(no subject)

[mrph]

Tony Blair appears to have accepted the inevitable and is expected to finally announce a timetable for his resignation within hours

I know that some of you will disagree, but I have to believe this is a good thing. Blair's been there too long, he's lost his credibility and he needs to go.

I don't want to see Labour disintegrate completely - it's not healthy for British democracy when one party is unelectable - but they have to face the future and start fixing the things that the Blair years have broken.

Personally, I reckon he'll be gone before the end of January. Perhaps sooner.

Comments

[mimmimmim.livejournal.com]

Possibly it's the media spin on things, but Blair's current desperation to be loved by the public really disturbs me. He didn't get elected to be liked, he got elected to sort out the country, mainly public services. If he wants to be loved, he could do something to stop hospitals racking up huge debts and closing down services. Two cottage hospitals in my area have been closed and the one in my hometown is closing - if he fancies coming to Trowbridge and being hailed as a good bloke, he could try lending a hand to the campaign to keep ours open rather than talking to Chris Evans or going on Blue Peter.

That's one thing you can say for the Thatch - she didn't care who didn't like her.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

He'll buy himself some time by naming a date, to be sure. But the opposition will lay into him over being a "lame duck" as soon as he has, and it won't quite his party completely. I don't see him lasting to whatever date he names.

[daevid.livejournal.com]

The party is dead methinks...

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

Labour have been a disaster - when Blair starts talking Eugenics ("Let's detect bad people in the womb!") it's not only time for him to go, but time for him to be taken as far away from anywhere he has influence. This, following an attempt by Labour to create an Enabling Act, is frightening stuff. As is the legacy of unimplemented white papers, and the fact that industry under the "Blair Years" has been deciminated far worse than it was under Maggie - just on the sly.

We've already got on party that's unelectable (Tories), one that no one wants in government anyway (Fib Dems), and Labour. We'll end up with the SNP at the rate we're going. Although I'd quite like to see the Greens - republican and secular - gain more ground.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Labour have been a disaster

In two and a half weeks I am having a civil partnership ceremony - something that was unthinkable under the Tories, so obviously I disagree.

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

Well congratulations.

But then again, there's the complete disaster of the transport policy (Most of it Dropped, leaving the whole country languishing in a bizarre situation where car use is difficult with no alternative), the attempt to put through an act that would allow parliament to amend laws without having to go through parliament (Something Labour have been obsessed with since the post war years as a means of making laws that people, erm, don't want.)

And of course, various unpopular (And expensive) wars that Blair's dragged us into. Destruction of the education systems into a faith school based system. ("Hello Mr evangical freak, give us 2 million against 40 million and YOU can control a school!")

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

And then there is the Human Rights act put into law, devolution, far better maternity rights (including for fathers), the minimum wage, equal age of consent, the abilition of Section 28, the fox hunting ban, civil partnerships, the dramatic reduction in unemployment, the and so on, and so on.

Of course there are failures - all governments have them, and are tarnished by them as they stay in office. This is the nature of things.

Also, although I strongly disagree with Blair's opinion on this, no-one can possibly claim that education system is now generally faith-based.

We should not be selective, and label 9 years of what has been for many of us phenomenal social progress as totally disastrous because we don't like certain policies and strategies, even though those may be major. Simplistic views and analyses stifle debate.

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

"Social progress" convenient simplifications to cover up the utter inability of the government to tackle problems that are either worse or still around. Society certainly isn't better overall than it was 12 years ago, and in some cases social divides are worse.

Labour have, wisely, not tinkered with the economy they inherited in 1997. They have reduced unemployment by massive expansion of the public sector, and the huge pension bill and wage bill for that is a disaster waiting to happen. They've already admitted this is going to cost and that they may have to raise tax (Which costs _private_ industry) - and public services have certainly not improved as consequence of paying someone 40K a year for being a "Diversity Manager".

The faith schools are setting a dangerous precedent.

How many white papers have you read? Nothing bad's happened to me under personally under Labour (Aside from getting two pay rises and ending up earning LESS due to tax increases), and while there have been some minor social tweaks that have pleased a few people, it seems to be a convenient ploy to make people forget how many billions have been wasted on projects and plans that have come to nothing, or that the house of Lords has been struggling to work with a lot of poor legislation.

Simplistic views? Comparing a fox hunting ban to something as dangerous as a form of Enabling Act. Thankfully it never got through, but I'm sure while you're popping your champagne over Fox hunting being "banned" (Due to the invocation of the Parliament Act) the government are quite happy that you're unaware of what else they're trying to put through.

The tories had already begun to accept the Human Rights act before they left power. Although Jackboot Straw wanted the UK to get out of it so he could impose stronger censorship - on that subject, not many governments try to make it a criminal act to view pictures of activity that is actually legal. Shove that in your Web Planet and weave it!

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Personally, I am glad that the party that labelled my relationship a 'pretend family', and nearly wrecked my father's business through its mismanagement of the economy, and empowered policemen to beat up miners, is out of power, and I would rather things stayed that way! No matter how friendly Cameron may seem, there are plenty like Tebbit and Widdecome behind the scenes.

If you honestly think that things that make life better for millions, such as the minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights and benefits and equal rights are 'minor social tweaks', or that things really haven't changed for the better in 12 years, all I can say is that we have simply going to have to disagree and leave it at that.

As vaguely mentioned below...

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Things change.

Governments can steer events to some extent - fight against progress or ride the wave - but they aren't solely responsible for them.

Equal rights, minimum wage, maternity and paternity... these ideas are not patented by Tony Blair.

The Conservatives didn't like them in the 1980s, but that doesn't mean that Labour deserves all the credit.

To pick one example:

Edwina Currie introduced the first (defeated) bill to equalise the age of consent. A certain William Hague voted for that, too (unlike David Blunkett, who voted against...).

Re: As vaguely mentioned below...

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I was not implying it was Tony Blair that drove these things - quite the contrary. But the fact is they happened under labour - we knew that when Labour was elected that many of these things would happen. For a while the tone of politics changed.

Those who proposed such things under the Tories were considered extreme. Those who proposed such things in the Labour party were mainstream. For example, the minimum wage was in the Labour manifesto.

I am not saying Labour deserves all the credit, what I object to strongly to is simplistic catch-all statements that the entire Labour term has been a disaster... I would not even say that about previous Tory governments!

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Something that was unthinkable under the Tories in the 1980s or early 1990s.

Would it have been at least slightly different if Labour had been in power at the time? Probably. But there's also an element of plain and simple progress in there - politicians don't want to stray too far from the public mood.

The Tories in power in 2009 - not something I'm endorsing - would be quite different from the Tories of 1988. They can't backtrack. Many of their younger members wouldn't want to, anyway.

I'm not saying that Labour's always been a disaster - but once a government's been elected, there's a certain element of diminishing returns. They slump and spin, increasing paranoid about their future.

Labour in the last 2-4 years has been, on the whole, a waste of space.

I salute and celebrate the fact that they've finally introduced civil partnerships - but their foreign policy has supported a needless and dishonest war that killed an awful lot of people. They want ID cards. They want "on the spot" justice. Their talk on asylum is increasingly draconian, as is their 'control order' system and the way they've applied anti-terror laws.

I can't vote for that. I want to see an end to it, here and now.

Would the Conservatives be somehow better intentioned? Would Gordon Brown? Perhaps not.

But having said that, I think that kicking Blair out of office would send a loud and clear message that a large chunk of the electorate does not like or want this behaviour.

I may not have faith in Brown's or Cameron's good intentions. But they're not as obviously deluded as Blair, so I've got a lot more faith in their pragmatism and enlightened self-interest.

The government works for us. Now and then we have to remind them - and their colleagues - of that. With a P45, if necessary.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think the Tories in 2009 would be different - Labour has 'ratched things on' in terms of some issues.

But, you are right about ID cards etc - I actually read some comment about voting in the Tories because the objected to some right-wing New Labour policies! A bit extreme, perhaps, but I can see their point.

I finally gave up on Blair when he appointed Ruth Kelly in some position to do with equality, when she is a member of a far-right Catholic group - that was the last straw for me.....

Perhaps Brown will be different?

[jorune.livejournal.com]

By all accounts, Brown is worse than Blair in his autocratic moments. Tony was speaking from a background of Anglo-Catholicism 'Come on, let's be reasonable about this'. Gordon comes from a background of solid Presbyterianism 'You'll stay oot in tha rain because it's guid for ye and nae shoes neither!'

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but he is more intelligent than Blair, and possibly less likely to say nutty things about allowing schools to teach creationism and such stuff. One can imagine Gordon rolling his eyes and shaking his head on hearing of such nonsense. Brown is likely to have some very intelligent and capable people with him, such as Milliband and Balls, and not nutters like Kelly.

[girfan.livejournal.com]

My only issue with him is that he sucked up to Dubya and was influenced by Bush's actions. Whoever is the next prime minister needs to separate the UK from the US.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. In other respects, Labour has done some great things (devolution, human rights act, and so on), even though Blair's attraction to the USA has been strange and troubling. I do get worried when those who have full rights to things like marriage and who may be too young to remember the sheer awfulness, social, political and economic, of the Tories in the 80s start to call Labour a disaster. For millions of those oppressed by the Tories, either by prejudice or unemployment, Labour has, on the whole, been hugely better. I say this as someone who voted Lib Dem in 1997.

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

Winter of discontent, anyone?

The only reason the UK had to go through the pain of the 1980s was to get away from the Keynsian economics the country was being run under and move into a free market model - full employment, great, but funded by the state, and so uttery stagnant that it was unable compete with other industrialised nations in the market.

Britain was the poor man of Europe - people forget this - with strict import controls and heavily protected industry that was atrociously run and being manipulated for political means by politicians and trade unions. It was also producing goods that were substandard and pretty much unsellable outside a dwindling Commonwealth market. Quite why the government should be making cars, planes, boats, running airports, etc, is anyone's business.

Labour's tactic for getting unemployment down is quite simple: expand the public sector. They can't do it by building factories making stuff that no one wants anymore, running at half capacity. Areas like the North East have seen zero growth in industry, but huge growth in public sector employment.

In real terms, though, Labour have actually just continued the process the Tories started in 1979 (And tried to start under Harold Wilson), although there are already rumblings that public sector bills are too high and this is going to come back to haunt whoever's in government next.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

There was a lot more pain in the 80s than was necessary.

All that matters as a measure good economy are three factors: inflation, unemployment and growth. These started to get out of control (without all three being simultaneously under control by government) at the start of the 1970s. I remember the awfulness of the 70s. Britain was indeed the 'poor man of Europe' as a result of both Tory and Labour failings (who can forget Ted Heath's failures?) - neither managed to control the excesses of either management or unions during that decade. But the 80s were also a mess, as shown by the repeated recessions. We had phenomenal income from the 80s from North Sea oil, and it was wasted on tax cuts. Subsequent Tory governments attempted to gain income from privatisations, many of which have been recognised (even by Tory ministers) as major mistakes, such as that of the railways.

No lessons on politics or economics are needed here. I worked in university departments that were decimated because the conservatives failed to meet their promises of matching industry funding for research. I worked in companies that were slowly and painfully shedding employees while Norman Lamont was talking month after month about the "green shoots of recovery".

The only time for over a century when inflation and unemployment and growth have been well managed and stable has been under this Labour administration. Some may say it was started under the Tories, but this is irrelevant - they had 18 years to prove that they could do this, and they failed.

[paulw.livejournal.com]

He will be so desperate to celebrate his 10 years in power I think he'll hang on just for that.

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

It'll be a lonely celebration!

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Can I ask what would you think of a Lib Dem/Tory coalition? I ask because a hung parliament looks like a distinct possibility.....

[livingarmchair.livejournal.com]

Bring Back Pierrepoint!:-)

Interesting possibility, and as it's the only chance the LibDems have of getting any sort of power, it's probably highly likely.

[kest]

It is interesting to me how Brits discuss parties and issues, even when nominally discussion individuals, whereas USians discuss individuals even when nominally discussing parties and issues.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I wonder if it's built into the system and the way it handles mid-term leadership challenges? I've already seen comments elsewhere on LJ talking about how people need to remember that they didn't vote for Blair - they voted for Labour.

I think to some degree it's also historical. You get a two-term limit on Presidents. We get Maggie and Tony, two successful leaders who didn't want to leave office.

I think the debate here clearly shows you one thing - we're still talking about Maggie and the Conservative government of the 80s.

There's been no mention of John Major or the fact that the Conservatives stayed in office until '97 - it's all about Mrs Thatcher and whether history's about to repeat itself, with a successful leader who stays too long, leaving a divided/tainted party and no credible successor when they finally go...