NationStates Jolt Archive

Prior to Tony Blair's accession to the Labour leadership, Labour had essentially been the scoialist wing of British politics ever since their foundation in the first decade of the 20th Century.

This is why Thatcher and the Conservatives were able to maintain control from 1979 to 1997 - the people of the UK were generally fed up with socialist policies. The group most annoyed (and incidently one of the largest and most politically active groups) was Middle England, which consists of the respectable working class and the middle classes. This why Labour was unable to win at all.

Blair, on his accession, saw this problem and knew the solution to it. He quickly abolished the traits of Old Labour, renaming his party New Labour to show its change to centre left politics. What Blair was effectively able to do was to persaude Middle England that the Labour Party was no longer the embodiment of socialist ideals but instead a way for them to vote Conservative without actually having to bring back the Major government.

And this is precisely what occured in 1997: Middle England took that bait and whole heartedly voted for the new, centrist Labour Party. And they are mostly still doing so as many of the policies that Tony Blair advocates are similar to those that the Tories themselves agree to. This is why the Conservative opposition has been so weak: because they actually, in their heart of hearts, agree with ID card and tution fees.

However such a change has not happened without cost: the reason the Lib Dems have bulked up so much in the last two general elections is because disaffected socialists have abadoned the almost Thatcherite Labour Party.

When Blair resigns, Gordon Brown will take over and he is very much Old Labour. He will bring back the socialist Labour and in doing so, will doom his appeal to Middle England who will almost certainly return to the Tories and possibly UKIP. Equally, the Tories will be able to oppose Labour properly again because Labour will be introducing policies that they fundamentally disagree with. Also the Lib Dems will be reduced as old socialists return to Labour.

So without Blair, Labour will be out of office within 5 years.

They certainly is.

I'm jealous of the fact that you guys have more than two real parties

*sigh*

I disagree that Brown will be seen as a radical lefty who will return Britain to the strikes of the seventies. Yes I agree he certainly has a leaning towards "Old" Labour, but he has proven himslef to be a fantastic economist and has singlehandedly improved the economy of Britain. This will appeal to middle England more than the "promises" made by the Tories. Brown has proved himself highly economically credible and it will not be his "old"/"new" stance that will get them out of power imo, it my be that the "Its time for a change" the slogan of the 1997 election, will come back to haunt them in the search for a forth term and people will just be bored of having Labour in power.

Me I'm very happy with labour and will be ecstatic of Gordon Brown takes over.

Gordon Browns clever enough to address that problem if it occurs effectively.

i think that most of the disaffected labour voters who have changed to the lib dems will return to labour once tony bliar resigns.

i think that most of the disaffected labour voters who have changed to the lib dems will return to labour once tony bliar resigns.
Agreed.
I also don't see Brown introducing all of Labours old policies...Clause 4 anyone?
Also, I believe you have over-exagerated Blairs changing of the Party compared top Kinnock's. It was Kinnock who began moving the Party more centre, Blairs just continued this trend using the same support as Kinnock (Mandelson). Blairs advantage over Kinnock is that he is more presentable and a better speaker, but it was Kinnock who started the move to the right.

I'm jealous of the fact that you guys have more than two real parties

*sigh*

Don't be as of right now they really only have two parties and unlike the US the party in power can really stomp the life out of the other two while in power. In the US we can stop Bush's Social security plan this would not be possible in England. Gov't would just ram it down their throats. but i am disappoint we don't even have a hint of a third party like they do.

Don't be as of right now they really only have two parties and unlike the US the party in power can really stomp the life out of the other two while in power. In the US we can stop Bush's Social security plan this would not be possible in England. Gov't would just ram it down their throats. but i am disappoint we don't even have a hint of a third party like they do.

do you mean that labour and the tories are the same? or that the lib dems are very minor?

id say we have numerous parties, but only two choices between conservatism or the lib dems.

do you mean that labour and the tories are the same? or that the lib dems are very minor?

id say we have numerous parties, but only two choices between conservatism or the lib dems.

That sounds about right. Best of the conservatives or Lib Dems(and i don't think Lib Dem have any chance of gaining Gov't but they will gain seats.)

It seriously annoys me hatt we have the worst Labour MP ever in our area. I would vote Labour, if it were not for the awful MP. I am a Labour supporter, but I don't mind Lib Dems.

Who would you vote for if you were American? I would've gone for Kerry.

I hope they do go back to Old Labour. New Labour sucks big. They completly abandoned their principles just to get in to power.
How do we know the majority of the UK still wants to be to the right? Don't forget, the 'Thatcher Years' were during the cold war. I'm no expert--in fact I wasn't even born then--but it's my theory that 'Socialist' might have been just a bit too close to 'Communist' for people's liking.
Feel free to set me straight on this.

I don't know a single english person who would have voted for bush.

have you asked all 50 odd million of you english twats? i gather its a big FAT no!

I think there are polls that indicate that Labour would have a much clearer lead if Brown was leading. A while ago the conservatives put up posters saying "Vote Blair get Brown." but them took them down as they realised it was probably doing more harm to them than good.
Also, I think you are greatly overestimating how 'old labour' Brown is because both him and Blair more or less went into their plans for Britain together. Brown is actually an architect of new labour, abliet he probably thinks they've deviated too far. Let's face, he is so good at his job that other parties rarely even bother attacking any aspect of labour's economics, let alone succeed in doing so. People would vote for him.

have you asked all 50 odd million of you english twats? i gather its a big FAT no!

how lovely, you big smelly rascist. im pretty sure that about 95% or more of people wouldnt have voted for george bush.

It seriously annoys me hatt we have the worst Labour MP ever in our area. I would vote Labour, if it were not for the awful MP. I am a Labour supporter, but I don't mind Lib Dems.

Who would you vote for if you were American? I would've gone for Kerry.

Well thats good then your a british Conservative right. because Democrats in the US as are all the parties in the US are right of your british parties.

how lovely, you big smelly rascist. im pretty sure that about 95% or more of people wouldnt have voted for george bush.


I also doubt that any of you would have voted for Kerry. If any of your parties ran even the tories. Face it you are complaining about two Conservative parties. and we are complaining in the states of only conservative parties.

id only of voted for kerry to stop bush getting in. actually i probably would have voted for ralph nader.

Thats right so vote Labour and stop the Tories

I disagree that Gordon Brown will herald a return for Old Labour after Tony Blair resigns and I further disagree with the suggestion that Brown has "single-handedly" managed the British economy to prosperity. The emphasis on New Labour's economic policies has been to continue the "social market" consensus that emerged with Thatcher and Major. Gordon Brown has simply built on the work of Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke.

I'm a Tory sympathiser, but I live in a strong Labour seat and a vote for the Conservatives would be a waste. I'm backing the Liberal Democrats - as a tactical vote to keep Labour out.

The Labour leadership's extreme arrogance over who should be the next PM has annoyed me a great deal: how dare Tony Blair and Gordon Brown jostle over who the next PM should be! It shouldn't be their decision and I urge everyone to 1) use their vote and 2) vote against Labour to show them that taking decisions without the electorate's consent will not be tolerated.

have you asked all 50 odd million of you english twats? i gather its a big FAT no!
Are you intellectually able to disect and interpret a sentence? Your response would indicate a big FAT no!
Check again - There was no implication in 'Loveliness and hope2' post that no-one English person would have voted for Bush, only that they didn't know anyone who would have.
Sadly, it was only in your fevered, paranoid and overly-defensive brain that made the implication.



Getting back to the topic of this thread, I feel that 'New British Glory' has made a couple of errors in his thinking. One is that at present the quality of the opposition pretty guarantees Labour into Office, regardless of who is leading Labour. The second point is that I don't think Labour losing whatever election will be due just to Blair resigning. A lot of it will be on voter willingness for a change, any change. At the election after next, Labour will have been in power 13 years. After that length of time, it's reasonable to expect people to want a change. That was part of the reason for the Tories downfall in '97. You just get bored anf fatigued by the same-old-same-old.

I LOVE Tactical voteing. And it's great to see it so well used in the UK.

I LOVE Tactical voteing. And it's great to see it so well used in the UK.


i feel sorry for you americans, only having two real choices. i couldnt stand having such a constrained choice between who was going to run my life for the next 4 years. are there any minor parties, like a green party? the only one i know of is ralph nader.

I LOVE Tactical voteing. And it's great to see it so well used in the UK.

It's actually a big pain in the backside. How the British FPTP system can be called democratic I've no idea. Where else in the world - apart from the US - can a party that polls fewer votes win an election? Where else in the world can it be possible to win the second largest proportion of the vote and not win a single seat? The time has come for electoral reform - not to pure PR - but to some blending of the best of both worlds, because this is madness!

It's actually a big pain in the backside. How the British FPTP system can be called democratic I've no idea. Where else in the world - apart from the US - can a party that polls fewer votes win an election? Where else in the world can it be possible to win the second largest proportion of the vote and not win a single seat? The time has come for electoral reform - not to pure PR - but to some blending of the best of both worlds, because this is madness!

I actually find it funny that most political leaders in western europe win with less then 50% of the vote. But thats representative voting for you and i'd rather have that then. First past the post(UK + US).

oh and to answer another question. no real third party. none that really have seats in congress and no way in hell will they win an election. the Progressives where and are the best chance.

Blair should resign for supporting Bush's war in Iraq.

Blair should resign for supporting Bush's war in Iraq.

id rather see him sincerely apologise, promise us that he will not support any more bush wars and then continue with what hes doing, because although i was against the war from the beginning, and its the reason i wont be voting labour, his government has done a good job at repairing the damage te tories did.

that said, everyone vote green!

Blair should resign for supporting Bush's war in Iraq.

Ah yes the mighty British, willing to overthrow on gov't in the former yugoslavia with out the UN and then saying were above that when you do it in Iraq. I say the British people are hypocritcal on this issue. Only if it's popular is it out. HAHA

id rather see him sincerely apologise, promise us that he will not support any more bush wars and then continue with what hes doing, because although i was against the war from the beginning, and its the reason i wont be voting labour, his government has done a good job at repairing the damage te tories did.

that said, everyone vote green!

At one time, once people lost trust in a minister for whatever reason - even if you could trust him or her on everything bar one small matter - they were expected to resign. And if they didn't, they were given the push. Funny how things change.

I'm sick to the back teeth of "New" Labour. They're the same every time. Labour was mean't for the working classes, but now they only benefit big business and those on benefits (except pensions).

Education, education, education? More like taxation, inflation and mis-information! Any government who wastes £20bn on a war that has further opressed the other nation, taken money away from public services and damaged our reputation on the world's stage doesn't deserve a third term.

Also, Labour want the Euro and are willing to surrender many of our nation's privelidges and vetos to the EU.

Tuition fees are rediculous!

Reject red. Britain is too good to suffer any more.

At one time, once people lost trust in a minister for whatever reason - even if you could trust him or her on everything bar one small matter - they were expected to resign. And if they didn't, they were given the push. Funny how things change.


*assesses his position on this matter*

god you are right. ok, change last point, he should denounce bush, then resign, passing the PMship to gordon brown.

Any government who wastes £20bn on a war that has further opressed the other nation,

What are you smoking and why aren't you sharing?

You must be in over your head. Labour doesn't evolve around Tony Blair. Gordon Brown is just as fundamentally for New Labour; as are most in the cabinet. That's why Blair PUT them in HIS cabinet.

Idiot.

*assesses his position on this matter*

god you are right. ok, change last point, he should denounce bush, then resign, passing the PMship to gordon brown.

But this is the thing: what sets Gordon Brown apart from all other members of the Parliamentary Labour Party? Why should he be appointed by the will of Blair rather than elected by the party? What right do Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have to carve up the executive between each other, ignoring what the electorate might feel about it? In my book, none, and the electorate should make its last stand against this arrogance before we, like Parliament, become the "rubber stamp" for the Blair-Brown axis.

how lovely, you big smelly rascist. im pretty sure that about 95% or more of people wouldnt have voted for george bush.

Pretty sure? you mean your own opinion, just cause his policies ie the war in iraq doesnt appeal to you, doesnt mean that it doesnt appeal to others, im betting your a lowlife peace campaginer wokring for oxfam 24/7 with no social life atall, just your 'peace on earth' t-shirt and matching tent!
Our government got voted in, and even the oposition supported it, so reguardless if it was Labour or the Tories in charge, we'ld of went to war, The Lib Dems are just using this as a way to gain more votes, and most probably if it was them would of seriously considered it at the very least.

and for the post above. a racist? dont flatter me kido!

I think there are polls that indicate that Labour would have a much clearer lead if Brown was leading. A while ago the conservatives put up posters saying "Vote Blair get Brown." but them took them down as they realised it was probably doing more harm to them than good.
Also, I think you are greatly overestimating how 'old labour' Brown is because both him and Blair more or less went into their plans for Britain together. Brown is actually an architect of new labour, abliet he probably thinks they've deviated too far. Let's face, he is so good at his job that other parties rarely even bother attacking any aspect of labour's economics, let alone succeed in doing so. People would vote for him.

I think Brown is a good economist - that cannot be denied by anyone. However the question is, is he a good leader and would he make a good Prime Minister.

There is the infamous trend in British Prime Minister who come after long serving and widely popular predecessors. There was:

Henry Addington, ineffectual and blithering, who followed the economic whizzkid and popular PM, Pitt the Younger. His office is widely regarded as a disaster and lasted 3 years before his government disintergrated under the pressure.

Roseberry after William Gladstone, the famous Liberal politican. Roseberry was a miserable failure who gave the Tories a massive majority which allowed them to dominated the last decade of the 19th Century.

Eden after Churchill, the extra-ordinarily popular and revered war leader. Eden is widely regarded to be the worst of all British Prime Ministers, leading the country into the Suez Crisis and bringing about the economic decline that dominated the 60s and 70s. Note that Eden was exceedig popular prior to his Premiership - he was the mot widely revered of Churchill's war cabinet other than Churchill himself and was regarded as a good foreign secretary.

Major after Thatcher, the Tory goddess who dominated British politics. Major as a Prime Minister was regarded to be without charm or wit and he became embroiled with arms selling accusations. He brought about the worst defeat suffered by the Tories since 1905. Yet he was skilled at what he did: there are some economic analyists who have recently claimed that Labour has only sustained the economic growth that was began by Major in the latter days of his term.

Note the trend: all Prime Ministers who follow popular/successful/enduring Premierships generally fail. Like Eden, Brown is good at what he does. But will he able to hold his party together, appeal to all voters and run all aspects of the country well? Considering the collosal Prime Ministership of Blair, it is likely that Brown will fail to fill the gap left.

Lets face it: I do not like Blair and would not vote for him (or the Labour Party) in a million years but he is probably going to go down in the history books as the Labour Party's greatest leader. Will Brown be able to fill the expectations left? Probably not.