Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution

Nero said:
New Labour between 97 and 2005 were far better than the successive Tory governments since 2011. Sadly, Blair shot himself in the foot over Iraq and Brown had to deal with a financial crisis 30 years in the making. I think a Brown government would have been a great thing and the country a much different place today.
Click to expand...
We had one. It wasn't.
 
BoroMart said:
bit harsh, I think he sincerely wanted change
Click to expand...
Disagree. His lack of honesty on the whole WMD/Iraq thing and his subsequent blind arselicking to Bush showed him up to be anything but sincere IMO.

It's also my opinion that he's lucky he's not doing jail time for leading this country to war with out and out lies.

Once this current political establishment are dead and buried history will not look kindly on him and he'll be exposed as the man responsible for the uneccesary deaths of many many people.
 
Brian Marwood said:
Very few people will now hold a grudge with regards to Iraq when considering the mess this country is in right now. Voters have short memories.
Click to expand...
Again, disagree Brian. Iraq looms large still and is a major factor in pulling out of Afghanistan.
 
zzzzz said:
Disagree. His lack of honesty on the whole WMD/Iraq thing and his subsequent blind arselicking to Bush showed him up to be anything but sincere IMO.

It's also my opinion that he's lucky he's not doing jail time for leading this country to war with out and out lies.

Once this current political establishment are dead and buried history will not look kindly on him and he'll be exposed as the man responsible for the uneccesary deaths of many many people.
Click to expand...

A huge amount of the electorate were either teens, children or not even born when this was happening! Another huge amount won't care less over something that happened so long ago.
 
Brian Marwood said:
Very few people will now hold a grudge with regards to Iraq when considering the mess this country is in right now. Voters have short memories.
Click to expand...
Look at the mess Biden has just made over Afghanistan and how little influence Johnson had. The mistake over Iraq shouldn't be held against Blair any longer.
 
Blair, Johnson and Trump are all shameless liars with an unusual ability; they are able to convince themselves that their own lies are true.
 
Otto42 said:
All still very relevant today; Blair, Mandelson and Campbell got it, not sure Brown really did. You win elections by getting people who voted for the other lot last time to vote for you this time, it's about trust and unfortunately there aren't enough voters who trust socialists to run the country.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a simplistic analysis. For socialism there was no shortage of votes but the spread meant that not enough seats were gained. Labour's vote share in England before and during Corbyn's years were as follows:


1997 - 11,347,882
2001 - 9,056,824
2005 - 8,043,461
2010 - 7,042,398
2015 - 8,087,706
2017 - 11,390,099
2019 - 9,152,034

So even in Corbyn's disastrous 2019 election he actually pulled in more votes than Blair in all but one of his victories. When you consider that by 2016 the Blairites in the party had raised a £250,000 fund to fight Corbyn and by 2017 this corrupt right wing of the party were actively conspiring to lose the election. Given all that, the only socialist leader we've had for decades attracted more votes in England alone than in any of Blair's campaigns, including 1997.

Over the whole of the UK Blair only attracted more votes than Corbyn in 97.
 
For whole of UK:


England​
UK​
1997​
11,347,882​
13,518,167​
2001​
9,056,824​
10,724953​
2005​
8,043,461​
9,552,436​
2010​
7,042,398​
8,609,527​
2015​
8,087,706​
9,347,273​
2017​
11,390,099​
12,878,460​
2019​
9,152,034​
10,269,051​
 
Last edited:
BlindBoyGrunt said:
That's a bit of a simplistic analysis. For socialism there was no shortage of votes but the spread meant that not enough seats were gained. Labour's vote share in England before and during Corbyn's years were as follows:


1997 - 11,347,882
2001 - 9,056,824
2005 - 8,043,461
2010 - 7,042,398
2015 - 8,087,706
2017 - 11,390,099
2019 - 9,152,034

So even in Corbyn's disastrous 2019 election he actually pulled in more votes than Blair in all but one of his victories. When you consider that by 2016 the Blairites in the party had raised a £250,000 fund to fight Corbyn and by 2017 this corrupt right wing of the party were actively conspiring to lose the election. Given all that, the only socialist leader we've had for decades attracted more votes in England alone than in any of Blair's campaigns, including 1997.

Over the whole of the UK Blair only attracted more votes than Corbyn in 97.
Click to expand...
The population in 1997 was 58m. In 2019 it was 66m, an increase of 13% so obviously Corbyn should have had a higher vote
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Where did all the extra millions come from?
Click to expand...
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

Net migration to the UK - Migration Observatory

An overview of net migration in the UK – defined as the difference between immigration and emigration of people moving for at least a year.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

Figure 2 would indicate that a couple of million (?) was down to immigration - mostly non eu immigration. the rest is probably a combination of people living longer and birth rates getting higher as the population gets higher
 
Otto42 said:
The mistake over Iraq shouldn't be held against Blair any longer.
Click to expand...
The 'mistake' over Iraq should be held against him for the rest of his life.

It wasn't a simple 'mistake'. It was a wilfull disregard of intelligence, or the lack of intelligence, that lead us to war under false pretences.

As I said above, he's lucky he's not doing time for war crimes.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
That's a bit of a simplistic analysis. For socialism there was no shortage of votes but the spread meant that not enough seats were gained. Labour's vote share in England before and during Corbyn's years were as follows:


1997 - 11,347,882
2001 - 9,056,824
2005 - 8,043,461
2010 - 7,042,398
2015 - 8,087,706
2017 - 11,390,099
2019 - 9,152,034

So even in Corbyn's disastrous 2019 election he actually pulled in more votes than Blair in all but one of his victories. When you consider that by 2016 the Blairites in the party had raised a £250,000 fund to fight Corbyn and by 2017 this corrupt right wing of the party were actively conspiring to lose the election. Given all that, the only socialist leader we've had for decades attracted more votes in England alone than in any of Blair's campaigns, including 1997.

Over the whole of the UK Blair only attracted more votes than Corbyn in 97.
Click to expand...
Last time I looked seats got you in Government, not the overall number of votes.
Seats matter and Corbyn left with less than Labout had when he started.
 
bear66 said:
The voting population was 8.4% higher in 2019 compared with 1997 but the turnout was 5.9% lower in 2019
Click to expand...
We know lots of labour voters stayed at home in 2019 - polling indicates the main reason being Corbyn, although when Ive mentioned that before on here the Corbyn fans went mental and insisted it was the 2nd ref stance, which was a factor but not as much of a factor as dislike for Corbyn
 
Ironops said:
We know lots of labour voters stayed at home in 2019 - polling indicates the main reason being Corbyn, although when Ive mentioned that before on here the Corbyn fans went mental and insisted it was the 2nd ref stance, which was a factor but not as much of a factor as dislike for Corbyn
Click to expand...

It's true, I can't vote Tory but then I can't vote Corbyn either, so many people I know had this stance.
 
Ironops said:
The population in 1997 was 58m. In 2019 it was 66m, an increase of 13% so obviously Corbyn should have had a higher vote
Click to expand...
So, in the election years:
97 - Blair received 23% of the total UK population.
01 - Blair 18%
05 - Blair 15%
10 - Brown 13%
15 - Ed. M. 14%
17 - Corbyn 19%

So you were right, Corbyn should have got more votes and he did. Well done. Also given that newborns take a while to reach voting age and many immigrants will not have the right or motivation to vote, the figures are even more impressive, don't you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top