Blair was the political figurehead. Monetary decisions would have gone through Brown.

    If you're going to pan someone, at least pan the right guy who stuffed us in the first place :confused:
    You remember that the PM (actually - the Queen technically makes the appointment but would appoint whoever the PM chose) appoints the Chancellor, right?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    A large proportion of their additional spending came in the form of long term investments (capital spending, education, etc.), and debt didn't really become a serious issue until the credit crunch. I've yet to hear a credible economist argue that bailing out the banks was a bad idea, so why would we blame the at the time incumbents for doing it?
    On what basis do you state that the poor were only marginally better off?
    What, when the economy stalled and every major economy began to spend increasing amounts to stabilise the banks and prevent a major downturn?
    Nobody can deny that bailing out the banks saved many people from going under. Brown promised to bail out the banks so homeowners et al. wouldn't lose a penny.

    However, it boils down to this point - we shouldn't have had to bail out the banks in the first place. If the government had properly regulated banks in the first place, instead of giving them more deregulation, then it wouldn't have been necessary to bail them out.

    Brown SAVED this country - but only in the short term. Rightly, people criticised Brown because he just didn't save enough. Blair said himself - They inherited a golden economy in surplus in the late 1990s - and Blair / Brown did exceedingly well in the good times.

    But Labour just didn't save enough for the bad times - and Brown kept spending and injecting money, at the expense of the taxpayer, into this country (partly to obtain votes from a party becoming unpopular) in quangos and things that didn't, ultimately, offer us value for money.

    People DID benefit under Labour - but not as many as the socialists believe. Had Labour actually been a left-wing party, instead of a center-right (note: watered down Tory party) party, then things would be very different. But Labour were out of government for 18 years because they were ultimately too left wing; and Thatcher, arguably, saved this country from Old Labour put us in.

    IMHO, Labour kept spending because they knew they'd be out in the 2010 election - so it wouldn't be their mess to clean up. The Tory agenda isn't inheriently callous (i.e. they wouldn't be doing what they did now if Labour left us with a golden economy in '97) - they're just cleaning up the mess Labour left us in.

    Long term investments are a fantastic idea, absolutely. In schools for example there is no doubt they have improved - but, again, not as much as what people are lead to believe. Schools are still failing, millions of teenagers are being turned out every year without basic qualifications, etc etc...

    So the question is then, what has Labour given us that wasn't one of those pet projects?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Like if you think
    Was the best PM in the history of Britain.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    You remember that the PM (actually - the Queen technically makes the appointment but would appoint whoever the PM chose) appoints the Chancellor, right?
    Yes I do - but the deal between Blair and Brown was a backdoor deal. That was organised well before Labour was elected in 1997. Even in the party itself there was tension between supporters - people backed Blair because he had the charisma and political strength to be a leader.

    Labour could not under any circumstances afford to lose the '97 election- though given the times, people wanted the Tories out. Blair was elected because Labour was desperate for power. Brown stepped aside because the party members in the mid 90s didn't believe he would be popular among voters - and Brown was too Old Labour to be popular among the electorate.

    So while Blair did pick Brown to be chancellor, Blair did so because Blair knew Brown would cause far more damage being booted out of Labour, but in Labour he could be contained and controlled.

    Conversely, Blair promised to step aside for the 2005, so Brown could take over as leader. So why did Blair resign in 2007?

    Because Blair, and Labour, knew that if Brown contested in 2005, he would have lost.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthestig)
    He wouldn't have lost as badly in 1983 had there been no SDP split and no Falklands War. The country was taken in by mass hysteria from winning back the Falklands that many conveniently forgot how unpopular Thatcher was beforehand.

    Brown didn't win in 2010 because of a combination of factors:
    1. Tired government, Labour had been in power with pretty much the same faces for 13 years
    2. The lingering anti-Iraq War protest vote which had gone to the Lib Dems
    3. The media turning its back on Brown and Labour fuelled by his gaffes
    4. "Cleggmania" and the debates
    5. Biggest of all - the financial crisis of 2007/8

    Had Brown been leading Labour in 1997, he would have won. Brown was a popular guy you've only got to look at the poll bounce he received after he became PM and for a few brief months with the floods response, etc, he was doing well. Had he called a snap election in 2007, it's likely he would've won a small majority, perhaps he might have gained a handful of seats.
    Labour would have won in 1997 if either Brown / Blair went for leadership - People were becoming bored and hostile of the Tory government that had been in since 1979.

    Thatcher won in 1983 because the electorate believed there was no other contest to Thatcher. Although the Falklands did win it for her, absolutely.

    If Brown was so popular, why did every person who'se worked with him, apart from maybe Charlie Wheeler and a few others, all resent Brown for being moody, difficult to work with, hostile of the opinions of others? Not that I'm attacking you for it, naturally

    Here's a question for everyone - If people hated Thatcher SO badly as people make her out to be, why was she voted in AGAIN in 1987? Ignoring the fact that Neil Kinnock would have been a kack party leader.

    The economy was recovering in the mid 1980s. Unemployment was still high, as it was throughout the 80s - but Thatcher won because she pulled Britain through some difficult times, and her slash and burn policies were working.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    This attrition questioning is extremely irritating. Agree or disagree?
    Agreed, entirely. OP - Stop it, we get it.

    Question is, do you agree or disagree with what the OP is agreeing or disagreeing about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chad_Bronson)
    Labour would have won in 1997 if either Brown / Blair went for leadership - People were becoming bored and hostile of the Tory government that had been in since 1979.

    Thatcher won in 1983 because the electorate believed there was no other contest to Thatcher. Although the Falklands did win it for her, absolutely.

    If Brown was so popular, why did every person who'se worked with him, apart from maybe Charlie Wheeler and a few others, all resent Brown for being moody, difficult to work with, hostile of the opinions of others? Not that I'm attacking you for it, naturally

    Here's a question for everyone - If people hated Thatcher SO badly as people make her out to be, why was she voted in AGAIN in 1987? Ignoring the fact that Neil Kinnock would have been a kack party leader.

    The economy was recovering in the mid 1980s. Unemployment was still high, as it was throughout the 80s - but Thatcher won because she pulled Britain through some difficult times, and her slash and burn policies were working.
    She got 42/43% of the vote in '79, '83, '87, whilst Major had 41% in '92

    That demonstrates its highly likely that she appealed so well to that single voter base (aspirational working class, traditional middle class)... she never gained votes, never lost them.

    It also must be remembered that 57/8% of Britain never voted for her.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...0#post42199490

    Just a note that for any true Blairites here somebody is attempting to form a Blairite in the Mhoc so come get involved.

    (i'm not a Blairite, its somebody else).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthestig)
    She got 42/43% of the vote in '79, '83, '87, whilst Major had 41% in '92

    That demonstrates its highly likely that she appealed so well to that single voter base (aspirational working class, traditional middle class)... she never gained votes, never lost them.

    It also must be remembered that 57/8% of Britain never voted for her.
    Fair play
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.