[Stoatwobbler]

Good article. Make of this what you will.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...r-7808282.html

You will struggle to find more devout supporters of Tony Blair than those at the top of the Conservative leadership. "I can't hold it back any more; I love Tony!" Michael Gove once exclaimed. David Cameron famously described himself as "the heir to Blair", and senior Tories refer to him as "The Master". "His influence is very firmly felt," a senior Tory told The Times. "He's like the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo – gone but still greatly admired." Screaming teenagers at Take That concerts in the mid-1990s come to mind. Tories really love Blair not because of his undoubted political skills, but because they think he was "one of us", albeit trapped by the Labour Party. In his first joust with Blair after taking over as Conservative leader, Cameron offered to support him against his own party over his policy of marketising comprehensive education. "With our support, the Prime Minister knows there is no danger of losing these education reforms in a Parliamentary vote," Cameron crooned, mocking Labour backbenchers. "So he can afford to be as bold as he wants to be." And, in reality, Labour's current opposition to what the Coalition is doing is hobbled by the fact that Blair laid the foundation for so much of it.

Take the privatisation of the NHS. Under Blair, private sector involvement began to flourish and a commercial directorate was set up in the Department of Health. Gove is now expanding Blair's Academy schools programme, and free schools are a logical extension of them. The Coalition trebled the tuition fees that Blair introduced. Across public services, Blair expanded the role of the private sector – though not as fast as he would have liked, thanks to internal party opposition. But Cameron is taking this "reform" (the Blairite and Tory code word for "privatisation") ever further. "Public sector reform" has come up in the many conversations Blair has apparently had with Cameron, and I'm sure the ex-PM has had much advice to offer.

It was the murderous invasion of Iraq – described by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as "illegal" – that, for many, makes Blair unforgivable rather than a mere disappointment. It competes with the expenses scandal for the damage it did to faith in politicians. While in power, he courted despots like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, whom he described as "immensely courageous and a force for good" when the Egyptian people rose against him. Today, the man who partly justified the invasion of Iraq with Saddam's sickening human rights record is being paid $13 million to advise the brutal dictator of Kazakhstan.

His defenders argue that Labour could not have won without him. It is a myth. Black Wednesday in 1992 finished off the Tories, and Labour enjoyed subsequent massive poll leads under John Smith. Of the five million votes that Labour lost in its 13 years in power, four million went awol under Blair's leadership. It wasn't so-called "Middle England" that deserted the party. According to Ipsos MORI, while middle-class professional support for Labour declined by five percentage points between 1997 and 2010, support among skilled workers plummeted by 21 per cent.

[Jim Graham]

I think what they are really saying is that Blair cashed in after someone else had done all the hard work. Sounds about his level. Perhaps the most damning bit is:

"And contrast how the poorest fared with previous Labour governments. Four years before the crash, the income of the bottom third began declining."

But the drones kept on voting him in.

[Stan Tamudo]

Originally Posted by Stoatwobbler

Good article. Make of this what you will.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...r-7808282.html

Good link Stoatwobbler, Blair nailed his colours to the mast early after getting into power. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...rR_468x668.jpg

[Alien52]

Originally Posted by Jim Graham

I think what they are really saying is that Blair cashed in after someone else had done all the hard work. Sounds about his level. Perhaps the most damning bit is:

"And contrast how the poorest fared with previous Labour governments. Four years before the crash, the income of the bottom third began declining."

But the drones kept on voting him in.

Loons all of them!!

[green]

People who vote Labour dont read (anything factual), ive long come to that conclusion.

How can the gap between rich & poor become greater in 13 years of Labour government and yet they profess to look after the "people".

Beggars belief.

[I1L2T3]

Blair is a despicable creature.

I want him to come back into politics so we can all have a reminder of what he's really about. And the he can be lined up for a longer overdue public lynching.

If the Tories want him they can have him.

[Happ Hazzard]

1997 was the one year I voted for Labour. I will never vote for them again unless they get back in power and prove that they represent the normal working-class man again. I simply do not trust anything they say or promise anymore.

[splodgeyAl]

Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard

1997 was the one year I voted for Labour. I will never vote for them again unless they get back in power and prove that they represent the normal working-class man again. I simply do not trust anything they say or promise anymore.

The best thing they caused that year, was I wore a Labour Win 97 t-shirt on dress down Friday to the stockbrokers I worked for at the time, for the amusement factor, really.

It was the last dress down Friday we had I hate chinos!

[MrSmith]

Originally Posted by green

People who vote Labour dont read (anything factual), ive long come to that conclusion.

How can the gap between rich & poor become greater in 13 years of Labour government and yet they profess to look after the "people".

Beggars belief.

The gap between rich and poor has been increasing for centuries, but the important figures show that the poorest are now much better off in real terms.

[Mecky]

Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard

1997 was the one year I voted for Labour. I will never vote for them again unless they get back in power and prove that they represent the normal working-class man again. I simply do not trust anything they say or promise anymore.

The trouble is most people in the UK think they're better than working class but they probably don't know what working class are.

[MrSmith]

Originally Posted by Mecky

The trouble is most people in the UK think they're better than working class but they probably don't know what working class are.

Go on then you might as well tell us who is defined as the working class, my understanding is that it was a term used to describe a social group consisting of people employed in manual or industrial work.

[Mecky]

Originally Posted by MrSmith

Go on then you might as well tell us who is defined as the working class, my understanding is that it was a term used to describe a social group consisting of people employed in manual or industrial work.

Isn't all work that involves human input manual? If not wouldn't it be fully automated?

[LeMaquis]

Originally Posted by Mecky

Isn't all work that involves human input manual? If not wouldn't it be fully automated?

Blair inputs large sums of money into his bank accounts but that doesn't mean he's working class.

[MrSmith]

Originally Posted by Mecky

Isn't all work that involves human input manual? If not wouldn't it be fully automated?

That’s a question and not the answer to the question asked, but if you are correct then everyone that works would be working class.
Then you statement would imply that most people think they are better than themselves.

[callippo]

Of the five million votes that Labour lost in its 13 years in power, four million went awol under Blair's leadership. It wasn't so-called "Middle England" that deserted the party. According to Ipsos MORI, while middle-class professional support for Labour declined by five percentage points between 1997 and 2010, support among skilled workers plummeted by 21 per cent.

what a stupid comment. Skilled workers IS 'Middle England'. But skilled workers don't vote the same across the country. For example, Sheffield Attercliffe has about the average number of skilled workers of any English parliamentary seat. Because it's in Sheffield, it's a Labour banker. But if it were in Hertfordshire, or Buckinghamshire, Labour would only have won it in 1997 and 2001.

Smith would have won the 1997 election, no question about that. But not by anywhere near the margin Blair did, and which ensured, straight away, that there was no chance of Labour not winning the next election, in 2001.

[Vincero dOro]

Originally Posted by green

People who vote Labour dont read (anything factual), ive long come to that conclusion.

How can the gap between rich & poor become greater in 13 years of Labour government and yet they profess to look after the "people".

Beggars belief.

And unemployment increased over the 13 years Labour were in power, but most of them try to deny it.

[alchresearch]

Originally Posted by Stan Tamudo

Good link Stoatwobbler, Blair nailed his colours to the mast early after getting into power. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...rR_468x668.jpg

I think that's just more common courtesy and respect. Have you ever noticed how party leaders and former rival PMs smile, chat and generally get along together at various civil occasions? They have the maturity to rise above their differences - something which doesn't happen very much on this forum.

I will argue strongly against a poster on one topic, but agree with them on another, and I bet it confuses the hell out of them!

[WeX]

Originally Posted by MrSmith

Go on then you might as well tell us who is defined as the working class, my understanding is that it was a term used to describe a social group consisting of people employed in manual or industrial work.

I always thought working class was those who work for someone else. Middle class were those who owned businesses and upper class were the aristocracy. Lower class are those who leech off the state.

[callippo]

the Tories couldn't weren't very persuasive when it came to Middle England in 2010 were they. They didn't win. And as of now, they don't look like they're going to do any better next time. If they lose the same amount of votes Labour lost between 1997 and 2001, 2 million, they'll be done. Kippered. Out of office.

[WeX]

Originally Posted by callippo

the Tories couldn't weren't very persuasive when it came to Middle England in 2010 were they. They didn't win. And as of now, they don't look like they're going to do any better next time. If they lose the same amount of votes Labour lost between 1997 and 2001, 2 million, they'll be done. Kippered. Out of office.

As long as Miliband is in the driving seat of Labour, the torys and lib dems will stay in power.