My assertion was that not everything Blair did was wrong. You posted a link saying this article disagrees, but the article literally starts with saying not everything Blair did was wrong.
And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:
In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.
You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn’t read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.
I did, I just wish a hadn’t. I’ve read my fair share of this type of moral absolutist drivel in my time but I went through this one anyway despite the conclusion being clear from the get go.
What are you talking about? If he’s reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he’s a slightly less blue than Tories. That’s a fact. Labour party should support workers, he’s supporting Blairism.
Maybe read the whole article.
My assertion was that not everything Blair did was wrong. You posted a link saying this article disagrees, but the article literally starts with saying not everything Blair did was wrong.
And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:
In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.
You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn’t read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.
I did, I just wish a hadn’t. I’ve read my fair share of this type of moral absolutist drivel in my time but I went through this one anyway despite the conclusion being clear from the get go.
What are you talking about? If he’s reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he’s a slightly less blue than Tories. That’s a fact. Labour party should support workers, he’s supporting Blairism.