Tony Blair stepping down.

[Jammrock]

I'm surprised this hasn't made the rounds here yet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm

Blair is setpping down after more than 10 years of being Prime Minister of the UK. I'm curious what our Brit MURCers think about this?

Jammrock

[Brian Ellis]

9 years too late!

[Fat Tone]

It comes as no surprise whatsoever and has been on the cards for quite a while.

The press here make me sick. First they hounded him for ages to set a date to leave, which he finally did sometime last year, then a couple of weeks later they are complaining that the announcement did more harm than good.

@Brian - Do you honestly think he is any worse than any other politician would have been? You may disagree with TB, but I do think he generally acted in what he believed to be the best interest. And Gordon Brown next? *shudder*

[Brian Ellis]

Absolutely:

He helped GWB to decide to go to war in Iraq with disinformation. He consequently helped to reduce the security of the world, not just the UK. His action was, at least partially, behind the motivation of 7/7.

He lies about saying the UK economy is wonderful. It is in a parlous state: interest rates highest for several years; unemployment at ~5.5%, up from 12 months ago; inflation at ~3%, against income increases of ~2.7%; current account negative with imports exceeding exports by nearly 50%; zero industrial production growth; external debts exceeding £4 trillion; energy reserves depleted; public debt a whopping 42% of annual GDP. Yet only yesterday, in Sedgefield, he said that the UK's economy was never better. He may convince himself, but he doesn't convince me. Remember Harold Macmillan's "You've never had it so good"? An exact replica of the same lie. With his salary of £120+k + a gilt-lined expense account and free board and lodgings at no. 10, HE has probably never had it so good, but not the 25% officially poor.

His failures include the worsening of the sort of low-income working families (not the unemployed); improving the NHS (he boasted yesterday of opening 800+ new hospitals in his tenure, but he has done bugger-all to improve the service they offer); improving social services.

No, I look on his tenure as a sad failure, carried over by a personal charisma, hiding a not-great intellect.

Could anyone else have done better? Almost certainly, yes, but I'm not very well placed to cite names, although perhaps some of those with whom he fell out may be somewhere to start looking, as they had the courage to stand up to him and say, "You are wrong", only to be handed their resignation letter, ready to sign. Tony liked yes-men in his invincible belief that he was always right.

As for Brown, I don't know enough about him to be able to judge. At least he is truly Scottish, which is a good starting point, unlike TB whose only claim to Scotsmanship was an education at Fettes, an establishment school for the rich. At least Brown had Great Britain at heart, as his initials show . From what little I've seen, he seems to think before acting, which is the antithesis of Blair. I reserve judgement on him.

Now, Blair and Brown are both members of the Labour Party, which many persons on this august forum would consider "liberal", mentioning no names. I have been accused, many times, of holding "liberal" views, so my denigration of TB as a leader would appear to be a contradiction within my persona. Not so. TB is no more left wing than the Emperor of Japan. He is a strong conservative who hopped on a left-wing bandwagon for personal gain and glory. His policies have left the rich richer and the poor poorer. Liberal? My eye and Betty Martin.

[The PIT]

I'm glad to see him go to be honest.

I think PM's can stay in power too long in this country and it goes to there head like it did to Maggie.

Max term no more than two gen elections.

Blair will be remembered for leading the country into a war based on lies. Leaving Iraq in a worst state than it was under Soddem. Iraq will almost certainly become an Islamic extremist state in the near future.

Blair will also be remembered failing on law and order. Contining the "failed don't give a toss in the community".

I think he will look back on his term as a failure as well unless he's completly suffering from self delusion.

[Brian Ellis]

Max term no more than two gen elections.

Max term should be as in Switzerland: the president has one year, in turn, from a college of 7 federal councillors, not re-eligible until all the other 6 have had their turn. This way, the work gets done without fuss and carry-on by the collegial council, with members from all the major parties across the spectrum. And there is no time for a cult of the personality to hinder the effectiveness of the individual.

The great advantage is that half the Swiss don't even know the name of the president!!! (I do: it's currently Madame M. Calmy-Rey and last year it was Moritz Leuenberger!!!)

[Umfriend]

He lies about saying the UK economy is wonderful. It is in a parlous state: interest rates highest for several years; unemployment at ~5.5%, up from 12 months ago; inflation at ~3%, against income increases of ~2.7%; current account negative with imports exceeding exports by nearly 50%; zero industrial production growth; external debts exceeding £4 trillion; energy reserves depleted; public debt a whopping 42% of annual GDP. Yet only yesterday, in Sedgefield, he said that the UK's economy was never better. He may convince himself, but he doesn't convince me. Remember Harold Macmillan's "You've never had it so good"? An exact replica of the same lie. With his salary of £120+k + a gilt-lined expense account and free board and lodgings at no. 10, HE has probably never had it so good, but not the 25% officially poor.

1. High interest rates can mean two things: Either the governemtn is printing money or the economy is running above it's long-term capacity. We know it's not the former so high interest rates are actually a sign the economy is doing well.
2. Unemployment of 5.5% is actually not that bad. More often than not, 4% to 5% is conserdered to be at full employement as many people are in transit between jobs, shoolleavers not employed yet etc. No worries there.
3. Inflation at 3% may be high according to personal tastes but again this can mean two things: printing money or economy running above long-term potential. It's not the former so it is the latter. This is generally considered as 'good'.
4. Not sure what you mean by 'incme increases of 2.7%', I assume it is not GDP. If it is not, than the complaint you have may be about the allocation of income. I happen to consider TB as right-wing so we might agree there.
5. Imports vs exports ratio are meaningless without taking their sizes realitve to GDP. It's no issue if net imports are a mere 0.1%GDP for example.
6. External debts of 4 trillion, how much of GDP is that and how much was it when he got into power. If that external debt is to a large extent private debt then it may be good as well.
7. 42% public debt is not 'high' in most books. Based on your numbers, my gues is the economy was most healthy about 12 months ago. May still have been a good job.

Can't comment about the rest, simply do not know, but I think I would tend to agree with most you said.

[The PIT]

Unemployment is higher than registered due to figures being fiddled to make things look better. E.G School leavers don't count for example.

Inflation is a lot higher than shown as house prices aren't reflected in the offical index's. They were removed as it screwed the figures upwards and looked bad.

Income increases have been below the true rate of inflation for many years.

Can't see how private debt is good to be honest.

Debt is a problem in this country. A friend of mine is on low incom and is over £20,000 grand in dept. He should declare himself bankup but won't. In future he may not be able to take this route as credit card companies etc are dismayed over the number of people taking this way out to clear there "debts".