Labor 2005 vs 1979

[jaichind]

New Labor share of vote in 2005 35.2%
Old Labor share of vote in 1979 36.9%

To be fair turnout are much lower in Labor strongholds in the Northeast Northwest and so on.  So one cannot try to equate the two votes.  But still, after Blair threw away the principles of Labor just for some extra votes, it turns out that it at best matches the vote share result of a tired and exhusted Old Labor of 1979.                               

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Kind of like saying Bill Clinton was less popular in 1992 than Dukakis was in 1988.   

There are a lot more people voting for third parties in the UK than there were in 1979, but those third parties still aren't winning proportional seats.

[M]

Also, old labour was declining demographically. If New Labour types that wouldn't vote for old Labour had voted LibDem or Tory this election, we would be dealing with PM Howard today.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Turnout is much lower than in 1979. Guess who that hurts?
2. In 1979 the Third Party was in decline. In 2005 the Third Party was expanding.

[minionofmidas]

Still, if turnout is much lower than in 1979, that also means Labour can't reach as many people as it did in 1979. Nor the Tories, of course.

[YoMartin]

And the growth of a third party may be a consequence, not a cause, of Labour´s diminished appeal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, more a consequence of the Opposition Party's dismal failure to capitalise on discontent with an 8 year old Government.