Labour/Social Democrats' opinion of Tony Blair

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[You kip if you want to...]

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

[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.