callippo Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 it doesn't work like that mate. It's not a presidential election. Thatcher's approval rating in 1979 was lower than Callaghan's. Despite that, her party won by a landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 it doesn't work like that mate. It's not a presidential election. Thatcher's approval rating in 1979 was lower than Callaghan's. Despite that, her party won by a landslide. This is actually a relevent issue here. People increasingly vote for their MP on the basis of their views of the party leaders, even though they will be very lucky to have 1 party leader on the ballot paper. And increasingly the MP's themselves are there to simply parrot the views of the party leadership. This trend worsened significantly thanks to Blair with MP's being increasingly "on-message" and any disagreements with party leadership being steamrollered. I don't like how "top-down" British politics is at the moment. Maybe if it was more "bottom-up" with party members having more of a say over what the leadership does then more people would want to take part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 what I don't understand is why the Tory supporters don't appear to realize what a precarious position the party is in and the smart money given the low number of votes that they received last time is that they are not likely to win the next election. every time a new government has been elected, they've lost votes in the subsequent election. Labour lost 2.8 million votes between 1997 and 2001 (but only about 1.8 million if you factor in the lowering of turnout). even in 1983, few people noticed that 700,000 less people voted for Thatcher and the Tories, than voted for them in 1979. If that happens again, they're finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The gap between rich and poor has been increasing for centuries, but the important figures show that the poorest are now much better off in real terms. Although Britain in the 30 years after WWII was moving towards greater equality peaking in the 1970s, when Britons according to the New Economics Foundation were the happiest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 it doesn't work like that mate. It's not a presidential election. Thatcher's approval rating in 1979 was lower than Callaghan's. Despite that, her party won by a landslide. Its 2012 now and things have changed a heck of a lot since then. In fact Blair is the PM who is credited with bringing in the whole presidential side of our general elections these days. The leaders debates we have now are the product of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 what I don't understand is why the Tory supporters don't appear to realize what a precarious position the party is in and the smart money given the low number of votes that they received last time is that they are not likely to win the next election. We do, but what can you do? Spend money we don't have and have the country in even worse shape? Winning the election was going to be a poisoned chalice. We can only seek comfort in the hope that the country will be in a good state when it's handed over to the opposition (who will run it into the ground again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Its 2012 now and things have changed a heck of a lot since then. In fact Blair is the PM who is credited with bringing in the whole presidential side of our general elections these days. The leaders debates we have now are the product of this. I disagree. I think Margaret Thatcher should be credited with this honour. She was hardly known for her collegiate cainet style governement. Blair continued and took the whole thing to its logical extreme The leaders debates were something that the media were clamouring for, not most of the public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 UK 2010 was a good one to lose. as was UK 1992. There must be plenty of Tories who wished they had lost that one, not least because Blair would almost certainly have not become leader if they had. Blair wouldn't even have got into the first 1992 Labour Cabinet. He would have had no chance of becoming leader if his party had won the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_blue_owl Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Have any of the anti-Blair posters ever really sat down and thought how difficult the job of being the Prime minister of Britain is? To have to make daily decisions that affect millions of lives. to make decisions that cost people their lives? Do you suppose Mr Blair took those decisions lightly? The responsibility of holding such a position must weigh very heavily on the shoulders of people such as Mr Blair, whilst all the while being castigated by the opposition, the gutter press and pseudo politicians with no experience in politics whatsoever. It is very easy to sit in one's armchair and criticise someone doing a high profile job in which it is impossible to please everyone. Whereas possessing twenty-twenty hindsight vision is relatively easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Have any of the anti-Blair posters ever really sat down and thought how difficult the job of being the Prime minister of Britain is? To have to make daily decisions that affect millions of lives. to make decisions that cost people their lives? Do you suppose Mr Blair took those decisions lightly? He didn't take the decisions at all, he simply did what George W Bush told him to do! The biggest mistake Blair ever made was saying the UK would stand shoulder to shoulder with the US after 9/11. He should have said, sorry mate, it's America's war and nothing to do with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.