_Zd_Phoenix_ said:
I WOULD be...
Labour actually has managed the economy quite well, I don't know why you'd say they haven't.
The economy has grown despite Labour, not because of it. Labour boasts of the uninterrupted economic growth during their term, but that period started in, er, 1993.
New Labour sees business as a load of mugs to flog hospitals off to and a source of future employment for disgraced ministers, while Old Labour sees business as an easy, voteless target for tax rises at best and a load of capitalistic pigs to be slaughtered at worst.
Other than that the only thing going for them is that they're to the left of the Tories (although sometimes you wouldn't know it), although I forgot to mention I don't think it was just an 'American war'.
How was it ours, then?
Bloody Lib Dems...if they actually formed an identity that wasn't based on 'being to the left of those other partys and then being apologetic about it' i'd easily be a natural voter for them but they're too wishy washy.
As far as I'm concerned, they're the only party that ISN'T wishy-washy. I disagree with them on tax, on student fees, on the environment, on pretty much everything economic... but if they got elected, it would mean that the electorate hadn't fallen for the cheap American-style tricks of the Tories and Labour. They won't be, of course, but we can always hope for a hung parliament.
The three lasting legacies of Tony Blair will be the Iraq war, the Millennium Dome (remember that? unless you read Private Eye, probably not), and foot and mouth disease (ditto). Remember, that was the time where if you were unfortunate enough to live in the countryside, DEFRA could come along and Final Solutionize your entire flock, plus any pets you had lying around, without any real reason. Illegally, obviously, only they passed legislation to make it legal AFTER the event. If voters had an ounce of sense, Labour wouldn't receive a single vote on the basis of foot-and-mouth alone.