Not true. If Clegg wasn’t such a fraud and Brown not so stubborn then the natural coalition of leg dem and labour would have been in power.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Not true. If Clegg wasn’t such a fraud and Brown not so stubborn then the natural coalition of leg dem and labour would have been in power.
Yes possibly, but still change from Blair, which is what I was answering to when Zlatan said he'd still be in power but for Iraq, Kelly etc.
.
You want us to be like China?
Where would you build your first 100 thousand re education centres?
Don't make things up, I didn't used an example. China is just one of an infinity of compromises that are possible.
There are no absolutes in politics, a party aims for a true position but never fully attains it. My point in in this discussion is that Blair never aimed to be anything like the true left wing Labour of Keir Hardie, aiming right of middle instead. He was forming a new centrist political party, deceitfully under the Labour mantle. As I posted, using a Trojan Horse.
That was the truth, regardless of the fantasies of Zlatan and 50Hertz.
.
Whereas brexit and everything associated with it appears to be chewing up C21.
(Didn't C120s always get chewed up by just about any machine?)
But what you are saying is that wasn’t the Labour Party of old and they were saying it is.
And they are right. You may not have agreed with the direction Blair took it but it was still The Labour Party.
We might have hoped PM's speech writers would have recognised this little bit of fairly recent history:
PM's claim that all parties accepted Welsh devolution questioned
Theresa May herself did not back Welsh devolution bill after narrow win for devolution in referendum
A key section of Theresa May’s final plea for MPs to support her Brexit deal has been called into question after it emerged a historic comparison she made – that all parties backed the Welsh assembly after a narrow referendum agreeing it – is not strictly true.
In fact, while the assembly was created after 1997 referendum, in which the winning margin in favour of devolution was just 0.3% – a majority of 6,721 votes – when the relevant bill was put to the Commons many Tory MPs, including the then-newly elected May, voted against it.
More uncomfortable still for May’s arguments against a second referendum, the Conservatives went into the 2005 general election with a manifesto pledging a new vote for the people on Wales, to include an option to abolish the assembly.
The comparison was to be made by the prime minister on Monday in a speech at a factory in Stoke-on-Trent, where May is to urge MPs to back her deal, saying that if it is rejected Brexit might not happen, which she said would be a betrayal of voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/14/theresa-may-claim-that-all-parties-accepted-welsh-devolution-questioned
PM's claim that all parties accepted Welsh devolution questioned
Theresa May herself did not back Welsh devolution bill after narrow win for devolution in referendum
A key section of Theresa May’s final plea for MPs to support her Brexit deal has been called into question after it emerged a historic comparison she made – that all parties backed the Welsh assembly after a narrow referendum agreeing it – is not strictly true.
In fact, while the assembly was created after 1997 referendum, in which the winning margin in favour of devolution was just 0.3% – a majority of 6,721 votes – when the relevant bill was put to the Commons many Tory MPs, including the then-newly elected May, voted against it.
More uncomfortable still for May’s arguments against a second referendum, the Conservatives went into the 2005 general election with a manifesto pledging a new vote for the people on Wales, to include an option to abolish the assembly.
The comparison was to be made by the prime minister on Monday in a speech at a factory in Stoke-on-Trent, where May is to urge MPs to back her deal, saying that if it is rejected Brexit might not happen, which she said would be a betrayal of voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/14/theresa-may-claim-that-all-parties-accepted-welsh-devolution-questioned
No it was not, which is why Blair renamed it New Labour, true socialist Labour ceasing to exist then
If he'd truthfully named his new party instead of practicing deceit, it wouldn't have come to power then of course.
.
I do see where flecc is coming from. In effect however it simply means Labour didnt represent his vision of Labour, or pehaps even accepted vision of labour at time.However because Blair was elected democratically by labour party members, labour party MPs etc etc at the time it was Labour.
Perhaps that is exactly the problem. Our entire electorate and especialky Labour supporters have changed. Corbyn trying to stem that change, even with his die hard archetypal labour supporters will never attract main stream support. To do so Labour must move. It seems incapable of doing so,any movenent is simply creating division within its ranks. We see a similar pattern in here.
Blair was without a shadow of doubt Labour, he simply didnt represent the values Flecc, and others, see indicative of Labour.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, that is and will become more so the way of politics. Our current shambles can not be catagorised by labour, tory identities. Things have changed. The sooner Labour realises the better.
Last edited:
It was far more serious than that. Blair didn't just change the direction of the Labour party as Fingers said. He created a whole new political position to the right of centre, pretending it was still Labour. Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee, Michael Foot, James Callaghan, John Smith etc would have never have accepted that as Labour, just as Corbyn always refused to.
There are two relevant precedents:
Hugh Gaitskill as Labour leader repeatedly attempted to go in Blair's direction but the party refused to allow that, seeing that it would no longer be Labour.
The other precedent being that the Lib Dems are not the original Liberal party, even though they have Liberal policies. That's because they were an evolution of the Social Democrats formed by the Labour "Gang of Four" who broke away from the Labour party to do that. Later they merged with the failing Liberal party with varying names before finally now named the LibDems.
,
brexit will drive millions toward the centre, seeing what purists on both the left and the right currently do to this country: No Deal or JC's deal (assuming he gets the keys to No 10).
A centrist party would call for a second referendum.
A centrist party would call for a second referendum.
He did so tho flecc with the complete support of Labour movenent at the time. (ok Majority support) An individual can not take a political party where it doesnt want to go. Had they not supported him and he had rissen to power in a Hitler fashion I would agree with you. He didnt. He was elected by labour party and supported by it. He was merely its representitive at the time.
Which is why I see your explanation as dangerous. It negates all responsibility away from Labour party when in reality they are equally culpable.(for any good or bad)
Agreed, but we don't have an electable centrist party.
We need proportional representation of course.
.
Conned support. Once they found out the truth that he and his created party were never Labour, he and New labour were finished.
.
Incorrect again.
New labour was one bacon sandwich away from winning the 2015 election.
Why you can’t accept Blair was as Labour as Clement Attlee is bewildering.
Of course, as with any new policies it took time for the results to show. And why we see little change in a first 5 year political term.
.
Not brexit but related:
From the country which couldn't respect EU air pollution norms and which gets fined a new UK designed air pollution norm "which will go much further than the EU one" promised for after brexit.
So the EU clean air norm wasn't worth following because the UK were busy coming up with something much better? I'm sure all those people who have died in the meanwhile or those who are about to die while waiting for cleaner air are in great appreciation of this exciting new clean air program!
The funny thing is the EU does not prevent countries from much stricter/better anti-pollution measures, never has, probably never will do...
From the country which couldn't respect EU air pollution norms and which gets fined a new UK designed air pollution norm "which will go much further than the EU one" promised for after brexit.
So the EU clean air norm wasn't worth following because the UK were busy coming up with something much better? I'm sure all those people who have died in the meanwhile or those who are about to die while waiting for cleaner air are in great appreciation of this exciting new clean air program!
The funny thing is the EU does not prevent countries from much stricter/better anti-pollution measures, never has, probably never will do...
I watched TM claiming on BBC News 24 that her deal delivers on immigration, money, law, future trade, no border in NI.
Every time she lies in front of the camera, she pauses a little, her lips form an asymetrical shape.
If she stops lying for a minute, perhaps she'd get more MPs to support her.
the backstop is constructed the way it is because TM wants the UK to stay inside the EU's customs union.
Every time she lies in front of the camera, she pauses a little, her lips form an asymetrical shape.
If she stops lying for a minute, perhaps she'd get more MPs to support her.
the backstop is constructed the way it is because TM wants the UK to stay inside the EU's customs union.