Blair

[L.A.]

While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable.

Following the defeat in 1979 the Labour party was a shables and when they elected Michael Foot it just became a national joke. The Tories loved Michael because they realised that he posed no threat to them whatsoever - and the Welch Windbag wasn't much better.

So I'd like to pose this question:

What would have become of Labour if they hadn't elected Blair in 1994?

What might the 'alternative history' have looked like?

[L.A.]

I suppose that I really ought to give my own version:

Assuming that Blair lost to Prescott (who actually came second) – then New Labour wouldn't have happened. Presumably there would have been some reforms but Clause 4 would have remained. In my opinion such a  party could not have won the 1997 election. The centre vote that swung it for Blair in the real election would probably have gone in part to the Lib/Dems possibly giving them the balance of power. I suspect that they may have entered a Lib/Lab pact which would not have been very successful and not lasted the full term. The next election would have seen a massive swing back to the Conservatives.

[Shaker]

While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable

As I said yesterday, just look how well that turned out.

[L.A.]

While I have to declare that Blair never was my favourite politician - and that opinion has gone down as the years have passed - I have to acknowledge his successes. In particular he made Labour electable

As I said yesterday, just look how well that turned out.

You seem to be saying that it would be better if Labour was permanently Unelectable?

[Shaker]

Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.

[L.A.]

Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.

You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?

[Shaker]

Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.

You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?

Not given our bizarre voting system, no. (See trentvoyager's current signature for an illustration of what I mean).

[L.A.]

Quite the opposite - it would be better if the electorate had an actual choice between parties, not (as it was and remains) between Tory A in a suit and blue tie and Tory B in a suit and red tie.

You mean like it had in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992?

Not given our bizarre voting system, no. (See trentvoyager's current signature for an illustration of what I mean).

Sorry, but we live in a world where voting system is as it is -  the public even voted not to change it.  And by and large it doesn't disadvantage the Labour Party.

[Udayana]

If it hadn't been for the Granita Pact, Gordon Brown might have stood instead of, or as well as Blair.

[Rhiannon]

Well I would be overcome with nausea every time I see the word 'Blair' for starters. I'm not sure we've ever had a more arrogant, self-serving PM.

[L.A.]

Well I would be overcome with nausea every time I see the word 'Blair' for starters. I'm not sure we've ever had a more arrogant, self-serving PM.

While I can sympathise with those emotions, it's his impact on the party I'm more interested in. It is undeniable that he transformed Labour and it started winning elections. Most people would regard that as a step in the right direction.

[Hope]

Slight detour; should he and Bush be being tried as war criminals, as I believe Corbyn has suggested?  I think the claim that they made their decisions on 'the best information they had' is a bit of a weak reason, especially as the UN Weapn monitors were regularly reporting back information that contradicted this 'best information'.

[wigginhall]

There are rumours that one reason Blair fears a Corbyn victory, is that there would be renewed pressure for a prosecution of Blair.   I am skeptical about this actually, but I suppose it's one of those rumours which feeds itself, I mean, people start to believe it.  But the Blairites would resist it fiercely. 

[L.A.]

If it hadn't been for the Granita Pact, Gordon Brown might have stood instead of, or as well as Blair.

That is an interesting scenario. Blair was the 'salesman', he could present himself better than Gordon so it would have been difficult for Gordon to win in a head-to-head, but with the union block behind him Gordon might have done it I suppose.

He would never have got the party reforms that Blair got so Labour would have been less electable. There certainly wouldn't have been the 97 landslide, a tiny majority at best. What is worse he would have been under tremendous pressure to repeal the labour laws - and I'm sure we can all remember how Gordon coped with pressure! So I think it would have been a very troubled term and would not have ended well for Labour.

[Rhiannon]

Labour would have retained more credibility had it not been for Blair. As it is I think it lost a great deal of the reputation it had for honesty and principle prior to the expenses scandal.

[wigginhall]

Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow.  It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet!   The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on.  It just has to work it way through, I suppose.  You can't do it according to a recipe.

[Rhiannon]

It might have helped if he'd gone off to watch cricket and nod off in the HofL like Major. Instead his constant 'peace envoy' stuff (just the man for the job, obviously  ) coupled with his paid 'advisory roles' to various dubious states keep reminding us how far Labour fell from its ideals.

[L.A.]

Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow.  It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet!   The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on.  It just has to work it way through, I suppose.  You can't do it according to a recipe.

I can totally understand the resentment and anger against the man - but not the rejection of  the reforms that made Labour electable.

It's like saying:   "This life jacket was manufactured by an evil capitalist so we prefer to drown"

[wigginhall]

It might have helped if he'd gone off to watch cricket and nod off in the HofL like Major. Instead his constant 'peace envoy' stuff (just the man for the job, obviously  ) coupled with his paid 'advisory roles' to various dubious states keep reminding us how far Labour fell from its ideals.

Well, he has to stay in the public gaze, kind of double strength narcissism.  This gave him great charisma, of course, but then the disillusionment with that is often double strength, and leads to hatred of him. 

I don't think he can stop, even though (right now), people are screaming, for God's sake, stop intervening in the leadership contest, as every time he does, Corbyn wins.   Oh, the irony.

[wigginhall]

Blair has also been a very dominant figure, with a very long shadow.  It's inevitable that exorcising him is painful and traumatic, and Labour have some way to go yet!   The Blairites are mourning him, others are furious, and want revenge, and so on.  It just has to work it way through, I suppose.  You can't do it according to a recipe.

I can totally understand the resentment and anger against the man - but not the rejection of  the reforms that made Labour electable.

It's like saying:   "This life jacket was manufactured by an evil capitalist so we prefer to drown"

Yeah, but the Blairites have the fantasy that you can repeat the recipe, and repeat 1997.  You can't, no more than you repeat 1979 for the Tories.  They're trying to fix history in a mechanical pattern, but it don't move like that. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose that I really ought to give my own version:

Assuming that Blair lost to Prescott (who actually came second) – then New Labour wouldn't have happened. Presumably there would have been some reforms but Clause 4 would have remained. In my opinion such a  party could not have won the 1997 election. The centre vote that swung it for Blair in the real election would probably have gone in part to the Lib/Dems possibly giving them the balance of power. I suspect that they may have entered a Lib/Lab pact which would not have been very successful and not lasted the full term. The next election would have seen a massive swing back to the Conservatives.

Revisionist view in parts even as alternative history.

You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.

[L.A.]

Yeah, but the Blairites have the fantasy that you can repeat the recipe, and repeat 1997.  You can't, no more than you repeat 1979 for the Tories.  They're trying to fix history in a mechanical pattern, but it don't move like that.

I think to most people outside the party, it's not so much about "repeating the recipe" but more like "Not doing stupid things".

[L.A.]

You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.

As I pointed out earlier, the fact that they were able to get away with that mistake is more a reflection on the ineffectiveness of the Labour opposition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Labour would have retained more credibility had it not been for Blair. As it is I think it lost a great deal of the reputation it had for honesty and principle prior to the expenses scandal.

The real trouble for labour is that Gordon Brown would not have a snap election. Had he had done he could have kept out the tories till 2012 and got rid of Dave and Gideon. We may have had a conservative/liberal coalition with two more years to run by now or an Alan Johnson Labour government.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't even mention the effect of Major and Lamont losing the Tories claim to economic competence the effects of which could still be felt even in the tory victory of 2015 which however spun was a scrape in the grand scheme of things.

As I pointed out earlier, the fact that they were able to get away with that mistake is more a reflection on the ineffectiveness of the Labour opposition.

Er, Major and Lamont didn't get away with it though. Major elected 1992, almost immediate economic balls up and loss of reputation of the Conservative competence, lame duck prime minister 1995,out at election 1997.