denex:

@angel101

Oh, so Tony Blair caught a train after leaving office? OBJ got caught in traffic when he left office.

OBJ was cught in traffic. was he on keke napep? as that is the public transport he provided for nigerians.

denex:

@angel101

caught a train and you fell for that scheme?

What is there to fall for? At least he is happy to pay his own way with whatever he earns (600k a day according to u) not fleecing the populace of whatever pittance has been left behind like ur OBJ. TB may have supported Blair at least he was man enough to stand by what he believed and has also been man enough to admit that he may have made mistakes but he did all he did in good faith and guess what, i believe him. Alot more than u can say for OBJ. y am i even joining u to compare TOny with OBJ when there is obviously no basis for comparism?!

JustGood:

Do you know how much labour lost in the last general elections and the last scottish elections as well? what planet are you on?

As I asked, what planet are you on? Politicians are not hardened enemies. They are professionals and they realise that the purpose is to get into power. How many of those politicians applauded him before he stood down? Every politician who has ruled this country gets extolled if they have not caused any calamity.

I'm sure you too intelligent to have such a naive thought system as to think that Tony Blair is very popular now or is nearly as popular as he was some years ago.

Did labour win the election or not?

Seun:

Source, please? Thanks. Tony Blair is cute and earnest, but i don't know if it's all an act since he supported Bush.

being cute is not an act

JustGood:



I'm sure you too intelligent to have such a naive thought system as to think that Tony Blair is very popular now or is nearly as popular as he was some years ago.

however intelligent u are, u would know that he is by no means 'the most unpopular PM in british history'. which is the comment i reacted to.

angel101:

Did labour win the election or not?

Labour won the election because we are scared of having the Conservative Party in government. Many people I know had to vote labour for fear of having the racist conservatives in through the back door. My family and I did the same. Ordinarily, we would have voted Lib Dem at the time.

Where exactly are you and do you read newspapers? I ask because this is common knowledge even within the ranks of the labour party hence the decision to hurry Tony Blair out of office as soon as he presented us the chance.

justgood please tell me you are not another member of this forum with another name

JustGood:

Labour won the election because we are scared of having the Conservative Party in government. Many people I know had to vote labour for fear of having the racist conservatives in through the back door. My family and I did the same. Ordinarily, we would have voted Lib Dem at the time.

Where exactly are you and do you read newspapers? I ask because this is common knowledge even within the ranks of the labour party hence the decision to hurry Tony Blair out of office as soon as he presented us the chance.

so labour won the election because people are scared of 'racist' conservative? what percentage of the population is ethnic minroity in the first place? If anything, the conservative got more votes because of their tougher stance on immigration laws which is viewed by the majority of the population as too soft.

10years as the PM, there is no hurrying in that mate, perfect time to say good bye,not like our siddon tight presidents

@ Disguy
thanks for educating the man.

Dis Guy:

justgood please tell me you are not another member of this forum with another name

so labour won the election because people are scared of 'racist' conservative? what percentage of the population is ethnic minroity in the first place? If anything, the conservative got more votes because of their tougher stance on immigration laws which is viewed by the majority of the population as too soft.

10years as the PM, there is no hurrying in that mate, perfect time to say good bye,not like our siddon tight presidents

This guy,

please go back and read up on analyses of the last elections. chikena

@ Disguy
thanks for educating the man.

I have no need to engage along these lines.

bye

@ JustGood, you are getting things mixed up, i guess the election you are talking about is the recent local elections electing councillors, labour didnt perform well but the results were much better than the polls and predictions. It cannot provide an accurate picture of the political climate because thats local politics, just watch what will happen.

Truth be told Tony Blair is an outstanding individual and is one of the best prime Ministers Britain will ever have. Please take a look at economic stats in the last 10 years, in terms of prosperity and the economy Britain has not had it better since 1945. Do you watch prime Ministers questions at all and hear the stats.?? or the NHS and Iraq issue is confusing you. Even the NHS figures have you seen what has happened to the waiting list.

The opposition along the line of David Cameroun is playing nothing but PR and it is becoming clear,its their own MP that has stated this.  The guy (David) stands for nothing, a case is the Grammar school debate and see the nonsense he is proposing, simple do you support Grammar schools or not and they start blabbing in some constituencies yes, while in others NO, complicated policies.??

And to the contributor that think his support comes from ethnic minorities that so uninformed, the percentage of ethnic minorities in Britain is less than 5%. The policies of the Labour govt has been working and the people see it.

I don't want to go into the issue of Iraq because it is very complicated personally i don't support the war and definately it was most unnecessary, but what did you expect him to do, what are they called "allies" they support each other even in error unfortunately.

As he has stated he might have made a mistake (i think he knows) but he did what he thought right at the time and has stood by his decision, but i wont be among the simple minded that will judge 10 years of being PM on the Iraq issue ALONE. 

It is important to note that the conservatives supported the war, David Cameroun voted to go to war along with several conservative MP's, so please Iraq shouldnt be the issue alone, the opposition would have done the same, but would they have delivered a prosperous economy, i don't think so?? Labour is the party that takes difficult decisions and not play to the gallery. The results are there to show.

@Seun

source was CNN last night. They said his basic severance package will be GBP300,000 annually. Then there's GBP64,000 annual pension allowance, and there's about GBP84,000 annually for running his office, there's like GBP250,000 for this new ambassadorial job he's going to be doing right now, finally he gets paid around GBP75,000 for each speech or lecture he gives, and I don't believe he'll make them few.

Then on his own, his book is in the making already. That will cost millions.

From ur break down, what he will get off the govt is 384k his pension is what he has been contributing to all his working life which everyone gets not just the PM. as for the speeches, anyone can ask to be paid to make a speech. it has nothing to do with the british govt. even the likes of paris hilton, Jade, jordan and co get paid for interviews so hey! and the book well noneed for me to go into that. make the man no do biz?

Tony Blair the exit of a great leader.

denex:

Don't forget that the N600,000 per day is apart from the Iraqi Oil money that him and Bush are making.

Where is your source for the "Iraqi Oil money" he and Bush are making? You pluck "facts" out of the air.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair.Under him,taxes have remained high ,both income and Corporation.The death tax-Inheritance tax-remains high also, not to mention,Council Tax.We have been taxed to the high heavens to fund the expansion of a nanny state.

More than 50% of British residents either work for the Govt or are on benefits.No wonder the Left-Labour and the Lib Dems remain popular.Blair has failed to adequately defend Britain's interest in Europe.He tried to drag Briatin into the Euro but for Gordon Brown's intervention.

He has cut the size of the military significantly.This is incredible given the scale of deployments Blair has ordered.The NHS remains a mess despite the unprecedented amounts of money lavished on it.

His failures are quite frankly innumerable.It is only in certain areas of foreign policy-Northern Ireland,Iraq and Afghanistan- that I agree with him.

@ I-man,

First lets clarify issues, council tax is not set by the prime minister it is set by individual councils, so please Tony Blair should not be blamed for high council Tax, talk to your councilor.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/TheFacts/council-tax-facts.htm#q2

On the issue of taxation i quite share the frustration, broadly speaking its a Labour policy to attempt to redistribute wealth by taxing high income earners more than low income earners in a bid to generate revenue to provide services that ordinary the low income bracket cannot provide for themselves. The ideology is an egalitarian society, but please note that they (Tony Blair himself) are also taxed at these high rates as well.

So once your income starts growing particularly getting to the 40K a yr bracket you will definately frown. My point is that Tony Blair cannot be blamed it is the policy of his party, its what he promised to do, so if the voters voted Labour perhaps thats the policy the people want.

On the issue of the EU i can see that you have been listening to the shallow arguement of the opposition. My question to you is should Britain be part of the EU or not? Then if you are in the EU to what extent do you loose your sovereignty and at the same time being part of the block. UK has tried to maintain that balance, whether thanks to Brown or not, it is the same government, at least he listened to Brown, he should be given credit for that. No wonder conservative govts are usually not a success, you isolate yourselves and expect what??

In cutting the size of the military. What has been the strategy? The idea unfortunately American grown is to have a smaller, swifter more equipped and better trained military. So the arguement now is being in so many conflicts at the same time has the home land become more vulnerable, But how vulnerable is the Home Land?? Come to think of it, those clamouring for a large military are the conservatives, defense budget are usually huge, juicy contracts of equipping a LARGE military are awarded, which they will argue should be equipped and trained at the smaller level of the smaill military, can you imagine the cost.

I totally disagree with you on your last statement that Tony Blairs failures are innumerable rather his success are innumerable again it depends on what policies you believe in and what ideology you lean towards. How can you say he has failed when he has delivered the best economy, the NHS you say is in a mess but the tragedy of long waiting lists are over, the health sector recorded the best boom ever, Nurses salaries were increased like no other govt.

The irony is that its the Iraq issue that many have painted him bad that you support.

@angel101

from the government, it's about a million Pounds per annum according to CNN. I just mentioned only those I could remember. By the way, they mentioned redundancy "something" of GBP38,000 annually. Abeg I no fit remember the whole thing.

@I-man

I just dey pull una leg commot from trouser when I mentioned Iraqi Oil Money. Iraqi Oil Money is only for those who own oil companies.

Only ignorant Britons on the streets of Britain wil have unkind words for Tony Blair.

The British Foreign policy whether Labour or Conservative has always been the same and will always be the same. The Brits dont agree with the French, they have a long and cold History with the Germans and thus no love lost between them, they dont even trust countries like Italy, Spain or Portugal, it is even no use talking about Rusia as that is a no go area.

There natural allies have always been and will remain US no matter who occupies Washington. Those hoping to see a detached UK from US will die waiting cos it is not going to happen any time soon.

That being said, it is only an oversatisfied or overfed public that has time to querry if their leader is being nice on the foreign front. Domestic politics is miles apart from International politics. In international politics the priority is National Interest, Blair whether right or wrong went into Iraq believing he was doing the best for his country.
Though he was unfortunate not to get the same amount of loyalty from Bush like he gave him. Even Bush testified that Blair was too sincere for the political circles they operate in.
And that is a fact, Blair pursued debt relief for Africa with so much dedication when other world leaders were simply uninterested or will never deliver there promise.

On the local front, those who are in the know will tell you that 1997 Britain before Blair met it still experienced power cuts, some old people who had no money to buy energy freeze inside their homes, school pupils had poor study conditions with students still having to deficate in pitholes. Today all those are history that is why they have enough time to Judge Blairs Government solely on the war in Iraq.

1997 Britain was so acient,  he left a modern Britain with a strong economy, beautiful cities and great transport system. Like Angel 101 pointed out, a fact which led him to being confident enough to carry his own travel bag to join the train system he offered his people (that is an act of a sincere leader).

In his words He met Britain with so much hopes, he is living Britain with even higher hopes.

buluti:

@ I-man,
First lets clarify issues, council tax is not set by the prime minister it is set by individual councils, so please Tony Blair should not be blamed for high council Tax, talk to your councilor.

Tony Blair was also the head of the Labor party and in councils controlled by the Labor party,Council tax inflation was higher than that of the councils controlled by Tories

On the issue of taxation i quite share the frustration, broadly speaking its a Labour policy to attempt to redistribute wealth by taxing high income earners more than low income earners in a bid to generate revenue to provide services that ordinary the low income bracket cannot provide for themselves. The ideology is an egalitarian society, but please note that they (Tony Blair himself) are also taxed at these high rates as well.

So once your income starts growing particularly getting to the 40K a yr bracket you will definately frown. My point is that Tony Blair cannot be blamed it is the policy of his party, its what he promised to do, so if the voters voted Labour perhaps thats the policy the people want.

Labor didn't campaign on the platform of "wealth redistribution".Labor specifically was carefull not to be associated with such a platform,since this was perceived as partly responsible for Labor's woes in the 1980s.

However,even if Blair promised to raise taxes on the wealthy,I still think its a flawed idea.The higher taxes go up on the rich,the less the rich pay as proportion to the entire populace.Tax evasion actually skyrockets and we will be back to the situation we were in the 70s when the top rate of income tax was 90%.

On the issue of the EU i can see that you have been listening to the shallow arguement of the opposition. My question to you is should Britain be part of the EU or not? Then if you are in the EU to what extent do you loose your sovereignty and at the same time being part of the block. UK has tried to maintain that balance, whether thanks to Brown or not, it is the same government, at least he listened to Brown, he should be given credit for that. No wonder conservative govts are usually not a success, you isolate yourselves and expect what??

I don't think Britain has to be part of the EU.Switzerland and Norway are doing quite well without the EU.Did you say Conservative Govts were not a success?You should ask people how Britain was in the 70s.They were actually taking IMF loans then.

In cutting the size of the military. What has been the strategy? The idea unfortunately American grown is to have a smaller, swifter more equipped and better trained military. So the arguement now is being in so many conflicts at the same time has the home land become more vulnerable, But how vulnerable is the Home Land?? Come to think of it, those clamouring for a large military are the conservatives, defense budget are usually huge, juicy contracts of equipping a LARGE military are awarded, which they will argue should be equipped and trained at the smaller level of the smaill military, can you imagine the cost.

If they can't afford the cost of a larger military,they should reduce foreign deployments.If you are going to be deploying troops in an unprecedented manner,you should at least have sufficient number of troops to carry out the tasks neccesary.

I totally disagree with you on your last statement that Tony Blairs failures are innumerable rather his success are innumerable again it depends on what policies you believe in and what ideology you lean towards. How can you say he has failed when he has delivered the best economy, the NHS you say is in a mess but the tragedy of long waiting lists are over, the health sector recorded the best boom ever, Nurses salaries were increased like no other govt.

He didn't "deliver" the best economy.The economy was booming at the time Labor came into power.I only give him credit for not totally ruining the economy.The three fold increase in spending on the NHS has not brought about commensurate progress in the health sector.Its not how much is spent but how its spent.Turkey has a better health service than the UK despite spending far less money.Are you aware that you are 4 times as likely to die if major surgery is conducted under the NHS than if such surgery was conducted in the US?-[url]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,,1036970,00.html[/url]Thank God for BUPA.

The irony is that its the Iraq issue that many have painted him bad that you support.

On Iraq he acted against character,for the first time he acted on conviction.

I think Blair is a man of courage and strong will. He did all he can for the progress of his nation, the only and lasting downtown is Iraq war. But in his own words "Sometimes u do what u think is right in your own heart, and sometimes it is worth facing the impossible". He is one of the greatest leaders in the world. He stood by what he believes in, he made enemies he made friends and held power for ten years, that is all u know great men by.

Without doubt he did very wel on home front and his internation politics was spot on until he joined the texas cowboy to invade iraq. That is still hunting him till tomorrow but as a man who will not want to accept total defit in public he will keep on repeating himself that he did what is write for britain and the world. He lft office yesterday partly b/cos of this illegitmate war. before yesteray conservative was on the lead on every opion poll conducted here in Britain but that same yesterday labour took the lead as soon as power changed hand. That is to tell him that he is no longer need in no 10 dowing street. But he is still a great leader despite the mistake after all nobody is perfect and he is not.

@ I-man,

So i guess we should expect council tax to drop significantly now that the conservatives control more of the councils, i am yet to hear any council that has dropped the council tax. This debate is not on council tax so i wont dwell much, please read the link there are criterias used to determine the council tax and the conservatives are almost as bad as labour on that. You need to read the conservative manifesto they really are not interested in such taxes, it doesnt affect their interest anyway let me move on.

Tony Blair introduced "New labour" in 1997 and saying they didnt campaign on the platform of income re-distribution is like saying theres a difference between six and half a dozen. The polices to expect from a labour govt are clear and increased taxation is one of it just like we expect the conservatives to reduce certain taxes.I introduced income redistribution in the arguement because thats the underligning ideology behind progressive taxation.

Let me mention that i join in the clamour for reduced taxes as the policy has been pursued a bit too much, several Labour back benchers and MP's clamour for that as well, but i guess its Gordon Brown baby so i don't expect that to change, having said that it is not enough to change my ideological stand. And this evil you abscribe to Tony Blair is actually Gordon Browns evil perhaps you were not aware that Tony Blair left 100% of the treasury decisions to him and actually theres a talk of an agreement during the labour leader battle before 1997.

It is ok if you think it is flawed and think it leads to the prevalence of tax evasion, empirically i doubt if that can be proven, but it is a rational expected behaviour that tax evasion would increase. If you know this you think the govt doesnt know, i guess thats why the govt has decided to spend more on govt establishments such as HRMC.

The idea you call flawed has delivered a strong economy and please labour under Tony Blair delivered a strong economy. The idea that the economy was booming is so inaccurate similar to the arguement that Clinton was lucky. Please its no luck nor is it related to the initia state, its the dynamic flows that was pursued, policies such as the independence of the bank of England ensuring monetary policy decisions is devoid of politics. Its not luck or magic it has been consistent hard work on the part of those responsible for montary policy and a corresponding disciplined fiscal policy on the part of the govt.

On the EU again i am amused at your analogy, i wonder where Norway and Switzerland are in the scheme of world politics, the influence they exert and why we are not discussing their PM here. Britain is too involved and centre to take the stand you suggest , it would not be in their interest, even the conservatives know that. Why is America a member of NATO and several other alliances, they can as well decide to be alone.

I wont bother on the NHS because that line is what the opposition is using to deceive the unenlightened ie that of commesorate spending and results, during the conservative governments why didnt they spend at all, now a govt is spending the issue now, the gain is minimal at least we all agree theres a gain. The opposition till date cannot state clearly their plans for the NHS its all PR, the same line of we would listen to those on ground, which is what Brown will do so i wonder what they will say next.

In summary saying Tony Blair acted in conviction in Iraq alone is unfair to the man. The conviction in the guy can be seen in the way he answers questions, in his drive e.g look at the debt reduction drive for HIPC and you say its only the Iraq case he showed conviction, the economy u think it was by mistake or an issue of acting infavour or against character, it was pursuing policies that he was convicted on.

No matter how hard you try you cannot take away the economic success from the Blair government and since u agree infavour of the one issue that paints his government bad then you are actually idolising the guy making him more of a success.

So i guess we should expect council tax to drop significantly now that the conservatives control more of the councils, i am yet to hear any council that has dropped the council tax. This debate is not on council tax so i wont dwell much, please read the link there are criterias used to determine the council tax and the conservatives are almost as bad as labour on that. You need to read the conservative manifesto they really are not interested in such taxes, it doesnt affect their interest anyway let me move on.

I'm not aware of claiming that Council taxes will drop if the Tories control more of the councils.My point is that Council tax inflation is lower in Tory councils than in Labour councils.As far cutting council taxes,I know for instance that Tory controlled Hammersmith and Fulham cut council taxes this year.Council tax rises have been a big issue for the Tories.

Tony Blair introduced "New labour" in 1997 and saying they didnt campaign on the platform of income re-distribution is like saying theres a difference between six and half a dozen. The polices to expect from a labour govt are clear and increased taxation is one of it just like we expect the conservatives to reduce certain taxes.I introduced income redistribution in the arguement because thats the underligning ideology behind progressive taxation.

Well,you said Blair promised higher taxes when he made no such promise.Labour,traditionally was known as the party of wealth redistribution.When Blair took over from Neil Kinnock,one of the key planks of Blair's "New Labor" was to eschew all talks of redistribution.In effect,he was elected on the basis that the "tax and spend" traditions of the  Labor party was over.He has betrayed people's trust on that issue.So,far from increased taxes being one of the expectations of a new Labour Govt,tax rates were expected to stay fairly stable.

You effectively blame it on Brown.However,it is one of the drawbacks of his regime that he left fiscal policy solely in the hands of Brown.

There is a well established link between higher top rates of tax and lower  tax revenue as a proportion of the entire populace.Please take time to read this link-http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp (Check the 9th paragraph which deals with the UK.)

The idea you call flawed has delivered a strong economy and please labour under Tony Blair delivered a strong economy. The idea that the economy was booming is so inaccurate similar to the arguement that Clinton was lucky. Please its no luck nor is it related to the initia state, its the dynamic flows that was pursued, policies such as the independence of the bank of England ensuring monetary policy decisions is devoid of politics. Its not luck or magic it has been consistent hard work on the part of those responsible for montary policy and a corresponding disciplined fiscal policy on the part of the govt.

Here is an excerpt from a report on the UK economy between 1996 and 1997-The British economy has started to show some considerable strength at the tail end of 1996 and into 1997 with annualized growth topping 4%.-Here is the source-http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/1997denver/compliance/uk/ukmac.htmTo put things in perspective,GDP growth was 2.7% in 2006 and has averaged around that figure since Blair came into power,a figure lower than the growth rate at the inception of the LABOUR Govt.

In addition,average per capita income growth rate between 1986 and 1996 was 2.4%,same as between 1996 and 2003,in other words,no difference.So how Blair "delivered a strong economy" is hard to understand when the eocnomy was booming when he came into power. 

On the EU again i am amused at your analogy, i wonder where Norway and Switzerland are in the scheme of world politics, the influence they exert and why we are not discussing their PM here. Britain is too involved and centre to take the stand you suggest , it would not be in their interest, even the conservatives know that. Why is America a member of NATO and several other alliances, they can as well decide to be alone.

Would Norway and Switzerland become any more involved if they were in the EU?The most important thing is that both countries enjoy living standards far higher than most in the EU including the UK and they did this without the EU.The UK is a permanent member of the UNSC and a world power in its own right.It does not need to be one of 27 members within the EU to protect its interest.The EU takes decisions by consensus and quite often the consensus is not in the UK's interest.In effect,EU membership dilutes and constrains Britain's policy options. The UK is already a member of NATO so I don't see your point.   

I wont bother on the NHS because that line is what the opposition is using to deceive the unenlightened ie that of commesorate spending and results, during the conservative governments why didnt they spend at all, now a govt is spending the issue now, the gain is minimal at least we all agree theres a gain. The opposition till date cannot state clearly their plans for the NHS its all PR, the same line of we would listen to those on ground, which is what Brown will do so i wonder what they will say next.

The question is not spending but how its spent.We are 4 times more likely to die in the UK if surgery was conducted here than in the US.That tax money is being wasted for little benefit is hardly applaudable.

In summary saying Tony Blair acted in conviction in Iraq alone is unfair to the man. The conviction in the guy can be seen in the way he answers questions, in his drive e.g look at the debt reduction drive for HIPC and you say its only the Iraq case he showed conviction, the economy u think it was by mistake or an issue of acting infavour or against character, it was pursuing policies that he was convicted on.

No matter how hard you try you cannot take away the economic success from the Blair government and since u agree infavour of the one issue that paints his government bad then you are actually idolising the guy making him more of a success.

Blair was a master of spin whose tendency to twist the truth undermined confidence in him.Hence,on the rare occasion he acted with conviction,few believed him.He has to a large degree,single-handedly eroded trust in the political class.

I do not attribute the economic success to him for he had nothing to do with it.The economy was growing rapidly when he came into power.He could not be the cause of an effect(economic growth) which preceded him.In any case,Brown,not Blair,has greater responsibility for economic policy.

fromuk:

Without doubt he did very wel on home front and his internation politics was spot on until he joined the texas cowboy to invade iraq. That is still hunting him till tomorrow but as a man who will not want to accept total defit in public he will keep on repeating himself that he did what is write for britain and the world. He lft office yesterday partly b/because of this illegitmate war. before yesteray conservative was on the lead on every opion poll conducted here in Britain but that same yesterday labour took the lead as soon as power changed hand. That is to tell him that he is no longer need in no 10 dowing street. But he is still a great leader despite the mistake after all nobody is perfect and he is not.

give us a break, some of us supported the war infact a lot of people did until it became unpopular, some people have no opinion, just like to jump into the band wagon that is fashionable, until its no longer the in thing.

It's not a must you write something if you dont have tangible things to write. What is your business with British Empire? You have not missed your Uncle Shege who just left office with an increase in fuel price as a departing gift. You are there talking about Tony Blair as if he's your relative.

@ I-man thank you for your response. I would attempt to demonstrate below that the UK economy under the Labour government has been more prosperous concentrating my arguement a bit in these areas being one of my underlying criteria of describing Blair and by extension the labour govt thus far a success. I would later attempt to address "the" EU issue (albeit this is purely political, we would be unable utilise stats). Finally i will provide my thoughts on the taxation issue and the "income redistribution" philosophy you claim was re-introduced.

I-man:

Here is an excerpt from a report on the UK economy between 1996 and 1997-The British economy has started to show some considerable strength at the tail end of 1996 and into 1997 with annualized growth topping 4%.-Here is the source-http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/1997denver/compliance/uk/ukmac.htmTo put things in perspective,GDP growth was 2.7% in 2006 and has averaged around that figure since Blair came into power,a figure lower than the growth rate at the inception of the LABOUR Govt.

In addition,average per capita income growth rate between 1986 and 1996 was 2.4%,same as between 1996 and 2003,in other words,no difference.So how Blair "delivered a strong economy" is hard to understand when the eocnomy was booming when he came into power. 

You have provided stats on the GDP growth rate which is a good measure of economic growth stating that the average in the Blair govt was 2.7% as compared to the conservatives 2.4%. Though i do not totally disagree with you figures i attach an excel spreadsheet showing GDP growth rate. Particularly please note 1991 where there was a negative growth of -1.4% and observe the trend and your so called "boom". The arguement is that the Labour government has ensured a continous boom as against a conservative that records erratic figures one year low another year high.

Please note that the measure of economic prosperity is not GDP growth rate ALONE, it must be considered simulataneously with other indicators and following the World bank, IMF and several scholars i would consider it along with interest rate and unemployment rates. Again i have attached two spreadsheets showing this two variables. For the period 1990-1996 interest rate averaged at 8.95% while 1997-2003 it averaged at 5.33% and it has continued to drop, the difference is clear between the two regimes who has a more effective monetary policy. Pertinent to note that interest rate (in other words the cost of credit) is an all important variable as it affects investment, a difference of 3% for a period of 7 years is alone to either make businesses expand or cause them to close. Calculate 3% on a loan of £1 billion over a 7 year period, then you can understand the additional cost.

Now considering unemployment the average for the same period under the two governments conservative 38.6%, Labour 29% (this is long term unemployment) so please imagine more jobs for 10% of the population under the Labour govt.

These policies along with prudent fiscal policies under Tony Blair has ensured these variables are kept in check.

Let me bring it home, what labour has achieved is growth simultaneously with low interest rate and low unemployment more importantly sustained this figures over 10 years this has not been achieved in the last 150 years, and thats the reason Tony Blair is a success story.

I will continue in another thread to make easy reading.

Having addressed that Tony Blair is legendary in terms of economic prosperity, the question you have raised is that of integrity and loosing sovernity i.e. the EU association.

I mentioned earlier that Norway and Switzerland cannot be compared to the UK but you suspiciously channeled the arguement towards standard of living. Whilst i agree that this countries enjoy better quality of life i really can't correlate that to world politics, does China enjoy this quality of life the answer is NO, but is it more relevant in World politics compared to Norway and Switzerland the answer is Yes. Agreed UK enjoys a permanent seat on the UNSC but hey that doesnt translate into an alliance, it is a recognition of the influence that being a member of the EU ensures.Perhaps national interest was wrong nomenclature, maybe i should state it that being in the EU avails the opportunity of support in terms of crises. If UK were to go to war who are more likelhy to send troops, would China or Iran send troops NO, but members of an alliance are OBLIGATED to support and the larger picture interms of trade, investment flows etc are quite huge.

I-man:

Well,you said Blair promised higher taxes when he made no such promise.Labour,traditionally was known as the party of wealth redistribution.When Blair took over from Neil Kinnock,one of the key planks of Blair's "New Labor" was to eschew all talks of redistribution.In effect,he was elected on the basis that the "tax and spend" traditions of the  Labor party was over.He has betrayed people's trust on that issue.So,far from increased taxes being one of the expectations of a new Labour Govt,tax rates were expected to stay fairly stable.

You effectively blame it on Brown.However,it is one of the drawbacks of his regime that he left fiscal policy solely in the hands of Brown.

Finally on this taxation issue you misunderstand me and misquote me, i never said Tony Blair promised to increased taxes i said it is an expected Labour Policy, it will be foolhardy to expect a Labout government to pursue tax cutting policy it is not their manifesto. Agreed New Labour under Tony Blair promised to redirect policy on the implementation of the ideology of income redistribution, thats exactly what the govt has done, you might call Tony Blair names but from a realist point he is a politician so is David Cameroun who currently stands for nothing, but saying Tony Blair would intentionally deceived people is inaccurate and far from the truth.

On the issue of council tax its news to me in those constituency you mentioned, thanks for the info (though i would have loved to ascertain the source) and i agree that the rate is higher under a Labour govt but the total picture is what concerns me, and thats what concerns the government,unemployment is falling, interest rate is falling.

The NHS is quite political and debating on it one stands the risk sounding politically incorrect, the fact is that the NHS has improved evidenced by quick access to GP's and shorter waiting list and please note the NHS was and is a labour initiative, it was introduced by a Labour government. So if you say Tony Blair spent 4 times more to achieve that, what did the conservatives achieve during their reign, a dilapitated health sector, education sector in ruins, selective education seperating the "so called" gifted children who more often come from wealthy homes.

I share your frustration on high taxation but a Labour government provides a an opportunity for all as compared to the conservatives which is a government for the few (the elite).

I conclude by restating that Tony Blair was a successful PM and infact one of the greatest Britain has ever had, i could add more you have stated the Norther Ireland settlement, Debt reduction for Africa the list goes on and on.

You have provided stats on the GDP growth rate which is a good measure of economic growth stating that the average in the Blair govt was 2.7% as compared to the conservatives 2.4%

Average per capita income growth was 2.4% for those 2 eras.

Though i do not totally disagree with you figures i attach an excel spreadsheet showing GDP growth rate. Particularly please note 1991 where there was a negative growth of -1.4% and observe the trend and your so called "boom". The arguement is that the Labour government has ensured a continous boom as against a conservative that records erratic figures one year low another year high.

It is true that the UK plunged into a recession  after the mishandling of the ERM but this ignores nearly 12 years of growth under the Tories dating back to 1979.The Tories,unlike Labour, inherited a weak economy.Who knows what will happen to the UK economy in the coming years?

It is always difficult to make valid comparisons over different eras where the circumstances were different.For instance,you noted that interest rates averaged 8.95% under the Tories,while it averaged 5.3% under Labour.At first sight,Labour's record looks impressive.

However, your point falls apart when you remember that while rates were at 7.05% when Labour took office,at Nov 1979,rates were a whopping 17%!The Tories brought down rates from 17% to 7% by 1997.From this perspective,Labor's record begins to look less impressive.-http://www.bized.co.uk/dataserv/chron/kf5579.htm#1979

Merely looking at the stats while comparing the economy under the Tories  with that under Labour does not allow for a proper appreciation  of the contribution of the Tories to the UK's economy.Do you know that there used to be power cuts in the 70s?People used to wait for  months just to get connected to a phone line.

One good measure of the economic wellbeing of the nation is to look at income per capita.In 1979,when the Tories took over,it stood at $6889,by 1997,it was $20,000-STATS-PAGE 9 .That is effectively a tripling of income.You can see that there was a pattern of steady growth long before Labour came into power.That is why I noted initially,that Labour doesn't deserve credit for what they did not start,they only deserve credit for not ruining decades of economic growth.There has been steady growth but that is mainly due to the global economy.The rise of China has helped keep inflation low and strong global growth has meant more foreign investment

As for tax cuts,the failure of Labour to cut tax is shameful.That they are not expected to cut tax doesn't mean they shouldn't.They were also not expected to impose tuition fees,labour manifesto in 1997 dismissed  suggestions of tuition fees for Universities and contained a promise not to impose them.

Tax cuts are good for the economy.In 1979,the top rate of income tax was 83%.It was  tax cuts together with other economic reforms,privatisation of state corporations(BT,BP,BA,e.t.c) that laid the foundation for the present economic stability we are experiencing.

See this link for the council tax cut in Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham-TAX CUT

The NHS is quite political and debating on it one stands the risk sounding politically incorrect, the fact is that the NHS has improved evidenced by quick access to GP's and shorter waiting list and please note the NHS was and is a labour initiative, it was introduced by a Labour government. So if you say Tony Blair spent 4 times more to achieve that, what did the conservatives achieve during their reign, a dilapitated health sector, education sector in ruins, selective education seperating the "so called" gifted children who more often come from wealthy homes.

If you keep throwing money at a problem,naturally there will be some improvements.The problem is that the improvements do not match the amount of money spent.Money shouldn't be spent for its sake.Sure,things have improved since the Tories but then the Tory NHS was an improvement from the previous Labour Govt(comparing different eras again) and this was acheived with far less money.Pouring tax payers money down the drain in return for minor improvements is pointless.

I mentioned earlier that Norway and Switzerland cannot be compared to the UK but you suspiciously channeled the arguement towards standard of living. Whilst i agree that this countries enjoy better quality of life i really can't correlate that to world politics, does China enjoy this quality of life the answer is NO, but is it more relevant in World politics compared to Norway and Switzerland the answer is Yes

Thanks for proving my point.China achieved its status in politics without having to be part of a body like the EU,just the same way Norway and Switzerland achieved theirs in the economy without EU help.

Agreed UK enjoys a permanent seat on the UNSC but hey that doesnt translate into an alliance, it is a recognition of the influence that being a member of the EU ensures.

The UK has been on the UNSC way before the EU came into existence so i don't know how "it is a recognition of the influence that being a member of the EU ensures"

Perhaps national interest was wrong nomenclature, maybe i should state it that being in the EU avails the opportunity of support in terms of crises. If UK were to go to war who are more likelhy to send troops, would China or Iran send troops NO, but members of an alliance are OBLIGATED to support and the larger picture interms of trade, investment flows etc are quite huge.

That's not true,NATO already serves that purpose.Members of the EU are not obligated to support each member state in the event of war.That obligation only arises with respect to NATO members.

States like Norway and Switzerland already enjoy free trade with the EU.Negotiating trade terms could be done just as effectively outside the EU than inside.The EU suffers as a result of policies such as the CAP(Common Agricultural Policy) which is a handicap in  negotiating favorable trade terms with other trading nations.The UK also has to spend a considerable amount of money as aid to new member states.

@ I-Man,

I can see clearly your issue is with taxation. I showed clearly measures of economic success (ie interest rate and unemployment) and what you have added is per capita income growth from (1979 - 1997) nearly two decades of booms and recessions an era of gross fiscal indiscipline. Inaddition i clearly dont see the need of the variable because in real terms GDP growth reflects the per capita income growth i.e. GDP per capita is GDP divided by total population so assuming that population doesnt grow at phenomenal rates the two variables capture the same thing.

In addition a short coming of using GDP growth as a measure of economic success is that it does not provide an avenue to judge the efficacy of Monetary and Fiscal policies. It is not always difficult to make comparison in two eras as long as you are measuring like with like, you can clearly see changes positive and negative. My point doesnt fall short becos i was comparing like with like i didnt just choose an arbitrary starting point of 1979 and compared to say 2002 (absolute values), i compared over a sample period for the two parties to provide an insight and establish a trend.

My main agruement remains that "The British economy has in recent years seen the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 150 years, and is one of the strongest economies in the world in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which remain relatively low" (its the record the Torys cant deny and celeberated by Labour) and no Tory govt has ever achieved this in histroy. The Torys were in power for almost 2 decades and all that was noticed were always ups and downs, reactions to problems no sustained plan so saying that labour didnt start the economic boom is sour grape.

Again on EU you misquote me, i said members of an alliance not members of the EU, i particulalry chose my words, i was attempting to show the advantages of Unions and Alliances. This debate is belated cos even the Tories agree that being with the EU is beneficial its the extent of association they are against.

Please NHS under the Tories you call improvements, i personally had an aunt in 1990 that was going to be on the waiting list till 1995 to receive surgery, luclkily her husbands firm had medical insurance, she imagines if they didnt what would have happened, today all that is history and you call that throwing money at a problem. Most of those that make such statements have medical insurance and so really dont care of the nitty gritty, they are complaining that the money spent is too much becos of the huge taxes.

Most people i have come across that are conservatively inclined is due to taxation policies and when i engage them in discussions its usually cos they feel they are paying too much tax, they want their tax to be reduced and dont mind the cost to the state, its not shameful that labour didnt reduce tax (Gordon Brown did in the last budget anyway) because they have delivered on the economy, they have provided more jobs more than any govt over a period of time, the funds are being utilised.

Again i summarise that Tony Blair remains one of the most successful Prime Ministers becos he led "The British economy to an era of the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 150 years, and is one of the strongest economies in the world in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which remain relatively low. The Labour govt identifies with issues that affect the generality of people and not a few.

I can see clearly your issue is with taxation. I showed clearly measures of economic success (ie interest rate and unemployment) and what you have added is per capita income growth from (1979 - 1997) nearly two decades of booms and recessions an era of gross fiscal indiscipline. Inaddition i clearly don't see the need of the variable because in real terms GDP growth reflects the per capita income growth i.e. GDP per capita is GDP divided by total population so assuming that population doesnt grow at phenomenal rates the two variables capture the same thing.

I was correcting a misrepresentation of my post.I never said GDP growth averaged 2.7% under Labour as opposed to 2.4% under the Tories but that average income per capita growth averaged 2.4% under both parties.As you note,there is little difference between income per capita and the GDP as a whole,hence one can deduce from the per capita figures that the average GDP growth rate was effectively the same  under the 2 eras.

In addition a short coming of using GDP growth as a measure of economic success is that it does not provide an avenue to judge the efficacy of Monetary and Fiscal policies. It is not always difficult to make comparison in two eras as long as you are measuring like with like, you can clearly see changes positive and negative. My point doesnt fall short because i was comparing like with like i didnt just choose an arbitrary starting point of 1979 and compared to say 2002 (absolute values), i compared over a sample period for the two parties to provide an insight and establish a trend

My point was that when you assert for instance,that rates averaged 5.3% under labour as opposed to 8.9% under the Tories,this whitewashes the fact that the Tories had to bring down rates from 17% to get to that level.Labour only had to bring down rates from 7.05%.Which do you think was more applaudable?

My main agruement remains that "The British economy has in recent years seen the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 150 years, and is one of the strongest economies in the world in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which remain relatively low" (its the record the Torys can't deny and celeberated by Labour)

Thanks for that well known oft repeated Labour soundbite.Problem with Labour soundbites are that they hide certain underlying truths.Think of this,that  point you just made equally applies to the US,Canada,Australia,New Zealand,Ireland and effectively most of the EU and indeed most of the world.Don't you think that there are certain forces at play transcending Blair's "management genius"?

The global economy as a whole,not just the UK,is witnessing an unprecedented period of economic expansion characterised with low inflation rates,low unemployment and low interest rates.This is particularly noticeable in the Anglo nations I mentioned.Blair happened to be PM at this most unique of  periods.

Correlation is not the same as causation.What particular policies of Blair can one claim to be responsible for the UK's economic expansion?You mentioned earlier the independence of the BOE.This single policy,applaudable as it is,cannot be the progenitor of the expansion.

Is it the higher taxes or ever increasing regulation?Is it the loss of competitivesness?Is it the mounting debt load of the Govt now standing at over  $1 trillion(43.5% of GDP).That last point about the debt is pertinent to the issue of wasteful spending in regards to the NHS.Government has to borrow to sustain all that spending.

Again on EU you misquote me, i said members of an alliance not members of the EU, i particulalry chose my words, i was attempting to show the advantages of Unions and Alliances. This debate is belated because even the Tories agree that being with the EU is beneficial its the extent of association they are against.

I fail to see where I insisted that the UK must pull out of the EU.My point is that Blair failed to adequately protect Britain's nationl interests in Europe even though the UK is not at the mercy of the EU.It is not in the same position as the likes of Poland,Hungary,Malta e.t.c .It can function adequately without the EU and hence does not need to sacrifice certain national interests.

Please NHS under the Tories you call improvements, i personally had an aunt in 1990 that was going to be on the waiting list till 1995 to receive surgery, luclkily her husbands firm had medical insurance, she imagines if they didnt what would have happened, today all that is history and you call that throwing money at a problem. Most of those that make such statements have medical insurance and so really don't care of the nitty gritty, they are complaining that the money spent is too much because of the huge taxes.

What does that tell us about the state of the NHS in the 70s?What you saw in 1990 was  actually a major improvement from the situation the Tories inherited from Labour.Each decade has seen major improvements from the past  decade.Had the Tories still be in power,the NHS would have been just as  improved,if not more, now compared to 1990.

You have not shown me any aspect of the country in which one can say would  have been worse had somebody other than Blair been PM.You pointed to the economy but I have noted that growth is essentially at the levels witnessed under the Tories, and is as much a symptom of the contemporary global economy as anything to do with Blair.Don't forget,Brown not Blair has been responsible for economic policy.This thread is about Blair's successes and failures not the Labour Government in general.

@ I-man,

Again you make unlike comparisons, i compared commesorate periods and utilised them to establish trend, i could as well take any govt in 1956 or 1900 and 20 years later look at the party in power and say this party brought this down form this, analytically thats speculation. Comparing like with like provides empirical proofs.

The postulation that Tony Blair is lucky i.e ruled in an era of global growth is intelluctually unsound, it assumes nothing was done and suggest in the face of wrong policies things will improve,i.e "do nothing and the results will be the same" i will not attempt to influence your view.

The well repeated anthem is becos its the truth, unfortunately the tories dont have such histroy to call, they would shout it if they did, they know their strong point is not the economy and this is the first time have met a Tory inclined person attempt to argue their strength on economic policy so am not surprised when you compare 1979 - 1997 and 1997- 2006. I picked 1990 - 1996 and 1997 - 2003 and observed economic trends not absoulte vales that tell nothing. Secondly becos that provides a phase when the recession ended and the boom started, how it was managed under the two govts.

I guess we can go on for arguement sake, but since theres no new introduction of facts it has clearly become subjective and based on presentations. The underlying FACT remains sustained economic growth (evidenced by low interest rate, low inflation, low unemployment )over 10 years has never been achieved by the Tories and never in 150 years in the british economy. Correlation and causation is different, every one knows correlation and regression show different things, i am not looking at the direction but the magnitude of the changes, i wont be heard saying luck is responsible but can show that policies such as independence of BOE, fiscal discipline has led to control of inflation, interest rate, unemployment and GDP growth.

I would stop on the NHS and EU cos they were add ons and clearly political, my arguement remains sustained economic growth evidenced by low unemployments, low interest rates, low inflation and growth in GDP over 10 years of govt. If you say no aspect of the economy can be ascribed to Tony Blair or Labour policies, perhaps theres a need to re-define economics or political economy. Even Magaret Thatcher acknowledge the economic strenghts of the govt and David cameroun cant go there, he dwells on thins u dwell on NHS, EU and the likes.

I repeat my arguement no government has delivered sustained growth over 10 years like Tony Blairs govt, if u like call it luck then so be it, let the Tories pray for luck when they are in power, but we know its not luck its hard work and an effective monetary policy controlling interest rate & inflation and a pragmatic fiscal policy.

Thanks i rest.

3 New Labour victories= no joke