Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Blair's legacy

Electorally Labour's most successful ever leader. If you can ignore the left bleating about the fact that he recognised that Labour has to get elected to implement a minimum wage, triple spending on education, and re-establish the nhs as a centre of excellence. And most people can ignore the left on that.
Tell me something: are you working for the Office of Tony Blair? They must be paying you pretty good money to keep producing this dreck ad infinitum et ad nauseum.
 
He taught people that you can pretend to be a Labour politician while amassing vast amounts of personal wealth. He taught young kids that his little dalliance with Oasis and pop celebrity was all about exploitation. He was singly responsible for more people studying the philosophy of cynicism than at any other time in history. He taught how to kill with impunity.

The sooner the fucker crawls away and dies of some really painful disease the happier I and many more shall be.
 
Simply stating that three time as much money was spent on education is a meaningless without an examination of precisely what that money was actually spent on.

Meaningless apart from the part that says 'three times as much was spent on education', which is true.
 
Meaningless apart from the part that says 'three times as much was spent on education', which is true.

It may be true, but what does it actually mean in terms of improving education? If the extra money was spent on gold-plated toilet seats for the headteachers, then you can hardly say that represents a step forward in teaching quality. That's why without looking at exactly where the money goes the statement is meaningless.
 
It may be true, but what does it actually mean in terms of improving education? If the extra money was spent on gold-plated toilet seats for the headteachers, then you can hardly say that represents a step forward in teaching quality. That's why without looking at exactly where the money goes the statement is meaningless.

This is what the Tories say, while saying they can make education, transport and health better while cutting funding because it's what it's spent on that is important.

The far left want to claim it's all about money, but then when someone they don't like provides money, it's not about money any more.

I made no claim apart from education spending had tripled, and it had. It was a brief aside in a thread that I intended to be about Broken Vows- itself a book I find astonishing even as someone who admired what Blair did.
 
This is what the Tories say, while saying they can make education, transport and health better while cutting funding because it's what it's spent on that is important.

The far left want to claim it's all about money, but then when someone they don't like provides money, it's not about money any more.

I made no claim apart from education spending had tripled, and it had. It was a brief aside in a thread that I intended to be about Broken Vows- itself a book I find astonishing even as someone who admired what Blair did.

Nobody mentioned anything about cutting education funding apart from you just now. The "far left", unlike you, realise that it's not just about money, but where that money goes that is also important.

That's at least two posts now in which you've failed to acknowledge that. Why?
 
Because it's largely an irrelevant point. You're arguing with something I posted that is a fact.

It's not irrelevant. It's entirely possible to increase spending on something without actually improving it. Unless you can show how the increased spending genuinely improved things, wittering on about tripling of spending is meaningless.
 
It's not irrelevant. It's entirely possible to increase spending on something without actually improving it. Unless you can show how the increased spending genuinely improved things, wittering on about tripling of spending is meaningless.
I've already agreed it's meaningless, apart from the part about it being a tripling of spending on education.
It's fine. I think that's a good thing. You would prefer education spending to remain where it was.
 
I've already agreed it's meaningless, apart from the part about it being a tripling of spending on education.
It's fine. I think that's a good thing.

If it's meaningless, why bring it up? How can it be a good thing in of itself?

You would prefer education spending to remain where it was.

Where did I say that? Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, you fucking cunt.
 
I've already agreed it's meaningless, apart from the part about it being a tripling of spending on education.
It's fine. I think that's a good thing. You would prefer education spending to remain where it was.
I would have preferred education spending to go where it originally did go than to private investment companies.

You can spend three times as much on many consumer items without getting triple the value for money.
 
I would have preferred education spending to go where it originally did go than to private investment companies.

You can spend three times as much on many consumer items without getting triple the value for money.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I don't know all the details. I still think it's a good thing that spending increased.
 
You've got no place blithering about standards of debate when you deliberately excise the rest of my post so you can whine instead of addressing my points.
Do you have many people continue to debate with you when you call them a 'fucking cunt'?
Didn't think so. Ignore you go.
 
Pleasant way to avoid debate.
Fat chance of talking about a book that actually criticises Tony Blair more effectively than anything else I've read.
 
A large part of blairs legacy was to pave the way for the present destruction of the welfare state, the eradication of council housing and the steady degrading of the state pension.
 
it was his lot that brought in esa which was set up to get 1000000 people off the sick iirc.

they also brought the term hard working families into being
 
Back
Top Bottom