I think what I'm asking is: does the public image (or even the IL* image) of the New Labour government basically fit an unchanging stereotype which has been there since way before they were elected (eg: 'It's all spin', etc), or has it shifted more subtly than that?
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 30 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― I R fatnick, Tuesday, 30 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― DG, Tuesday, 30 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Ed, Tuesday, 30 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― chris, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
actually I recon he'll go on two years after the next election and hand things over to blunkett rather than Brown.
― Ed, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
not quite
― acrobat, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)
Ed seriously wide of the mark there!
― Tom D., Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:55 (eighteen years ago)
two years after next election was spot-on though.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)
Blunkett is the man behind the curtain
― blueski, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:16 (eighteen years ago)
How real was the idea of war in Iraq at this point? Was Ed reference to the "antiwar contingent" about Afghanistan or was Iraq already in the air. I remember it not seeming, in my mind, like it was actually gonna happen till about October 2002. I probably wasn't paying attention.
Irecon they'll be a piece of sexual or racial equality legislation coming or an improvement in workers right before the end of TWAT.
Is TWAT over? Did any such legislation go through?
― acrobat, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:22 (eighteen years ago)
no i don't think iraq was in the air, not too much. one war at a time. bush and blair shook on it in -- i think -- early 2002, and the PR campaign started that summer.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:33 (eighteen years ago)
it was only seeing that on andrew marr pwns modern history that i got a sense of the timescale. iraq semed inevitable, in my mind, from early 2003 i guess.
― acrobat, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:47 (eighteen years ago)
i think autumn 2002 when the '45 minutes' thing happened, i was basically yup this will happen, before that maybe not. but i think that shows how fast these things happen -- only really 6-9 months of softening up the public.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)
pinefox is perhaps OTM in his first post thou:
"This is going to be a real issue for historians in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years' time."
'cos like the real meat of the blair "story" comes before and after. 1999 - 2002 is sort of the prelude i guess to the downfall i guess.
― acrobat, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 13:56 (eighteen years ago)
In a speech in London to the New Labour thinktank Progress, Blair also advocated a "pick and mix" of policy that did not adhere to old narratives of left and right. He urged the party to let go of some of its old ideologies in order to arrive at the "right" policy decisions.
― nakhchivan, Friday, 8 July 2011 17:09 (fourteen years ago)
Will that lead to an end to boom and bust, I wonder?
― carson dial, Friday, 8 July 2011 17:19 (fourteen years ago)
Blair also advocated a "pick and mix" of policy that did not adhere to old narratives of boom and bust. He urged the party to let go of some of its old ideologies in order to arrive at the "bust" policy decisions.
― nakhchivan, Friday, 8 July 2011 22:45 (fourteen years ago)
easy to be wise after the fact, you have to admire his sticking to his pr no fuckit i can't even finish
― VIRGIN ROO (darraghmac), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)