The difference between Blair and Haigh . .

Haigh wouldn't recognise a principle if it hit him in the face . .

Blair recognises them . . . and ignores them in favour of advancing his own political career . .

The only sensible UK political comment I've heard recently was (sadly) from Tory Michael Anchram (?) when making his pitch for the leadership. He identified politics with public service; the idea that a career in politics should be driven by a desire to serve one's society.

Sadly he then negated this message by seeking to include the "Thatcher vision" in his appeal. For it was she who destroyed the whole idea of public service being a noble enterprise.

In any case, the Tory party won the election. There were suggestions that Blair might make a modest increase in taxation to invest in health (where our spending is lower than most EU nations); the Tories opposed this; labor policy becomes "no tax increases". The Tories make refugees an issue - Labour announces even more draconian anti-refugee measures (hell, it's our damn foreign policies - with the help of our USAian friends) which have created most of the current refugee crisis).

What matters is who controls the Government's policy making, not who sits where in the Palace of Westminster.

Blair claims to be a "Christian Socialst". Both those belief patterns (neither of which I claim adherence to) require hard decisions and a readiness to stand up for what is RIGHT . . I see absolutely no sign of that in Blair.

And Les in Hull - your anecdote is a nice tale, and fits Blair's "political will", but unfortunately it's also an Urban Legend . . .

Do I feel better for that rant? Sadly, no, 'cause it reminds me we're in for another five years of degradation of British society.

G.