Reminder: Latest blog at top of page. Earlier posts towards the bottom.
I think it's fair to assume that, although I have admitted to having voted for all three of the main UK parties over the last half century - or so, a significant number of those whom I follow or am being followed by on Twitter are a bit on the arty-farty side (as they say) and, as a consequence lean to the left in political terms.
This blog is for them.
There aren't many amongst those who voted for New Labour in 1997 who would deny they are disappointed that the euphoria which attended Tony Blair's election has dwindled to the point where many suspect they may have been deceived. Yet, despite his obvious faults - his unilateral decision to take this country to war, for example - there are still some who cling to the concept that his period in office was a success. However, the resignations of real socialists like Frank Field, Claire Short and Robin Cook, for example, suggests there were some who acknowledged a failure to live up to their promises.
Going on from that, there is a widely-held conception that Tony Blair resigned in an honourable reponse to an alleged pact involving Gordon Brown in a restaurant in Islington a decade, or so, previouly. This isn't true. He was forced to resign following a massive revolt by his own backbenchers.
Putting that aside, however, I have recently heard it claimed that, "whilst the last few years under Labour haven't been that groundbreaking, at least a lot was achieved in the first few years."
Sadly, however, that observation fails to acknowledge that New Labour - and Gordon Brown, in particular - made no effort to alter the fiscal plans his Tory predecessor made prior to the 1997 election. What's more, there is strong evidence to suggest that they have continued to 'steal' Conservative policies throughout their term in office.
Now, I would like to think that those who have taken the trouble to follow this blog will have recognised that a fundamental aim in putting it together is to draw attention to how many voters seem to be influenced by sentiment rather than common sense and fear rather than fact.
For example, whomsoever made the aformentioned statement seems determined to remain loyal to a socialist heritage based on background (perhaps) together with (almost certainly) a lingering memory of being a child and a young adult during the Thatcher years. The consequence of these circumstances may have contributed towards the factor I mentioned in the previous paragraph - i.e. fear (of the Tories) - which has proved to be stronger than the recognition of fact - i.e. the last few years under Labour haven't been groundbreaking.
Perhaps this is an appropriate time to point out that there are alternatives to both of the above!