I'm no Blairite but I do think, given his electoral success, that he and his policies, in concert with Gordon Brown, were the right thing for the time. However, it is incredibly reductive and hubristic to think that any one set of policy ideas can be the right answer for all time, no matter the facts.
It's very odd that so often the things that are criticised in retrospect are things that were simply consensus at the time and need contextualising. PFI is the most obvious one: Invented by the Conservatives it was simply consensus policy and a solution to the fact that GDP had slowed to a crawl (inc the 92 recession) and that the initial apparent boom caused by monetarism in the UK was in fact largely down to that thing nobody ever talks about: the North Sea Oil bonanza that Thatcher inherited. *Something* needed to be done and PFI was what was chosen over a return to Keynesian-influenced policies. The Tories never opposed PFI from 1997 to 2006, they worked to take credit for it. The same thing was always going to have to take place after the 2019 election, the Tories have used a decade of austerity to disguise that monetarism without a blended economy doesn't create growth or productivity and have got away with it by pointing at the last Labour government and saying it was their fault. Of course the Tories themselves know how failed austerity has been and the trick for the Johnson government is most likely to make a huge lurch to the economic left without actually acknowledging that's what he's doing. COVID will perhaps be the stimulus for that. The other option is doubling down on pure neoliberalism, but that has had a long run of simply not working in the UK in terms of GDP and productivity. Iraq also is a bizarre dynamic: The Conservatives have made enormous capital about the unpopularity of a policy that they themselves supported in much greater numbers than Labour (The idea they wouldn't have supported the war without the dodgy dossier is laughable, Howard, his team, and the right leaning press were all gagging for both a fight, and the opportunity to accuse limp-waisted lefties of being peaceniks) I disagree with New Labour's PFI and the Iraq war, therefore, but I have no interest in diminishing Blair's achievements or throwing him under a bus. Labour have a horrific track record of throwing its own former versions under the bus and it's what continually makes them unelectable while the Tories pretend to maintain roughly the same ideology even when they aren't, making them seem much more , ahem, strong and stable. Blair took the consensus economics of the time and made them as successful as they could realistically be made, which was the stimulus for a decade of relative stability and happiness within the UK. He invested heavily in schools and education and ran what was mostly a secure economy. He was, as with many, a charismatic man who over time veered into narcissism and over-ideology. But watching him talk in 1997 he was a great orator and a vote winning machine.
@@str.77 Private Finance Initiatives. Supposedly based on a partnership between public and private financing of public projects. Allows for quick funding of public projects and looks fantastic on the balance sheet in the short term. But of course is basically all rooted in backdated payments/off-balance sheets, saddles the public with a long term debt and instigates backdoor privatisation. Started in the early 90s by the Lawson Chancellership under Major and turbocharged under New Labour (but with the Tories still trying to take credit and making it clear that's what they would have done). It is a large part of what made the British economy have such a large deficit in the face of the 2008 crash. It was certainly bad, though by no means - as with all aspects of the 2008 crash in the UK - even vaguely as bad as the Conservatives then propagandised and sold in order to market austerity. TL:DR It was Keynesianism on cheat mode designed to look really good while actually kicking the can down the road. Ultimately it is demonstrably nowhere near as effective as simply directly funding public projects BUT looks better in the short term.
The whole New Labour project was in many ways an inferior imitation of the changes that had occurred decades earlier in the Australian Labor Party, as it had evolved from being an older socialist party toward modern social democracy. (Ironically, they were in power during nearly all the Thatcher/Major years, and lost office a year before Blair’s first election.) A key difference is that the ALP’s evolution had occurred naturally, headed up by various leaders and grassroots activists who pursued social democracy for the middle class as a genuine vision. New Labour was imposed from above, and without its principal leaders it was soon held in disgrace and overtaken by the left wing.
Mr. Richards does not like Tony Blair. I have just watched his video of Gordon Brown and the attitude difference is stark. Starting even with Blair’s picture on the screen: it almost looks sinister, like a Nuremberg photo, despite the fact that Blair was always smiling in public and genial. Also, it’s ironic that Blair’s preference to join the Euro currency was cast aside by Richards, as Brexit couldn’t have happened if there had a shared currency. UK shares defence (NATO) with Europe, and Blair was right to consider joining the Euro.
His support for the Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, born out of a desire not to be seen as anti-American, but because he felt this was a fundamental battle between right and wrong, good and evil. This came from his religious beliefs.
I think it was ego conflated with religion...which is a trap almost all these religious types fall into...they think on some level they are the second coming and doing the work of some invisible friend that speaks in their heads, which is in fact their little selves serving all too personal needs; ego driven or neurotic...in fact, its a reason why no one with anything approaching strong religious belief should ever be allowed near any political office...ever! Because it always ends in 'crusade', that salves the consciences of the few at the cost to the lives of the many...I am very 'whiggish' in my approach on that point.
@@BelatedCommiseration sigh ''An invisible friend speaking in their heads?'' 2007 youtube atheism is so 13 years ago and was a load of puerile strawmen even then. You also seem to be forgetting all the good done by very religious people in office like Tommy Douglas and by people not in office like Beveridge and MLK but nuance never was a strong point of the internet atheists. You can't say a certain group of people can't be in office in a democracy. It doesn't work like that unless they're under 18.
@@EuropeanQoheleth *double sigh* Your misplaced Christian faith is so last millennia ago...literally! As is most faith...science and progress has placed more wonders and ability to enjoy life in our midst than any religion which retards progress...in fact Christianity has been used to justify some pretty heinous things (the inquisition, the genocide in south america etc) and these facts always seem to pass people like you by...because its all humanity, whether it's done in the name of a big man in the sky or in the name of simply taking your land...or even giving you a blanket and showing empathy. Its all human...all too human, but projected larger to create social narratives for early group cohesion. But we are starting to move past this now. Accept it.
@@BelatedCommiseration Most of the scientists you love to claim here were actually not atheists but religious in some form. Most actual progress in Europe wouldn't have been possible without Christianisation. Some of what you call progress however is not progress at all but degeneration.
I love your analysis but I do think with respect to Iraq you are too forgiving. His zeal to appease the US outweighed his responsibility to the British public and more pertinently to the young men and women he sent to war and to Iraqi citizens who perished. You make a positive about getting the UN involved and then brush over the fact that when he didn’t get the newer out if the UN he and the US wanted he just overrode it. This was the as David Owen has eloquently stated the biggest failure in British cabinet government and foreign policy disaster since Suez.
Even George Walker Bush gave him a way out after the Second Resolution failed but he stayed with Georgy Boy. I disagree that it was his zeal for an American alliance though, if you heard the way he spoke he was convinced. To be fair to him, Sadaam Hussein had been in breach of many resolutions already however the reason France did not support Blair (He now blames the Russians.) was because the evidence was spotty and it was really spotty. Although I think Blair believed it, the evidence was not that good in terms of intelligence. The U.S. was prepared to ride roughshod over the U.N. they do not feel obligated that much by it. I agree here, he was terrible at Cabinet government, often he never went.
really? speaking as someone from the North East, I've seen the area so prosperous as it was under his premiership. Speaking as an NHS user, I'm glad that so much oney was pumped in. Speaking as an uncle, I'm glad that my nephews and nieces didn't have the appalling schooling that I and previous generations had to suffer. speaking as a gay man, I'm quite happy he removed section 28 and brought in civil partnerships. I suppose some other people just live in a world where they can afford to wait for ideological perfection. The rest of us in the real world can't.
@@zeddeka We felt prosperous as he was spending money like water, this is an easy way for a PM to be popular. The repeal of Clause 28 and civil partnerships would have happened anyway in a changing world. He destabilised the Middle East along with George Bush and gave us levels of immigration that changed this country forever, we are still struggling with these issues.
@@BossySwan Yes agree Iraq is in a mess partly due to him. Also he is still doing plenty of business with dictators with his "Institute for Global Change".
Dear Mr. Richards, your summary of Blair’s time in politics must be tempered by the fact that Blair won: not one, not two, but three elections by the people of UK. How fortunate to be able to reflect back, in a ‘cherry-picking’ style, to try and denigrate Blair- like someone roaming a battlefield after the fact, to shoot the survivors. Your throw-off line: ‘he had some success in Northern Ireland’ , is laughable, in that it ignores the significance of the moment, and your whole ‘raisin d’etre’ is to provide CONTEXT……
He won with good luck (regarding the state of the Tory Party and the economy) and even better PR. Not because the British people loved his policies. Indeed, during his leadership many people became more disillusioned about politics and simply did not participate in elections. His share of the vote in 2005 was 35.2% of a pretty low turnout.
@@kg8489 virtually every party wins because of the failing of the other party . it happened to thatcher blair johnson and potentially starmer its not really luck its more of a natural cycle. as one administration grows old people get tired and want change for change sake. and if they mess something up it adds fuel to that demand for change.
This series deserves many more views - really informative and well constructed!
Yo
I'm no Blairite but I do think, given his electoral success, that he and his policies, in concert with Gordon Brown, were the right thing for the time. However, it is incredibly reductive and hubristic to think that any one set of policy ideas can be the right answer for all time, no matter the facts.
It's very odd that so often the things that are criticised in retrospect are things that were simply consensus at the time and need contextualising.
PFI is the most obvious one: Invented by the Conservatives it was simply consensus policy and a solution to the fact that GDP had slowed to a crawl (inc the 92 recession) and that the initial apparent boom caused by monetarism in the UK was in fact largely down to that thing nobody ever talks about: the North Sea Oil bonanza that Thatcher inherited. *Something* needed to be done and PFI was what was chosen over a return to Keynesian-influenced policies. The Tories never opposed PFI from 1997 to 2006, they worked to take credit for it. The same thing was always going to have to take place after the 2019 election, the Tories have used a decade of austerity to disguise that monetarism without a blended economy doesn't create growth or productivity and have got away with it by pointing at the last Labour government and saying it was their fault. Of course the Tories themselves know how failed austerity has been and the trick for the Johnson government is most likely to make a huge lurch to the economic left without actually acknowledging that's what he's doing. COVID will perhaps be the stimulus for that. The other option is doubling down on pure neoliberalism, but that has had a long run of simply not working in the UK in terms of GDP and productivity.
Iraq also is a bizarre dynamic: The Conservatives have made enormous capital about the unpopularity of a policy that they themselves supported in much greater numbers than Labour (The idea they wouldn't have supported the war without the dodgy dossier is laughable, Howard, his team, and the right leaning press were all gagging for both a fight, and the opportunity to accuse limp-waisted lefties of being peaceniks)
I disagree with New Labour's PFI and the Iraq war, therefore, but I have no interest in diminishing Blair's achievements or throwing him under a bus. Labour have a horrific track record of throwing its own former versions under the bus and it's what continually makes them unelectable while the Tories pretend to maintain roughly the same ideology even when they aren't, making them seem much more , ahem, strong and stable.
Blair took the consensus economics of the time and made them as successful as they could realistically be made, which was the stimulus for a decade of relative stability and happiness within the UK. He invested heavily in schools and education and ran what was mostly a secure economy. He was, as with many, a charismatic man who over time veered into narcissism and over-ideology. But watching him talk in 1997 he was a great orator and a vote winning machine.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 What's PFI?
@@str.77 Private Finance Initiatives. Supposedly based on a partnership between public and private financing of public projects.
Allows for quick funding of public projects and looks fantastic on the balance sheet in the short term. But of course is basically all rooted in backdated payments/off-balance sheets, saddles the public with a long term debt and instigates backdoor privatisation.
Started in the early 90s by the Lawson Chancellership under Major and turbocharged under New Labour (but with the Tories still trying to take credit and making it clear that's what they would have done).
It is a large part of what made the British economy have such a large deficit in the face of the 2008 crash.
It was certainly bad, though by no means - as with all aspects of the 2008 crash in the UK - even vaguely as bad as the Conservatives then propagandised and sold in order to market austerity.
TL:DR It was Keynesianism on cheat mode designed to look really good while actually kicking the can down the road. Ultimately it is demonstrably nowhere near as effective as simply directly funding public projects BUT looks better in the short term.
@@fromomelastocarcosa3575 Thanks.
1997 Tony Benn said... " we'll turn red in no10 "..
slay
The whole New Labour project was in many ways an inferior imitation of the changes that had occurred decades earlier in the Australian Labor Party, as it had evolved from being an older socialist party toward modern social democracy. (Ironically, they were in power during nearly all the Thatcher/Major years, and lost office a year before Blair’s first election.)
A key difference is that the ALP’s evolution had occurred naturally, headed up by various leaders and grassroots activists who pursued social democracy for the middle class as a genuine vision. New Labour was imposed from above, and without its principal leaders it was soon held in disgrace and overtaken by the left wing.
Mr. Richards does not like Tony Blair. I have just watched his video of Gordon Brown and the attitude difference is stark. Starting even with Blair’s picture on the screen: it almost looks sinister, like a Nuremberg photo, despite the fact that Blair was always smiling in public and genial. Also, it’s ironic that Blair’s preference to join the Euro currency was cast aside by Richards, as Brexit couldn’t have happened if there had a shared currency. UK shares defence (NATO) with Europe, and Blair was right to consider joining the Euro.
His support for the Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, born out of a desire not to be seen as anti-American, but because he felt this was a fundamental battle between right and wrong, good and evil. This came from his religious beliefs.
I think it was ego conflated with religion...which is a trap almost all these religious types fall into...they think on some level they are the second coming and doing the work of some invisible friend that speaks in their heads, which is in fact their little selves serving all too personal needs; ego driven or neurotic...in fact, its a reason why no one with anything approaching strong religious belief should ever be allowed near any political office...ever! Because it always ends in 'crusade', that salves the consciences of the few at the cost to the lives of the many...I am very 'whiggish' in my approach on that point.
What nonsense. He was lining up his job with American multinationals once he left office.
@@BelatedCommiseration sigh ''An invisible friend speaking in their heads?'' 2007 youtube atheism is so 13 years ago and was a load of puerile strawmen even then. You also seem to be forgetting all the good done by very religious people in office like Tommy Douglas and by people not in office like Beveridge and MLK but nuance never was a strong point of the internet atheists. You can't say a certain group of people can't be in office in a democracy. It doesn't work like that unless they're under 18.
@@EuropeanQoheleth *double sigh* Your misplaced Christian faith is so last millennia ago...literally! As is most faith...science and progress has placed more wonders and ability to enjoy life in our midst than any religion which retards progress...in fact Christianity has been used to justify some pretty heinous things (the inquisition, the genocide in south america etc) and these facts always seem to pass people like you by...because its all humanity, whether it's done in the name of a big man in the sky or in the name of simply taking your land...or even giving you a blanket and showing empathy. Its all human...all too human, but projected larger to create social narratives for early group cohesion. But we are starting to move past this now. Accept it.
@@BelatedCommiseration Most of the scientists you love to claim here were actually not atheists but religious in some form.
Most actual progress in Europe wouldn't have been possible without Christianisation. Some of what you call progress however is not progress at all but degeneration.
Sexup dossier
I love your analysis but I do think with respect to Iraq you are too forgiving. His zeal to appease the US outweighed his responsibility to the British public and more pertinently to the young men and women he sent to war and to Iraqi citizens who perished. You make a positive about getting the UN involved and then brush over the fact that when he didn’t get the newer out if the UN he and the US wanted he just overrode it. This was the as David Owen has eloquently stated the biggest failure in British cabinet government and foreign policy disaster since Suez.
Even George Walker Bush gave him a way out after the Second Resolution failed but he stayed with Georgy Boy. I disagree that it was his zeal for an American alliance though, if you heard the way he spoke he was convinced. To be fair to him, Sadaam Hussein had been in breach of many resolutions already however the reason France did not support Blair (He now blames the Russians.) was because the evidence was spotty and it was really spotty. Although I think Blair believed it, the evidence was not that good in terms of intelligence. The U.S. was prepared to ride roughshod over the U.N. they do not feel obligated that much by it. I agree here, he was terrible at Cabinet government, often he never went.
3 words to sum up Blair in retrospect: snake oil salesman
really? speaking as someone from the North East, I've seen the area so prosperous as it was under his premiership. Speaking as an NHS user, I'm glad that so much oney was pumped in. Speaking as an uncle, I'm glad that my nephews and nieces didn't have the appalling schooling that I and previous generations had to suffer. speaking as a gay man, I'm quite happy he removed section 28 and brought in civil partnerships. I suppose some other people just live in a world where they can afford to wait for ideological perfection. The rest of us in the real world can't.
@@zeddeka I suspect the innocent Iraqi civilians or families of our fallen troops don’t share your rose-tinted view.
That is very unfair on ...........snake oil salesman.
@@zeddeka We felt prosperous as he was spending money like water, this is an easy way for a PM to be popular. The repeal of Clause 28 and civil partnerships would have happened anyway in a changing world. He destabilised the Middle East along with George Bush and gave us levels of immigration that changed this country forever, we are still struggling with these issues.
@@BossySwan Yes agree Iraq is in a mess partly due to him. Also he is still doing plenty of business with dictators with his "Institute for Global Change".
Dear Mr. Richards, your summary of Blair’s time in politics must be tempered by the fact that Blair won: not one, not two, but three elections by the people of UK. How fortunate to be able to reflect back, in a ‘cherry-picking’ style, to try and denigrate Blair- like someone roaming a battlefield after the fact, to shoot the survivors. Your throw-off line: ‘he had some success in Northern Ireland’ , is laughable, in that it ignores the significance of the moment, and your whole ‘raisin d’etre’ is to provide CONTEXT……
He won with good luck (regarding the state of the Tory Party and the economy) and even better PR. Not because the British people loved his policies. Indeed, during his leadership many people became more disillusioned about politics and simply did not participate in elections. His share of the vote in 2005 was 35.2% of a pretty low turnout.
@@kg8489 virtually every party wins because of the failing of the other party . it happened to thatcher blair johnson and potentially starmer its not really luck its more of a natural cycle. as one administration grows old people get tired and want change for change sake. and if they mess something up it adds fuel to that demand for change.