Jim Murphy

[strichener]

Probably not but that's not my point.

The Iraq war was unpopular from the off, even pre-invasion. The whole Bliar thing was in full swing from 2003 onwards. By 2005 it was pretty obvious there was no WMD and the whole thing had been a huge mistake. Yet even two years after the invasion of Iraq when the Lib Dems and SNP were making absolute hay with the issue then Blair's Labour still was supported in huge numbers - gathering up more votes than Alex Salmond's SNP did in 2011.

Regardless of what you think of either man or party. It is undeniable that Salmond's SNP in 2011 and Blair's Labour in 97,01 and 05 were hugely popular in scottish electoral terms. That's why this myth of scotland never taking to Blair is absolute nonsense.

Correct.

I would suggest that both of you are wrong. Scotland voted for Labour, not Blair. If Blair had been the leader of the Lib-Dems or the Conservatives Scotland would not have voted for these parties. The leader of the labour party is not the defining reason that people in Scotland vote Labour.

[Reynard]

I would suggest that both of you are wrong. Scotland voted for Labour, not Blair. If Blair had been the leader of the Lib-Dems or the Conservatives Scotland would not have voted for these parties. The leader of the labour party is not the defining reason that people in Scotland vote Labour.

Blair was never under any threat of a Conservative government during his time. Scotland was never under any threat of a Tory government. Yet Scots voted in their droves for Blairs Labour.

[BerwickMad]

Probably not but that's not my point.

The Iraq war was unpopular from the off, even pre-invasion. The whole Bliar thing was in full swing from 2003 onwards. By 2005 it was pretty obvious there was no WMD and the whole thing had been a huge mistake. Yet even two years after the invasion of Iraq when the Lib Dems and SNP were making absolute hay with the issue then Blair's Labour still was supported in huge numbers - gathering up more votes than Alex Salmond's SNP did in 2011.

Regardless of what you think of either man or party. It is undeniable that Salmond's SNP in 2011 and Blair's Labour in 97,01 and 05 were hugely popular in scottish electoral terms. That's why this myth of scotland never taking to Blair is absolute nonsense.

Good post.

[H_B]

The leader of the labour party is not the defining reason that people in Scotland vote Labour.

Uh huh.

So Thatcher had nothing to do with the tories being wiped out here?

[renton]

Probably not but that's not my point.

The Iraq war was unpopular from the off, even pre-invasion. The whole Bliar thing was in full swing from 2003 onwards. By 2005 it was pretty obvious there was no WMD and the whole thing had been a huge mistake. Yet even two years after the invasion of Iraq when the Lib Dems and SNP were making absolute hay with the issue then Blair's Labour still was supported in huge numbers - gathering up more votes than Alex Salmond's SNP did in 2011.

Regardless of what you think of either man or party. It is undeniable that Salmond's SNP in 2011 and Blair's Labour in 97,01 and 05 were hugely popular in scottish electoral terms. That's why this myth of scotland never taking to Blair is absolute nonsense.

It was unpopular, but not to the extent it would become post 2005, as I said, while a lot of folk made a lot of noise regarding the invasion, the wider public probably didn't turn agtainst it until it became an open ended blood bath.

Still, this is the Labour party opposed by first IDS and then Michael Howard, the SNP had not made the electoral break through at Holyrood yet and were nowhere near seen as a viable Westminster alternative. Scotland largely had no choice, or at least Labour were the least bad choice (arguably, Blair dodged the wrost of a kicking over Iraq by the Tories supporting him more than even his own party did). Therefore 'electorally popular' does not necessarily equate to Scotland 'taking to the man'.

[H_B]

Therefore 'electorally popular' does not necessarily equate to Scotland 'taking to the man'.

But, as I've indicated above with Thatcher, nor does it mean we didn't.

The only evidence available is that Blair did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally.

[roverthemoon]

I would suggest that both of you are wrong. Scotland voted for Labour, not Blair. If Blair had been the leader of the Lib-Dems or the Conservatives Scotland would not have voted for these parties. The leader of the labour party is not the defining reason that people in Scotland vote Labour.

In one sense you're right but if Blair was despised the way some claim he was then he would have been a barrier to folk voting Labour. He wasn't. Most were completely comfortable with him as leader which is why Labour got more votes than Salmond's SNP did in 2011. Both of these governments were hugely successful in electoral terms in Scotland which you don't do with someone people hate at the helm.

I'd argue Blair is very much like Salmond. A vocal group of folk despise and ridicule them but in broad popular support terms they both won over the scottish electorate and both should be classed as electoral successes.

[renton]

But, as I've indicated above with Thatcher, nor does it mean we didn't.

The only evidence available is that Blair did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally.

The only evidence we have is that Labour did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally.

[roverthemoon]

Therefore 'electorally popular' does not necessarily equate to Scotland 'taking to the man'.

Splitting heirs. Scotland has taken to no one then by your definition, not even Salmond. You can make up excuse as to why parties did better than others - weak opposition, no choice or whatever but the same applies to any party or leader. Look at McConnell and Gray against Salmond in 07 and 11 or McConnell against Swinney in 07.

The bottom line is in terms of electoral success the two most popular leaders in the last 50 years have been by a country mile Salmond and Blair. Both were electorally popular in Scotland and managed to lead their parties to winning votes in elections. Arguably Blair is more electorally popular than Salmond as he won more actual votes, did it three times and didn't have the early defeats that Salmond did. I know it's not a popular thing to admit on here but both were popular leaders in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither was an impediment to their part, infact the opposite is clearly true.

If Scotland never took to Blair then you also have to claim that we never took to Alex Salmond, which is quite obviously a daft notion to propose.

[roverthemoon]

The only evidence we have is that Labour did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally.

Let's meet halfway.

The only evidence we have is that Labour led by Blair did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally

[renton]

Splitting heirs. Scotland has taken to no one then by your definition, not even Salmond. You can make up excuse as to why parties did better than others - weak opposition, no choice or whatever but the same applies to any party or leader. Look at McConnell and Gray against Salmond in 07 and 11 or McConnell against Swinney in 07.

The bottom line is in terms of electoral success the two most popular leaders in the last 50 years have been by a country mile Salmond and Blair. Both were electorally popular in Scotland and managed to lead their parties to winning votes in elections. Arguably Blair is more electorally popular than Salmond as he won more actual votes, did it three times and didn't have the early defeats that Salmond did. I know it's not a popular thing to admit on here but both were popular leaders in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither was an impediment to their part, infact the opposite is clearly true.

If Scotland never took to Blair then you also have to claim that we never took to Alex Salmond, which is quite obviously a daft notion to propose.

Not really, because it assumes that all scenarios are equal and the same, that different personalities and personnel create the same situations and patterns over and over. Nu-Labour operated with Brown as virtual co-prime minister, and the visibility of Brown in Blair's election campaigns, particularly in Scotland was always high, my contention would be that Brown's personal appeal to Scottish voters was high enough to balance out any issues with Blair, which sat comfortably alongside the 'anything but the Tories' stance of many Scots.

Salmond for his part IS divisive, has always suffered from a gender gap and possibly wouldn't have got in, in 07 if he had been up against a better politician than McConnell. Having made that breakthrough he was able to guide the SNP into a position where there competence was a major asset, but the landslide in 2011 cannot be seen as simply 'how great Eck was' - it has to be seen in context of both SLab's continuing issues with it's own leadership and policies, as well as that of the wider UK party. When it came to denoucning coalition policies, the SNP did it more coherently, with less caveats and without 13 years of Blair around their necks to vremind everyone that they were just the same.

It's not an 'excuse' to factor in things like weak opposition, other party elements that could help or hinder a leader and previous elections colouring people's perceptions, it's a simple fact that you can't seperate the leader from the circumstance, so that ascribing personal popularity to the man (or woman) based purely on the electoral score when the polls close is simplistic at best.

[Dunning1874]

Probably not but that's not my point.

The Iraq war was unpopular from the off, even pre-invasion. The whole Bliar thing was in full swing from 2003 onwards. By 2005 it was pretty obvious there was no WMD and the whole thing had been a huge mistake. Yet even two years after the invasion of Iraq when the Lib Dems and SNP were making absolute hay with the issue then Blair's Labour still was supported in huge numbers - gathering up more votes than Alex Salmond's SNP did in 2011.

Regardless of what you think of either man or party. It is undeniable that Salmond's SNP in 2011 and Blair's Labour in 97,01 and 05 were hugely popular in scottish electoral terms. That's why this myth of scotland never taking to Blair is absolute nonsense.

You're correct in some of what you're saying, but while it's obviously true that particular fact is a bit of a misnomer: we're comparing Westminster and Holyrood here: it's hardly a like for like comparison and I don't think you can say on the basis of that that Blair's Labour were as popular as Salmond's SNP is. In 2005 Labour had 39.5% of the Scottish vote: that increased to 42% in 2010 yet no one would seriously argue that Labour became more popular in Scotland post-2005. That 39.5% wasn't an especially large share of the vote for Labour either: going from 1979 onwards only in '83 (35.1%) and '92 (39%) have they had a smaller share of the vote.

So while that evidence shows that when in power Blair wasn't any less popular in Scotland than other Labour leaders, it doesn't show that he was especially popular either. They certainly didn't do 'brilliantly' in Scotland, as HB claimed, any more than Kinnock's Labour did brilliantly. Basically, they continued getting a similar share of the Scottish vote they've always had since the Tories started losing ground. That doesn't suggest a Blairite, or for that matter Blair himself, would be able to do anything to stop a haemorrhage of votes if Labour lost the anti-Tory vote.

[roverthemoon]

Not really, because it assumes that all scenarios are equal and the same, that different personalities and personnel create the same situations and patterns over and over. Nu-Labour operated with Brown as virtual co-prime minister, and the visibility of Brown in Blair's election campaigns, particularly in Scotland was always high, my contention would be that Brown's personal appeal to Scottish voters was high enough to balance out any issues with Blair, which sat comfortably alongside the 'anything but the Tories' stance of many Scots.

Salmond for his part IS divisive, has always suffered from a gender gap and possibly wouldn't have got in, in 07 if he had been up against a better politician than McConnell. Having made that breakthrough he was able to guide the SNP into a position where there competence was a major asset, but the landslide in 2011 cannot be seen as simply 'how great Eck was' - it has to be seen in context of both SLab's continuing issues with it's own leadership and policies, as well as that of the wider UK party. When it came to denoucning coalition policies, the SNP did it more coherently, with less caveats and without 13 years of Blair around their necks to vremind everyone that they were just the same.

It's not an 'excuse' to factor in things like weak opposition, other party elements that could help or hinder a leader and previous elections colouring people's perceptions, it's a simple fact that you can't seperate the leader from the circumstance, so that ascribing personal popularity to the man (or woman) based purely on the electoral score when the polls close is simplistic at best.

The electoral score while simplistic is the only measure we have. So basically you're saying if we can't use that then we can't ever measure popularity or unpopularity of a leader because there are so many other factors at play. Fair enough, but then folk still can't claim with any credibility that scotland never took to Blair. We either just don't know or the simplistic electoral score suggest they did.

[roverthemoon]

In 2005 Labour had 39.5% of the Scottish vote: that increased to 42% in 2010 yet no one would seriously argue that Labour became more popular in Scotland post-2005

Your figures demonstrate that Labour did become more popular between 2005 and 2010. At least at Westminster. Their vote rose 2.5%

The whole debate was kicked off by a discussion about whether Scotland ever took to Blair or New Labour. There's electoral evidence to suggest they did.

My only point was that more people shifted their arse off their couch to vote for Labour led by Blair in 2005 (even after being in for 8 years and having invaded Iraq) as did to vote for SNP led by Salmond in 2011. (922,402 v 902,915 respectively)

With those figures you can't say Scotland wholeheartedly endorsed the SNP in 2011 but never took to Blair. It's nonsencial. Scotland embraced both parties and both leaders

[H_B]

The only evidence we have is that Labour did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally.

With Blair as leader.

[H_B]

Not really,

What a surprise. Scotland voted for Salmond but didn't vote for Blair.

Can't have it both ways. Either both are passengers or neither are.

[renton]

The electoral score while simplistic is the only measure we have. So basically you're saying if we can't use that then we can't ever measure popularity or unpopularity of a leader because there are so many other factors at play. Fair enough, but then folk still can't claim with any credibility that scotland never took to Blair. We either just don't know or the simplistic electoral score suggest they did.

Another measure might be a historical reference to the party behavour during that period, how it created policy, marketed it in Scotland and the personalities at the forefront of that. Certainly the perception seems to be that Scottish Labour at Holyrood was slower to enact the kind of Blairite reforms that the wider UK party did. There is also the case to be made that Brown, rather than Blair was often used in 'selling' policy to the Scottish electorate. He was the party base ticket balance to the more middle ground chasing Blair.

There is a suggestion then, at least, that Blair as a personality, even in terms of policy was not popular, but was electable.

[H_B]

They certainly didn't do 'brilliantly' in Scotland, as HB claimed,

Sorry, what?

Are you saying the Labour performance in Scotland in General Elections under Tony Blair wasn't astonishingly good?

[renton]

What a surprise. Scotland voted for Salmond but didn't vote for Blair.

Can't have it both ways. Either both are passengers or neither are.

Not what I said, I clearly pointed out Salmond is divisive and has had a 'drag' amongst some part sof the electorate. It's also ridiculous to suggest that 'either both are passengers or neither are' I don't think Salmond is universally liked, but I do think he was less of a drag than Blair had personally, which mattered less to Labour because they had Brown and were up against the Tories.

[H_B]

but I do think he was less of a drag than Blair had personally,

Just a pity this isn't at all borne out by the data.