Labour polling reveals Blair is election liability

[The Feral Underclass]

Labour polling reveals Blair is election liability

By Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott
16 May 2004


Tony Blair has been warned by his party that his unpopularity is dragging Labour down, for the first time in his 10-year leadership.

Staff at Labour's London headquarters have collated a summary of canvass returns from around the country, which reveal a "clear difference" between those who are prepared to vote Labour in next month's local elections, and those who say they will come back to Labour only when Mr Blair has ceased to be leader.

A senior party member who has seen the canvass returns told The Independent on Sunday: "The figures are awful. If there were a general election tomorrow, they suggest Blair could cost us at least 60 seats."

The growth of a negative "Blair factor" has added to speculation in Westminster that the Prime Minister may be on the point of handing over to his long-time friend and rival, Gordon Brown.

One former minister who has known both men well for nearly 20 years said: "Only two or possibly three people actually know the answer - that is Tony, Gordon and Cherie. But when I spoke to Gordon the other day, he did not look like a man who is expecting to wait another three years for the job he has always wanted."

Unusually, these rumours have been publicly aired by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, who told The Times that people are "positioning themselves" for a seismic change in the political landscape. He added in a statement yesterday: "Of course there has been speculation over the leadership, but the reality is there's no race for the Prime Minister's position."

Others who work closely with the Prime Minister acknowledge that the Iraq war is likely to have a severe impact on the Labour vote in the local council and European Parliament elections on 10 June, but they are adamant that he intends to continue in office.

Pressure on Mr Blair increased last night as a poll revealed that 46 per cent of people said he should step down before the next election while a survey of Labour constituency chairmen found a fifth believed he should go.

However, a Downing Street spokesman said: "The Prime Minister is fully focused and firmly gripping the Iraq issue. He believes the key to sorting out Iraq is security, and the key to sorting out security is 'Iraqisation' - giving the Iraqis responsibility for resolving their own problems."

But even his most loyal allies are beginning to contemplate what to do if he does resign, and are showing a reluctance to let Mr Brown walk into the job without a challenge from a cabinet rival such as the Health Secretary, John Reid, or the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke. One leading Blairite said: "Were the worst to happen, which I don't think it will, the history of the Labour Party suggests that there would be a contest. I don't think the likes of Charles and John would take it lying down."

There are the beginnings of a Stop Brown campaign gathering in the lower ranks of government, led by ministers in highly marginal seats once held by Tories, who believe they owe their careers to Tony Blair's political skill.

Stephen Ladyman, a junior minister in the Department of Health who is nursing a majority of just 1,792 in South Thanet, says he will lose his seat if Mr Brown takes over.

He said: "Now is not the time to change horses. People in the South-east understand and trust Tony. Anyone else would not have as much in common with English voters."

Gareth Thomas, Harrow West (majority 6,156), agreed that the Prime Minister had "particular appeal in the South". He said: "Tony Blair was crucial in helping me win my seat in 1997 and in retaining it in 2001."

Independent on Sunday (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=521759)

[James]

an article on the guardians site said that Brown would put off as money voters as he'd attract.

[Kez]

I think brown has to make a clear break with "blairism". Personel change will not be enough. If he doesnt make a ideological break, and move back to Labour ideology, then i reckon they will just scrape a win. With such a win, and with big business back in the lap of their favourite representatives in parliament, the tories, Labour will have to rely on uniuon support, which it will only gain with pro-worker ideas.

Things will only get better from now on in.

If they fail to do the above, they will go to opposition, which will be a tremendous blow for the workers movements, especially as the economic decline worsens under an anti-union tory government.

[James]

move back to Labour ideology

Which will result in middle england being alienated - which in turn will lead to electoral defeat, which you think would;


be a tremendous blow for the workers movements, especially as the economic decline worsens under an anti-union tory government.

Thus a loose loose situation?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Brown's speech at the Labour conference last year as well as plenty of the things he's been saying in the House recently definately suggest thast should he take over the reigns from Blair, there would be a quite big ideological shift for the Labour party. It wouldn't be so far as to go back to 'old' Labour, but definately nearer the centre than Blair is.


I was also to hear John Prescott suggesting his discontent with Blair. And then, upon being asked about it by news reporters, just refusing to answer; something which Labour ministers rarely do when asked about Blair.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:29 PM

move back to Labour ideology

Which will result in middle england being alienated - which in turn will lead to electoral defeat, which you think would;


be a tremendous blow for the workers movements, especially as the economic decline worsens under an anti-union tory government.

Thus a loose loose situation?
middle england only becomes alienated when right wing press spreads bullshit about. the policies dont alienate them.

How would:
an excellent NHS
an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)
ending crime
ending shit transport

piss middle class off?

thus a win situation for the workers.
Had you not been an ignorant twat you would realise that most of the middle class are part of the working class. Schmuck.

[monkeydust]

Whatever the rumours, Blair said that he would like to serve a third term as Prime minister. The 'general feeling' that I've picked up from parliament seems to be that Blair feels Iraq has been his problem, and he wants to at least see it through to the end (assuming they sort things out soon).

Brown certainly hasn't got the charisma of Blair, though the general success of his economic policy makes the faults of Blair's foreign policy appear all the more severe.

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you really think the tories have a chance of winning this election. Not even the tories believe that. I think they only way they will win is if no one votes.

People would rather have Blair than Howard, although it would be interesting to see Charles kennedy have a go. I've never lived under a liberal government, and they can't do any worse than labour or the tories.

[Funky Monk]

Charles Kennedy is a shite politician and a fucking awful speaker. Trust me, he will never be in power.

[ForPeace]

Because of the terrible voting system in england liberals will never have a chance anyway, but it would be interesting to see them in power. After all, nowadays liberals seem to be more left than labour is.

[Funky Monk]

Isn't it bizarre that parties seem to drop all concern for PR when they get into power....

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 16 2004, 10:43 PM
Isn't it bizarre that parties seem to drop all concern for PR when they get into power....
Not at all.

[James]

middle england only becomes alienated when right wing press spreads bullshit about. the policies dont alienate them.

How would:
an excellent NHS
an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)
ending crime
ending shit transport

piss middle class off?

thus a win situation for the workers.
Had you not been an ignorant twat you would realise that most of the middle class are part of the working class. Schmuck.



New Labour policies are for middle england.
A return to "old labour" will 'turn-off' many middle class voters.

We can wait and see kamo - no need to resort to petty insults.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by Kez+May 16 2004, 05:43 PM--> (Kez @ May 16 2004, 05:43 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 02:29 PM

move back to Labour ideology

Which will result in middle england being alienated - which in turn will lead to electoral defeat, which you think would;


be a tremendous blow for the workers movements, especially as the economic decline worsens under an anti-union tory government.

Thus a loose loose situation?
middle england only becomes alienated when right wing press spreads bullshit about. the policies dont alienate them.

How would:
an excellent NHS
an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)
ending crime
ending shit transport

piss middle class off?

thus a win situation for the workers.
Had you not been an ignorant twat you would realise that most of the middle class are part of the working class. Schmuck. [/b]
Comrade Kamo, Do you really belive the Labour party can be reformed into a revolutionary one? You are with the Socialist Appeal, right?

[Kez]

"Comrade Kamo, Do you really belive the Labour party can be reformed into a revolutionary one? You are with the Socialist Appeal, right?"
-Nope this isnt our aim, our aim is simply to work where the working class operates and looks for answers.
-eg we go debate in branch meetings and win people over to socialism

James you seemed to ignore all my points, this is not good methodology on your behalf.

[James]

Ok kamo;

"an excellent NHS"
Translated means higher taxes, more red tape, bigger government

"an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)"
Again means much higher taxes; huge investment - going back on labour party legislation

"ending crime"
This isn't really worth replying to.

"ending shit transport"
By increasing taxes


Middle england doesn't like "tax and spend" governments. Especially with the recent revelations of huge governmental waste.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:57 PM
Ok kamo;

"an excellent NHS"
Translated means higher taxes, more red tape, bigger government

"an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)"
Again means much higher taxes; huge investment - going back on labour party legislation

"ending crime"
This isn't really worth replying to.

"ending shit transport"
By increasing taxes


Middle england doesn't like "tax and spend" governments. Especially with the recent revelations of huge governmental waste.
I disagree. I belive that the majority of middle england accept that you get what you pay for, but that they also realize privatization as an alternative but do not wish to relive the horrors of thatcherism. Belive it or not, but I think that middle england enjoys the fact that they have an NHS that is under direct accountability to the government which they elect.

[James]

an excellent NHS
an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)
ending crime
ending shit transport

I think the conservatives also "want" these things. (with the exception of a free for all bit in education)

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:57 PM
Ok kamo;

"an excellent NHS"
Translated means higher taxes, more red tape, bigger government

"an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)"
Again means much higher taxes; huge investment - going back on labour party legislation

"ending crime"
This isn't really worth replying to.

"ending shit transport"
By increasing taxes


Middle england doesn't like "tax and spend" governments. Especially with the recent revelations of huge governmental waste.
this is the single shittest reply ive ever read from you, which is saying something

In your opinion does an excellent NHS mean more red tape????
what the fuck are you talking about.
Bigger government, nobody gives a shit about bigger government.
"Sorry, dont cure me for cancer, because the government is funding it, i'd rather dye" - commonly heard in hospital wards these days....i think not

As for greater taxes, It would probably work out cheaper for many middle class families with university kids, and as britain gains more skilledd workers, they would be able to earn greater salaries, which would give more tax revenue, which would more than equal the initial tax squirt towards education. So in reality, your paying more tax now, so you can pay less later...

ending crime isnt worth replying to?
nah, clearly the middle class arent bothered about being mugged.
If the government spends more on youth hostels, education, and drug rehabilitation, u think people wudnt want to spend money on it?


"ending shit transport"
By increasing taxes

this i found was the best bit, increase taxes....so you can what? pay the privatised companies??? are you the single most stupid member of this board? how would taxes change anything?
private companies run trains, buses, airtraffic, roads.

you are a dumb fuck.

better luck next time.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:44 PM
an excellent NHS
an excellent education system free for all (not just the very very worst off)
ending crime
ending shit transport

I think the conservatives also "want" these things. (with the exception of a free for all bit in education)
tories want to end NHS, they want private, so your wrong there.
as you pointed out they dont want free education
tories have proved they cant end crime with more police, you have to tackle crime from below
and they fucked up transport, and have no control over it anyway

so the tories "want" one of these things, not the rest.

[James]

this is the single shittest reply ive ever read from you, which is saying something

Please be more civil


In your opinion does an excellent NHS mean more red tape????
what the fuck are you talking about.
Bigger government, nobody gives a shit about bigger government.
"Sorry, dont cure me for cancer, because the government is funding it, i'd rather dye" - commonly heard in hospital wards these days....i think not

Middle England don't like the concept of "more red tape" - and "big government".


As for greater taxes, It would probably work out cheaper for many middle class families with university kids, and as britain gains more skilledd workers, they would be able to earn greater salaries, which would give more tax revenue, which would more than equal the initial tax squirt towards education. So in reality, your paying more tax now, so you can pay less later...

Ok, say your "old labour" government get in - what do they do first: scrap tuition fee's. Where do uni's now get money from? The uni's themselves say they need more investment.
Solution - raise taxes.


ending crime isnt worth replying to?
nah, clearly the middle class arent bothered about being mugged.
If the government spends more on youth hostels, education, and drug rehabilitation, u think people wudnt want to spend money on it?

It wasn't worth replying to, because you seem to suggest its an old labour policy, which has never been tried before.
Ending crime is not a labour monopoly


this i found was the best bit, increase taxes....so you can what? pay the privatised companies??? are you the single most stupid member of this board? how would taxes change anything?

You want to improve public transport - how?
Raising taxes


tories want to end NHS, they want private, so your wrong there

Find "we want to end NHS" in their manifesto. Any manifesto!


as you pointed out they dont want free education

No, they do want free basic education - when did the thatcher government scrap free eductaion? I was pointing out that they don't have the same fundamental belief like labourites


tories have proved they cant end crime with more police, you have to tackle crime from below

hmmm... i'm not sure we should go into this debate. Slightly off topic. But anyway - no. You are wrong with that popular misconception that the tories only increase police numbers.

Take a look at what the tories did with the Kingsmean Estate, in Hackney.
And also, Labour increased police officers in Hull; which prompted a 14% fall in crime.

Do you think it would be an electable policy to propose cutting the number of police officers?
Most people want more on the streets.


and they fucked up transport, and have no control over it anyway

so the tories "want" one of these things, not the rest.


The tories want good transport. Its pathetic to suggest that the tories want "bad transport".

Also - "two brains", one of the tories major policy thinkers, was suggesting the other month of re-nationalising the railways.



Kamo, the way you said it was like how Howard phrased his "beliefs".
The guardian followed his beliefs up, and found that all the parties agreed - even the communist party.

[Kez]

the communist party has often backed the capitalist government, so what, is whatever they say some sort of holy saying?


youve just re-iterated points which ive answered, which is rather strange...so....

also, who came up with the idea of foundation hospitals (which is a break from NHS)

the same also applies to private insurance.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:01 PM
[QUOTE]

Kamo, the way you said it was like how Howard phrased his "beliefs".
The guardian followed his beliefs up, and found that all the parties agreed - even the communist party.
This sounds extremely dodgy. Have you proof? The entire shadow cabinet are against any kind of re-nationalization, indeed Oliver Letwin has proposed extended privatization measures allowing for less regulation on monopoly laws.

You seem a bit confused James, of course the Tories want better transport, however they feel the only way to satisfy their electorate is to decrease taxation by allowing private enterprize in these areas of industry.

You continue your argument as if you advocate tory policy, which I am sure isnt the case but you still seem to belive the tories are not againt further privatization when this simply is not the case.

Anyway, im sure im not wanted in your little slagging match. <_<

[James]

This sounds extremely dodgy. Have you proof? The entire shadow cabinet are against any kind of re-nationalization, indeed Oliver Letwin has proposed extended privatization measures allowing for less regulation on monopoly laws.


Well the telegraph published it a few weeks back - and the guys nickname is "two-brains".
You don&#39;t have to believe me: and don&#39;t get side tracked on that side comment of mine.
My point wasn&#39;t that (see below)


You seem a bit confused James, of course the Tories want better transport, however they feel the only way to satisfy their electorate is to decrease taxation by allowing private enterprize in these areas of industry.

You continue your argument as if you advocate tory policy, which I am sure isnt the case but you still seem to belive the tories are not againt further privatization when this simply is not the case.

Anyway, im sure im not wanted in your little slagging match.


aaaah, i see where you are coming from. No: you misunderstand what i was trying to get across. Thats probably my fault - sorry.

You hit the nail on the head when you said
of course the Tories want better transport,

Thats what my point was - kamo&#39;s "labour list" is also the tory list. Lib dem list. CPGB list. BNP list.
I was trying to get across how worthless this list was (thus my comparison to Howards "i believe" list).


+ + +

On tory policy - no i&#39;m not "defending" it - i&#39;m merely pointing out that popular misconceptions (e.g. re: crime) are not correct.


+ + +

Conclusion
Old Labour policies would require an increase of tax&#39;s - which "middle england" don&#39;t want.
Old Labour policies would get a large amount of support - but they wouldn&#39;t get the swing vote: this is why new labour came about. To attract the "middle england" vote.

[Invader Zim]

People who think old labour was good are beyond stupid, it was crap, a capitalist party, with a few left wing policies. They ruinied the economy and made them selves completely unelectable. Hense the reason why that mad old battle axe managed to stay in power for 12 years.

Old labour is unelectable because its half assed shit.

[Louis Pio]

Still people have to deal with the Labour party when looking at Britain and analysing the situation.
The Labour party has without doubt been an important (if not most) factor in the british labour movement. Even though people didn&#39;t like the leaders they joined anyway. Even the communist party realised this and always kept a precense inside Labour. Also the the unions in Britain is in the quite unique situation that they still have a rather big say in Labour. When looking at Britain form the outside I think the shift to the left in the unions is quite remarkable. As I see it is it only a sign of things to come. The Labour party of course doesn&#39;t live in a vacuum but is influenced by the trends in society (and for them especially the unions). So when we have seen a general drop in activity from the workers the rightwing has the possibility of moveing considerably to the right, as have been done by the Blair clique.
No when we see a rise in activity and a swing to the left these people get challenged. The same is happening in alot of other countries. Spain and Greece are exellent examples. I think it is quite important for people considering themselves socialist to deal with this point or else we will be quite seperated from a leftturn. The whole point is that people don&#39;t become socialists by a snap of our fingers.
Instead they will first of all try to change the present system and their own organisations. So while supporting any left policy we should always explain the need for a total change of system ie. a revolution. If we don&#39;t nobody else will.

[Agent provocateur]

Blair is just a fucking pimp, man. Though, I admire the literature of England it has the cruelest politicians in the world.