Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: L.A. on August 14, 2015, 07:31:09 AM
-
While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable.
Following the defeat in 1979 the Labour party was a shables and when they elected Michael Foot it just became a national joke. The Tories loved Michael because they realised that he posed no threat to them whatsoever - and the Welch Windbag wasn't much better.
So I'd like to pose this question:
What would have become of Labour if they hadn't elected Blair in 1994?
What might the 'alternative history' have looked like?
-
I suppose that I really ought to give my own version:
Assuming that Blair lost to Prescott (who actually came second) – then New Labour wouldn't have happened. Presumably there would have been some reforms but Clause 4 would have remained. In my opinion such a party could not have won the 1997 election. The centre vote that swung it for Blair in the real election would probably have gone in part to the Lib/Dems possibly giving them the balance of power. I suspect that they may have entered a Lib/Lab pact which would not have been very successful and not lasted the full term. The next election would have seen a massive swing back to the Conservatives.
-
While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable
As I said yesterday, just look how well that turned out.
-
While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable
As I said yesterday, just look how well that turned out.
You seem to be saying that it would be better if Labour was permanently Unelectable?
-
Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.
-
Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.
You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?
-
Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.
You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?
Not given our bizarre voting system, no. (See trentvoyager's current signature for an illustration of what I mean).
-
Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.
You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?
Not given our bizarre voting system, no. (See trentvoyager's current signature for an illustration of what I mean).
Sorry, but we live in a world where voting system is as it is - the public even voted not to change it. And by and large it doesn't disadvantage the Labour Party.
-
If it hadn't been for the Granita Pact, Gordon Brown might have stood instead of, or as well as Blair.
-
Well I would be overcome with nausea every time I see the word 'Blair' for starters. I'm not sure we've ever had a more arrogant, self-serving PM.
-
Well I would be overcome with nausea every time I see the word 'Blair' for starters. I'm not sure we've ever had a more arrogant, self-serving PM.
While I can sympathise with those emotions, it's his impact on the party I'm more interested in. It is undeniable that he transformed Labour and it started winning elections. Most people would regard that as a step in the right direction.
-
Slight detour; should he and Bush be being tried as war criminals, as I believe Corbyn has suggested? I think the claim that they made their decisions on 'the best information they had' is a bit of a weak reason, especially as the UN Weapn monitors were regularly reporting back information that contradicted this 'best information'.
-
There are rumours that one reason Blair fears a Corbyn victory, is that there would be renewed pressure for a prosecution of Blair. I am skeptical about this actually, but I suppose it's one of those rumours which feeds itself, I mean, people start to believe it. But the Blairites would resist it fiercely.
-
If it hadn't been for the Granita Pact, Gordon Brown might have stood instead of, or as well as Blair.
That is an interesting scenario. Blair was the 'salesman', he could present himself better than Gordon so it would have been difficult for Gordon to win in a head-to-head, but with the union block behind him Gordon might have done it I suppose.
He would never have got the party reforms that Blair got so Labour would have been less electable. There certainly wouldn't have been the 97 landslide, a tiny majority at best. What is worse he would have been under tremendous pressure to repeal the labour laws - and I'm sure we can all remember how Gordon coped with pressure! So I think it would have been a very troubled term and would not have ended well for Labour.
-
Labour would have retained more credibility had it not been for Blair. As it is I think it lost a great deal of the reputation it had for honesty and principle prior to the expenses scandal.
-
Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow. It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet! The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on. It just has to work it way through, I suppose. You can't do it according to a recipe.
-
It might have helped if he'd gone off to watch cricket and nod off in the HofL like Major. Instead his constant 'peace envoy' stuff (just the man for the job, obviously :o) coupled with his paid 'advisory roles' to various dubious states keep reminding us how far Labour fell from its ideals.
-
Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow. It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet! The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on. It just has to work it way through, I suppose. You can't do it according to a recipe.
I can totally understand the resentment and anger against the man - but not the rejection of the reforms that made Labour electable.
It's like saying: "This life jacket was manufactured by an evil capitalist so we prefer to drown"
-
It might have helped if he'd gone off to watch cricket and nod off in the HofL like Major. Instead his constant 'peace envoy' stuff (just the man for the job, obviously :o) coupled with his paid 'advisory roles' to various dubious states keep reminding us how far Labour fell from its ideals.
Well, he has to stay in the public gaze, kind of double strength narcissism. This gave him great charisma, of course, but then the disillusionment with that is often double strength, and leads to hatred of him.
I don't think he can stop, even though (right now), people are screaming, for God's sake, stop intervening in the leadership contest, as every time he does, Corbyn wins. Oh, the irony.
-
Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow. It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet! The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on. It just has to work it way through, I suppose. You can't do it according to a recipe.
I can totally understand the resentment and anger against the man - but not the rejection of the reforms that made Labour electable.
It's like saying: "This life jacket was manufactured by an evil capitalist so we prefer to drown"
Yeah, but the Blairites have the fantasy that you can repeat the recipe, and repeat 1997. You can't, no more than you repeat 1979 for the Tories. They're trying to fix history in a mechanical pattern, but it don't move like that.
-
I suppose that I really ought to give my own version:
Assuming that Blair lost to Prescott (who actually came second) – then New Labour wouldn't have happened. Presumably there would have been some reforms but Clause 4 would have remained. In my opinion such a party could not have won the 1997 election. The centre vote that swung it for Blair in the real election would probably have gone in part to the Lib/Dems possibly giving them the balance of power. I suspect that they may have entered a Lib/Lab pact which would not have been very successful and not lasted the full term. The next election would have seen a massive swing back to the Conservatives.
Revisionist view in parts even as alternative history.
You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.
-
Yeah, but the Blairites have the fantasy that you can repeat the recipe, and repeat 1997. You can't, no more than you repeat 1979 for the Tories. They're trying to fix history in a mechanical pattern, but it don't move like that.
I think to most people outside the party, it's not so much about "repeating the recipe" but more like "Not doing stupid things".
-
You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.
As I pointed out earlier, the fact that they were able to get away with that mistake is more a reflection on the ineffectiveness of the Labour opposition.
-
Labour would have retained more credibility had it not been for Blair. As it is I think it lost a great deal of the reputation it had for honesty and principle prior to the expenses scandal.
The real trouble for labour is that Gordon Brown would not have a snap election. Had he had done he could have kept out the tories till 2012 and got rid of Dave and Gideon. We may have had a conservative/liberal coalition with two more years to run by now or an Alan Johnson Labour government.
-
You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.
As I pointed out earlier, the fact that they were able to get away with that mistake is more a reflection on the ineffectiveness of the Labour opposition.
Er, Major and Lamont didn't get away with it though. Major elected 1992, almost immediate economic balls up and loss of reputation of the Conservative competence, lame duck prime minister 1995,out at election 1997.
-
Dear Gonnagle,
( A poster totally bewildered by Lapsed Atheists thinking )
Was Blair a successful Prime Minister, surely we should look back and wonder at his legacy, apart from a brief period of prosperity, nothing!!
His war legacy ( innocent until proven guilty ) he had the mindset of a tinpot President, oh look at me I am a world leader. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Remember ''Tony's cronies'' when Blair was accused of cronyism? The press seem to have ignored the presence of Dave's Dressing up club in Government in the UK.
-
While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable.
Following the defeat in 1979 the Labour party was a shables and when they elected Michael Foot it just became a national joke. The Tories loved Michael because they realised that he posed no threat to them whatsoever - and the Welch Windbag wasn't much better.
So I'd like to pose this question:
What would have become of Labour if they hadn't elected Blair in 1994?
What might the 'alternative history' have looked like?
Fortunately there is absolutely no way of knowing...
-
Nice work if you can get it. Helps if you are an ex-pm of Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11671685/tony-blair-business-broker-china-abu-dhabi.html
-
Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.
The argument in favour of the socialist one party state was that under socialism one had a choice between candidates who all offered everybody food, a home, and a job, whilst capitalism offered a choice between candidates who all promised to make things unequal.
-
Some savage cartoons this w/e about Blair. This is one of the tastiest.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/download/file.php?id=12671
-
Was Blair a successful Prime Minister, surely we should look back and wonder at his legacy, apart from a brief period of prosperity, nothing!!
Hi gonnagle,
the questions you ought to be asking are:
Was Foot a good PM ?
Was Kinnock a good PM ?
was Milliband a good PM ?
-
Was Blair a successful Prime Minister, surely we should look back and wonder at his legacy, apart from a brief period of prosperity, nothing!!
Hi gonnagle,
the questions you ought to be asking are:
Was Foot a good PM ?
Was Kinnock a good PM ?
was Milliband a good PM ?
Milliband, Kinnock and Foot were never PMs!
-
Was Blair a successful Prime Minister, surely we should look back and wonder at his legacy, apart from a brief period of prosperity, nothing!!
Hi gonnagle,
the questions you ought to be asking are:
Was Foot a good PM ?
Was Kinnock a good PM ?
was Milliband a good PM ?
Milliband, Kinnock and Foot were never PMs!
I think that is the point. Blair is the only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 40 years.
-
Was Blair a successful Prime Minister, surely we should look back and wonder at his legacy, apart from a brief period of prosperity, nothing!!
Hi gonnagle,
the questions you ought to be asking are:
Was Foot a good PM ?
Was Kinnock a good PM ?
was Milliband a good PM ?
Milliband, Kinnock and Foot were never PMs!
I think that is the point. Blair is the only Labour leader to win a general election in the last 40 years.
Thankyou jeremy, this seems to be a detail that the Corbynites always have difficulty with.
-
It's true that Blair won 3 elections, and started an illegal war, which led to the deaths of thousands of people, and the disintegration of Iraq, and subsequent spread of terrorism. Ah well, as Gordon Brown says, it's all been in the aid of international relations!
-
It's true that Blair won 3 elections, and started an illegal war, which led to the deaths of thousands of people, and the disintegration of Iraq, and subsequent spread of terrorism. Ah well, as Gordon Brown says, it's all been in the aid of international relations!
As I started off by saying wiggi, I'm not defending Blair : I'm just saying that he transformed Labour into a winning party and they might do well to remember that (and try not to screw things up)
-
It's true that Blair won 3 elections, and started an illegal war, which led to the deaths of thousands of people, and the disintegration of Iraq, and subsequent spread of terrorism. Ah well, as Gordon Brown says, it's all been in the aid of international relations!
In relation to the Iraq war, he was overtaken by circumstances. It was going to happen anyway and he made the judgement that it might go better if it was not an all American affair. It turned out to be a bad call for all sorts of reasons, but it is slightly unfair to claim Blair started it. GW Bush started it.
-
It's true that Blair won 3 elections, and started an illegal war, which led to the deaths of thousands of people, and the disintegration of Iraq, and subsequent spread of terrorism. Ah well, as Gordon Brown says, it's all been in the aid of international relations!
In relation to the Iraq war, he was overtaken by circumstances. It was going to happen anyway and he made the judgement that it might go better if it was not an all American affair. It turned out to be a bad call for all sorts of reasons, but it is slightly unfair to claim Blair started it. GW Bush started it.
I just think that neo-liberals like Blair will often resort to war. To say that Blair was 'overtaken' is being very kind to him - surely as a neo-lib, he was right beside Bush, to say nothing of his own messianic urge, which paradoxically has spread terrorism. He is a dangerous man.
-
To say that Blair was 'overtaken' is being very kind to him
No it isn't. It's exactly what happened.
surely as a neo-lib, he was right beside Bush
I can't deny that but I think it was much more calculated than "I'm a neo liberal, let's have a war".
to say nothing of his own messianic urge, which paradoxically has spread terrorism. He is a dangerous man.
What messianic urge is that?
-
It's true that Blair won 3 elections, and started an illegal war, which led to the deaths of thousands of people, and the disintegration of Iraq, and subsequent spread of terrorism. Ah well, as Gordon Brown says, it's all been in the aid of international relations!
In relation to the Iraq war, he was overtaken by circumstances. It was going to happen anyway and he made the judgement that it might go better if it was not an all American affair. It turned out to be a bad call for all sorts of reasons, but it is slightly unfair to claim Blair started it. GW Bush started it.
I just think that neo-liberals like Blair will often resort to war. To say that Blair was 'overtaken' is being very kind to him - surely as a neo-lib, he was right beside Bush, to say nothing of his own messianic urge, which paradoxically has spread terrorism. He is a dangerous man.
There doesn't appear to be any inherent reason why 'Neoliberalism' would equate to 'Warmonger'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
-
Well, there is a lot being written about this, but off topic really. Neo-liberalism craves resources and markets, for example, in Iraq the oil industry was a target, and other utilities were privatized, private military contractors were engaged (by the US, of course). Of course, it was a mad scheme, since it also involved the disintegration of the country, the spread of militias and terror groups, and eventually the spill-over into Syria and so on.
Neo-liberalism prizes the market above all other considerations, therefore tends towards anarchy, and anti-social tendencies. It tends to disintegrate, rather than integrate societies. However, another thread maybe.
-
Well, there is a lot being written about this, but off topic really. Neo-liberalism craves resources and markets, for example, in Iraq the oil industry was a target, and other utilities were privatized, private military contractors were engaged (by the US, of course). Of course, it was a mad scheme, since it also involved the disintegration of the country, the spread of militias and terror groups, and eventually the spill-over into Syria and so on.
Neo-liberalism prizes the market above all other considerations, therefore tends towards anarchy, and anti-social tendencies. It tends to disintegrate, rather than integrate societies. However, another thread maybe.
Personally I find that very tenuous, I think you can only conclude that people will use all kinds of 'dogma' to justify aggression. That has certainly been true of the Left.
-
Dear Lapsed,
His legacy, what did the Romans ever do for us, quite a bit actually, but can you point to a Blair legacy, a war maybe but little else.
I have been reading why the guy won his first election, one reason the Tories were useless, sleaze, and you had that charismatic figure Major.
Blair also used American style tactics, hey!! Maybe that's his legacy, find out all your opponents dirty little secrets and use them.
Whether you look at new labour or Tory, you have to ask what have they actually done for us, we don't own any of our national assets, water gone, power gone, transport gone, is the NHS next.
The Tories may pull us out of recession but it will come at a heavy price, the comfortably well off will be okay but the poor, well we will always have poor people, so that's okay. :(
Gonnagle.
-
Blaire and Bush are no war criminals. The UN has not declared the Iraq war to be illegal. It's charter allows it to do so. And no nation has asked for such a resolution.
Iraq had been in violation of 16 UN resolutions before your country invaded and Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, went to live in a hole in the ground.
https://culturalglimpse.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/saddam_1779370b.jpg
-
One further thing that struck me about neoliberalism, is that it will eventually lead to the break-up of the union. This seems odd, since after all, the EU is trying to bring countries together, yet the dominance of the market means that something like the UK is a pointless exercise, and the atomization of market forces will win out.