Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Did It Go Wrong For Tony Blair?  
User currently offlineCaptLockheed From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 135 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

In 1997 when Tony Blair came to office it was an overwhelmingly popular event (Even I supported the patently unprincipled, shallow actor that he obviously was over the corpse of the previous Conservative government.) but now he is a figure that is treated with almost universal derision in anything but the most loyal New Labour circles. How has a leader who has overseen such a healthy economy ended up in such a situation? Under the previous Conservative administration the economy was awful - you understood why they were unpopular.

But why is Blair?

Perhaps he isn't and I'm just imagining everything!

I'm genuinely interested in other peoples opinions.

Here are a few reasons I thought of:

1. He's too left wing - I don't believe that, he simply isn't!
2. He's too right wing - I don't believe that!
3. He sent our troops into Iraq - Not actually sure.
4. Britain is in the grip of some Political Correct insanity - 'The Daily Mail scenario.' - may have some truth.
5. Britain is being overrun by Immigrants - 'The Daily Express scenario.' - may also have some truth.
6. He has overseen some of the most drastic seize back of rights to the state in History since the Charles I. - I doubt this.
7. He is more interested what Rupert Murdoch think of him than the British public. - not directly true but he has made a few mistakes because he is.
8. He seems to get almost sexually aroused by rich, powerful men.
9. People have just seen through his act. - Not actually sure.
10. The present government seems to be corrupt, arrogant and completely out of touch with the Electorate. - may have some truth.
11. The state of Crime, Education and Health Service. - may have some truth.
12. The opposition is so terrible. - may have some truth.
13. He never, actually, had any values - just the desire for power.

The irony is that the person he modelled himself on - Magaret Thatcher - who was also eventually, justifyably, reviled actually left something behind, but will Blair?

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

One thing is for sure, it can't possibly have anything to do with his best friend / boss...



Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineCaptLockheed From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

It may do, but I'm not, actually convinced,

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting Thom@s (Reply 1):

I'm impressed . . . actually - not really.

The VERY FIRST reply - it's Bush's fault. Hell, that may be an all time record. It's usually at least the 3rd or 4th.

Geezus, ridiculous  sarcastic 


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Thom@s (Reply 1):
One thing is for sure, it can't possibly have anything to do with his best friend / boss...

Thomas, I usually agree with your posts as a fellow Norwegian...that one was just stupid. Not to mention Blair was voted into office in 1997, Bush took office in January 2001...

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Geezus, ridiculous

No shit



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

I'll tell you where Tony Bliar went wrong. He started believing all the spin his government were spouting!

User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
it's Bush's fault.

I never said it was. But I believe Blair lost a lot of support by apparently doing anything Bush asked of him. The question was, where did it go wrong for Tony Blair, well I believe much of it has to do with the way he responded to Bush's actions after 9/11.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 4):
that one was just stupid. Not to mention Blair was voted into office in 1997, Bush took office in January 2001...

And? Blair started working with Bush after the election in 2001. Ever since I don't recall seeing Blair's popularity flourish. No offense, but what is your point?

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 2104 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Thom@s (Reply 6):
No offense, but what is your point?



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
The VERY FIRST reply - it's Bush's fault. Hell, that may be an all time record. It's usually at least the 3rd or 4th.

Like Pep said. Any thread on here, one way or another gets back to being Bush's fault.



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 10 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Well, I am not just trying to bash Bush here, I am simply responding to the thread title. I believe it went wrong for Blair after the way he did politics with Bush.

I have much more respect for Blair though. At least he is trying to sort out some important environmental issues.

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

I don't really follow British politics but I'll speculate a bit anyway.

If Blair's been around since '97, that's almost ten years, which is a very long time. A lot of it is probably just good old fashioned burnout. Happens in most democracies, people end up getting tired of leaders who have been around a while. Maybe Britons are more "susceptible" to burnout, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing (in fact, I would say that's a good political value to have).

In comparison, no U.S. president can serve more than 2 terms, i.e., 8 years. . . yet it looks like a majority of the U.S. population had burned out on Bush in just 5 1/2 years into his presidency.

And speaking of Bush, I would not easily discount him as a major factor. I know ANCFlyer doesn't like to hear this, but Dubya is the most reviled U.S. President in recent history (possibly in all history!) outside of the USA. Whether that's a fair assesment to make or not is not something I'm really interested in arguing about, because ultimately, I'm a realist when it comes to politics.

So the fact that Blair ended up looking like "Bush's poodle" in the eyes of many Britons can understandably be something that wouldn't endear him to them. In fact, it's humiliating in a way because Blair is obviously so superior to Bush intellectually and in various other ways too.

I can understand the pragmatic politics behind Blair's decision to hitch his horses with the U.S., but I think his error was to overestimate the capabilities of Bush and the yes-men who are behind him. Just look at Bush now, EVEN MANY REPUBLICANS are afraid to be seen with him. The negative Bush effect IS real, despite ANCFlyer's denials. The GOP took a beating even at the local level across the nation which is admittedly irrational and unfair because local Republicans have absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq. But there you have it!  Smile

It's a pity really, because it seems to me Blair did a lot of good for the U.K., but when you associate with someone who seems to have almost an anti-Midas touch, then you're bound to get burned. . .  Big grin


User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 9):
If Blair's been around since '97, that's almost ten years, which is a very long time. A lot of it is probably just good old fashioned burnout.

+1, people want change just for the sake of change.



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
actually left something behind, but will Blair?

A big mess, the longer he stays the more damage he does to the Labour party, not that it bothers me.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
I'm impressed . . . actually - not really.

The VERY FIRST reply - it's Bush's fault. Hell, that may be an all time record. It's usually at least the 3rd or 4th.

Ok, so it might not actually be Bush's FAULT - but Bush is the problem and is seen AT fault here in the UK. It has been a long standing joke that Blair is in Bush's pocket and the more they are both seen together publicly the more this has held fast. Many blame Bush (rightly or wrongly - I'm not taking sides) for getting Britain involved in Iraq, as well as blaming Blair for going along with it, so hence they are both very unpopular.

Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 9):
If Blair's been around since '97, that's almost ten years, which is a very long time. A lot of it is probably just good old fashioned burnout



Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 10):
+1, people want change just for the sake of change.

I think you both nail it. One reason in the United States does one political party rarely maintain the White House for more than eight years. Once since 1952 has this happen.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
The VERY FIRST reply - it's Bush's fault. Hell, that may be an all time record. It's usually at least the 3rd or 4th.

If you think that the way that Blair's relationship with Bush has gone has nothing to do with it, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking. Of course that's not the only issue, but to pretend that it isn't a factor is ridiculous.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
1. He's too left wing - I don't believe that, he simply isn't!
2. He's too right wing - I don't believe that!

He's neither and both, being something of a centrist, with views across the spectrum on different issues.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
3. He sent our troops into Iraq - Not actually sure.

That's been his major problem. The public were on the whole in favour in the Iraq war at the outset (something often forgotten) but as the situation has worsened, so public hostility to it has increased. As the Prime Minister who took the decision, it of course damages him immensely. The same thing at differing levels can be seen with Bush in the US.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
4. Britain is in the grip of some Political Correct insanity - 'The Daily Mail scenario.' - may have some truth.
5. Britain is being overrun by Immigrants - 'The Daily Express scenario.' - may also have some truth.

It is unfortunately true that bigoted right-wing rant rags like these do push people's rage button on occasion. But neither is really true, and in the case of immigration, it has been immensely positive economically. But a lot of people don't see that.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
6. He has overseen some of the most drastic seize back of rights to the state in History since the Charles I. - I doubt this.

A lovely line, but cobblers. There's a view that there has been a progressive increase in rights over the centuries, and Blair has retrenched from that, but it isn't the case. Rights increase in times of tranquillity, and reduce in times of crisis, viz. Pitt the Younger, Lloys George, Churchill. Blair's government did also enshrine the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act into British law.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
7. He is more interested what Rupert Murdoch think of him than the British public. - not directly true but he has made a few mistakes because he is.

The fear that politicians always have is that the media influence what the public actually think (highly questionable, actually), so they naturally pay attention to what the media say, and the Sun being the largest tabloid means that this gets disproportional treatment. Yet it would be foolish for any government to ignore the print media and their owners.


Number 8 isn't worth responding to

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
9. People have just seen through his act. - Not actually sure.

That's one way of putting it. Another is that people simply get bored of the ame government and same Prime Minister, even if highly successful. Ten years is a pretty good run in the light of that.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
10. The present government seems to be corrupt, arrogant and completely out of touch with the Electorate. - may have some truth.

There's an element of the above, that all governments run out of steam and seem divorced from the electorate over time. Corruption in the UK is actually extremely low in comparison with most countries, but after a long time in office, people remember everything that's built up. Having said that, the current Honours probe is unprecedented in living memory; not since Lloyd George (the specific reason for the 1925 Act) has there been such a scandal.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
11. The state of Crime, Education and Health Service. - may have some truth.

This is always an interesting one. Crime has been falling for a few years now, but the perception of crime is that it is much worse. As for education and health, it is ironic that the Blair government gets such abuse for it, when it is undoubtedly true that the level of spending has rocketed over the past ten years.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
12. The opposition is so terrible. - may have some truth.

They certainly were for the first one and a half administrations. Michael Howard actually did a fairly good job for the Conservatives. They were never going to win the last election, but he stopped the haemorrhaging, and put them in a position to start to work their way back. Cameron is now in the position that Blair was around 1995.

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
13. He never, actually, had any values - just the desire for power.

I don't see that as being any more true of Blair than other politicians.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
12. The opposition is so terrible. - may have some truth.

I'd place that high on the list. What has surprised me most is how far the traditional Labour voters allowed him to move from traditional values, though it remains to be seen what the Tory voters make of David Cameron's "changes".

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
Under the previous Conservative administration the economy was awful

Really? It was nothing compared to what they inherited.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Michael Howard actually did a fairly good job for the Conservatives. They were never going to win the last election, but he stopped the haemorrhaging, and put them in a position to start to work their way back.

That's what I thought. I was surprised he gave up when he did.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 16):
I was surprised he gave up when he did.

Not really. Howard as Prime Minister was a no-no for the public. But he did that same job that Neil Kinnock did for Labour in the 1980s, to instil some party discipline, stop the interminable schisms and get them facing the government properly as a unit. Whether Cameron can take that on is uncertain, and it has to be a concern (for anyone that cares about democracy in the UK as a whole) that the Tories still do so badly in Wales and Scotland, but it's a start for them.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineRaffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting CaptLockheed (Thread starter):
Where Did It Go Wrong For Tony Blair?

Lying about the (lack of) Weapons of mass destruction
Starting a war with the Taliban
Starting a war with Iraq, which has not only been a massive waste of money, but a waste of lives!
Not listening to the British people (i.e, misrepresenting us)

....



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting Raffik (Reply 18):
Starting a war with the Taliban

Are you serious? Since when has Afghanistan been an issue in terms of us going in? Have you forgotten that the Taleban, aside from the small matter of slaughtering huge numbers of people and oppressing the rest, also gave shelter to Al-Qa'ada who have been known to carry out the odd minor act of terrorism. The whole bloody world went in to Afghanistan, with full UN approval. Equating it with Iraq is completely wrong.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 17):
Not really. Howard as Prime Minister was a no-no for the public.

Quite possible, perhaps probable, but I think it still remained to be seen, given the gains he'd made up till then. It would have been clearer halfway through the current term. As it is, I think the Tory leadership may have been panicked into radical changes, i.e. a shift towards the centre.

I get the impression that a lot of grass-roots Tories are thinking the same about Cameron now as a lot of traditional Labour voters thought about Blair - not too keen on him but if he gets them elected...  Smile


User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

Not wanting to upset anybody, but I think Bush probably is quite a considerable factor. Not the only factor, but a considerable one. The public here just don't like/trust/believe in GWB, and by being perceived as Bush's puppy ("Yo Blair" springs to mind), I think lots of people have lost respect for Blair.

[Edited 2007-01-23 22:44:34]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 11):
but Bush is the problem and is seen AT fault here in the UK

OK, lemme see if I get this right . . .

It's PotUS fault that your PM has his head in rectal defilade?  rotfl  Sorry, don't buy it. PM Blair was in office before PotUS, PM Blair is a man and has his own mind. I would be so bold as to suggest if PM Blair has a problem, it's PM Blair's fault, not PotUS, not the Queen, not anyone elses . ..

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 11):
It has been a long standing joke that Blair is in Bush's pocket

Fine, and that's Bush's fault? Hmmm, me thinks not.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 11):
Many blame Bush (rightly or wrongly - I'm not taking sides) for getting Britain involved in Iraq, as well as blaming Blair for going along with it, so hence they are both very unpopular.

I understand the theory. But I further submit, it's not Potus's fault the UK is involved in Iraq. PotUS has no authority over UK troops, Mr. Blair and the MPs sent them there, not PotUS.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
If you think that the way that Blair's relationship with Bush has gone has nothing to do with it,

Oh, I'm quite sure the two are bossom buds . . . so what. And I know all about the political ramifications. Still, you can't blame PotUS if the UK doesn't like Mr. Blair. That's simply assinine.


User currently offlineRaffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 19):
Equating it with Iraq is completely wrong.

I didn't equate it with Iraq. One sentence just happened go on top of another

Quoting Banco (Reply 19):
Are you serious?

Yes. Largely, the country is against confrontation with them.

Quoting Banco (Reply 19):
slaughtering huge numbers of people

I understand that. I also understand that our stance of following the American military tactics in Iraq have made us more vulnerable than before.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

It went wrong when he said "Sure, George, I'll back you in Iraq."

25 Post contains images PlymSpotter : I'm not saying it's directly Bush's actual fault, but by default if you like; he is even more unpopular here than our own PM, so coupled with his clo
26 PanAmOldDC8 : Tony Blair was a young politician when he came to power, with lots of ideas. He took over from a party that lacked ideas and had stalled, people want
27 Bill142 : People blame GWB for all of Australias flaws. They say John Howard only listens to the US and what they do, we do. Sure we went to War in Iraq and Af
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Where Did Matt D Go? posted Tue Mar 14 2006 05:32:02 by SKYSERVICE_330
Where Did Kiwi Go? posted Wed Feb 8 2006 22:17:29 by Ndebelebev
Where Did Diamond Go? posted Mon Oct 18 2004 18:56:06 by SWA TPA
What Is The Shaft And Where Does It Go? posted Tue Dec 11 2001 03:43:01 by Mcringring
Where Did You Go To University? posted Wed Oct 4 2000 21:16:16 by Surf
Where Did You Go This Summer? posted Sat Jul 22 2000 09:10:48 by I_4Got_My_Name
Where Did My Post For The Poll Go? posted Fri Sep 29 2000 02:58:13 by EK_A340
Should Tony Blair Go Now? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 20:23:56 by 9VSPO
Where Do Teenagers Go And Party For Summer? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 18:18:05 by Wardialer
Where O Where Did My CD-ROMs Go? posted Thu Apr 20 2006 22:56:47 by DLKAPA