Why was Tony Blair so successful?

[ComingUpTrumps]

Random AIBU - I know. And one that might not be to everyone's taste. Sorry about this.

My AIBU is that I'm really curious to find out what it was that made Tony Blair such a successful Prime Minister (by 'successful', I mean the fact that he won three consecutive elections). I'd like to find out what you all think.

When he first became PM, I was five, so had no idea about what politics or government was or anything like that. I started getting interested around 2003, when the Iraq War started - I still remember watching the news when they showed Saddam Hussein's statue being toppled.

I fully understand that TB is a controversial figure, and I'm still making my mind about him, to be honest. I borrowed his autobiography from the library a couple of week ago. The one thing I can say is that I think he's a very good writer, but apart from that, I'm still trying to find out about him.

In a sense, I feel that TB's a bit like Donald Trump, in that he tends to divide opinion and is quite controversial as people seem to love him or hate him.

Also, a bit like with Trump (although I think that TB is smarter than Trump), I still can't quite work out what TB's agenda was and is (Power-hungry? Genuinely believed/believes that he could make a difference to Britain and the world? Wanted to see how far he could get in politics after becoming an MP? A mixture of all three?)

But I am derailing. Blair won elections, as someone who has voted Labour all my life, until the last election, I like labour politicians who have power. It's an unpopular approach at the moment though.

I am sure schools would hate me for this but I don't think schools controlling how pp is spent is a good idea.

Agree 100% with this, birds. (Sorry to continue derailing the thread! PP gets me a bit fired up!)

I started teaching in 1997. After 18 years of Tory govt, the public services were broken. Books were not just years, but decades out of date, every time it rained we had to pull out the buckets because the roof leaked. There was no money for anything - books, paper, buildings were falling down... it was desperate. My friend worked in the NHS and it was the same there... investment was desperately needed, but the Tories did not seem interested in doing this.

I know I voted for change, fed up with the way the Tories were letting down our children. Unfortunately, we're back to that today.

Unfortunately there was also a lot of money wasted in schools during the Blair years.

Which school initiatives wasted money gardenmint?

(I'm not calling into question what you mentioned btw - just curious :))

I have worked in charities and local authority all my life. The difference between now and the Blair years is astounding.

I didn't take it as such, don't worry.

Controversially, the introduction of so many teaching assistants. That isn't a slight on individuals employed in that role but the impact on achievement is dubious. Of course, there are areas of the curriculum (especially in early years and in specialist schools) where they are vital but in general the educational impact of TAs is questionable.

National testing was (indeed is) expensive and also dubious in its accuracy.

The university places for almost all were criminal, in my opinion.

There were other, smaller things. Connexions were a shambles of an organisation. Classrooms of the Future - glass tanked, ICT filled and permanently locked unless it was Year 7 Set One and the local press were in! Forest (fucking) schools - huddled under a tarpaulin, log digging into backside, rain pouring down my neck, trying to jolly thirty whingeing kids into making dreamcatchers from twiggs somewhere in the depths of the Forest of Dean. Brain Gym aka gulp water (or Coke, or Lucozade) like your life depends on it - but we had training at our school on it circa 2005 and it was not free.

There is still a lot of bollocks around pf course.

Forest school has been a great success in our school but your description made me smile

He was the most skillful politician I have ever seen in my lifetime. He is a brilliant communicator, he knew what people wanted and promised it to them, he was an exceptional networker, he delegated well and he wasn't afraid to rebrand the Labour Party. I am not a fan of his by the way, but that's the way I saw it.

"The university places for almost all were criminal, in my opinion."

Huh? Since when did everyone go to university?

"In short, it's not actually very easy to work out what proportion of the UK population has degrees (nor how many more or less graduates the economy needs). Depending on which dataset you study, it's 27.2% or 34.4% or 40.2% of the population. It certainly isn't 49%. Most people don't go to university and current data suggests that most people in the UK never will."

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jun/04/higher-education-participation-data-analysis

He had a massive stroke of luck when Labour lost the great John Smith.

I'm not a labour supporter, but the Tories were in their knees in 97 and New Labour deployed spin, yoof and a youngish PM with some fresh ideas very very well.

Then along came 9/11, WMD, Cherie, the Brown pact to take off the gilt.

The Iraq war and the catastrophic loss of lives and injuries are entirely at his door.

I remember seeing him speak when he opened my new PFI-financed school in the early 2000s. I disliked him even then (have never been a Labour supporter) but he was one of the most charismatic speakers I've ever seen.

And yes, he was power hungry. I still reckon he didn't care which party he joined as long as he could lead them and at the time he became leader he basically united an otherwise shambolic party, in particular silencing the union-affiliated hard left, and led them to victory.

Whoever follows Corbyn will be the same.

www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/apr/27/royal-wedding-tonyblair

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8470465/Royal-wedding-No-place-for-Tony-Blair-and-Gordon-Brown.html

Miliband was invited.

Callaghan was a Knight of the Garter, so HM does give that to Labour politicians.

He always creeped me out, even from early days. Sort of person if he shook your hand, you'd want to go and wipe it afterwards.

I think for me he often tried to sound like he was the moral one who had everyone's interest at heart, but it came across as insincere and if he felt the mood was the other way he'd switch.

His written speeches were well done for effect usually, but if you listened and applied basic knowledge it could unravel. Like the time he announced he wanted 75% of school children to be above average achievement. Well, there's three sorts of average: Median-the middle, which by definition is 50% above/below. Mode-the most common, which it could be, but I don't think saying the most common achievement is bottom 25% is particularly desirable. Or mean, which is what we think about as "average" (add all the numbers up and divide by the number of numbers) which again is possible if the bottom lot fail so badly they bring the average down. Again not desirable.

But his off the cuff talking was terrible. it reminded me a bit of children's spats. "Well you've got a big nose" "You have a big nose and are ugly too" didn't seem to actually be in control of what he was saying, very reactionary.

"His written speeches were well done for effect usually, but if you listened and applied basic knowledge it could unravel. Like the time he announced he wanted 75% of school children to be above average achievement. Well, there's three sorts of average: Median-the middle, which by definition is 50% above/below. Mode-the most common, which it could be, but I don't think saying the most common achievement is bottom 25% is particularly desirable. wink Or mean, which is what we think about as "average" (add all the numbers up and divide by the number of numbers) which again is possible if the bottom lot fail so badly they bring the average down. Again not desirable."

This reminds me of Gove, as education secretary at an education select committee...

Q98 Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

Q99 Chair: So it is possible, is it?

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

Q100 Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?

Michael Gove: I cannot remember.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1786-i/uc178601.htm

This thread is very interesting.
I agree with nearly everything written:

Those circumstances, will never be repeated. He was middle, fresh, we only had 5 channels, the public didn't have as much cynicism about politics etc. He used PR. He made the comments about Diana, that the public wanted to hear.

It was a period that can't be repeated because we can't go back to that now.

I wonder whether Labour will get in, next? I can't see it's soon. Maybe when they get a new leader?

But the investment Blair gave to schools, cutting waiting lists on NHS, etc wasn't sustainable.

And he left us with a huge deficit. He was 'living beyond his means', but joe public didn't know this. At the time. It all looked so good. Little did we know.

Now we know more about some of the stuff Blair did, most of us can't stand him.

The full backing of Murdoch and the media. Even Dacre liked and backed him in the beginning.

In the years before 97 the conservatives kept banging on about "family values" and were very socially conservative blaming all societies ills on gay people or single mothers then it turned out a whole loaf of them were having gay affairs or seeing prostitutes or having fetish sex. It was so hypocritical.
TB and his govt seemed more like "real people" in comparison.
In 2001 things were generally going well in the country so no real need to change. Despite the Dome disaster most of the millennium investment was really positive.
In the third term the whole TB/GB thing blew up and it was all about political infighting and thinking they had a right to power rather than it being a privilege to be elected.

"But the investment Blair gave to schools, cutting waiting lists on NHS, etc wasn't sustainable.

And he left us with a huge deficit. He was 'living beyond his means', but joe public didn't know this. At the time. It all looked so good. Little did we know."

But it also wouldn't have been needed if the Tories had invested properly in the 18 years prior to 97. The thing that really annoys about politics is the perpetual cycle of underfunding, followed by massive investment, followed again by cuts... which we have seen for the last 38 years. I wish we could just find a happy medium between the two. Easier said than done, I know.

It's partly people's fault though, nobody gets elected on a ticket of slow, tested, sensible and affordable changes. It's all 'this election will change your life' bs

My DM and her friends voted for Tony Blair because 'he was cute'. They all voted for Nick Clegg when he appeared on the scene too on the same basis although 1 did rather fancy David Cameron so she voted tory.

Not everyone votes on policy, its who they like the look of at the time for a great number of people. DM is 'middle class in a naice area' if you were wondering.

He made Labour electable for the first time since the 70's. No one has done it since.

I remember talking to someone I worked with just after the 97 election and she said she'd voted for Blair as everyone else did :)