Labour/Social Democrats' opinion of Tony Blair

[Jerseyrules]

Just out of curiosity, Is it comparable to the American liberal's opinion of Joe Lieberman?

[You kip if you want to...]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

[Jerseyrules]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

[You kip if you want to...]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

He probably would be remembered a lot more fondly by the history books if it wasn't for Iraq. Just the mention of his name was booed at our last party conference, as if he was Goldstein from 1984 or something and not Labour's most successful leader ever. It'd be fair to compare him to Clinton, he based a lot of his "New Labour" ideas, and the concept generally, on Clinton's DLC stuff anyway.

His resignation had been a long time coming. In 1994, he'd apparently promised Gordon Brown that he'd only go a term and a half as PM so that Brown'd let him go for the leadership virtually unopposed. He also agreed to give all responsibility of economic policy to Brown (apparently). Brown was (apparently) seen as the more obvious candidate by Labour MPs at the time.

When Blair didn't resign after a term and a half, their otherwise close partnership broke down and the atmosphere surrounding the government began to visibly rot. The story goes that within weeks of the 2005 election, Brown (apparently) sent out his feelers (Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) and began seriously plotting for the leadership. A raft of Brownite ministers resigned in 2006 when Blair still hadn't gone.

Blair eventually went in 2007 when he realised that he just couldn't cling on anymore, especially not if there was a leadership contest when Labour were in a panic because his ratings were in the toilet and David Cameron was starting to look convincing. Blair apparently wanted to stay on another year or so in order to beat Thatcher's length of time in office. Brown was elected leader unopposed, despite Blair (apparently) pushing for David Miliband (older brother of the current leader, former Blair policy wonk, former Environment/Foreign secretary) to go up against him.

[Jerseyrules]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

He probably would be remembered a lot more fondly by the history books if it wasn't for Iraq. Just the mention of his name was booed at our last party conference, as if he was Goldstein from 1984 or something and not Labour's most successful leader ever. It'd be fair to compare him to Clinton, he based a lot of his "New Labour" ideas, and the concept generally, on Clinton's DLC stuff anyway.

His resignation had been a long time coming. In 1994, he'd apparently promised Gordon Brown that he'd only go a term and a half as PM so that Brown'd let him go for the leadership virtually unopposed. He also agreed to give all responsibility of economic policy to Brown (apparently). Brown was (apparently) seen as the more obvious candidate by Labour MPs at the time.

When Blair didn't resign after a term and a half, their otherwise close partnership broke down and the atmosphere surrounding the government began to visibly rot. The story goes that within weeks of the 2005 election, Brown (apparently) sent out his feelers (Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) and began seriously plotting for the leadership. A raft of Brownite ministers resigned in 2006 when Blair still hadn't gone.

Blair eventually went in 2007 when he realised that he just couldn't cling on anymore, especially not if there was a leadership contest when Labour were in a panic because his ratings were in the toilet and David Cameron was starting to look convincing. Blair apparently wanted to stay on another year or so in order to beat Thatcher's length of time in office. Brown was elected leader unopposed, despite Blair (apparently) pushing for David Miliband (older brother of the current leader, former Blair policy wonk, former Environment/Foreign secretary) to go up against him.

British politics look so much more civil on the outside, but when you get into the behind-the-scenes stuff it's pretty damn dirty.  Very interesting.  Were Blair's approvals crap because of Iraq?

As an American (who just knows bare minimum about British politics), I feel like Blair got a lot of "Thatcher Laborites" back into the fold and moderate Torys because of Iraq, just because of the Special Relationship, and it also would've looked bad on the international stage if he hadn't.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[You kip if you want to...]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

He probably would be remembered a lot more fondly by the history books if it wasn't for Iraq. Just the mention of his name was booed at our last party conference, as if he was Goldstein from 1984 or something and not Labour's most successful leader ever. It'd be fair to compare him to Clinton, he based a lot of his "New Labour" ideas, and the concept generally, on Clinton's DLC stuff anyway.

His resignation had been a long time coming. In 1994, he'd apparently promised Gordon Brown that he'd only go a term and a half as PM so that Brown'd let him go for the leadership virtually unopposed. He also agreed to give all responsibility of economic policy to Brown (apparently). Brown was (apparently) seen as the more obvious candidate by Labour MPs at the time.

When Blair didn't resign after a term and a half, their otherwise close partnership broke down and the atmosphere surrounding the government began to visibly rot. The story goes that within weeks of the 2005 election, Brown (apparently) sent out his feelers (Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) and began seriously plotting for the leadership. A raft of Brownite ministers resigned in 2006 when Blair still hadn't gone.

Blair eventually went in 2007 when he realised that he just couldn't cling on anymore, especially not if there was a leadership contest when Labour were in a panic because his ratings were in the toilet and David Cameron was starting to look convincing. Blair apparently wanted to stay on another year or so in order to beat Thatcher's length of time in office. Brown was elected leader unopposed, despite Blair (apparently) pushing for David Miliband (older brother of the current leader, former Blair policy wonk, former Environment/Foreign secretary) to go up against him.

British politics look so much more civil on the outside, but when you get into the behind-the-scenes stuff it's pretty damn dirty.  Very interesting.  Were Blair's approvals crap because of Iraq?

As an American (who just knows bare minimum about British politics), I feel like Blair got a lot of "Thatcher Laborites" back into the fold and moderate Torys because of Iraq, just because of the Special Relationship, and it also would've looked bad on the international stage if he hadn't.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're quite right, but the British left have never really cared one way or the other what the world thinks (not always a bad way to be though, of course).

Iraq was the main reason for his crap approvals coupled with some "Phoney Tony" personality issues and the growing conflict in the government as the glow of 1997-2001 began to wear off. Iraq meant Labour started losing key parts of its base to the LibDems and there were some shocking swings in certain seats from Labour to Liberal in 2005 - it just put students and minorities off especially and they ran right to the Liberals. These were the types of voters who came back with their tail between their legs at the end of 2010 when the nation realised the LibDems are more "Diet Tory" than "Diet Labour".

In terms of electability, Blair appealed to a coalition of voters that still (generally) exists today. He was able to sweep up voters and seats which'd been Tory since time immemorial, many which remain Labour today even after the trashing they got in 2010 (Edgbaston, Wirral South and Gedling, to name just three). 2010 was supposed to be the election where David Cameron would swagger into Downing Street with a 100-seat majority for the Tories - he was up against the most unpopular PM in modern times during the worst economic crisis in recent times, the expenses scandal had ruined trust in the establishment and the Tories were 15% ahead going into election year - but because of problems which have been simmering under the Tories for 15-20 years now and some advantages that "New Labour" will have left behind for a few decades now, that didn't happen and Cameron only just got in and even then he needed help from his Liberal friends.

Blair picked up middle-class voters, who'd been put off by results of the 1980s-90s Tory government, by shedding the traditional "working class only" image of Labour, giving them appeal in the nice, leafy southern towns which were all previously no-go, Tory heartland areas for Labour (they even won Thatcher's old seat in 1997!). This is what tripped the Tories up big time and they still, 15 years later, haven't been able to tackle it because whenever they even try and use "socialisty, looney left, trade union bank rolled, tax the rich Labour" as a scare tactic (as Thatcher used to love doing with plenty of success as well), it backfires and makes them look like rich, out-of-touch, posh boys who are slashing taxes on the rich while making thousands of working people unemployed. It's sort've like what's happened with the Reagan Democrats.

[Jerseyrules]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

He probably would be remembered a lot more fondly by the history books if it wasn't for Iraq. Just the mention of his name was booed at our last party conference, as if he was Goldstein from 1984 or something and not Labour's most successful leader ever. It'd be fair to compare him to Clinton, he based a lot of his "New Labour" ideas, and the concept generally, on Clinton's DLC stuff anyway.

His resignation had been a long time coming. In 1994, he'd apparently promised Gordon Brown that he'd only go a term and a half as PM so that Brown'd let him go for the leadership virtually unopposed. He also agreed to give all responsibility of economic policy to Brown (apparently). Brown was (apparently) seen as the more obvious candidate by Labour MPs at the time.

When Blair didn't resign after a term and a half, their otherwise close partnership broke down and the atmosphere surrounding the government began to visibly rot. The story goes that within weeks of the 2005 election, Brown (apparently) sent out his feelers (Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) and began seriously plotting for the leadership. A raft of Brownite ministers resigned in 2006 when Blair still hadn't gone.

Blair eventually went in 2007 when he realised that he just couldn't cling on anymore, especially not if there was a leadership contest when Labour were in a panic because his ratings were in the toilet and David Cameron was starting to look convincing. Blair apparently wanted to stay on another year or so in order to beat Thatcher's length of time in office. Brown was elected leader unopposed, despite Blair (apparently) pushing for David Miliband (older brother of the current leader, former Blair policy wonk, former Environment/Foreign secretary) to go up against him.

British politics look so much more civil on the outside, but when you get into the behind-the-scenes stuff it's pretty damn dirty.  Very interesting.  Were Blair's approvals crap because of Iraq?

As an American (who just knows bare minimum about British politics), I feel like Blair got a lot of "Thatcher Laborites" back into the fold and moderate Torys because of Iraq, just because of the Special Relationship, and it also would've looked bad on the international stage if he hadn't.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're quite right, but the British left have never really cared one way or the other what the world thinks (not always a bad way to be though, of course).

Iraq was the main reason for his crap approvals coupled with some "Phoney Tony" personality issues and the growing conflict in the government as the glow of 1997-2001 began to wear off. Iraq meant Labour started losing key parts of its base to the LibDems and there were some shocking swings in certain seats from Labour to Liberal in 2005 - it just put students and minorities off especially and they ran right to the Liberals. These were the types of voters who came back with their tail between their legs at the end of 2010 when the nation realised the LibDems are more "Diet Tory" than "Diet Labour".

In terms of electability, Blair appealed to a coalition of voters that still (generally) exists today. He was able to sweep up voters and seats which'd been Tory since time immemorial, many which remain Labour today even after the trashing they got in 2010 (Edgbaston, Wirral South and Gedling, to name just three). 2010 was supposed to be the election where David Cameron would swagger into Downing Street with a 100-seat majority for the Tories - he was up against the most unpopular PM in modern times during the worst economic crisis in recent times, the expenses scandal had ruined trust in the establishment and the Tories were 15% ahead going into election year - but because of problems which have been simmering under the Tories for 15-20 years now and some advantages that "New Labour" will have left behind for a few decades now, that didn't happen and Cameron only just got in and even then he needed help from his Liberal friends.

Blair picked up middle-class voters, who'd been put off by results of the 1980s-90s Tory government, by shedding the traditional "working class only" image of Labour, giving them appeal in the nice, leafy southern towns which were all previously no-go, Tory heartland areas for Labour (they even won Thatcher's old seat in 1997!). This is what tripped the Tories up big time and they still, 15 years later, haven't been able to tackle it because whenever they even try and use "socialisty, looney left, trade union bank rolled, tax the rich Labour" as a scare tactic (as Thatcher used to love doing with plenty of success as well), it backfires and makes them look like rich, out-of-touch, posh boys who are slashing taxes on the rich while making thousands of working people unemployed. It's sort've like what's happened with the Reagan Democrats.

It seems like 2010 was equivalent to 2000 in the US.  92 was your version on our 1988 election, 97 in UK was like our 1992, and so on.  Do you see Liberals hurting or helping Tory's in 2015?  It seems like they were rail-splitters for Labour, but they've been moving more to the right, and now a coalition government with their former enemies!  If only Lloyd George could see his party now!

Do you think Labour would've done better or worse if Blair was leading them in 2010?

[You kip if you want to...]

Freedom Fighter. I feel incredibly lucky to have grown up with him as PM, especially when I look at what kids are going through under this sheer rot of a government.

His government presided over some great things, no matter what fire-and-brimstone sections of socialist thought like to think.

I like him, and from what little I've read, the UK thrived (economically, socially) under his leadership.  Energetic and charismatic, he seems like your Bill Clinton.  With no Iraq War (even in America) would he have been remembered more fondly?  And would he have resigned?  I'm unaware if he resigned because of political pressure or personal reasons.

He probably would be remembered a lot more fondly by the history books if it wasn't for Iraq. Just the mention of his name was booed at our last party conference, as if he was Goldstein from 1984 or something and not Labour's most successful leader ever. It'd be fair to compare him to Clinton, he based a lot of his "New Labour" ideas, and the concept generally, on Clinton's DLC stuff anyway.

His resignation had been a long time coming. In 1994, he'd apparently promised Gordon Brown that he'd only go a term and a half as PM so that Brown'd let him go for the leadership virtually unopposed. He also agreed to give all responsibility of economic policy to Brown (apparently). Brown was (apparently) seen as the more obvious candidate by Labour MPs at the time.

When Blair didn't resign after a term and a half, their otherwise close partnership broke down and the atmosphere surrounding the government began to visibly rot. The story goes that within weeks of the 2005 election, Brown (apparently) sent out his feelers (Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) and began seriously plotting for the leadership. A raft of Brownite ministers resigned in 2006 when Blair still hadn't gone.

Blair eventually went in 2007 when he realised that he just couldn't cling on anymore, especially not if there was a leadership contest when Labour were in a panic because his ratings were in the toilet and David Cameron was starting to look convincing. Blair apparently wanted to stay on another year or so in order to beat Thatcher's length of time in office. Brown was elected leader unopposed, despite Blair (apparently) pushing for David Miliband (older brother of the current leader, former Blair policy wonk, former Environment/Foreign secretary) to go up against him.

British politics look so much more civil on the outside, but when you get into the behind-the-scenes stuff it's pretty damn dirty.  Very interesting.  Were Blair's approvals crap because of Iraq?

As an American (who just knows bare minimum about British politics), I feel like Blair got a lot of "Thatcher Laborites" back into the fold and moderate Torys because of Iraq, just because of the Special Relationship, and it also would've looked bad on the international stage if he hadn't.  Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're quite right, but the British left have never really cared one way or the other what the world thinks (not always a bad way to be though, of course).

Iraq was the main reason for his crap approvals coupled with some "Phoney Tony" personality issues and the growing conflict in the government as the glow of 1997-2001 began to wear off. Iraq meant Labour started losing key parts of its base to the LibDems and there were some shocking swings in certain seats from Labour to Liberal in 2005 - it just put students and minorities off especially and they ran right to the Liberals. These were the types of voters who came back with their tail between their legs at the end of 2010 when the nation realised the LibDems are more "Diet Tory" than "Diet Labour".

In terms of electability, Blair appealed to a coalition of voters that still (generally) exists today. He was able to sweep up voters and seats which'd been Tory since time immemorial, many which remain Labour today even after the trashing they got in 2010 (Edgbaston, Wirral South and Gedling, to name just three). 2010 was supposed to be the election where David Cameron would swagger into Downing Street with a 100-seat majority for the Tories - he was up against the most unpopular PM in modern times during the worst economic crisis in recent times, the expenses scandal had ruined trust in the establishment and the Tories were 15% ahead going into election year - but because of problems which have been simmering under the Tories for 15-20 years now and some advantages that "New Labour" will have left behind for a few decades now, that didn't happen and Cameron only just got in and even then he needed help from his Liberal friends.

Blair picked up middle-class voters, who'd been put off by results of the 1980s-90s Tory government, by shedding the traditional "working class only" image of Labour, giving them appeal in the nice, leafy southern towns which were all previously no-go, Tory heartland areas for Labour (they even won Thatcher's old seat in 1997!). This is what tripped the Tories up big time and they still, 15 years later, haven't been able to tackle it because whenever they even try and use "socialisty, looney left, trade union bank rolled, tax the rich Labour" as a scare tactic (as Thatcher used to love doing with plenty of success as well), it backfires and makes them look like rich, out-of-touch, posh boys who are slashing taxes on the rich while making thousands of working people unemployed. It's sort've like what's happened with the Reagan Democrats.

It seems like 2010 was equivalent to 2000 in the US.  92 was your version on our 1988 election, 97 in UK was like our 1992, and so on.  Do you see Liberals hurting or helping Tory's in 2015?  It seems like they were rail-splitters for Labour, but they've been moving more to the right, and now a coalition government with their former enemies!  If only Lloyd George could see his party now!

Do you think Labour would've done better or worse if Blair was leading them in 2010?

2015 will be a realigning election no matter what the result is because of the shift of Liberal voters. They'd built up left-wing voters since the 1980s, those who didn't feel they were "naturally" Labour (middle-class public sector workers and none Tories), then this was consolidated by students at the start of the 2000s and by other lefties after Iraq.

Since the Coalition, the Liberals have fallen from 24% of the vote to about 10%. Of that 14% fall, about 10% has gone to Labour and these are voters who Labour lost decades ago, that even Blair couldn't reach. If the election was held today, the Lib to Lab swing would be bigger than the swing against the Tories to Labour in 1997 and that's rare, we're not like the Canadians who end up having unexpected, last minute, curveball results at every other election. The remaining Liberal vote is more right than left and will, for the next few cycles, cause more problems for the Tories than Labour in terms of vote splitting. Since the 2010 election, the left's been united in a way it hasn't been since the SDP broke off and the local elections have shown how difficult this is gonna make things for the LibDems and the Tories. 2015 will see the right split between Tory, the LibDems and UKIP.

And it's difficult to say if Blair would've done better. Gordon Brown was obviously a key part of Labour's problem, but Blair was also unpopular. He would've performed much better at the debates and I think he could've certainly have used the last minute worries about Cameron and turned the election into a "better the devil you know" election, not unlike 1992. I, personally, couldn't see Blair doing worse though.

[Leftbehind]

Well, if only to balance out the apraisal above, HP. The Right in Labour like to repeat that Blair was electorally the must successful leader, but when you're prioritising electoral concerns to the extent he did, often over principles and ideology, it becomes counter-productive to any success, and for all Blair's victories (three, if we're counting - and he could hardly have hoped for better circumstances for the two he actually won convincingly) he was no more successful than Wilson or Attlee (I'd argue a great deal less successful than both) in the goal of winning elections - to further your aims and ideas, and to enact policies that reflect them.

The Clinton comparison is very apt, and you only need to ask yourself if you feel Clinton is a democratic socialist, to see Blair was nowhere near the party's ambitions. Despite the caricature of the Left ostensibly denying any good he done, it's more that the good he did was overshadowed by the bad - and there was a lot of that, beyond Iraq. Domestically, he cemented much of Thatcher's legacy - to the point where she described him as her legacy - and in some areas even drove it forward: welfare, education, public sector "reform" to name a few.

Internally he overseen a top-down structure within the party, where everything was stage-managed and conference went ignored (still waiting for that rail re-nationalisation!), and out of the party, the British political spectrum became a lot narrower; helping frustration and apathy reign, if they weren't hopping off to the now left-of-Labour Liberal Democrats

I think you only need to hear the Tories say "we're only continuing Labour's work", when they're privatising our schools and the NHS, and see the Labour MP's convoluted response as to why Labour's privatisation was good as opposed to how this is bad, to realise how much damage Blair done to Labour's cause.

Or, y'know, you can just read his offerings.

[Sibboleth]

Why is this thread in the What-If board?

Anyways, opinion is mixed and tends to split down along broadly factional lines (which was not the case for most of his leadership, but a lot of people were alienated by the way he acted in his last couple of years in charge). The fact that he now apparently disapproves of most of his government's achievements adds a slightly surreal gloss to things, of course.

Internally he overseen a top-down structure within the party, where everything was stage-managed and conference went ignored

Actually that was Neil Kinnock's doing.

[Leftbehind]

Careful to use "overseen", rather than "began", precisely because of that - he is no less culpable for continuing it, really. Although I did exclude his distasteful factionalism because Kinnock pursued it with greater vigour, so perhaps inconsistent of me. 

[Jerseyrules]

So you guys would say that Blair is the best Tory - I mean Labour - PM Britain's ever had?

So would Blair have privatized, etc to the extent that the Tory's have now, and governed similar to Cameron's government?  Or would he have been a step to the left?  And would you say he was center-to-center-right for Britain's standards?

In general, he seems like a very likable guy, and that probably helps him a great deal with voters.  But assuming Labour wins a few extra seats in 2010 with Blair leading them - enough to form a coalition with the Liberals - would he have done so?  What are the affects of this, and would Torys receive a swing from Liberals similar to the swing to Labour?

[Supersonic]

So you guys would say that Blair is the best Tory - I mean Labour - PM Britain's ever had?

So would Blair have privatized, etc to the extent that the Tory's have now, and governed similar to Cameron's government?  Or would he have been a step to the left?  And would you say he was center-to-center-right for Britain's standards?

In general, he seems like a very likable guy, and that probably helps him a great deal with voters.  But assuming Labour wins a few extra seats in 2010 with Blair leading them - enough to form a coalition with the Liberals - would he have done so?  What are the affects of this, and would Torys receive a swing from Liberals similar to the swing to Labour?

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post here as it says 'Labour/Social Democrats' opinion', but oh well.

 

Blair towards the end of 'The Journey' gave cloaked support for the Coalition, considering David Cameron bases his whole government, and himself, on Tony Blair their governing style would undoubtedly be similar. I, personally, would say that Blair was a radical centrist, despite the fact that partisans from both sides argue that he was a 'SOCIALIST' or 'SAME AS 'FATCHER'.

In terms of likeability, hmm, I would say that he was very likeable during the 1997-2003 period, acceptable from Iraq to about 2006, then begun to be unpopular from then on. Nowadays he is very unlike-able figure, and is hated by literally everyone except for Labour moderates and David Cameron of course. If Blair stayed on as leader, impossible in my view as the Party would have literally erupted into civil war between Blairites and Brownites, then he would have enjoyed Gordon Brown level approvals or worse. Blair got out of office just in time before the economy went tits up. In term of a Lab-Lib coalition, I'm not sure, he could have worked well with the Orange Book wing, but the SDP'ers would have wanted his head before any deal, not to mention that his political capital would have been entirely exhausted under a 2010 style election result.

[Jerseyrules]

So you guys would say that Blair is the best Tory - I mean Labour - PM Britain's ever had?

So would Blair have privatized, etc to the extent that the Tory's have now, and governed similar to Cameron's government?  Or would he have been a step to the left?  And would you say he was center-to-center-right for Britain's standards?

In general, he seems like a very likable guy, and that probably helps him a great deal with voters.  But assuming Labour wins a few extra seats in 2010 with Blair leading them - enough to form a coalition with the Liberals - would he have done so?  What are the affects of this, and would Torys receive a swing from Liberals similar to the swing to Labour?

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post here as it says 'Labour/Social Democrats' opinion', but oh well.

 

Blair towards the end of 'The Journey' gave cloaked support for the Coalition, considering David Cameron bases his whole government, and himself, on Tony Blair their governing style would undoubtedly be similar. I, personally, would say that Blair was a radical centrist, despite the fact that partisans from both sides argue that he was a 'SOCIALIST' or 'SAME AS 'FATCHER'.

In terms of likeability, hmm, I would say that he was very likeable during the 1997-2003 period, acceptable from Iraq to about 2006, then begun to be unpopular from then on. Nowadays he is very unlike-able figure, and is hated by literally everyone except for Labour moderates and David Cameron of course. If Blair stayed on as leader, impossible in my view as the Party would have literally erupted into civil war between Blairites and Brownites, then he would have enjoyed Gordon Brown level approvals or worse. Blair got out of office just in time before the economy went tits up. In term of a Lab-Lib coalition, I'm not sure, he could have worked well with the Orange Book wing, but the SDP'ers would have wanted his head before any deal, not to mention that his political capital would have been entirely exhausted under a 2010 style election result.

From what youve written, it seems you are generally accepting of his policies, and I'm curious if you'd lable  yourself as a moderate Tory.  Also, would Blair he be able to handle the next 5 years, assuming he doesn't resign?  Would he be able to take the stress of running Britain another (8?) years after he resigned OTL until the 2015 election, and if he did and was able to improve Britain's economy, would he have come out better or worse in the minds of future generations?  Providing he resigns just before the 15 elections, would there be an immenent Tory landslide, even if the economy made marginal improvements?

[You kip if you want to...]

Tony Blair was a radical centrist. That's why everyone hates him.

[Supersonic]

From what youve written, it seems you are generally accepting of his policies, and I'm curious if you'd lable  yourself as a moderate Tory.  Also, would Blair he be able to handle the next 5 years, assuming he doesn't resign?  Would he be able to take the stress of running Britain another (8?) years after he resigned OTL until the 2015 election, and if he did and was able to improve Britain's economy, would he have come out better or worse in the minds of future generations?  Providing he resigns just before the 15 elections, would there be an immenent Tory landslide, even if the economy made marginal improvements?

I'm not a moderate Tory, although I can see why you would think that. I'm on the firm right of the Conservative Party. I would probably be a moderate-esque Republican.

Blair's economic policies in many ways echoed the Tories during the 1997-2005ish period, for their first term they simply used the Conservative spending plans, hence his success in drawing soft Tory voters. Personally I abhorred his policies on crime, immigration and Europe. Not to mention all that political-correctness hogwash, and ruining our constitution.

If Blair by some miracle was able to hang on via a coalition past 2010 (highly unlikely), I don't think he would have been able to govern effectively at all. Firstly, it would have been Blair's instinct to cull the deficit (he said this in The Journey) however the grassroots of Labour and many of their MP's would have found this approach objectionable with rising unemployment. Secondly, I think he would have resigned to salvage some of his legacy, one can only endure being the anti-Christ for so long. Even now, Blair's name is poison (although being slowly redeemed), he was booed at the annual Labour Party conference not too long ago. Imagine if he stayed on longer. He simply couldn't have been more unpopular.

[Jerseyrules]

From what youve written, it seems you are generally accepting of his policies, and I'm curious if you'd lable  yourself as a moderate Tory.  Also, would Blair he be able to handle the next 5 years, assuming he doesn't resign?  Would he be able to take the stress of running Britain another (8?) years after he resigned OTL until the 2015 election, and if he did and was able to improve Britain's economy, would he have come out better or worse in the minds of future generations?  Providing he resigns just before the 15 elections, would there be an immenent Tory landslide, even if the economy made marginal improvements?

I'm not a moderate Tory, although I can see why you would think that. I'm on the firm right of the Conservative Party. I would probably be a moderate-esque Republican.

Blair's economic policies in many ways echoed the Tories during the 1997-2005ish period, for their first term they simply used the Conservative spending plans, hence his success in drawing soft Tory voters. Personally I abhorred his policies on crime, immigration and Europe. Not to mention all that political-correctness hogwash, and ruining our constitution.

If Blair by some miracle was able to hang on via a coalition past 2010 (highly unlikely), I don't think he would have been able to govern effectively at all. Firstly, it would have been Blair's instinct to cull the deficit (he said this in The Journey) however the grassroots of Labour and many of their MP's would have found this approach objectionable with rising unemployment. Secondly, I think he would have resigned to salvage some of his legacy, one can only endure being the anti-Christ for so long. Even now, Blair's name is poison (although being slowly redeemed), he was booed at the annual Labour Party conference not too long ago. Imagine if he stayed on longer. He simply couldn't have been more unpopular.

So do you think his legacy will improve going forward, possibly attain Bill Clinton status?

[Supersonic]

No way Bill Clinton status.

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about. I think in time, yes, his reputation will improve and he'll be seen as an important, reforming PM.

[Jerseyrules]

No way Bill Clinton status.

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about. I think in time, yes, his reputation will improve and he'll be seen as an important, reforming PM.

On a scale of 1-5, 5 being outstanding, (Churchill, Pitt the Younger, etc), 1 being horrible, what do you think Blair is now, and where do you think he will be in 20-50 years?

[Sibboleth]

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about.

Callaghan was always personally popular, with a very brief exception at the height of the Winter of Discontent.

[Supersonic]

No way Bill Clinton status.

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about. I think in time, yes, his reputation will improve and he'll be seen as an important, reforming PM.

On a scale of 1-5, 5 being outstanding, (Churchill, Pitt the Younger, etc), 1 being horrible, what do you think Blair is now, and where do you think he will be in 20-50 years?

Ooooh that's a tough one.

If I'm making a non-partisan, historical interpretation of the Blair legacy, maybe a 3.5 or a 4. People do overlook the huge role he played in reforming British society between 1997 to 2007, but even he admitted that there were things he wished to pursue policy wise that he didn't for political reasons ie. popularity.

If I may ask, why are you so interested in Tony Blair?

[Supersonic]

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about.

Callaghan was always personally popular, with a very brief exception at the height of the Winter of Discontent.

Ah yes, I forgot about ol' Sunny Jim.

[Leftbehind]

So you guys would say that Blair is the best Tory - I mean Labour - PM Britain's ever had?

So would Blair have privatized, etc to the extent that the Tory's have now, and governed similar to Cameron's government?  Or would he have been a step to the left?  And would you say he was center-to-center-right for Britain's standards?

In general, he seems like a very likable guy, and that probably helps him a great deal with voters.  But assuming Labour wins a few extra seats in 2010 with Blair leading them - enough to form a coalition with the Liberals - would he have done so?  What are the affects of this, and would Torys receive a swing from Liberals similar to the swing to Labour?

You'd think so, but no. Most of the post-war Tory PMs were less objectionable, and why would I want to gift the opposition a fairly impressive (in style) leader, and make it harder to beat him and them? As Supersonic hints at, we've largely got Blair in charge, anyway.

Yeah, I think he'd be no different to the coalition re cuts and privatisation, just read the article I linked at the end of my last post - he's shown overt support for the coalition, and from what i can remember, raised some criticisms of Ed Miliband's candidacy in the leadership election because of his opposition to the coalition's direction.  

I'd class him as centre-right, as I've never heard anyone credibly call him a socialist (here's a former Tory leader mocking the very prospect) and prominent Tories (not least the PM) expressed their support for him (Gove, the education minister, notably said he loved him). I'd be open to suggestions, but I can't think of many left-wing things he did that counteracted his right-wing actions. But then the centre's moved enormously, like much of the rest of the world, where Thatcherism is seen as centrism these days, rather than right-wing, so he could still be classed as a centrist and right-wing at the same time. It's funny, Clegg's often been called a "radical centrist", and just like Blair, there's no doubt in my mind both of them are right of centre.

[You kip if you want to...]

Whenever a question like this gets asked, I have to think of a story from his last leader's speech to conference in 2006. There are people (he referred to Dennis Skinner who was in hospital at the time) on the Labour left who he had blazing disagreements with on nearly everything, but there was a reason such people remained loyal and people like Dennis Skinner could see the difference between a Conservative government and the New Labour government of 1997-2010.

[Jerseyrules]

No way Bill Clinton status.

As a general rule, all British Prime Ministers are always unpopular. I have to go back to Harold Macmillan to think of a bi-partisan, respected, Prime Minister. John Major isn't unpopular per-se, but he was rather inoffensive and sometimes gets forgotten about. I think in time, yes, his reputation will improve and he'll be seen as an important, reforming PM.

On a scale of 1-5, 5 being outstanding, (Churchill, Pitt the Younger, etc), 1 being horrible, what do you think Blair is now, and where do you think he will be in 20-50 years?

Ooooh that's a tough one.

If I'm making a non-partisan, historical interpretation of the Blair legacy, maybe a 3.5 or a 4. People do overlook the huge role he played in reforming British society between 1997 to 2007, but even he admitted that there were things he wished to pursue policy wise that he didn't for political reasons ie. popularity.

If I may ask, why are you so interested in Tony Blair?

I'm trying to be informed on British politics, and I think I understand much about Churchill, Thatcher, and Cameron, and I'm trying to fill in the gaps