Poll: Labour would be more electable if led by Blair

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7363306.html

    A new poll out shows that slightly more people than not believe Labour would have a better chance of being elected to government if led by Blair. The margin is quite small (within the margin of error), but it shows quite clearly that the hard left / Corbynite / kipper obsession with, and hatred of, Blair is far less ubiquitous than they believe.

    They believe that everyone despises Blair as they do, whereas he was actually quite a popular Prime Minister (even after the Iraq War; Labour was re-elected after all). The thing is, the people who say Labour would be less likely to win an election are the sort of people who vote Green, UKIP and Corbynites. A very large proportion of the 36% are probably Lib Dem and Conservative moderates, the sort of people Labour needs to win over to get into government. Of course the poll was idiotically designed; it should have asked "Would you be more likely to vote for Labour if it was led by Blair?".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't necessarily mean he was more popular Just that he was seen as the best option.


    I actually think that Corbyn stands a better chance even though I think Blair would be a better PM than him.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7363306.html

    A new poll out shows that slightly more people than not believe Labour would have a better chance of being elected to government if led by Blair. The margin is quite small (within the margin of error), but it shows quite clearly that the hard left / Corbynite / kipper obsession with, and hatred of, Blair is far less ubiquitous than they believe.

    They believe that everyone despises Blair as they do, whereas he was actually quite a popular Prime Minister (even after the Iraq War; Labour was re-elected after all). The thing is, the people who say Labour would be less likely to win an election are the sort of people who vote Green, UKIP and Corbynites. A very large proportion of the 36% are probably Lib Dem and Conservative moderates, the sort of people Labour needs to win over to get into government. Of course the poll was idiotically designed; it should have asked "Would you be more likely to vote for Labour if it was led by Blair?".
    If labour is ever to be elected again, someone needs to go against Corbyn and say the truth on how unrealistic his views are like £500bn borrowing, say how that may backfire etc, offer a lower amount like £100bn to be secured etc... win the election, drop the supporters votes, go back to what happened before Ed made it possible and U-turn the entire party, which would make 3/4 of members leave but others may also rejoin, to become the tory-lite party to get into power, and use that power for both socialist and conservative movements, basically go in war with hard left.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bush made Blair popular imo. Those were the days though. Fighting together, God Save the Queen and Star Spangled Banner blaring out, no smartphones,etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think his views on EU/immigration are very popular. Before he could get away with it as economy was growing and enough people would overlook it and the EU question was just something for factions of Tories and leftists.

    I don't know what the Blairite wing of labour stands for anymore. There position was to go along with neoliberal financial based economics and tax wealth from that to fund services and welfare state. Since the 2008 capitalism crisis that will no longer work. They don't offer anything now other than wanting to do what the Tories were doing with austerity. Unless they reinvent themselves they are a spent force. They could do what the lib dems are doing with trying to be the Pro EU/Europe party for single market access and immigration, but again, that is a deeply unpopular position now. The lib dems can do it as they are not trying to win an election. Labour however are trying to win an election.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't think his views on EU/immigration are very popular. Before he could get away with it as economy was growing and enough people would overlook it and the EU question was just something for factions of Tories and leftists.

    I don't know what the Blairite wing of labour stands for anymore. There position was to go along with neoliberal financial based economics and tax wealth from that to fund services and welfare state. Since the 2008 capitalism crisis that will no longer work. They don't offer anything now other than wanting to do what the Tories were doing with austerity. Unless they reinvent themselves they are a spent force. They could do what the lib dems are doing with trying to be the Pro EU/Europe party for single market access and immigration, but again, that is a deeply unpopular position now. The lib dems can do it as they are not trying to win an election. Labour however are trying to win an election.
    Blair did what Cameron did, talked about how we would reduce immigration without ever having intention of doing it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't think his views on EU/immigration are very popular. Before he could get away with it as economy was growing and enough people would overlook it and the EU question was just something for factions of Tories and leftists.

    I don't know what the Blairite wing of labour stands for anymore. There position was to go along with neoliberal financial based economics and tax wealth from that to fund services and welfare state. Since the 2008 capitalism crisis that will no longer work. They don't offer anything now other than wanting to do what the Tories were doing with austerity. Unless they reinvent themselves they are a spent force. They could do what the lib dems are doing with trying to be the Pro EU/Europe party for single market access and immigration, but again, that is a deeply unpopular position now. The lib dems can do it as they are not trying to win an election. Labour however are trying to win an election.
    If Blair were around now, I think people would be surprised at the level of support he would get. Obviously from many who are committed on the left he would be despised because of the Iraq War, but what Blair did successfully in the 1990s was drew the business community away from the Tories towards New Labour: he got their funding, he got their newspapers, he removed the ability of Labour to say the Tories aren't credible on the economy, because the business community was behind him not them.

    The UK business community does not want hard Brexit, it doesn't care about clamping down in immigrants and certainly does not appreciate the rhetoric about Brexit being some kind of popular uprising against the rich elite. If they saw the choice between Theresa May and tariffs versus Blair talking about prioritising the single market they would unhesitatingly be behind Blair.

    Even back in 1997 there were many on the left who didn't like Blair, they didn't like the reforms he had made to the Labour party even before the Iraq war - but he had a large part of Middle England onside, and there would be a large constituency still out there for him now, in the relatively well off Tory held marginals.

    So whilst the default position from many people is "urgh no he would be a disaster", it would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen. Would he win by 100 plus majorities today - no way. But if there was a General Election next year, with Blair as leader of the Labour party, it would be difficult for the Conservatives as they may well see a lot of their marginal seats trip back in to Labour hands. I think we'd have a hung Parliament or maybe even a narrow Labour majority, despite the fact general public opinion would probably be negative about Blair.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    If Blair were around now, I think people would be surprised at the level of support he would get. Obviously from many who are committed on the left he would be despised because of the Iraq War, but what Blair did successfully in the 1990s was drew the business community away from the Tories towards New Labour: he got their funding, he got their newspapers, he removed the ability of Labour to say the Tories aren't credible on the economy, because the business community was behind him not them.

    The UK business community does not want hard Brexit, it doesn't care about clamping down in immigrants and certainly does not appreciate the rhetoric about Brexit being some kind of popular uprising against the rich elite. If they saw the choice between Theresa May and tariffs versus Blair talking about prioritising the single market they would unhesitatingly be behind Blair.

    Even back in 1997 there were many on the left who didn't like Blair, they didn't like the reforms he had made to the Labour party even before the Iraq war - but he had a large part of Middle England onside, and there would be a large constituency still out there for him now, in the relatively well off Tory held marginals.

    So whilst the default position from many people is "urgh no he would be a disaster", it would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen. Would he win by 100 plus majorities today - no way. But if there was a General Election next year, with Blair as leader of the Labour party, it would be difficult for the Conservatives as they may well see a lot of their marginal seats trip back in to Labour hands. I think we'd have a hung Parliament or maybe even a narrow Labour majority, despite the fact general public opinion would probably be negative about Blair.
    Yes it would be interesting. But I'm basing this on how people voted Leave. The Leave vote was mainly positioned as the anti-elite vote which as you say business in general doesn't like. But it still happened. So I would say it depends on how many leave voters are not as rabid as the main Leave campaigning was. Would Blair campaign to say in single market for example? If so the Tories would have the edge over him on that with immigration etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think its a horrible idea and would be yet another nail in the coffin of the British left wing.

    I think there are some pretty obvious parralels between Blair, assuming he re-enters politics and Hillary Clinton. Both are nominally left wing but have rapaciously backed neo-liberal economic policy, both have long political careers which is both their strongest asset and simultaneously their greatest weakness, both are pretty much reviled by both the left wing and the right wing and so are/would be appealing to an ever narrowing centre ground. Moztdamningly they represent so much of what people hate about politics and what diseganges them from the process.

    That said, in order to have a crack at being PM he has to lead the Labour party first and despite how much the PLP and other 'moderates' hate them the current membership isnt going to let that happen. In fact the only way he is going to have a chance of being Labour leader is as the result of some sort of purge of Corbyn supporting members and Im sure that will go down well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes it would be interesting. But I'm basing this on how people voted Leave. The Leave vote was mainly positioned as the anti-elite vote which as you say business in general doesn't like. But it still happened. So I would say it depends on how many leave voters are not as rabid as the main Leave campaigning was. Would Blair campaign to say in single market for example? If so the Tories would have the edge over him on that with immigration etc.
    A lot of those are in solid Labour areas - which is why the narrative post Brexit was it was Labour that lost it, because Tories voted pretty much as predicted, but Labour voters were more likely than expected to vote Leave.

    However in these northern areas, there's not a great deal of love for the Tories and it is difficult for Theresa May to win these kind of seats from Labour. Labour may shed votes to UKIP that's true, but for UKIP to really gain ground they have to become more professional, get proper funding and have enough campaigners on the ground, and they are struggling in all these grounds.

    So whilst there would be little love for Blair up there, it is still difficult to see how the Conservatives can really take these Labour heartland seats.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well obviously. Some people forget how successful a leader Blair was and they forget things like the introduction of the minimum wage (not that I agree with that, necessarily, but it was very popular nonetheless), the mountains of money pumped into the NHS, how easy it was to get jobs and loads of other things. However many others do not forget this because they haven't got memories like goldfish. I've said before that the country wants to vote Labour back in so long as they had a plausible candidate who appealed to the centre.

    People massively overstate the resentment of the Iraq War. There was resentment, yes, but people are acting like this was the main feature of Blair's government in the eyes of the people at the time. This is simply revisionist claptrap. Generally people look past foreign policy issues if the economy is doing well and people have secure jobs and money in their pockets, not the other way around. The only people who tend not to are students and the type of people who take their money for granted because they're always had it so they don't see the importance of job security to feed their families. That's why most Corbyn supporters are middle-class luvvies and why voters in the Labour heartlands can't stand the guy. For everyone else, the Blair years were characterised by a barnstorming job market. That's why most people won't touch Labour with a barge pole at the moment. Because they're veering away from what made them good and towards Trot Liverpool Council-style crap and an obsession over issues nobody except students care about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)

    The only people who tend not to are students and the type of people who take their money for granted because they're always had it so they don't see the importance of job security to feed their families.
    Err... what money? I have no money to take for granted... I've been stuck in shity warehouse temp jobs for two years not able to move out of my parents home. I am one of the people you are talking about and the only Labour faction talking about the issues I face that resonate me are from the left of the party. I don't have a car and have little savings. Or am I supposed to be a well to do middle class luvie because I have been to university?

    Or conversely the people who have "a real job" are hooked deep into the system with mortgages and families to look after etc. So they become reactionary to change for fear of upsetting the delicate balance that is stopping them from falling down a few rungs. Most students are near the bottom rung(although they have prospects to climb a bit) anyway and have no dependants. You are also making the assumption the left of labour do not care about these people. The problem is many do not have economic security and the right and centre of labour offer nothing to do anything about this other than winge at the left for being "middle class luvvies"

    Most of the labour members etc who voted for Corbyn are the poorer members of labour (Students with non graduate min wage jobs make up a lot of Corbyn support I imagine). The better off ones voted for other candidates. There also are not enough Trots in existence to make up all the Corbyn supporters.


    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    A lot of those are in solid Labour areas - which is why the narrative post Brexit was it was Labour that lost it, because Tories voted pretty much as predicted, but Labour voters were more likely than expected to vote Leave.

    However in these northern areas, there's not a great deal of love for the Tories and it is difficult for Theresa May to win these kind of seats from Labour. Labour may shed votes to UKIP that's true, but for UKIP to really gain ground they have to become more professional, get proper funding and have enough campaigners on the ground, and they are struggling in all these grounds.

    So whilst there would be little love for Blair up there, it is still difficult to see how the Conservatives can really take these Labour heartland seats.
    FPTP basically -.-
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Most of the labour members etc who voted for Corbyn are the poorer members of labour
    This always makes me laugh about the narrative of young people in London voting remain because they are part of the well-off metropolitan elite who don't understand the concerns of the "left behind" and can afford to be liberal on immigration...

    Young people in London are about as far left behind as you can get, they have no prospects of getting on the housing ladder and are trapped living in **** being exploited by landlords.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    This always makes me laugh about the narrative of young people in London voting remain because they are part of the well-off metropolitan elite who don't understand the concerns of the "left behind" and can afford to be liberal on immigration...

    Young people in London are about as far left behind as you can get, they have no prospects of getting on the housing ladder and are trapped living in **** being exploited by landlords.
    How can Labour persuade people that immigrants are not the cause of all their problems?
    Because it now seems political suicide to come out in favour of free movement.

    Do Labour jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Blair is a busted flush because of his egocentric warmongering ways. A real shame after a promising start.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How can Labour persuade people that immigrants are not the cause of all their problems?
    Because it now seems political suicide to come out in favour of free movement.

    Do Labour jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon?
    This wouldn't be a problem if the country was doing really well. ie When Blair was Prime Minister.

    Having said that, it's always difficult to keep the blame away from foreigners when you're having your wage undercut. Not that people blame foreigners themselves (most admit they'd do the same in their shoes), but rather the government of the day for allowing it.

    But again, when it comes down to it, when people have money and security, these questions don't arise in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    Blair is a busted flush because of his egocentric warmongering ways. A real shame after a promising start.
    The Iraq resentment is overblown. Revisionist. At the time things were good for the British people in terms of jobs etc, ie the things that governments are actually elected for. In this regard, Blair's government did great.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    This always makes me laugh about the narrative of young people in London voting remain because they are part of the well-off metropolitan elite who don't understand the concerns of the "left behind" and can afford to be liberal on immigration...

    Young people in London are about as far left behind as you can get, they have no prospects of getting on the housing ladder and are trapped living in **** being exploited by landlords.
    London is doing great. Jobs are plentiful. Compared to most of the country anyway, hence young people continue to move there in droves. As for the landlord/rents thing, this is happening everywhere in the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This wouldn't be a problem if the country was doing really well. ie When Blair was Prime Minister.

    Having said that, it's always difficult to keep the blame away from foreigners when you're having your wage undercut. Not that people blame foreigners themselves (most admit they'd do the same in their shoes), but rather the government of the day for allowing it.

    But again, when it comes down to it, when people have money and security, these questions don't arise in the first place.
    I've been reading a lot of the Economist recently (staunch advocates of the third way Blairite type politics) and they've been doing some great pieces on why people are losing faith in globalisation.

    The anti-establishment left attack trade, the anti establishment right attack freedom of movement.

    There is no question that while globalisation is a good thing, that it simply does not do enough to support those who fall through the net and throwing welfare at them is not the answer (neither is cutting it without an alternative).
    Still today you have communities in Britain which have not recovered from deindustrialisation.

    The difference is that while the likes of Bernie Sanders channelled this anger into wanting higher wages and a nationalised healthcare system, Donald Trump has channelled it in to blaming immigrants/muslims/ 'the establishment'.

    While I accept that immigration can impact wages and public services, cutting it is not the magic pill or silver bullet that people seem to think it is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Err... what money? I have no money to take for granted... I've been stuck in shity warehouse temp jobs for two years not able to move out of my parents home. I am one of the people you are talking about and the only Labour faction talking about the issues I face that resonate me are from the left of the party. I don't have a car and have little savings. Or am I supposed to be a well to do middle class luvie because I have been to university?

    Or conversely the people who have "a real job" are hooked deep into the system with mortgages and families to look after etc. So they become reactionary to change for fear of upsetting the delicate balance that is stopping them from falling down a few rungs. Most students are near the bottom rung(although they have prospects to climb a bit) anyway and have no dependants. You are also making the assumption the left of labour do not care about these people. The problem is many do not have economic security and the right and centre of labour offer nothing to do anything about this other than winge at the left for being "middle class luvvies"

    Most of the labour members etc who voted for Corbyn are the poorer members of labour (Students with non graduate min wage jobs make up a lot of Corbyn support I imagine). The better off ones voted for other candidates. There also are not enough Trots in existence to make up all the Corbyn supporters.


    FPTP basically -.-
    So people who have actual responsibilities and people depending on them have different political outlooks to those who do not? Madness, I know.

    The context of my point, which you have ignored, is that people with responsibilities tend to care more about job security and the economy more than things like foreign policy etc which is why Blair was popular despite the Iraq War. It was to counter the revisionist narrative some are driving now which is that Blair's government was primarily characterised by Iraq. I'm saying that since the job market was great, it was a success and most people were happy with it at the time. I expanded on this with the point that people who care more about issues like what is going on abroad etc than the job market tend to be those with few responsibilities of their own. I stand by this.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
American or British/European: what type of pancakes do you like?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.