Skip to main content

Why do the British public support moderately left-wing policies, but fail to vote Labour?

Centrists, like Blair, who argue Labour must return to centrist policies to have any chance of winning again, have a problem with polling that shows moderately left-leaning Corbyn-style policies (e.g. free university tuition, free childcare, nationalised rail, higher taxes on wealthiest, etc.) were and still are popular.

Centrists need to explain that polling away.

Of course, they respond by saying ‘But Labour lost in 2017 and 2019! So the policies can’t be popular, can they?’ In addition, Tony Blair is now adding this:

  1. ‘In a 3 sec conversation people say they support rail nationalisation, say, but after a 30 sec or 3 minute conversation they’re much less keen.’ An obvious problem with this reply is that, while it explains why people would drop support for such policies given longer exposure to centrist counter-arguments (assuming that’s true, which I doubt), it obviously doesn’t explain why, when the public haven’t dropped support for such policies (which they haven't), they still fail to vote Labour.
  2. ‘Leftist policies may be individually popular but they’re not necessarily collectively popular.’ The problem with this response is while it could be true (just as it could be true that Tony Blair is working for the CIA), there’s no actual evidence it’s true, and on the face of it it’s pretty implausible: 'Yes I like rail nationalisation, free university education, free child care, and more tax on the wealthiest as individual policies, but I wouldn't want to see all four introduced - definitely not!'. Blair is here offering a classic example of an ‘ad hoc’ response to evidence against a hypothesis, a bit like a kid explaining away the evidence he didn’t do his homework by saying squirrels ate it. Repeated appeal to this sort of ‘explaining away’ strategy is a sign of cult-think, as I explain elsewhere.

Supporters of moderately left-wing Corbyn-style policies, on the other hand, can much more plausibly explain why public enthusiasm for left policies didn't translate into winning. The MSM coverage of the actual policies was largely non-existent, so people were often unaware that they were Labour policies, as this video shows.

Media coverage instead focused on character assassination (antisemite, terrorist sympathiser, etc.) and fostering a perception of the Labour left as extremists, thugs, trots, bigots, etc. This was in large part down to the work of centrists inside and outside the Party, including Tony Blair himself, feeding the MSM that line on a daily basis.

There is good evidence that the public largely didn’t know what Labour’s policies were, but just thought Labour must be extreme, Stalinist, etc. because, after all, that's what Tony Blair and the centrists were telling them.

So, despite the manouevering from Blair, the evidence clearly supports the lefts’ diagnosis more than it does the centrists'.

Still, centrists and those on the right (Tim Montgomerie has already done so) will seize on Blair's not-terribly-plausible attempt to explain away the polling evidence that the public are actually rather more left-wing than he is, because it allows them to retain their beliefs in the teeth of evidence to the contrary.

Blair's whole interview is here.

Incidentally, Blair's suggestion that these two points explain why Thatcher was popular despite e.g. privatisation and tax cuts for the wealthiest not being popular policies is implausible. Blair is actually suggesting that 1. people didn't like Thatcherite policies individually but did collectively, and 2. did like them after a 3 minute conversation because Thatcher was, er, actually right according to Blair.


Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Why do atheists think Christians believe unreasonably, if they don't?

How reasonable is it for the religious to believe the central tenets of their respective religions? According to many atheists: not very. Many atheists suppose it is in each case unreasonable for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá’ís, Quakers, Mormons, Scientologists, and so on to believe what they do. The religious person usually takes a different view of at least their own religious belief. They suppose science and reason do not significantly undermine, and may indeed support, the core tenets of their own faith. The same is true of non-religious theists. They consider their brand of theism is reasonably, or at least not unreasonably, held even if no particular religion is. Indeed, many theists consider atheism unreasonable. Even when participants in discussions between atheists on the one hand and defenders of some variety of religious or theistic belief on the other include intelligent, philosophically sophisticated and well-informed people striving to think carefully and objec