Get real. Labour will be elected again under Blair

[T_i_B]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1303995,00.html

Up here, reports an East Midlands Labour official, we mostly still approve of Tony Blair, some of us strongly. A few of the members can't stand him. We had another resignation just last week, he says. On the other hand, we're also recruiting new members again. He's fairly confident Labour can retain this marginal seat.

Immersed in the passions of the briefing war, it is sometimes hard to believe that the Labour party, never mind the country, is full of people who are far less exercised by who's up and who's down at Westminster. But this is, nevertheless, the case. Among the constituency optimists and the pessimists alike, the more common view is a plague on both your houses.

The view from the constituencies can deceive, of course. Members tend to be loyalists. They don't like trouble and they hate the talk of a coup. Yet even among MPs, where the disgruntlement is probably stronger than at the grassroots, there is hesitation. It's not going to happen, so why waste time on it, is one extremely common view. If it did happen, it would be bloodier than we expect, says one northern candidate, so it's not worth it. It would probably be good for my chances but I don't think it's right, says a sitting MP.

n spite of the bitterness of the past days and weeks, the perhaps boring truth remains that more unites Blair and Brown than divides them. Their ideological differences have been absurdly exaggerated. Any idea that Brown would have behaved differently over Iraq is pie in the sky. Any idea that Brown has more interest than Blair in the unions' call for the return of secondary picketing is for the birds. Brown is as much a believer as Blair in competition, the reduction of state subsidies and market flexibility; if you doubt all this, read Brown's Financial Times article last Friday.

[Guy_Montag]

1. What do the polls actually say?

When corrected for constituancy.

[LondonAmerican]

2. The Independent

yesterday said that Labour are expecting the LibDems to make substantial inroads in the next elections and that Labour could well lose its majority. Most of my friends are very disillusioned with Labour, and especially with Bliar's campaigns against the BBC and his constant lies about Iraq and the reasons for war.

[LeftishBrit]

3. At the moment, I expect they'll win with a greatly reduced majority

Which may be the best outcome. I rarely quote a Tory approvingly on anything; but I do think that Pym has been proven right in his saying that landslides rarely produce good governments. All right, the current American situation shows that even with NON-landslides you can get awful governments; but I definitely think that Blair's huge majorities have helped him to set himself up as a little elected dictator.

Brown isn't as crazy as Blair seems to be, but he does seem quite right-wing. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be anyone reasonable around who is a likely candidate for the leadership.

[D-Notice]

4. According to this thing...

They'll win with a 88 majority...

http://www.financialcalculus.co.uk/election/index.html

I think its odd that the Tories'll have less votes, but more seats

[Capt_Nemo]

5. There is a very interesting feature in that site:

the user defined prediction. Although one must note that a prediction
using national levels of support can be misleading in a first past
the polls system.

So what were the results for my predictions? Well I assume that:
- Tories will stagnate at 33%
- Labour will lose 20% to to 25% of its electorate (8% to 11%, overall) to anti-war labourites and will never get
them back while Blair leads Labour.
- Lib-dems will get half of the votes from the anti-war labourites
(4% to 6% of the overall electorate).


1st prediction ("worst case" scenario ;-) )

Con 33%

Lab 34%

LibDem 23%


result (seats):

Con 206

Lab 350

LibDem 59

LAB majority 54



2nd prediction ("best case" scenario)

Con 33%

Lab 31%

LibDem 25%


result (seats):

Con 243

Lab 306

LibDem 66

LAB short 18 of majority


Would anyone like to comment?

[Mr Creosote]

6. Like you say

prediction based on national levels of support can be misleading. My guess is that there will be tactical voting to a greater extent than before which may see the Tories pick up a few seats in the South whilst their vote collapses in the North. And if respect can take 5% from Labour the Lib Dems could break through big time.
The other factor is turnout. Again it's a guess (but I'm not taking much of a flyer on it) that this will fall significantly. Piling guess upon guess I'm sure this will hit the Tories less hard. So while I agree with you absolutely that the Tory vote will stagnate, I'm sure that their share of the vote will rise.
Yet another factor is ALex Salmond. That will hurt Labour in Scotland.
And then there's UKIP & Respect.
Putting all this in I came up with:
Tory 36.02%
Labour 29.96%
Liberal 21.95%
or in seats
Tory 284
Labour 273
Liberal 58

A lab/lib coalition with an overall majority of 6? Led by? Not Blair for sure.

[Guy_Montag]

7. But Kennedy just ruled out a coalition with Labour yesterday

giving the Tories a minority government - which I guess means nothing will happen.

How does NI politics affect these results? Could the DUP/UUP provide enough seats for the Tories?

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The unionist parties had 11 of the 18 Ulster seats in 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/default.stm

so the Tories would have to be very close to an absolute majority to be able to do anything useful with the unionist votes.

[Mr Creosote]

10. Very very close indeed

Whilst I can imagine Howard being happy to have some sort of pact with Trimble, I can't conceive that he would have anything to do with Paisley.
As for Kennedy ruling out a coalition with Labour isn't that just an example of what Ron Reagan calls "the normal mendacity" of politics? What else can he say? If the Libs are going to make a further breakthrough it will be at the expense of Labour - by trading on the anti-war issue where they have been absolutely right and absolutely in tune with the majority of the public.To do anything other now than rule out a coalition with the war criminal would blow all that. If push came to shove I'm sure he do it if the price was right - a Labour leader other than Blair, and a Lib Dem Foreign Secretary pursuing a radically different policy on Iraq.

[D-Notice]

11. And hopefully

a Lib Dem Home Secretary who isn't a closet Nazi (unlike the last few we've had)

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I think the Lib Dems have said they wouldn't go into a coalition

but would vote on each bill as they wish. So that would presumably mean that Michael Howard would end up as Prime Minister under your figures, and have a hellish time. I'm sure Labour would dump Blair if that happened; I suppose Brown would be who they turned to.

[Wat_Tyler]

13. Will Salmond revitalize the SNP?

How can they overcome the fact that Devolution has assuaged a lot of Nationalist sentiment? Has Blair caused a resurgence in that?

[sweetheart]

14. salmond has a good shot

Labour has failed to turn its north of the border advantage in to
anything but mediocrity, and salmond has a chance to displace
that with someone who genuinely is fighting for scotland, not just
slushing out money to public services.

This dumping of cash on public services is a strategic problem for
the UK economy, as it sucks the air out of innovative private
enterprise, and god knows, scotland could certainly use more of that.
Devolution has been a big let down. The scottish population is still
falling, and it requires more direct control than the home office
or westminster are prepared to yield... so salmond can back a strong
devolution and help further with scottish independent thinking and
government on the ground.

[sweetheart]

12. Well he's certainly sealed the need to get rid of him.

His "stay the course" views on killing other people's kids for his
own ego in a war that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with world war
2. I think he should send his own sons and prince william and
harry to iraq. Then we'd see a real human being suddenly realizing
that iraq will NEVER get better, and that he is simply killing
people.

It means tony blair has died, and what is left is a stone effigy of
an ugly vampire that lives to suck his people dry for his bush-love
across the atlantic. It only suggests the time for the wooden stake
has arrived, that a living person might once again come to power.