(16a) Mr Tony Blair - The past
Mr Tony Blair, such an imposing figure. Just over twenty years ago he rose to power and became one of the most celebrated politicians in the UK, that is until the Iraq war destroyed his legacy for many people. Here, I list what I remember that were his important achievements but also his present work and why I think people no longer like him and how he could response by becoming a low-key but still important figure. However, some defend his good policies.
The past and his achievements
After becoming New
Labour leader, Tony Blair won three elections and for a good reason: he had
good ideas and came after a long period with the Tories in power (and their
time in power was so disastrous that even after more than a decade in
opposition they still didn't manage to regain a majority and had to form a
coalition government). Only because someone wanted his job, PM Blair had to
stop being the elected British PM (although maybe there was a secret deal that
needed to be honoured). And then the crisis started.
Tony Blair, I
remember him being elected as PM in 1997 (probably from repeats). Such an
energy and always with a smile that showed a person who believed he could
change society for the better. And often did, together with his team, as he had
a large majority in Parliament because people wanted him while he didn't waste
time implementing his promised changes. (Compare with President Obama who was
wanted while people elected his opponents for Congress and thus people didn't
get much changes).
Before him, waiting
lists to see doctors in the health
system were long, even for those who needed them urgently; he managed to
improve this so people were able to see a doctor sooner. Also hospitals as well
as health sciences received large investments so there was large progress and
as a result people love the NHS (although it is still not perfect). As wages of
doctors increased, more people wanted to become doctor and thus the shortage
decreased, while also oversea health professionals got a chance (and while this
depletes poor countries from skillful people, luckily many white doctors and
nurses were prepared to work in those poorer countries while some people
returned to their home country after gaining experience in modern medicine). It
is not Mr Blair's fault some doctors became greedy although many are not and
really work in the health sector to cure the ill. Now that the Tories are in
power, it seems there is a return to the pre-Blair years with less investments
in health systems and research and more talk of privatisation (the latter
doesn't necessarily need to be bad).
The education system improved as it
received large investments: many old buildings were restored or even replaced
with new ones, failing (public) schools were improved so they became good
schools while wages of teachers started to increase so more people were willing
to become teacher although the system started to become more expensive (here PM
Blair's weakness is his love for money so he allowed that certain
(head)teachers started earning too much). Still, it is not Mr Blair's fault
some (head)teachers became greedy although many are not and really work in
education to ensure children have a future. Of course, the system was not
perfect yet when he left office as he had to rebuild most of it after the major
reduction in investment during the Thatcher years (and thus too little
investments during one period will result in having over-the-top investments in
the following period).
He defended Peter
Mandelson, despised by a certain section of the media and politicians because
he is gay but also clever (although I think he likes a little too much the
powerful). Gay rights in
general improved under his premiership after the years under PM Thatcher. For
this he was recently nominated as a gay
icon by a gay magazine. E.g. he removed section 28 that made life miserable
for many gays and lesbians but also for those who were suspected of being gay
or lesbian while he introduced equal age of consent and gay civil partnership,
all steps forward towards a society where everyone is equal unless they
misbehave. Also women rights
improved much and even people from humble backgrounds were able to 'climb the
ladder'. In general, a society that respects gay rights also respects other
rights and vice versa.
He set his
government the target to eradicate poverty in his own
country and worldwide. And although of course he didn't manage to complete this
task, poverty declined while the current government has no ambition at all of
doing this as they claim it can't be achieved. PM Blair and Chancellor Brown
set this goal publicly so the government was forced to try to achieve it or
people would remember their failure while having no goal will assure there will
be no failure but certainly also no achievement. For his efforts to eradicate
poverty he received recently an award from 'Save the Children' (although many
even in the charity opposed this while the
person who does nothing mocks him). Ironically, because of his love for
money and rich people, inequality could increase to such an extent that the
progress many made is now undone by the increase in prices of products (such as
house prices) because, as people earned more, they could pay ever higher prices
to get the products they desire and sellers think they can increase prices as
people can pay. Indeed, this
crisis thought us that increases (in wages) need to be controlled to prevent
they get out of control and result in an unfair society. Because even
many of those who knew poverty as a child but became rich in later life have
often not much mercy for the poor and often are even worse in denying them any
benefits for fear their own past poverty becomes known.
On Europe he was very different from
his most famous predecessor PM Thatcher. Indeed, as a rich country but also one
that wants to lead, he accepted the UK has to take its responsibilities and
thus he allowed some reduction of the rebate (= reduction on UK's 'membership'
contribution) that the UK received since PM Thatcher (the rebate was a sign of
goodwill from the other EU countries to have the UK in the EU) while many British are still
angry the rebate was reduced. Mr Blair also tried to reach compromises with the other countries that resulted in the Treaty of Lisbon although there were moments he blocked the EU such as vetoing the person with a vision about the future of the EU and who most countries wanted as their leader. He was also in favour of extending the EU (but this can also be interpreted as weakening the EU because more countries result in more difficult reforms) while he was in favour of joining the Euro (blocked by chancellor Brown). The Treaty of Lisbon also resulted in fewer areas
where countries can block decisions that are favoured by a majority of
countries such as vetoing a person to become leader of Europe. Other British
leaders may not have allowed this although maybe the pressure on the UK became
too big not to accept these changes. As a consequence, the UK couldn't block
the current leader, Mr Juncker. The Tories now demand new reforms to increase
the benefits for the UK, not to benefit the EU as a whole.
Also on immigration did he have open ideas
but that subject is too complicated to write in a few words. Still, he regarded
people coming from the rest of Europe and the world as something positive for
the country (to do jobs the British didn't like to do but also to have skilful
people for specific jobs) while the current Tory government mostly preaches the
negative of it (except when it concerns the very rich who further increase
prices of products such as houses). An example is mentioned higher about
foreign healthcare workers that can cause understanding between cultures but
can also create tensions when the foreigners don't always understand the people
in the host countries (proof that countries should demand people learn the
language of their chosen country or region). Still, also people from the UK
move to other places. But, although he was open, he could be harsh for those
who refused our way of life (i.e. democracy) but equally he could be harsh for
British who didn't respect others (e.g. disturb neighbours) by introducing
ASBO's (= anti-social behaviour orders) (that are now also introduced in other
countries although of course this can be abused when the wrong people are in
power). Nevertheless, too much immigration in too short a period always causes
troubles, for the newcomers as well as the originals as it changes societies
and thus people.
The civil war in Northern Ireland came to an
end under his premiership because he allowed self-rule (= devolution) in
the province (and other parts such as Scotland and Wales) although there are
always some lunatics who prefer fighting and not peace. Still, even for
bringing peace to that region it seems he is now under attack while probably
each side has blood on their hands. But devolution is also partly to blame for
the recently held Scottish referendum on independence as people got a taste how
certain things can be done much better locally than from the capital, certainly
when the capital can only worship the rich who steal from the rest of society.
And as I predicted years ago, parties such as Labour
are starting to fall apart due to internal disagreements about how to solve
certain issues.
One of
the reasons why many people liked but others didn't like Mr Blair is because he increased control of
society by society, including on the old
powers such as churches, schools, hospitals, media, police, ... while punished
misbehaving individuals with ASBOs. As a consequence, many errors of the past
became visible such as abuse of children (within media, churches, schools, ...)
or bad treatment of patients in certain hospitals. The numbers of police
increased but also the importance of the Independent Police Complains Commission (IPCC,
founded in 2004) so policemen were forced to behave properly while also include
people of all colours to represent society. Another example is the Office of Communications (Ofcom,
founded in 2001) that in 2011 took control in stopping Mr Murdoch's takeover
bid of BSkyB after it became public that people's phones were hacked by part
(all?) of Mr Murdoch's News Corporation. Indeed, independent control
organisations are good (the Fourth Power) to check governments, private sector
and even jurisdiction as long as they represent all sections of society. These
Offices and Commissions should control and remain independent
and thus be financed by Parliament. This
means they are not part of the systems but include interested people and
independent specialists while representatives of what is checked should be
obliged to be present so they can explain the actions of their organisations.
As a consequence, I think Mr Blair made many enemies who may not like his
return unless he would promise to stop those control agencies. These systems of
action and control can keep each other in balance if well used. For instance parking wards can receive bonuses when
they exceed a certain number of tickets so they work hard but it may stimulate
abuse of power, certainly when people start behaving better and no longer break
rules and thus fewer penalties can be handed out. When control agencies exist,
people can complain about some wards and thus this system can prevent abuse of
powers when the agency can refer abusers to the jurisdiction (that itself is
checked by another agency). Equally, wards can complain when they are forced to
abuse their powers but equally the control agency may force a company that
wants to fire people to do this fairly (e.g. when there are too many wards
while everyone behaves). Then private
companies can take over certain responsibilities of society without us having
to fear abuse. But the Tories warn, even before coming into power, that the
proliferation of these 'quangos' should be stopped while they represent real
democracy (if both specialists and citizens are involved) although of course
the need for some can change over time. The financial sector was able to escape
the control by a really independent 'quango' with disastrous consequences. But
I also remember that PM Blair was often frustrated by the obstructions by Mr
Brown, his finance minister and responsible for the financial sector which Mr
Brown (probably with agreement by PM Blair) allowed more independence (e.g. the
Bank of England
was allowed to independently set monetary policies (a bank, for god sake) and
thus ignore political decisions if it wishes to do). Still, the moment PM Blair
was out of office, this sector turned their back towards PM Brown so the Tories
could gain power. The main thing we should now understand but many don't want
to understand is that there should not only be a minimum wage for every
worker in a country but also a cap on what certain people can earn when they
work for companies that need to look after the property of others, certainly when misbehaviour can destroy the world
economy. And independent Financial Agencies should check whether rules are
implemented. Of course, people should have more freedom to pay themselves well
when it concerns their own company on condition all debts are paid. Still, even
then employees should be paid at least the minimum wage.
More towards the end
of his premiership he started to behave slightly odd such as allowing mega
casinos while people were talking about too many gamblers or changing the
closing times of pubs towards longer opening times while experts were talking
about a wrong drinking culture with too much binge drinking. Still, education
can change the behaviour towards more social gambling or drinking while longer
opening times for pubs or clubs in office areas or under railways should be
possible as any noise there will not keep people awake. But it showed his
growing love for everything big that can destroy the small as a mega casino
will be in competition with small gamble shops. I also found it very strange
that he
befriended Mr Murdoch, a person with ideas that are often diagonally
opposite to those of Mr Blair as the articles published in newspapers such as
'The Sun' and 'News of the World' or the news channel 'Fox News' demonstrate
but who supports the politician he likes but breaks the one he dislikes. But
this may proof what many claim: he can be ruthless in his pursue of power.
Still, he founded Ofcom (see below), maybe even against the 'advise' of Mr
Murdoch. But also current politicians admire Mr Murdoch and may not have founded
Ofcom to assure his support. He also banned fox hunting and thus angered many powerful, even up to these days, claiming it has all to do with class war and not animal welfare.
Comments