Meanwhile, in the wilds of the far north, First Minister Jack McConnell has also left the building, though unfortunately for him not at a time or scenario of his own choosing. In fact, the poor guy really has suffered at the hands of Tony Blair, as Scotland turned mostly against Blair and his foreign crusades rather than the party itself, and as a result Jack is out of a job (nothing personal to him).
Instead, we've got Baw Heid Salmond and a Nationalist government who's main wish is to rip up the United Kingdom. Hooray. Thanks Tony.
First Minister Alex Salmond you mean, Gordon Brown is becoming Prime Minister, as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland too.
I'm no nationalist. I'm Scottish first and foremost, above everything else, but I'm also happy being British and European and see no conflict of interest in any of those. Last year, the prospect of an SNP government scared the crap out of me. We'd be picking at the stitching holding the United Kingdom together and for me that was a dangerous prospect. However, when their poll lead refused to go away, I resigned myself to Salmond gaining power. But...
I thought the Liberals would sell out for a bit of power and he'd be in a comfortable coalition deal. That hasn't transpired. The Liberals have stuck solidly to their Unionist principles and the SNP have been forced into a minority administration. They're weak. The full extent of their manifesto will not be realised, as everything - policy by policy - will be put to a parliament against three large parties that oppose independence. Salmond has, in so many words, conceded that his dream of an independence referendum in 2010 might not be attainable. He doesn't have the power to take on Westminster. He's left only with what he probably feared he would be - to govern Scotland, in the best interests of the Scottish people, knowing fine well that leaving the Union is outwith his reach. Making him and his party really no different to the other three arranged on the benches opposite.
As for Gordon Brown. Well. Eek. I think I prefer Salmond, and that's saying something.
I'm no nationalist. I'm Scottish first and foremost, above everything else, but I'm also happy being British and European and see no conflict of interest in any of those.
Cheerfully seconded, M5. I guess that to our American cousins it's a bit like being proud of coming from, say, Texas, and being proud of being Texan and American. Only a bit, mind .
I'm no nationalist. I'm Scottish first and foremost, above everything else, but I'm also happy being British and European and see no conflict of interest in any of those. Last year, the prospect of an SNP government scared the crap out of me. We'd be picking at the stitching holding the United Kingdom together and for me that was a dangerous prospect. However, when their poll lead refused to go away, I resigned myself to Salmond gaining power. But...
Scottish? Yes. British? Yes. European? Yes. I think it is possible to be enthusiastic about all three identities without being conflicted, and I do feel that the narrow nationalism displayed by some (both Scottish and English) in the United Kingdom is a worrying trend.
Regarding Gordon Brown, I think he has some job rescuing Labour from the depths of unpopularity in which it is currently mired. It has become fairly clear that Tony Blair's legacy, while having some positive aspects, is one of failure to deliver. The Blair government, on domestic policy, has not implemented hugely unpopular policies with the general public such as the community charge; the unpopularity, in my view, stems from a paralysis at the heart of British government. Governance by headline, furthermore, has done little to convince a justifiably cynical electorate.
There was a very interesting poll in today's Financial Times, polling respondents in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United States. Despite the enormous levels of investment, look at the disappointment evinced in the highly negative responses to Tony Blair's impact on health and education. Perhaps if Blair had bit the bullet and seriously reformed these sectors, rather than tinkering at the edges, more improvement could have been made. Then there is foreign policy, with the vast majority of people showing little confidence in the Blair legacy:
Hugo DraxLeeds, United Kingdom.Posts: 210MI6 Agent
There was a very interesting poll in today's Financial Times, polling respondents in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United States. Despite the enormous levels of investment, look at the disappointment evinced in the highly negative responses to Tony Blair's impact on health and education. Perhaps if Blair had bit the bullet and seriously reformed these sectors, rather than tinkering at the edges, more improvement could have been made. Then there is foreign policy, with the vast majority of people showing little confidence in the Blair legacy
The major irony of the Blair government is that an administration so preoccupied with media presentation has failed to promote its achievements with the electorate. It seems incredulous, to me at least, that a majority of people would believe that Blair has had a negative impact of hospital and schools.
It saddens me that the Blair legacy has been fatally poisoned by events in Iraq. There are many achievements of which the Blair government can be proud, but these have been overshadowed by events in the Middle East. I only hope that history will judge Blair more kindly than his contemporaties. It has become common and fashionable to detest Blair and his government. Indeed, many in the Labour Party eagerly await the opporunity to draw a line under past decade and move on. Personally, I will be sad to see Tony Blair depart No 10, as I firmly believe that he is one the greatest prime ministers in British history. As someone who works in education, the fruits of government investment have really made such a difference to the students' education. Moreover, teachers pay is up 20% since 1997, and although I believe that the government have tinkered excessively with the education system, it has been a massively improved picture overall. I admit that I have serious concerns about the levels of bureaucracy and deluges of paperwork which afflict the life of an everyday teacher, the majority of my friends and colleagues believe that Blair has done a lot for the education system.
There have been great improvements in our public services, although I do agree with you, L880, on the point that Blair really should have gone further in his pursuit of reform. It is likely that he himself would have liked to have gone further, but he has already walked many a tightrope with the Labour Party on the issue of public service reform. Regarding the public services, I believe there are different reasons why many people do not believe that public service have improved enough. Firstly, it is almost impossible to measure how efficiency and productivity the extra investment. The extra money has undoubtedly engendered improvements, but have the improvements been dramatic enough in light of the money spent? As I said, that is a very difficult question to answer. Secondly, people have unrealistic expectations about public services. Hospital waiting lists have fallen greatly but there are always going to be people who feel that any sort of a wait is unacceptable. This unrealistic expectation is something that governments of all stripes have to deal with. Thirdly, you can ]argue that waiting times have fallen by over 400,000, you can point out that there are 85,000 more nurses and 33,000 more doctors in the NHS compared to be 1997. You can point out that over 130 hospitals are being either refurbished or rebuilt and that the largest hospital-building programme in history is underway. But at the end of the day, anecdotal evidence is always going to have more of an impact on people's perception of the National Health Service.
Blair and Brown have steered the economic ship well. But they have sailed in what have been largely benign waters. The Labour government was gifted a favourable set of economic circumstances by the Major government and hence cannot take full credit for the strong British economy. On the world stage, as I mentioned, Iraq has cast a dark shadow over the entire Blair premiership. However, my own view is that Blair has been a great world statesman, taking the lead on issues such as aid for Africa and the Kyoto Protocol. There are many aspects of the Blair foreign policy with which I take issue, but I see Blair as a man of principle, someone who is prepared to risk unpopularity by following his belief.
From a Labour Party perspective, Blair is the man who squared the circle, completing the procees of turning Labour from an dogmatic party stubbornly clinging to outdated policies into a pragmatic, elecion-winning party. Historically, the Conservatives have been adroit at regenerating the party platform to win elections. The electoral aspect of Blairism is probably the greatest (and most overlooked) trait inherited from Margaret Thatcher.
As for the future, the next election will certainly be quite a fight. But I don't believe there is any reason for the Labour Party to come despondent. Gordon Brown should not try and emulate Tony Blair in the media presentation stakes. A 'substance vs style' battle with David Cameron is one which Brown can win. Moreover, the Conservative Party is hardly a paragon of internal harmony and I can see many more Tory toes being stepped on by Cameron before the next election. If imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, then Tony Blair can certainly smile at what the Conservative Party seems to have become. Imitation? Moving the goalposts? Sounds rather familiar. I wonder why..
As for the future, the next election will certainly be quite a fight. But I don't believe there is any reason for the Labour Party to come despondent. Gordon Brown should not try and emulate Tony Blair in the media presentation stakes. A 'substance vs style' battle with David Cameron is one which Brown can win. Moreover, the Conservative Party is hardly a paragon of internal harmony and I can see many more Tory toes being stepped on by Cameron before the next election. If imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, then Tony Blair can certainly smile at what the Conservative Party seems to have become. Imitation? Moving the goalposts? Sounds rather familiar. I wonder why..
I agree. Gordon Brown has quite impressed me with his fairly dour approach. Strangely it feels like a breath of fresh air and makes Cameron's style feel oddly outdated.
I'm a floating voter so I haven't made up my mind yet. Could go either way.
The major irony of the Blair government is that an administration so preoccupied with media presentation has failed to promote its achievements with the electorate.
Personally I would take a different view. I do not think it is a question of the Blair government failing to trumpet its 'achievements'; rather that in making excessive claims, reannouncing past initiatives and spinning results beyond what is credible the Blair government has left the British electorate rather cynical and disbelieving. Of course all governments spin, but the way in which the Blair government has behaved in this regard has done immense damage to British politics and British democracy itself, evidenced by the decreasing turnout at elections. This, in my view, is one of Tony Blair's most important, and dangerous, legacies.
Personally, I will be sad to see Tony Blair depart No 10, as I firmly believe that he is one the greatest prime ministers in British history.
Naturally I disagree, sitting as I do on the other side of the political fence. Nevertheless, for a prime minister to be 'great' (a subjective term, of course) I think it is necessary to have led a government which has redrawn *society* in a fundamental way. In the post-war era, I think only Attlee and Thatcher meet that requirement. Below that are the prime ministers who make a substantial change to political discourse, who shift the political goalposts. Harold Macmillan would be included in that; Ted Heath, contrary to popular opinion, might also be afforded such a position in meeting one of his own set objectives by taking Britain into Europe. Tony Blair should probably be included in that tier too. Ignoring what I actually think of Mr Blair's premiership, I think it difficult to describe him as a 'great'.
That is hardly scientific and others of greater intellect might well disagree. Morever, I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was temperamentally the best prime minister of the post-war era, though I woul accept that he can in no way be regarded as a 'great' prime minister.
As someone who works in education, the fruits of government investment have really made such a difference to the students' education. Moreover, teachers pay is up 20% since 1997, and although I believe that the government have tinkered excessively with the education system, it has been a massively improved picture overall. I admit that I have serious concerns about the levels of bureaucracy and deluges of paperwork which afflict the life of an everyday teacher, the majority of my friends and colleagues believe that Blair has done a lot for the education system.
I also work in education, and I would concur that investment is important. But *as* important is genuine reform, not the tinkering around at the edges and the periodic intervention enacted by the Labour government. Health and education have indeed improved, but not at a rate commensurate with the level of investment. Much of the investment in public services has been misspent. A great deal more could have been achieved, and it is deeply unfortunate that the case for reform has in fact been weakened by the Blair government. It has become more difficult to advocate genuine reform given the perpetual enactment of extremely modest and debilitating reforms by the Blair government.
There have been great improvements in our public services, although I do agree with you, L880, on the point that Blair really should have gone further in his pursuit of reform. It is likely that he himself would have liked to have gone further, but he has already walked many a tightrope with the Labour Party on the issue of public service reform.
Indeed Mr Blair said as much in a party conference speech. This is surely an enormous indictment of Blair's premiership: circumstances did not prevent him from going further, only his own timidity and fear of the Labour party. The Labour party has shown itself over the past decade to be incredibly weak; apart from Gordon Brown, I am not sure why Mr Blair did not push further.
The Labour government was gifted a favourable set of economic circumstances by the Major government and hence cannot take full credit for the strong British economy.
On the world stage, as I mentioned, Iraq has cast a dark shadow over the entire Blair premiership. However, my own view is that Blair has been a great world statesman, taking the lead on issues such as aid for Africa and the Kyoto Protocol. There are many aspects of the Blair foreign policy with which I take issue, but I see Blair as a man of principle, someone who is prepared to risk unpopularity by following his belief.
Well, I'm not sure I would see Mr Blair as a man of principle. That said, there are positive aspects to Mr Blair's foreign policy and it would be churlish not to acknowledge this: on Sierra Leone and Kosovo Mr Blair did, in my opinion at least, the right thing and can be proud of his contribution in those respects.
On the other hand, he utterly failed in attempting to meet his own objective of reconciling Britain with the notion being a good European. Instead he simply avoided making crucial decisions about Europe's future, kicking the issue into the long grass.
I really don't know if Tony Blair thought he was risking great unpopularity by going to war alongside the United States with Iraq. Blair seemed to be confident of his own ability to convince the British public, and he certainly utilised the spin machine in a quite disgraceful way to that end. After the event it has been portrayed as a trial of strength; a sort of masochistic yet principled drive to do the right thing. Still, that was after the event. I think Mr Blair was genuinely surprised by the depth of feeling as regards his decision to go to war.
I don't believe there is any reason for the Labour Party to come despondent. Gordon Brown should not try and emulate Tony Blair in the media presentation stakes.
If Gordon Brown is the answer, it is worth querying what the question is. I do have some respect for Mr Brown as a politician, but on the evidence of the past decade I do not think he will be a successful prime minister at all.
A 'substance vs style' battle with David Cameron is one which Brown can win.
We'll see. There is a long while until the next election and anything can happen. However, David Cameron could be the Macmillan of the modern day, and may be just as successful.
Nice to have a positive and friendly political discussion without any frayed tempers. Also, I've probably missed this, but I see you are now in California. It seems ages since we last conversed, and I was wondering how you ended up over there.
If Gordon Brown is the answer, it is worth querying what the question is.
Hear hear. Gordon Brown scares me. I think he's moody, petulant, stubborn, devious and hugely egotistical. How to hand the SNP their first big PR victory? Act like a sulky child and refuse to even acknowledge the fact they won. When he was asked, three times - not once, not twice, but three times - in the middle of the week if he had spoken to Mr Salmond since his election victory, he ignored the question and walked on, as if no one had even spoke. That is no way for any gentleman to behave, much less the imminent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond standing up in Holyrood saying "He never calls, he never writes..." brought the house down and just made Brown look contemptable.
I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere (on countless occassions) of being no nationalist, but so far Alex Salmond has behaved far more like an international statesman than anything Gordon Brown has mustered over the past week. I have a nagging fear that the SNP may come out of the Edinburgh vs. London match far better than I imagined.
Hugo DraxLeeds, United Kingdom.Posts: 210MI6 Agent
Personally I would take a different view. I do not think it is a question of the Blair government failing to trumpet its 'achievements'; rather that in making excessive claims, reannouncing past initiatives and spinning results beyond what is credible the Blair government has left the British electorate rather cynical and disbelieving. Of course all governments spin, but the way in which the Blair government has behaved in this regard has done immense damage to British politics and British democracy itself, evidenced by the decreasing turnout at elections. This, in my view, is one of Tony Blair's most important, and dangerous, legacies.
I agree that there has been an excessive focus on media presentation and indeed media control. I would say that the ghosts of Labour's 18 years of opposition, a past replete with infamous PR blunders, has haunted the Blair government and contributed to the culture of 'spin' so endemic in Whitehall.
Naturally I disagree, sitting as I do on the other side of the political fence. Nevertheless, for a prime minister to be 'great' (a subjective term, of course) I think it is necessary to have led a government which has redrawn *society* in a fundamental way. In the post-war era, I think only Attlee and Thatcher meet that requirement. Below that are the prime ministers who make a substantial change to political discourse, who shift the political goalposts. Harold Macmillan would be included in that; Ted Heath, contrary to popular opinion, might also be afforded such a position in meeting one of his own set objectives by taking Britain into Europe. Tony Blair should probably be included in that tier too. Ignoring what I actually think of Mr Blair's premiership, I think it difficult to describe him as a 'great'.
That is hardly scientific and others of greater intellect might well disagree. Morever, I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was temperamentally the best prime minister of the post-war era, though I woul accept that he can in no way be regarded as a 'great' prime minister.
It depends how you define prime ministerial greatness. Whilst I would agree that Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher deserve to be regarded as a great prime ministers, I would argue that the extent to which they reformed society is only one jewel in their crowns. Attlee managed to forge a progressive coalition of support for Labour's reform programme while also dexterously managing feuding factions in the Cabinet. Mrs Thatcher broke the back of Labour support by bringing millions of working class voters to the Tory fold. The sheer longevity of Mrs Thatcher's government is mighty impressive in my humble opinion, especially when you think that this was a government walking in electoral no-man's land during the early 1980s.
I am curious as to what reasons underpin you rating Sir Alec Douglas Home and Harold Macmillan so highly? I would be interested to hear why you have reached this judgement.
I also work in education, and I would concur that investment is important. But *as* important is genuine reform, not the tinkering around at the edges and the periodic intervention enacted by the Labour government. Health and education have indeed improved, but not at a rate commensurate with the level of investment. Much of the investment in public services has been misspent. A great deal more could have been achieved, and it is deeply unfortunate that the case for reform has in fact been weakened by the Blair government. It has become more difficult to advocate genuine reform given the perpetual enactment of extremely modest and debilitating reforms by the Blair government...
Indeed Mr Blair said as much in a party conference speech. This is surely an enormous indictment of Blair's premiership: circumstances did not prevent him from going further, only his own timidity and fear of the Labour party. The Labour party has shown itself over the past decade to be incredibly weak; apart from Gordon Brown, I am not sure why Mr Blair did not push further.
I simply think thar Mr Blair was being pragmatic and realistic about what reforms the Labour Party would be prepared to swallow. I do believe that too many people in the Labour Party have a sentimental and more importantly, anachronistic, attachment to the idea of state control. Anything with the word 'private' is instantly dismissed as being evil. In all honesty, it has not been easy being an active member of the Labour Party over the last ten years. I have often felt like I was in the wrong party! I have been cast as the enfant terrible on many an occasion by other party activists!
Well, I'm not sure I would see Mr Blair as a man of principle. That said, there are positive aspects to Mr Blair's foreign policy and it would be churlish not to acknowledge this: on Sierra Leone and Kosovo Mr Blair did, in my opinion at least, the right thing and can be proud of his contribution in those respects.
On the other hand, he utterly failed in attempting to meet his own objective of reconciling Britain with the notion being a good European. Instead he simply avoided making crucial decisions about Europe's future, kicking the issue into the long grass.
I really don't know if Tony Blair thought he was risking great unpopularity by going to war alongside the United States with Iraq. Blair seemed to be confident of his own ability to convince the British public, and he certainly utilised the spin machine in a quite disgraceful way to that end. After the event it has been portrayed as a trial of strength; a sort of masochistic yet principled drive to do the right thing. Still, that was after the event. I think Mr Blair was genuinely surprised by the depth of feeling as regards his decision to go to war.
I agree with you that Blair probably believed in his ability to sell the justification of a war to the British people. The spin aspect of the Iraq issue has been the worst element of this whole charade. It would have been far more credible for Mr Blair to advocate military action on the grounds of removing a threat to stability in the region and on the grounds of Saddam Hussein's appalling human rights record. Sure, the majority of people would have probably still opposed the conflict, but at least Blair would have much more credibility. I believe that the WMD issue was the tip of the tentacle. I don't believe that the government lied over the existence of WMDs. I believe that Mr Blair promoted the conflict on grounds which were themselves questionable because he believed that this would be the best way in which to 'sell' military action to the world community.
Nice to have a positive and friendly political discussion without any frayed tempers. Also, I've probably missed this, but I see you are now in California. It seems ages since we last conversed, and I was wondering how you ended up over there.
It is probably wishful thinking that has made me leave the settings as they are, as I am now back in the UK. I spent much time this year in both California and Canada and I am hoping to return to the latter in the summer.
I agree that there has been an excessive focus on media presentation and indeed media control. I would say that the ghosts of Labour's 18 years of opposition, a past replete with infamous PR blunders, has haunted the Blair government and contributed to the culture of 'spin' so endemic in Whitehall.
I think that is probably true Hugo; such a long period in opposition may indeed have pushed the Blair government into a singular determination to manage the media so that they did not go into opposition again. Unfortunately for the rest of us this has had a corrosive effect on British democracy and accountability. This effect on British politics is one of Tony Blair's main legacies, and it is a deeply damaging one.
It depends how you define prime ministerial greatness. Whilst I would agree that Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher deserve to be regarded as a great prime ministers, I would argue that the extent to which they reformed society is only one jewel in their crowns. Attlee managed to forge a progressive coalition of support for Labour's reform programme while also dexterously managing feuding factions in the Cabinet. Mrs Thatcher broke the back of Labour support by bringing millions of working class voters to the Tory fold. The sheer longevity of Mrs Thatcher's government is mighty impressive in my humble opinion, especially when you think that this was a government walking in electoral no-man's land during the early 1980s.
My reasoning was not scientific at all. Others of greater intellect would probably disagree. Nevertheless, 'greatness' I would define as leading a government which altered fundamentally, or radically, the nature and shape of the British society and economy. Of all the post-war prime ministers, I would suggest that only Attlee and Thatcher meet that criterion. This is not to suggest that I personally think they were great, which is a more subjective question.
I am curious as to what reasons underpin you rating Sir Alec Douglas Home and Harold Macmillan so highly? I would be interested to hear why you have reached this judgement.
These are the post-war prime ministers for whom I have most respect. This does not mean that I think they qualify for 'greatness'. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was temperamentally a brilliant prime minister: self-effacing, trusting in his colleagues and with a cool ability to assess the situation. His total lack of egotism was perhaps his strongest feature. He was a very good team player and manager. There is a wonderful recounting in one of Peter Hennessy's books (The Prime Minister, 2000, p 274) in which one professor says that Sir Alec is "[t]he only Prime Minister in the postwar [sic] period for whom, if he stopped me in the street and asked me to lend him a fiver as he'd left his wallet at home, I would have opened my wallet without hesitation". His personal attributes made him the perfect prime minister for the time, and I knew a woman who worked with him when he was prime minister and she confirmed that he was, above all else, a thoroughly decent man. His behaviour after his resignation, moreover, was exemplary and demonstrated the streak of selflessness to his character.
Harold Macmillan was the consumate showman, who bedevilled the Labour party for years and took to the office of prime minister a great deal of experience, intellect and grounding in culture. Macmillan was the best read of the group of prime ministers post-1945. Moreover the sort of conservatism he and his government engendered, that of the One Nation variety, I am most comfortable with. Obviously such conservatism has to be updated, but the principles and values are those in which I believe.
I agree with you that Blair probably believed in his ability to sell the justification of a war to the British people. The spin aspect of the Iraq issue has been the worst element of this whole charade. It would have been far more credible for Mr Blair to advocate military action on the grounds of removing a threat to stability in the region and on the grounds of Saddam Hussein's appalling human rights record. Sure, the majority of people would have probably still opposed the conflict, but at least Blair would have much more credibility. I believe that the WMD issue was the tip of the tentacle. I don't believe that the government lied over the existence of WMDs. I believe that Mr Blair promoted the conflict on grounds which were themselves questionable because he believed that this would be the best way in which to 'sell' military action to the world community.
Regardless of whether the original decision was justified or not, the way the Blair government sought to 'spin' the decision was disgraceful and inspired a great deal of contempt amongst ordinary people. It has also meant that if military action is necessary in the future the public will be understandably cynical; not a helpful legacy to leave his successors.
You must have enjoyed California and Canada if you are hoping to go back. I've never been to the former, but the latter is great.
Hugo DraxLeeds, United Kingdom.Posts: 210MI6 Agent
My reasoning was not scientific at all. Others of greater intellect would probably disagree. Nevertheless, 'greatness' I would define as leading a government which altered fundamentally, or radically, the nature and shape of the British society and economy. Of all the post-war prime ministers, I would suggest that only Attlee and Thatcher meet that criterion. This is not to suggest that I personally think they were great, which is a more subjective question.
I think that you are highly justified in using such criteria to define prime ministerial greatness. Personally, I disagree with many elements of policy implemented by Margaret Thatcher during her term of office. However, political prejudice aside, I believe that Thatcher was a great leader. She was a highly effective stateswoman who presented an image of strength and resolution. I would also see Tony Blair as a strong and resolute statesman in the same mould. I do not agree with several of his foreign policy decision, but the assiduous manner in which he stayed loyal to his beliefs, at great political cost, has been most impressive.
On Thursday's edition of Question Time, one panelists made the point that Tony Blair appeared comfortable both in seeming 'pro-American and pro-European'. This is a valid point in my view. Blair is a highly pragmatic, versatile politician. He seemed at ease in his relationships with both Clinton and Blair. But this was a man who could attend talks at a Texan ranch before flying to Paris to visit to Elysee Palace and speak French with Frere Jacques. Blair seemed very comfortable doing both, and such a virtue is rare in prime ministers. These are a few of the reasons why I see Tony Blair as being such a great statesman.
Moreover the sort of conservatism he and his government engendered, that of the One Nation variety, I am most comfortable with. Obviously such conservatism has to be updated, but the principles and values are those in which I believe.
It's interesting, though by no means incomprehensible, that a One Nation Conservative could also be a strong advocate of Thatcherite Conservatism. Have you ever had difficulties in resolving the conflicts between the two strands? In reflection, such a question assumes that the two strands are radically different, whereas you may not believe this to be the case.
From the other side of the fence, I am deeply, deeply shocked that Harriet Harman was elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I don't like the woman at all, to be perfectly frank, and I am consoling myself with the thought that I would rather see Alan Johnson and co in more influential Cabinet posts than languishing in an overglorified, somewhat impotent position.
With which area of Canada are you familar? I have visited Vancouver before, but I am hoping to visit Toronto this time as well.
Interesting events today. President Blair is replaced by First Minister Gordo Brown.
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
I saw a clip of him speaking to reporters outside number 10. Already I don't like him. It's just something about his tone that immediately puts me off him. Well it did in that clip anyway. I don't know what it was but my brain just screamed a rather rude name at him.
I would also see Tony Blair as a strong and resolute statesman in the same mould. I do not agree with several of his foreign policy decision, but the assiduous manner in which he stayed loyal to his beliefs, at great political cost, has been most impressive.
I do think Tony Blair would *like* to be seen in the same vein as Mrs Thatcher (as a statesman), however there are a number of factors which preclude him from such a position (in my view). On re-reading Peter Hennessy's book Hennessy does have some rather more intellectual standards by which to measure prime ministers: backdrop to the premiership; management capacity; insight and perception; changes and innovation; and constitutional and procedural. Hennessy considers that only Attlee and Thatcher can be considered in the top tier, and that is a judgement with which I would concur. Those were the only two 'weathermakers' (his phrase) of the post-war era. Hennessy puts Blair with Heath (who was not, by most objective measures, the utter failure many have described him as). This is in the category of 'nation-' or 'system-shifters'. Hennessy's is an interim judgement on Tony Blair, however it has been borne out by events I feel. I would agree that Mr Blais has remade the country "in a significant, substantial and almost certainly irreversible fashion" (p 545). But Mr Blair was not a weathermaker of British politics.
On Thursday's edition of Question Time, one panelists made the point that Tony Blair appeared comfortable both in seeming 'pro-American and pro-European'. This is a valid point in my view. Blair is a highly pragmatic, versatile politician. He seemed at ease in his relationships with both Clinton and Bush.
That was Christopher Hitchens who said that, a man I cannot stand. Did you see the incredibly rude manner in which he treated Shirley Williams? A very vulgar chap at that too, given the way he pushed his latest book (which I understand is a most rudimentary piece of work) at the end.
Anyway, the problem with describing Mr Blair as 'pro-European' is that this did not get him anywhere. He did not reconcile the British people to greater integration with the EU, as was his aim. He did not manage to sell the idea of the Euro even to his colleagues. Mr Blair ducked out of a whole host of serious questions on Europe's future, and won us no greater influence in Europe whatsoever. Whether he won a level of influence in the United States commensurate with the level of input is also debatable.
It's interesting, though by no means incomprehensible, that a One Nation Conservative could also be a strong advocate of Thatcherite Conservatism. Have you ever had difficulties in resolving the conflicts between the two strands? In reflection, such a question assumes that the two strands are radically different, whereas you may not believe this to be the case.
I do think many of the reforms of the Thatcher era were necessary for the time and for the British economy. I believe the big decisions had an enormously beneficial impact in terms of Britain's long term economic performance. Some mistakes were made, however, and I don't share her *vision* of society, a sort of liberal atomist vision. I am far more comfortable with the conservatism previously identified, and with the modern conservatism dominant today. The Major government up until the 1992 general election, incidentally, was one of the strongest governments in the post-war era in my opinion. As one cabinet minister said: "They (Heath and Thatcher) were führerprinzip leaders, whereas he's a proper democratic leader".
From the other side of the fence, I am deeply, deeply shocked that Harriet Harman was elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I don't like the woman at all, to be perfectly frank
I know people in the Labour party, and they are not exactly pleased at the news either.
With which area of Canada are you familar? I have visited Vancouver before, but I am hoping to visit Toronto this time as well.
Toronto and other bits of Ontario. A fairly flat bit of the world, but with some excellent people. Toronto (during summer, at least) is a wonderfully vibrant, busy and alive city with plenty to do.
For all the world he looked like an actor leaving the stage. In fact, that is rather apt. . . Bye Tone.
I thought Gordon Brown's speech outside No. 10 was surprisingly good, noticeably quiet on his predecessor ("A new government, with new priorities"). We saw a more human side to his character, a genuinely human side which demonstrated his motivations in politics. Best of all was Cherie Blair who managed to stick her foot in it *again*, ruining the otherwise dignified departure from the doorway of No. 10.
Best of all was Cherie Blair who managed to stick her foot in it *again*, ruining the otherwise dignified departure from the doorway of No. 10.
Dreadful woman. As soon as she said that I thought that was it, she'd torpedoed any grace and class their exit had. For an intelligent woman, she really has very little common sense.
Gordon appeared quite nervous arriving in Downing Street from the Palace. He seemed to try and fetch Sarah from the car, then looked uneasy as to where to stand. I was also quite impressed by his speech. It could well be that the Presidential, glitzy, sofa-style, media-soft politics of spin have given way to old fashioned determination. He is Scottish, after all, and a Presbytarian at that.
("The Prime Minister has welcomed the news that Tony Blair has been appointed a Middle East envoy." Weird. After 10 years, it just sounds weird.)
Yes, Cherie was a strange fish. You get that impression in Piers Morgan's diaries, okay, he's not such a neutral source, but the strange way she'd go out of her way to antagonise people, like lobbying Morgan's boss over dinner to sack him; hardly in the Dale Carnagie handbook.
So Blair gets his effusive send-off and on the one hand it's gracious of Cameron to urge his party to its feet to give him an ovation, on the other hand, you can't help think a bit of reserve might be in order bearing in mind the shambles of Iraq, the failure to find WMDs, the dodgy dossier, the suicide of Kelly. Nothing good seems to have come of it at all. It's as if the politicians are applauding him for his success and staying in power, which is not quite the same.
Blair seemed, by the end, to be the ultimate jobsworth. The sort of bloke you meet who knows, that so long as you don't own up to anything, nor apologise at all, you can get away with it and keep your job. Your objections are mere opinions, ones that you're naturally entitled to, but are no better than anyone else's, no matter what proof you submit.
On the David Frost show once he seemed to admit or go along with Frost's description of Iraq as a mess. It was seized upon as a concession. His press people hastily put out a missive saying he wasn't actually agreeing, just accepting Frost's question or something...
It's like a game of Simon Says. Blair admitted it, but he didn't say Simon Says. As you were. 8-) Like we need his permission to see the situation is a shambles.
Comments
Instead, we've got Baw Heid Salmond and a Nationalist government who's main wish is to rip up the United Kingdom. Hooray. Thanks Tony.
Will First Minister Gordon Brown be any better?
I'm no nationalist. I'm Scottish first and foremost, above everything else, but I'm also happy being British and European and see no conflict of interest in any of those. Last year, the prospect of an SNP government scared the crap out of me. We'd be picking at the stitching holding the United Kingdom together and for me that was a dangerous prospect. However, when their poll lead refused to go away, I resigned myself to Salmond gaining power. But...
I thought the Liberals would sell out for a bit of power and he'd be in a comfortable coalition deal. That hasn't transpired. The Liberals have stuck solidly to their Unionist principles and the SNP have been forced into a minority administration. They're weak. The full extent of their manifesto will not be realised, as everything - policy by policy - will be put to a parliament against three large parties that oppose independence. Salmond has, in so many words, conceded that his dream of an independence referendum in 2010 might not be attainable. He doesn't have the power to take on Westminster. He's left only with what he probably feared he would be - to govern Scotland, in the best interests of the Scottish people, knowing fine well that leaving the Union is outwith his reach. Making him and his party really no different to the other three arranged on the benches opposite.
As for Gordon Brown. Well. Eek. I think I prefer Salmond, and that's saying something.
Cheerfully seconded, M5. I guess that to our American cousins it's a bit like being proud of coming from, say, Texas, and being proud of being Texan and American. Only a bit, mind
Regarding Gordon Brown, I think he has some job rescuing Labour from the depths of unpopularity in which it is currently mired. It has become fairly clear that Tony Blair's legacy, while having some positive aspects, is one of failure to deliver. The Blair government, on domestic policy, has not implemented hugely unpopular policies with the general public such as the community charge; the unpopularity, in my view, stems from a paralysis at the heart of British government. Governance by headline, furthermore, has done little to convince a justifiably cynical electorate.
There was a very interesting poll in today's Financial Times, polling respondents in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United States. Despite the enormous levels of investment, look at the disappointment evinced in the highly negative responses to Tony Blair's impact on health and education. Perhaps if Blair had bit the bullet and seriously reformed these sectors, rather than tinkering at the edges, more improvement could have been made. Then there is foreign policy, with the vast majority of people showing little confidence in the Blair legacy:
The major irony of the Blair government is that an administration so preoccupied with media presentation has failed to promote its achievements with the electorate. It seems incredulous, to me at least, that a majority of people would believe that Blair has had a negative impact of hospital and schools.
It saddens me that the Blair legacy has been fatally poisoned by events in Iraq. There are many achievements of which the Blair government can be proud, but these have been overshadowed by events in the Middle East. I only hope that history will judge Blair more kindly than his contemporaties. It has become common and fashionable to detest Blair and his government. Indeed, many in the Labour Party eagerly await the opporunity to draw a line under past decade and move on. Personally, I will be sad to see Tony Blair depart No 10, as I firmly believe that he is one the greatest prime ministers in British history. As someone who works in education, the fruits of government investment have really made such a difference to the students' education. Moreover, teachers pay is up 20% since 1997, and although I believe that the government have tinkered excessively with the education system, it has been a massively improved picture overall. I admit that I have serious concerns about the levels of bureaucracy and deluges of paperwork which afflict the life of an everyday teacher, the majority of my friends and colleagues believe that Blair has done a lot for the education system.
There have been great improvements in our public services, although I do agree with you, L880, on the point that Blair really should have gone further in his pursuit of reform. It is likely that he himself would have liked to have gone further, but he has already walked many a tightrope with the Labour Party on the issue of public service reform. Regarding the public services, I believe there are different reasons why many people do not believe that public service have improved enough. Firstly, it is almost impossible to measure how efficiency and productivity the extra investment. The extra money has undoubtedly engendered improvements, but have the improvements been dramatic enough in light of the money spent? As I said, that is a very difficult question to answer. Secondly, people have unrealistic expectations about public services. Hospital waiting lists have fallen greatly but there are always going to be people who feel that any sort of a wait is unacceptable. This unrealistic expectation is something that governments of all stripes have to deal with. Thirdly, you can ]argue that waiting times have fallen by over 400,000, you can point out that there are 85,000 more nurses and 33,000 more doctors in the NHS compared to be 1997. You can point out that over 130 hospitals are being either refurbished or rebuilt and that the largest hospital-building programme in history is underway. But at the end of the day, anecdotal evidence is always going to have more of an impact on people's perception of the National Health Service.
Blair and Brown have steered the economic ship well. But they have sailed in what have been largely benign waters. The Labour government was gifted a favourable set of economic circumstances by the Major government and hence cannot take full credit for the strong British economy. On the world stage, as I mentioned, Iraq has cast a dark shadow over the entire Blair premiership. However, my own view is that Blair has been a great world statesman, taking the lead on issues such as aid for Africa and the Kyoto Protocol. There are many aspects of the Blair foreign policy with which I take issue, but I see Blair as a man of principle, someone who is prepared to risk unpopularity by following his belief.
From a Labour Party perspective, Blair is the man who squared the circle, completing the procees of turning Labour from an dogmatic party stubbornly clinging to outdated policies into a pragmatic, elecion-winning party. Historically, the Conservatives have been adroit at regenerating the party platform to win elections. The electoral aspect of Blairism is probably the greatest (and most overlooked) trait inherited from Margaret Thatcher.
As for the future, the next election will certainly be quite a fight. But I don't believe there is any reason for the Labour Party to come despondent. Gordon Brown should not try and emulate Tony Blair in the media presentation stakes. A 'substance vs style' battle with David Cameron is one which Brown can win. Moreover, the Conservative Party is hardly a paragon of internal harmony and I can see many more Tory toes being stepped on by Cameron before the next election. If imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, then Tony Blair can certainly smile at what the Conservative Party seems to have become. Imitation? Moving the goalposts? Sounds rather familiar. I wonder why..
Naturally I disagree, sitting as I do on the other side of the political fence.
That is hardly scientific and others of greater intellect might well disagree. Morever, I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was temperamentally the best prime minister of the post-war era, though I woul accept that he can in no way be regarded as a 'great' prime minister.
I also work in education, and I would concur that investment is important. But *as* important is genuine reform, not the tinkering around at the edges and the periodic intervention enacted by the Labour government. Health and education have indeed improved, but not at a rate commensurate with the level of investment. Much of the investment in public services has been misspent. A great deal more could have been achieved, and it is deeply unfortunate that the case for reform has in fact been weakened by the Blair government. It has become more difficult to advocate genuine reform given the perpetual enactment of extremely modest and debilitating reforms by the Blair government.
Indeed Mr Blair said as much in a party conference speech. This is surely an enormous indictment of Blair's premiership: circumstances did not prevent him from going further, only his own timidity and fear of the Labour party. The Labour party has shown itself over the past decade to be incredibly weak; apart from Gordon Brown, I am not sure why Mr Blair did not push further.
Quite right.
Well, I'm not sure I would see Mr Blair as a man of principle. That said, there are positive aspects to Mr Blair's foreign policy and it would be churlish not to acknowledge this: on Sierra Leone and Kosovo Mr Blair did, in my opinion at least, the right thing and can be proud of his contribution in those respects.
On the other hand, he utterly failed in attempting to meet his own objective of reconciling Britain with the notion being a good European. Instead he simply avoided making crucial decisions about Europe's future, kicking the issue into the long grass.
I really don't know if Tony Blair thought he was risking great unpopularity by going to war alongside the United States with Iraq. Blair seemed to be confident of his own ability to convince the British public, and he certainly utilised the spin machine in a quite disgraceful way to that end. After the event it has been portrayed as a trial of strength; a sort of masochistic yet principled drive to do the right thing. Still, that was after the event. I think Mr Blair was genuinely surprised by the depth of feeling as regards his decision to go to war.
If Gordon Brown is the answer, it is worth querying what the question is. I do have some respect for Mr Brown as a politician, but on the evidence of the past decade I do not think he will be a successful prime minister at all.
We'll see.
Nice to have a positive and friendly political discussion without any frayed tempers.
I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere (on countless occassions) of being no nationalist, but so far Alex Salmond has behaved far more like an international statesman than anything Gordon Brown has mustered over the past week. I have a nagging fear that the SNP may come out of the Edinburgh vs. London match far better than I imagined.
I agree that there has been an excessive focus on media presentation and indeed media control. I would say that the ghosts of Labour's 18 years of opposition, a past replete with infamous PR blunders, has haunted the Blair government and contributed to the culture of 'spin' so endemic in Whitehall.
It depends how you define prime ministerial greatness. Whilst I would agree that Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher deserve to be regarded as a great prime ministers, I would argue that the extent to which they reformed society is only one jewel in their crowns. Attlee managed to forge a progressive coalition of support for Labour's reform programme while also dexterously managing feuding factions in the Cabinet. Mrs Thatcher broke the back of Labour support by bringing millions of working class voters to the Tory fold. The sheer longevity of Mrs Thatcher's government is mighty impressive in my humble opinion, especially when you think that this was a government walking in electoral no-man's land during the early 1980s.
I am curious as to what reasons underpin you rating Sir Alec Douglas Home and Harold Macmillan so highly? I would be interested to hear why you have reached this judgement.
I simply think thar Mr Blair was being pragmatic and realistic about what reforms the Labour Party would be prepared to swallow. I do believe that too many people in the Labour Party have a sentimental and more importantly, anachronistic, attachment to the idea of state control. Anything with the word 'private' is instantly dismissed as being evil. In all honesty, it has not been easy being an active member of the Labour Party over the last ten years. I have often felt like I was in the wrong party! I have been cast as the enfant terrible on many an occasion by other party activists!
I agree with you that Blair probably believed in his ability to sell the justification of a war to the British people. The spin aspect of the Iraq issue has been the worst element of this whole charade. It would have been far more credible for Mr Blair to advocate military action on the grounds of removing a threat to stability in the region and on the grounds of Saddam Hussein's appalling human rights record. Sure, the majority of people would have probably still opposed the conflict, but at least Blair would have much more credibility. I believe that the WMD issue was the tip of the tentacle. I don't believe that the government lied over the existence of WMDs. I believe that Mr Blair promoted the conflict on grounds which were themselves questionable because he believed that this would be the best way in which to 'sell' military action to the world community.
It is probably wishful thinking that has made me leave the settings as they are, as I am now back in the UK. I spent much time this year in both California and Canada and I am hoping to return to the latter in the summer.
My reasoning was not scientific at all. Others of greater intellect would probably disagree. Nevertheless, 'greatness' I would define as leading a government which altered fundamentally, or radically, the nature and shape of the British society and economy. Of all the post-war prime ministers, I would suggest that only Attlee and Thatcher meet that criterion. This is not to suggest that I personally think they were great, which is a more subjective question.
These are the post-war prime ministers for whom I have most respect. This does not mean that I think they qualify for 'greatness'. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was temperamentally a brilliant prime minister: self-effacing, trusting in his colleagues and with a cool ability to assess the situation. His total lack of egotism was perhaps his strongest feature. He was a very good team player and manager. There is a wonderful recounting in one of Peter Hennessy's books (The Prime Minister, 2000, p 274) in which one professor says that Sir Alec is "[t]he only Prime Minister in the postwar [sic] period for whom, if he stopped me in the street and asked me to lend him a fiver as he'd left his wallet at home, I would have opened my wallet without hesitation". His personal attributes made him the perfect prime minister for the time, and I knew a woman who worked with him when he was prime minister and she confirmed that he was, above all else, a thoroughly decent man. His behaviour after his resignation, moreover, was exemplary and demonstrated the streak of selflessness to his character.
Harold Macmillan was the consumate showman, who bedevilled the Labour party for years and took to the office of prime minister a great deal of experience, intellect and grounding in culture. Macmillan was the best read of the group of prime ministers post-1945. Moreover the sort of conservatism he and his government engendered, that of the One Nation variety, I am most comfortable with. Obviously such conservatism has to be updated, but the principles and values are those in which I believe.
That's a position I've been in on several occasions!
Regardless of whether the original decision was justified or not, the way the Blair government sought to 'spin' the decision was disgraceful and inspired a great deal of contempt amongst ordinary people. It has also meant that if military action is necessary in the future the public will be understandably cynical; not a helpful legacy to leave his successors.
You must have enjoyed California and Canada if you are hoping to go back. I've never been to the former, but the latter is great.
I think that you are highly justified in using such criteria to define prime ministerial greatness. Personally, I disagree with many elements of policy implemented by Margaret Thatcher during her term of office. However, political prejudice aside, I believe that Thatcher was a great leader. She was a highly effective stateswoman who presented an image of strength and resolution. I would also see Tony Blair as a strong and resolute statesman in the same mould. I do not agree with several of his foreign policy decision, but the assiduous manner in which he stayed loyal to his beliefs, at great political cost, has been most impressive.
On Thursday's edition of Question Time, one panelists made the point that Tony Blair appeared comfortable both in seeming 'pro-American and pro-European'. This is a valid point in my view. Blair is a highly pragmatic, versatile politician. He seemed at ease in his relationships with both Clinton and Blair. But this was a man who could attend talks at a Texan ranch before flying to Paris to visit to Elysee Palace and speak French with Frere Jacques. Blair seemed very comfortable doing both, and such a virtue is rare in prime ministers. These are a few of the reasons why I see Tony Blair as being such a great statesman.
It's interesting, though by no means incomprehensible, that a One Nation Conservative could also be a strong advocate of Thatcherite Conservatism. Have you ever had difficulties in resolving the conflicts between the two strands? In reflection, such a question assumes that the two strands are radically different, whereas you may not believe this to be the case.
From the other side of the fence, I am deeply, deeply shocked that Harriet Harman was elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I don't like the woman at all, to be perfectly frank, and I am consoling myself with the thought that I would rather see Alan Johnson and co in more influential Cabinet posts than languishing in an overglorified, somewhat impotent position.
With which area of Canada are you familar? I have visited Vancouver before, but I am hoping to visit Toronto this time as well.
That was Christopher Hitchens who said that, a man I cannot stand. Did you see the incredibly rude manner in which he treated Shirley Williams? A very vulgar chap at that too, given the way he pushed his latest book (which I understand is a most rudimentary piece of work) at the end.
Anyway, the problem with describing Mr Blair as 'pro-European' is that this did not get him anywhere. He did not reconcile the British people to greater integration with the EU, as was his aim. He did not manage to sell the idea of the Euro even to his colleagues. Mr Blair ducked out of a whole host of serious questions on Europe's future, and won us no greater influence in Europe whatsoever. Whether he won a level of influence in the United States commensurate with the level of input is also debatable.
I do think many of the reforms of the Thatcher era were necessary for the time and for the British economy. I believe the big decisions had an enormously beneficial impact in terms of Britain's long term economic performance. Some mistakes were made, however, and I don't share her *vision* of society, a sort of liberal atomist vision. I am far more comfortable with the conservatism previously identified, and with the modern conservatism dominant today. The Major government up until the 1992 general election, incidentally, was one of the strongest governments in the post-war era in my opinion. As one cabinet minister said: "They (Heath and Thatcher) were führerprinzip leaders, whereas he's a proper democratic leader".
I know people in the Labour party, and they are not exactly pleased at the news either.
Toronto and other bits of Ontario. A fairly flat bit of the world, but with some excellent people. Toronto (during summer, at least) is a wonderfully vibrant, busy and alive city with plenty to do.
For all the world he looked like an actor leaving the stage. In fact, that is rather apt. . .
I thought Gordon Brown's speech outside No. 10 was surprisingly good, noticeably quiet on his predecessor ("A new government, with new priorities"). We saw a more human side to his character, a genuinely human side which demonstrated his motivations in politics. Best of all was Cherie Blair who managed to stick her foot in it *again*, ruining the otherwise dignified departure from the doorway of No. 10.
Gordon appeared quite nervous arriving in Downing Street from the Palace. He seemed to try and fetch Sarah from the car, then looked uneasy as to where to stand. I was also quite impressed by his speech. It could well be that the Presidential, glitzy, sofa-style, media-soft politics of spin have given way to old fashioned determination. He is Scottish, after all, and a Presbytarian at that.
("The Prime Minister has welcomed the news that Tony Blair has been appointed a Middle East envoy." Weird. After 10 years, it just sounds weird.)
Do you think Tony Blair is quite so enthusiastic at being sent to the Middle East?
So Blair gets his effusive send-off and on the one hand it's gracious of Cameron to urge his party to its feet to give him an ovation, on the other hand, you can't help think a bit of reserve might be in order bearing in mind the shambles of Iraq, the failure to find WMDs, the dodgy dossier, the suicide of Kelly. Nothing good seems to have come of it at all. It's as if the politicians are applauding him for his success and staying in power, which is not quite the same.
Blair seemed, by the end, to be the ultimate jobsworth. The sort of bloke you meet who knows, that so long as you don't own up to anything, nor apologise at all, you can get away with it and keep your job. Your objections are mere opinions, ones that you're naturally entitled to, but are no better than anyone else's, no matter what proof you submit.
On the David Frost show once he seemed to admit or go along with Frost's description of Iraq as a mess. It was seized upon as a concession. His press people hastily put out a missive saying he wasn't actually agreeing, just accepting Frost's question or something...
It's like a game of Simon Says. Blair admitted it, but he didn't say Simon Says. As you were. 8-) Like we need his permission to see the situation is a shambles.
Roger Moore 1927-2017