The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Was Tony Blair a conservative in disguise?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by GrigorijC1997
Evidently, before Blair's landslide victory in 1997, Labour were completely unelectable particularly because of their socialist ideologies that mainland England in particular, would not take.

New Labour meant no nationalisation. I do feel that he had some Tory Policies implemented in his manifestos.


Peter Mandelson certainly was
Original post by whorace
Sadly for you this brilliant evaluation is overlooked. If Labour keep thinking Blair was just a right wing zealot and there are no differences between them, they'll never get into power again.


I think they learnt their lesson. Certainly the Unions (Bar PCS and Unite) have always seen sense on this topic. Unfortunately PCS and Unite seemed to have to have the loudest voices last time, this time I have no doubt they will be told to shut up. Especially after the people Len McClusky has been hanging round with...
Original post by n00
That's not exactly a high bar.


This election has clearly shown the only way to help the most vulnerable society through political means is to have a slightly more right wing than a lot of us would like Labour leader.

That's that really, when you've got a country full of people who only really care about money a left wing government is not going to get in. It might shift when the older generation passes but to be honest I doubt it as people our age are more conservative than they have ever been.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
That's true and he also helped and worked hard to bring peace to Northern Ireland, however ragged around the edges, which has been a huge achievement.


Yeah I pointed to that in my initial post :P

also Kosovo. When I was canvassing a Kosovan guy ran out and hugged me shouting 'Tony Blair number 1 Prime-minister' after I knocked on his door. Kindof terrifying but nice to know the support is there :tongue:
I don't know if he was a conservative in disguise, but I do know that he is definitely a lizard person working for the New World Order.
Blair.
A word which has joined the list of profanities.
That's something both left and right can agree on.
Original post by redferry
Yeah I pointed to that in my initial post :P

also Kosovo. When I was canvassing a Kosovan guy ran out and hugged me shouting 'Tony Blair number 1 Prime-minister' after I knocked on his door. Kindof terrifying but nice to know the support is there :tongue:


Yeah, although I'm inclined towards suspicion in anything related to the US/EU/UK response to events in the Balkan wars, there seemed to be so much duplicity and devious power broking. It may have pleased some of the Kosovans, but that doesn't make what went on there right in the bigger sense.
Reply 27
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by redferry
This election has clearly shown the only way to help the most vulnerable society through political means is to have a slightly more right wing than a lot of us would like Labour leader.


Sure, within the current system.

Original post by redferry
when you've got a country full of people who only really care about money


I'm pretty cynical but i don't buy that.

Original post by redferry
It might shift when the older generation passes but to be honest I doubt it as people our age are more conservative than they have ever been.


Right wing maybe, conservative, nar.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by n00
Sure, within the current system.


well short of overthrowing the current system, which personally I dont think is the best of ideas, what ith the whole not being an anarchist and ****, there's not much else to be done


I'm pretty cynical but i don't buy that.


The election showed that is what matters most to the population as a whole - hanging onto the money they have.

That and the fact a lot of people have bought into the 'benefit scroungers' rhetoric



Right wing maybe, conservative, nar.


People our age are more likely to vote conservative than previous generations, numerous polls have shown
Reply 29
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by redferry
well short of overthrowing the current system, which personally I dont think is the best of ideas, what ith the whole not being an anarchist and ****, there's not much else to be done


I'm not an anarchist either, there's plenty that can be done.

Original post by redferry

The election showed that is what matters most to the population as a whole - hanging onto the money they have.

That and the fact a lot of people have bought into the 'benefit scroungers' rhetoric


They've bought into the fear-mongering, so have you.

Original post by redferry

People our age are more likely to vote conservative than previous generations, numerous polls have shown


For a lack of an alternative.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by n00
I'm not an anarchist either, there's plenty that can be done.



They've bought into the fear-mongering, so have you.



For a lack of an alternative.


What do you mean lack of an alternative?

The way to change a party is to join and have your say, not bloody vote conservative.

If people actually wanted a further left labour they wouldn't be forcing them to shift right by not voting/voting for the Tories,lets be honest here.
Reply 31
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by redferry
What do you mean lack of an alternative?

The way to change a party is to join and have your say, not bloody vote conservative.

If people actually wanted a further left labour they wouldn't be forcing them to shift right by not voting/voting for the Tories,lets be honest here.


Most people vote for the least worst option with a chance of winning(like yourself) and don't have the time, patience or inclination to join and then change a party, particularly when it appears all they do is manipulate and deceive.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Quady
They were pretty electable in '92.


Not really, the close result was more to do with the recession and the general public getting fed up with a tory government, yet Major still won relatively comfortably. 1992 showed that people still didn't want to go back to the 1970s Socialist euphoria.
No. He massively increased the size of the state.
The two most principled things Bliar ever did were:

1. Save the Bosnians from a genocide.
2. Invade Iraq.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
No. He massively increased the size of the state.


Amen to that ^
He wasn't a social conservative, but on economics he was to the right of Thatcher. In fact his economics are the worst of both worlds, inequality and lessening social mobility, plus a state that is stifling and too large. I would genuinely rather have Thatcher in many ways, and I lean to the left. The damage that man has done will never be talked up like Thatcher's legacy, but it is worse.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by n00
Most people vote for the least worst option with a chance of winning(like yourself) and don't have the time, patience or inclination to join and then change a party, particularly when it appears all they do is manipulate and deceive.


Well they are silly. Once you know your mp personally they are far more likedey to listen to what you have to say!
Reply 38
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by redferry
Well they are silly.
Hmmm i dunno, after the election campaign we've just witnessed? That wasn't healthy, anyone that followed it should feel pretty silly now, i certainly do.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
He wasn't a social conservative, but on economics he was to the right of Thatcher. In fact his economics are the worst of both worlds, inequality and lessening social mobility, plus a state that is stifling and too large. I would genuinely rather have Thatcher in many ways, and I lean to the left. The damage that man has done will never be talked up like Thatcher's legacy, but it is worse.

To the right of Thatcher but he greatly increased the size of the state? Doesn't really make sense does it?

Also a state that is stifling and too large often does cause inequality and lessening social mobility because to pay for that state you have to print loads of money which means that the cash that the poorest in society becomes worth a lot less than it was before.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you