If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?
John Smith still died.
What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).
With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.
Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.
To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).
A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.
The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.
Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
Howard couldn't prevent Blair holding onto a 66-seat majority.
Surely Oriel College need to tell this campaigner to do one. If even Trevor Phillips can see how idiotic this campaign is then the game has got to be up.
If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?
John Smith still died.
Brown would still have beaten Major, but not by anywhere near the margin Blair delivered. The Tories would also have not needed to wait for Dave to come along, they probably would have scented blood in 2001 and replaced Hague with Portillo and gone on to win in 2005 vs Brown.
It's a bit anecdotal, frankly. Members have had a say 4 times (Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Corbyn). Kinnock did reasonably well from a crap starting position but lost. Smith would almost certainly have won but died. Blair won. Not sure one can conclude anything from it.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, the record of leaders chosen in other ways isn't overwhelming. Nor is there any decisive reason why the people who happen to be MPs (for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily political acumen) should get to decide who leads the movement.
On the enthusiasm for Corbyn, it's certainly there, and nothing much to do with just being different or livening things up. Most of my political circle think he's the most refreshing, positive thing that's happened in politics for decades, including most of the Labour-leaning people I know in marginal Broxtowe, some of whom didn't vote for me and went Green or LibDem as they were so bored by Labour's offer. Note that this doesn't necessarily extend to every left-winger.
But of course there's a much stronger anti-Corbyn vote than opposition leaders usually get. So it comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time. If the MPs had prevented us having the choice that most of us actually wanted, that would IMO have been a stitch-up.
Do you draw any conclusions from this as to why you lost your seat?
I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
He wasn't. That IDS happened to be IDS was beside the point. He was the not-Portillo/not-Clarke candidate.
The one advantage the Tories had (and have) over Labour is the leader ejection mechanism. It was possible to elect IDS (or risk electing him) in order to stop the other two in the knowledge that if he proved successful then the party could run with him through to 2005/6, but if he didn't then he could easily be dumped and a fourth option - Howard, as it turned out - elected in his place.
Labour has no such simple ejection process.
Well, not-Portillo/not-Clarke is effectively "neither of the two high-profile credible-with-the-public candidates we actually have". Also, though you were able to eject him and appoint a caretaker in his place, by then you had thrown away the chance of making serious progress in 2005 with the result that you didn't get a majority until... hey, it's last year now.
Imo IDS is way over-promoted by his being in the Cabinet. It was droll to offer him to the electorate as Prime Minister in-waiting.
I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
He wasn't. That IDS happened to be IDS was beside the point. He was the not-Portillo/not-Clarke candidate.
The one advantage the Tories had (and have) over Labour is the leader ejection mechanism. It was possible to elect IDS (or risk electing him) in order to stop the other two in the knowledge that if he proved successful then the party could run with him through to 2005/6, but if he didn't then he could easily be dumped and a fourth option - Howard, as it turned out - elected in his place.
Labour has no such simple ejection process.
Well, not-Portillo/not-Clarke is effectively "neither of the two high-profile credible-with-the-public candidates we actually have". Also, though you were able to eject him and appoint a caretaker in his place, by then you had thrown away the chance of making serious progress in 2005 with the result that you didn't get a majority until... hey, it's last year now.
Imo IDS is way over-promoted by his being in the Cabinet. It was droll to offer him to the electorate as Prime Minister in-waiting.
If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?
John Smith still died.
Brown would still have beaten Major, but not by anywhere near the margin Blair delivered. The Tories would also have not needed to wait for Dave to come along, they probably would have scented blood in 2001 and replaced Hague with Portillo and gone on to win in 2005 vs Brown.
But would Brown have been leader? The whole reason why he had to withdraw is because he was personally unpopular in the PLP and his grasp of the Treasury brief had been at best tenuous (for example, he completed bungled Labour's response to Black Wednesday when he had about five open goals to aim at). He was not seen as a credible leadership candidate. His claim that he was 'robbed' of the leadership by Blair says more about his personal psychological flaws than anything else.
It doesn't seem at all stupid to suggest that Beckett would have beaten him, and then Major, but lost again in 2001.
Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.
He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.
These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.
In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).
In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.
Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.
On the other hand, Gandhi was an F. He was an NF idealist.
Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.
That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Gandhi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
Ghandi is obviously his sartorial style guru although he sensibly keeps his socks on.
If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?
John Smith still died.
What's really rather shocking is that if you take out Tony Blair, it is 1970 since Labour got 40% of the vote in an election, and 1979 since they got above 36%. Indeed, if we remove Blair from the equation, only on one occasion since then - 1992 - did they even top 31%. (1983 27%, 19847 (oops) 30%, 1992 34%, 2010 29%, 2015 30%).
With Blair's spike taken out, they have been flatlining for a very long time. Indeed, arguably the Blair effect only really played in 1997, with a residual echo in 2001 (massively helped by the ineptitude of the Opposition under Hague - remember the Liberal Democrats made a significant advance in 2001). By 2005, Labour were bumping along in the mid-30s again, which is poor by any measure but shockingly, good by their own historical standards.
Yet they still seem convinced that their core vote is somewhere near 35%. Indeed, Ed Miliband's entire election-winning strategy (the one that succeeded so brilliantly he became the first opposition leader to have a net loss of seats in 32 years) was predicated on it. Corbyn's is too.
To answer your question directly, Labour have only won a working majority 5 times: 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005. You will notice therefore that Blair won 60% of those. Without him, only 3 Labour Prime Ministers have come top of a poll, and five periods in government (three of them periods of minority government).
A pretty damning indictment of the poverty of their electoral appeal, no?
NAUGHT BUT PB TORY PROPAGANDA!
But based on truths?
Twas a joke
Ah, I should have spotted that as it didn't seem at all amusing.
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
Well, I suppose that depends on whether or not you think being a TU official is "a job of any sort"
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
Well, I suppose that depends on whether or not you think being a TU official is "a job of any sort"
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
He was at a private primary school. I'm still not sure whether he would have had to pay fees for his secondary school, because I still haven't been able to find out whether Adams Grammar was direct grant or not at the time he went there (not that I've actually spent time looking as it doesn't strike me as important and with rare exceptions I am a very busy man). But the prep school is surely enough.
His father was a wealthy trade union official and they lived in a seven bedroom mansion. He owed his position in Haringey to his father's union links, and his election to Parliament to his time on Haringey Council.
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
If we remove Tony from history - how many HMGs would Labour have formed?
John Smith still died.
Brown would still have beaten Major, but not by anywhere near the margin Blair delivered. The Tories would also have not needed to wait for Dave to come along, they probably would have scented blood in 2001 and replaced Hague with Portillo and gone on to win in 2005 vs Brown.
Polls in 2005 showed Brown would have beaten Howard by a larger margin than Blair did as fewer Labour voters would have switched to the LDs post Iraq so am not sure that follows and polls in 2001 showed Portillo doing little better than Hague
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
That's true. I think it may have made a difference, though, that this time it all came down to the membership vote (plus £3ers), so it was possible to generate a head of steam for Corbyn without knowing that he was rowing uphill in the PLP section.
But you're right, the membership has often chosen a more moderate candidate. And the Conservative leadership choose Cameron over Davis, of course.
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
He was at a private primary school. I'm still not sure whether he would have had to pay fees for his secondary school, because I still haven't been able to find out whether Adams Grammar was direct grant or not at the time he went there (not that I've actually spent time looking as it doesn't strike me as important and with rare exceptions I am a very busy man). But the prep school is surely enough.
His father was a wealthy trade union official and they lived in a seven bedroom mansion. He owed his position in Haringey to his father's union links, and his election to Parliament to his time on Haringey Council.
So actually - I don't think I am awry.
Do you have any links about Corbyn's dad being a prominent trade uinionist (who thereby facilitated his son's advancement)? Albeit after only a brief search, he appears to have been a successful electrical engineer but I can't find any union links, let alone those with sufficient connections to make a difference to his son. I appreciate you are a hugely busy fellow. But then, aren't we all?
It's a bit anecdotal, frankly. Members have had a say 4 times (Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Corbyn). Kinnock did reasonably well from a crap starting position but lost. Smith would almost certainly have won but died. Blair won. Not sure one can conclude anything from it.
I think it is a cardinal mistake to disempower MPs in leadership selection. They have the most knowledge of the candidates, the greatest political acumen and the most at stake. The Tories should be careful not to follow Labour's lead.
The tories use MPs to whittle down the selection to 2. This seems a reasonable solution and fits with your reasoning. When you look at the old magic circle method it means they have come quite a way.
I think it's quite significant that the Conservative MP ballots are secret whereas Labour MP nominations are public. Therefore it would be harder to exert grassroots pressure on Conservative MPs to put a joke candidate into the last two and either candidate clearly has decent Parliamentary support.
Of course, IDS happened. Hmm.
IDS wasn't a good choice but hardly in the same category (potentially) as Jehadi Jez in lacking merit. New old Labour might also be stuck with him (or his ilk) for far longer than the Tories tolerated IDS.
I think IDS would have been seriously catastrophic had he stayed until the election. It is still somewhat mind-blowing that he was the Conservative Party's answer to a double helping of Labour Landslide Sundae.
IDS was replaced by Howard after losing a vote of no confidence on 23rd October 2003. The last poll before he was ousted on 19th October 2003 had the Tories on 33%, Labour on 38% and the LDs on 21%, at the 2005 election the Tories won 32%, Labour 35% and the LDs 22% so his ousting made little difference in terms of winning over any new voters http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
That's true. I think it may have made a difference, though, that this time it all came down to the membership vote (plus £3ers), so it was possible to generate a head of steam for Corbyn without knowing that he was rowing uphill in the PLP section.
But you're right, the membership has often chosen a more moderate candidate. And the Conservative leadership choose Cameron over Davis, of course.
Yes if the membership wants to win after several defeats it will pick a more moderate candidate and Smith would probably have won in 1997 too.
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
There are some tough decisions there, particularly in respect of the lovely Ms Abbott despite presumably having the support of Jehadi Jez.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
Indeed the Tory membership picked the most rightwing candidate in the race in 2001 and in 2005 it did indeed pick the more moderate candidate, Cameron, over the more rightwing Davis but Fox, the most rightwing candidate in the race, did not make the final ballot
O/T - 2016 fantasy footie is pants! Bring back 2015.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
There are some tough decisions there, particularly in respect of the lovely Ms Abbott despite presumably having the support of Jehadi Jez.
O/T - 2016 fantasy footie is pants! Bring back 2015.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
O/T - 2016 fantasy footie is pants! Bring back 2015.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
New PB rule, no more discussions about football allowed on PB, only cricket discussions.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
Fair point. I think the reason the comment is made about Blair, however, is that there seem to be many within Labour who want to disown him.
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
O/T - 2016 fantasy footie is pants! Bring back 2015.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
New PB rule, no more discussions about football allowed on PB, only cricket discussions.
Huzzah for Root, Bairstow, and Stokes.
I see Liverpool and your goodself are displaying similar form currently.... how Arsenal won today, I'll never know - Geordies teasing spurs fans again....
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
He backed a welfare to work policy at the time and Burnham, Kendall and Cooper abstained on the welfare bill they did not vote for it
O/T - 2016 fantasy footie is pants! Bring back 2015.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
New PB rule, no more discussions about football allowed on PB, only cricket discussions.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
And the Lib Dem membership has chosen the leader (since the party's founding I think?) without producing a total joke. You have some bragging rights over this, I think.
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
Blair also got the party to scrap Clause IV in 1995
"Our spoiled, emasculated, de‑spiritualised societies in the West are in terminal decline
In 2015 we witness a rare geopolitcal power shift - and in the face of every kind of new external challenge the leaders of the EU and the USA have never looked weaker or more bemused"
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
And the Lib Dem membership has chosen the leader (since the party's founding I think?) without producing a total joke. You have some bragging rights over this, I think.
But for the Christmas post, Chris Huhne might well have become Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM......
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
Blair also got the party to scrap Clause IV in 1995
Yes, but he didn't mention that before he was elected.
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
And the Lib Dem membership has chosen the leader (since the party's founding I think?) without producing a total joke. You have some bragging rights over this, I think.
No Labour or Tory leader has ever led their party to so catastrophic a defeat that they have lost 86% of their MPs, as Nick Clegg did in 2015. Had LD members picked Chris Huhne in 2007 they may not have joined the Tories in Coalition and suffered such an apocalyptic result 5 years later
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
I know. I'm torn between holding up a sheet of paper to Labour with "YOU DID THIS BEFORE AND YOU FUCKED IT UP, REMEMBER?" in Big Crayon, or just muttering "ohfuckitt..." and walking away.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
The irony of electing as a leader to show your egalitarian, democratic and inclusive credentials the privately educated son of a millionaire who has never actually had a job of any sort, who entered Parliament on the back of his family's wealth and connections and who has spent his life associating with violent revolutionaries and some actual criminals is also one that appears to have eluded the Labour party.
.
Something went seriously awry in that paragraph. If you are referring to Corbyn (I doubt you are), then he wasn't privately educated, nor I think was his father a millionaire and his selection for Islington North had nothing whatever to do with his background. The rest, however, does apply!
He was at a private primary school. I'm still not sure whether he would have had to pay fees for his secondary school, because I still haven't been able to find out whether Adams Grammar was direct grant or not at the time he went there (not that I've actually spent time looking as it doesn't strike me as important and with rare exceptions I am a very busy man). But the prep school is surely enough.
His father was a wealthy trade union official and they lived in a seven bedroom mansion. He owed his position in Haringey to his father's union links, and his election to Parliament to his time on Haringey Council.
So actually - I don't think I am awry.
I appreciate you are a hugely busy fellow. But then, aren't we all?
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
And the Lib Dem membership has chosen the leader (since the party's founding I think?) without producing a total joke. You have some bragging rights over this, I think.
No Labour or Tory leader has ever led their party to so catastrophic a defeat that they have lost 86% of their MPs, as Nick Clegg did in 2015. Had LD members picked Chris Huhne in 2007 they may not have joined the Tories in Coalition and suffered such an apocalyptic result 5 years later
True, but that wasn't because he was himself simply inadequate (as imo IDS was and Corbyn is).
"Our spoiled, emasculated, de‑spiritualised societies in the West are in terminal decline
In 2015 we witness a rare geopolitcal power shift - and in the face of every kind of new external challenge the leaders of the EU and the USA have never looked weaker or more bemused"
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
And the Lib Dem membership has chosen the leader (since the party's founding I think?) without producing a total joke. You have some bragging rights over this, I think.
No Labour or Tory leader has ever led their party to so catastrophic a defeat that they have lost 86% of their MPs, as Nick Clegg did in 2015. Had LD members picked Chris Huhne in 2007 they may not have joined the Tories in Coalition and suffered such an apocalyptic result 5 years later
True, but that wasn't because he was himself simply inadequate (as imo IDS was and Corbyn is).
Say what you like about IDS and Corbyn but they at least held the Tory and Labour base even if they turned off swing voters. In 2015 Clegg not only lost the swing voters he won in 2010 but also most of the LD base too
Eh, there have been 3 Labour leaders elected by the membership who have contested elections, and 1 of them won. That's in line with Labour leader's record historically.
Recent MP chosen leaders haven't got the greatest record, anyway. Last victory was Major in '92, since then they've lost in '97 '05 and '10
Feck me, Christian Benteke is a poor man's Emile Heskey.
Except we paid £32.5m for him, I've got a better first touch than that donkey.
*Sobs at the realisation than in a year we've gone from Suarez to Benteke*
You can always recall Super Mario from Milan ;-)
I am sure the high end shops, restaurants and bars will be happy to see him return. Not so sure about the landlords of multi-million pound properties though.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
I know. I'm torn between holding up a sheet of paper to Labour with "YOU DID THIS BEFORE AND YOU FUCKED IT UP, REMEMBER?" in Big Crayon, or just muttering "ohfuckitt..." and walking away.
They are not listening at the moment, it will take at least one more loss for them to start to do so
It is worth remembering that Labour members have three times backed the moderate candidate over the more leftwing candidate in the final ballot (Kinnock over Benn in 1988, Smith over Gould in 1992, Blair over Prescott in 1994) and three times the leftwing candidate over the more moderate candidate (Kinnock over Hattersley in 1983, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010, Corbyn over Burnham in 2015), so not much difference and it would probaly have backed Brown over McDonnell had it got that far. Only once has it selected the most leftwing candidate in the race when it elected Jeremy Corbyn last year, it rejected Eric Heffer in 1983 and Tony Benn in 1988, Bryan Gould in 1992, Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Diane Abbott in 2010
Yup. I've said it before, but a strong Soft Left candidate is almost unbeatable in Labour leadership elections: the Labour membership has not over 5 years turned into a uniform bloc of diehard Trots, the average member is prepared to make some compromises as long as there is still some "red line" principles which aren't crossed.
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
Blair also got the party to scrap Clause IV in 1995
Yes, but he didn't mention that before he was elected.
He ran on a pretty centrist platform in 1994, if you wanted something more leftwing you would have voted for Prescott or Beckett
In the entire history of the Conservative Party just one election winning leader was the choice of its membership .
We've only given the swivel eyed loons the choice since 2001, and we've got a 50% success rate.
These events are a good test of a party's sanity. The Labour PLP walked without looking into the road in front of a bus when they nominated Corbyn. The tory membership have had 10 years to ponder. They have seen the wisdom of their decision, they have seen how Davis has behaved since he lost. They have seen Labour's membership elect Corbyn. So really the pressure is on the MPs to offer up a final two who can keep a grip on the centre ground and of course who can withstand the pressure of being leader and prime minister.
Feck me, Christian Benteke is a poor man's Emile Heskey.
Except we paid £32.5m for him, I've got a better first touch than that donkey.
*Sobs at the realisation than in a year we've gone from Suarez to Benteke*
You can always recall Super Mario from Milan ;-)
I am sure the high end shops, restaurants and bars will be happy to see him return. Not so sure about the landlords of multi-million pound properties though.
I used to see Mario a lot in Manchester city centre, he was more boy than bad.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
I know. I'm torn between holding up a sheet of paper to Labour with "YOU DID THIS BEFORE AND YOU FUCKED IT UP, REMEMBER?" in Big Crayon, or just muttering "ohfuckitt..." and walking away.
They are not listening at the moment, it will take at least one more loss for them to start to do so
Until then they will be content to indulge in autocolonoscopy...
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
I know. I'm torn between holding up a sheet of paper to Labour with "YOU DID THIS BEFORE AND YOU FUCKED IT UP, REMEMBER?" in Big Crayon, or just muttering "ohfuckitt..." and walking away.
They are not listening at the moment, it will take at least one more loss for them to start to do so
Until then they will be content to indulge in autocolonoscopy...
True, mind you just as opposing the Euro was key for Tory members in 2001 so opposing austerity is key for Labour members now, electability is a secondary consideration
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
Blair also got the party to scrap Clause IV in 1995
Yes, but he didn't mention that before he was elected.
He ran on a pretty centrist platform in 1994, if you wanted something more leftwing you would have voted for Prescott or Beckett
The point Rentoul was making was that Blair, unlike Kendall, didn't go out of his way to rile the people whose votes he was seeking until after the election. But I take your point - iirc, no one at the time was in any doubt that Blair would represent the victory of the modernisers.
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair, even an ultra moderate can win their backing if they really want to win, they were not that desperate yet last year
I doubt Blair would've won the leadership if he had advocated supporting Tory cuts to welfare claimants during his leadership campaign.
Yes. A point made by John Rentoul back in the summer was that in the leadership election Blair's platform consisted of:
1. Oppose rail privatisation 2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
Blair also got the party to scrap Clause IV in 1995
Yes, but he didn't mention that before he was elected.
He ran on a pretty centrist platform in 1994, if you wanted something more leftwing you would have voted for Prescott or Beckett
The point Rentoul was making was that Blair, unlike Kendall, didn't go out of his way to rile the people whose votes he was seeking until after the election. But I take your point - iirc, no one at the time was in any doubt that Blair would represent the victory of the modernisers.
Indeed, Kendall was basically the Labour equivalent of Ken Clarke ie too dismissive of the membership's views and arrogant in assuming their 'electability' alone would win them the leadership
Al Beeb disgracefully implies the government's enthusiasm for bombing Syria didn't last much longer than was necessary to embarrass Labour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35166971
Vote on 2/12; only three RAF strikes and none since 6/12.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
So 'some' in the party will blame Cameron rather than the electorate? Well yes. That does rather sound like the thicko Right.
Al Beeb disgracefully implies the government's enthusiasm for bombing Syria didn't last much longer than was necessary to embarrass Labour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35166971
Vote on 2/12; only three RAF strikes and none since 6/12.
Afaik it was always expected that the sortie rate would be very low. It was those opposed who insisted it was the edge of the apocalypse.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
Mind you the membership were also prepared to vote for Blair...they were not that desperate yet last year
This is the crux. Nobody is desperate. The country is purring along quite nicely and there are no devastated communities to force a Labour rethink, so they can afford to sit back and indulge in masturbatory politics. Talking about, say, Palestinians, is recreation, not politics: we cannot change the situation and it does not directly affect the UK. So they'll bumble on quite happily being sans peur et sans reproche until something seriously bad happens to them: say losing 100 seats in 2020. Until then they're just going to f**k around like kids on holiday, while the Conservatives stay indoors and do the governing like proper grown-ups
Indeed, it took Labour 4 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Blair and the Tories 3 election defeats to finally consider electing a charismatic moderate like Cameron so Labour have at least 1 more defeat to go to get a plausible election winner as their leader, maybe 2
I know. I'm torn between holding up a sheet of paper to Labour with "YOU DID THIS BEFORE AND YOU FUCKED IT UP, REMEMBER?" in Big Crayon, or just muttering "ohfuckitt..." and walking away.
They are not listening at the moment, it will take at least one more loss for them to start to do so
Until then they will be content to indulge in autocolonoscopy...
True, mind you just as opposing the Euro was key for Tory members in 2001 so opposing austerity is key for Labour members now, electability is a secondary consideration
Al Beeb disgracefully implies the government's enthusiasm for bombing Syria didn't last much longer than was necessary to embarrass Labour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35166971
Vote on 2/12; only three RAF strikes and none since 6/12.
Never mind, so you fell for the bullshit peddled by Labour – you do it a lot.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.
He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.
These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
Unfortunately they are absolutely antithetical to leadership. Leaders have to make decisions. Leaders have to resolve conflict by engaging with their opponents, persuading them, or at least bringing them along, and, where necessary, disappointing and angering them by resolving conflicts with decisions.
In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).
In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.
Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.
On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.
Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.
That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.
What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
So 'some' in the party will blame Cameron rather than the electorate? Well yes. That does rather sound like the thicko Right.
If the electorate are lied to by someone they trust then you blame the person doing the lying. Only the terminally moronic like your self would think otherwise.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
It comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time.
I still have trouble understanding the mentality of a politician who could write that.
Naturally I don't see Corbyn as you do (tool of Brezhnev and all that) - you won't understand if you don't take the starting point that people like me like him and most of his policies.
Look, there isn't any point in politics if you don't stand for anything very interesting, unless you see the other side as so evil that literally anything or nothing is better. Ironically, I suppose that I'm centrist enough to concede that the Government is not that evil, so it makes sense to decide what we think and then seek a majority for it rather than decide what floating voters think and pretend to agree. But we're repeating old ground, so I'll leave it there.
(And yes, my earlier post left out Miliband, sorry, so the score so far of member-elected leaders is 4 selected, 1 winner (Blair), 1 who would probnably have won (Smith), 2 losers (Kinnock and Miliband, with arguably reasonable excuses). And of course Ed would not have won if only members' votes hjad been counted, so I'm not sure that counts.
Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.
What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.
Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
Will historians look back on the 2015 GE and declare that Cameron won a "working majority"?
My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.
That is a good point. There is however a clear answer - a working majority changes over time because what you are likely to require changes over time. In 1900, there were roughly 15 by-elections every year, and therefore (although a lot of them were unopposed) a fairly large majority could vanish rapidly if the government were unpopular (e.g. Balfour's majority went from 134 in 1902 to around 70 in 1905, and the remainder of the Unionists were split three ways as well).
To take a more modern example, in 1992 John Major had a majority somewhat larger than Cameron's official figure of 12 (21, if I remember rightly). However, the average age of his MPs was around 60. Therefore, simply via natural causes, it was likely that 21 would not be enough to last five years - as indeed it was not, with the Conservatives losing 10 seats through by-elections (and two via defections) before 1997.
Since then, the average age of Conservative MPs has dropped dramatically, helped by the fact they spent a long time out of power (therefore more work for less kudos) and a number of time-servers were cleared out in 1997 anyway. In fact, I think only one Conservative MP has died since 2005: Eric Forth in 2006. Therefore, while Major lost an average of 4-5 MPs a year in the 1997 Parliament, Cameron would be unlucky to lose more than 2-3 across the whole of it.
Even allowing for that, the Conservatives have a much better recent record at by-elections than they did in the 1990s (where they didn't win one from 1989 until Uxbridge in 1997). So it would not be unreasonable to expect any bereavements to not affect their majority.
Defections might also be a problem, as they were for Major - but can anyone honestly see any MPs joining Labour or the Liberal Democrats, or now joining UKIP following Reckless' demise?
So although on paper this is less than a 'working majority', in practice I think it's the equivalent of a 1970s majority of around 40.
While mortality and byelections have a say in what is a working majority, an equal part is the possibity of rebellions. John Majors life was made difficult not by bye-elections so much as the Bastards. Cameron is as vulnerable to this as any small majority govt in history.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I purchased a book on the EU a few days back which has a quote from Ted Heath. He claimed that the book was filled with lies. The author took this as a ringing endorsement.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I purchased a book on the EU a few days back which has a quote from Ted Heath. He claimed that the book was filled with lies. The author took this as a ringing endorsement.
The best Ted Heath quote was this one, on the Tory Party
“There are three sorts of people in this party: shits, bloody shits, and fucking shits
Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.
He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.
These qualities make Corbyn likeable. .
In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).
In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.
Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.
On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.
Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.
That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.
What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
It comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time.
I still have trouble understanding the mentality of a politician who could write that.
Naturally I don't see Corbyn as you do (tool of Brezhnev and all that) - you won't understand if you don't take the starting point that people like me like him and most of his policies.
Look, there isn't any point in politics if you don't stand for anything very interesting, unless you see the other side as so evil that literally anything or nothing is better. Ironically, I suppose that I'm centrist enough to concede that the Government is not that evil, so it makes sense to decide what we think and then seek a majority for it rather than decide what floating voters think and pretend to agree. But we're repeating old ground, so I'll leave it there.
(And yes, my earlier post left out Miliband, sorry, so the score so far of member-elected leaders is 4 selected, 1 winner (Blair), 1 who would probnably have won (Smith), 2 losers (Kinnock and Miliband, with arguably reasonable excuses). And of course Ed would not have won if only members' votes hjad been counted, so I'm not sure that counts.
Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.
In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.
If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....
Will historians look back on the 2015 GE and declare that Cameron won a "working majority"?
My feeling is that future opinions on this matter will be shaped by party discipline.
That is a good point. There is however a clear answer - a working majority changes over time because what you are likely to require changes over time. In 1900, there were roughly 15 by-elections every year, and therefore (although a lot of them were unopposed) a fairly large majority could vanish rapidly if the government were unpopular (e.g. Balfour's majority went from 134 in 1902 to around 70 in 1905, and the remainder of the Unionists were split three ways as well).
To take a more modern example, in 1992 John Major had a majority somewhat larger than Cameron's official figure of 12 (21, if I remember rightly). However, the average age of his MPs was around 60. Therefore, simply via natural causes, it was likely that 21 would not be enough to last five years - as indeed it was not, with the Conservatives losing 10 seats through by-elections (and two via defections) before 1997.
Since then, the average age of Conservative MPs has dropped dramatically, helped by the fact they spent a long time out of power (therefore more work for less kudos) and a number of time-servers were cleared out in 1997 anyway. In fact, I think only one Conservative MP has died since 2005: Eric Forth in 2006. Therefore, while Major lost an average of 4-5 MPs a year in the 1997 Parliament, Cameron would be unlucky to lose more than 2-3 across the whole of it.
Even allowing for that, the Conservatives have a much better recent record at by-elections than they did in the 1990s (where they didn't win one from 1989 until Uxbridge in 1997). So it would not be unreasonable to expect any bereavements to not affect their majority.
Defections might also be a problem, as they were for Major - but can anyone honestly see any MPs joining Labour or the Liberal Democrats, or now joining UKIP following Reckless' demise?
So although on paper this is less than a 'working majority', in practice I think it's the equivalent of a 1970s majority of around 40.
While mortality and byelections have a say in what is a working majority, an equal part is the possibity of rebellions. John Majors life was made difficult not by bye-elections so much as the Bastards. Cameron is as vulnerable to this as any small majority govt in history.
There are 331 Conservatives to 319 Opposition. But, when you take out the Speaker and Sinn Fein the majority rises to 18. And, if push comes to shove, Carswell and the Unionists will either abstain or support the government, pushing the majority up to 30-40.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.
Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
So 'some' in the party will blame Cameron rather than the electorate? Well yes. That does rather sound like the thicko Right.
If the electorate are lied to by someone they trust then you blame the person doing the lying. Only the terminally moronic like your self would think otherwise.
Moronic like yourself? Thats good coming from you. Your excuses are pathetic. If Remain win they will win because the public want to remain. More to the point they will win because Leave cannot tell the electorate where they want to take them to or how bumpy the journey might be. But no. You and the terminally moronic like yourself have only one target Cameron.
Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
I purchased a book on the EU a few days back which has a quote from Ted Heath. He claimed that the book was filled with lies. The author took this as a ringing endorsement.
Comments
Surely Oriel College need to tell this campaigner to do one. If even Trevor Phillips can see how idiotic this campaign is then the game has got to be up.
Imo IDS is way over-promoted by his being in the Cabinet. It was droll to offer him to the electorate as Prime Minister in-waiting.
It doesn't seem at all stupid to suggest that Beckett would have beaten him, and then Major, but lost again in 2001.
His father was a wealthy trade union official and they lived in a seven bedroom mansion. He owed his position in Haringey to his father's union links, and his election to Parliament to his time on Haringey Council.
So actually - I don't think I am awry.
But you're right, the membership has often chosen a more moderate candidate. And the Conservative leadership choose Cameron over Davis, of course.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
The problem this time was there was perceived to be no Soft Left candidate: the choice was presented as 3 mainstream candidates who were prepared to give into the Tories on absolutely anything (see the Welfare Bill), and a hard-leftie. Yet the PLP have still not seemed to gain any self-awareness and reflected on why it is that so many mainstream members, who were content to vote for one or other of the Milibands just 5 years ago, felt Corbyn was their only option this time.
We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.
Bournemouth clean sheet - yes, I've a defender, yes, he's sent off = - points
Arsenal clean sheet, yes, I've a defender who scored last game, yes, Wenger drops him for this one, = 0 points and means the above sub'd Bournemouth player will be brought in to the side!
Not in 2016 so far, mind.
Huzzah for Root, Bairstow, and Stokes.
Except we paid £32.5m for him, I've got a better first touch than that donkey.
*Sobs at the realisation than in a year we've gone from Suarez to Benteke*
1. Oppose rail privatisation
2. Er, that's it
I can't recall if that's exactly true but I think he did avoid saying anything to frighten the horses. I guess members knew he would mean a move to the right but he didn't ram the details down their throat.
In 2015 we witness a rare geopolitcal power shift - and in the face of every kind of new external challenge the leaders of the EU and the USA have never looked weaker or more bemused"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12078365/Our-spoiled-emasculated-despiritualised-societies-in-the-Westare-in-terminal-decline.html
EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
Recent MP chosen leaders haven't got the greatest record, anyway. Last victory was Major in '92, since then they've lost in '97 '05 and '10
I am sure the high end shops, restaurants and bars will be happy to see him return. Not so sure about the landlords of multi-million pound properties though.
The tory membership have had 10 years to ponder. They have seen the wisdom of their decision, they have seen how Davis has behaved since he lost. They have seen Labour's membership elect Corbyn.
So really the pressure is on the MPs to offer up a final two who can keep a grip on the centre ground and of course who can withstand the pressure of being leader and prime minister.
Everyone used to speak very highly of him.
Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
And even that is being whittled down to nothing, there will be no dissent in Corbyn’s Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35166971
Vote on 2/12; only three RAF strikes and none since 6/12.
What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
Look, there isn't any point in politics if you don't stand for anything very interesting, unless you see the other side as so evil that literally anything or nothing is better. Ironically, I suppose that I'm centrist enough to concede that the Government is not that evil, so it makes sense to decide what we think and then seek a majority for it rather than decide what floating voters think and pretend to agree. But we're repeating old ground, so I'll leave it there.
(And yes, my earlier post left out Miliband, sorry, so the score so far of member-elected leaders is 4 selected, 1 winner (Blair), 1 who would probnably have won (Smith), 2 losers (Kinnock and Miliband, with arguably reasonable excuses). And of course Ed would not have won if only members' votes hjad been counted, so I'm not sure that counts.
Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
“There are three sorts of people in this party: shits, bloody shits, and fucking shits
In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.
If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....
Having been out of circulation for nearly 3 weeks, it's astonishing how little information filters through without TV, radio, internet, papers.
Word of mouth only, and it suggests that nothing at all has happened in the world except some gales, heavy rain & flooding in places.
Your excuses are pathetic. If Remain win they will win because the public want to remain. More to the point they will win because Leave cannot tell the electorate where they want to take them to or how bumpy the journey might be.
But no. You and the terminally moronic like yourself have only one target Cameron.