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?)

Because after 4 thumping election losses the Labour party were willing to agree to anything to regain power. Most actual party members that I knew weren't too keen on him but recognised that the old saying that Labour lost elections because they weren't leftwing enough was largely nonsense. Not complete nonsense, but nonsensical enough.

It is hard to convey the real atmosphere of a time in the past. Having the Tories in power for 18 years felt just shit. Private affluence, public squalor. Walking through the Waterloo bullring on my way to work - everything falling to pieces, 50 or 60 people sleeping rough in that one area, and knowing there was another area the same just across the river in Lincolns Inn Fields. This was in the early 90s but it wasn't new. A whole slew of disasters, Piper Alpha, Herald of Free Enterprise, Bradford fire, King's Cross fire, Hillsborough. These were disasters that killed hundreds of people. Hundreds. And if you look at the footage from the news you can see how neglected everything looks. The kings cross tube station had WOODEN escalators FFS. The Westminster gerrymandering scandal. The Bristol children's heart surgery scandal and what happened to the whistle blower there. Chrisopher Clunis and the care in the community movement. I started work in the NHS in 1996 and we were required to make a standard cut in our budgets of 1% a year, leaving aside any cuts due to rising costs etc. It was normal - normal - for people to wait 18 months for a hip replacement. We hand reported our own waiting list data, no electronic checks. I produced one set of data, my boss said 'that's too long we can't report that' and told me to halve the length. (He was a Tory councillor). Yes John Major worked hard to move forward on the Troubles, but he had a tiny majority, was reliant on the UUP and wouldn't concede enough to the nationalist side. Yes the economy felt much better in the mid 90s but what my family and I remembered was a horrifically painful recession 1980-83, and a horrifically painful recession in 1990-93, withe my dad eventually going bankrupt on 1986. Even when the money was allegedly flowing, we never felt or saw much of it.

Blair felt like a fucking liberation from the constant refusal to do anything that would benefit anyone other than the top 15% of earners in the southeast. The constant lecturing, despising, sneering Tory administrations. Telling us we got nothing because we deserved nothing. Crushing the miners. Creaming off the money. Using North Sea oil to benefit Swiss banks and tax havens and to keep their own ideological nonsense afloat while calling it common sense. Ending academic tenure. Interfering at the BBC. Welcoming Botha and calling Mandela a terrorist. Refusing sanctions on South Africa while slapping them on any left wing regime. Watching the news for those 18 years felt like an abusive relationship.

I'll shut up now.

Thanks OP for a fascinating thread with intelligent responses showing so many opinions. I was a Blair supporter who rode along with the spin of promises and superficially saw it working for a few years. Of course with no social media or rolling news and a press that supported him it was hard to see the other side at the time which along with a weak opposition is why he got re-elected. His social measures seemed inspiring and I will defend Every Child Matters to this day. Sadly I think the pp who said he mortgaged our future may have it spot on.

Piglet, I'm really sorry but its just not true.

The debt and deficit is a convinient way for the Tories to justiy their drastic cuts to public services.

Put it this way, for 180 of the last 240 years the national debt to GDP has been higher than it is now.

We have had a deficit in spending in almost every year since 1979.

The big balooning of deficit/debt was caused by the downward economic cycle after 2008. Labout ran 2 of 3 surpuses we have had since 1979 and also kept the deficit lower or to the same level as it had in 1997.

The future was not mortgaged. Austerity is a political choice, not an economic neccesity.

Thanks @bathildabagshot1 If his social policies did not cripple the country financially then I am leaning towards the Blair years as being genuinely mostly successful with the exception of the war debacles.

They were successful, especially politically . The left of the current Labour party can't forgive him for that.

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

Didn't he just? I sometimes fantasise about an alternative universe where John Smith became PM in 1997.

Blair succeeded because he was a very ambitious man, with an equally ambitious wife and possibly the best spin doctors ever, and because he was in the right place at the right time (a Britain broken by years of Tory cuts and ripe for change). He remained successful by being right-wing enough not to frighten the right-wing and so didn't end up crucified in the media, and by having a clever chancellor.

As a life-long Labour supporter, who is old enough to remember Wilson winning in 1964, he was a bitter disappointment to me. The euphoria of the early hours of that Friday morning lasted barely a few days, when he announced that his government would stick to Tory spending plans. What is the point of having a Labour government that sticks to Tory spending plans, ffs?

I actually despise Blair more than Thatcher. At least with Thatcher, people knew what they were getting. Blair pretended he was giving us something different. He's the political equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.

We got a letter about applying for tax credits as according to the letter we might be eligible given our income levels. Dh at the time was a mid ranking RN Officer (and paid higher rate tax), and I was on a job share after having ds. Our income was north of £55k at the time in the late 90s. That set my alarm bells off.

Could be scary that they wanted as many people as possible to know in case they were eligible as incomes can vary year to year.

I'm not sure anyone can convince me that at least the first 5 Blair years weren't a massive improvement.

I actually despise Blair more than Thatcher. At least with Thatcher, people knew what they were getting. Blair pretended he was giving us something different.

Interesting. Very good point, LakieLady.

Was he? Lots regard him as a war criminal.

Lt-Cdr RN salaries only go in one direction until you reach the top of the pay band or get promoted Mavis No-one can convince me that Blair hasn't ways been a pathological liar with a messianic complex.

With regard to Tony Blair being considered to be a war criminal, what I still don't understand is why he agreed to war in Iraq even when it was proved (by Hans Blix etc.) that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

I've asked several people about this (just people I know), and they've said they think it's because of oil. Is that it?

*why he agreed to the war in Iraq.

Blair went to war in Iraq because he's a moral interventionist - with hindsight it was wrong but I do believe it came from a sincere place and at the time I supported it.

The thing I don't get is why the Iraq War is always blamed entirely on Blair when parliament voted it through with a pretty large majority (and some Labour MPs did rebel so it's not like they were shipped into it).

It can't really be because they were duped into the weapons of mass destruction thing and were 'misled' - almost a million people marched against the Iraq War at that time. Yes a million isn't all the many from the population but for a protest it is huge. There was a huge feeling against the war from the public, so apparently they weren't being duped into believed the WMD schtick.

Apparently leaders don't even have to put a vote to parliament to declare war, but Blair did and got a huge mandate for it.

Has anyone said 'John Smith is the greatest prime minister this country never had' yet? We have no idea how JS's leadership would have panned out if he hadn't passed away, the romantic rhetoric surrounding him is quite annoying.

By the way, Im not a huge TB fan or anything. It used to really annoy me when people (usually Tories) used Iraq against him.

Blair thought he was God (and probably still does).

And does anyone remember how he awarded himself a huge pay rise when he was re-elected in 2001? The hatred for him hadn't really started yet, so it wasn't big news.

Even in more recent times, Hilary Benn got a majority for some intervention against Daesh - moral intervention is something a lot of people will vote for although of course it is one of those issues that divides people along vehement lines.

And does anyone remember how he awarded himself a huge pay rise when he was re-elected in 2001? Really? Do you have a link giving details?

Lets clear up the IMF thing too, that was repaid by the time Labour left office in 1979, in the end only half of it was drawn. So No, the Conservatives were not "paying back the IMF".

Somewhat late to the party, but the Tories benefitted hugely from North Sea oil revenues (and selling off all the UK's useful nationalised infrastructure) between 1979-1996. When you look at how shit and broken everything became under them, you have to wonder why they have such a terrific reputation on the economy and where all the money went. I am half imagining a swathe of Tory banana republic-style Swiss bank accounts with all the 80s loot in them. At least there was something to show for the Labour "spree" (although I know we'll be paying off some of the PFI stuff for a generation).

@badbadhusky

At least there was something to show for the Labour "spree"

Well there was, but there is a lot of shit as well, we are seeing it today, the introduction of tax credits relied on tax receipts from the financial sector they bribed the middle class who didn't need them.

So the situation we are in is a direct response to Labours policies, we had a generation who relied on tax credits and was miffed off because the limit was dropped to ~26K a year, we also have a situation where it was more profitable to only work circa 16 hours a week so naturally businesses decided to start offering zero hour contracts because the state picked up the tab, we also had a banking sector who would take into consideration the state handout which helped fuel an asset bubble the fact the snake has started to eat itself and price out the middle class children of areas are we now supposed to be concerned.

That is even before that more school playing fields, hospital privatisation by the back door was done under Blair and browns watch is somewhat disingenuous to try and white wash New Labours term in power.

He was the right man at the right time, but to try and paint it everything as a tory issue is very partisan and not very genuine.

Centrism, progressivism = new labour = the third way. Never seen before in British politics. The euphoria and hope and optimism in 1997 is unimaginable today. They talked the talk and they walked the walk. Britain emerged as THE place to be, both culturally and economically. He stayed in power for so long because they really did deliver.

Agree with Justanotherlurker that as with every other govt, they become complacent and arrogant if they stay in power too long and things go tits up.

Centrism, progressivism = new labour = the third way. Never seen before in British politics.

The fact that Thatcher praised Blair and Blair praised thatcher seems to be lost on a lot of the die hards

He stayed in power for so long because they really did deliver.

As long as you don't try and pin the housing bubble, zero hour contracts, playing realpolitik and selling arms and lack of graduate jobs solely on Conservatives, yeah he delivered, funnily enough I have not met someone who doesn't classify themselves as a true neo-liberal as such.

The fact that Thatcher praised Blair and Blair praised thatcher seems to be lost on a lot of the die hards

Urgh.

Urgh

Excellent contribution...