Tony Blair - Winner

[irc]

Sticks. said:

The difference as I see it, is that Blair was focused on outcomes rather than dogma. Johnson's election win was also very much about outcomes. Blair didn't abandon Labour principles so much as focus on what they were aimed to do.

I think Blair won because he offered policies the middle ground found acceptable and didn't threaten far left govt if he won. The problem. Corbyn did suprisingly well in his first election but much of the great British public would not vote for someone who associates with terrorists.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-we-shouldn...

[TCX]

And what good were those victory's?
Continued decline in labour heartlands,mass immigration that put extra pressure on services and the wages of......traditional labour supporting workers,a fractured country,Wales Scottish parliaments,who needs more politicians?
Turmoil in the middle East which has spread to western country's
And he sails off coining it in

[T6 vanman]

FourWheelDrift said:

The labour party and it's supporters love to be the victims, they love a good moan and talk about how they could do things better. The last thing they want is to be given the chance because they won't be able to moan about things and blame the government for their victimisation any more.

Stolen from the Starmer thread

The man offering better option
https://youtu.be/G8VmdU9v8-Q

[Gary C]

Dr Jekyll said:

Yet if you ask Labour supporters which of their leaders they admire least it's Blair and Wilson.

Isn't that the whole point

Blair appealed to the non traditional Labour supporter.

Which is why they lost the last one and might just win the next one.

[Gecko1978]

biggbn said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

biggbn said:

Geographiy, where do you mean when you say the UK, as I don't see many cetre right voters in Scotland? Or Wales...?

I think there are, there is just a different dynamic of party politics there.

Oh there are, no doubt...just not many.

Reality is the UK is most (based on number of voters) center right, I would argue that scotland is also given the sucess of the torys under Ruth Davidson etc. Its just a split with labour etc. I don't know total labour plus tory votes Scotland v SNP but my guess is the SNP are not 50%

[vulture1]

biggbn said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I remember once having John Major explain this. Every Labour leader, on becoming leader, faces a terrible moral dilemma - he (note that, with the Labour Party, it is always a he) can either remain true to his socialist principles or he can set out a manifesto that is capable of winning election. He absolutely cannot do both. This is because the UK electorate is essentially and intuitively Centre right in their outlook. The Uk electorate does not and - apart from 1945 - never has had an appetite to submit to genuine socialism.

Blair and Wilson were more interested in power than socialism

Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Sunday 7th March 12:19

Geographiy, where do you mean when you say the UK, as I don't see many cetre right voters in Scotland? Or Wales...?

all the labour voters fled to the snp. Labour caused their own downfall in Scotland allowing the Scottish parliament that then led to them losing the uk election as Scotland was a big vote contributor for them

[vulture1]

TCX said:

And what good were those victory's?
Continued decline in labour heartlands,mass immigration that put extra pressure on services and the wages of......traditional labour supporting workers,a fractured country,Wales Scottish parliaments,who needs more politicians?
Turmoil in the middle East which has spread to western country's
And he sails off coining it in

Good point . As much as people deny it immigration is a point they vote on. More labour on the market lowered wages just when we were needing wage inflation. It hurt their core voters more than generally older or better off Tories.

[valiant]

scottyp123 said:

The only reason blair won was because his manifesto was a copy and paste job from the tory one and Major was a known , at the time no-one knew how much of a blair was.

Nowadays we've got the tories trying their utmost to pass themselves off as the commies.

What about the second time he won an election or the third time?

He might have been able to fool the electorate once but three times? No, he offered something that the electorate wanted and was considered a better bet than the various Tory opposition at the time.

Blair was a middle of the road choice which is where elections are won. If you only appeal to your core, you’ll win jack st. You have to reach out to the centre which is what Blair did and what Corbyn failed to do. You can also see this with Cameron’s victories where he reached out to centre left voters and got enough of them to put him over the line.

Brexit is a special case and not really applicable in the normal scheme of things as votes were ‘lent’ to Boris and will be very interesting to see if they revert to type come the next election.

[T6 vanman]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

“The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes.”
― Tony Blair

[biggbn]

Gecko1978 said:

biggbn said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

biggbn said:

Geographiy, where do you mean when you say the UK, as I don't see many cetre right voters in Scotland? Or Wales...?

I think there are, there is just a different dynamic of party politics there.

Oh there are, no doubt...just not many.

Reality is the UK is most (based on number of voters) center right, I would argue that scotland is also given the sucess of the torys under Ruth Davidson etc. Its just a split with labour etc. I don't know total labour plus tory votes Scotland v SNP but my guess is the SNP are not 50%

I could have voted for Davidson led Tory party in Scotland. I really rated her. I also think the year they did so well was because of a complete disconnected arrogance by the SNP who based on their previous near landslide thought they just had to turn up. Hubris. It's a wonderful thing.

[irc]

vulture1 said:

all the labour voters fled to the snp. Labour caused their own downfall in Scotland allowing the Scottish parliament that then led to them losing the uk election as Scotland was a big vote contributor for them

A common but mistaken belief. Labour would have won the 3 Blair victiories without SCotland.

" Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1997 (with a majority of 139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66). What those who say that Labour cannot win without Scotland are really saying is that they do not believe Labour can ever win a sizeable majority again. This may or may not be true but it's a different debate. History suggests that England and Wales alone are capable of electing a Labour government when the conditions are right.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/20...

[Vanden Saab]

andy43 said:

Blair was aspirational.
The rest have just whinged and engaged in infighting and as long as that’s all they’re capable of they’ll always be in opposition.
Was Blair true Labour? Probably not - but that sort of proves Labour as a concept doesn’t appeal to enough voters.

This all day long, it is why Boris won and why he will continue to win until he has had enough. Until Labour realise this and get a leader who will talk the UK up not slag it off they will continue to lose. Blair got this 'things can only get better'

[Misanthrope]

bhstewie said:

It's the thing I don't get.

Whatever your opinion of Blair he won three elections.

That probably ought to be some kind of hint as to what works.

Indeed it is. It shows that being a <insert string of expletives here> is what wins. Is it any wonder things are so fked up when that is the sort of character that people look up to.

[Teddy Lop]

Brave Fart said:

Very hard to argue against Alastair Campbell's observation. In my opinion, the double whammy is that as Labour have become less Blairite, the Tories have become more so. I recall Theresa May's speech when she was appointed PM. She sounded just like Tony Blair, going on about how the Tories would reach out to those "just about getting by" or something.
And now we have a Conservative government borrowing insane amounts of money and clobbering business with 25% corporation tax rate coming soon. All very Labour, really..........

One might argue that just as Blair stole the Tory playbook, so the Tories have returned the compliment and shifted to the centre, leaving Labour as an irrelevance. I know we're all supposed to loathe Tony Blair, but he and Thatcher might just be the most influential PM's of the past few decades, as judged by their legacies.

I've always felt there was a direct linage/evolution thatcher>blair>cameron, although the cheerleaders for both sides will voraciously deny it but what they don't realise is when a parties assured of your vote regardless your wants and needs simply aren't a priority.

Makes me laugh though how much of the navel gazing middle class set haven't figured out that the PC/woke inspired new left have abandoned the working class issues and believe they can be all things to all men.

[jmn]

scottyp123 said:

The only reason blair won was because his manifesto was a copy and paste job from the tory one and Major was a known , at the time no-one knew how much of a blair was.

Nowadays we've got the tories trying their utmost to pass themselves off as the commies.

I do seem to remember that before the 1997 election Blair did promise to stick to Conservative spending plans for at least the first two years if he was elected. Brown promised not to increase either basic or top rate Income Tax for the life of the Parliament.

[Vasco]

bhstewie said:

eldar said:

It is odd. The Labour party expends huge amounts of energy fighting the Labour party thinking this is what the electorate need.

Militant, momentum, and the other internal factions really want domination of the party rather than government.

Blair was the exception than managed to unify and gain power, but that didn't last.

Labour must do better, the country desperately needs a credible opposition to the current government.

It's the thing I don't get.

Whatever your opinion of Blair he won three elections.

That probably ought to be some kind of hint as to what works.

You don't think it's partly because he simply pinched the Tory middle ground?

[bitchstewie]

Vasco said:

You don't think it's partly because he simply pinched the Tory middle ground?

Middle ground yes.

Does that belong to the Conservatives or are they just the closest to it the last decade or so?

Genuine question as my voting lifetime is from the end of the Major government so I don't know how the current options compare to the historical ones with how they lean.

[glazbagun]

FourWheelDrift said:

The labour party and it's supporters love to be the victims, they love a good moan and talk about how they could do things better. The last thing they want is to be given the chance because they won't be able to moan about things and blame the government for their victimisation any more.

Personally I think that describes the Lib Dems more than Labour. Clegg got the LD's more power than anyone I can remember, but he'll forever be known as the guy who supported the Tories in raising tuition fees and nothing else. It's easy to have the intellectual and moral high ground in opposition, but actually taking responsibility for things you've done gets you fired.

Even Boris' Corbynesque spending doesn't raise as much ire from Conservatives as the tuition U-Turn did from the Dems.

Ironically, they abandoned the centre themselves last election, moving from an unpalatable but plausibly justafiable stance of a second EU referendum, to a position of using First Past the Post to overturn a referendum result... after campaigning against FPTP for thirty+ years as an unrepresentative form of election!

They'd better pull something out of the bag next or they'll barely be a memory!

[rxe]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I think the uncomfortable truth is that what works isn't really Labour at all.

Blair managed to pull it together against a shambolic Tory party, mostly because he didn't promise to do anything vaguely Labour like with the economy. As soon as Brown came along the voters kicked him out at the first opportunity.

Labour isn’t aspirational, that’s the problem. If you’re a slightly above average earner, you know you’re going to be paying more under Labour, Labour is the party whose supporters would raise taxes, even if it brought in no extra money. For the 90% of people in the country who really don’t give a st about politics, they know that a Labour government will interfere more, take more in tax and probably waste it. Labour can’t bring themselves to say that some people are just wasters and not deserving of support.

Blair won because he wasn’t Labour. He was Tory-Lite,

[67Dino]

Whilst I admire a party whose purpose is to help those in society who most need it, I’m perplexed by Labour’s inability to adapt their approach to achieve that. Policies like nationalisation and unionisation are from the 1970s and before, when manufacturing was bigger than tech, globalisation hadn't happened, and few people were self employed. As others have said, it smacks of ideology above practicality.

If I were them, I’d create a low tax self-employment regime, drive investment and skills to the technology and creative industries, and spend heavily on education for those areas and people that need it most. Mind you, I’d quite like any government to do those things...