Didn’t May increase the tories share of the vote at the last general election?
I think Blair’s successes vastly outnumbered his failures, albeit Iraq was a very big failure
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Party
- Thread starter Ban-jani
- Start date
Didn’t May increase the tories share of the vote at the last general election?
I think Blair’s successes vastly outnumbered his failures, albeit Iraq was a very big failure
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 39,257
And their share of the vote decreased with every election , for every decent thing new labour did ( eg. Minimum wage and sure start , policies which would never have been implemented under a tory government) there was shit like the partial privatisation of the NHS and Iraq , a war which Blair stubbornly supported and which has helped to make the middle unstable
For generations to come . an absolutely appalling legacy which has made Blair a multi millionaire !! Disgusting man
He's been the best Prime Minister in my lifetime. He took the call to see the bigger picture and support the USA under severe pressure, and it was the wrong call, and that's become his legacy for the tabloid reading man on the street. But when I look around the ideological clowns leading our major parties in this incredible time, it is obvious to me the country is crying out for a strong leader like Blair.
bronco
Well-Known Member
No it didn’t.
New Labour weren’t responsible for the global financial crash and sure as hell aren’t responsible for the nationalist and populist agenda creeping in.
Blair was not strong in the slightest , he bent over and let bush shaft him up the arse whilst most around him urged him not to ? he saw the big picture all right .....wealth and fame forever at the expense of millions dead , a truly comtemptable human being how anyone can think otherwise is truly staggering .He's been the best Prime Minister in my lifetime. He took the call to see the bigger picture and support the USA under severe pressure, and it was the wrong call, and that's become his legacy for the tabloid reading man on the street. But when I look around the ideological clowns leading our major parties in this incredible time, it is obvious to me the country is crying out for a strong leader like Blair.
Last edited:
Blair was not strong in the slightest , he bent over and let bush shaft him up the arse whilst most around him urged him not to ? The saw the big picture all right .....wealth and fame forever at the expense of millions dead , a truly comtemptable human being how anyone can think otherwise is truly staggering .
This is ridiculously untrue on so many levels.
But well done on completing Blair bingo.
Yeah, he's rightly maligned for Iraq, but take it out of the equation and its hard to argue that he wasn't good. It's a shame that his major fuck-up was that reprehensible that the centre-ish politics he represented seem to have been tarnished along with him.
bronco
Well-Known Member
Which parts are not true then ?This is ridiculously untrue on so many levels.
But well done on completing Blair bingo.
bronco
Well-Known Member
what exactly was he good for then ? I have already quoted sure start and the minimum wage so what else ?Yeah, he's rightly maligned for Iraq, but take it out of the equation and its hard to argue that he wasn't good. It's a shame that his major fuck-up was that reprehensible that the centre-ish politics he represented seem to have been tarnished along with him.
what exactly was he good for then ? I have already quoted sure start and the minimum wage so what else ?
human rights act, managing the deficit whilst increasing public service staff, child and pensioner poverty massively reduced, good friday agreement...
essentially he wasn't so dogmatic so as not to reject the idea that capitalism is anything but evil, and found it possible to increase social justice and mobility whilst still operating under a capitalist system - essentially appealing to enough people on both sides. He won 3 elections, albeit with diminished majorities each time. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it's better than what we have now where everyone is so blinkered it's only their politics that's right and everyone else is a ****.
bronco
Well-Known Member
they had 13 years in power and could/should have done so much better . they did nothing to repeal the draconian anti trade union laws that thatcher brought in and made zero effort towards reinstating a fair rents policy also destroyed by thatcher . these are policies that could have helped milions but he chose to kiss corporate arse instead .these are just 2 examples off the top of my head , if I had the time and inclination I am sure I could find a great many more . unfortunately the only cunts around are those who refuse to see the blindingly obvious .human rights act, managing the deficit whilst increasing public service staff, child and pensioner poverty massively reduced, good friday agreement...
essentially he wasn't so dogmatic so as not to reject the idea that capitalism is anything but evil, and found it possible to increase social justice and mobility whilst still operating under a capitalist system - essentially appealing to enough people on both sides. He won 3 elections, albeit with diminished majorities each time. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it's better than what we have now where everyone is so blinkered it's only their politics that's right and everyone else is a ****.
they had 13 years in power and could/should have done so much better . they did nothing to repeal the draconian anti trade union laws that thatcher brought in and made zero effort towards reinstating a fair rents policy also destroyed by thatcher . these are policies that could have helped milions but he chose to kiss corporate arse instead .these are just 2 examples off the top of my head , if I had the time and inclination I am sure I could find a great many more . unfortunately the only cunts around are those who refuse to see the blindingly obvious .
sort of proving my last point here. it's absolutism or bust. you don't think those achievements were enough. I'd say it's a pretty decent effort in a country that has a natural inclination to vote to the right of centre.
a bit of pragmatism and accepting that the centre ground is better than the right and we'd be a lot better off as a country.
Which parts are not true then ?
Bent over for Bush, well the United States mostly, there’s a lot of content out there explaining why it’s not true and he actively forced the United States in some areas, not just in Iraq but also the Balkans.
The operation was highly effective and the coalition forces had control over Iraq pretty quickly with minimal casualties. Obviously what followed was the mistake but he was right on principle to remove Saddam.
With regards to his other foreign and domestic policies, there’s no avoiding the fact he did a tremendous job.
Obviously over the course of leading a G8 country for 10 years mistakes will be made, in hindsight, but you take Iraq out of the equation and even tabloid sheep would be heralding him as the greatest since the Churchill/Atlee days.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,098
sort of proving my last point here. it's absolutism or bust. you don't think those achievements were enough. I'd say it's a pretty decent effort in a country that has a natural inclination to vote to the right of centre.
a bit of pragmatism and accepting that the centre ground is better than the right and we'd be a lot better off as a country.
Pragmatism?
The Labour Party won its greatest-ever number of seats in the landslide general election victory in 1997. Labour won 419 seats, including that of the Speaker, giving the party a huge majority of 179 in the House of Commons.
And what did Blair do with that huge majority? Except piss it away....
He set the bar so low a half decent one nation tory could have leapt it, which, not surprisingly, he did.
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,960
Pragmatism?
The Labour Party won its greatest-ever number of seats in the landslide general election victory in 1997. Labour won 419 seats, including that of the Speaker, giving the party a huge majority of 179 in the House of Commons.
And what did Blair do with that huge majority? Except piss it away....
He set the bar so low a half decent one nation tory could have leapt it, which, not surprisingly, he did.
Lol. You forget the 2 other elections he went on to win. And the successive failures of every Labour leader since. Corbyn being the worst by a mile. Lets face it - if Blairs labour were in opposition now they would be 18 points ahead in the polls. Corbyn is on 18 points in the polls. Corbyn is rank - he is awful. He is spectacular in how awful he is.
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
Pretty much spot on to be fair.Lol. You forget the 2 other elections he went on to win. And the successive failures of every Labour leader since. Corbyn being the worst by a mile. Lets face it - if Blairs labour were in opposition now they would be 18 points ahead in the polls. Corbyn is on 18 points in the polls. Corbyn is rank - he is awful. He is spectacular in how awful he is.
Pragmatism?
The Labour Party won its greatest-ever number of seats in the landslide general election victory in 1997. Labour won 419 seats, including that of the Speaker, giving the party a huge majority of 179 in the House of Commons.
And what did Blair do with that huge majority? Except piss it away....
He set the bar so low a half decent one nation tory could have leapt it, which, not surprisingly, he did.
Part of the huge initial majority was people completely fucked off with 18 years of tory shite, and by the time he resigned, iraq had happened, and the tories had elected what appeared to be a semi competent leader in cameron after years of idiots. How wrong that proved to be.
Either way, it doesn't take away the fact Blair was the most successful labour PM in terms of time served. Honestly, would you rather someone further to the right than him?
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,960
Pretty much spot on to be fair.
Thanks - i should be a good judge as i voted for every Labour leader since Kinock. The only exception being Corbyn. The hard facts as per election results confirm i'm far from alone yet those that don't want to accept the reality wont.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,098
Lol. You forget the 2 other elections he went on to win. And the successive failures of every Labour leader since. Corbyn being the worst by a mile. Lets face it - if Blairs labour were in opposition now they would be 18 points ahead in the polls. Corbyn is on 18 points in the polls. Corbyn is rank - he is awful. He is spectacular in how awful he is.
Why so many words? Corbyn is a **** would've sufficed.
Last edited:
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,098
Part of the huge initial majority was people completely fucked off with 18 years of tory shite, and by the time he resigned, iraq had happened, and the tories had elected what appeared to be a semi competent leader in cameron after years of idiots. How wrong that proved to be.
Either way, it doesn't take away the fact Blair was the most successful labour PM in terms of time served. Honestly, would you rather someone further to the right than him?
It takes skill to piss away all that political capital for so very little.
Even if one highlights the good he did, very little has endured.
bronco
Well-Known Member
yet corbyn nearly won 2 years ago when all the experts ( no doubt yourself included ) predicted he would get slaughtered ? The recent bi-election in Peterborough was once again won against the odds ( and the Polls !!) By labour in one of the most pro brexit areas of Britain , one week after the Frenchman triumphed in the euro elections ? Not bad for someone who is awful eh ? Stop believing all the bs in the press and on radio / TV and do some real research .Lol. You forget the 2 other elections he went on to win. And the successive failures of every Labour leader since. Corbyn being the worst by a mile. Lets face it - if Blairs labour were in opposition now they would be 18 points ahead in the polls. Corbyn is on 18 points in the polls. Corbyn is rank - he is awful. He is spectacular in how awful he is.
yet corbyn nearly won 2 years ago when all the experts ( no doubt yourself included ) predicted he would get slaughtered ? The recent bi-election in Peterborough was once again won against the odds ( and the Polls !!) By labour in one of the most pro brexit areas of Britain , one week after the Frenchman triumphed in the euro elections ? Not bad for someone who is awful eh ? Stop believing all the bs in the press and on radio / TV and do some real research .
He’s leading a party that was in power for 13 years, in the very recent past.
Coming narrowly 2nd to a hopeless and woeful Theresa May, who didn’t even debate, isn’t an achievement.