Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution (Episode 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Two young MPs, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are determined to modernise the Labour party against a backdrop of economic strife and dire election failures.
Copyright (C) BBC, BBC News, BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Worldwide, 2021. If you would like me to remove this video, please contact me, not UA-cam.
Hey! It would be greatly appreciated if you could buy me a coffee in lieu of all the videos I have uploaded. Everything here is free, worldwide. It really helps, Thank You.
www.buymeacoff...
Fascinating to see this, and glad to hear from both Brown and Blair today reflecting on it. I have a lot of respect for both of them.
Tony reached out and took it. Mr. Brown waited for it to fall in his lap.
It's clear to me that Gordon wasn't meant to be Prime Minister and only became one subsequently as a result of Tony resigning.
Gordon was far more effective in a role that didn't require him to be the centre of focus and attention, because he didn't have that dynamism.
History has proved this.
He was worn out by the time he became Prime Minister ten years in the treasury is way too long
New Labour was awesome before going to Iraq!!!
If it weren't for Iraq, new labor, time and government, and Tony Blair would've been remembered as one of the best Prime Minister the country has had
Brown wouldn't have stood a chance of beating John Smith in a 1992 leadership election, given Smith's experience, standing and popularity within the party (amongst different factions). Therefore it was always a bit disingenous of Blair and Mandelson to act as though Brown 'had his chance in 1992 and blew it'. Also had he challenged Smith, there's a good chance that Smith after his inevitable victory wouldn't have promoted him to shadow chancellor in 1992.
I always thought that any Labour leader whether it was Smith, Brown, Kinnock etc., would have won the 1997 election with a comfortable majority, but that no other Labour leader would won it as big as Blair did (with a super-landslide majority pushing 180), with his charisma, appeal to Middle England, and appeal to the Murdoch media. The 1997 election was probably aready won for Labour after Black Wednesday in September 1992, or after the Tories put VAT on fuel in March 1993 at the very latest. Everything that happened after then, just increased the margin of the already inevitable Labour win / Tory defeat.
Maybe, but I don't think any of the others could have won three consecutive elections. Even consecutive elections, I'm not sure. Brown, perhaps, but his political instincts weren't nearly as shrewd. Blair was a once-in-a-generation political talent.
@@ER1CwC well the Tories lurched to the right after the 1997 election defeat and made themselves completely unelectable, which they’ll most likely do after losing the next election. I think that would have still happened without Blair (Starmer is no Blair and they’re still making the same mistakes currently) , as Labour were already dominating the centre ground anyway (though Blair increased the scale of that dominance). So I think they get re-elected anyway in 2001/2002 as the Tories were a shambles.
To be honest the 3rd election win by Labour in 2005 was incredibly fortunate The Tories enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq so couldn’t use that as an attack-line, and ran what both Alistair Campbell and Tim Bell considered to be one of the worst campaigns they’ve ever seen. And despite that, Labour ended up with the lowest vote share out of any winning / largest party in history (when it comes to Uk general elections), plus the lowest number of votes (failing to even cross the 10 million mark) since 1929. The Tories actually received more votes in England than them, plus numerous previously safe Labour seats turned into tight marginals.
@@Gizo02 I see what you are saying, but two things. First, Blair was able to dominate the center ground (including perhaps the center-right) and squeeze the Conservatives further to the right, all the while maintaining control of his left flank. Maybe some of that was luck, but I think it was also skill (and charisma). I'm not sure the others would have had the ability to do that or even the inclination to do that. One take away from this documentary was that even Brown was noticeably to his left.
Second, elections are about how far things swing in a certain direction; they aren't races where everyone starts from the same position. So in 1997, things swung so far in Labour's direction that it could afford to lose significant support over the next successive elections (which happened in 2005) and still be competitive. Had the initial victory not been so large, maybe not the next election, but the third election (what ended up being 2005) would likely have been a lot iffier. Incidentally, hat's why I don't think Labour is going to have a massive majority in 2024. Given the current composition of the House, the size of the swing would have to be unprecedented. Labour actually shouldn't even be competitive, but the Conservatives have truly been a trainwreck this current term.
No one should compare Blair to the man mountain that was Clement Atlee
8:00 Sir Keir Starmer
Thanks
80s Peter Mandelson = Boycie
Blair and Brown were very successful in creating a managerial and precise party machine. They were awful at actual politics though, and that's what found them out in the end. Whether you count that transformation of the Labour party as a success, or failure, it's ultimately the end product that defines you and they failed at the 'boring' day to day politics. It could and should have been so much better, but they were laser focused on the party. A waste of a great opportunity that could have been as transformative as the Atlee Government.
Correct
7th time watching fell asleep every other time
The labour party changed after these two....for the worst in my opinion .
Without them there would have been no labour government since 1979. That would be 44 years of single party rule. That would be a disaster.
You’re right. That’s why they kept losing elections. Ideological purity and dogma.
Most people couldn’t give two shits about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. They just want things to work and have a good standard of living for themselves and for their kids.
54:15 Peter Hitchens?
yes
Blair was 1 of the best PMs, Brown was one of the worst.
Brown wasn't that bad, he was just caught in the financial crash
Blair was brilliant. If it hadn’t been for Iraq he would have gone down as the best PM in UK history.
Absoutely not, Attlee did 100 times more than Blair