Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next election will be decided in Britain, not Venezuela

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next election will be decided in Britain, not Venezuela

Unless Theresa May or her successor can overturn over a trend well over a century old, Labour will form the next government. Quite simply, once governments start losing seats from one election to the next, they continue losing seats until they’re in opposition. And not only did the Conservatives lost seats at the last election but the result was so tight that any further loss would make their position impossible.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 147
    edited August 5
    First? Yawn. Oh, and interesting article from David Herdson (as usual).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510
    Second, like a good Scottish Tory :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    edited August 5
    RobD said:

    Second, like a good Scottish Tory :)

    Actually in the latest YouGov subsample they were third......SNP was second!

    In other news:

    Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

    Turnbull: I agree with you, letting 1 million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-refugee-phone-call-transcript/8773422
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797

    RobD said:

    Second, like a good Scottish Tory :)

    Actually in the latest YouGov subsample they were third......SNP was second!

    In other news:

    Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

    Turnbull: I agree with you, letting 1 million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-refugee-phone-call-transcript/8773422
    That's a fabulous transcript. Well worth a read.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797
    I have a plan to make money by selling Oriental sauces.

    It's a ponzu scheme.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510
    rcs1000 said:

    I have a plan to make money by selling Oriental sauces.

    It's a ponzu scheme.

    I've just been given your coat?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a plan to make money by selling Oriental sauces.

    It's a ponzu scheme.

    I've just been given your coat?
    My daughter - aged nine - thought it was brilliant.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a plan to make money by selling Oriental sauces.

    It's a ponzu scheme.

    I've just been given your coat?
    My daughter - aged nine - thought it was brilliant.
    BTW, I've always wondered why Putin is your avatar?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,583
    Gladstone formed his fourth ministry when he as 83.
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 22
    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570
    Corbyn has probably fought his last GE. His misjudgements cut no ice in any event. If people did not care about his treasonous support for the IRA who were murdering British soldiers and civilians at the time why on earth would they care he also supported a bunch of thugs in a far away country about which most know very little?

    The next GE will be between 2 parties with new leaders and we don't yet know who they will be. Labour are currently favourites for the reasons David sets out but we live in times which are incredibly febrile and uncertain.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Venezuela got me a very rare popular Tweet. Over 200 retweets so far of this obe I did a couple of days ago ...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    DavidL said:

    Corbyn has probably fought his last GE. His misjudgements cut no ice in any event. If people did not care about his treasonous support for the IRA who were murdering British soldiers and civilians at the time why on earth would they care he also supported a bunch of thugs in a far away country about which most know very little?

    The next GE will be between 2 parties with new leaders and we don't yet know who they will be. Labour are currently favourites for the reasons David sets out but we live in times which are incredibly febrile and uncertain.

    It's a sad fact that most people don't care at all about the things one thinks they ought to care about. I thought that Rotherham Labour councillors would be voted out en masse, but in the end, nobody cared about their record in office.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 990
    edited August 5
    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Good morning, everyone.

    Sadly, I agree with the title. The public should be more concerned about Corbyn's comments on the socialist paradise of Venezuela than they are, or will be. It shouldn't be totally ignored but it's a footnote, not a chapter.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to lose seats in the North of England - indeed it would be surprising if they didn't. Question is which side the balance comes down.

    I agree with Alistair incidentally - if the next election is later than next year, Labour will have a new leader. At the moment and under the current circumstances the favourite should be Macdonnell, which is one reason why bold claims about them making more gains should be treated with scepticism.

    However much will also depend on who the new Conservative leader is, and at the moment there is no obvious candidate. If one emerges in the next year, May's days are numbered so don't expect her to promote anybody. It could be a former minister on the back benches who has sat out this fiasco. Would have been Mr Hissy Fit if he'd stayed, but he didn't and now he will never make it. Crabbe remains an outside chance, but the other one to watch might just be Mark Harper.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 7,993
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a plan to make money by selling Oriental sauces.

    It's a ponzu scheme.

    I've just been given your coat?
    My daughter - aged nine - thought it was brilliant.
    BTW, I've always wondered why Putin is your avatar?
    Remember all the Russian infiltrators we've got on here.... he may have inadvertently blown his cover....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
    I agree and really the government should just bite the bullet on it now or the Boundaries Commission will be unable to do anything for the next election. This would mean yet
    another election on boundaries 20 years out of date which would be a disgrace.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
    Especially the DUP.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    ydoethur said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to lose seats in the North of England - indeed it would be surprising if they didn't. Question is which side the balance comes down.

    I agree with Alistair incidentally - if the next election is later than next year, Labour will have a new leader. At the moment and under the current circumstances the favourite should be Macdonnell, which is one reason why bold claims about them making more gains should be treated with scepticism.

    However much will also depend on who the new Conservative leader is, and at the moment there is no obvious candidate. If one emerges in the next year, May's days are numbered so don't expect her to promote anybody. It could be a former minister on the back benches who has sat out this fiasco. Would have been Mr Hissy Fit if he'd stayed, but he didn't and now he will never make it. Crabbe remains an outside chance, but the other one to watch might just be Mark Harper.
    The reversals in fortunes, for Conservatives and Labour, in individual seats, since 2010, have been extraordinary. Enfield North, Southgate, Hampstead, Hove, Exeter, and others have seen pro-Labour swings of 10%+. Aberdeen South, Somerton & Frome, West Devon, North Warwickshire, Bolsover etc.have seen remarkable shifts in the other direction.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 15,866
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    Whilst David is right to say that Venezuela hasn't moved the polls, where it is a little different to the IRA stuff is that it is very much the here and now. Venezuela is well on the way to becoming a failed state. I wonder how long it'll be before we get the aid adverts asking us to give out money to help the impoverished people there?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171
    tlg86 said:

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    Whilst David is right to say that Venezuela hasn't moved the polls, where it is a little different to the IRA stuff is that it is very much the here and now. Venezuela is well on the way to becoming a failed state. I wonder how long it'll be before we get the aid adverts asking us to give out money to help the impoverished people there?
    That is true. But equally most people cannot find it on a map and almost nobody can say it correctly (starting with every newsreader).

    If it were in Ireland or even Norway it might focus minds, but it seems most unlikely to do so given it's in South America.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 484
    "They won't make that mistake again." Oh yes they will! Until the Tories get rid of May they are doomed to keep making these mistakes. Her 2017 manifesto will be quoted again and again in the next election if she is anywhere near government.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    edited August 5
    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    It depends whether the average homeowner expects to be bashed as well as the rich.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 990
    edited August 5

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Very good thread header by Mr Herdson.

    The reason why Venezuela's situation is irrelevant is because people neither know nor care. Go into Tesco today and conduct a survey, ask 100 people what they think of the crisis in Venezuela. Expect 100 blank looks in return. Time and again anoraks on here assume the wider electorate is as obsessed with politics as they are.

    As somebody else points out, the Conservatives need to make a case for free trade and capitalism and stop banging on about Hamas and Marxists.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
    While such a policy may be popular with the libertarian free traders of PB, it is not so popular with the voting public. The driver of right wing populism across the world is anti globalisation and protectionism. Trump got elected by opposing free trade and Brexit too.

    Fortress Britain , with tariffs and government support to protect British jobs and industries has a lot of appeal to the average patriotic voter. Free traders always appear to be in the service of foreign powers and big business. Libertarianism only appeals to a small fraction of wealthy and healthy people without a social conscience.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Second, like a good Scottish Tory :)

    Actually in the latest YouGov subsample they were third......SNP was second!

    In other news:

    Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

    Turnbull: I agree with you, letting 1 million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-refugee-phone-call-transcript/8773422
    That's a fabulous transcript. Well worth a read.
    The one with the Mexican President is even more painful....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952

    Venezuela got me a very rare popular Tweet. Over 200 retweets so far of this obe I did a couple of days ago ...

    And people say the internet doesn't do sarcasm....
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,456

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Germany is pushing for an EU wide ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2030 which would be more aggressive than the French and British plan. You can bet the big players are going to be ready.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-petrol-car-ban-no-combustion-diesel-vehicles-2030-a7354281.html

    Yep - not much opportunity for schadenfreude here :smile:
    At least German industry is now producing poison gas only as by product, which is a step in the right direction.
    Do you hate all foreigners, or just the Germans?
    Well, I am on the Franco Spanish border and the people either side seem pretty good eggs, and I survived a year as a visiting fellow at a. German university, but in face of a massive, cynical and lethal fraud on the world I am pretty relaxed about pointing and laughing at the perpetrators. If you think this is an anti German position have a think about which country in the world buys the most German vehicles.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    tlg86 said:

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    . Venezuela is well on the way to becoming a failed state. I wonder how long it'll be before we get the aid adverts asking us to give out money to help the impoverished people there?
    Fronted by Owen Jones blaming US sanctions? He was on SKY where his only response on Venezuela was "What about Saudi Arabia?"
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Venezuela is an interesting subject but not for the labour left anymore. Their reasoning - it's all the fault of Farmer Jones, it's always the fault of Framer Jones - even when it's internal opposition. Did Animal Farm die in vain?
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,904
    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
    Do you regard Hillary Clinton as "whining" when she whines about how she might have won under a different voting system that the Democrat party doesn't actually want to change to?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 954
    I wonder which group is bigger? The partisan Tories mystified by why nobody takes any notice of Venezuela or the pro-EU enthusiasts who can't understand why the public haven't been frightened by all the stories about how bad Brexit is going to be?

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,044

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    Exactly. The more the Tories whitter on about Hamas and Venezuela and the rest, the more obvious it becomes that they have nothing positive or constructive to say on their own account. It's just Project Fear at a personal and political level, and the lesson of the last couple of years is that scare tactics don't work any more.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094
    It's a pity Mervyn King is on the sidelines now.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,277
    edited August 5
    On topic - Great article, David. I agree with most of your logic, but not your conclusion.

    4/1 on JC next PM is value, imo. 2/1 would be fair.

    I'm not invested, though, for bankroll reasons.

    off topic - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/new-messiahs-jesus-christ-second-coming-photos/
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101
    edited August 5

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
    Because the number of votes nationally indicates popularity - not relative popularity, but absolute 'willing to go and vote Tory' popularity.

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676
    GeoffM said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
    Do you regard Hillary Clinton as "whining" when she whines about how she might have won under a different voting system that the Democrat party doesn't actually want to change to?
    Yes.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676
    GeoffM said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
    Do you regard Hillary Clinton as "whining" when she whines about how she might have won under a different voting system that the Democrat party doesn't actually want to change to?
    Yes.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,904

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
    It's hard to understand why the Boundary Commission is persevering with the current review. It's a waste of time and money, given their recommendations are unlikely to be supported by the HoC. They should be asked to start again, using the latest registration data and with a status quo of 650 seats and not crossing county boundaries. Ludlow and North Herefordshire was an abominable idea.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676
    Mortimer said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I don't understand why Tories keep wittering on about increasing their proportion of the vote.
    They explicitly don't want - now or ever - share of representation to be proportional to vote share, so pointing at vote shares seems rather bizarre.

    If you want a decoupled, deliberately chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and disproportionate system, you live and die by the product of it. The relevant statistic is 331 declining to 317. Going on about an increase in votes is like a football team's supporters saying that while they lost points this season, their goal difference was better, so they did better overall, right?

    (A party preferring a system of national government where strength of national representation is proportional to strength of national popular support would have grounds to cite that stat, but a party hostile to the idea just comes across as whining)
    Because the number of votes nationally indicates popularity - not relative popularity, but absolute 'willing to go and vote Tory' popularity.

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.
    And goal difference indicates relative goalscoring prowess.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
    It's hard to understand why the Boundary Commission is persevering with the current review. It's a waste of time and money, given their recommendations are unlikely to be supported by the HoC. They should be asked to start again, using the latest registration data and with a status quo of 650 seats and not crossing county boundaries. Ludlow and North Herefordshire was an abominable idea.
    Because they are required by law to do so.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    Can you not see the contradiction in your own post? Negative campaigning does work but only:

    i) Where it is believed to be true.
    ii) Where it is believed to be relevant.
    iii) Where it is believed to be significant.
    iv) Where the implicit alternative is deemed acceptable.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 1,981
    If I were analysing a football league at the end of a season, with a view to predicting what might happen during the next season, should I completely ignore the goals scored/conceded stats because they don't determine the finishing positions?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    So what about the Conservatives getting an increase in the vote. It doesn't matter. What matters is the differential in relation to Labour and here the Tories failed badly. Also next time expect Labour to win back more of the seats in Scotland that were lost at 2015
    I suspect the 600 seats policy is now a dead duck. Even the DUP won’t vote for it.
    It's hard to understand why the Boundary Commission is persevering with the current review. It's a waste of time and money, given their recommendations are unlikely to be supported by the HoC. They should be asked to start again, using the latest registration data and with a status quo of 650 seats and not crossing county boundaries. Ludlow and North Herefordshire was an abominable idea.
    Don't tell the Church of England that!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    One of many things that the Tories got wrong was the emphasis on negative campaigning. Corbyn is a true Bennite in his unwillingness to personalise attacks. He spoke of hope and an end to austerity, and an optimistic future for the young in particular. Complete moonshine in large part, but far more appealing than the Mayite Tory vision.

    Corbyn is undeniably of the left, but is not a Marxist in the international sense. His policies would have been unremarkable in any post war Labour party, apart from the New Labour period.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101
    edited August 5

    If I were analysing a football league at the end of a season, with a view to predicting what might happen during the next season, should I completely ignore the goals scored/conceded stats because they don't determine the finishing positions?

    Well quite.

    I'm afraid the current 'we're all dooooomed' message that some Tory activists who never really got over Dave's flounce after the Brexit result are propagating is more indicative of a failure relative to expectations, rather than any real failure.

    A few myths that look like they're reaching expiration date:

    - Mrs May can't last the day/week/month/conference.
    - Corbyn is going to be PM
    - A.N. Other is our saviour as leader

    Toryism is popular; the trick for the next election is to manage that at the same time as reminding people that they don't actually like socialism, even if it is presented by a cuddly granddad stopped-clock figure with unchanging views. McDonnell taking over would make this much easier - he is more easily shown up as the cynical politician than Corbyn.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    One of many things that the Tories got wrong was the emphasis on negative campaigning. Corbyn is a true Bennite in his unwillingness to personalise attacks. He spoke of hope and an end to austerity, and an optimistic future for the young in particular. Complete moonshine in large part, but far more appealing than the Mayite Tory vision.

    Corbyn is undeniably of the left, but is not a Marxist in the international sense. His policies would have been unremarkable in any post war Labour party, apart from the New Labour period.
    This is another myth that needs busting, frankly.

    The Tory manifesto didn't mention Labour ONCE.

    And every one of Corbyn's surrogates, especially the more gobby ones like Ashworth and Rayner, were constantly blasting Tories at every opportunity.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,035
    TGOHF said:
    Daffie deans you could not make up these desperate unionists
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    edited August 5
    Interesting piece by David as always.

    Assuming the next election is 2022 the Tories will have done 12 years in office, either on their own or as a coalition.

    Whilst we saw in 1992 that it is theoretically possible to go on beyond 12-13 years, generally by this stage in a governments lifetime the public are thinking it's "time for a change".

    It looks very, very likely that Labour will win the next election and there seems to be very little the Tories can do about it (their one last throw of the dice is a leadership change but there are very few popular candidates at the moment)

    Hopefully the public will be sensible enough not to give Jezza a majority and he'll have to form some sort of coalition (preferably with the Lib-Dems) who will be able to moderate his more "radical" views.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Mortimer said:

    If I were analysing a football league at the end of a season, with a view to predicting what might happen during the next season, should I completely ignore the goals scored/conceded stats because they don't determine the finishing positions?

    Well quite.

    I'm afraid the current 'we're all dooooomed' message that some Tory activists who never really got over Dave's flounce after the Brexit result are propagating is more indicative of a failure relative to expectations, rather than any real failure.

    A few myths that look like they're reaching expiration date:

    - Mrs May can't last the day/week/month/conference.
    - Corbyn is going to be PM
    - A.N. Other is our saviour as leader

    Toryism is popular; the trick for the next election is to manage that at the same time as reminding people that they don't actually like socialism, even if it is presented by a cuddly granddad stopped-clock figure with unchanging views. McDonnell taking over would make this much easier - he is more easily shown up as the cynical politician than Corbyn.
    That's massively optimistic. During the election I talked to a young lady in a shop, who said she felt sorry for Corbyn, who was being smeared. To her, the stories were either unbelievable or irrelevant. I bet she's far from alone.

    I'm forty-four, and cannot recall living under anything other than Conservative or centre-left Labour governments. The horror stories of piles of rubbish bags lining the streets for months are just that: stories. (I don't live in Birmingham).

    To many people feel like they are being left behind. Whether these feelings are justified or not, they feel like change is needed. And as the consensus has been to the centre or right for a few decades, why not try the left?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:
    Daffie deans you could not make up these desperate unionists
    Morning Malc! :D
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,242
    edited August 5
    Mortimer said:

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.

    Reading Mr Herdson`s opening post, I get the impression that defeatism is rife in the ranks of the Conservative Party. And in the comments section, there is a lot of whistling in the dark.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,691
    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
    That case is usually made by those who have got extremely wealthy by it.

    The same people who 'warned us' about rising wages if we voted Leave.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    edited August 5
    PClipp said:

    Mortimer said:

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.

    Reading Mr Herdson`s opening post, I get the impression that defeatism is rife in the ranks of the Conservative Party. And in the comments section, there is a lot of whistling in the dark.
    The Herdson is a smart guy. He was the first one to report that Theresa had blown it... The rest of PB was incredulous...

    I always take seriously what he says.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407
    PClipp said:

    Mortimer said:

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.

    Reading Mr Herdson`s opening post, I get the impression that defeatism is rife in the ranks of the Conservative Party. And in the comments section, thee is a lot of whistling in the dark.
    This place is a bit like World War One. The trenches were dug early on and hardly move no matter what the course of events.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570
    GIN1138 said:

    Interesting piece by David as always.

    Assuming the next election is 2022 the Tories will have done 12 years in office, either on their own or as a coalition.

    Whilst we saw in 1992 that it is theoretically possible to go on beyond 12-13 years, generally by this stage in a governments lifetime the public are thinking it's "time for a change".

    It looks very, very likely that Labour will win the next election and there seems to be very little the Tories can do about it (their one last throw of the dice is a leadership change but there are very few popular candidates at the moment)

    Hopefully the public will be sensible enough not to give Jezza a majority and he'll have to form some sort of coalition (preferably with the Lib-Dems) who will be able to moderate his more "radical" views.

    Through the earlier part of my life governments came and went more frequently. 64-70, 70-74 and 74-79. Since then we have had 3 extended periods of domination although the current Tory one has been the weakest, only managing a majority for 2 years before they threw it away.

    I think it is worth thinking about why this might be so. Have the benefits of incumbency increased? The money the State/tax payer provides to sitting MPs has certainly increased enormously so that they can address their constituents' "needs". A permanent office and paid staff working to support the incumbent is a significant advantage, especially in a time when all parties are fairly pale shadows of what they were in terms of voluntary organisations.

    When you look at the changes the sample has been small but it has needed a major screw up to overcome the advantages incumbency brings. It is entirely possible that Brexit will be such an opportunity but it is not certain.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Mortimer said:

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    One of many things that the Tories got wrong was the emphasis on negative campaigning. Corbyn is a true Bennite in his unwillingness to personalise attacks. He spoke of hope and an end to austerity, and an optimistic future for the young in particular. Complete moonshine in large part, but far more appealing than the Mayite Tory vision.

    Corbyn is undeniably of the left, but is not a Marxist in the international sense. His policies would have been unremarkable in any post war Labour party, apart from the New Labour period.
    This is another myth that needs busting, frankly.

    The Tory manifesto didn't mention Labour ONCE.

    And every one of Corbyn's surrogates, especially the more gobby ones like Ashworth and Rayner, were constantly blasting Tories at every opportunity.
    Indeed. The Tory manifesto was good, they even dared to take on a couple of subjects that have been political taboo for far too long. The campaign itself though, that was very poor.

    When the heat came over the care proposals, they should have had every goddamn minister on the TV 24/7 for a week defending it, not the silence which allowed their opponents to define it followed by an attempt at a u-turn from the PM.

    Likewise the failure to pick apart Labours manifesto as being uncosted and unaffordable nonsense - the media also deserve a fair amount of blame for that one, but where were Hammond and his team making their point?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    Venezuela got me a very rare popular Tweet. Over 200 retweets so far of this obe I did a couple of days ago ...

    Very good! :D

    Enjoy your holiday, I just got back from mine and want another one already!
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    A question for the historians:

    Assuming the next GE is 2022, Corbyn will have been leader of the opposition for nearly 7 years, what is the longest time somebody has been leader of the opposition?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    Time for a mansion tax.

    And even better a maximum wage for public sector organisations - including universities and the BBC.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    Mortimer said:

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    One of many things that the Tories got wrong was the emphasis on negative campaigning. Corbyn is a true Bennite in his unwillingness to personalise attacks. He spoke of hope and an end to austerity, and an optimistic future for the young in particular. Complete moonshine in large part, but far more appealing than the Mayite Tory vision.

    Corbyn is undeniably of the left, but is not a Marxist in the international sense. His policies would have been unremarkable in any post war Labour party, apart from the New Labour period.
    This is another myth that needs busting, frankly.

    The Tory manifesto didn't mention Labour ONCE.

    And every one of Corbyn's surrogates, especially the more gobby ones like Ashworth and Rayner, were constantly blasting Tories at every opportunity.
    The Tory campaign certaily went heavy on personal attacks on Corbyn, witness the glee on here over their IRA links, supposedly the silver bullet.

    Ashworth and Rayner certainly attacked the Tories, but like Jezza it was on policy not personality.

    I am looking forward to a Labour government taking back control. The Tories are directionless, poorly led, and in need of a decade in opposition.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,035
    GIN1138 said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:
    Daffie deans you could not make up these desperate unionists
    Morning Malc! :D
    Morning Gin , looks like tumbleweeds only this morning here. Time for the great outdoors methinks.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,035
    GIN1138 said:

    PClipp said:

    Mortimer said:

    The problem in 2017 was not with the Tories' policies - it was with the inability to effectively communicate why Labour's policies were unjust and unrealistic, presented by a team largely unfit to lead a Parish council, let alone a National Govt.

    Reading Mr Herdson`s opening post, I get the impression that defeatism is rife in the ranks of the Conservative Party. And in the comments section, there is a lot of whistling in the dark.
    The Herdson is a smart guy. He was the first one to report that Theresa had blown it... The rest of PB was incredulous...

    I always take seriously what he says.
    Good but a bit too partisan
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    edited August 5

    A question for the historians:

    Assuming the next GE is 2022, Corbyn will have been leader of the opposition for nearly 7 years, what is the longest time somebody has been leader of the opposition?

    Kinnock did nine years as LOTO - 83-92)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    malcolmg said:

    GIN1138 said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:
    Daffie deans you could not make up these desperate unionists
    Morning Malc! :D
    Morning Gin , looks like tumbleweeds only this morning here. Time for the great outdoors methinks.
    Yep, me to. :D
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660

    A question for the historians:

    Assuming the next GE is 2022, Corbyn will have been leader of the opposition for nearly 7 years, what is the longest time somebody has been leader of the opposition?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom)

    Kinnock was well over eight years.
    Before that, Gaitskell for a little over seven.

    I can't see anyone obviously over that.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    GIN1138 said:

    A question for the historians:

    Assuming the next GE is 2022, Corbyn will have been leader of the opposition for nearly 7 years, what is the longest time somebody has been leader of the opposition?

    Kinnock did nine years as LOTO - 83-92)
    Thanks.

    My point is that it must be a draining job, he'll be in his 70s by then. Its dangerous to assume he'll lead Labour at the next GE.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,362
    edited August 5

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    Yes, the Tories have got to do better than push the same old 'reds under the bed' scare stories that they've been shoving since the 1970s. Negative and personal campaigning is just a turn off for most people.

    Their problem is that people can see hospitals, prisons and schools in their locality failing as a result of years of cuts and outsourcing. They can also see that some have not been affected - we never were all in it together. And as a result I see more people beginning to sense that austerity has been used by the Tories to pull the wool over their eyes.

    One of many things that the Tories got wrong was the emphasis on negative campaigning. Corbyn is a true Bennite in his unwillingness to personalise attacks. He spoke of hope and an end to austerity, and an optimistic future for the young in particular. Complete moonshine in large part, but far more appealing than the Mayite Tory vision.

    Corbyn is undeniably of the left, but is not a Marxist in the international sense. His policies would have been unremarkable in any post war Labour party, apart from the New Labour period.
    This is another myth that needs busting, frankly.

    The Tory manifesto didn't mention Labour ONCE.

    And every one of Corbyn's surrogates, especially the more gobby ones like Ashworth and Rayner, were constantly blasting Tories at every opportunity.
    Indeed. The Tory manifesto was good, they even dared to take on a couple of subjects that have been political taboo for far too long. The campaign itself though, that was very poor.

    When the heat came over the care proposals, they should have had every goddamn minister on the TV 24/7 for a week defending it, not the silence which allowed their opponents to define it followed by an attempt at a u-turn from the PM.

    Likewise the failure to pick apart Labours manifesto as being uncosted and unaffordable nonsense - the media also deserve a fair amount of blame for that one, but where were Hammond and his team making their point?
    May wanted to sack Hammond, so sidelined her chanchellor.

    She and the Tories got what they deserved..
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    If anyone ask corbyn, i imagine he will stick to the labour line on it
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Interesting piece by David as always.

    Assuming the next election is 2022 the Tories will have done 12 years in office, either on their own or as a coalition.

    Whilst we saw in 1992 that it is theoretically possible to go on beyond 12-13 years, generally by this stage in a governments lifetime the public are thinking it's "time for a change".

    It looks very, very likely that Labour will win the next election and there seems to be very little the Tories can do about it (their one last throw of the dice is a leadership change but there are very few popular candidates at the moment)

    Hopefully the public will be sensible enough not to give Jezza a majority and he'll have to form some sort of coalition (preferably with the Lib-Dems) who will be able to moderate his more "radical" views.

    Through the earlier part of my life governments came and went more frequently. 64-70, 70-74 and 74-79. Since then we have had 3 extended periods of domination although the current Tory one has been the weakest, only managing a majority for 2 years before they threw it away.

    I think it is worth thinking about why this might be so. Have the benefits of incumbency increased? The money the State/tax payer provides to sitting MPs has certainly increased enormously so that they can address their constituents' "needs". A permanent office and paid staff working to support the incumbent is a significant advantage, especially in a time when all parties are fairly pale shadows of what they were in terms of voluntary organisations.

    When you look at the changes the sample has been small but it has needed a major screw up to overcome the advantages incumbency brings. It is entirely possible that Brexit will be such an opportunity but it is not certain.
    I've never quite understood why Labour lost in 1970 or why it was so unpopular in 1967 to 1969.

    The economy grew steadily, Wilson was more popular than Heath, there were no foreign policy disasters and the reduction in voting age and blocking of boundary changes should have helped Labour.

    Heath's government feels like a strange aberration in what should have been a 1964 to 1979 period of Labour dominance.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    An argument that would be rather stronger had he not previously repeated enthused about exactly that place in South America.

    If the Tories want a fruitful line of attack on Jeremy Corbyn, rather than stressing the wickedness or strangeness of his past views, they should be focusing on the weaseliness of his current silence about those same subjects (with a side order of, yes, why is someone who is looking to be leader of Britain spending so much time thinking about far away places?).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171
    edited August 5
    @freetochoose

    Quote is not working, sorry.

    Longest since the post was officially recognised and carried a salary in 1937 is Kinnock (9 years) but the longest overall is Charles James Fox (1783-1806).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    I think Jezza has a good healthy lifestyle, and manages the worklife balance rather well. I think he will stay until after the next election, whenever that happens.

    A lot of us enjoy work, and while some desire to retire early, many of my colleagues and patients are keen to work on to at least their seventies. With the changing age structure of the population that is probably a necessity, but for many it is also a preference if health permits.

    I intend to retire early then return to work as a locum, travel a bit, locum in the antipodes or africa to combine the two etc. I expect to work for a couple more decades, just not in my present job.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Interesting piece by David as always.

    Assuming the next election is 2022 the Tories will have done 12 years in office, either on their own or as a coalition.

    Whilst we saw in 1992 that it is theoretically possible to go on beyond 12-13 years, generally by this stage in a governments lifetime the public are thinking it's "time for a change".

    It looks very, very likely that Labour will win the next election and there seems to be very little the Tories can do about it (their one last throw of the dice is a leadership change but there are very few popular candidates at the moment)

    Hopefully the public will be sensible enough not to give Jezza a majority and he'll have to form some sort of coalition (preferably with the Lib-Dems) who will be able to moderate his more "radical" views.

    Through the earlier part of my life governments came and went more frequently. 64-70, 70-74 and 74-79. Since then we have had 3 extended periods of domination although the current Tory one has been the weakest, only managing a majority for 2 years before they threw it away.

    I think it is worth thinking about why this might be so. Have the benefits of incumbency increased? The money the State/tax payer provides to sitting MPs has certainly increased enormously so that they can address their constituents' "needs". A permanent office and paid staff working to support the incumbent is a significant advantage, especially in a time when all parties are fairly pale shadows of what they were in terms of voluntary organisations.

    When you look at the changes the sample has been small but it has needed a major screw up to overcome the advantages incumbency brings. It is entirely possible that Brexit will be such an opportunity but it is not certain.
    I've never quite understood why Labour lost in 1970 or why it was so unpopular in 1967 to 1969.

    The economy grew steadily, Wilson was more popular than Heath, there were no foreign policy disasters and the reduction in voting age and blocking of boundary changes should have helped Labour.

    Heath's government feels like a strange aberration in what should have been a 1964 to 1979 period of Labour dominance.
    It was. The poilitical consensus was always socialism and (badly) managed decline.

    Heath had just borrowed somebody else's blue rosette.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171

    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
    That case is usually made by those who have got extremely wealthy by it.

    The same people who 'warned us' about rising wages if we voted Leave.
    So you need a member of the Chavez family to make the case? :wink:
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    An argument that would be rather stronger had he not previously repeated enthused about exactly that place in South America.

    If the Tories want a fruitful line of attack on Jeremy Corbyn, rather than stressing the wickedness or strangeness of his past views, they should be focusing on the weaseliness of his current silence about those same subjects (with a side order of, yes, why is someone who is looking to be leader of Britain spending so much time thinking about far away places?).
    That is a very good point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    I think Jezza has a good healthy lifestyle, and manages the worklife balance rather well. I think he will stay until after the next election, whenever that happens.

    A lot of us enjoy work, and while some desire to retire early, many of my colleagues and patients are keen to work on to at least their seventies. With the changing age structure of the population that is probably a necessity, but for many it is also a preference if health permits.

    I intend to retire early then return to work as a locum, travel a bit, locum in the antipodes or africa to combine the two etc. I expect to work for a couple more decades, just not in my present job.
    The problem is, not whether he's fit enough to lead Labour for five years - because I agree he is - but whether he's fit enough to lead a party into government at the end of it.

    We are currently seeing what happens when a clueless 70-something who has no prior experience and has spent his time telling everyone how fit he is tries to run a government and it isn't pretty.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Dr P,

    I'm the same age as you, but I find politics irritating now. Something about going through the old arguments time and time again. And the youngsters do whine a lot. I suppose they always did, but this set have little to whine about, surely? .

    In the fifties, my mother was over-joyed to find her council house had an inside toilet and windows that closed properly. Luxury, as Mr Dancer's friends would say. Mind you, she did say of we youngsters .... "You don't know you're born. the more you get, the more you want."

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    ydoethur said:

    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
    That case is usually made by those who have got extremely wealthy by it.

    The same people who 'warned us' about rising wages if we voted Leave.
    So you need a member of the Chavez family to make the case? :wink:
    Chavez' daughter has become a multi-millionaire, so it's not all bad news from Venezuela.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    That is true. But the Tories only need to lose a handful of seats before they would not be able to command the House. In a forced choice the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and Green forces would side with Labour. The country was saved from this in 2017 only by a stellar performance from the Scottish Tories.

    The Tories need to stop playing the man and start playing the ball when it comes to Corbyn. Amiable Marxists may be one thing, but what about Marxist policies?
    The risk of the Tories banging on about Marxist policies is that those policies may be very popular. After years of tightening austerity, while the gilded elite prosper, bashing the rich may go down very well.
    A good place to start might be to ask for examples of successful states run along Marxist lines. There is no need to bang on about anything. There is a good case to be made for capitalism and free trade and it needs to be made by those who profess to believe in it.
    That case is usually made by those who have got extremely wealthy by it.

    The same people who 'warned us' about rising wages if we voted Leave.
    So you need a member of the Chavez family to make the case? :wink:
    Chavez' daughter has become a multi-millionaire, so it's not all bad news from Venezuela.
    I was reminded of Brezhnev showing his mother round his house, displaying his collection of fast cars and fine wines, the marble floors, the gold bathtaps, the photographs of his dacha in the Crimea and the yacht that went with it.

    And his mother gasped and said, 'It's all beautiful Leonid, but I'm scared. What will happen to you if the Bolsheviks ever come back?'

    Brezhnev was so clueless he was happy when he heard that one, as he thought it showed people loved him and worried about him.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    GeoffM said:

    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Interesting piece by David as always.

    Assuming the next election is 2022 the Tories will have done 12 years in office, either on their own or as a coalition.

    Whilst we saw in 1992 that it is theoretically possible to go on beyond 12-13 years, generally by this stage in a governments lifetime the public are thinking it's "time for a change".

    It looks very, very likely that Labour will win the next election and there seems to be very little the Tories can do about it (their one last throw of the dice is a leadership change but there are very few popular candidates at the moment)

    Hopefully the public will be sensible enough not to give Jezza a majority and he'll have to form some sort of coalition (preferably with the Lib-Dems) who will be able to moderate his more "radical" views.

    Through the earlier part of my life governments came and went more frequently. 64-70, 70-74 and 74-79. Since then we have had 3 extended periods of domination although the current Tory one has been the weakest, only managing a majority for 2 years before they threw it away.

    I think it is worth thinking about why this might be so. Have the benefits of incumbency increased? The money the State/tax payer provides to sitting MPs has certainly increased enormously so that they can address their constituents' "needs". A permanent office and paid staff working to support the incumbent is a significant advantage, especially in a time when all parties are fairly pale shadows of what they were in terms of voluntary organisations.

    When you look at the changes the sample has been small but it has needed a major screw up to overcome the advantages incumbency brings. It is entirely possible that Brexit will be such an opportunity but it is not certain.
    I've never quite understood why Labour lost in 1970 or why it was so unpopular in 1967 to 1969.

    The economy grew steadily, Wilson was more popular than Heath, there were no foreign policy disasters and the reduction in voting age and blocking of boundary changes should have helped Labour.

    Heath's government feels like a strange aberration in what should have been a 1964 to 1979 period of Labour dominance.
    It was. The poilitical consensus was always socialism and (badly) managed decline.

    Heath had just borrowed somebody else's blue rosette.
    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    Mortimer said:

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    An argument that would be rather stronger had he not previously repeated enthused about exactly that place in South America.

    If the Tories want a fruitful line of attack on Jeremy Corbyn, rather than stressing the wickedness or strangeness of his past views, they should be focusing on the weaseliness of his current silence about those same subjects (with a side order of, yes, why is someone who is looking to be leader of Britain spending so much time thinking about far away places?).
    That is a very good point.
    Corbyn's mental process when discussing various far-flung socialists is a superficial one of weighing the purity and the imperfection to see if they're worthy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,171
    edited August 5

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094
    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Labour always looked upon the unions as their fellow comrades who wanted the best for everyone. That made it difficult for them to to say no.

    Unions' aim is to improve the lot of the workers they represent. They're more like defence lawyers rather than altruistic seekers after truth. The altruism is directed more at socialism abroad. I think they can do a good job, and I say that after 15 years as a union rep, but don't expect them to put the good of the country first. That's far too subjective.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    Well, TBH, my wife and I look back on the sixties in particular with pleasure. We were doing well both as people and financially.
    It was with the oil price problems in ’73 that problems started.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    Socialism in one post:

    Happier if everyone is poorer, the country is politically divided, and Labour are nominally 'in charge'.
This discussion has been closed.