Since the general election, allies of Jeremy Corbyn have presumed a Labour victory if another snap election was called. Due to Mr Corbyn exceeding all expectations and Mrs May dramatically under-performing, they presume the electorate would now push Corbyn into Downing Street. This is taking the electorate for granted. Corbynites need to realize: if they want a Labour victory, any form of complacency must be dropped. Now.
We only need to look at the recent past to witness where complacency has destroyed political careers. In 2010, due to the failures of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, the Conservatives assumed they would form the next Government. Apparently George Osborne was already eyeing up Dorneywood, the Chancellor's country home. It was a shock when the result was a hung parliament, with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems. In 2015, the rumours of a hung parliament made Ed Miliband appear as the next Prime Minister. This complacency helped to give the Tories an overall majority. Just 3 weeks ago, Theresa May's assumption that her Government would be returned with a thumping majority resulted in a hung parliament. Why are Corbynites unable to examine recent political history to see how complacency nearly always goes wrong? Despite gaining 30 seats, Jeremy Corbyn still has a mountain to climb to enter Number 10. Though Labour held nearly all of its seats, a number of safe Labour seats, especially in the Midlands and North, gave a swing to the Tories. They will soon no longer be safe seats. The 6 seats Labour lost to the Tories were interestingly former Labour heartlands. Corbyn must have an optimistic, realistic message directly for those communities to prevent a future Tory surge. I wonder how many people voted Labour, or didn't vote altogether, believing Theresa May would have a large majority. I worry that if people believed there was a real chance of Labour winning, which certainly wasn't the case in the 2017 Election campaign, people voted turnout in huge numbers to prevent a Labour victory. Not because they were fans of Theresa May or the Tories, but to prevent a socialist government. This seemed to be the case in 1992, where complacency, and a large chance of Neil Kinnock, then Labour leader, becoming PM resulted in the Tories receiving the largest number of numerical votes for a political party in history, allowing let another Tory majority. It is unclear as to how long Labour can keep their position on Brexit...unclear. The vague details on remaining or leaving the single market and customs union are no different from a year ago. The 2017 Labour manifesto promises to leave the single market, yet 50 Labour politicians sign a letter to 'The Guardian', advocating continued single market membership. This is utterly incoherent. Keeping the voting coalition of liberal, remain areas and conservative, leave areas is unsustainable, with those groups crumbling away if Labour continues to be unclear on Brexit. Labour are, currently, on the front foot. Despite Brexit divisions, expectations was exceeded in the election result. In a hung parliament, they have a lot of power. The shabby, unfair DUP-Tory deal costing £1 billion will help Labour massively and show the extent the Tories will go to, in order to hold office. However, by assuming victory, they are likely to fail. It's far better for them to assume failure and work towards success. After all, the country loves an underdog. ****************************************************************************************************************** The decline of newspaper influence in the general election was very apparent. For years, tabloids like 'The Sun' have called the winner of elections, with their readership voting accordingly. However, on this occasion, the result was different. Not even a picture of Jeremy Corbyn in a bin was enough to give the Tories a majority. So, was this election outcome an anomaly for newspapers? Or will newspapers, in the near future, only be used to wrap fish and chips? It's an obvious fact that newspaper circulation has been in decline over the past 50 years. With the rise of technology, especially social media, news has become far more readily avaliable and easy to access online. By the time newspapers go to print, the news printed is seen as old. Why waste paper and money when the newest news is available for free? I think newspaper still have an important role to play in a free society, given we have a free press. Newspapers not being constantly refreshed allows time for reflection and comment on events, in contrast to the never ending spewing of stories online to please a digital population. 24 hour news means events just a few hours old are forgotten, replaced by new breaking stories. Newspapers allow a greater depth to stories, to help people understand, as well as exposing wrongdoing. Like most things, it's a balance between quantity and quality. The future of print journalism is uncertain. I'm sure future election slogans, targeting swing voters, will move online in an age of social media. While it's still an ambition of mine to write for a newspaper, I don't know whether this will be a reality by the time I'm an adult. Still, I could always blog for a living! ****************************************************************************************************************** I'm delighted to be off on holiday to Spain for a couple of weeks. After months of GCSE revision and 21 exams, being able to sunbath, reading a book without a care in the world will be wonderful. I can't wait to see the Spanish culture, have delicious Spanish food and hang out with awesome people. I intend to keep daily notes of what we get up to, so, like last year, I can do a blog devoted to my time in Spain. However, while I'm in Spain, I will have no access to a computer (thankfully!), so there will be no blogs for a couple of weeks. Adios amigos!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|