Jim Murphy

[H_B]

As I pointed out, it's 2005 before the wider public turns against the Iraq occupation: The 2003 invasion was not liked by the active political left, but in general the public were, if not supportive, then indifferent so long as it was the usual short 'liberal intervention' with an easy victory and no blood to show. Brown, to an extent got the backlash for that rather than Blair.

Well, by then Labour had run their course. They'd been in charge too long. I think that was primarily their problem.

This article, in 2003, from the Grauniad shows public opinion shifted long before 2005.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/18/politics.iraq

The rift between Tony Blair and the British public over war against Iraq is today confirmed by an opinion poll which shows for the first time that a clear majority of British voters now oppose a military attack.

The survey, taken over the weekend, reveals that Mr Blair has sustained significant political damage from the debate over Iraq. His personal rating has dropped through the floor to minus 20 points, the lowest level since the petrol crisis two and a half years ago.

And yet, Blair still won a landslide in Scotland in 2005.

[BerwickMad]

Do you really think that the alternatives from the UK MSM are much better, less skewed and less filled with propaganda? Really?

Yes. I don't agree with everything I see in the MSM, but the propaganda sites are usually far more biased.

[strichener]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ozLMxCszcTw&feature=youtu.be

Clearly stated in this video that "We've already given Jim Murphy's bag back".

Probably gave back the empty bag so that he doesn't claim the 5p on his expenses.

Well done the food bank - saving taxpayer's money at every opportunity.

[Fotbawmad]

Arguably it was 2005 before folk started to realise exactly how bad things were getting in Iraq, and when thigns started to heat up in Afghanistan as well. Rejection of the 03 invasion was constrained to the usual social and political coalitions, it wasn't until the lack of WMDs allied to the gridning attritional quality of policing Iraq in later years that the unpopularity of the action really set in. Add to that another 9 years in Afghanistan achieving not a hell of a lot. Then of course, the crash in 2008 which happened, if not on Blair's watch directly, but certainly he had played his part in manouvering the UK banking sector into a vulnerable position when the crash hit.

So, really, in 2014 would Blair, or a Blairite candidate meet with the same kind of popularity as he would've in 2005. I doubt it.

That's true, while Thatcher abolished reserve requirements for banks altogether in 1981, which caused a predicable boom bust in the 80's. Blair allowed traditional high street and investment banking to be merged in 1999. Not to mention the deregulation on derivatives which are a massive Ponzi scheme and create huge conflicts of interest. Essentially, you allow people to bet on someone else's house being burned down, and then they'll try and manipulate the conditions to increase the likelihood of it happening. By giving all the arsonists in the area free lighter fuel and matches. Then when the house burns down, because 200 people took insurance out against that house. The insurance company has to pay out many times over for a relatively minor event.

[DAFC]

Inside Murphy's brain before referendum...

Hmmm, if I pretend to care about Scotland then maybe I can undermine the Labour leader, defeat the SNP and become the next FM.

Moar money. Now where did I put darlings number.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Free prescriptions cost around £60m a year.

I'm always amazed that free prescriptions gets peoples backs up when we 've just spent £37 BILLION on a pointless war in Afghanistan and will be spending £100 BILLION on Trident.

Hardly a peep on war and WMD's but mention free prescriptions and those who didn't pay their Poll Tax and some are apoplectic with rage.

Yeah but Council Tax freezes, free prescriptions, free higher education etc are middle class subsidies but pointless wars indiscriminately kill all kinds of of brown people, so that's much fairer.

[strichener]

Yeah but Council Tax freezes, free prescriptions, free higher education etc are middle class subsidies but pointless wars indiscriminately kill all kinds of of brown people, so that's much fairer.

Yep lets spend billions ruining countries so that we can then spend even more billions re-building them.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Yep lets spend billions ruining countries so that we can then spend even more billions re-building them.

Now these are policies I can really get behind! As long as these new rebuilt countries dont have free education or anything. That would be unfair on them.

[Fotbawmad]

Now these are policies I can really get behind! As long as these new rebuilt countries dont have free education or anything. That would be unfair on them.

Not to mention we can put future generations on the hook for it. Nothing better than partying at someone else's expense

[Enigma]

Well, by then Labour had run their course. They'd been in charge too long. I think that was primarily their problem.

This article, in 2003, from the Grauniad shows public opinion shifted long before 2005.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/18/politics.iraq

The rift between Tony Blair and the British public over war against Iraq is today confirmed by an opinion poll which shows for the first time that a clear majority of British voters now oppose a military attack.

The survey, taken over the weekend, reveals that Mr Blair has sustained significant political damage from the debate over Iraq. His personal rating has dropped through the floor to minus 20 points, the lowest level since the petrol crisis two and a half years ago.

And yet, Blair still won a landslide in Scotland in 2005.

Labour did wel in Scotland in 2005 because there was no credible opposition, in 2007 there was.

[Hammyton]

What free prescriptions? We pay taxes, we pay for prescriptions.

What sort of society would make people pay taxes that pay for the NHS and then charge for the medicine given out by the NHS?

[Broomhill Ultra]

Now these are policies I can really get behind! As long as these new rebuilt countries dont have free education or anything. That would be unfair on them.

That's bullshit mate; unless, maybe, build a coalition of nearby countries that don't allow free elections or equal rights for women and publicly execute petty criminals, get that sorted and I'm in too.

[boabinoban]

Yes. I don't agree with everything I see in the MSM, but the propaganda sites are usually far more biased.

Yes they can be for both sides, but the skewed take on the referendum questions from the MSM was absolutely appalling and unforgivable. For those of us that choose to go a bit further than just skim the headlines and maybe the front page news story it was all too apparent that this was war. The No campaign fought a propaganda war which far outweighed the clout of any news title that favoured independence, which I could use to point out that out of 37 publications only ONE favoured independence. It was like the rUK had gone to war with an independent Scotland from a media point of view. That's certainly what it felt like. I've never witnessed anything like it before in my life and believe me it has left a lasting impression with me and many others.

[haggis pakora]

Now these are policies I can really get behind! As long as these new rebuilt countries dont have free education or anything. That would be unfair on them.

At least when these country's are getting rebuilt,the locals will have jobs.

Is that not a good thing?

[Fotbawmad]

At least when these country's are getting rebuilt,the locals will have jobs. Is that not a good thing?

Just because you're a business who sells double glazing. Doesn't mean paying local vandals to pelt stones at peoples windows is good for the overall economy. You have to consider the opportunity costs involved.

[BerwickMad]

Yes they can be for both sides, but the skewed take on the referendum questions from the MSM was absolutely appalling and unforgivable. For those of us that choose to go a bit further than just skim the headlines and maybe the front page news story it was all too apparent that this was war. The No campaign fought a propaganda war which far outweighed the clout of any news title that favoured independence, which I could use to point out that out of 37 publications only ONE favoured independence. It was like the rUK had gone to war with an independent Scotland from a media point of view. That's certainly what it felt like. I've never witnessed anything like it before in my life and believe me it has left a lasting impression with me and many others.

There was loads of impartial stuff around the referendum. You're looking it from a point of view where you were believing all the propaganda and hard luck stories from your websites and from similar minded people on the internet, so it was hardly a wonder you saw people and publications who weren't singing your tune as being 'appalling'. The Yes campaign was one of the greatest political marketing campaigns in history. Thousands of otherwise clued up people believing and spreading the tripe they were being fed.

[boabinoban]

There was loads of impartial stuff around the referendum. You're looking it from a point of view where you were believing all the propaganda and hard luck stories from your websites and from similar minded people on the internet, so it was hardly a wonder you saw people and publications who weren't singing your tune as being 'appalling'. The Yes campaign was one of the greatest political marketing campaigns in history. Thousands of otherwise clued up people believing and spreading the tripe they were being fed.

...aaaaand BerwickMad reverts to type. That's quite an unbelievable response. Either:

a) you're trolling like the many others on here

b) you've been living in a cave for the past two years

c) you're on some real hefty medication

d) all of the above

[H_B]

That's true, while Thatcher abolished reserve requirements for banks altogether in 1981, which caused a predicable boom bust in the 80's. Blair allowed traditional high street and investment banking to be merged in 1999. Not to mention the deregulation on derivatives which are a massive Ponzi scheme and create huge conflicts of interest. Essentially, you allow people to bet on someone else's house being burned down, and then they'll try and manipulate the conditions to increase the likelihood of it happening. By giving all the arsonists in the area free lighter fuel and matches. Then when the house burns down, because 200 people took insurance out against that house. The insurance company has to pay out many times over for a relatively minor event.

Just as well Scotland had Alex Salmond... he wouldn't have fallen for those bankers' wheezes....

[roverthemoon]

Arguably it was 2005 before folk started to realise exactly how bad things were getting in Iraq, and when thigns started to heat up in Afghanistan as well. Rejection of the 03 invasion was constrained to the usual social and political coalitions, it wasn't until the lack of WMDs allied to the gridning attritional quality of policing Iraq in later years that the unpopularity of the action really set in. Add to that another 9 years in Afghanistan achieving not a hell of a lot. Then of course, the crash in 2008 which happened, if not on Blair's watch directly, but certainly he had played his part in manouvering the UK banking sector into a vulnerable position when the crash hit.

So, really, in 2014 would Blair, or a Blairite candidate meet with the same kind of popularity as he would've in 2005. I doubt it.

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.

[H_B]

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.