by An American in London
Thu May 10th, 2007 at 01:29:56 PM EST
Blair like all politicians is a sociopath. The difference with Blair is he is extremely religious which makes him a dangerous politician. He is also one of the greatest communicators of the modern age.
The only question regarding Iraq is whether Blair actually believed his own rhetoric or was aware he was a mouthpiece for multinational oil and the military industrial complex.
The Faustian bargain Blair made prior to his first election was to make the Bank of England 'independent'. Meaning the same bank governors who had been protecting the interests of the top 5% of the UK population would continue since had Blair not made the bank independent; it would have meant Blair and Labour could have appointed the majority of governors and would then have had the ability to influence monetary policy for the benefit of the vast majority of voters who ended up electing Blair and Labour.
Murdoch through his papers, The Sun and The Times showed their appreciation for Blair's decision to make the Bank of England independent by endorsing Blair and Labour. The reason the 'elites' needed to make the deal with Blair was because they knew they could do business with him. He wasnt a real Labour person, having been raised in a Tory conservative household. The elites who run the UK also knew if they didn't make the deal; it was likely Blair and Labour would have a substantial majority after the 97 election and could do what they wanted to. Blair and Labour,having been out of power for 15 years, were desperate enough to make the deal, giving up what would have been a revolution because of Blair's 160 vote majority in the House of Commons. A real tragedy since although additional financing was provided for the NHS and Education; it isn't nearly enough to rectify the starvation of public services under Thatcher so today the NHS still has 50% less financing per capita than the Scandinavian countries healthcare systems which Blair and Labour are so envious of.
By making the Bank of England independent; it meant Blair and Labour couldn't finance the majority of the desperately needed funds for the NHS and Education through Bank of England bonds or debt but Blair, Gordon Brown,Labour and the City came up with private financing initiatives(PFI) to finance part of the desperately needed money for the NHS and Education. Unfortunately private financing wasted at least 30-40% of the financing on consultants, fees and the necessary profit margins for the private financing initiatives.
The major question is whether Blair believed in the mantra of private/public partnerships and drank the 'kool aid' or did know he was making a Faustian bargain to be elected and realized getting the financing through PFI was better than getting no financing at all.
Blair and Labour's government will go down in history as a real tragedy because of the potential opportunites not realized due to the compromises which were not necessary to get back into the majority and government. The partially financed NHS and state education aren't enough to negate the continuing criticism of those services and very possibly will allow the Tories to win the next election. The Private Financing Initiatives will continue under Brown but will hardly be effective enough to eliminate the shortfall from the Thatcher years. What the commentators and MP's never state is not only does the financing have to be enough to increase the current per capita spend to the same levels as the Scandinavian countries with good outcomes but the financing has tobe enough to make up for years and years of the shortfall under Thatcher in both the services and infrastructure of the public services. Why the French, both Sarkozy and Royal, would be envious of either the UK or Tony Blair is beyond reason.
