Opinions on Tony Blair's Speech today: Antisemitism, Brexit, Corbynism & Thatcherism Watch

londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by generallee)
He was a gifted communicator, no doubt about that. But people saw through him at the end. And that was why he was actually a drag on the Remain side, not a net benefit. Whenever he opened his mouth Brexiteers found more reasons to Leave, or the waverers left Remain.

The knock on him, apart from creating the conditions for Brexit (if like all Remainers you think that is the most catastrophic policy mistake since the second world war, that is hardly to his reputational credit, Brexiteers thank him, obviously) is that he actually did very little. What did he achieve? Surprisingly little, considering he had such a long time in office, with stonking majorities and by our standards limitless power. It was a huge opportunity wasted, if you are a Progressive.

The Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act are his biggest legacies I suppose. And even they might face serious revision by Boris, although we will see about that.

He didn't leave the country better than he found it. He left it worse.
I'm no socialist, sjw or adherent of the dogma of identity politics progressivism.
The Blair government did achieve quite a bit when it came to domestic policy legislation.
National minimum wage, abolishing of the death penalty for treason, allowing unmarried couples to apply to adopt children not related to them, 2 weeks paid paternity leave, more flexible adult entertainment licencing, gambling liberalisation, supreme court, Good Friday Agreement, NI's Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998, Human Rights Act, independence of the MPC, repeal of section 28 and civil partnerships.
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by londonmyst)
I'm no socialist, sjw or adherent of the dogma of identity politics progressivism.
The Blair government did achieve quite a bit when it came to domestic policy legislation.
National minimum wage, abolishing of the death penalty for treason, allowing unmarried couples to apply to adopt children not related to them, 2 weeks paid paternity leave, more flexible adult entertainment licencing, gambling liberalisation, supreme court, Good Friday Agreement, NI's Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998, Human Rights Act, independence of the MPC, repeal of section 28 and civil partnerships.
Everything you say is true.

But it wasn't a government that changed the direction of the nation. Governments with similar majorities in peacetime over the past hundred odd years have been far more ambitious, far more radical. More consequential.

The 1906 Liberal Administration created the embryonic welfare state and after a titantic battle established the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords, for ever.

1945 Atlee Government created the NHS, gave India independence, helped found NATO and launched the modern Welfare State.

The 1979 Thatcher Administration broke up the mixed economy and the post war Keynsian economic consensus and destroyed Trade Unionism, it made Britain essentially post industrial.

Judged by those standards, the Blair government is of less long term importance, in my opinion, anyway. It was too timid. Too obsessed with spin. And its foreign policy was calamitous, of course.

Intrerstingly this current administration looks like it is going to be extraordinarily consequential. Undertaking Brexit will be epochal in its significance...
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
I disagree with almost everything said from the first sentence. Once again people aren't looking beyond the numbers. It is unlikely that this is a major defeat in terms of views. I highly doubt they have changed for most people in two years. It's more likely to be the timing of the election and what the election really was about. The conservatives did not gain a significant proportion of the popular vote only 330k; the loss from labour more than likely comes from abstaining (the turnout was lower than in 2017) and votes taken by SNP, Lib dem and reactionary parties ( The independent party of change for brexit and whatever the ****). As I've said before Nigel Farage is a smart man, but one who I disagree with profusely, but he gave the right reason : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_F25uqzLbc (excuse the misleading title). The left and right have became too merged; which is evident from the appalling turnout in 2001 under Blair. Because what's the difference?

Blair just like the biased newspapers are taking a single election and making assumptions that support his ideology, without a proper case backing his claim.

I hate this idea of we hate the Tories, so let's just move to become something to defeat them rather than what we actually believe. Which is all Blair is tbh; I don't want to see a muddle of left and right where I don't even know what the difference between each party is, because I would have to abstain or just vote for a smaller party who won't win.
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by generallee)
Everything you say is true.

But it wasn't a government that changed the direction of the nation. Governments with similar majorities in peacetime over the past hundred odd years have been far more ambitious, far more radical. More consequential.

The 1906 Liberal Administration created the embryonic welfare state and after a titantic battle established the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords, for ever.

1945 Atlee Government created the NHS, gave India independence, helped found NATO and launched the modern Welfare State.

The 1979 Thatcher Administration broke up the mixed economy and the post war Keynsian economic consensus and destroyed Trade Unionism, it made Britain essentially post industrial.

Judged by those standards, the Blair government is of less long term importance, in my opinion, anyway. It was too timid. Too obsessed with spin. And its foreign policy was calamitous, of course.

Intrerstingly this current administration looks like it is going to be extraordinarily consequential. Undertaking Brexit will be epochal in its significance...
I guess though that New Labour's aim wasn't to push through significantly radical change. That may sound a bit silly, but New Labour's pitch was essentially 'kind capitalism'. Let the market do its thing, tax it and then use the revenues to invest massively in public services and welfare.

You could say the reason that they got such a large majority was because they weren't pledging to do anything too radical such as widespread nationalisations etc.

I think there's a decent argument to say that economically, the country is still fairly Blairite.

The Good Friday Agreement and his Balkan intervention are probably his most lasting achievements.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 month ago
2
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
I disagree with almost everything said from the first sentence. Once again people aren't looking beyond the numbers. It is unlikely that this is a major defeat in terms of views. I highly doubt they have changed for most people in two years. It's more likely to be the timing of the election and what the election really was about. The conservatives did not gain a significant proportion of the popular vote only 330k; the loss from labour more than likely comes from abstaining (the turnout was lower than in 2017) and votes taken by SNP, Lib dem and reactionary parties ( The independent party of change for brexit and whatever the ****). As I've said before Nigel Farage is a smart man, but one who I disagree with profusely, but he gave the right reason : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_F25uqzLbc (excuse the misleading title). The left and right have became too merged; which is evident from the appalling turnout in 2001 under Blair. Because what's the difference?

Blair just like the biased newspapers are taking a single election and making assumptions that support his ideology, without a proper case backing his claim.

I hate this idea of we hate the Tories, so let's just move to become something to defeat them rather than what we actually believe. Which is all Blair is tbh; I don't want to see a muddle of left and right where I don't even know what the difference between each party is, because I would have to abstain or just vote for a smaller party who won't win.
I think that it can be accurately described as a large scale defeat for the Labour Party in terms of views.
Yes, Brexit was a significant factor and there was a degree of exasperation amongst plenty of voters about having three general elections in less than 5 years.

But so many traditional Labour voters seem to have chosen to abstain from voting at all, voted for other parties or told members of Labour campaigning teams that they were very negatively disposed towards the Labour leadership/policy direction/manifesto contents.
Resulting in Labour losing 59 seats, with candidates losing many constituencies that the Labour Party had held for decades or as long as the constituencies had existed.

I suppose the 'Labour Together' Review Commission will attempt a detailed analysis of what possible messages the Labour Party can obtain from the 2019 campaign & election outcomes.
Last edited by londonmyst; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by londonmyst)
I think that it can be accurately described as a large scale defeat for the Labour Party in terms of views.
Yes, Brexit was a significant factor and there was a degree of exasperation amongst plenty of voters about having three general elections in less than 5 years.

But so many traditional Labour voters seem to have chosen to abstain from voting at all, voted for other parties or told members of Labour campaigning teams that they were very negatively disposed towards the Labour leadership/policy direction/manifesto contents.
Resulting in Labour losing 59 seats, with candidates losing many constituencies that the Labour Party had held for decades or as long as the constituencies had existed.

I suppose the 'Labour Together' Review Commission will attempt a detailed analysis of what possible messages the Labour Party can obtain from the 2019 campaign & election outcomes.
But I don't think it can. How likely is it that a there was a major shift if views of many people in 2.5 years ? You have to look at other reasons. Only way I think that can be said is if you argue people don't really know what they're voting for beyond the surface , but again that's a bad argument because you could say that for this election too.

You see all these "ordinary Jim bobs" who voted labour all their life who are now voting Tories on TV, but I doubt that's where the Labour vote went, it went to SNP in Scotland, smaller parties and abstaining. And when people actually do give a reason that's not a parroted "Jew thing", " Corbyn" " all the same" etc. it's usually because of a lack of a stance on brexit. That's not indicative of left wing views (which are left wing and not far left as the Tories in disguise claim) being less favourable than it was before. Its just that the corporate owned media forces people to focus on one issue, but what comes after that? Homelessness is up and none of the nonsense data to say it was much higher X years ago. The definition can simply be changed to lower it; it's now much easier to be classed as "intentionally homeless", which is not counted in the figures. The gap between the rich and poor is at a disgustingly high level. NHS waiting times have increased, and its level of efficiency is low, general living costs are higher, purchasing power of the pound has plummeted. I'd agree that views can be cyclical , but this happening while a right winged loony government who constantly misleads and falsifies info makes me believe that people who voted labour in 2017 aren't leaning more to the right.
Maybe Americanisms are working though. Just look at the news it has been sensationalised over the last few years to American levels.
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by londonmyst)
I think that it can be accurately described as a large scale defeat for the Labour Party in terms of views.
Yes, Brexit was a significant factor and there was a degree of exasperation amongst plenty of voters about having three general elections in less than 5 years.

But so many traditional Labour voters seem to have chosen to abstain from voting at all, voted for other parties or told members of Labour campaigning teams that they were very negatively disposed towards the Labour leadership/policy direction/manifesto contents.
Resulting in Labour losing 59 seats, with candidates losing many constituencies that the Labour Party had held for decades or as long as the constituencies had existed.

I suppose the 'Labour Together' Review Commission will attempt a detailed analysis of what possible messages the Labour Party can obtain from the 2019 campaign & election outcomes.
Additionally, I just don't see his point. It's not a football team. It's like someone saying put away your principals and appease people on a more fiscally conservative side of things. I get that we would want to win, but that should be by educating people on why your way is superior, not by giving up what you believe in. It's the reason we saw more support for parties such as UKIP in 2015. We don't need more muddling of of centre politics.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (18)
24.32%
My career doesn't need one (8)
10.81%
I'm sick of studying (14)
18.92%
I can't find a course I want to do (2)
2.7%
I don't know enough about them (9)
12.16%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (23)
31.08%

Watched Threads

View All