Re: Budget U-Turn : Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:48 am
|
cod'ead wrote: There are also those voters who feel they have become disnefranchised or simply apathetic to the whole process. Owen Jones wrote an interesting article in this week's Indy debunking the Blair myth. He proposes that had John Smith not popped his clogs, Labour would still had a landslide victory in 1997, simply because we'd all had enough of the tories. He also proposes that Labour's collapse has little to do with a change in the middle class vote and more to do withignoring grass roots. One thing's for sure, we'd be in a better position now if John Smith had been in power, rather than Blair You're probably right about John Smith, but, would he have won again in 2001 and again in 2005? For Labour to win three elections on the trot, the first two with landslides and the third with an adequate majority was unprecedented. You could argue that between 1997, and 2001 Blair was so concerned with being re-elected that he did very little. But between 2001 and 2005 he (and Brown) did a helluva a lot to improve the lot of ordinary people in this country. The problem was that he also took us into the the Iraq shambles. I don't approve of the Afghan adventure, because history shows there are never any winners, but can understand why they supported the US there. The Iraq business made no sense at all. But I'd certainly agree that John Smith would have been an outstanding PM, possibly the true successor to my hero Attlee. |
|
cod'ead wrote: There are also those voters who feel they have become disnefranchised or simply apathetic to the whole process. Owen Jones wrote an interesting article in this week's Indy debunking the Blair myth. He proposes that had John Smith not popped his clogs, Labour would still had a landslide victory in 1997, simply because we'd all had enough of the tories. He also proposes that Labour's collapse has little to do with a change in the middle class vote and more to do withignoring grass roots. One thing's for sure, we'd be in a better position now if John Smith had been in power, rather than Blair You're probably right about John Smith, but, would he have won again in 2001 and again in 2005? For Labour to win three elections on the trot, the first two with landslides and the third with an adequate majority was unprecedented. You could argue that between 1997, and 2001 Blair was so concerned with being re-elected that he did very little. But between 2001 and 2005 he (and Brown) did a helluva a lot to improve the lot of ordinary people in this country. The problem was that he also took us into the the Iraq shambles. I don't approve of the Afghan adventure, because history shows there are never any winners, but can understand why they supported the US there. The Iraq business made no sense at all. But I'd certainly agree that John Smith would have been an outstanding PM, possibly the true successor to my hero Attlee. |
|
|
