The more fundamental question, ernie, is how left wing a party is actually electable nowadays? I suspect the answer to that might be more to the left than was the case in ’97

Ah, the old “Blair made Labour electable” contention. Well despite that well-worn line by the right-wing media’s myth makers, Labour was perfectly electable before Blair.

There is not a shred of evidence that Labour would not have won in ’97 had it not been for Blair. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that John Smith would have comfortably won the general election.

The right-wing are very fond of trotting out the “Labour was unelectable” line whenever Labour lost an election – a term which incidentally they never use to describe the Tories when they lose an election.

The only way Labour could have been “unelectable” would have been of they had not stood any candidates in an election. As long as they stood candidates they were perfectly electable – and millions did elect Labour candidates.

But I hear you say, they were “unelectable” in the “moral” sense……..the Tory moral sense of course. Well even that argument is undermined by the fact that in the 1992 general election, many years before Blair, that comment provider to the captains of industry, the Financial Times, backed Labour over the Tories.

In fact in the 2005 general election Tony Blair secured over a million votes less than Labour achieved in 1992. And of course ’92 was in that period in which Labour is alleged to have been “unelectable”.

Even in the 2001 general election, Labour under Blair, received almost a million less votes than it had in 1992.

The only time Labour under Blair did well in terms of total votes, was in ’97 when he was an unknown quantity and no one quite knew what to expect. Labour started haemorrhaging votes (and members) as soon as Blair took office. What saved Blair’s political skin was the fact that the Tories remained deeply unpopular, and “other parties” saw their support grow.

On the question of the “Big Society”, it is indeed a classic New Labour type tactic. It has been criticised for being vague and hard to fully and precisely understand. But that is undoubtedly the whole purpose – no one should fully understand what it stands for.

Well, no one apart from Cameron, Osborne, etc. of course. When it suits, certain things will be deemed as part of the Big Society vision. When it doesn’t suit, they will be deemed as not being part of the Big Society vision.

The whole New Labour extravaganza thingy, was exactly the same. When Blair first arrived at Number 10 he informed the waiting press, “We were elected as New Labour, and we will govern as New Labour”. No one had a clue what that actually meant. He knew though. It meant that New Labour would be whatever he said it would be.

To be fair though, Blair wasn’t the first to try that strategy. John Major had done it earlier with his “Back to Basics” campaign. Again the plan was to be deliberately vague as to what it actually meant.

Unfortunately for Major, the press and the public took it upon themselves to decide what Back to Basics meant. Which was, that it referred to moral probity. Which would have been OK for Major if the public had only focused on the much Daily Mail vaunted “single mothers” issue. But unlucky for him they concentrated on Tory Party sleaze – and it eventual sunk him.

Still, at least the public never discovered that whilst John Major passionately preaching family values, he was doing the dirty on Norma and was for many years, shagging Edwina Currie. So I guess he didn’t come out of it too badly.

Sod all that boring guff; what was up with yer computer then? Did you buy a new one?

No, the nice man in the shop fixed it for me. No idea what was wrong with it (apart from the graphics card issue)

How’s your three-legged sideboard getting on ?

I haven’t the energy to debate your post, but just a quick one to say I enjoyed reading it and thanks for putting the effort into typing it, I always value your hefty ones 🙂 . Night night GG.

I haven’t got a three-legged sideboard. 😕

I’m making a little bedside cabinet atm. It’s quite cute actually.

Ear, you could help me out with this, as it goes.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-want-a-drill/page/2#post-2290418

haven’t the energy to debate your post………thanks for putting the effort

No energy or effort required on my part……..I simply rely on my boundless supply of class conscious revolutionary zeal 8)

I haven’t got a three-legged sideboard.

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing – make your mind up 😕

Get this :

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=11127512&fh_view_size=10&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB&fh_search=hitachi+18v+cordless&fh_eds=%C3%9F&fh_refview=search&isSearch=true

I think we might have found a source of perpetual energy! 🙂

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing

No I never. Don’t let your senility make up stuff what ain’t real…

I don’t need a drill. I’ve got a drill. It’s a decent Skil one. What I need is a thing like this, to clamp it into, so it’s like a bench drill:

No I never. Don’t let your senility make up stuff what ain’t real…

It’s you who’s going **** senile mate :

Elfinsafety – Member

Projects for the New Year will include a sofa which converts to a double bed for occasional guests but one what looks nice, not like a sofa bed; a dining table; and rebuilding a 1970s sideboard. The coffee table will be a little indulgence piece; not sure what it’ll look like yet, but I want to produce a range of designs that will hopefully get made and sold. I have a spossible conduit through which to shift stuff.

Wanted to do some stuff for years really. Can’t beat a nice bit of furniture you’ve made yerself.

Posted 2 months ago

And :

Elfinsafety – Member

it’s only a basic inexpensive thing, but I’ve always loved it’s design. It’s battered and tatty now, 35+ years on, so I thought I’d rebuild the thing. I think only the cupboard and drawer handles and front leg piece will remain. Would look good with some very light blonde wood, with dark wood accents

Posted 2 months ago

OK, so I got it wrong……it’s not three-legged, it’s only got one leg.

So I’ll start again……….How’s your one-legged sideboard getting on ?

BTW that drill attachment is made by “Wolfcraft” ……… go to a shop and buy one 💡

Why do you insist on upsetting me? 😥

It’s got FOUR legs.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

Please try to be nice and helpful.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

In a **** tool shop. Where were you going to try ?

http://www.wolfcraft.de/jcatalog_generated/en/products/product_groups/857_product.html

There is not a shred of evidence that Labour would not have won in ’97 had it not been for Blair. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that John Smith would have comfortably won the general election

Read what I wrote again, ernie. I never suggested Labour wouldn’t have won in ’97 without Blair (a monkey with a red rosette could probably have beaten the late ’90s Tories) simply that the Tories might have found it easier to regroup had he not stolen all their ground. The question of course was actually how left wing a party is electable now (and capable of holding onto power for more than one term), given the UK public isn’t historically all that keen on parties as far to the left as you favour.

of course ’92 was in that period in which Labour is alleged to have been “unelectable”.

Hardly – an awful lot of people thought they were going to be elected. In any case it’s somewhat disingenuous to mention only the Labour vote for these elections – given a turnout of almost 78% in 1992 and only 59% in 2001, 61% in 2005 it’s hardly surprising Labour got more total votes in 1992. If you look at the more significant % of the vote, Labour managed 40.7% and 35.2% in 2001/2005 compared to 34.4% in 1992 (the significant difference between 1992 and 2005 being the Tory vote falling from 41.9% to 32.4% with the rise in popularity of the LibDems squeezing both).

I never suggested Labour wouldn’t have won in ’97 without Blair

And I never accused you of saying it……I referred to the right-wing media myth-makers.

LibDems squeezing both

Yeah, I said : What saved Blair’s political skin was the fact that the Tories remained deeply unpopular, and “other parties” saw their support grow.

The point was that Labour was perfectly electable before Blair – and millions did elect Labour MPs. The big advantage for Blair was, as you quite rightly pointed out, that he had percentages on his side – but that’s hardly a personal “credit” to him. After 1997, when people had a better idea of what he stood for, he received less total votes than Old Labour had. Which is not what the myth-makers would have you believe.