User blog comment:Centrist16/SOMETHING EVERYONE MUST KNOW/@comment-3398633-20150809140026/@comment-3993996-20150809215541

Viva, you misunderstand the way the UK government worked. Labour did not have a strong say since they lost the 2010 election - the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives managed a strong coalition (partly because they most of the time voted on Tory policy). The Conservative Party had the most seats in parliament from 2010 onwards - at the time of the 2015 election, the Tories had 302 seats, Labour 256, and the Liberal Democrats 56. To say Labour had a strong hand in government following the 2010 elections is a lie - if in a bill all Labour MP's voted "no" and all Tory MP's voted "yes" the Tories would get more votes. The Lib Dems had the ability to influence a vote like that (if all Lib Dem MP's voted "no" the bill would not pass) but the Lib Dems aren't Labour. The only decision that Labour really influenced was whether Britain should enter into Syria, which was unpopular amongst the British public.

The Labour party of Tony Blair did screw up the economy. However, if you knew Tony Blair, you would know his policy was to borrow money and spend it on public services. He did not advocate for renationalisation of businesses (as is proposed by more left wing members of the party) nor did he raise taxes (he actually decreased them). He also helped deregulate the banking sector. Whether you agree with socialism or not, Blairs record on the economy can be seen more as "Thatcher with a welfare state" rather then "Callaghan mrk.II" as stated by the right wing. Some parts of the economy that were screwed after the crash (such as the housing crisis) have roots in Thatchers policies. Any politician today in Britain (and I have met a few of them, Tory and Labour) will agree Thatcher's policies still are the basis of the economy (the difference is whether they agree with them or not).

I also do not see why you are bringing social policy on immigration into an economic argument. One can theoretically be a socialist and against "left wing" social policy. If we are playing that game though, why on earth would Tony Blair, who according to you led a "socialist" government, bring the UK into the Iraq War, which is unpopular amongst the American left wing, let alone the British one.

"universial healthcare and education isn't a purely socialist ideology, as every major political ideology has supported the same thing."

Several ideologies oppose that idea. Some libertarians have argued against universal education and healthcare. Conservatives in the United States have opposed universal healthcare and both conservatives in the USA and the UK have opposed free education at a university level. Some anarchists oppose education that is sponsored by the state.

Greece in all fairness by % has always lower welfare spending then other European countries such as France, Finland, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Germany, and Sweden. The Greece recession could have been greatly exacerbated if it left the Eurozone, as it never had a strong enough economy to be tied to the Euro. If Greece had never entered the Eurozone then the crisis could have been lessened or even finished much earlier - however the policy of lying about their economy has been a bipartisan policy.