Has Tony Blair shifted far right?

[WildEnergySupplier]

Tony Blair was always a warmonger with Iraq, but he seems to have gone full on far right / Reform now, criticising Starmer for not jumping in with Trump and the US on Iran.

He's saying we should have let them use our bases straight away and "show up" for America no matter what.

He also said Labour has made mistakes by spending more on welfare, focussing on Net Zero, increasing taxes on businesses..

Has he completely lost the plot? This sounds like proper far right policy to me.

I used to think Blair was centre-ground New Labour, but this feels like he's shifted hard right. In fact it's giving me proper far right / racist vibes.

This thread is degenerating as they always do when the labour massive get involved. They cannot take constructive feedback. Bless them.

Your post at 7.27 was hardly constructive feedback. The thread degenerated from that point on.

It is not the Labour massive having their posts deleted...

Yes..see the above 2 posts.

What do those posts signify?

Probably because other posters aren't tattle tell tales back to mama. I very rarely report posts, preferring things to stand. Others do differ, and there's a consistent theme, I've noticed.

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

😂💙

This

I’m not quite sure why some bad temper has broken out. As far as I can see, other than the OP there isn’t a single poster who thinks Tony Blair is right wing, let alone far right.

The Labour supporters seem to be making pro-Labour points, which aren’t exactly on-topic, but freewheeling discussion is better than none.

The (non-far) left’s antagonism towards Blair’s recent contribution seems to be that he’s not supporting Starmer’s government wholeheartedly. Which puts him heavily with the moderate majority, and - for other reasons - in the same boat as (at least) about 100 Labour MPs, half-a-dozen cabinet ministers and the mayor of Manchester. 🤷‍♀️

Blair and Burnham might be in the same boat re: Starmer, but they are attempting to row in very different directions at the moment.

Sure. That’s why I said “for other reasons”.

But party figures simply opposing Starmer and the policy course his government steers (if his Hokey Cokey decision-making can be called a course) seems to be the issue for some, regardless of whether he’s criticised from the right, left or centre of Labour.

I do expect that to change once Burnham is leader, though. Scales will fall from MN Labour eyes and he will be recognised as the One True and Great Helmsman.

I agree with you on that. They should be reinstated. Rather than train drivers, soggy toast and removing the 2 child cap, Labour should be concentrating on funding the foundations of childhood. Sure start was a brilliant thing. Books, company, community - for many children and mums (I never saw a dad there once, but there may be some dads who used it who knows) who wouldn't have had any of that before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-68763942

Children living near Sure Start centres did better at GCSEs, study suggests

Rachel Reeves refused to commit to funding new Sure Start centres.
"I know it made a big difference to the lives of very many people," she told BBC One's Breakfast programme.
"There are lots of things I would like to do - but I will always make sure all our policies are fully costed and fully funded.
"And the breakfast clubs that we will fund will make a big difference to make sure that all children have a good start to the day and parents can take on more hours at work."

But party figures simply opposing Starmer and the policy course his government steers (if his Hokey Cokey decision-making can be called a course) seems to be the issue for some, regardless of whether he’s criticised from the right, left or centre of Labour

I don't think I have seen many MN Labour supporters not be critical of Starmer, despite the assertions of them being "fan girls" etc.

I do expect that to change once Burnham is leader, though. Scales will fall from MN Labour eyes and he will be recognised as the One True and Great Helmsman

That, as usual, is fairly insulting and belongs in the bin along with "fan girls" etc. Many don't like what he has done. He may not win Makerfield. If he does, maybe he will become PM and turn things around for Labour. Who knows. I would welcome that, but still won't mean I like him much or see him as the Messiah. I think many on MN feel the same.

Even Labour supporters can take a bit of gentle teasing, surely?

Yes they have:

Stricter PIP Eligibility: The government has raised the threshold to qualify for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and increased the frequency of assessments.
(Anecdotally, a friends adult child has recently had his PIP stopped, he got it to enable him to pay for bus fares to go to work, i'll be honest, i never figured out why?)

Cuts to Universal Credit Sickness Elements: The health-related top-ups for new Universal Credit claimants have been reduced, with payments for existing claimants frozen.
New "Severe Conditions Criteria": While created to protect those with the most severe conditions from repeated assessments, critics argue these rules leave many seriously ill claimants struggling with reduced payments compared to previous years.
Focus on Work: Ministers have shifted policy toward the "dignity of work," with a strong focus on pushing young people and those with mild to moderate mental health conditions off welfare and into employment.

Just because Blair doesn't realise, doesn't make it not true.

Come now, Denizen. At least be honest and own your insults instead of minimising them.

The reality is that Starmer is constrained in what he can achieve:

1. He can't increase debt further
2. He can't increase taxation without slowing the economy and
3. He can't cut Government spending because the Labour backbenchers will rebel and they will lose votes to the Greens.

So that leaves tinkering around the edges, increasing taxation a bit, cutting spending a bit less. But none of this is enough to satisfy many voters who (unrealistically) expected massive change from the Labour government.

None of the Labour voters I know want a change in Labour leadership. And if Andy Burnham does become PM then I see two outcomes either
a) "Starmer option" he also realises he is similarly constrained and basically carries on in the same manner as Keir Starmer or
b) "Liz Truss option" - where he ignores the economic rule book, increases debt and increases taxation significantly. Both of will blow the economy up.

I don’t think it was an insult.