<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The public mood in Britain is still (just) with the parties of the Left.</title>
	<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117159</link>
	<description>High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: BlairSupporter</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117159#comment-463252</link>
		<dc:creator>BlairSupporter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/117159#comment-463252</guid>
		<description>Yes, that is all true, and has more or less always been the case since the Liberals merged with the SDP in 1988, and even before in Alliance days.

Blair stole the 20th century mantle of "natural party of government" from the Tories because of his appeal to moderates across the political spectrum and his lack of political ideology. He recognised early on that the country was mostly voting Left rather than Right. So for more than 4 years from 1995 on, he discussed, quietly - so quietly that even Alastair Campbell didn't know - the possibility of merging or coalescing or just working together with the Lib Dems. His party, Gordon Brown &#38; John Prescott notably, would have none of it.

How different things might have been had he succeeded in managing to combine ALL of the Left into one strong grouping. Iraq for one. We WOULD still have allied with the USA, imho, but the Lib Dems, nearer government than for the best part of a century, would have finally understood what leadership and responsibility at national AND international levels are all about.

Blair - a man ahead of his time.

And now we may have to watch as the present vacuous Tory party rules by default. More irritating still, since Cameron is Blair Mark 2, without the breadth of either principles or vision.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, that is all true, and has more or less always been the case since the Liberals merged with the SDP in 1988, and even before in Alliance days.</p>
<p>Blair stole the 20th century mantle of &#8220;natural party of government&#8221; from the Tories because of his appeal to moderates across the political spectrum and his lack of political ideology. He recognised early on that the country was mostly voting Left rather than Right. So for more than 4 years from 1995 on, he discussed, quietly - so quietly that even Alastair Campbell didn&#8217;t know - the possibility of merging or coalescing or just working together with the Lib Dems. His party, Gordon Brown &amp; John Prescott notably, would have none of it.</p>
<p>How different things might have been had he succeeded in managing to combine ALL of the Left into one strong grouping. Iraq for one. We WOULD still have allied with the USA, imho, but the Lib Dems, nearer government than for the best part of a century, would have finally understood what leadership and responsibility at national AND international levels are all about.</p>
<p>Blair - a man ahead of his time.</p>
<p>And now we may have to watch as the present vacuous Tory party rules by default. More irritating still, since Cameron is Blair Mark 2, without the breadth of either principles or vision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

