The "Blair Legacy", in terms of economics, should really be the "Thatcher Legacy".
Blair and Brown saw that the mood of the country had changed and that voters saw the traditional Labour model as out of date and inapplicable, hence they switched to "whatever works" to lose the old tax-and-spend image.
Tax had become a dirty word and remains so.
However, without taxation, provision of services has to be cut, dropped or privatised.
Unfortunately, the "Me" mentality still prevails and too many are of the the "Why should I" persuasion to get a consensus of joint responsibility.
Even economies that were functioning social democratic models were seduced by Thatcherite ideals and are now seeing widening inequality and increasing poverty.

We must not forget where most of the debt came from, i.e. largely unfettered banking spivvery.
So far, I've heard a lot of rhetoric but seen no action from the coalition about this (and about tax avoidance), instead they are taking a wrecking ball to the remaining skeleton of collective provision.

What is government for?
Is it to ensure the benefit of the whole nation or is its purpose to subjugate the nation as a cash-cow for the few?

Back on topic, to describe the current state of the House of Lords as the "Blair Legacy" is utterly vacuous.
At least Blair made a start, but the coalition have since simply stuffed the place with more unelected yes-men than ever before.

Apparently, Thatcher once responded, when asked what her greatest achievement was, with: "Tony Blair".

I'm sure I noticed somewhere that Cameron created more lords in his first year in office than any other PM in memory.

Yes, 117.
Great isn't it, that without a majority from an election you can just shape the upper house how you wish?
Isn't democracy wonderful?

Lovely.

We could start with making them clock on and off, both in Parliament and their constituencies

Of course they would. It encourages you to spend in their shop and pay HIGH finance charges to them too if you're slow at paying. They particularly liked those with "sucker" written on their forehead.

Yes.

The point is that it was a culture change. And that the era of cheap credit did not start post 1997.

Thought you and others on here were all for changing traditional British culture!

Nope.
Absorbing bits of others, as has "traditionally" been the case, will continue rather than freezing at some fondly-imagined truly British point.