I'm only old enough to really remember the back end of New Labour. I sort of started getting interested in politics around the time Blair resigned and Brown took over. My assumption has always been they were a fairly good government, who brought in things like the minimum wage whilst investing record amounts in public services and that they should largely be seen as a good government. But as @Sweet Square mentioned in the Starmer thread they were quite authoritarian on certain issues and their policies and attitudes towards migrants and asylum seekers is something I wouldn't be able to support if they were around today. They also failed to diversify the economy and were far too reliant on London, leaving the rest of the country to fall further behind. Considering how much of a majority they had, certainly in the first 8 years, should they have done a lot more than they did? Did life get better or worse for the majority of people under their rule? Or was Thatcher right when she said Blair and New Labour was her greatest achievement?
New Labour's Legacy?
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Their legacy is pushing the "centre ground" (economically and in terms of foreign policy) so far to the right that this right wing freak show we've had for the last 10 years is seen as pretty normal. So on top of the havoc they helped wreak in the middle East, they've also fundamentally destabilised our democracy at home. Even the good job they did in Northern Ireland (RIP Robin Cook and Mo Mowlem) is now about to be torched on the bonfire of Brexit. Tony Blair needs to take a short walk off a tall cliff for the damage he's done to the world and to the UK.
They were what was needed at that time, but they should have gone in 2005 when they became stale. They had massive hiring in the public sector to reduce unemployment, poorly thought out financing schemes to reduce costs on infrastructure, changing regulations in banking, immigration fiddling, and loads of other things that addressed an immediate issue but would present another one for somebody else to deal with further down the line. And then theres Iraq. Life improved significantly for most but we will be paying for that for a long time to come.
Probably the most important thing is they actually have a legacy, the only ones in Labour in 50 years to have managed it.
Probably the most important thing is they actually have a legacy, the only ones in Labour in 50 years to have managed it.
Last edited:
Probably the last competent govt this country will ever have.
Played a part in this current mess.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Blunkett was a mad evil fecker.
He could never see what was going on right in front of him.
Something is suspicious when you had the three most powerful men in the country and they only had three working eyes between them.
Peace in Northern Ireland, minimum wage, Scottish Devolution etc etc.
Yes, they made a mistake with Iraq but Tony Blair was the greatest PM of the last 50 years.
I’ll never forget the 1997 election night, a new beginning and a final end to Thatcherism
Yes, they made a mistake with Iraq but Tony Blair was the greatest PM of the last 50 years.
I’ll never forget the 1997 election night, a new beginning and a final end to Thatcherism
It wasn't a mistake. They intentionally invaded a country with full knowledge that they had no cause and would never have one.
Regardless of the position Blair took Iraq still gets invaded. Doesn’t make his decision any less disastrous but I think there is sometimes a narrative that it was a British Invasion when it was not.
you can actually make a reasonable argument that the invasion was delayed and more restrained than it might otherwise have been if the USA had not had to keep us on board... but for sure they were going in there with or without us
Like all things, perception and realty are different.
As a government, I certainly agree that they were the last proper government.
Tony Blair will always be remembered for Iraq. But it is correct to say that the US invasion would have happened anyway. Nevertheless, he was a leader of true ambition and vision.
And whether they were seen as too centrist for many, that was their strength.
The NHS record of attainment of delivery has never since been even remotely equalled.
That isn't even remotely true. New Labour entrenched Thatcherite economic policy by endorsing and implementing those policies.
I grew up under Blair and I can safety say I couldn't despise him more. He was a snake oil salesman. Oh, and a war criminal. He entrenched neoliberalism by following Thatcherite economic doctrine. Don't even get me started on his Chancellor...
Probably in the aftermath of someone describing sex with him as being like handling a large wardrobe with a small key sticking out of it.
Bound to be some anger issues.
That's it. International affairs and the like aren't specific to New Labour. What is specific to them, is that they pushed the 'left' so far right that it wasn't left anymore (centrist at best). Yes, it may have helped them gain power, but the long-term results is a lack of actual left in the UK, effectively strengthening the right.
It's bit a like Biden in the US going to the right to get the non-crazy Republicans on his side. I get it as an election strategy, but if you don't move back left after winning, you're just eroding the left. Why run as a leftist at all if you're going to govern as a rightist?
Back to New Labour, they totally accepted and further entrenched neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has brought nothing good to the world, instead creating an equity chasm that didn't exist before. (Since the 70s/80s; New Labour didn't invent neoliberalism of course.) For a supposedly left-wing party to embrace that is total heresy and, again, has been very damaging long-term.
What's the alternative though realistically? If even Blair, who had charisma and was riding the wave of people being desperate for change, couldn't get anywhere without veering to the centre, what hope is there for socialism?
Would people rather the party remains purist and unelected? I know it's a tiresome question in many ways, but at what point is a change of strategy acceptable if a traditional leftist agenda keeps being rejected at the polls?
Yarl's Wood and the ongoing birth defect crisis in Iraq ensure its legacy will remain in place for quite some time.
I know, it's a catch 22. But I would say that the party could have executed a more leftist agenda after campaigning in the centre. Not radically more leftist and not all at once (completely breaking with the direction during the elections won't work), but if they actually had had an interest in being more leftist, they could have gradually moved that way after the elections. That way, their election would have been a gateway towards the left rather than towards the right.
I also don't get why a proper leftist agenda cannot lead to election success. A large proportion of people either stands significantly to gain from proper leftist policies or agrees with them out of principle. Instead, right-wing populism dominates political discourse in many countries and the only response seems to be a move to the right to prevent the populists from getting all the votes. I don't get it; I just don't see the inescapable need for that dynamic at all.
One of most damaging things New Labour did was demonstrate to people that they were just as sleazy, corrupt, untrustworthy and out of touch as the Tories. That was the beginning of the end for ordinary people having any faith in politicians or the political system.
Last edited:
Others have pointed out New Labour did increase investment in public services, introduce the minimum wage and improve living standards. Yes cosying up to business, not taxing wealth more and certainly disastrous PFI projects will be held against them, but what compromises do people accept to fund these policies? Some people seem to think a Labour government and all but disregard the economy.
By leftist agendas being unsuccessful electorally, I mean in the UK. A weird mix of populism and deference keeps the poorest in thrall to the Tories. I don't get it either.
I agree with this. Cash for honours, expenses, Mandelson's frequent corruption, donors buying favourable policies (Richard Desmond, David Abrahams, etc). And of course Liam Byrne's note. He might have meant it as an honest joke, but feck me it was stupid thing to do.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The continued glorification of Blair's authoritarian rule is really something quite bizarre to me.
He wanted to screen working class children's DNA to assess their risk of growing up into a criminal ffs
Rashford was going to school hungry under the Labour Government, it really makes me wonder whether people's recollection is that far skewed or whether those who blindly praise New Labour were actually affected by some of it's most dehumanising policies
He demonised the working-class, young-people, immigrants and black people wilfully - and if you happened to fall into 2 or more of those categories you were probably slapped with an ASBO.
That's before you even discuss him being a war criminal.
Blair is hated by the public so there's that.
I would be interested to hear from people who still look back fondly on the New Labour years (I'm guessing there's at least some on here)as to why they still do or even liked it in the first place. If I had to guess it would be red tinted nostalgia and as you said never facing the affects of New Labour policy. Similar to the people who look back at Cameron era with its 2012 London Olympics, while completely forgetting austerity and the London riots a year before.
Well, it's the best government we've had in my lifetime by some distance, so there's that. Was it perfect? Of course not. Was it miles better than what came before or after it? Yes.
People who come out with fawning retrospectives of New Labour obviously fail to address a lot of the things they actually did, but one of the most irritating is that they invariably ignore how the rhetoric and policies of New Labour set the scene for austerity, Brexit and the generally rightward trajectory of the country, as if demonising immigrants and the poor just doesn't matter if you're wearing a red rosette.
He might be hated, but politically he's yearned for still by centre-left liberals, and probably a lot of Tories.
Like @jeff_goldblum alluded to, you can trace a lot of the current ills we face now to Blair's regime and - apart from Brexit - because so many people aren't affected by this, they simply don't care. They still want more of the same.
Rashford was 12 years old in 2010 so that’s a bit of an exaggeration. I wonder if you can name a government in any country, ever, that didn’t have any kids going to school hungry?The continued glorification of Blair's authoritarian rule is really something quite bizarre to me.
He wanted to screen working class children's DNA to assess their risk of growing up into a criminal ffs
Rashford was going to school hungry under the Labour Government, it really makes me wonder whether people's recollection is that far skewed or whether those who blindly praise New Labour were actually affected by some of it's most dehumanising policies
He demonised the working-class, young-people, immigrants and black people wilfully - and if you happened to fall into 2 or more of those categories you were probably slapped with an ASBO.
That's before you even discuss him being a war criminal.
One thing’s for sure, life was worse for poor kids before then and have got a lot worse for since then. I know there’s a fantasy parallel universe with Jezza in charge where no kid goes hungry ever but then we wake up and stop dreaming.
Is there anyone still alive who was round under a better government?
Rashford himself has said that he struggled and had to go to school hungry at times because his mum would struggle - and that's why he's so passionate about ensuring every child has a meal, because he has benefitted from the program himself.
Not really sure what the point in bringing up Corbyn is in a discussion about Tony Blair, or zeroing in on just one of the points I highlighted.
Things are worse elsewhere, that means we can't make criticisms where necessary?
@711 is 432 years old so he may be able to give a better answer.
This is so dystopian, wouldn’t look out of place on a Black Mirror episode
Isn’t it a little harsh to say an ad about cutting down social welfare fraud epitomises a government that kept the rate of unemployment consistently <5% for the duration of their reign? (having averaged over twice that % for the previous 20 years).
For 95% of the uk population at the time, that ad campaign wasn’t even relevant.
Well consider that many of us that remember Blair also remember the Thatcher years, and if you think Cameron/Boris are as bad as it gets you have no conception of the shitshow that demented and evil woman unleashed on Britain in her insane class war to put the lower orders back in their place. Compared to her Blair and Brown were national heroes, yes.
I'd have been in work at the time. I don't recall the campaign. I'd have thought it was made by cnuts at the time too.
But but it epitomises New Labour apparently...
It was made by an advertising agency, by the way. Who are generally cnuts. But do hire some nice people.