Bliar 209: The Rise & Fall of Tony Blair

Source:The New Democrat

The rise of Tony Blair I at least believe has to do with how he reformed the British Labour Party as Leader of the Opposition in the 1990s before becoming Prime Minister. When the Labour Party lost power in 1979 to the Conservative Party, the British economy was in bad shape. Because it was over-centralized, the economy was over-centralized and was too socialist with the U.K. Government owning so much of the economy and trying to run British industries themselves. The U.K. Government by 1979 owned something like seventy-percent of the economy.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 and the Labour Party which was New Labour took over they didn’t move to renationalize industries and perhaps nationalize British industries that weren’t under government control and ownership before. They didn’t reform the British welfare state by saying that people who were physically and mentally able to take care of themselves and work, no longer had to do that if they even if they were uneducated. He kept in place a lot of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s economic polices in place instead. And perhaps offended a lot of people in party who were much further to the left of him by doing that.

New Labour is Tony Blair and Tony Blair’s creation. They were out of power for eighteen-years from 79-97 because the British people remembered the state of the economy when Labour left power in 1979. And they also remember how the British economy finally took off and became the economic power that it is today in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And didn’t want to put Socialists in power that try to take the country back to where it was in the late 1970s. So Tony Blair’s challenge when he became Leader of the Labour Party in 1994 was to change the perception of the Labour Party. So it was no longer seen as Marxist, so socialist and central government oriented.

Tony Blair is a student of Bill Clinton and the New Democrats in America. Someone who didn’t want to transform his party into a conservative party. But someone who wanted his party to be a center-left party and not a far-left party. Someone who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take control over their own lives and live in freedom. And not have to live off the welfare state or be forced to live off of the welfare state indefinitely. Blair wanted his party to be seen as a party that would defend the country and protect everyone’s freedom. And was very successful in doing that.

Lib Dem Voice: Barry Holliday- 'Electoral Reform, How To'

Source:Lib Dem Voice- the U.K. Parliament, in London, England.

"We all know that electoral reform to both houses is important to us a party, quite rightly so. The current system is appalling, First Past The Post for the Commons does not bring fair votes for the electorate and at best only around 40% of voters voted for any government of the day (meaning of course 60% didn’t). The House of Lords is even worse, un-democratic and reeking of an old boys’ network." 

From Lib Dem Voice

Things are already changing very fast in the United Kingdom thanks to the Scottish independence referendum in September, devolution and federalism is coming to Britain perhaps as early as next year. At least an agreement on what a federalist United Kingdom would look like. With the unitarian socialist state in Britain collapsing, with more power headed to the states (as Americans would call it) and the people of Britain over their own domestic affairs.

But devolution and federalism I believe will only work as an American outsider looking in on Britain, if they reform their Parliament as well. Because at the end of the day, for England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland to be able to function properly in the United Kingdom, they will need to be well represented in Parliament in London with a functioning bicameral Parliament so not all over the power and resources are not so centralized in London with the national or federal government and in England.

For a bicameral Parliament to work in Britain the House of Lords (or whatever they may call it) in the future (perhaps the U.K. Council or Lordship, perhaps even Senate) needs to function like the upper chamber of Parliament that it is supposed to be. Where they actually have a say in what laws are passed in Parliament and not just be a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. Where they can conduct real oversight of the U.K. Government and have at least the same power and authority as the House of Commons. And where members of this body can be part of Prime Ministers Questions.

The way I would reform the U.K. Parliament is similar to how the U.S. Congress looks. The lower chamber the House of Representatives where Representatives represent districts inside of states. And where the upper chamber the Senators represent the whole state in America. 

But since Britain is a lot smaller physically and in population to America, where they would represent districts as well inside of a state. But with each state lets say in the U.K. Senate getting an equal amount of Senators. But in the House the Commons would be proportioned based on population.

England would still have more Commons than anyone else because they are by far the biggest state in the United Kingdom. But this would be a real bicameral parliament and the Lordship or Council or even Senate, each state would be represented equally. So England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would all have the representation in parliament needed to bring back the resources that their districts and states need from London to be able to function properly.

TIME: Catherine Meyer: Scotland's Vote Signals Big Change For the U.K.

TIME: Report: Catherine Meyer: Scotland's Vote Signals Big Change For the U.K.

Big change coming for Scotland and the broader United Kingdom indeed. And what is big change in Britain looks very mainstream in America. Just part of the political differences between the two country. The center-left in America looks like the center-right in Britain. And the far-left in America looks like the center-left in Britain. Just to give you an example, Britain is a hell of a lot more socialist than America as far as how the country operates and governs and the people in the country.

But what is big change or I would even call it radical change in Britain? Britain looks like it is headed to becoming a Federalist Union. Nothing new to America which is a Federal Republic. But you need to know that right now the United Kingdom has a unitary government centralized in London. Which is the complete opposite of federalism, which would be unitarianism. Yes Britain has what is called in America states. But they call them nations being England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland. The difference being their states and localities have their little say in how they govern themselves.

Where as in America everything that is not related foreign policy, national security and the currency, is essentially left for the states. Where they at least have the major role in how those issues are handled in their states though their governments. With the Federal Government in America dealing with interstate issues. Like criminals committing crimes in different states and interstate commerce, issues like that. To go along with foreign, policy, national security, terrorism and the currency.

So the big change that is coming to Britain, is that they will be moving from a very socialist big government unitarian centralized form of government in London, England, to a more decentralized spread out form of government. Where domestic power would be passed down to the state capitals and the people there and perhaps more power for the localities as well. A more liberal democratic power to the people form of government coming to Britain. At least how it looks now.

STV News: Scotland Tonight- Dona Dougall Interviewing Laurie Clark & Peter Hughes: How Would Independence Affect the Prospects of Business

Source: STV News-

Source:FRS FreeState

Perhaps the future of the United Kingdom should be a federalist one where the states or republics in Britain. England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would be able to handle their own domestic affairs. Have their own state or provincial governments and handle their own education, law enforcement, regulatory system, social welfare systems. The things that the states in America do or provinces in other developed democracies do. 

But where the national government in London handles the things that only national governments should be doing. Like the currency, foreign affairs, national security etc. Where the English, Scotts, Welch and Irish feel closer to the U.K. and feel British because they have a large say in what happens in their daily lives in the places that they live. With a federalist system it wouldn't be top down with big government thinking it knows best for everyone. 

Instead the states and localities would be able to handle the issues that they see and are on top of live with everyday. With the national government handling the things that countries need to have done at the national level. Like interstate commerce, interstate crime, foreign policy, the national economy, taxation, but where the states and localities could have their own tax revenue to pay for the operations of their own governments.
STV News: Scotland Tonight- How Independence Would Affect Scottish Business?

Channel 4 News: 50p Tax Rate, Do Britons Think it Will Make a Difference?

I guess New Labour is going back to being Old Labour and talking about fifty percent tax rates. If you think taxes are too high in America whatever income level you are at, try living in Britain and you’ll think the taxes in America are almost nothing. Top tax rate in the United States currently is thirty-three percent. United Kingdom it is somewhere in the forties right now and then you add up all sorts of other taxes to pay for all the public social services in the country all run by the national government there and you could be paying as much seventy percent in taxes if not more. Even Britain which is one of the most socialist democracies in the world, puts limits on how much they want government, especially their national government doing for them and how much they’ll pay for it. As we’ve seen in the last four years of the David Cameron government there.

The Fiscal Times: Liz Peak- ‘Margaret Thatcher Was Right: A Dependent Society Will Fail’

Source:The Fiscal Times- Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom) and President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, United States) and that's all I know about this photo.

Source:The Daily Times 

“The Bitch is Dead,” read the banner paraded through the streets of London yesterday – proof that hatred of Margaret Thatcher lives on, even in death. Of all the extraordinary accomplishments of Britain’s only female prime minister, surely her outsized and continuing impact on the nation’s psyche is one of the most remarkable. Hardly a contemporary British story is written or West End play produced – witness Billy Elliott or even the comic One Man, Two Guvnors – that doesn’t slam the former leader. “Thatcherism” in some quarters is as loathed as “McCarthyism” in the U.S. ”

From The Fiscal Times 

The biggest thing that Margaret Thatcher did to the United Kingdom and her biggest legacy in a positive sense, is that she moved a socialist state both politically and economically and from a country where the government was expected to take care of everyone and meet its basic needs and even run a lot of its companies and industries for them, to a country where people were expected to take care of themselves.

Call it Welfare Reform of the 1980s (UK style) where people who are physically and mentally able, but were collecting public assistance (as Americans call it) to financially support themselves and weren’t working at all, now were expected and required to work. And at least working for welfare benefits that they were receiving.

Britain became a country where people learned how to take care of themselves and how to meet their basic needs. Where everyone had access to a quality education so they would have the skills that they would need so they could take care of themselves. And not have to need public assistance just in order to survive and pay their bills.

Prime Minister Thatcher transformed a dependent society (in Britain) with a welfare state that’s there to take care of everyone, to a British Opportunity Society and Free Society (in their terms) where Brits were expected to finish school and get a good job. So they could support themselves and their families. And not just live off of the welfare state simply, because they lost their job, or lacked the skills to get themselves a good job.

Margaret Thatcher wanted to create a freer society where the people would have the freedom to take care of themselves, because they would have the opportunity to get themselves the skills in order to do so. And have a good job that allows for them to be able to pay their own bills and not be so dependent on government to take care of them.

British Socialists who were in power before in Britain under the Socialist State of the Labour Party, people weren’t expected to work and too many cases even run businesses and create business’s. Because the national government ran so much of the British economy. And people who were unemployed, or perhaps didn’t have any real work experience weren’t expected to do much if anything for themselves. Because the welfare state would take care of them. That’s the difference between Thatcher Conservatives and Socialists.