bloody well said.

Back then First World problems. Now Third world problems.

lol...under Labour it will be 1,000 times worse

@@marcokite you have nothing to base this on. When Labour were in power we were actually a first world country. The Tories have turned the UK into a basket case with crumbling infrastructure, nothing working. It would actually be hard for Labour to do a worse job.

PFI is crippling a lot of schools and hospitals. Just so Blair and Brown could pretend they didn't increase debt.

He soon zipped up when Blair stressed how graduates had risen by 5% to 40%. This is why I don't believe Labour when they now say they'll scrap tuitions fees, it's just bait to get students to vote for them, they'll never be scrapped because taxpayers will hit the roof and that number will climb to 80%.

​@@Da1Dez Nick Clegg pledge comes to mind

The UK seems to get worse and I think it will socially-speaking after this forthcoming election!

Didn't spitting image do Johnson with hair that was alive also? Tres spooky!

dpf2122 tbh this also has a fair share of dumb qs our standards have slipped completely

Exactly Clegg actually lost seats. I believe he lost 5 seats in 2010.

@@DFandV Yes Kennedy won 62 seats and Clegg won 57. However Clegg did gain almost one million more votes in 2010 and had a slight gain in the percentage of the vote.

They probably would’ve held the 62 had it not been for the expenses/other scandals involving some of their MP’s, like Mark Oaten in Winchester.

globaltraveller this was a couple months before I was born and this was a good time Labour was centrist which is its best version in my opinion.

Haha. I know right? Just amazing to so look back and see how everything turned out. I don't think anyone back then could see Brexit coming and the Conservatives governing the country again.

I know what you mean but it really does look like a long time ago now! Look at the clothes lol. And hard to imagine a leader like Michael Howard ever being elected in this day and age, he's like a throwback to the 70s here.

Where it's always gone.

Scary yeah> I was 16 at the time. Forgot how much of a bond villain Howard looked.

I respected Charles Kenedy but I think Michel Howard was the best PM we never had. He won 33 more seats in the 2005 GE but resigned shortly afterwords having done all the ground word for David Cameron to succeed.

@@pathughes8902 I prefer Howard to Hague that’s for sure

Even though Michael Howard would be considered the second coming of Hitler by today's standards.

@Daniel Clark Clark nothing by a normal standard. By a sjw standard, every part.

@Daniel Clark Clark He's saying that politics is so polarized now that people on the left would be triggered by the more moderate policies of 2005 by comparison even though the manifesto, in reality, isn't really that extreme.

The boring politics of consensus, of all the main politicians selling Britain down the river to more European federalism, to more foreign wars. Can’t say I miss this era of politics one bit. So called moderate politics is the domain of bland neo-liberal/neo-conservative cowards with no principles. What is “moderate” is also way too subjective and shifts all the time with shifts in the Overton window. So if you opposed LGBT lessons being in the curriculum of state schools nowadays you’d be called “hard-right” “homophobic” and such, opposing such a policy back in 2005 would’ve been considered normal and mainstream.

@@wessexfox5197 best comment here. “Moderate” politicians always lurch over to the right anyway, that’s after they’ve done their left wing public appearance like Blair & Obama.

A better leader than his successor and predecessor

@@wilsonfisk6626 that doesn't say much though.

I do think Howard was wrong on the issue of the Iraq War though

I swear you comment this on every video

@@jackdoesstuff6203 so you’ve seen my comments before on other videos featuring Michael Howard. Well at least I’m consistent with this viewpoint.

They’d of done much better in 2005 had they drafted Portillo in as leader, he was still an MP in 2003 and could’ve made the 2005 election much closer in terms of seats than it ended up being.

@@wessexfox5197 I agree. Portillo was the best candidate in the 2001 leadership election. He made sense and he was more authentic than David Cameron later on. Portillo failed to make it to the runoff and general membership vote because he was unsuccessful in getting enough support from MPs, either side of the Party. The Europhile wets who had the most socially liberal stances were obviously going to go with Ken Clarke more predominantly. As for the Eurosceptic Thatcherites, they were socially conservative and Portillo’s talk of “modernisation had alienated too many. If Michael Portillo had made it to the final vote, he’d have won easily and then been able to satisfy both sides of the Party going forward. If Portillo as the Party’s leader had been able to warm to a significant amount of the public who had previously disliked him and who had viewed him as too arrogant, he definitely would’ve ran New Labour much closer in 2005 than what Michael Howard did.

A great man and yes he deserved longer.

@@andypandy4607 and become a blue kinnock? 2 time loser?

Cameron did not reduce the numbers so Howard wouldn't have done. Both pro EU.

He should’ve won

@@sebastianharrison5575 there’s no chance he would’ve won. William Hague or Ken Clarke could’ve beaten Blair in 2005, not Howard.

Now Liz Truss is promising 2 weeks. You can see where this is going...

I find them on the VHS tapes and DVD-R discs I recorded them on at the time.

@@DBIVUK Nice! Do you have more of these types of political clips?

👏👏👏👏👏

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Why was it disgusting? Blair came under plenty of flak as well.

do not blaspheme the Most Holy Name

You can see him losing momentum in this

Things would've been different in Britian if he won this election.

You can certainly see how the immigration debate began to take off under Blair's government in the early 2000s. I remember the growing immigration concerns back then and I would not one day believe they'd eventually lead to the rise of right wing parties. No surprise there considering it was Blair's government who welcomed in so much immigrants that our immigration levels rose so high and have never recovered.

2005 was the mid 2000’s not the early 2000’s

It's even worse now

Thank god for Brexit where our public services are worse, trade is worse, prices of food is worse. Our country is a basket case, but at least we don't have any self doubt anymore! (Whatever that empty platitude even means)

‘Thank God for Brexit’ Oh yeah, that went swimmingly.

18 years later. The Tories are saying the same. But nothing about school discipline and couldn't care about hospitals if it ain't privatised.

​@@DFandVExactly! Plus Labour are still saying the same things, nothing about unaffordable housing, zero hour contracts or their vision on how to handle AI!.... These are things people are worrying about, since education needs an update with AI now on the rise!

Why? They were talking about asylum seekers and refugees

Supernova Because we can't save the whole world. We need to help out the homeless on our streets, our army veterans, all of us suffering with our mental health, and our own hospitals, before we are able to help other countries!

@@davidjonmoxleyskipp230 Seems the current government can't even do that what with having to be forced by a footballer to even feed hungry kids.

Labour trashed the NHS decades ago

Something of the night about him

It was lost but 33 more Conservative seats were gained. A start in the right direction.

He’s not uncomfortable at all

If you're 50-50 on it, it just shows how poorly you understood it.

if you're 50/50 on it then you must have a very, very poor understanding of it

Are you American?

Except Vince Cable, Ming Campbell and Tim Farron.

@@BendmydickCucumbersnatch No way Vice and Tim were good clearly a tory voter here

must be joking haaahahahahahahahaha

Swinson has a sweet rack and she knows it.

@@trollop_7 i bet swinson smells fucking dreadful

I agree with you. Would have been a fantastic leader today and back then. I remember the reaction from people regarding his immigration policies in 2005. Sadly our country's debate around immigration has not improved - even 15 years ago you couldn't mention the word immigration without being called a racist. There's nothing wrong with controlling immigration. He set out good policies such as improving discipline in schools, better policing, cleaner hospitals, fixing our youth, etc (all things that were massive problems under Labour). If Labour had a weaker leader I think Michael could've easily won.

Agreed, Cameron was a disaster.

great man, however a just slightly useless politician

I liked him

I doubt it. Years later he proved to be as much of a flip flopper as the rest of them