|
|
Post by graham on Oct 1, 2022 16:00:01 GMT
In 2010 the numbers were there for a minority Labour Government backed by an assortment of smaller parties - ie LibDem + SDLP + SNP + Plaid + Green + Alliance would have produced a further 71 MPs to prop up 258 Labour MPs. 329 MPs would have been sufficient given that SF did not take up their seats. The key figure,therefore, was 323. It was a possibility which the LDs rejected - and to be fair some senior Labour MPs had reservations. In 2017 the DUP was pivotal. Unlike the UUP the DUP have never been natural Tory bedfellows - right wing on social issues but quite left wing in terms of economic policy. Had Labour's leader then been Starmer - or indeed Ed Milliband - the DUP might have ousted Theresa May and the Tories.
A point about 2010 is that Labour had been in power for 13 years and had just been rejected at the polls (their UK vote share was around 29%, down fro 35.2% in 2005). For a somewhat unlikely combination of minority parties to have propped them up would have been highly controversial and the Conservative opposition would have a field day about it and likely have won the GE that would have followed in a couple of years with a good majority. None of which excuses Clegg's idiocy in agreeing to a formal coalition and selling himself cheap in the process. He should have gone confidence and supply with the Tories and agreed measures on a case by case basis only. I doubt Osborne could have imposed the same level of brutal 'austerity' in that scenario. Those points are fair comment - and I particularly agree with the view that Clegg should have opted for Confidence & Supply - an arrangement similar to the Lib/Lab pact back in 1977 -78. I have never been persuaded by the argument that in the absence of a Coalition the way would have been open to Cameron to call another election to win a clear majority.Had Cameron tried that, Clegg could have entered into an alliance with Milliband - and various other parties - to persuade the Palace that an alternative Government was available in the existing House of Commons.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 1, 2022 16:00:18 GMT
On another subject, I think it's become clear that allowing party members to choose leaders is a terrible idea. Firstly, leaders need the support of MPs, and (an extreme example) a candidate who gets 90% of MPs votes but loses the membership vote was clearly better placed to lead the party. Secondly, prospective leaders need to win the support of the country as a whole, especially the middle-ground swing voters who inevitably decide elections, and very few of that category are members of any political party by virtue of the fact they are swing voters! IMO MPs choosing their leader is the best system of an imperfect bunch and at least ensures a (probably) united party going forward. What we have currently is likely to become a bit of a mess when these policies get to the Commons. It used to be considered a good thing for a party to have a large, active membership base. I think the last few years have shown that the more power members have the less appealing a party is likely to be to the wider public.
Conversely, if the membership is restricted to only certain sections of society, that creates the conditions for a feedback loop, and capture of the party by a narrow view more likely.
Both Labour and Tory parties have a significantly smaller % of the relevant electorate than was the case in the 20th century - HoC analysis says Tory members are only 0.4% of the relevant electorate (slightly less than Plaid).
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05125/ |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Oct 1, 2022 16:05:15 GMT
But the point is that over 4 years of economic growth failed to help the Tories at the 1997 election. Why is 18 months of such growth - if it materialises - likely to benefit them next year and in 2024? Moreover, the signs now point to Government spending cuts being announced which will offset any Keynesian expansionary impact which might have flowed from the Income Tax cuts.The latter anyway is to be concentrated on higher income groups who are far less likely to spend any additional disposable income - much of it will be saved. In the erm example the whole process showed government try to do something, which failed and thus undermined their credibility. Kwarteng was trying to engineer a situation where he does something controversial and against the screamed advice of experts and labour. ...and then the economy comes good and he claims he is an economic genius. I'D think that if in a year or so the situation is improving, even though in absolute terms it's just as bad as before he opened his mouth, they will call a snap election saying give us 5 more years to finish the job because its working. A snap election not least because such a recovery is likely to be brittle and given time we would see britain trailing europe on growth again. The Europeans are far more likely to sort their energy supply than we are- they will concentrate on reducing demand and renewables. We are concentrating on extracting more gas and nuclear. I don't know if it makes sense to give higher earners a sub to pay their mortgages. Chances are they would be fine even if they had to down Size. But the knock on in the housing market might be significant. Aside from that, that's the block of tory voters so obviously keep them sweet. Yes I know the media has concentrated on the unfairness of helping the rich instead of poor, but the trouble is this is antisemitism all over again. Con didn't care about Johnson making off jokes, but lab took it really seriously. It's about doing what your voters like not what the opposition voters like. Truss may have misjudged this, but maybe not. If polling says even 25% think this is right then she's probably on a winner. When I heard Varoufakis saying Kwarteng had made a rookie mistake I started wondering just how a banker with an economics degree and PhD on bank runs could make a rookie mistake. Obvious conclusion- he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Oct 1, 2022 16:15:42 GMT
But the point is that over 4 years of economic growth failed to help the Tories at the 1997 election. Why is 18 months of such growth - if it materialises - likely to benefit them next year and in 2024? Moreover, the signs now point to Government spending cuts being announced which will offset any Keynesian expansionary impact which might have flowed from the Income Tax cuts.The latter anyway is to be concentrated on higher income groups who are far less likely to spend any additional disposable income - much of it will be saved. In the erm example the whole process showed government try to do something, which failed and thus undermined their credibility. Kwarteng was trying to engineer a situation where he does something controversial and against the screamed advice of experts and labour. ...and then the economy comes good and he claims he is an economic genius. I'D think that if in a year or so the situation is improving, even though in absolute terms it's just as bad as before he opened his mouth, they will call a snap election saying give us 5 more years to finish the job because its working. A snap election not least because such a recovery is likely to be brittle and given time we would see britain trailing europe on growth again. The Europeans are far more likely to sort their energy supply than we are- they will concentrate on reducing demand and renewables. We are concentrating on extracting more gas and nuclear. I don't know if it makes sense to give higher earners a sub to pay their mortgages. Chances are they would be fine even if they had to down Size. But the knock on in the housing market might be significant. Aside from that, that's the block of tory voters so obviously keep them sweet. Yes I know the media has concentrated on the unfairness of helping the rich instead of poor, but the trouble is this is antisemitism all over again. Con didn't care about Johnson making off jokes, but lab took it really seriously. It's about doing what your voters like not what the opposition voters like. Truss may have misjudged this, but maybe not. If polling says even 25% think this is right then she's probably on a winner. When I heard Varoufakis saying Kwarteng had made a rookie mistake I started wondering just how a banker with an economics degree and PhD on bank runs could make a rookie mistake. Obvious conclusion- he didn't. In 1997 the Tories received no reward for over four years of economic growth despite Black Wednesday 1992 being a fading memory. Inflation was under control and unemployment at a low level by the standards of the preceding 25 years , yet the Tories were massively defeated.
We now have the prospect of higher interest rates , much increased mortgage repayments combined with falling house prices.That appears to present a very unlikely scenario for a snap election!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 16:16:32 GMT
That probably counts as 'youth' in the Conservative Party. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Oct 1, 2022 16:24:12 GMT
Those points are fair comment - and I particularly agree with the view that Clegg should have opted for Confidence & Supply - an arrangement similar to the Lib/Lab pact back in 1977 -78. I have never been persuaded by the argument that in the absence of a Coalition the way would have been open to Cameron to call another election to win a clear majority.Had Cameron tried that, Clegg could have entered into an alliance with Milliband - and various other parties - to persuade the Palace that an alternative Government was available in the existing House of Commons.
My reading at the time (and I knew a few of the supporting cast at the time) was that Cameron would not have accepted a confidence and supply arrangement and would have just governed without it , challenging the opposition to bring him down on popular elements of his policies. The Lib Dems (or at least Clegg and his immediate circle) believed this was their best chance for PR, something which would have guaranteed the future for their party and its policies for the longer term. Realpolitik and my biggest criticism would be they accepted the shambolic PR referendum attached to local government election on a watered down system (and of course going back on their student fees promise which should have been a line in the sand) |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 16:32:58 GMT
My reading at the time (and I knew a few of the supporting cast at the time) was that Cameron would not have accepted a confidence and supply arrangement and would have just governed without it , challenging the opposition to bring him down on popular elements of his policies. The Lib Dems (or at least Clegg and his immediate circle) believed this was their best chance for PR, something which would have guaranteed the future for their party and its policies for the longer term. Realpolitik and my biggest criticism would be they accepted the shambolic PR referendum attached to local government election on a watered down system (and of course going back on their student fees promise which should have been a line in the sand) An interesting question would be what exactly did the Lib Dems get out of the coalition (other than a lot of opprobrium)? I am genuinely struggling to think of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 1, 2022 16:44:02 GMT
Seems to be a deal of confusion within Conservative circles about the state of play with the markets. Kwarteng has reported to have told some of his MPs that they were surprised by the market reaction, Simon Clarke says publicly that they weren't (kind of makes it even worse really), briefings that No 10 is angry at the Treasury for not telling them what might happen, while Fulbrook is telling the backbenchers that it's a communications issue, and that once people understand what they are trying to do they'll be OK with it.
I think we're deep into cock-up territory rather than conspiracy, but that doesn't make the damage any less. The problem is that now that they have spooked the markets and lost an absolute shedload of credibility, the measures needed to restore calm will need to be far bigger. I was very critical of Osborne's 2010 'emergency budget', where he initiated £20bn of current year spending cuts, but I will concede that it did at least give a strong signal to markets, and so arguably had some merit in that regard. This lot have signalled that the lunatics are in charge, and it will take a lot to row back from that.
They are going to face a tough conversation with voters, who voted for more NHS spending and leveling up, and I just don't see Truss, Kwarteng or any of the others as having the political ability to communicate this huge and painful switch of direction to an alarmed and angry electorate. Not all plain sailing for Labour though; they need to address the promise of leveling up, and now the growth message, in a coherent and believable manner. They are starting to do this though, and Truss is certainly making their job easier.
One point I would like to see highlighted though is covid. Repeated mass infection is having a direct impact on both economic productivity and health and other services. But it's like Brexit - Labour daren't mention it. The expert advice on this is clear though; we need investment in good public health, and that will yield economic growth. The Conservatives have been useless on covid, and we have hundreds dying each week of covid and the related knock on effects. It's about all of that, but economic productivity as well, and this could be a big stick to beat Truss with. Without health, you have no economy, and this should be wrapped up into Labour's overall political strategy, in my view. Another big wave of sickness and collapsing health services and I suspect the public will be ready for a nuanced message on the importance of tackling covid, as part of a growth package.
|
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Oct 1, 2022 16:45:41 GMT
The main difference I can see is that Black Wednesday arguably acted as an admission that the government's policy on the ERM had been totally wrong - whereas today the narrative is basically "the Government is right and others are wrong, so the gamble will pay off" Actually, I think that Black Wednesday was the realisation that the markets were stronger than any one country (the USA is probably the only exception in the West). Effectively the ERM was going back to the old fixed exchange rates of the 1960s and earlier and ignoring all the lessons that had been learned then. As the EU learned from the Euro crisis, economic shocks are often asymmetrical, affecting some countries much more than others, and so you need the power to move significant sums of money from the well-off states to the less well-off states. This didn't work too well for Greece (who should not have been allowed into the Euro in the first place) as almost all the EU money then went back to French and German banks who had invested there, while Greece got a bad case of austerity. Gordon Brown stopping the UK joining the Euro was the second-best thing he ever did (after making the Bank of England independent). Ah I see. Good to have that context (I was barely alive at the time) and to understand a little of the economic lessons for today! Still, is it not the case that Black Wednesday was rather viewed as a cock-up (to put it mildly!) by the public at the time? I'm not sure whether that consisted of people making an informed judgement that the choice to stay in the ERM was economically unwise - or if they were just reacting to being screwed by the interest rates fallout when we left - but either way I assume they weren't happy. Now obviously this time round the Government will be seen as responsible for interest rates going up so much in a similar way. But in '92 dropping out of the ERM could have been seen as a consequence of mismanagement and failing to sort things out properly - whereas this time the relevant event (the mini budget) is deliberate policy. Obviously in a way this sounds much worse - and IMO the most likely outcome is that the public will continue to see the mini-budget as an unnecessary self-inflicted catastrophe - but at the same time I do think there's a risk that a recovery could encourage some to think that, despite the pain, at least the mini budget was a deliberate strategy that succeeded - whereas Black Wednesday was just pure unplanned cock-up. |
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Oct 1, 2022 16:50:58 GMT
The main difference I can see is that Black Wednesday arguably acted as an admission that the government's policy on the ERM had been totally wrong - whereas today the narrative is basically "the Government is right and others are wrong, so the gamble will pay off" Actually, I think that Black Wednesday was the realisation that the markets were stronger than any one country (the USA is probably the only exception in the West). Effectively the ERM was going back to the old fixed exchange rates of the 1960s and earlier and ignoring all the lessons that had been learned then. As the EU learned from the Euro crisis, economic shocks are often asymmetrical, affecting some countries much more than others, and so you need the power to move significant sums of money from the well-off states to the less well-off states. This didn't work too well for Greece (who should not have been allowed into the Euro in the first place) as almost all the EU money then went back to French and German banks who had invested there, while Greece got a bad case of austerity. Gordon Brown stopping the UK joining the Euro was the second-best thing he ever did (after making the Bank of England independent). Ah, but the ERM was about trying to regain some stability after the US buggered up Bretton Woods. It was about stopping destabilising individual devaluations and encouraging Europe-wide economic growth. The Single Market built on this, and now there is much more interaction within the EU in terms of production supply lines. Car components, for instance, are manufactured all over the place, and then brought together in the final vehicle.
That makes for more opportunities to specialise in particular areas (I read somewhere I think car aircon units are only made by one or two manufacturers in Europe, but find their way into most if not all the cars produced). With stable cross-border currencies companies have more certainty to plan over the medium term, they can invest in technology and thus increase productivity. When a country is both importing and exporting components that are not the end product it means competitive devaluation is less valuable.
Of course we don't understand that here, so we decided to keep away from the Euro because our housing market is the most important thing in the world, and we don't want to be forced to do something that stops the politicians caressing that particular sector, so we stayed out of the Euro. Heaven forefend, they may be forced to tell Tory voters to pay more tax!! I think that was a mistake, as perhaps we could have had some of that productivity, with the politicians being forced to do other things when we had currency problems.
The trouble was Nixon took the dollar off the 'gold standard', and so everything now floats. The ERM and ultimately monetary union is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Oct 1, 2022 17:07:16 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 1, 2022 17:30:15 GMT
An Opinium poll out at 8pm tonight, should be interesting
The last poll I can find for them was a month ago, giving Labour a 4% lead
Bearing in mind their methodology what do people think the result tonight will be?
I'm going for a 13% Labour lead
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 1, 2022 17:33:56 GMT
An Opinium poll out at 8pm tonight, should be interesting The last poll I can find for them was a month ago, giving Labour a 4% lead Bearing in mind their methodology what do people think the result tonight will be? I'm going for a 13% Labour lead The head of political polling at Opinium was on BBC News 24 earlier today, and hinted this poll would be much better for Labour but maybe not as good as some of the others we have seen this week. He suggested we were on course for a substantial Labour OM but not a 1997 style one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 17:42:21 GMT
TV just came on via timer as my wife watches Come Dancing whilst I usually make a rapid escape. Unfortunately I was busy writing to someone at the time so had to endure that awful moment when the two female hosts say, in unison:
“And now it’s time to meet…. (Change of tone to even more nauseatingly coy) THUH JUDGIZZZZ !!!!! “
Put that on a loop and it could be used to obtain confessions from innocent people.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 1, 2022 17:42:36 GMT
Some interesting stories emerging:
And:
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 1, 2022 17:45:38 GMT
Stinks
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Oct 1, 2022 17:47:40 GMT
Neil J, as the number of Tory 2019 voters saying DK/WV increases so does the impact of Opiniums forecast model.
At the same time, however, as the number of direct 2019 Tories to Lab switchers increases the impact reduces.
I might have a stab at removing their adjustment when the tables come out but I kind of think it matters little to most posters on here as there is a collective shrug at their results.
As you imply the key measure is the change on their methodology and over 10% but less than 15% would be in line with movement from other polling companies.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 1, 2022 18:10:05 GMT
Almost unbelievable
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Oct 1, 2022 18:21:37 GMT
Apparently Belarus is preparing to receive large numbers of newly mobilised Russian soldiers.
I was struck by one of Biden's comments in his response to Putin's mental speech.
He reiterated that NATO will actively defend 'every inch' of NATO territory.
'Don't misunderstand me Mr Putin' he said.
I wonder if there could be intelligence that in an attempt to deflect from defeat in Donbass towards a logistically quickly achievable and high profile goal if Putin hasn't got his eye on the 'Suwalki gap' again, the small sliver of territory in southern Lithuania that could link Belarus by land to the Kaliningrad exclave.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 1, 2022 18:24:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Oct 1, 2022 18:27:48 GMT
Some interesting stories emerging: Surely Charles should tell her where to go. As you can probably guess by the way I have referred to Charles, I am no royalist but knowing his background, his involvement is more important than hers. What can we do to get rid of this government. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 18:45:10 GMT
An Opinium poll out at 8pm tonight, should be interesting The last poll I can find for them was a month ago, giving Labour a 4% lead Bearing in mind their methodology what do people think the result tonight will be? I'm going for a 13% Labour lead The head of political polling at Opinium was on BBC News 24 earlier today, and hinted this poll would be much better for Labour but maybe not as good as some of the others we have seen this week. He suggested we were on course for a substantial Labour OM but not a 1997 style one. To be fair "a substantial Labour OM but not a 1997 style one" would be my guess too. I reckon they might show a 8 or 9% Labour lead. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 18:47:22 GMT
Apparently Belarus is preparing to receive large numbers of newly mobilised Russian soldiers. I was struck by one of Biden's comments in his response to Putin's mental speech. He reiterated that NATO will actively defend 'every inch' of NATO territory. 'Don't misunderstand me Mr Putin' he said. I wonder if there could be intelligence that in an attempt to deflect from defeat in Donbass towards a logistically quickly achievable and high profile goal if Putin hasn't got his eye on the 'Suwalki gap' again, the small sliver of territory in southern Lithuania that could link Belarus by land to the Kaliningrad exclave. If they are newly mobilised troops their military effectiveness would be very low especially on the offensive. More likely Putin propping up his ally and trying to create a fake threat to distract Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 1, 2022 18:50:00 GMT
Apparently Belarus is preparing to receive large numbers of newly mobilised Russian soldiers. I was struck by one of Biden's comments in his response to Putin's mental speech. He reiterated that NATO will actively defend 'every inch' of NATO territory. 'Don't misunderstand me Mr Putin' he said. I wonder if there could be intelligence that in an attempt to deflect from defeat in Donbass towards a logistically quickly achievable and high profile goal if Putin hasn't got his eye on the 'Suwalki gap' again, the small sliver of territory in southern Lithuania that could link Belarus by land to the Kaliningrad exclave. It's very possible. I saw Biden's comments a little differently; and just more of the same shadow boxing we have already seen between Russia and the US/Nato. NATO will not attack Russia directly no matter how much Unrainian land it annexes until and unless Russia attacks NATO territory. As Putin will not attack NATO, it really changes nothing. The real question the US/UK/NATO has to address is this: at what point (if at all) do they directly intervene in support of Ukraine? Expecting to be able to contain Russia via arming and providing intelligence and know-how to Ukraine only goes so far. In fact, at best it ensures a stalemate. At worst, it gives Russia time to sap the desire of the UK/Europe to bankroll (albeit via loans and credits Ukraine could never repay) and provide supplies for Ukraine's defence. I appreciate that in order to stop a conflagration of the war beyond Ukraine it is sensible for the US and Russia to.adopt these stances. We can all see that. However, it merely defines the impotency of NATO's overall strategy. Despite overwhelming financial and military superiority it cannot ultimately enforce its will due to geopolitical realities. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Oct 1, 2022 18:50:06 GMT
Those points are fair comment - and I particularly agree with the view that Clegg should have opted for Confidence & Supply - an arrangement similar to the Lib/Lab pact back in 1977 -78. I have never been persuaded by the argument that in the absence of a Coalition the way would have been open to Cameron to call another election to win a clear majority.Had Cameron tried that, Clegg could have entered into an alliance with Milliband - and various other parties - to persuade the Palace that an alternative Government was available in the existing House of Commons.
My reading at the time (and I knew a few of the supporting cast at the time) was that Cameron would not have accepted a confidence and supply arrangement and would have just governed without it , challenging the opposition to bring him down on popular elements of his policies. The Lib Dems (or at least Clegg and his immediate circle) believed this was their best chance for PR, something which would have guaranteed the future for their party and its policies for the longer term. Realpolitik and my biggest criticism would be they accepted the shambolic PR referendum attached to local government election on a watered down system (and of course going back on their student fees promise which should have been a line in the sand) Clegg and the LDs were not given a PR referendum - it was an AV referendum! As far as Cameron not being open to a C & S arrangement is concerned, it is not obvious that would really have changed the position - in that had Cameron been defeated on a particular policy an alternative Government could have been formed by Milliband, Clegg et al from the existing House of Commons. No reason, therefore, why Cameron would have been granted a Dissolution in such circumstances. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 1, 2022 18:52:09 GMT
Some interesting stories emerging: Surely Charles should tell her where to go. As you can probably guess by the way I have referred to Charles, I am no royalist but knowing his background, his involvement is more important than hers. What can we do to get rid of this government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 18:56:29 GMT
I quite like the sound of Trussterfuck Friday (as inspired from the Times article above.)
She certainly deserves the credit.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 1, 2022 19:01:01 GMT
Thanks for that. Terrifying though - £40bn cuts to already collapsing public services to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Destruction of workers rights and the environment. Utterly horrific. |
|
|
|
Post by eotw on Oct 1, 2022 19:02:29 GMT
From the Times article hireton linked I have another suggestion for Friday: Trussterfuck Friday Edit The quick witted (and fingered*) Crofty beat me to it * Quick at typing |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,378
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 1, 2022 19:09:03 GMT
Opinium poll now out at 10pm
|
|
