Tony Blair
Comments
-
Is listened to an interview he gave afterwards where he defended it based on his faith. I could not tell if he was taking the piss or being serious.rjsterry said:
😆 Surely you don't believe it has anything to do with Blair's religious beliefs?john80 said:
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.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.0 -
If you increased minimum wage tomorrow poverty would increase. Explain that away.rick_chasey said:
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.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.
Life expectancy also shot up during that time and has plateaued since 2010.0 -
Not sure I agree to be honest.
The link between higher minimum wages and higher unemployment is not empirically proven.0 -
He has not achieved a great deal which is not such a bad attribute. Tony' years of good economic growth were not down to Tony. He could have done literally nothing and enacted not a single piece of legislation and the economy would have had similar numbers. From my personal perspective it could be argued he is better. He has not introduced tuition fees which would have screwed me if I went to uni in England. He has not given out PFI contracts like sweeties to manipulate borrowing figures and burden future tax payers instead of just increasing government debt for what are clearly assets. He has not killed countless Iraqi's. If we did a covid death count where you attributed every UK death to Boris and every Iraqi death to Tony Boris might look quite good. Boris is not a stellar PM however those lauding Tony has selective memories.rick_chasey said:
You think BoJo is a better PM?john80 said:
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.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.1 -
It was a statement against how poverty is measured. Good deflection try though.rick_chasey said:Not sure I agree to be honest.
The link between higher minimum wages and higher unemployment is not empirically proven.0 -
Yes, he went off the rails after the second election win and decided he didn't need justification for what he saw as being right. Johnson has started his premiership by acting like a king - he made it there in under a year.0
-
It's possible he was kidding himself, too, but wars are almost always fought over control of resources. Unless of course God told him that the UK needed to assist the US in gaining strategic control of Iraqi oil production.john80 said:
Is listened to an interview he gave afterwards where he defended it based on his faith. I could not tell if he was taking the piss or being serious.rjsterry said:
😆 Surely you don't believe it has anything to do with Blair's religious beliefs?john80 said:
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.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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I am all favour of small Govt so have sympathy for your argument that he could have done nothing and the economy would have continued to grow. But if we are judging him against other PM then most have failed to do nothing. And BoJo chose to actively harm the economy and not just with Brexit.john80 said:
He has not achieved a great deal which is not such a bad attribute. Tony' years of good economic growth were not down to Tony. He could have done literally nothing and enacted not a single piece of legislation and the economy would have had similar numbers. From my personal perspective it could be argued he is better. He has not introduced tuition fees which would have screwed me if I went to uni in England. He has not given out PFI contracts like sweeties to manipulate borrowing figures and burden future tax payers instead of just increasing government debt for what are clearly assets. He has not killed countless Iraqi's. If we did a covid death count where you attributed every UK death to Boris and every Iraqi death to Tony Boris might look quite good. Boris is not a stellar PM however those lauding Tony has selective memories.rick_chasey said:
You think BoJo is a better PM?john80 said:
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.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.1 -
Ice in the desert is possible if you have a freezer. But you can't freeze the whole desert. Your point is meaningless.pblakeney said:
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.First.Aspect said:
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.pblakeney said:
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 said:
Yes let's all not worry about the details.pblakeney said:
I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.First.Aspect said:
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.pblakeney said:
Wee Krankie up north disagrees.rick_chasey said:
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?TheBigBean said:
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?rick_chasey said:
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.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't really change the point though does it?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.
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.
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.
It is better to say it used to be free in the whole UK, and now it isn't.0 -
Whatever. Something that is currently being done is obviously possible.First.Aspect said:
Ice in the desert is possible if you have a freezer. But you can't freeze the whole desert. Your point is meaningless.pblakeney said:
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.First.Aspect said:
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.pblakeney said:
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 said:
Yes let's all not worry about the details.pblakeney said:
I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.First.Aspect said:
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.pblakeney said:
Wee Krankie up north disagrees.rick_chasey said:
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?TheBigBean said:
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?rick_chasey said:
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.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't really change the point though does it?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.
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.
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.
It is better to say it used to be free in the whole UK, and now it isn't.
Point made, moving on.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Tony didn't understand the financial side, he left that to the moron Gordon.
Gordon was happy in pretty much his first budget to slap £5 bn pa tax on pension funds creating a savings gap that wasn't there before, and destrying the DB schemes in the process.
Gordon sold gold at the bottom of the market, against sensible advice.
PFI might have had short term benefits but has had long term damage.
Gordon, the BoE & the US kept interest rates artificially low to creat a falso boom, encouraging people to convert short term debt into long term debt, and those policies were a major factor in causing the financial crisis.
Gordon's starting rate of income tax which he then removed was a disaster.
Gordon's tax credit scheme was a disaster for those with variable earnings.
Still Tone was the boss so the buck stops with him, and you can add in Iraq.
Tone inherited the NI peace position - most of the work was already done for him, but he did ensure the deal went through so deserves some credit there. I'm sure there were other good things done too (eg minimum wage).
Overall, he really wasn't that great, though clearly had some charisma.1 -
lol the idea labour mismanaged the economy is laughable. Shows how standards have fallen. They're titans by comparison to the current lot.0
-
So which of the things I mentioned do you disagree with?rick_chasey said:lol the idea labour mismanaged the economy is laughable.
Plenty of those in the know were concerned about keeping interest rates artificially low, and criticised the raid on pension funds aqnd the sale of the gold at that time.
Try and put a counter argument for once rather than a petty dismissive post.1 -
I was pretty sure they resided over a banking crisis. Man you need to get checked for amnesia.rick_chasey said:lol the idea labour mismanaged the economy is laughable. Shows how standards have fallen. They're titans by comparison to the current lot.
2 -
Some of the points here just show how important who is writing the history...
"Tony' years of good economic growth were not down to Tony. He could have done literally nothing and enacted not a single piece of legislation and the economy would have had similar numbers."
One of the first and best things Blair (or really Brown) did was give the BOE independence in setting interest rates. This stablised the economy significantly, meaning interest rates are consistent and predictable, increasing confidence in borrowing and lending. This has had at least as big an effect in the comparatively strong UK economy in the last 40 years as Thatcherism & deregulation (certainly so for the Financial Service sector). It never gets the credit it deserves because the right wing press deifies Thatcher (ignoring her two massive and largely avoidable recessions), and what exists of the left wing press never liked Blair either.
This thread has reminded me of things I found distasteful about Blair; the modelling on a US president, from neo imperial wars down to reaching out to the bible belt we don't have in this country. But his competence in the job was off the scale compared with what we've had since.1 -
I think the things you mention are problematic on their own, but in the context of the wider picture, pale into insignificance.Dorset_Boy said:
So which of the things I mentioned do you disagree with?rick_chasey said:lol the idea labour mismanaged the economy is laughable.
Plenty of those in the know were concerned about keeping interest rates artificially low, and criticised the raid on pension funds aqnd the sale of the gold at that time.
Try and put a counter argument for once rather than a petty dismissive post.
What was it about the labour policy of handing over interest rate responsibility to an independent body with the sole target of achieving a 2% inflation level that you disagree with?
The gold thing is a drop in the ocean. Have you seen what the spending is like now versus then? It's orders of magnitude bigger.
This is what I mean by different standards.
If this gov'ts worst mistake was selling gold at a low price and handing over interest rate policy so that it was not an overt political tool I'd be f*cking over the moon.
0 -
This is the same gov't Cameron criticised for being too restrictive on the banking sector, right?john80 said:
I was pretty sure they resided over a banking crisis. Man you need to get checked for amnesia.rick_chasey said:lol the idea labour mismanaged the economy is laughable. Shows how standards have fallen. They're titans by comparison to the current lot.
Feel free to explain why the UK gov't specifically is responsible for the global financial crisis that emanated in the US which then spread to the rest of the world.0 -
This. Saved me typing something very similar …super_davo said:Some of the points here just show how important who is writing the history...
"Tony' years of good economic growth were not down to Tony. He could have done literally nothing and enacted not a single piece of legislation and the economy would have had similar numbers."
One of the first and best things Blair (or really Brown) did was give the BOE independence in setting interest rates. This stablised the economy significantly, meaning interest rates are consistent and predictable, increasing confidence in borrowing and lending. This has had at least as big an effect in the comparatively strong UK economy in the last 40 years as Thatcherism & deregulation (certainly so for the Financial Service sector). It never gets the credit it deserves because the right wing press deifies Thatcher (ignoring her two massive and largely avoidable recessions), and what exists of the left wing press never liked Blair either.
This thread has reminded me of things I found distasteful about Blair; the modelling on a US president, from neo imperial wars down to reaching out to the bible belt we don't have in this country. But his competence in the job was off the scale compared with what we've had since.0 -
How long does the list need to be before those individual things add up then?
The independence of the BoE really isn't and wasn't what it seems. Interest rates should have risen around 2002-04 to hold back the conversion of short term debt into long term debt.
Why do you compare the spending today, in the midst of a global pandemic with selling off the gold reserves at a very low price against advice? You're comparing apples and pasta.
Do you think PFI was a good thing?
Do you think the £5 bn pa tax raid on pensions was a good thing?
Both have had big long term ramifications.
Short term gain for long term pain.
1 -
pre covid budget was for £60bn of borrowing which was 3% of GDP, way ahead of f'cst growth of circa 1%Dorset_Boy said:How long does the list need to be before those individual things add up then?
The independence of the BoE really isn't and wasn't what it seems. Interest rates should have risen around 2002-04 to hold back the conversion of short term debt into long term debt.
Why do you compare the spending today, in the midst of a global pandemic with selling off the gold reserves at a very low price against advice? You're comparing apples and pasta.
Do you think PFI was a good thing?
Do you think the £5 bn pa tax raid on pensions was a good thing?
Both have had big long term ramifications.
Short term gain for long term pain.0 -
Can somebody explain the correlation between people critical of Blair's handling of the economy and their support of a style of Brexit that maximised damage to the economy?1
-
Is there one?surrey_commuter said:Can somebody explain the correlation between people critical of Blair's handling of the economy and their support of a style of Brexit that maximised damage to the economy?
0 -
Do you not understand proportions and the relative size of things?Dorset_Boy said:How long does the list need to be before those individual things add up then?
The independence of the BoE really isn't and wasn't what it seems. Interest rates should have risen around 2002-04 to hold back the conversion of short term debt into long term debt.
Why do you compare the spending today, in the midst of a global pandemic with selling off the gold reserves at a very low price against advice? You're comparing apples and pasta.
Do you think PFI was a good thing?
Do you think the £5 bn pa tax raid on pensions was a good thing?
Both have had big long term ramifications.
Short term gain for long term pain.
I genuinely am perplexed by this statement as it makes no sense: Interest rates should have risen around 2002-04 to hold back the conversion of short term debt into long term debt Don't know where to start with that other than you certainly don't see that kind of logic in textbooks. Would love for you to explain how that works as I would learn something.
£5bn is f*ck all for pensions. I spoke to a pension fund manager about 30 minutes ago who runs over £10bn in just one of their funds and they are hardly a titan in the industry. Do you have any idea how big the nation's pensions pots are? (2 trillion. 400x 5bn)
PFI was of course launched by Major and was used by successive governments until 2018 (though the contracts are still on going) so it's not exclusive to Blair, but is the political cost of the public and press not trusting the gov't to spend money - so take it off balance-sheet.
I am referring to the current pandemic spending to give some context to the large numbers. What felt large back in 2005 in the end isn't that large, is it?
I would happily bet £100 with you that, even adjust for inflation, the profligacy of this gov't handing out pandemic-related contracts to mates without any scrutiny is materially higher than the measured cost and waste of PFI.
0 -
Yes, very, which is why it was copied all around the world.Dorset_Boy said:
Do you think PFI was a good thing?
PFI under Blair was mostly about maximising the product for a certain price rather than minimising the price for a certain product. That was probably a mistake.
0 -
Why do you keep trying to compare figures today with those from 20+ years ago when we weren't in the middle of a global pandemic? There has also been substantial asset price growth over the last 20 years. Allowing for inflation at 2.5% pa, £1-00 20 years ago would need to be £1.50 today to stand still.
At the time, the £5 bn raid on pensions was huge, and as I said earlier, it created a savings gap that wasn't there beforehand and has only grown since. It was the catalyst for forcing DB schemes to close. Prior to that point the UK had the best pension provision in the western world. The raid changed that.
I've worked in 'the front line' of FS for over 20 years so know a damn site more than an unqualified recruitment consultant (who was barely out of primary school at the time) about the effect of the changes that were made. I lived through them with clients and have been part of their journey since.
Keeping interest rates artificially low caused a housing bubble. People slapped their credit card debt, car loans etc (all short term debt) onto their mortages (long term debt). then add in the encouragement of lending at over 100% of value. The text books (and those with knowledge of things) know that that is a bad thing. Surprised you don't know that. Gain now, pain later.
1 -
So the 5 billion back then would be 7.5 billion now?Dorset_Boy said:Why do you keep trying to compare figures today with those from 20+ years ago when we weren't in the middle of a global pandemic? There has also been substantial asset price growth over the last 20 years. Allowing for inflation at 2.5% pa, £1-00 20 years ago would need to be £1.50 today to stand still.
At the time, the £5 bn raid on pensions was huge, and as I said earlier, it created a savings gap that wasn't there beforehand and has only grown since. It was the catalyst for forcing DB schemes to close. Prior to that point the UK had the best pension provision in the western world. The raid changed that.
I've worked in 'the front line' of FS for over 20 years so know a damn site more than an unqualified recruitment consultant (who was barely out of primary school at the time) about the effect of the changes that were made. I lived through them with clients and have been part of their journey since.
Keeping interest rates artificially low caused a housing bubble. People slapped their credit card debt, car loans etc (all short term debt) onto their mortages (long term debt). then add in the encouragement of lending at over 100% of value. The text books (and those with knowledge of things) know that that is a bad thing. Surprised you don't know that. Gain now, pain later.
Still seems pretty trivial against 2 trillion no?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I came here expecting 4 pages on this:
Not blah blah Iraq, catholic conversion, pensions raid, financial crisis, selling gold, PFI, EUSSR, blah blah blah That's all been rehashed since 2008.
This is now. This is worse.
0 -
No, because asset prices have risen substantially more than inflation.pangolin said:
So the 5 billion back then would be 7.5 billion now?Dorset_Boy said:Why do you keep trying to compare figures today with those from 20+ years ago when we weren't in the middle of a global pandemic? There has also been substantial asset price growth over the last 20 years. Allowing for inflation at 2.5% pa, £1-00 20 years ago would need to be £1.50 today to stand still.
At the time, the £5 bn raid on pensions was huge, and as I said earlier, it created a savings gap that wasn't there beforehand and has only grown since. It was the catalyst for forcing DB schemes to close. Prior to that point the UK had the best pension provision in the western world. The raid changed that.
I've worked in 'the front line' of FS for over 20 years so know a damn site more than an unqualified recruitment consultant (who was barely out of primary school at the time) about the effect of the changes that were made. I lived through them with clients and have been part of their journey since.
Keeping interest rates artificially low caused a housing bubble. People slapped their credit card debt, car loans etc (all short term debt) onto their mortages (long term debt). then add in the encouragement of lending at over 100% of value. The text books (and those with knowledge of things) know that that is a bad thing. Surprised you don't know that. Gain now, pain later.
Still seems pretty trivial against 2 trillion no?
0 -
I'm confused - that was the growth you quoted. Why mention it if it's wrong.Dorset_Boy said:
No, because asset prices have risen substantially more than inflation.pangolin said:
So the 5 billion back then would be 7.5 billion now?Dorset_Boy said:Why do you keep trying to compare figures today with those from 20+ years ago when we weren't in the middle of a global pandemic? There has also been substantial asset price growth over the last 20 years. Allowing for inflation at 2.5% pa, £1-00 20 years ago would need to be £1.50 today to stand still.
At the time, the £5 bn raid on pensions was huge, and as I said earlier, it created a savings gap that wasn't there beforehand and has only grown since. It was the catalyst for forcing DB schemes to close. Prior to that point the UK had the best pension provision in the western world. The raid changed that.
I've worked in 'the front line' of FS for over 20 years so know a damn site more than an unqualified recruitment consultant (who was barely out of primary school at the time) about the effect of the changes that were made. I lived through them with clients and have been part of their journey since.
Keeping interest rates artificially low caused a housing bubble. People slapped their credit card debt, car loans etc (all short term debt) onto their mortages (long term debt). then add in the encouragement of lending at over 100% of value. The text books (and those with knowledge of things) know that that is a bad thing. Surprised you don't know that. Gain now, pain later.
Still seems pretty trivial against 2 trillion no?
Anyway, we're arguing the toss. The point stands. Asset growth of around 7% leads to around 20 billion. Still a ways off 2 trillion.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
If the assets rise miles beyond inflation, does the black hole not get inflated away?0
