renton Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Just a pity this isn't at all borne out by the data. Well, historical data does suggest that Labour used Brown up here more than Blair, that the former's personal appeal was much higher in Scotland than Blair and tha the was seen as a very powerful advocate in driving domestic policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Let's not forget a section of "Labour voter" would have only voted for them to keep the Tories out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Uh huh. So Thatcher had nothing to do with the tories being wiped out here? Of course she had something to do with it. In the same way as Tony Blair had something to do with Labour losing in the Holyrood elections to the SNP in 2007 and again in 2011. It is wrong to blame her for being wiped out, for three reasons; 1. The decline of the Tories started in 1959 and the actual wipe out occurred in 1997. As far as I am aware she was neither the leader in 1959 or 1997 2. A youguv poll in 2010 put support in Scotland for Thatcher ahead of Blair. (28% to 19% IIRC). 3. In elections where she stood as leader, the Tories lost 10% fewer voters than elections where Major stood. So no it doesn't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Let's not forget a section of "Labour voter" would have only voted for them to keep the Tories out The prospects of a tory government in 97, 01 and 05 were approximately zero. Where it probably DID kick in was in 2010 when there was a chance of a change of government and this meant Toreeeessss!!! The Labour vote certainly went up here at that point which bucked the trend in the rest of the country. Blair was away by this point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Let's meet halfway. The only evidence we have is that Labour led by Blair did spectacularly well in Scotland electorally Lets look at the before, during and after of Blair's leadership in general elections. Number of labour voters in Scotland were: Year Votes Change 1992 1,142,911 1997 1,283,350 (+140,439) 2001 1,001,173 (-282,177) 2005 922,402 (-78,711) 2010 1,035,528 (+113,126) So going by these figures, the Labour party lost votes under Tony Blair's leadership. In fact nearly 20% of their votes. Just a pity this isn't at all borne out by the data. Yes it is, see above. Edited to correct final year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Lets look at the before, during and after of Blair's leadership in general elections. Number of labour voters in Scotland were: Year Votes Change 1992 1,142,911 1997 1,283,350 (+140,439) 2001 1,001,173 (-282,177) 2005 922,402 (-78,711) 2011 1,035,528 (+113,126) So going by these figures, the Labour party lost votes under Tony Blair's leadership. In fact nearly 20% of their votes. What were the turnouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 What were the turnouts? Why is this relevant to how popular Blair was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Why is this relevant to how popular Blair was? Lower turnouts = lower numbers of votes. Fairly obvious. The turnout any higher in 2010 with the actual threat of a change of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Sorry, what? Are you saying the Labour performance in Scotland in General Elections under Tony Blair wasn't astonishingly good? That's exactly what I'm saying. Was it good? Of course. Was it a massive improvement on previous results? In 1997, yes. They won an impressive number of seats, taking far more seats from the Tory collapse than the SNP or Lib Dems managed and got their largest share of the Scottish vote since 1966. Taking all three elections under him though, the vote share wasn't massively different from what they had before and after. 1997 was a very good result, but 2001 and 2005 were just standard really. Nothing 'astonishing' or 'brilliant' about it. You could argue that 1997 proves that Blair was hugely popular rather than his party being hugely popular, but 2001 & 2005 don't suggest he's any more popular in Scotland than Kinnock or Brown were: it's the party that people were voting for, not the leader. Edit: No idea what's going on with the font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Lower turnouts = lower numbers of votes. Fairly obvious. The turnout any higher in 2010 with the actual threat of a change of government? So all the non-voters are deemed to be happy with the leader of the labour party. You appear to have some double-standards between this and the non-voters in the referendum. As you have stated in the other thread, these are the ones that could be bothered. Surely an election is only about the leader of the party. Otherwise how can people be claiming that Tony Blair was popular based on election results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 So all the non-voters are deemed to be happy with the leader of the labour party. You appear to have some double-standards between this and the non-voters in the referendum. As you have stated in the other thread, these are the ones that could be bothered. Surely an election is only about the leader of the party. Otherwise how can people be claiming that Tony Blair was popular based on election results? Correct. Did the perceived threat of a Tory government cause more folk to turn out to vote Labour then? Whereas during Blairs time the threat was non existent and people felt more comfortable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Correct. Did the perceived threat of a Tory government cause more folk to turn out to vote Labour then? Whereas during Blairs time the threat was non existent and people felt more comfortable? I feel that I am going round in circles here. Thanks for confirming the point that I made earlier that the elections were about Labour not Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I feel that I am going round in circles here. Thanks for confirming the point that I made earlier that the elections were about Labour not Blair. That's P&B for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I feel that I am going round in circles here. Thanks for confirming the point that I made earlier that the elections were about Labour not Blair. Blair was the Labour leader. A hugely popular one. Despite bizarre attempts to pretend otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Blair was the Labour leader. A hugely popular one. Despite bizarre attempts to pretend otherwise. The most popular leader Labour has had. Election evidence supports that. Labour actually won General Elections when he was leader and Scotland "got the government it voted for" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Lets look at the before, during and after of Blair's leadership in general elections. Number of labour voters in Scotland were: Year Votes Change 1992 1,142,911 1997 1,283,350 (+140,439) 2001 1,001,173 (-282,177) 2005 922,402 (-78,711) 2010 1,035,528 (+113,126) So going by these figures, the Labour party lost votes under Tony Blair's leadership. In fact nearly 20% of their votes. Yes it is, see above. Edited to correct final year. Looks as though Blair wasn't even as popular as Gordon Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Looks as though Blair wasn't even as popular as Gordon Brown. Brown was also hugely popular in Scotland. As his welcomed contribution to the utter routing of the "44.7" showed also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Scotland would have voted for a monkey in a red rosette as prime minister though. Looks as though that's changing now thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Brown was also hugely popular in Scotland. As his welcomed contribution to the utter routing of the "44.7" showed also. Hugely popular? Aye? What about Sturgeon then? She's a Messiah? The same You Gov poll also asked: How much do you trust: Nicola Sturgeon: 48% Gordon Brown: 37% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Hugely popular? Aye? What about Sturgeon then? She's a Messiah? So is Salmond. You still took a gubbing in your referendum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.