Of Albatrosses, Prime Ministers, and other Oddities

Recent science has proved that the Albatross circles the globe. Funny, I thought it has just been circling my neck all these years. (Sorry, had to make a bad joke about that one.)

In the late 1980's, the Conservative Party power base was in question. Since winning the election in 1979, the Thatcher government had endured a series of ups and downs. In an attempt to rein in inflation, Thatcher had increased unemployment, poverty, and bankruptcies in the UK to an unprecedented rate. However, she was able to remain in power largely because of Britain's ability to retain control of the Falklands in the 1982 war with Argentina. While the Conservatives still maintained a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, that support was wide, not deep. The public still supported the party, but there was little love for the "Iron Lady"; instead, she was seen as cold, ruthless, and ultimately, heartless.

In the 1987 election, Conservative campaign materials espoused the benefits that the Conservative Party had brought to the country. Notably absent from the campaign was the role of Margaret Thatcher. The groundswell of support for the Prime Minister was eroding and the Party was astute enough to deemphasize her role.

Her regime came to a quick conclusion in 1990, however, when a leadership split forced her to resign as Prime Minister. The Conservatives were able to maintain power under the leadership of John Major until 1997 when the Labor Party won a landslide victory and they have been comfortably in control ever since.

Fast forward to 2005 and the Labor Party under the leadership of Tony Blair find themselves in a similar position as Thatcher's Conservative's did in 1987. Support for Labor is wide, but not deep. Make no mistake - Labor will win again in the next election (most likely sometime this Spring). But, this could be a pyrrhic victory for Blair if things continue on course. A few similarities should be observed:

- Just like Thatcher in 1990, Blair faces a leadership challenge from within his own party. This time, Gordon Brown is upset because he expected Blair to step down and allow Brown to be the next Prime Minister.

- Just like Thatcher, Blair is solely responsible for a number of vastly unpopular policies that have turned the British public against him including the war in Iraq and the fox hunting ban.

- Just like the Conservatives, the Labour Party faces an election they are likely to win, but not with a margin as comfortable as previous elections.

This cursory reading of the tea leaves suggests that the Labour Party is in trouble, much like the Republicans in the States. Labour is likely to win again not because the support for the party is vast and deep. No, they are likely to win because the opposition is seen as a worse alternative. It's never a good idea to win on the weakness of your opposition.

Can the Labour Party hold on for another 10 years like the Conservatives did? That remains to be seen, but the point is, it appears prudent for Blair to step down and let the next leader of the party ascend to his proper role. The Blair-Brown dispute, along with the growing opposition to the war in Iraq and the vast opposition to the fox hunting ban have largely been placed at the feet of Blair. The Labour Party still has a chance to maintain a large margin in the House of Commons, but Blair is not the solution. Distancing themselves from Blair may seem like an odd strategy for an election, but there is historical precedent in the UK and, by most accounts, Blair has overstayed his welcome.

Re: Football

I think Eric summed it up nicely for me in terms of the Patriots absurd strategy, but I'll give it another spin. Dome teams play on astroturf. It's an advantage 8 times out of the year. It's a faster surface and dome teams are generally better indoors than outdoors. That does not mean that leaving a field uncovered with the intention of mauling it to slow down the opposition is "fair". The corollary would be like greasing the astroturf to make is faster. Home field advantage is already a huge plus for the Patriots. Do they really need to resort to dirty tricks like intentionally crapping on the field to help them win? To me, that's low class at best and outright cheating at worst.

That being said, the "safe" victory I predicted turned out to be a lucky win for the Steelers and the "toss up" turned out to be a blowout for the Falcons. Once again, I'm an idiot. Here's hoping that Philly gets embarrassed today.