One of the many problems with Labour

[andrewducker]

Is that they've been utterly unwilling to actually to take a stand on things. They seem to have this assumption that the entire country is made of Daily Mail voters who voted for them by mistake, and that if they want to keep in power then they have to do all the things they want to secretly, without ever actually standing up and saying "Actually, we believe X."

This has meant that after thirteen years of power they're still pretending that they haven't raised taxes (rather than having the conversation about what they want to do with more tax, and why they need it), and it means that they haven't stood up and said "Here is why we believe immigration is a good thing" and are instead stuck publically appeasing people who talk about immigration negatively, and then calling them bigoted behind their backs.

I know that expecting honesty from politicians is like expecting high quality type O blood from stones, but I really do think that Labour would be having a lot less trouble now if they'd been willing to have a fight with the Daily Mail back in 1998...

Comments

[andrewducker]

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are doing much the same thing from the other side. "Oh, us, we hate bankers. And when we lower inheritance tax it's because we love poor people."

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

To be (a certain sort of) fair to the Tories, they have always operated in that mode. Thatcher didn't come to power in 1979 promising to curb inflation by creating structural mass unemployment, for instance.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

Yup. They watered themselves down to get in, and never had the courage of their convictions. But then Blair never had any convictions (pun to be made about war crimes there if you like...)

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I think the late Linda Smith put it quite eloquently: "I had absolutely no expectations of Tony Blair, and even I have been disappointed".

[hano.livejournal.com]

what you have to understand is that the New Labour project was exclusively about attaining then retaining power. Principle and/or beliefs had nothing to do with it. It's worth noting that once they got into power, they had very little idea what to actually do with it, except to pursue a short term populist agenda that ensured they stayed there. And boy are those chickens coming home to roost for them now. And fortunately we all will be paying the price for their shallow hubris.
What's really depressing is that the other parties don't appear to offer much in the way of a viable alternative, with the partial exception of the Lib Dems. God we're so fucked.

[andrewducker]

Yeah. I like some of the Lib Dem stuff, although I'm occasionally put off by their "politician-ness". My main two reasons for supporting them are support for PR, to break the two party system, and civil liberties.

[matgb]

'tis a problem of the system. To change it, you have to be within it, but to be within it, you become part of it, and to win within it, you have to play the game well.

Hence, in order to get toa position where not all politicians look and sound the same, you first have to look and sound the same as the others.

Because people say they want people to be different, but then like "that nice man with his nice suit".

PITA.

[andrewducker]

Also - yes, it's all very 1984. I admire some of the good things they did, but there was no intellectual coherency at all.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

What role does SureStart play in this megalomaniacal plan?

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

It's pointless at this point anyway. It's obvious that the Lib Dems are going to get enough seats to make them the kingmaker and they'll go with Labor because they figure that Cameron would screw them and that Brown will be easier to manipulate.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure. I think the Tories are going to win a majority. A lot of people reacted positively to Clegg in the debates, but I suspect when they actually get into the voting booth, we are going to see a lot more Tory votes than the polls are suggesting. It has happened before, most notably in 1992.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Labour + Lib Dems are not currently projected to have a majority *between them*. They may have to go with the Tories.

[andrewducker]

What do you think of the 538 analysis?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Hard to see you're going to find a better analysis of the polls than Nate Silver's, though I'd still defer to the betting markets for probabilities. They're currently predicting Labour + LD = 311 seats out of the 326 needed for majority.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

That doesn't seem to fit with the LSE analysis: the projected number of Lib Dem seats is greater on all five projections than the number by which Labour fall short of a majority. It's also worth bearing in mind that Sinn Fein will probably not take up their seats and that the SNP and Plaid Cymru have been making noises suggesting they would consider supporting a Lib/Lab deal.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Sadly there's no market on the combined seats of two parties, so there's no easy guide to which analysis to prefer, though Silver has an impressive track record. Would be interested to read more about the SNP/PC thing you mention. Thanks!

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

I think you made a very good point in the top bit there.

[avatar.livejournal.com]

I believe I've found a rather critical flaw in your argument.

You say actually they believe "X", but what if they believe "Y"...?

[andrewducker]

This is possible - but their actions covertly support X, they're just not talking about it.