Talk:Blairism

Last paragraph

The last paragraph seems to be more subjective than objective - could this be changed in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanlewis (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 September 2006

Frank Field, a blairite?

REally? what about 10p tax revolt etc. I thought he's a left winger?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blairites are left wingers

12th Doctor

Founder, Leader and Chief Editor of Blairism and Thatcherism Templates —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Field is/was generally regarded as a right-wing rebel against Blair, along with Kate Hoey et al. Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP and naming "blairites" without reliable sources

It's entirely unacceptable that we're naming someone a "blairite" (or a brownite, a thatcherite, a scargilite, or a selenite) without multiple reliable sources. I don't doubt that such sources can be found for most of these people, but right now the list of people is an unsourced synthesis with no reliable sources or objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that, at the moment, although there are definitely a lot of Blairites on the list, there are a lot of people on the list who definitely aren't Blairites (Peter Hain? Jack Dromey? Margaret Beckett? Alan Johnson?). If the criteria of being a Blairite is 'working with Blair', then they are, but they're also Brownites; if the criteria is 'not being Brownite' then they are, but so is Tony Benn. If no one objects I'll look for some reliable sources (not the Daily Mail list of Blairites and Brownites, that's a joke source) over the next week, and after a week delete any name for which I can't find at least two reliable soruces.

Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing list

The list of Blairites is largely bunk. It contains several figures who definitely are not Blairites, along with dozens of names with no source to back up their inclusion. I see 'Blairism' as vaguely defined, therefore dubbing figures (especially post-2010 figures) as 'Blarities' is always going to be contentious. Perhaps incorporate several key figures into the main text instead. -- Hazhk (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that, if a name is in the list without possible attribution by very sources, it should be removed. Indeed, perhaps removing the list and instead replacing with a "Key Blairites" section, and a short paragraph, would do? -- Seewolves (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, we have the previous discussion from 2009 about this above. I would suggest cutting it and returning to add it later if necessary. -- Seewolves (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Should be removed, it is a pretty meaningless and tendentious list, as users have noted. 'Blairite' is a pejorative anyway now, rightly or wrongly, so the list is likely to be the subject of unsourcable point scoring. Philip Cross (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Croydon CLP banning the term 'Blairite'

Croydon CLP recently banned the term 'Blairite' source:https://insidecroydon.com/2016/08/03/croydon-labour-meeting-bans-the-use-of-the-word-blairite/ I was wondering whether this was relevant to the article at hand and whether it shows the term as being negative. Sata1991 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed unattributed paragraph on Blair vs Brown

I've just removed this paragraph from the article:

"With New Labour determined not to lose another election after nearly two decades out of office, and in relation to the modernisation of the party resulting in the creation of "New Labour", the party felt Brown still backed "Old Labour" policies, where they feared they would lose another election if Brown became leader. As the result of Brown not acquiring enough backing following key party members switching from Brown to Blair, coupled with Blair's charisma, youthful looks and excellent oratory skills, Brown agreed not to stand against Blair - leading to the Labour landslide victory in 1997."

It makes a lot of unsupported claims and also, I think unintentionally, implies that Brown not standing against Blair directly caused the Labour landslide victory of 1997. It does not give sources for the party feeling that Brown backed "Old Labour" policies, nor that the party felt it would lose another election if Brown became leader. Given Brown's support among MPs both as Chancellor and later, when winning the nomination to be Labour leader and of course Prime Minister, I don't think this paragraph has the weight of evidence to back itself up. I don't think it's necessarily wrong but certainly not cited.

Feel free to add back in, of course, if I've been too hasty in deleting. -- Seewolves (talk) 16:11 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blairism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420121545/http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/5038/in-conversation-with-matthew-parris.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/5038/in-conversation-with-matthew-parris.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)