Tony Blair

TheBigBean

Another bad thing about tuition fees is the way it has led to grade inflation.

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

To try and clarify, my point isn't that he is a massive libertarian.

My point is that his underlying ideology is a mess of contradictions. Thus putting him in a box marked left wing is to over simplify. Some more over simplifications showing how he spans the left and right wing below:

Eat out to help out - left wing ecomic stimulus.

Stamp duty holiday - right wing low tax is great stuff.

Being a flag nonce - "right wing socially"

Apparently caring about the environment, "left wing" socially.

I would agree that economically he is left wing but socially right

stamp duty holiday is old school populism.

Flag nonce is dog whistle politics.

If you ignore his words then most of his actions are about big state.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Let's not forget telling universities what they should teach; tightening up protest rights; trying to put 'his' people at the head of the public broadcaster. Libertarianism is just one of the many flags he likes to wave to draw attention.

somebody posted an article from The Spectator which pointed out that the state regulated broadcasters and Parliament are not set up to deal with a PM standing before them talking utter sh1te.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Let's not forget telling universities what they should teach; tightening up protest rights; trying to put 'his' people at the head of the public broadcaster. Libertarianism is just one of the many flags he likes to wave to draw attention.

somebody posted an article from The Spectator which pointed out that the state regulated broadcasters and Parliament are not set up to deal with a PM standing before them talking utter sh1te.

Au contraire.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

To try and clarify, my point isn't that he is a massive libertarian.

My point is that his underlying ideology is a mess of contradictions. Thus putting him in a box marked left wing is to over simplify. Some more over simplifications showing how he spans the left and right wing below:

Eat out to help out - left wing ecomic stimulus.

Stamp duty holiday - right wing low tax is great stuff.

Being a flag nonce - "right wing socially"

Apparently caring about the environment, "left wing" socially.

I would agree that economically he is left wing but socially right

stamp duty holiday is old school populism.

Flag nonce is dog whistle politics.

If you ignore his words then most of his actions are about big state.

It's just properly right wing, aka populist right wing as opposed to liberal democracy right wing.

Pro big business (and state involvement in that), pro state intervention, nationalistic etc.

elbowloh

Jezyboy said:

To try and clarify, my point isn't that he is a massive libertarian.

My point is that his underlying ideology is a mess of contradictions. Thus putting him in a box marked left wing is to over simplify. Some more over simplifications showing how he spans the left and right wing below:

Eat out to help out - left wing ecomic stimulus.

Stamp duty holiday - right wing low tax is great stuff.

Being a flag nonce - "right wing socially"

Apparently caring about the environment, "left wing" socially.

I think the first two were Sunak not BoJo.

Flag waving was about image only and appeasing the right, he probably doesn't give a shot.

rick_chasey

Eat out to help out isn’t left wing it’s populist. Bread and circuses

Not the same thing.

briantrumpet

elbowloh said:

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

He is a man with absolutely no discernable principles. I can't think of any other prime minister in my lifetime of whom you could say that: even if you disagreed with any of them, you knew what they stood for, give or take.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

He is a man with absolutely no discernable principles. I can't think of any other prime minister in my lifetime of whom you could say that: even if you disagreed with any of them, you knew what they stood for, give or take.

I think most Tory votes tend to agree. His best feature they can come up with is "not Corbyn" and possibly something about "winding up the right people" if they're a bit moronic.

thesquireofbanwell

veronese68 Posts: 23,778 Lives Here15:09
skyblueamateur said:
'Having let the nation down with the Good Friday Agreement'

I am intrigued by this one. Is the OP suggesting a capitulation/surrender by the British Govt?

I think it shows the OP's opinion is not worth wasting any time on.

If it is not worth wasting any time on then why have you commented?

I believe the nation has been let down by the Good Friday Agreement as a number

of IRA suspects have been granted immunity from prosecution as a result and yet

there are soldiers in court at the moment charged with serious offences related to

'The Troubles'. Factually that is why.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.

Yes let's all not worry about the details.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

The stockbrokers in Stockbridge are also paying even more, aren't they? So you aren't paying for theirs, you are paying for yours and someone else's - they are paying for their own and someone else's.

Yeah I think you missed the point that it's a bit more efficient for me and the stockbroker to just pay our own and be taxed less to pay for someone else's. Or more to the point for me to be taxed to pay for mine and someone else's something else.

Tends to be more efficient than me paying the state to faff around and give a bit of it to me. Or for me to to pay the state to get less of what I don't need for free than if I wasn't not paying for it myself.

If you follow.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

The stockbrokers in Stockbridge are also paying even more, aren't they? So you aren't paying for theirs, you are paying for yours and someone else's - they are paying for their own and someone else's.

Yeah I think you missed the point that it's a bit more efficient for me and the stockbroker to just pay our own and be taxed less to pay for someone else's. Or more to the point for me to be taxed to pay for mine and someone else's something else.

Tends to be more efficient than me paying the state to faff around and give a bit of it to me. Or for me to to pay the state to get less of what I don't need for free than if I wasn't not paying for it myself.

If you follow.

Not really. Would you like to pay for your GP visits too?

john80

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

He is a man with absolutely no discernable principles. I can't think of any other prime minister in my lifetime of whom you could say that: even if you disagreed with any of them, you knew what they stood for, give or take.

Is that much worse than Tony's religious principles getting us involved in Iraq. I would rather his missus was splurging cash he has to pay back on interior decor. Sometimes principles are as much of a problem as no principles.

womack

veronese68 said:

skyblueamateur said:

'Having let the nation down with the Good Friday Agreement'

I am intrigued by this one. Is the OP suggesting a capitulation/surrender by the British Govt?

I think it shows the OP's opinion is not worth wasting any time on.

Is that because he has a low post count and has not yet been "integrated"

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.

Yes let's all not worry about the details.

No need to worry about the details. It was pointed out that it was impossible in the UK. I pointed out that it is currently happening in the UK. Liking it is irrelevant.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

The stockbrokers in Stockbridge are also paying even more, aren't they? So you aren't paying for theirs, you are paying for yours and someone else's - they are paying for their own and someone else's.

Yeah I think you missed the point that it's a bit more efficient for me and the stockbroker to just pay our own and be taxed less to pay for someone else's. Or more to the point for me to be taxed to pay for mine and someone else's something else.

Tends to be more efficient than me paying the state to faff around and give a bit of it to me. Or for me to to pay the state to get less of what I don't need for free than if I wasn't not paying for it myself.

If you follow.

Not really. Would you like to pay for your GP visits too?

No, but it is a question of degrees. Free offerings of this and thst up here are costly electorial baubles that cannot be paid for in an independent Scotland.

rjsterry

john80 said:

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

He is a man with absolutely no discernable principles. I can't think of any other prime minister in my lifetime of whom you could say that: even if you disagreed with any of them, you knew what they stood for, give or take.

Is that much worse than Tony's religious principles getting us involved in Iraq. I would rather his missus was splurging cash he has to pay back on interior decor. Sometimes principles are as much of a problem as no principles.

😆 Surely you don't believe it has anything to do with Blair's religious beliefs?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.

Yes let's all not worry about the details.

No need to worry about the details. It was pointed out that it was impossible in the UK. I pointed out that it is currently happening in the UK. Liking it is irrelevant.

But at current tax levels it is only possible in Scotland because the cost is being sharad over about 12 times its own population. Details details.

rick_chasey

john80 said:

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

He is a man with absolutely no discernable principles. I can't think of any other prime minister in my lifetime of whom you could say that: even if you disagreed with any of them, you knew what they stood for, give or take.

Is that much worse than Tony's religious principles getting us involved in Iraq. I would rather his missus was splurging cash he has to pay back on interior decor. Sometimes principles are as much of a problem as no principles.

You think BoJo is a better PM?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.

Yes let's all not worry about the details.

No need to worry about the details. It was pointed out that it was impossible in the UK. I pointed out that it is currently happening in the UK. Liking it is irrelevant.

But at current tax levels it is only possible in Scotland because the cost is being sharad over about 12 times its own population. Details details.

The primary detail is that it is possible. 2020 taught us many things. One of those things is that the money tree can be found when required.

MattFalle

he's just, basically, a corrupt war criminal who needs prosecuting.

DeVlaeminck

For me Blair's government was a bit if a wasted opportunity.

I don't look back and see anything particularly bold that tackled issues like poverty, inequality, rebalancing the economy, health, transport or education.

There was a bit of an increase in spending, a bit of an increase in indirect taxation. PFI, devolution, Iraq.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

For me Blair's government was a bit if a wasted opportunity.

I don't look back and see anything particularly bold that tackled issues like poverty, inequality, rebalancing the economy, health, transport or education.

There was a bit of an increase in spending, a bit of an increase in indirect taxation. PFI, devolution, Iraq.

The poverty rates went down pretty dramatically from '97 to 2004 I believe. They then plateaued and then have steadily increased back to pre '97 levels if I remember the chart I can no longer find correctly.

Life expectancy also shot up during that time and has plateaued since 2010.

elbowloh

I think there was a certain "feel good factor" during a lot of the Blair period (outside of war obvsiously). There was positivity about where we were heading as a country and things were improving (even if it wasn't in all aspects).

DeVlaeminck

Yes his govt spent a bit more and didn't just give it to those who were already well off so to that extent they did what you'd expect of a Labour govt.

I'd just have liked something longer lasting - given the length of his tenure and relatively good economic conditions. Maybe I'm expecting too much - he was a relatively safe pair of hands. Maybe the situation in Ireland is that achievement.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes his govt spent a bit more and didn't just give it to those who were already well off so to that extent they did what you'd expect of a Labour govt.

I'd just have liked something longer lasting - given the length of his tenure and relatively good economic conditions. Maybe I'm expecting too much - he was a relatively safe pair of hands. Maybe the situation in Ireland is that achievement.

Why not give him credit for continuing the good economic conditions?

DeVlaeminck

Minimum wage was Blair I should give him credit for that - hugely important for a lot of people.

rjsterry

MattFalle said:

he's just, basically, a corrupt war criminal who needs prosecuting.

I think dubious decisions to get involved in military action are pretty much a given for any PM.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

Minimum wage was Blair I should give him credit for that - hugely important for a lot of people.

IMHO he achieved a lot but that all flows from strong economic growth and he should be given credit for building on the strong foundations of his predecessors.

Imagine an alternative world where he had a pledge in his 1997 manifesto to hold a referendum on EU membership, it does not need a lot of imagination to think what the next 6 years would have looked like.

As a rough rule of thumb life seems better when the graph is above the 2.5% line

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281734/gdp-growth-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/