Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
I disagree. There was plenty of positive change.We didn't see a great deal of change between those dates; well we did, but so much of it wasn't positive. There were often artificially inflated lists that did the rounds of twitter. In the form of a jpeg as an answer to people who questioned the achievements of their dear leader. It never included things like 'running a government surplus' (i.e. a public deficit) in the first term. which they did, on the strange notion of 'getting the finances in order'. (It takes an economic knowledge to know why this is a bizarre claim).
Or causing a massive spike in personal indebtedness through the 'fiscal responsibility rule' holding down public spending so that Blair/Brown could originally demonstrate to the EU that they had what it took to meet the neoliberal criteria to take Britain into the Euro. Quite a lot have forgotten about that. It never spoke much about Pfi and privatisations. Or the deranged policy of 'targets' with punitive results for not meeting them. Causing the spectacle of hospital trolleys redesignated as 'beds' by removing the wheels, to escape those punishments. Or schools being given 'targets' to meet, and instead of being given help and funding when they couldn't reach them, being penalised and funding withheld until they 'improved'. None of these made the list of the great leader's achievements.
There is stuff to point at though which was essentially good: the funding into the NHS. Though it was a knee-capping waiting to happen because their methodology was (in Tory-lite style) to say, our financial means are limited, therefore we must cut elsewhere to achieve it and also pretend that we 'borrow' our currency. And hopefully that we can join a currency we really do have to borrow, if Mr Brown's 'golden rule' dazzles them enough.
Then after entering a war and deciding to shift public spending (their limited public spending they said) to that, they left the domestic economy to ride on a personal debt bubble. And when it crashed for other - though similar -reasons, no-one was in a position to withstand it. Except the people Blair-Brown had further deregulated in 1997 in order to 'make the market work for everyone': stock market gamblers, city of London money launderers, private bank personnel who make 'financial instruments'...
You may recall that the Tory opposition of the time never really attacked the economic base of New Labour. How could they? It was frighteningly similar to their own. Usurped them. Destabilised their sense of conservative identity. So they just talked about 'spending', because of course the public seems to not want any spending, it just wants the effects of it: the NHS, good schools, good public services. Yet also wants 'rectitude' and strict control. (Side note never take advice on anything from 'the public').
I don't want any of that sort of 'change'. So I'll get to thinking what could be good and do another post.
You got two regulars so far.