|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 21:32:46 GMT
That is very impressive! If the GE result was anywhere near that it would be a wipeout. Not much joy for the Lib-Dems, only likely to increase their tally of seats due to ABT voting. I think they are not helped by a rather uninspiring almost invisible leader. I follow Politics and other than Layla Moran can't think of another LD Politician. Never been like that in my lifetime. Electoral Calculus Lab 551, LD 44, SNP 19, Con 13, PC 3, Green 2, Reform 0. Labour majority 452. While I don't think that the result will be anything like that I do agree that this could be the end of the Conservatives as a major contender, or at least as the default party of government. Though it took a few elections, a parallel happened after the Great War and by 1929 the Liberals were definitely the third party. I was hoping to find a pattern of a major change every 100 years, but it wasn't quite so clear-cut, and of course the franchise was so much smaller in the 19th century. Nevertheless the earlyish 19th century (from about 1830?) did see quite significant changes - the Tories changed to Conservative and the Whigs became Liberals. Peelites were a force for a short time too. So it could be that the tides of history tend to lead to a reshuffling of the pack around every 100 years. A bit of a parallel to my 13-year rule for any given government. At least political earthquakes are better than a civil war every now and again which used to be the case. Although I'm obviously interested in day-to-day political issues I like to try to see things in a long-term context. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 21:37:51 GMT
domjg Just having a laugh mate. I'd do the same but you have to admit it's bonkers. A far right refugee hating Tory joining Labour because of their immigration polices It’s pretty surreal. It’s taking Cuckoo Politics to the next level Perhaps the secret plan is that so many Tories defect to Labour that they take it over from within?  |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 21:37:54 GMT
I will confess I am slightly surprised by the Starmer enthusiasm tonight (although it does make a pleasant change from the usual stuff) and don't entirely share it. To me he is doing an OK job, looks like winning, which is a vanishing rare and valuable commodity in Labour leaders, but has moved policy further to the right than was actually necessary to win.
I take him at his word, so unlike some I assume the Labour government will be very centrist and not radical enough, but - worse case - still better than the increasingly right-wing Tories. Best case is that I am pleasantly surprised by some specific polices (I have some hope there) and that the green agenda gets too pressing to be ignored, especially as it is the only route to Reeves' cherished economic growth that I can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 9, 2024 21:43:51 GMT
I wasn't certainly wasn't equating left policies with protest - that is not the case. What I would say that a mindset that is found mainly (but certainly not exclusively), on the left, of thinking that going on marches and signing petitions and acting as a "pressure group" is an end in itself and substitute for the exercise of power is what I mean by 'protest'. The 1930's Jarrow hunger marchers were heroic but achieved nothing when compared to Attlee's post-war government. "And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong." - I've offered my electoral evidence of my proposition. What is your evidence to demonstrate I am terribly wrong? There's scant evidence for either theory to be honest. You would no doubt note that Labour is about to add 2024 to 1997-2005 in elections won from the centre but both of these were/are dependent on circumstances at the time. As others have pointed out, 1997 would have been won from a more left wing outlook in John Smith (not as left wing as Foot or Corbyn perhaps) but no taking away from Blair that he did what was needed in terms of winning that election when there were enough voters who bought into Thatcherism but were increasingly worried about public services. I would argue that 2017 should have been an almost impossible election for Labour with their Red Wall brexit voters and yet they got a percentage vote that would have won every election since the effective 2 party system in 1970. I can accept your likely retort that they didn't win and that they may have hoovered up a lot of remain voters who were grasping at any possibility of stopping brexit, but the fact is there were enough of those voters willing to endorse a left wing government even if this was brexit related. I'd suggest this time around almost anyone would win for Labour, including RLB, because of the Tory implosion. Regardless, Reeves could have come up with a much more left wing economic policy than she has and Labour would still have won. Are we expected to believe that Labour would lose if they said they were going to equalise unearned income and CGT with earned income or adding 5% to the top rate of tax? Even if you don't believe Labour can win from a pure left manifesto there are many shades inbetween that wouldn't need to copy Osbornomics which wasn't exactly popular anyway. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 21:48:25 GMT
"Electoral Calculus Lab 551, LD 44, SNP 19, Con 13, PC 3, Green 2, Reform 0. Labour majority 452."
If that turned out to be accurate, 5 of the 13 Conservative MPs would be from Scottish constituencies! 
The joys of FPTP!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 21:50:18 GMT
Electoral Calculus Lab 551, LD 44, SNP 19, Con 13, PC 3, Green 2, Reform 0. Labour majority 452. While I don't think that the result will be anything like that I do agree that this could be the end of the Conservatives as a major contender, or at least as the default party of government. Though it took a few elections, a parallel happened after the Great War and by 1929 the Liberals were definitely the third party. I was hoping to find a pattern of a major change every 100 years, but it wasn't quite so clear-cut, and of course the franchise was so much smaller in the 19th century. Nevertheless the earlyish 19th century (from about 1830?) did see quite significant changes - the Tories changed to Conservative and the Whigs became Liberals. Peelites were a force for a short time too. So it could be that the tides of history tend to lead to a reshuffling of the pack around every 100 years. A bit of a parallel to my 13-year rule for any given government. At least political earthquakes are better than a civil war every now and again which used to be the case. Although I'm obviously interested in day-to-day political issues I like to try to see things in a long-term context. I think the cycle is a bit shorter than that. The Tories split over the Corn Laws in 1846, the Liberals over Irish Home Rule in 1886, the Conservatives over Tariff reform before the 1906 Liberal landslide, the Liberals collapsed in the 1924 election (down from 158 MPs to 40), Labour and the Liberals both split in 1931 over the National Government and so on. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 21:52:42 GMT
Deploying the drugs tracing dogs would have been more interesting - and explosive!
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 9, 2024 22:00:10 GMT
Labour will want them (preferably Starmer v Sunak, confining the smaller parties to a separate event) and the smaller parties will want them for the publicity value. My crystal ball tells me Sunak will say no, because he knows he will show up badly. Starmer will then refuse to participate without Sunak (nothing to gain from being attacked by the leaders of the smaller parties). So they won't happen in any meaningful form. I'd be surprised if someone with nothing to lose didn't want the debates. I'd tend to agree with your opinion that Starmer would do as well or better than Sunak but I wouldn't bet my house on it. Since his Covid stardom, Sunak has looked incredibly weak and does not present anything like the image he did during Covid but I think Starmer is not good under pressure in interviews and he hasn't had many of those to contend with and with the confidence of a big poll lead he seems less nervous. Certainly best for none of them to debate with the smaller parties- Miliband came off dreadfully when he had the SNP and Greens picking on him from one side and the Tories from the other. I'd take any of the main Green faces to wipe the floor with Starmer in a debate. Agree shevii - I think the debates will happen because Sunak will figure he has nothing to lose from giving a platform to others to chip away at Labour, whilst more importantly everyone takes shots at RefUK. Might as well gamble that enough former Tory VI will see that Tice is no Farage and have second thoughts? I doubt either will do him much good, as the people that were going to be put off Starmer for being too centrist or too lawyerly or whatever will likely have got there by themselves already, and the people who are in RefUK VI because they've given up on the Tories probably don't overlap well with the people who are going to voluntarily spend their evening watching politicians bicker. But I think Sunak will go for it. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,662
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2024 22:02:09 GMT
"What a joke, our resident Lib Dem mouthpiece"
As opposed to our resident brexitanian gob shite
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 22:02:54 GMT
It feels almost possible that we could have a change of Government without an election if enough of them cross the floor. After all, we have had two or three new PM's without troubling the electorate. Brenda from Bristol must be regretting that famous line, "what another one?"
Yes, I think there is a reasonable number of people who see it as their civic duty to vote when required to, but then expect whichever party wins to just get on with it for the next 4 or 5 years and these voters take little or no interest in between times. I have some sympathy. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 22:07:38 GMT
I wasn't certainly wasn't equating left policies with protest - that is not the case. What I would say that a mindset that is found mainly (but certainly not exclusively), on the left, of thinking that going on marches and signing petitions and acting as a "pressure group" is an end in itself and substitute for the exercise of power is what I mean by 'protest'. The 1930's Jarrow hunger marchers were heroic but achieved nothing when compared to Attlee's post-war government. "And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong." - I've offered my electoral evidence of my proposition. What is your evidence to demonstrate I am terribly wrong? There's scant evidence for either theory to be honest. You would no doubt note that Labour is about to add 2024 to 1997-2005 in elections won from the centre but both of these were/are dependent on circumstances at the time. As others have pointed out, 1997 would have been won from a more left wing outlook in John Smith (not as left wing as Foot or Corbyn perhaps) but no taking away from Blair that he did what was needed in terms of winning that election when there were enough voters who bought into Thatcherism but were increasingly worried about public services. I would argue that 2017 should have been an almost impossible election for Labour with their Red Wall brexit voters and yet they got a percentage vote that would have won every election since the effective 2 party system in 1970. I can accept your likely retort that they didn't win and that they may have hoovered up a lot of remain voters who were grasping at any possibility of stopping brexit, but the fact is there were enough of those voters willing to endorse a left wing government even if this was brexit related. I'd suggest this time around almost anyone would win for Labour, including RLB, because of the Tory implosion. Regardless, Reeves could have come up with a much more left wing economic policy than she has and Labour would still have won. Are we expected to believe that Labour would lose if they said they were going to equalise unearned income and CGT with earned income or adding 5% to the top rate of tax? Even if you don't believe Labour can win from a pure left manifesto there are many shades inbetween that wouldn't need to copy Osbornomics which wasn't exactly popular anyway. Fact remains, since 1979 - Blair 3 elections, 3 wins. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, all, to varying degrees, to Blair's left, 8 elections, 8 defeats. I wish it were not so, but I always try to remember that I am more left-wing than the vast majority of British voters - as are you. This is a very unrepresentative site in that respect. I do agree that good safe social democrat John Smith would have won in 1997 - I have always suspected with a majority of around 50 rather than Blair's landslide, but we shall never know. I am much less sure about your suggestion that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be leading Labour to victory now. Labour is not loved and any suggestion it was 'dangerous' would see a move back toward the Conservatives. See the Guardian's vox pop in Dover today for example; they had no trouble finding people who thought Labour was 'too woke' and wanted to 'let all the immigrants in', despite Starmer's obsession with reassurance. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 22:07:39 GMT
"Ben Houchen says Tory party in state of chaos and 'ultimately' Sunak has to take blame It is ultimately part of the job description of leader to take the blame for failure. However whats gone wrong has little to do with Sunak personally. From 2010 there is the failure to restore the sort of economic performance seen under labour pre the 2008 US bank created recession. There are all the broken brexit promises. Theres covid mismanagement. And then there is the problem it is tory policy to cut back state services, inevitably leading to their deterioration. You can see from this that apart from the Covid crash in 2019 and bounce back in 2020 the growth in GDP has been pretty consistent with what Labour were achieving. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 22:12:51 GMT
I wasn't certainly wasn't equating left policies with protest - that is not the case. What I would say that a mindset that is found mainly (but certainly not exclusively), on the left, of thinking that going on marches and signing petitions and acting as a "pressure group" is an end in itself and substitute for the exercise of power is what I mean by 'protest'. The 1930's Jarrow hunger marchers were heroic but achieved nothing when compared to Attlee's post-war government. "And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong." - I've offered my electoral evidence of my proposition. What is your evidence to demonstrate I am terribly wrong? I would argue that 2017 should have been an almost impossible election for Labour with their Red Wall brexit voters and yet they got a percentage vote that would have won every election since the effective 2 party system in 1970. I can accept your likely retort that they didn't win and that they may have hoovered up a lot of remain voters who were grasping at any possibility of stopping brexit, but the fact is there were enough of those voters willing to endorse a left wing government even if this was brexit related. It is often the case that the government in power has to seriously eff-up - Black Weds, Truss etc. - or suffer some calamity like a banking crisis, oil crisis, etc., for power to switch hands. Given labour came within a few percent in 2017 without such an event, you can be fairly confident that if something like Black Wednesday or Truss had happened, we would be having a rather different Convo. Read the other day that Starmer almost resigned after Hartlepool but was talked out of it, and then Truss happened. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 22:14:03 GMT
I'd be surprised if someone with nothing to lose didn't want the debates. I'd tend to agree with your opinion that Starmer would do as well or better than Sunak but I wouldn't bet my house on it. Since his Covid stardom, Sunak has looked incredibly weak and does not present anything like the image he did during Covid but I think Starmer is not good under pressure in interviews and he hasn't had many of those to contend with and with the confidence of a big poll lead he seems less nervous. Certainly best for none of them to debate with the smaller parties- Miliband came off dreadfully when he had the SNP and Greens picking on him from one side and the Tories from the other. I'd take any of the main Green faces to wipe the floor with Starmer in a debate. Agree shevii - I think the debates will happen because Sunak will figure he has nothing to lose from giving a platform to others to chip away at Labour, whilst more importantly everyone takes shots at RefUK. Might as well gamble that enough former Tory VI will see that Tice is no Farage and have second thoughts? I doubt either will do him much good, as the people that were going to be put off Starmer for being too centrist or too lawyerly or whatever will likely have got there by themselves already, and the people who are in RefUK VI because they've given up on the Tories probably don't overlap well with the people who are going to voluntarily spend their evening watching politicians bicker. But I think Sunak will go for it. Sunak won't even take questions from journalists at press conferences other than pre-selected ones from friendly newspapers. He is truly terrible at this stuff and very thin-skinned. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 22:28:36 GMT
pjw1961 “party of government rather than protest”. That is a false and deeply damaging dichotomy. “Labour has only been able to do that from the centre ground” And that is applying a deeply damaging dead hand of history. Sorry, pj; 95% of your stuff is brilliant and always worth reading, but in this you have a terrible debilitating blind spot. How is it false?. I said since 1979 - The Conservatives won four elections in a row 1979-1992 and were in power for 18 years. The centrist Blair won three elections in a row 1997-2005 and Labour were in power for 13 years. Labour shifted to the left after 2010 and lost another four elections in a row and the Tories (with a bit of help from the Lib Dems and DUP) have been in power for 14 years. The last time Labour won on anything approaching a left wing manifesto was by a tiny majority 50 years ago. To have voted then you would need to be at least 68 now. The point about government v protest is that Reform or Galloway's worker's party or the Greens can advance any policies they fancy knowing they will never have to enact them. Parties that expect to actually govern - like the SNP in Scotland, or the Conservatives and Labour in Westminster have to advance policies that will appeal to enough people to build a winning voting coalition. It is basic politics really. And yet it's that age group who are most pro-Tory now (even though it's diminishing). This suggests either that 1) Most young people then were Tories or 2) The old idea that most people get more right-wing as they get older (and hence usually have more to lose) is true. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,662
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2024 22:36:20 GMT
mercianUnfortunately your comment about average growth rates simply isn't true. Excluding the banker international crisis of 2009-10 and covid the UK GDP growth rate from 2000 to 2009 was consistently higher than 2010 to 2019. Growth rate in the UK economy since 2016 is consistently lower than at any time in the last 50 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2024 22:39:45 GMT
"What a joke, our resident Lib Dem mouthpiece" As opposed to our resident brexitanian gob shite TV debate coming up? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 22:42:50 GMT
How is it false?. I said since 1979 - The Conservatives won four elections in a row 1979-1992 and were in power for 18 years. The centrist Blair won three elections in a row 1997-2005 and Labour were in power for 13 years. Labour shifted to the left after 2010 and lost another four elections in a row and the Tories (with a bit of help from the Lib Dems and DUP) have been in power for 14 years. The last time Labour won on anything approaching a left wing manifesto was by a tiny majority 50 years ago. To have voted then you would need to be at least 68 now. The point about government v protest is that Reform or Galloway's worker's party or the Greens can advance any policies they fancy knowing they will never have to enact them. Parties that expect to actually govern - like the SNP in Scotland, or the Conservatives and Labour in Westminster have to advance policies that will appeal to enough people to build a winning voting coalition. It is basic politics really. False because it equates correlation with causation. Thatcher rode on an irresistible wave first of North Sea oil, then selling off the family silver, etc. The money ran out on Black Wednesday and John Smith, a good leftie, should and would have been PM. But he died too young and Tony Blair stood in. He did good things but did not make the necessary structural changes (see barbara ’s excellent post a short while ago). Cameron then mesmerised us with fear and austerity, but eventually, the whole edifice collapsed with Johnson and Truss. Starmer’s Labour is poised to take over. I share barbara ’s optimism here too. He is significantly to the left of Blair (see e.g. George Eaton’s recent New Statesman piece). The damaging false dichotomy arises from equating left policies on the one hand with ‘protest’ on the other. This is wrong, but a favourite of old ‘new Labour’ fans. I just wish they would stop. And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong. Yes, it’s a familiar attribution problem. Claiming credit for success for oneself or one’s side, even if not that deserved, and depending a lot on luck, and if another tribe does better than expected, blaming it on something else rather than giving any credit. So, when Labour do better than expected in 2017, that can’t possibly have anything to do with the policies, which actually tended to poll quite well – it must just be because of Brexit. It’s like if United said they won in the semi-final, by playing the sky blues off the park. 😡😡😡 New Labour may have won three times in a row, but that doesn’t prove that they needed to do right-wing policies, esp. when the vote fell back so much when they were doing them. it can just be that the opposition were rubbish. They couldn’t even win outright against Brown after a banking crash. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 9, 2024 22:50:58 GMT
Agree shevii - I think the debates will happen because Sunak will figure he has nothing to lose from giving a platform to others to chip away at Labour, whilst more importantly everyone takes shots at RefUK. Might as well gamble that enough former Tory VI will see that Tice is no Farage and have second thoughts? I doubt either will do him much good, as the people that were going to be put off Starmer for being too centrist or too lawyerly or whatever will likely have got there by themselves already, and the people who are in RefUK VI because they've given up on the Tories probably don't overlap well with the people who are going to voluntarily spend their evening watching politicians bicker. But I think Sunak will go for it. Sunak won't even take questions from journalists at press conferences other than pre-selected ones from friendly newspapers. He is truly terrible at this stuff and very thin-skinned. So was Gordon Brown, but he was the one that allowed this witless ritual to start because nothing else was working for him, and I think Sunak will be in a rather worse position when he has to make the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 9, 2024 22:51:43 GMT
There's scant evidence for either theory to be honest. You would no doubt note that Labour is about to add 2024 to 1997-2005 in elections won from the centre but both of these were/are dependent on circumstances at the time. As others have pointed out, 1997 would have been won from a more left wing outlook in John Smith (not as left wing as Foot or Corbyn perhaps) but no taking away from Blair that he did what was needed in terms of winning that election when there were enough voters who bought into Thatcherism but were increasingly worried about public services. I would argue that 2017 should have been an almost impossible election for Labour with their Red Wall brexit voters and yet they got a percentage vote that would have won every election since the effective 2 party system in 1970. I can accept your likely retort that they didn't win and that they may have hoovered up a lot of remain voters who were grasping at any possibility of stopping brexit, but the fact is there were enough of those voters willing to endorse a left wing government even if this was brexit related. I'd suggest this time around almost anyone would win for Labour, including RLB, because of the Tory implosion. Regardless, Reeves could have come up with a much more left wing economic policy than she has and Labour would still have won. Are we expected to believe that Labour would lose if they said they were going to equalise unearned income and CGT with earned income or adding 5% to the top rate of tax? Even if you don't believe Labour can win from a pure left manifesto there are many shades inbetween that wouldn't need to copy Osbornomics which wasn't exactly popular anyway. Fact remains, since 1979 - Blair 3 elections, 3 wins. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, all, to varying degrees, to Blair's left, 8 elections, 8 defeats. I wish it were not so, but I always try to remember that I am more left-wing than the vast majority of British voters - as are you. This is a very unrepresentative site in that respect. I do agree that good safe social democrat John Smith would have won in 1997 - I have always suspected with a majority of around 50 rather than Blair's landslide, but we shall never know. I am much less sure about your suggestion that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be leading Labour to victory now. Labour is not loved and any suggestion it was 'dangerous' would see a move back toward the Conservatives. See the Guardian's vox pop in Dover today for example; they had no trouble finding people who thought Labour was 'too woke' and wanted to 'let all the immigrants in', despite Starmer's obsession with reassurance. To be fair 2017 might be seen as a draw in that the Tories also failed to gain a majority and only remained in office courtesy of a third party. Ditto 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 22:55:06 GMT
barbara " much as Atlee's Party did, ensuring that future Conservative governments will largely continue to deliver Labour policies as they did after 1945. Margaret Thatcher did something similar ensuring that future Labour governments continued to deliver her policies." I agree that that that's what happened, but how did Attlee and Thatcher ensure that they happened? As far as I can see it was because they managed to actually change the attitude or approach of a large number of voters. Attlee was before my time but Thatcher was pretty clear on what she was going to do. Here's a brief extract from a very long speech before she won the 1979 election: "The right hon. Gentleman knows equally that the real problem is that we have lived through a long period of increasing trade union power." Starmer doesn't seem to have a vision apart from "We're not as bad as the Tories, and look here's the Union flag to prove I'm not like Jeremy Corbyn". Despite recent Labour gains in by-elections and local elections, it's mainly by default because the Tory vote is collapsing. Despite the polls there isn't much evidence that there is any great enthusiasm for Labour. I'm sure someone can find exceptions, but even where they gain seats their actual vote either declines or rises by a lot less than the polls would suggest. Starmer might unveil some wondrous set of policies that transform the nation but for voters it's very much a leap of faith or 'time for a change' rather than great enthusiasm.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 23:01:14 GMT
Fact remains, since 1979 - Blair 3 elections, 3 wins. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, all, to varying degrees, to Blair's left, 8 elections, 8 defeats. I wish it were not so, but I always try to remember that I am more left-wing than the vast majority of British voters - as are you. This is a very unrepresentative site in that respect. I do agree that good safe social democrat John Smith would have won in 1997 - I have always suspected with a majority of around 50 rather than Blair's landslide, but we shall never know. I am much less sure about your suggestion that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be leading Labour to victory now. Labour is not loved and any suggestion it was 'dangerous' would see a move back toward the Conservatives. See the Guardian's vox pop in Dover today for example; they had no trouble finding people who thought Labour was 'too woke' and wanted to 'let all the immigrants in', despite Starmer's obsession with reassurance. To be fair 2017 might be seen as a draw in that the Tories also failed to gain a majority and only remained in office courtesy of a third party. Ditto 2010. And of course the right of the party weren’t exactly really supportive in 2017 or 1983. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 23:02:24 GMT
False because it equates correlation with causation. Thatcher rode on an irresistible wave first of North Sea oil, then selling off the family silver, etc. The money ran out on Black Wednesday and John Smith, a good leftie, should and would have been PM. But he died too young and Tony Blair stood in. I noticed that a lot of people who were inconvenient for Blair died too young. John Smith, Robin Cook, David Kelly.... |
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 9, 2024 23:03:50 GMT
Fact remains, since 1979 - Blair 3 elections, 3 wins. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, all, to varying degrees, to Blair's left, 8 elections, 8 defeats. I wish it were not so, but I always try to remember that I am more left-wing than the vast majority of British voters - as are you. This is a very unrepresentative site in that respect. I do agree that good safe social democrat John Smith would have won in 1997 - I have always suspected with a majority of around 50 rather than Blair's landslide, but we shall never know. I am much less sure about your suggestion that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be leading Labour to victory now. Labour is not loved and any suggestion it was 'dangerous' would see a move back toward the Conservatives. See the Guardian's vox pop in Dover today for example; they had no trouble finding people who thought Labour was 'too woke' and wanted to 'let all the immigrants in', despite Starmer's obsession with reassurance. To be fair 2017 might be seen as a draw in that the Tories also failed to gain a majority and only remained in office courtesy of a third party. Ditto 2010. Think those could only meaningfully be seen as a draw in this context if Labour had got to share the governing thereafter, rather than having yet another term of Opposition while other people got on with doing that bit. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 23:17:42 GMT
but constitutional reform isn't a priority for Starmer, so whatever his grand vision is, it must involve something else - and I think he ought to share what that is with the voters. Whisper it quietly, but perhaps he just wants to be Prime Minister and will say or not say anything that he thinks will help him achieve that? Is it possible that Sir Keir Sonofatoolmaker is just as self-serving and ambitious as any other politician and doesn't actually have any particular principles apart from what he thinks will get him voted in? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 23:19:55 GMT
Fact remains, since 1979 - Blair 3 elections, 3 wins. Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, all, to varying degrees, to Blair's left, 8 elections, 8 defeats. I wish it were not so, but I always try to remember that I am more left-wing than the vast majority of British voters - as are you. This is a very unrepresentative site in that respect. I do agree that good safe social democrat John Smith would have won in 1997 - I have always suspected with a majority of around 50 rather than Blair's landslide, but we shall never know. I am much less sure about your suggestion that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be leading Labour to victory now. Labour is not loved and any suggestion it was 'dangerous' would see a move back toward the Conservatives. See the Guardian's vox pop in Dover today for example; they had no trouble finding people who thought Labour was 'too woke' and wanted to 'let all the immigrants in', despite Starmer's obsession with reassurance. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 9, 2024 23:40:52 GMT
False because it equates correlation with causation. Thatcher rode on an irresistible wave first of North Sea oil, then selling off the family silver, etc. The money ran out on Black Wednesday and John Smith, a good leftie, should and would have been PM. But he died too young and Tony Blair stood in. He did good things but did not make the necessary structural changes (see barbara ’s excellent post a short while ago). Cameron then mesmerised us with fear and austerity, but eventually, the whole edifice collapsed with Johnson and Truss. Starmer’s Labour is poised to take over. I share barbara ’s optimism here too. He is significantly to the left of Blair (see e.g. George Eaton’s recent New Statesman piece). The damaging false dichotomy arises from equating left policies on the one hand with ‘protest’ on the other. This is wrong, but a favourite of old ‘new Labour’ fans. I just wish they would stop. And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong. I wasn't certainly wasn't equating left policies with protest - that is not the case. What I would say that a mindset that is found mainly (but certainly not exclusively), on the left, of thinking that going on marches and signing petitions and acting as a "pressure group" is an end in itself and substitute for the exercise of power is what I mean by 'protest'. The 1930's Jarrow hunger marchers were heroic but achieved nothing when compared to Attlee's post-war government. "And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong." - I've offered my electoral evidence of my proposition. What is your evidence to demonstrate I am terribly wrong? Ok, my mistake on first point, though in the broad sweep of things, I insist that the Jarrow marchers achievements were not nothing. Where I do strongly disagree is that “leadership” is mainly a personal characteristic. There are countless examples of people being effective in one situation but useless in another. The situation and circumstances are vastly more important. It is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. On your later claims about John Smith, remember that Labour’s vote in the 1994 Euro-election was over fifty percent higher than the later one in 1999. The most obvious empirical evidence about ‘lefties’ was the 2017 general election result. (Another blind spot!) But I was talking more on a conceptual level. The term ‘leftie’ explains nothing here and is little help at all, since it means quite different things to different people. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 9, 2024 23:47:32 GMT
While I don't think that the result will be anything like that I do agree that this could be the end of the Conservatives as a major contender, or at least as the default party of government. Though it took a few elections, a parallel happened after the Great War and by 1929 the Liberals were definitely the third party. I was hoping to find a pattern of a major change every 100 years, but it wasn't quite so clear-cut, and of course the franchise was so much smaller in the 19th century. Nevertheless the earlyish 19th century (from about 1830?) did see quite significant changes - the Tories changed to Conservative and the Whigs became Liberals. Peelites were a force for a short time too. So it could be that the tides of history tend to lead to a reshuffling of the pack around every 100 years. A bit of a parallel to my 13-year rule for any given government. At least political earthquakes are better than a civil war every now and again which used to be the case. Although I'm obviously interested in day-to-day political issues I like to try to see things in a long-term context. I think the cycle is a bit shorter than that. The Tories split over the Corn Laws in 1846, the Liberals over Irish Home Rule in 1886, the Conservatives over Tariff reform before the 1906 Liberal landslide, the Liberals collapsed in the 1924 election (down from 158 MPs to 40), Labour and the Liberals both split in 1931 over the National Government and so on. Yes and of course there was the SDP in the 1970s. But I was thinking of lasting long-term changes. Whigs/Liberals and Tory/Conservative were the two dominant parties from the start of the UK until the 1920s. Since then it has been Conservative and Labour as the only two possible governing parties (albeit sometimes in coalition or some other arrangement). My thesis was that if some of these seat predictions are anywhere near correct we could indeed be on the verge of a seismic change. It might take a second GE to confirm it (as in the 1920s IMO) but if the Tories were down to double figures in two consecutive GEs I think the game would be up, and the most successful democratic party anywhere ever would henceforth be an also-ran. What the new configuration would look like would be anybody's guess. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 9, 2024 23:53:47 GMT
It would be good to think he could be another Attlee but there are few signs of that. To be fair such a person would be unlikely to emerge in the modern world - and Attlee's ascent to the leadership was very fortuitous on the eve of the 1935 election. I have always been a fan of Harold Wilson - though I accept that may reflect nostalgia for his having been the leading political figure of my formative years in the 1960s and early 1970s. With hindsight it is clear that his exceptional skills in the public arena were directed at the ordinary voter - the 'man in the street' - rather than political anoraks such as ourselves who seek to analyse politics and current issues in great detail. Had forums such as this existed in his day, I don't doubt that we would have spent a lot of effort seeking to tear him apart as we now do to his successors.
We know he saw in some liberal social reforms but what would you say were Wilson’s economic achievements, G.? Ironically given his background as a brilliant young economics Oxford Don, I would suggest his economic achievements were quite limited. Adn#mittedly in October 1964 he inherited a serious Balance of Payments position from the outgoing Tory government, but the policy response was flawed - and eventually failed. He was wrong to reject Devaluation for so long - at the latest it should have happened in July 1966 - and had he gone down that path several years of deflationary - and highly unpopular - policies might have been avoided. When he was forced to devalue in November 1967 the loss of credibility was huge - comparable to John Major in Autumn 1992. I have never quite understood why he failed to follow the policy of a Floating Exchange rate later adopted by Barber under Heath in June 1972. Continued adherence to the Fixed Exchange Rate System established by Bretton Woods seriously restricted his policy options. Nevertheless when he left office in June 1970 he bequeathed to Heath's Tory government both a Balance of Payments surplus and a Fiscal Surplus. No Tory government since World War 2 has managed to do either! When Wilson returned to office in March 1974 he inherited inflation at 13.5% - and rising sharply - and the 3 Day week as well as the after effects of the first Oil Price ecplosion which followed the Yom Kippur War the previous Autumn. When he left Downing St finally in April 1976 in flation was falling from its peak - though a serious Sterling crisis was to follow that Autumn. Many of the social policy achievements were really the result of Private Members/ Bills which had the support of Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary. Wilson had more direct responsibility for establishing the Open University of which he remained genuinely proud. Beyond that he did help to bring about a more equal society via changes in Welfare Beneits and entitlements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2024 0:23:01 GMT
Quite some debate about Starmer's modus operandi today, and comparisons with dear old Clem Attlee. I've seen a couple of clips of Clem on YouTube, and his media performances were often pretty terrible. In his time, though, the only glimpses Joe Public would regularly have got of his philosophy would have been a couple of minutes of Pathé newsreels before the latest Margaret Lockwood or Alec Guinness picture. Rather different from the 24/7 rolling news, social media world we inhabit today. Yet this modest chap, famously derided by Churchill as having "much to be modest about", achieved in just six years, as barbara observed, astonishing and long lasting structural and societal changes. A formidable operator, capable of marshalling a wide range of big political personalities such as Morrison, Bevin, Bevan and Cripps to maximum effect. Starmer's media performances are a little reminiscent of Attlee's to my mind. He is clearly not a natural communicator, sometimes appearing awkward and unconvincing, although he is undoubtedly improving. He's never going to be a barnstorming showman à la Johnson, though. I think he probably realises this, and is concentrating on his strengths, honed through years of practising law, of being on top of his brief and honing his forensic skills. He also seems to have a team around him entirely focussed on the task in hand, namely securing a LAB majority, hopefully sufficient to comfortably implement his programme. He is understandably keeping much of the detail here vague at present, not least to prevent his increasingly desperate opponents from hijacking parts of it, (non dom anyone?), and to avoid leaving too many hostages to fortune prior to publishing his manifesto. More power to him, I say. |
|
