Tony! Tony! Tony! Out! Out! Out!

[John Self]

Media whore sources tell me that Blair is to resign within the next couple of weeks - Andrew Marr has already recorded a political biography. It's probably rubbish as I suspect Blair still wants to do the Match-the-Thatch thing of winning three general elections and then going so he can say he was never rejected by the people... On the other hand it is 10 years since his accession to the leadership of the Labour Party and it would be a neat time to do it; it would explain the lack of cabinet reshuffle this July; plus polls show that although Labour will probably win the next general election, they would do better with Gordon Brown at the helm (which would in turn set them up better for a fourth victory). So who knows?

But what do you think? Personally my view of Blair is probably one shared by a lot of people. I was terrifically enthusiastic about him to begin with and in fact that lasted a long time as he and his government brought in a good deal of socially progressive legislation, like the European social chapter and its attendant bonuses (like minimum wage), the tax credits system for working families, or the Civil Partnerships bill. Apart from the ennui which time always brings it was really the Iraq war which filled me with despair and horror of him - but yes, if he stays of course I would want him to get in again over spooky Howard.

When do you think Blair should go, if at all?

[Wavid]

I'm not entirely certain when the best time for him to go would be. I certainly don't think that Labour are in any danger of losing an election, certainly not until the Tories present themselves as a credible alternative, which it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.

As for Blair's legacy, I think that you are probably right that many of the legislative changes he has made are reasonable. I'm broadly in favour of the idea of devolution, though I would have liked to have seen a tier of government removed as one was being added, rather than just building layer upon layer of administration. The delegating of the power to adjust interest rates to the Bank of England was a sound one. The minimum wage was a step forward, though I'm not quite so keen on the signing up to the Human Rights Act.

But the real problem is with the style of government which Blair favours. It was all started by the Tories under Thatcher of course, and it stinks. The devaluation of Parliament, the constant cynical attempts to manipulate the press and the electorate, and most annoying of all the complete unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything. Nothing is ever the fault of a minister in a Blair cabinet, there is always a civil servant or the press to blame.

The other thing that gets my goat about Blair, and I fear that Brown will be just the same, is the methods they use to administer the affairs of state. Quango after quango is being set up, with no real democratic accountability and which serve the useful purpose of being blamed when things go wrong. Millions and millions of pounds of public money are spent every year on employing consultants, often to little or negative effect. Again, consultants provide someone to blame when things don't work. Private Finance Initiatives DO NOT WORK. This government's record with employing IT firms to produce workable systems has been woeful: passports, magistrates courts, the inland revenue to name but three. Again, millions wasted and no accountability for it.

I think that New Labour are the party of the middle manager - they are all a bunch of David Brents, eager to use the latest jargon and management-speak. Desperate to show off the latest theories they have picked up, setting up new organisations and departments all over the place. The solution to a problem, as far as these guys is concerned, is to create a public (or not so public) body to deal with it. The mounds of paperwork get bigger and bigger, the salaries of all the staff and consultants build up, but no one is ever any the wiser, and none of the problems have been solved!

Sorry, this has been a bit of a rant. Despite being small-c conservatively minded, I'd rather have Blair or Brown than Howard. But they are a long long way from being ideal.

[gil]

To be quite honest, I think he's in the wrong job. I am not being ironic when I say he would be better as the leader of a modernised Tory party, with whose views he appears to sympathise to a greater extent than he does with those of his own party. Then the Chancellor could get his promotion.

The thing about Tony is that he is incredibly polished and persuasive. You can say what you like, but he is the best leader Labour ever had. However, frankly, if he's going to continue in his current post, he should spend less time forging new policy, and more time selling the new policies of his rank and file to the country. He's making the Thatcher mistake, and assuming that his own opinion is superior to his advisers', and he's surrounding himself with people of his own turn of mind.

As a bit of a Tory myself (though the current lot are very hard to support), I'd rather Tony stayed in post until the election, as I think he intends. The populace's irritation with "spin", and his association with it, may endanger his re-election. Whether the Tories win or not (and I think NOT) the exercise of rehabilitating himself with the electorate may result in improvements to our collective lot.

[skanky]

The other thing that gets my goat about Blair, and I fear that Brown will be just the same, is the methods they use to administer the affairs of state. Quango after quango is being set up, with no real democratic accountability and which serve the useful purpose of being blamed when things go wrong. Millions and millions of pounds of public money are spent every year on employing consultants, often to little or negative effect. Again, consultants provide someone to blame when things don't work. Private Finance Initiatives DO NOT WORK. This government's record with employing IT firms to produce workable systems has been woeful: passports, magistrates courts, the inland revenue to name but three. Again, millions wasted and no accountability for it.

I think you'll find that Gordon Brown is the main driver behind PFI, quangos, letting large corporations off their tax burden (and penalties) - especially employing tax dodgers as treasury advisors, and the like.

[amner]

If NL don't want to look chronically weakened after the next electoral return (any advance on 50 seat maj.?) they'd be advised to bring Gordon on now. Tony's biggest assets, as gil points out, his polish and his persuasive abilities, are now his achiles heel; people are fed up with the smiling faux sincerity.

But, as an aside, if the public (and comics like the Mail and the Express) think that jilting New Labour will divest them of spin they are sorely mistook. Spin doctors have been around since Pliny the Elder, and infest the Tories like a Rent Boy Rash.

[pandop]

It is the contradictions in their policies that get me, the best example of which is higher education. They want more young people to go to universtity, but they make it more expensive - especially to do science, medical and engineering courses, which are the course we *do* need more people to be doing.
If I had been born 6 months later, I would not have been able to afford to go to university - and that would have been as a direct result of the policies of a labour government!

Then their is the seeming inabiliy to think things through - The House of Lords is anachronistic, lets abolish it. Ok, erm, now what should we have insted ...erm :roll:

The scary thing is that I dont think that this would change if Brown was in charge instead of Blair. As Wavid said, they are a party of middle managers - and I think that if they really were middle managers they would be of the over-promoted variety (see Dilbert).

Not that any of the other options are any more appealling at the moment.

Hazel

[Jerkass]

Not usually one to say much on politics (especially in someone else's country), but Hazel's hit upon something I find interesting.

While whilst whilest reading about the University fees discussion earlier this year (?), I was stunned to discover that one might be able to get a Cambridge or Oxford education for £3000 or less. I suppose I should have guessed that people weren't paying for university in your country, but I hadn't.

In contrast, I escaped relatively easily, I think, for a US university student, graduating with only $11,000 in debt to pay off over the next 10 years (well, about four years, now).

We do, of course, have scholarships and grants and such for students to earn on need or merit, but, for the most part, people just expect to save up for their children's University educations over the first eighteen years of their lives. Also, I get the impression there probably is a much higher percentage of students working while at University here--whereas I saw an anguished future University student telling Tony Blair on some political debate programme, "I will be forced to work at University!"

I'm not at all trying to put down your system of doing things--people who know me will know it's usually the other way 'round. I just find it interesting. If you told people here they could get into the country's best universities for $3,000 or less, people would wonder which pact with Satan they would have to sign to get such a great bargain.

[pandop]

but, for the most part, people just expect to save up for their children's University educations over the first eighteen years of their lives.

That's fine, when you know what is coming. I went to university in September 1997, and I got a full grant, and had no fees to pay (yes I am in debt, yes I worked, and yes my parents helped as much as possible). My boyfriend went to university in September 1998, no grants and had to pay tuituon fees. Even if his parents had been saving for his university education, which they had, it meant that there was still at least another £3000 to find, that they had not been prepared for.

I have many American friends, and I would not have minded being under that system for loans (and I consider myself very lucky to be on the old Uk loan system, as it means that I have deferred my student loans, as I don't earn enough, and can make a start on the overdraft and credit card debt instead), as I would have been prepared for it, and the university would have been more prepared for students to have to work.

However, the problem is the speed with which the changes are happening. The cost is going up with no warning, so those that are already at university, or about to go, are the ones that are hit with larger bills and have less means to pay.

Oh - and Jerkass has understimated things a little, I had a grant and no fees to pay, but still needed to take out the maximum loans available at the time to live on, as I was not able to work much (see above) so I have £7000 (or so) of student loans, plus the overdraft/cards. £3000 wouldn't even cover the tuition fees at the moment, without all the other expenses.

I won't go into how much worse that got when I did an MA (I am about to do another one, so I dont want to think about it!)

Did any of that make any sense - I am at work and have toothache, so won't lay claim to many clear thoughts at the moment.

Hazel :(

[Jerkass]

Nope, makes perfect sense, and of course I don't understand the whole system, as you have pointed out. As I said, I wasn't trying to be critical--I was just pointing out an interesting (to me) difference between the two countries.

I also understand that it is a bit of a problem that people haven't been preparing for their children's entire lives to start paying these extra university fees, as you say. From what little I've admittedly seen on the subject, it may be that there aren't any great solutions, and this is the solution that has had to have been pasted on to the problem to prevent it from getting worse. If the universities need more money (and I'm not in a position to say whether they are or not) , and you don't want to raise taxes on everyone to pay for that, options would appear to be limited. But, again, I really don't know. Mostly, I was just find it interesting, as I do with many other differences between our countries--I'm trying to move from mine to yours.

[pandop]

Thats ok - I don't fully understand the US system either.

Oh - and Universities definietely need more money, as the current funding system is a mess <shaking head> Although a certain amount of money comes as funding per student, a lot of it comes from research (both from private investors, and from the government), but more students mean more teaching time, and more teaching time means less research time.

What I don't understand is why you want to move here? A lot of my US are planning to go back .... (feel free to ignore me if I am being too nosey :wink: )

Hazel