[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
The Bank was chartered in the 1690s, so no, it’s not Blair’s invention. 
The Bank sets interest rates (since the Exchequer turned that over to them), issues banknotes, manages the Government’s accounts, monitors the financial situation in Britain and abroad, and, until recently, regulated the banking industry.
[/QUOTE]
So what did Blair change about all that?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
glee posted, “gave over control to the Bank of England to an independent body,” and you posted, “control over interest rates given to Bank of England,” which seem to be two different things.
What is the Bank of England, anyway? Does it control the money supply and prime interest rate, like our Federal Reserve? Is that an innovation of Blair’s? If so, who controlled those things before? And what is this “independent body” that now controls the bank, and who controlled it before?
[/QUOTE]
Understandably, you are misunderstanding.
glee appears to have made a typo. The Bank of England is our equivalent of your Federal Reserve. Until Blair, the main interest rate was set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) and was thus under political control - and frankly abused for electoral purposes. As soon as Blair was elected, control of interest rates
was passed to an independent committee chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England (a Greenspan equivalent). Their remit is to set interest rates in order to maintain the rate of inflation within a certain tolerance (I think this is currently 2.5% +/- a certain amount). The target inflation figure is set by the Government.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So what did Blair change about all that?
[/QUOTE]
Like Straun said, he turned control of the interest rate over to a Bank committee from the Treasury.
He’s not a patch on Thatcher, yet made the same mistakes - staying too long, selling influence (cash for questions vs cash for honours), not being willing to admit to mistakes (Poll Tax vs Iraq). Higher taxes. He’s maintained the prosperity engendered by the Tories. He’s made the Bank of England more independent. He’s started the reform of the House of Lords. But he hasn’t reformed society like Thatcher did by breaking the power of the unions, and he hasn’t defended democracy like Thatcher did by retaking the Falklands. Even John Major had more sense than to stay in Iraq. He blundered with the Human Rights Act. He’s started the break-up of the United Kingdom. He’s anti-English. Local parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland but not England. Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on English matters but not vice versa.
History will not be kind to him, but he will have a place.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Blair: Great PM, or the Greatest PM?
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Great? GREATEST? How does that word even enter into the discussion without a negative modifier? He was okay. Britain’s done worse, even just in my lifetime. But greatest? Compared with Churchill? Disraeli? Gladstone? Let’s leave it the The Simpsons to decide:
Barney: And I say, England’s greatest Prime Minister was Lord Palmerston!
Wade Boggs: Pitt the Elder!!
Barney: Lord Palmerston!!!
Wade Boggs: Pitt the Elder!!! [pokes Barney]
Barney: Okay, you asked for it, bud! [punches him out]
Moe: Yeah, that’s showing him, Barney! [scoffing] Pitt the Elder…
Barney: Lord Palmerston!!! [punches Moe]
I believe that’s conclusive.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
He’s maintained the prosperity engendered by the Tories.
[/quote]
Was it engendered by the Tories?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
But he hasn’t reformed society like Thatcher did by breaking the power of the unions . . .
[/quote]
:dubious: How is that reforming society?!!
[QUOTE=Quartz]
. . . and he hasn’t defended democracy like Thatcher did by retaking the Falklands.
[/quote]
The situation never came up on his watch. He did fight the war he had – are you suggesting he should have fought a different one?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
He blundered with the Human Rights Act.
[/quote]
How so?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
He’s started the break-up of the United Kingdom. He’s anti-English. Local parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland but not England. Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on English matters but not vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
I though regional assemblies in England, one for each of the nine regions, were supposed to be the next step. (One English assembly would make no sense because England overwhelms the others in size and an English assembly would practically eclipse the Westminster Parliament.)
Another thread that may be of interest: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8563882#post8563882
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Was it engendered by the Tories?
[/quote]
Yes - also by world events - but a lot goes back to leaving the ERM
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: How is that reforming society?!!
[/quote]
If you had lived in Britain in the 1970s you would not ask that question
The unions were out of control
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The situation never came up on his watch. He did fight the war he had – are you suggesting he should have fought a different one?
[/quote]
The Falklands were a direct assault on us, Blair seemed keener on getting us involved ‘on moral grounds’ - sometimes rather dubious grounds.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How so?
[/quote]
We’ve been over ‘Human Rights’ before
I though regional assemblies in England, one for each of the nine regions, were supposed to be the next step. (One English assembly would make no sense because England overwhelms the others in size and an English assembly would practically eclipse the Westminster Parliament.)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Huh? Great? GREATEST? How does that word even enter into the discussion without a negative modifier? He was okay. Britain’s done worse, even just in my lifetime. But greatest? Compared with Churchill? Disraeli? Gladstone?
[/QUOTE]
Tongue in cheek, actually, so don’t worry! I think it’s originally from the Colbert Report (Bush: Great President, or the Greatest President?). I don’t actually think these are the only two optionts for Blair. 
Did the Downing Street memos get much play in England.?