Slightly James Purnell
Work and Pensions Secretary, alleged New Labour wunderkind, right-wing trojan horse and future leadership disappointment, James Purnell, says the current econogeddon has meant ‘people slightly turned away‘ from New Labour. It’s that slightly, I like. It’s a self-deluding, fooling-nobody slightly. Who’s he trying to fool? People who don’t read newspapers and those don’t own radios and televisions?
People have only slightly turned away, have they? And only this year, did they? Take a look at the share of the vote New Labour received at the last three general elections…
| Year | Votes | % of vote | % of electorate |
| 1997 | 13,518,184 | 43.2 | 30.8 |
| 2001 | 10,724,835 | 40.675 | 24.154 |
| 2005 | 9,552,436 | 35.19 | 21.59 |
Between 1997 and 2005, New Labour managed to misplace nearly four million ‘people’. They turned away. Did they do it in anticipation of a 2007 economic cocking up? Did they turn away massively or did they all individually turn away slightly which collectively meant a collapse in New Labour’s support?
Today the Tories are only slightly ahead in the polls at 52% with New Labour slightly behind on 24%. Following Purnell’s thinking, it will only take people turning slightly back towards New Labour to turn around that 28 point deficit.
Going on this definition of slightly, Purnell sounds only slightly ridiculous. Rome is only slightly burning. New Labour will be only slightly out of power at the next election.
Posted on September 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
| See also • Shake for me, girl. I wanna be your back door man. • On Message • Hard-headed realism from James Purnell |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under New Labour |
• |
Well, if Brown had held an election a year ago he would have increased the Labour majority and share of the vote, and there were similar polls with record leads for Labour. Do you remember when Cameron was relying on the conference speech to save his job, just what they are saying about Brown now.
This delusion of adequacy goes back a long way. I remember in ‘97, a very nice young man knocked on my door and asked if I’d be voting Labour. I told him that I was steeped in the blood of the movement (grandmother was a councillor, mother gave birth to me while she was running for election, I was stuffing envelopes from the age of nine) but I was rather uneasy with the compromises Blair and co were making to woo disillusioned Tories. However, I’d vote Labour, because the top priority was hurting the Tories as much as possible. “Well, you’re going to vote for us,” he said. “That’s the important thing.”
“Er… that’s a bit short-termist, isn’t it?” I said to his back as he walked away.
I very nearly voted Lib Dem in ‘01. Didn’t vote at all in ‘05. Looks as if the Tories will win the next election. A few years back, that would have plunged me into despair. Now I don’t give a toss. Labour had one last chance - Cruddas. And they blew it. They’re all the same. They haven’t just lost my vote, they’ve lost my interest in electoral politics. Fuck ‘em.
Tim Footman’s latest blog post… RIP Norman Whitfield
This “economic cocking up” is not Gordon’s doing. It is a global phenomenon which hard-working and adaptable Britishpersons are exceptionally well-placed to weather thanks to Gordon’s handling of the economy. Look at all the money he’s saved so that banks can prosper and eat each other. You don’t achieve that by
wasting it on wars, PFI and white elephants generallyletting NHS spending get out of control and pandering to idlers’ whims over pensions and post offices, do you?Philip’s latest blog post… A Scottish Play
This is new labour, they can’t be expected to tell the WHOLE truth or be straight forward about it.
Besides, aren’t we just voting for a colour these days?