| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Rupa Huq - the tory | |
| Posted by: | Huw Burford-Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 22/07/15 12:27:00 |
| Whilst I take the point that the Tories were a spent force by 1997, Blair also won because he was able to broaden Labours appeal, as you say, he gambled (correctly) on the core vote sticking with him. The fact remains that Labours core vote is not enough to get it elected as 1983, 1987, 1992, 2010 & 2015 showed. I realise it suits your localist narrative (nothing wrong with that) but unless they radically alter their manifesto the Green party are always going to be a minor recipient of protest votes, drilling down into their policies much of it is uncosted pure fantasy, and it's hard to see that crossing over into mass appeal. The SNP I regard as a unique case, come the general election they were able to count on 45% of the electorate disgruntled about losing the referendum which when mobilised behind a single party was more than enough to wipe the others out. This I think is likely to be a one off, although a one off that due to the vagaries of the FTTP system, will probably take a couple of electoral cycles to overturn, a two off then? I have a feeling that if the opinion polls on the leadership campaign turn out to be in anyway reliable (and we all know how reliable they can be!) then despite your experience and assertion that Labour view being in power as an end in itself if they do end up backing Corbyn they are going to retreat further into themselves and be ever further marginalised. So in summary whilst I agree in essence with your conclusion, given the fragmentary nature of the opposing parties it's hard to see where any serious focused alternative is likely to come from. Which, amusing as I may find it, is of course no good in the longer term. |