Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Was never a fan of his,however just can't see Labour doing as badly as they are if he was still in charge. 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Election 2010 & Tony Blair.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
coventrygull
the right one
Was never a fan of his,however just can't see Labour doing as badly as they are if he was still in charge.
A war criminal would really get the votes
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,822
he would still appeal to mid-england voters and Labour wouldnt be suggesting people adopt tactical voting.
Bluejuice
Lazy as a rug on Valium
It reminds me a little of Clinton with Al Gore in the US election in 2000.
Clinton, despite his misdemeanours, was actually a pretty good politician and retained a good deal of popular support during his years in office HOWEVER the Democrats were desperate to distance themselves from his tainted reputation as emerged from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton himself was reportedly keen to support Al Gore's campaign (after all he had served his maximum two terms so couldn't stand himself) but was discouraged by the party from being seen to support Gore and the Democrats. As a result they lost a seasoned political campaigner and subsequently lost the election (or at least had it stolen from them).
Similarly I feel Brown desperately wants to distance himself from Tony Blair who lost a lot of support for his role in sending British troops to Iraq. However the fact remains that Blair was an immensely popular politician and a very good public speaker. He is infinitely better in the public eye and with the press than the current Labour leader, despite some of his unpopular decisions, and I saw on the news last week that the party had actually drafted in Blair at the last minute to prop up their flagging campaign because they're desperate now.
I think it's difficult to say whether Blair would have had more success than Brown in this election but I certainly don't think he would have done any worse
Clinton, despite his misdemeanours, was actually a pretty good politician and retained a good deal of popular support during his years in office HOWEVER the Democrats were desperate to distance themselves from his tainted reputation as emerged from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton himself was reportedly keen to support Al Gore's campaign (after all he had served his maximum two terms so couldn't stand himself) but was discouraged by the party from being seen to support Gore and the Democrats. As a result they lost a seasoned political campaigner and subsequently lost the election (or at least had it stolen from them).
Similarly I feel Brown desperately wants to distance himself from Tony Blair who lost a lot of support for his role in sending British troops to Iraq. However the fact remains that Blair was an immensely popular politician and a very good public speaker. He is infinitely better in the public eye and with the press than the current Labour leader, despite some of his unpopular decisions, and I saw on the news last week that the party had actually drafted in Blair at the last minute to prop up their flagging campaign because they're desperate now.
I think it's difficult to say whether Blair would have had more success than Brown in this election but I certainly don't think he would have done any worse
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
Tony Blair, for all his faults, did a fantastic job of reinventing the Labour party and making it electable.
Gordon Brown has now reversed the whole process and made the party unelectable again.
TB must be well pleased with GB.
Gordon Brown has now reversed the whole process and made the party unelectable again.
TB must be well pleased with GB.
Although Gore actually won more votes than GWB (and that's after some rather dubious electoral practices in Florida) so Gore didn't do that badly.