Your Trusted Companion For Sustainable...
Travel1 min ago
Why Aren't Labour 15-20 Points Ahead?
23 Answers
http://
St Tony thinks they should be.
St Tony thinks they should be.
Answers
>>>Labour have been in power for only 27 years since their inception in 1900. Mostly with disastrous results ! We have seen many people critisize Thatcher over the years but people forget what a mess the country was in under labour in the years leading up to her first win (winter of discontent anyone?). This country was at WAR with unions who were dragging us...
14:36 Sun 12th Nov 2017
And of course he's harking back to the days when the electorate had the choice of a Tory government or a pseudo-Tory government. Today they have the choice of a fairly hopeless Tory government or a Marxist government which would see the country on its knees within six months of the election. Fortunately a large enough proportion of voters are able to see this.
I think Tony's being a little too simplistic in his thinking really:
1. There is clearly far less room for parties to run up such huge leads if there are only really two parties (south of the border) with any meaningful support. If the Tories can rely on, say, at least 40% support at the moment, then a 15-point lead is only possible if literally nobody is an undecided voter.
2. The Tories probably *can* be fairly safe with that level of support at the moment. Labour and the Tories are diverging in their policies, and there is no centrist party of note, so there's nowhere for wavering Tories to go, really.
3. Also Brexit.
4. Presumably Blair's point was to criticise Corbyn, but it seems odd timing after what was a relatively successful result for him (compared to the widely-predicted "Labour will be steamrollered and lucky to get to 200 seats" benchmark). I'm not sure what Corbyn can do to attract his opponents, some of whom are now so ideologically opposed to Corbyn and what it stands for that they are drawing comparisons with Stalinist regimes etc. Whether or not such criticisms are fair, they're rather difficult to shake. I suspect that many anti-Corbyn supporters wouldn't vote Labour even if held at gunpoint.
And vice versa, actually. Politics has become very partisan, and the parties are reacting to this. Brexit showed that there were deep divisions in the UK in political vision, but also (irritatingly) that these divides were pretty much 50/50, so that neither side can expect to have massive leads over the other.
In short, then, I think Tony Blair's expectations of a 15+ point lead refer to a time in politics when this was actually possible, and for the moment -- and for many more reasons than Corbyn -- such an expectation seems unreasonable.
1. There is clearly far less room for parties to run up such huge leads if there are only really two parties (south of the border) with any meaningful support. If the Tories can rely on, say, at least 40% support at the moment, then a 15-point lead is only possible if literally nobody is an undecided voter.
2. The Tories probably *can* be fairly safe with that level of support at the moment. Labour and the Tories are diverging in their policies, and there is no centrist party of note, so there's nowhere for wavering Tories to go, really.
3. Also Brexit.
4. Presumably Blair's point was to criticise Corbyn, but it seems odd timing after what was a relatively successful result for him (compared to the widely-predicted "Labour will be steamrollered and lucky to get to 200 seats" benchmark). I'm not sure what Corbyn can do to attract his opponents, some of whom are now so ideologically opposed to Corbyn and what it stands for that they are drawing comparisons with Stalinist regimes etc. Whether or not such criticisms are fair, they're rather difficult to shake. I suspect that many anti-Corbyn supporters wouldn't vote Labour even if held at gunpoint.
And vice versa, actually. Politics has become very partisan, and the parties are reacting to this. Brexit showed that there were deep divisions in the UK in political vision, but also (irritatingly) that these divides were pretty much 50/50, so that neither side can expect to have massive leads over the other.
In short, then, I think Tony Blair's expectations of a 15+ point lead refer to a time in politics when this was actually possible, and for the moment -- and for many more reasons than Corbyn -- such an expectation seems unreasonable.
Jim is right. In Blair's day, the SNP was just a pressure group, not the real power that it is today.
Also, I think it would be daft to expect any Party to be 20 points ahead of any other in this day and age.
The main reason that Labour were able to have the unprecedented win that had had in 1997, was the lack of any credible alternative, although Mrs May is fast approaching Major's state of play.
Also, I think it would be daft to expect any Party to be 20 points ahead of any other in this day and age.
The main reason that Labour were able to have the unprecedented win that had had in 1997, was the lack of any credible alternative, although Mrs May is fast approaching Major's state of play.
>>>Labour have been in power for only 27 years since their inception in 1900.
Mostly with disastrous results !
We have seen many people critisize Thatcher over the years but people forget what a mess the country was in under labour in the years leading up to her first win (winter of discontent anyone?).
This country was at WAR with unions who were dragging us down and down.
As an aside I see Red Robbo of British Leyland died recently aged 90 and it was said he organized more than 500 strikes in a 30 month period at BL. It is probably thanks to him BL then went under.
Thatcher rescued the country from that and did a FANTASTIC job of turning the country round from the mess she inherited to being one of the top countries in Europe.
The only reason Blair and Brown took over with the country in such a good state was because of Thatcher (but they still managed to ruin it).
As you get older you realise that Labour will ALWAYS mess things up and I would NEVER vote for them no matter what.
Mostly with disastrous results !
We have seen many people critisize Thatcher over the years but people forget what a mess the country was in under labour in the years leading up to her first win (winter of discontent anyone?).
This country was at WAR with unions who were dragging us down and down.
As an aside I see Red Robbo of British Leyland died recently aged 90 and it was said he organized more than 500 strikes in a 30 month period at BL. It is probably thanks to him BL then went under.
Thatcher rescued the country from that and did a FANTASTIC job of turning the country round from the mess she inherited to being one of the top countries in Europe.
The only reason Blair and Brown took over with the country in such a good state was because of Thatcher (but they still managed to ruin it).
As you get older you realise that Labour will ALWAYS mess things up and I would NEVER vote for them no matter what.
All kinds of reasons.
- Political exhaustion and polarisation in society in general.
- Overwhelmingly Conservative sympathy among major newspapers (if not broadcasters, who are under much tighter regulations anyway).
- SNP presence in Scotland, formerly a Labour heartland.
- Recent memory of political division within Labour. The party has only really quitened down since the election.
- Political exhaustion and polarisation in society in general.
- Overwhelmingly Conservative sympathy among major newspapers (if not broadcasters, who are under much tighter regulations anyway).
- SNP presence in Scotland, formerly a Labour heartland.
- Recent memory of political division within Labour. The party has only really quitened down since the election.
It's odd to link the Labour Party's power with "disastrous" results, since either (a) those results had demonstrably nothing to do with the Labour Party itself, or (b) it systematically ignores similar "disasters" under Tory leadership. For example, Ramsay McDonald had the dubious privilege of becoming PM only very shortly before a massive economic crisis that originated in the US; Attlee's government timed its arrival with the end of WWII, and it seems a bit odd to call such a government disastrous when any government would have been crippled by the fallout of that war (and, again, a US decision to scrap Lend-Lease). Also, if you are going to make out that Labour from 1997-2010 was really the Tory Party, then doesn't that make the 2008 crash the Tories' fault, if anyone's? Although, again, it had a lot more to do with US-based "sub-prime" mortgages, and in as much as it was Labour's fault then it's not clear that the Tories would have been any better at avoiding the fallout; notably, until about 2008 they were busy backing Labour spending plans.
But more to the point it's an odd choice for BA because it doesn't have anything to do with the question at all.
But more to the point it's an odd choice for BA because it doesn't have anything to do with the question at all.
jim: "if you are going to make out that Labour from 1997-2010 was really the Tory Party, then doesn't that make the 2008 crash the Tories' fault, if anyone's? Although, again, it had a lot more to do with US-based "sub-prime" mortgages, and in as much as it was Labour's fault then it's not clear that the Tories would have been any better at avoiding the fallout; notably, until about 2008 they were busy backing Labour spending plans. " - at the time I think all sides accepted the cause of the crash. I for one praised Brown's approach at the time.
Well if that's the case then fair enough, although I'm pretty sure that many Tory supporters do blame Labour specifically for the crash. Which is, up to a point, reasonable, since those in charge at the time must bear at least some responsibility.
The point I was making though is that this idea that "Labour in power = inevitable economic crisis" is a gross oversimplification.
The point I was making though is that this idea that "Labour in power = inevitable economic crisis" is a gross oversimplification.
"The point I was making though is that this idea that "Labour in power = inevitable economic crisis" is a gross oversimplification."
Is it, Jim? Leaving aside the 1997-2010 version (which most people -even Labour supporters - do not consider to be the genuine article), tell us then the last time there was a proper Labour administration which did not result in an economic crisis.
Is it, Jim? Leaving aside the 1997-2010 version (which most people -even Labour supporters - do not consider to be the genuine article), tell us then the last time there was a proper Labour administration which did not result in an economic crisis.
Mickey, the economy is ok and unemployment lo. The vas majority of the voting public are fr more concerned with that than some daft spat(which most of the public have tired of now anyway)
May is weak and His Tonyness is correct saying labour should be well ahead. The problem with labour at the moment it is all ultra left wing Marxist ideology and that puts people off. Blair knew this and that is why he was centre left (with a bit of right)
May is weak and His Tonyness is correct saying labour should be well ahead. The problem with labour at the moment it is all ultra left wing Marxist ideology and that puts people off. Blair knew this and that is why he was centre left (with a bit of right)
//Its almost as bad as the last days of Major.//
except that there is no heir apparent - Corpboots will not win over middle England as TB did......the one thing I will say is that at least he didn't turn up in his donkey jacket at the Cenotaph like one Plymouth MP - and, on that score, he has someone (probably a team of 90 plus) working on his image, (dress, speech, speeches, delivery etc) - and trying to keep him out of trouble, such as being too Hezbollah. Don't fret, JC is still well capable of blowing his lower torso off, politically so, in the run-in to an election.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.