Labour/Social Democrats' opinion of Tony Blair

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.