The Instigator
Atheistvoice
Pro (for)
The Contender
Chetork
Con (against)

Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Chetork has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 104285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Atheistvoice

Pro

In the first round I would like CON to set out the case for why Tony Blair was not a good Prime Minister.
Chetork

Con

i accept the challenge
Debate Round No. 1
Atheistvoice

Pro

The original terms of the debate asked CON to set out why Tony Blair was not a good Prime Minister. However I am perfectly happy to kick this one off.

I would like to start my argument by saying that I am not arguing Blair was the best Prime Minister Britain has ever had, but that he was a good Prime Minister.

During his ten years in office Blair achieved many things. He got unemployment down from about 8% to 5%. He took child poverty down from about 27% to 17% meaning he took over a 600,000 children out of poverty. He did something very similar with Pensioner Poverty reducing it by over a million. Overall poverty also reduced during this time. He was also incidentally the first Prime Minister since Jim Callaghan who avoided a recession while in office and brought about the lowest period of sustained low inflation since the 60's.

In public services he invested record figures into the public services. He hired over 14,000 more police officers, 85,000 more Nurses, 32,000 more Doctors and 36,000 more teachers. He got heart disease deaths down by 150,000, Cancer deaths down by 50,000 and he cut crime by 32%. In school we saw record levels of literacy and numeracy. He build 2,200 sure start centres.

He introduced the minimum wage and then raised it to "5.52, something Britain had needed for a long time and this contributed to the steady rise in wages seen in Tony Blair's premiership. He legalised same-sex relationships and civil unions.

In terms of issues like Iraq I am sure we will come to those later in the debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org......
sorry i cant insert one of my sources but just type into google 50 best achievements of Tony Blair and its the word press article.

I now await my opponents response.
Chetork

Con

Let me start off by apologizing for not posting my argument on the first round, I'd been having some technical difficulties on the website and was simply testing to see if I could even post, which I couldn't.

So thank you for beginning the debate and giving me a chance to respond to your debate.

Let me clarify before I state my side of the debate that I do not think that Tony Blair is the worst Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain, but I am only debating him as being a bad prime minister overall.

Firstly, I would like to point out that Tony Blair was deeply inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx and although he may not have gone out of his way to let the people know his views on Marxism they were quite positive in shaping Great Britain and his administration. Karl Marx created one of the worst forms of government the world had ever seen, Marxism inspired leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, and Ho Chi Minh.

Now to be clear I am not arguing every socialist believes in mass murder or cleansing, but the ideals of socialism is that one must choke out the opposition if socialism is to survive. Stalin and other leaders did this in the way of mass murder and secret police. Tony Blair went about the work of defeating his opposition by creating a new world in which the old must adapt or leave. His administration focused heavily on the importance of the young people in Great Britain and their so called superiority in intelligence, while constantly belittling elders in Great Britain as those who clung to the past and were against the progression of society.

One could contrast his actions to modern day Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in their focusing of the young adults as royalty over the so called bigoted and deplorable elders.

That would be my argument for the reasoning behind his public statements.

Next I would like to focus on Brexit and why Tony Blair was one of the reasons Brexit happened in the first place. Great Britain had long been a precarious member sitting on the edge of the European Union. They had paid much into the system, but gotten little out of it for their efforts. Instead of staying in a more autonomous place inside the Union Tony Blair took major steps to force Britain closer to the European Union, this would require Britain to take a more active role then before inside the union to the disdain of many of the United Kingdom's citizens. It is my belief that had Britain had a more autonomous role within the European Union, Brexit would never have succeeded. I won't argue about the European Union here as the object of the debate focused on Tony Blair, but clearly if he intended for the European Union to be good for the U.K. his actions eventually caused its withdrawal signaling another disaster of his administration.

Lastly, the war on terror which would be the crux of the failure in his administration in which he played an active advocating for military involvement in the war. Now looking back we find out that this was one of the major reasons why many in the labour party pressured or even forced him to resign.

I believe I agree with my opponent that Tony Blair had a good mind for legislation and how to pass bills through his administration, but personally I think he lacked military experience to make the right decisions during many wars especially that of the War on Terror

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
remarks on marxism

http://www.legislation.gov.uk...
Acts on European Union Integration

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
ideas on military intervention
Debate Round No. 2
Atheistvoice

Pro

My opponent makes the point that Tony Blair was deeply inspired by Marxist's. I don't know exactly to what extent this is correct but it doesn't really matter because we are not debating whether the inner values of Tony Blair are good or bad. What we are debating was whether Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister. For this argument to be valid he would need to link it to decisions based on Marxism that Tony Blair took during his time as Prime Minister that backfired. Simply stating that the likes of Stalin were not good leaders is beside the point.

My opponent also says Blair focused on and I quote, "the importance of the young people in Great Britain and their so called superiority in intelligence, while constantly belittling elders in Great Britain as those who clung to the past." Once again this is not a proper argument because my opponent does not give any evidence as to this actually happening.

"It is my belief that had Britain had a more autonomous role within the European Union, Brexit would never have succeeded".
Not that I wish to come across as pedantic but once again it is difficult to rebuke my opponents claim because he offers no evidence to back up these claims. In terms of his source as far as I could find I could not see any European Legislation. If he wouldn't mind sending me some links to specific articles its just I don't have time to work my way through hundreds of complex pieces of legislation.

I agree that the Iraq war was a major mistake but I am arguing that he was good Prime Minister. He did make mistakes and the Iraq War was the biggest of these mistakes. I would say however that he did have some very successful foreign interventions including in Kosovo in 1999 where he managed persuaded the US to join him in threatening a ground invasion. A move that would force the Serbian Dictator Milosevic to capitulate ending the threat of mass genocide.
https://www.youtube.com... - It is a BBC documentary. The clips that I am refering to start on 26:58 and end on 38:10.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Atheistvoice 9 months ago
Atheistvoice
I never said for CON to set out the case why he why he was a bad PM I asked him to set out the case why he was not a good PM which he failed to do.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 9 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
It's not up to CON to establish Tony Blair as a bad PM, but you to state why he was good given that is your claim. He could have been an okay but not a good PM, but yet you logically entail that CON must claim that he was bad.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.