Are<00:00:00.800> Labor<00:00:01.439> unlucky?<00:00:02.320> Why<00:00:03.520> are<00:00:03.679> Labour

Are Labor unlucky? Why are Labour

Are Labor unlucky? Why are Labour perceived<00:00:04.480> to<00:00:04.720> have<00:00:04.960> been<00:00:05.120> doing<00:00:05.359> so<00:00:05.600> badly?

perceived to have been doing so badly?

perceived to have been doing so badly? Why<00:00:06.720> are<00:00:06.960> labor<00:00:07.359> so<00:00:07.520> unpopular<00:00:08.000> so<00:00:08.240> quickly?

Why are labor so unpopular so quickly?

Why are labor so unpopular so quickly? The<00:00:09.200> classic<00:00:09.679> Labor<00:00:10.000> argument<00:00:10.559> is<00:00:11.280> basically

The classic Labor argument is basically

The classic Labor argument is basically that<00:00:12.160> they<00:00:12.480> are<00:00:12.639> unlucky<00:00:13.120> because<00:00:13.360> they

that they are unlucky because they

that they are unlucky because they inherited<00:00:14.240> an<00:00:14.480> extremely<00:00:15.040> bad<00:00:15.679> financial

inherited an extremely bad financial

inherited an extremely bad financial situation<00:00:17.600> from<00:00:17.840> the<00:00:18.000> Conservatives.<00:00:18.720> This

situation from the Conservatives. This

situation from the Conservatives. This is<00:00:19.039> not<00:00:19.199> really<00:00:19.359> our<00:00:19.680> fault.<00:00:20.240> There<00:00:20.400> was<00:00:20.480> no

is not really our fault. There was no

is not really our fault. There was no way<00:00:20.800> of<00:00:20.960> us<00:00:21.199> knowing<00:00:21.439> this<00:00:21.600> would<00:00:21.760> happen.<00:00:22.640> And

way of us knowing this would happen. And

way of us knowing this would happen. And what<00:00:23.359> this<00:00:23.600> reminded<00:00:24.080> me<00:00:24.320> of<00:00:24.640> was<00:00:24.880> a<00:00:25.039> speech

what this reminded me of was a speech

what this reminded me of was a speech given<00:00:25.680> by<00:00:26.240> Jeremy<00:00:26.640> Hunt<00:00:27.039> 2<00:00:27.199> and<00:00:27.279> a<00:00:27.439> half<00:00:27.599> years

given by Jeremy Hunt 2 and a half years

given by Jeremy Hunt 2 and a half years ago.<00:00:28.160> At<00:00:28.400> the<00:00:28.640> time,<00:00:28.960> people<00:00:29.199> were<00:00:29.279> very

ago. At the time, people were very

ago. At the time, people were very unhappy<00:00:29.760> because<00:00:29.920> living<00:00:30.240> stands<00:00:30.480> were

unhappy because living stands were

unhappy because living stands were falling,<00:00:30.880> the<00:00:31.039> economy<00:00:31.279> was<00:00:31.519> weak.<00:00:31.840> And<00:00:31.920> what

falling, the economy was weak. And what

falling, the economy was weak. And what Jeremy<00:00:32.399> Hunt<00:00:32.719> said<00:00:32.960> was,<00:00:33.200> "We<00:00:33.520> know<00:00:33.680> that

Jeremy Hunt said was, "We know that

Jeremy Hunt said was, "We know that living<00:00:34.399> standards<00:00:34.719> are<00:00:34.800> falling<00:00:35.040> and<00:00:35.200> the

living standards are falling and the

living standards are falling and the economy<00:00:35.600> is<00:00:35.760> weak."<00:00:36.320> But<00:00:36.480> it's<00:00:36.640> not<00:00:36.800> our<00:00:37.040> fault

economy is weak." But it's not our fault

economy is weak." But it's not our fault because<00:00:37.760> there<00:00:38.000> have<00:00:38.160> been<00:00:38.239> a<00:00:38.480> series<00:00:38.879> of<00:00:39.040> of

because there have been a series of of

because there have been a series of of black<00:00:39.840> swan<00:00:40.239> events.<00:00:41.040> And<00:00:41.200> now<00:00:41.360> here<00:00:41.600> we<00:00:41.760> are<00:00:42.399> 2

black swan events. And now here we are 2

black swan events. And now here we are 2 and<00:00:42.640> a<00:00:42.719> half<00:00:42.960> years<00:00:43.200> later<00:00:43.920> with<00:00:44.160> a<00:00:44.480> Labor

and a half years later with a Labor

and a half years later with a Labor government<00:00:45.760> that<00:00:46.239> have<00:00:46.480> failed<00:00:46.800> on<00:00:46.960> the

government that have failed on the

government that have failed on the economy<00:00:47.520> in<00:00:47.840> the<00:00:48.160> exact<00:00:49.120> precise<00:00:49.760> exact

economy in the exact precise exact

economy in the exact precise exact specific<00:00:50.640> way<00:00:50.800> that<00:00:50.960> I<00:00:51.120> predicted<00:00:51.520> that<00:00:51.760> they

specific way that I predicted that they

specific way that I predicted that they would<00:00:52.079> fail<00:00:52.719> one<00:00:52.879> year<00:00:53.039> ago,<00:00:53.520> 2<00:00:53.680> years<00:00:53.840> ago,

would fail one year ago, 2 years ago,

would fail one year ago, 2 years ago, four<00:00:54.399> years<00:00:54.480> ago,<00:00:54.800> 5<00:00:55.039> years<00:00:55.199> ago.<00:00:55.920> And<00:00:56.160> they

four years ago, 5 years ago. And they

four years ago, 5 years ago. And they are<00:00:56.480> now<00:00:56.719> saying<00:00:56.879> the<00:00:57.039> same<00:00:57.199> thing,<00:00:57.360> which<00:00:57.520> is,

are now saying the same thing, which is,

are now saying the same thing, which is, "Oh<00:00:57.840> my<00:00:58.079> god,<00:00:58.559> aren't<00:00:58.800> we<00:00:58.960> terribly<00:00:59.280> unlucky?

"Oh my god, aren't we terribly unlucky?

"Oh my god, aren't we terribly unlucky? How<00:01:00.320> could<00:01:00.480> we<00:01:00.719> ever<00:01:01.680> have<00:01:01.920> predicted<00:01:02.320> this?"

How could we ever have predicted this?"

How could we ever have predicted this?" So<00:01:03.760> this<00:01:04.879> mistake,<00:01:05.680> this<00:01:05.920> what<00:01:06.159> I'm<00:01:06.400> going<00:01:06.479> to

So this mistake, this what I'm going to

So this mistake, this what I'm going to call<00:01:07.200> naivity<00:01:08.320> about<00:01:08.880> wealth<00:01:09.280> and<00:01:09.520> naivity

call naivity about wealth and naivity

call naivity about wealth and naivity about<00:01:10.320> wealth<00:01:10.640> distribution<00:01:11.040> and

about wealth distribution and

about wealth distribution and inequality,<00:01:12.320> it's<00:01:12.560> not<00:01:12.720> just<00:01:12.880> specific<00:01:13.280> to

inequality, it's not just specific to

inequality, it's not just specific to Labor.<00:01:14.000> It's<00:01:14.240> basically<00:01:14.799> every<00:01:15.119> established

Labor. It's basically every established

Labor. It's basically every established political<00:01:15.920> party<00:01:16.159> in<00:01:16.320> the<00:01:16.400> Western<00:01:16.720> world.

political party in the Western world.

political party in the Western world. And<00:01:17.520> it's<00:01:17.759> not<00:01:18.080> even<00:01:18.320> just<00:01:18.640> unique<00:01:18.880> to<00:01:19.040> the

And it's not even just unique to the

And it's not even just unique to the political<00:01:19.600> parties.<00:01:20.320> This<00:01:20.720> is<00:01:21.040> basically<00:01:22.159> a

political parties. This is basically a

political parties. This is basically a failure<00:01:22.880> of<00:01:23.200> understanding<00:01:24.240> of<00:01:24.640> pretty<00:01:24.960> much

failure of understanding of pretty much

failure of understanding of pretty much the<00:01:25.439> entire<00:01:26.080> western<00:01:26.560> elect<00:01:27.040> intellectual

the entire western elect intellectual

the entire western elect intellectual class.<00:01:28.080> So<00:01:28.240> was<00:01:28.400> it<00:01:28.560> fixable?<00:01:29.200> Yes.<00:01:29.680> If<00:01:29.840> they

class. So was it fixable? Yes. If they

class. So was it fixable? Yes. If they had<00:01:30.240> listened<00:01:30.400> to<00:01:30.479> us,<00:01:30.720> could<00:01:30.880> they<00:01:31.040> have

had listened to us, could they have

had listened to us, could they have fixed<00:01:31.360> it?<00:01:31.680> Yes.<00:01:32.159> So<00:01:32.400> are<00:01:32.640> they<00:01:32.799> unlucky?<00:01:33.759> No.

fixed it? Yes. So are they unlucky? No.

fixed it? Yes. So are they unlucky? No. Was<00:01:34.479> it<00:01:34.640> predictable?<00:01:35.600> Yes.<00:01:35.920> Could<00:01:36.159> something

Was it predictable? Yes. Could something

Was it predictable? Yes. Could something have<00:01:36.640> been<00:01:36.799> done?<00:01:37.280> Yes.<00:01:37.920> Are<00:01:38.079> Labour<00:01:38.400> unlucky?

have been done? Yes. Are Labour unlucky?

have been done? Yes. Are Labour unlucky? No.<00:01:40.159> Uh<00:01:40.799> I've<00:01:41.040> been<00:01:41.200> screaming<00:01:41.520> about<00:01:41.680> this

No. Uh I've been screaming about this

No. Uh I've been screaming about this for<00:01:42.079> five<00:01:42.240> or<00:01:42.400> six<00:01:42.640> years.<00:01:43.040> Something<00:01:43.360> could

for five or six years. Something could

for five or six years. Something could have<00:01:43.680> been<00:01:43.840> done.<00:01:44.400> Something<00:01:44.799> hasn't<00:01:45.200> been

have been done. Something hasn't been

have been done. Something hasn't been done.<00:01:45.920> Labour<00:01:46.320> should<00:01:46.479> have<00:01:46.640> been<00:01:46.799> thinking

done. Labour should have been thinking

done. Labour should have been thinking about<00:01:47.200> it<00:01:47.360> when<00:01:47.439> they're<00:01:47.600> in<00:01:47.759> opposition.

about it when they're in opposition.

about it when they're in opposition. Labour<00:01:49.200> should<00:01:49.360> have<00:01:49.520> been<00:01:49.680> thinking<00:01:49.920> about

Labour should have been thinking about

Labour should have been thinking about it<00:01:50.240> before<00:01:50.399> the<00:01:50.560> election.<00:01:51.280> They<00:01:51.520> didn't.

it before the election. They didn't.

it before the election. They didn't. That<00:01:52.479> is<00:01:52.560> why<00:01:52.720> they're<00:01:52.960> failing<00:01:53.280> now.<00:01:53.759> It's

That is why they're failing now. It's

That is why they're failing now. It's not<00:01:54.320> bad<00:01:54.560> luck.