politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sir Robert Peel and the Corn Laws – the ghost that haunts Ther

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sir Robert Peel and the Corn Laws – the ghost that haunts Theresa May

All parties of any age have ghosts that haunt them: spectres from disasters of the past so great that they dare not be forgotten yet dare not be truly remembered either. Indeed, they may not really be remembered in detail at all; their legacy today lying not in memory or even mythology but in the culture and behaviour that evolved to ward off the evil spirits; a culture buried so deep that it never really need be explained other than a short ‘that’s not how we do things here’ to the new and the naive.

Read the full story here

williamglenn

Will May feel obliged, if the negotiations do go down to the wire, to sign whatever’s on offer so as to prevent a Crash Brexit?

Not at all. She will retain the option of No Brexit.

CarlottaVance

Second! Like Remain, Corbyn & Yes......and this thread....

IanB2

Third like Leave!

DecrepitJohnL

The 2017 general election was ostensibly called to give Theresa May a mandate for her vision of Brexit. Six months on, the country has no idea what that is. Just as David Cameron held the referendum before establishing what Brexit would look like, Theresa May triggered Article 50 from the same unprepared position. Perhaps she hopes for a Micawber Brexit: something will turn up.

IanB2

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

CarlottaVance

IanB2 said:

But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status

Any polling evidence for that - or is it just you projecting your loathing onto LEAVE voters?

CarlottaVance

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

CarlottaVance

Is the EU like Eurovision?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/britain-has-most-often-taken-positions-against-the-majority-in-the-council-of-the-european-union/

williamglenn

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

Because the Brexit elite have a Bennite view of the working class as noble savages and it appeals more to their vanity to imagine they are on the side of a new Peasants’ Revolt.

foxinsoxuk

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

Yes and No. Brexit is partly a radical change and partly a reaction to change, a reaction to all the changes of internationalism and globalisation.

The past is a different country and we cannot return to where we were pre entry. That was a time when we still were a major manufacturing economy and most of those markets were in the Empire and Commonwealth. Apart from anything else manufacturing no longer is a mass employer of semi skilled labour.

Brexit is radical change, but it is a reactive change, a nostalgia for a lost era.

foxinsoxuk

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Recidivist

That post by Fox in Sox is about the most inciteful I remember in the whole post Brexit debate. Thanks for sharing it.

CarlottaVance

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

ydoethur

1) The Conservatives adopted that name officially in 1834, although it had been in use before then. Although Blake argues that the Protectionists were a 'new party' in 1846 because of the loss of much of the leadership, his argument is not wholly convincing;

2) The Liberals didn't technically exist at all until 1859 - until then you should probably say 'non-Protectionist' coalitions as that is essentially what they were. Ironically the split over the Corn Laws was a key element in founding that as well. Moreover although the Conservatives didn't have a majority in this time they did of course have several spells in office, most notably 1866-68.

I would suggest a more exact parallel would be the Tariff Reform Movement of 1903 onwards, which dominated Conservative political thought for the next 29 years, cost them four elections one of which at least should have been unloseable and saw them repeatedly split within themselves before finally being enacted at the moment of least relevance and most damage.

It is also in many ways a better parallel because Labour, having been staunchly opposed to tariffs for most of its previous existence, promptly adopted it as a policy and took it much further and more aggressively than the Unionists/Conservatives ever had. And we all know Corbyn and Macdonnell will ultimately look for the hardest Brexit possible to implement their more radical ideas.

Sandpit

Very good thread as always from Mr Herdson - especially so for those of us who aren’t former students of political history. It’s certainly true that events of the last few years will be studies in political history classes of the future.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Very good thread as always from Mr Herdson - especially so for those of us who aren’t former students of political history. It’s certainly true that events of the last few years will be studies in political history classes of the future.

I doubt if they'll be able to study them all at once though.

'This semester's module is on British political history, 22nd June-21st September 2016.

It is vital you attend all lectures as there is far too much to cover if you need to catch up.'

IanB2

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

Yes and No. Brexit is partly a radical change and partly a reaction to change, a reaction to all the changes of internationalism and globalisation.

The past is a different country and we cannot return to where we were pre entry. That was a time when we still were a major manufacturing economy and most of those markets were in the Empire and Commonwealth. Apart from anything else manufacturing no longer is a mass employer of semi skilled labour.

Brexit is radical change, but it is a reactive change, a nostalgia for a lost era.

I don't see any contradiction here with my OP.

Cyclefree

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

foxinsoxuk

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

Thanks.

I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!

The deprived places in England which went Remain are interesting. Liverpool is particularly anomolous, perhaps the Irish connection. The others seem to be mostly cities, so perhaps students and migrants. Leicester fits this, and voted Remain, while prosperous and adjacent Harborough voted Leave. I suspect that if it were possible to breakdown the Brexit result even more then within constituencies we would see similar patterns on a microscale. Studenty Clarendon Park for Remain, Saffron Lane Estate for Leave.

The Joseph Rowntree Trust did some interesting statistical work looking as to how voters behaved at the margin. While it is true that level of education was a strong indicator of Brexit voting the border area of voters with A levels but not degrees behaves differently. In prosperous areas these voted Remain, like graduates did, and in less prosperous areas like those with GCSE or less. The JRT put this down to opportunity.

All these things tend to intersect. More deprived areas tend to lose young and skilled to prosperous areas. The areas of England with declining population (Copeland for example) often voted Leave.

Ultimately we are all complex individuals and there are limits to this sort of determainistic social analysis.

foxinsoxuk

IanB2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

Yes and No. Brexit is partly a radical change and partly a reaction to change, a reaction to all the changes of internationalism and globalisation.

The past is a different country and we cannot return to where we were pre entry. That was a time when we still were a major manufacturing economy and most of those markets were in the Empire and Commonwealth. Apart from anything else manufacturing no longer is a mass employer of semi skilled labour.

Brexit is radical change, but it is a reactive change, a nostalgia for a lost era.

I don't see any contradiction here with my OP.

I meant it to largely agree

CarlottaVance

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

While it is true that level of education was a strong indicator of Brexit voting the border area of voters with A levels but not degrees behaves differently.

Yep: voters with A-level education from low skilled communities had similar pro-Leave voting profiles to those with no education.......

...... Our findings, however, reject the dichotomous view of the low-educated Brexiter vs the high-educated Remainer, by showing that two groups with intermediate levels of education (voters with good GSCEs and A-levels) were more pro-Leave than the low-educated (those with no formal education and with low GSCE grades).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/31/brexit-was-not-the-voice-of-the-working-class-nor-of-the-uneducated-it-was-of-the-squeezed-middle/

As Ben Goldacre writes 'I think you'll find its a bit more complicated than that'

View_From_Cumbria

Very good article, as always.

But, if we are looking to the future then the question to ask is not the one the O Level History syllabus asked of why did we repeal the Corn Laws, but the much harder question of what was the effect of repealing the Corn Laws ?

Well, it certainly didn't achieve its principal goal of reducing the short term price of grain as there was none to import.

It did however allow the long term importation of grain and the underlying principle allowed the importation of beef from Chicago and the mid west. That destroyed the agricultural sector in the Britain in the 1870s and was not sorted out until the return of agricultural protectionism in the late 1930s.

foxinsoxuk

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

We have yesterday passed the halfway point between Brexit vote and leaving date. 505 days each side. We are nowhere near halfway there, indeed we have barely started.

IanB2

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

Thanks.

I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!

The deprived places in England which went Remain are interesting. Liverpool is particularly anomolous, perhaps the Irish connection. The others seem to be mostly cities, so perhaps students and migrants. Leicester fits this, and voted Remain, while prosperous and adjacent Harborough voted Leave. I suspect that if it were possible to breakdown the Brexit result even more then within constituencies we would see similar patterns on a microscale. Studenty Clarendon Park for Remain, Saffron Lane Estate for Leave.

The Joseph Rowntree Trust did some interesting statistical work looking as to how voters behaved at the margin. While it is true that level of education was a strong indicator of Brexit voting the border area of voters with A levels but not degrees behaves differently. In prosperous areas these voted Remain, like graduates did, and in less prosperous areas like those with GCSE or less. The JRT put this down to opportunity.

All these things tend to intersect. More deprived areas tend to lose young and skilled to prosperous areas. The areas of England with declining population (Copeland for example) often voted Leave.

Ultimately we are all complex individuals and there are limits to this sort of determainistic social analysis.

The analysis should be heavily caveated with the observation that correlating outcome for whole areas is crude and often a poor substitute for hard data on the voting behaviour of actual individuals. As TBF is accepted in the subsequent discussion on Twitter.

The most telling statistic since Brexit rose to the top of the UK political agenda is the almost disappearance of the very long-standing correlation between class (census category) and voting behaviour, as far as Con v Lab is concerned.

PClipp

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

HYUFD

Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.

'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.'
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html

There is no doubt that if May had promised to stay in the single market and leave free movement uncontrolled and ECJ jurisdiction in place and made a big payment to the EU, she would have risked becoming a latter day Peel, the Tory Party would have been completely split and in all probability most of it would have voted against such a deal and even if it had got through, which also is not guaranteed given the working class Leave voters Corbyn wanted to keep on board, UKIP would have made big gains on a cry of disrespecting the Leave vote.

Instead we are heading for a Canada style deal in the long term which means no free movement and in the long run no ECJ jurisdiction but still a large payment to the EU. That has more chance of getting through and acceptance by Tory voters and MPs but the payment issue is still a contentious run and if it is put to Parliament Tory backbenchers like IDS and Rees Mogg, maybe even Boris would vote against it as well as some Labour MPs like Hoey and it would be reliant on support from the LDs, the SNP and most of the Labour Party to get through. There is no chance of it being completed by March 2019 but if an acceptable payment has been made clear progress on it can be made and if necessary a transition deal agreed for 2 years as May has suggested which can be put to Parliament before departure.

Scott_P

foxinsoxuk said:

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/928979790819885056

foxinsoxuk

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

While it is true that level of education was a strong indicator of Brexit voting the border area of voters with A levels but not degrees behaves differently.

Yep: voters with A-level education from low skilled communities had similar pro-Leave voting profiles to those with no education.......

...... Our findings, however, reject the dichotomous view of the low-educated Brexiter vs the high-educated Remainer, by showing that two groups with intermediate levels of education (voters with good GSCEs and A-levels) were more pro-Leave than the low-educated (those with no formal education and with low GSCE grades).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/31/brexit-was-not-the-voice-of-the-working-class-nor-of-the-uneducated-it-was-of-the-squeezed-middle/

As Ben Goldacre writes 'I think you'll find its a bit more complicated than that'

To quote the JRF report:

"In low-skilled communities the difference in support for leave between graduates and those with GCSEs was 20 points. In high-skilled communities it was over 40 points. In low-skill areas the proportion of A-level holders voting leave was closer to that of people with low-skills. In high-skill areas their vote was much more similar to graduates."

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities

williamglenn

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

Yorkcity

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

If you become blinded by dogma ,it must be difficult.

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

It would amuse me if true, but I see no evidence of such cunning in Theresa. I think that the date fixing is about keeping the cabinet headbangers onside and temporarily shoring up her position.

Rebourne_Fluffy

Whilst modern Conservatism was formed around The Corn-Laws the initial fracture was The Great Reform Act (1832): Getting rid off the modern "Dunny-on-the-Wold"s - Luxembourg, Brussels and Wallonia - from disproportionate influence on Westminster would be a better anology. As for free-trade the EU is a collective which forces us to pay-to-trade: Not Peelite but old-school 'One-Nation' protectionism.

Time to be rid and to sail to a brighter future....

david_herdson

ydoethur said:

1) The Conservatives adopted that name officially in 1834, although it had been in use before then. Although Blake argues that the Protectionists were a 'new party' in 1846 because of the loss of much of the leadership, his argument is not wholly convincing;

2) The Liberals didn't technically exist at all until 1859 - until then you should probably say 'non-Protectionist' coalitions as that is essentially what they were. Ironically the split over the Corn Laws was a key element in founding that as well. Moreover although the Conservatives didn't have a majority in this time they did of course have several spells in office, most notably 1866-68.

I would suggest a more exact parallel would be the Tariff Reform Movement of 1903 onwards, which dominated Conservative political thought for the next 29 years, cost them four elections one of which at least should have been unloseable and saw them repeatedly split within themselves before finally being enacted at the moment of least relevance and most damage.

It is also in many ways a better parallel because Labour, having been staunchly opposed to tariffs for most of its previous existence, promptly adopted it as a policy and took it much further and more aggressively than the Unionists/Conservatives ever had. And we all know Corbyn and Macdonnell will ultimately look for the hardest Brexit possible to implement their more radical ideas.

I agree that the Tariff Reform movement is a closer parallel, both in its intrinsic nature and in the way it reformed its leaders from within though my point about the Corn Laws is that in our case, the crucial decision, the parallel with Peel, is yet to come (or very well may be).

But I don't think that the ghost of Joe Chamberlain stalks today's Tories in the same way that Peel's does, which is crucial to the Party's behaviour and sense of self. (I did make a call Peel "the darkest of several ghosts that stalk the party" - that was my nod to the others that exist).

I did think about being more defined about the party names but to be honest, I could have spent three paragraphs going on about the origins and formation of what ultimately became the late-19th century Conservative and Liberal Parties but it's not really crucial to the piece. For our purposes, all we need to know is that Peel divided his party and his followers split in such a way that what became the Liberal Party - the coalition of Whigs, Peelites and Radicals - dominated the next quarter century, and to an extent, why.

david_herdson

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Very good thread as always from Mr Herdson - especially so for those of us who aren’t former students of political history. It’s certainly true that events of the last few years will be studies in political history classes of the future.

I doubt if they'll be able to study them all at once though.

'This semester's module is on British political history, 22nd June-21st September 2016.

It is vital you attend all lectures as there is far too much to cover if you need to catch up.'

Is it not possible to just deliver the course in real-time?

HYUFD

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

That argument seems to be mainly one that working class ethnic minorities did not vote Leave or for Trump. That is true but it does not mean the white working class did not.

In the US Trump won white no college graduates 67% to 28%, compared to white graduates who he won 49% to 45%. Non-white non college graduates went for Hillary 75% to 20% and non white graduates by 71% to 23%. On income the argument that it was the lower middle class which won it for Trump has more ground with Hillary winning those earning under $30k by 53% to 41% and those on $30 to 50k by 51% to 42%. Trump won those on $50k to $100k by 50% to 46%, those on $100k to $200k by 48% to 47%, those on $200k to 250k by 49% to 48% and those on more than $250k by 48% to 46%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

In the EU referendum BME voters voted Remain by 69% to 31% while white voters voted Leave by 54% to 46%. Upper middle class ABs voted Remain 59% to 41%, lower middle class C1s voted Remain by 52% to 48%, skilled working class C2s voted Leave by 62% to 38% and unskilled working class and unemployed DEs voted Leave by 64% to 36%. So clearly it was the white working class which won it for Leave in the UK.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

Cyclefree

williamglenn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

I think she is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope hence the law on the date and Brexit means Brexit vacuity and generally boxing herself and, more importantly, the country into a corner from which the only options are a climbdown or a car crash.

Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.

Instead we’ve had grandstanding and threats and bluff and bluster and time wasted on pointless fights.

I was glad that the Tories did not get a huge majority in June because they become unbearably arrogant when they do have such majorities. Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

At the 2017 general election the Tories still won ABs by 47% to 37% for Labour.

The Tories did win C1s too by 44% to 40% for Labour and C2s by 45% to 41% for Labour but Labour still won DEs by 47% to 38% for the Tories.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election

david_herdson

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

ThomasNashe

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

I think she is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope hence the law on the date and Brexit means Brexit vacuity and generally boxing herself and, more importantly, the country into a corner from which the only options are a climbdown or a car crash.

Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.

Instead we’ve had grandstanding and threats and bluff and bluster and time wasted on pointless fights.

I was glad that the Tories did not get a huge majority in June because they become unbearably arrogant when they do have such majorities. Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.

It is extraordinary just how an ostensibly patriotic party has lost sight of what is in the economic interests of the country and the wellbeing of its people.

logical_song

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

It comes to something when "Mr Herdson being hopelessly optimistic" predicts such dire consequences.

Cyclefree

Yorkcity said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

If you become blinded by dogma ,it must be difficult.

The irony is that one of the justified criticisms of the EU is that it is too prone to dogma and not being pragmatic, too fond of top down theory imposed on the unwilling masses etc. And yet it is now the opponents of the EU who are being the inflexible dogmatists. That it should be Tories to adopt this sort of dogma is yet another irony.

Bleakly amusing were it not for the consequences .......

IanB2

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

At the 2017 general election the Tories still won ABs by 47% to 37% for Labour.

The Tories did win C1s too by 44% to 40% for Labour and C2s by 45% to 41% for Labour but Labour still won DEs by 47% to 38% for the Tories.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election

Nevertheless that is a very dramatic shift from the historical pattern. And if you add the C1s to the A/Bs and C2s to D/E - which is the usual breal point used by analysts - the party differential almost disappears.

Bottom line is that the Tory hierarchy still looks, thinks and behaves as if its role is to represent the ABC1s (only) when this is no longer the case in the polling booth.

foxinsoxuk

Rebourne_Fluffy said:

Whilst modern Conservatism was formed around The Corn-Laws the initial fracture was The Great Reform Act (1832): Getting rid off the modern "Dunny-on-the-Wold"s - Luxembourg, Brussels and Wallonia - from disproportionate influence on Westminster would be a better anology. As for free-trade the EU is a collective which forces us to pay-to-trade: Not Peelite but old-school 'One-Nation' protectionism.

Time to be rid and to sail to a brighter future....

Our mid nineteenth century domination of Free Trade was in large part because of 2 factors: Our prime mover status of being the original site of the industrial revolution and secondly that post 1805 we dominated the trade routes of the world via the Royal Navy. It is easy to conveniently forget that our Free Traders were significantly helped by the barrel of a gun.

Neither of these factors is in our favour any longer. What other factors are in our favour? We have just ditched our entrepot status between the EU and the Anglophone world, and acted against the interests of our financial services industry. Our brand in culture, media and music is not helped by the xenophobia of Brexiteers.

In short, what reason do we have to live as we want to? Does the world owe us a living?

Scott_P

What on earth is going on when a prime minister (in name only) has to write a newspaper column promising to bind her own hands by act of parliament? And when she does so purely to calm jangled nerves in a Brexit movement whose followers do not themselves know what they want or who leads them, while an equally leaderless former-Remain movement stares at its shoes, bereft of a response, an agenda or anyone to command them?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/may-humiliates-herself-at-the-eleventh-hour-fkc68n62c

PClipp

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

At the 2017 general election the Tories still won ABs by 47% to 37% for Labour.

The Tories did win C1s too by 44% to 40% for Labour and C2s by 45% to 41% for Labour but Labour still won DEs by 47% to 38% for the Tories.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election

Nevertheless that is a very dramatic shift from the historical pattern. And if you add the C1s to the A/Bs and C2s to D/E - which is the usual breal point used by analysts - the party differential almost disappears.

Bottom line is that the Tory hierarchy still looks, thinks and behaves as if its role is to represent the A/Bs when this is no longer the case in the polling booth.

'Almost' being the key word. The Tories still did best with ABs and worst with DEs though you are correct the gap between the Tories and Labour amongst both the middle class and working class has narrowed.

In 2015 for example the Tories won ABs by 45% to 26% for Labour, C1s by 41% to 29% for Labour and C2s were tied on 32% each for the Tories and Labour. DEs voted Labour by 41% to 27%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015

Sean_F

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.

david_herdson

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

No. And if Brexit does end with no deal, there are two sides that will be to blame for that. Leaving the EU is what the British people instructed the government to do; it is not a Conservative initiative as such - but parties that go against it will find life even tougher than those that go with it.

AlsoIndigo

Christ on a bike, another thread of handwringing about BrExit...

CarlottaVance

Powers held by the EU for the effective functioning of the European Single Market may need to stay in Westminster (rather than be devolved) for the effective functioning of the UK Single Market

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/why-the-government-is-resisting-calls-to-devolve-brexit-powers-at-once.html

CarlottaVance

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.

So not Lord Kerr, then.....

ThomasNashe

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

No. And if Brexit does end with no deal, there are two sides that will be to blame for that. Leaving the EU is what the British people instructed the government to do; it is not a Conservative initiative as such - but parties that go against it will find life even tougher than those that go with it.

Their responsibility extends further than that. Cameron called the referendum principally as a means of ending division within the Tory party. Whether it was in the country's best interests was a distinctly second-order consideration.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

That argument seems to be mainly one that working class ethnic minorities did not vote Leave or for Trump. That is true but it does not mean the white working class did not.

In the US Trump won white no college graduates 67% to 28%, compared to white graduates who he won 49% to 45%. Non-white non college graduates went for Hillary 75% to 20% and non white graduates by 71% to 23%. On income the argument that it was the lower middle class which won it for Trump has more ground with Hillary winning those earning under $30k by 53% to 41% and those on $30 to 50k by 51% to 42%. Trump won those on $50k to $100k by 50% to 46%, those on $100k to $200k by 48% to 47%, those on $200k to 250k by 49% to 48% and those on more than $250k by 48% to 46%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

In the EU referendum BME voters voted Remain by 69% to 31% while white voters voted Leave by 54% to 46%. Upper middle class ABs voted Remain 59% to 41%, lower middle class C1s voted Remain by 52% to 48%, skilled working class C2s voted Leave by 62% to 38% and unskilled working class and unemployed DEs voted Leave by 64% to 36%. So clearly it was the white working class which won it for Leave in the UK.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

31% of BME voters going for Leave was higher than most people anticipated.

OldKingCole

AlsoIndigo said:

Christ on a bike, another thread of handwringing about BrExit...

Well, given the damage it’s going to do, are you surprised?
And no, it’s not going to be easy, it’s not a ‘just leave’ situation.
As anyone who looks around them and thinks a bit can see.

There almost certainly will be some severe effects on the NHS; effect which are rarely discussed. And not just an exacerbation of staff shortages.

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Lots of the under 50's voted for Brexit. People aged 35-50 divided pretty evenly.

CarlottaVance

ThomasNashe said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

No. And if Brexit does end with no deal, there are two sides that will be to blame for that. Leaving the EU is what the British people instructed the government to do; it is not a Conservative initiative as such - but parties that go against it will find life even tougher than those that go with it.

Their responsibility extends further than that. Cameron called the referendum principally as a means of ending division within the Tory party. Whether it was in the country's best interests was a distinctly second-order consideration.

In fairness both the other main parties had, in their time, promised a referendum then reneged on that promise. In a sense, Cameron was holding the parcel when the music stopped. He compounded the error by selling his inadequate 'deal' as a great one then ran a 'Project Fear' which his opponents easily trumped.....

RochdalePioneers

A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.

It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.

And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.

Hubris. It will destroy them.

ThomasNashe

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

No. And if Brexit does end with no deal, there are two sides that will be to blame for that. Leaving the EU is what the British people instructed the government to do; it is not a Conservative initiative as such - but parties that go against it will find life even tougher than those that go with it.

Their responsibility extends further than that. Cameron called the referendum principally as a means of ending division within the Tory party. Whether it was in the country's best interests was a distinctly second-order consideration.

In fairness both the other main parties had, in their time, promised a referendum then reneged on that promise. In a sense, Cameron was holding the parcel when the music stopped. He compounded the error by selling his inadequate 'deal' as a great one then ran a 'Project Fear' which his opponents easily trumped.....

... And also did no contingency planning for what was a distinctly possible outcome of the referendum he called. History will not be kind to him.

david_herdson

RochdalePioneers said:

A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.

It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.

And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.

Hubris. It will destroy them.

Thing is, it's not 'the internal loons' that Brexit is being pursued for. If that was the only place the pressure was coming from, the leadership would ignore them, as Tory leaderships have done pretty much since 1957. What makes it almost impossible to back down from is the 17.4m Leave votes in the referendum.

Now, if Brexit really does look that bad, it may be that ducking out in some way becomes an option - but don't underestimate the political and social consequences of any party and any government that does so. As with the Corn Laws, even if it is the right decision, there's a pretty good chance that it won't solve the immediate problem anyway.

foxinsoxuk

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Lots of the under 50's voted for Brexit. People aged 35-50 divided pretty evenly.

What clinched it for both Leave and the Tories in 2017 was the grey vote.

The key determinant of how politics changes over the next decade or so is whether the current young carry forward their current attitudes into middle age, or whether they turn into their parents.

AlsoIndigo

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Christ on a bike, another thread of handwringing about BrExit...

Well, given the damage it’s going to do, are you surprised?
And no, it’s not going to be easy, it’s not a ‘just leave’ situation.
As anyone who looks around them and thinks a bit can see.

There almost certainly will be some severe effects on the NHS; effect which are rarely discussed. And not just an exacerbation of staff shortages.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that we have wrung our hands over it for months and not a single person has changes sides in the meantime, as an exercise in futility it takes some beating!

Sean_F

RochdalePioneers said:

A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.

It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.

And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.

Hubris. It will destroy them.

We're here, due to public unhappiness with the consequences of EU membership. We might not be here had Gordon Brown not reneged on his promise of a vote on the EU Treaty.

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.

I totally agree.

tlg86

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

Thanks.

I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!

The deprived places in England which went Remain are interesting. Liverpool is particularly anomolous, perhaps the Irish connection.

Merseyside is different. Our own @Pulpstar will tell you that it's the only place in the country that supports Labour like it supports one of its football teams.

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the EU was announced in the UK, many commentators immediately announced that it had been delivered by the ‘left-behind’ white working class. The equivalent constituency in the US was subsequently argued to have secured Trump the presidency. Yet in both places it has been demonstrated that the white working class vote was less significant than that of the white middle class.

So the question needs to be asked: why is the white working class being held responsible for decisions taken by the white middle classes?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Lots of the under 50's voted for Brexit. People aged 35-50 divided pretty evenly.

What clinched it for both Leave and the Tories in 2017 was the grey vote.

The key determinant of how politics changes over the next decade or so is whether the current young carry forward their current attitudes into middle age, or whether they turn into their parents.

That vote would not have been enough on its own. What clinched it for Leave was that 42 was the age at which Leave voters started to outnumber Remain. Had it been 52, Remain would have won.

Ishmael_Z

ThomasNashe said:

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. (...)
Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter peopleenduring political problem.

I fear that Mr Herdson is being hopelessly optimistic. But this is a characteristic of present-day Conservatives. Wishful thinking is not a policy.

At the time of Peel, there was a strong and sensible opposition waiting to take over the running of the country. This is a luxury which we do not have now.

Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?

There is always a strong and sensible opposition capable of taking over; it's just not always found within the existing party structures - which at a time of severe political stress can fracture anyway.

So will this strong and sensible alternative be in place before Mrs May and the Conservatives bring about economic collapse, anarchy and violence?

No. And if Brexit does end with no deal, there are two sides that will be to blame for that. Leaving the EU is what the British people instructed the government to do; it is not a Conservative initiative as such - but parties that go against it will find life even tougher than those that go with it.

Their responsibility extends further than that. Cameron called the referendum principally as a means of ending division within the Tory party. Whether it was in the country's best interests was a distinctly second-order consideration.

In fairness both the other main parties had, in their time, promised a referendum then reneged on that promise. In a sense, Cameron was holding the parcel when the music stopped. He compounded the error by selling his inadequate 'deal' as a great one then ran a 'Project Fear' which his opponents easily trumped.....

... And also did no contingency planning for what was a distinctly possible outcome of the referendum he called. History will not be kind to him.

It is not obvious what contingency plan would have survived contact with the enemy. It might have made things worse.

That doesn't affect the more serious charge, that he lost.

AlastairMeeks

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

Sean_F

tlg86 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

Thanks.

I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!

The deprived places in England which went Remain are interesting. Liverpool is particularly anomolous, perhaps the Irish connection.

Merseyside is different. Our own @Pulpstar will tell you that it's the only place in the country that supports Labour like it supports one of its football teams.

The whole area has swung relentlessly towards Labour since 1964. Even when Labour wins everything, the majorities keep increasing.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: third practice starts at 1pm, and qualifying at 4pm.

On-topic: the EU's attitude on judicial imperialism is indefensible. Alas, I agree a cliff-edge is possible. It's one reason I think we may end up remaining. We'll see.

OldKingCole

AlsoIndigo said:

OldKingCole said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Christ on a bike, another thread of handwringing about BrExit...

Well, given the damage it’s going to do, are you surprised?
And no, it’s not going to be easy, it’s not a ‘just leave’ situation.
As anyone who looks around them and thinks a bit can see.

There almost certainly will be some severe effects on the NHS; effect which are rarely discussed. And not just an exacerbation of staff shortages.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that we have wrung our hands over it for months and not a single person has changes sides in the meantime, as an exercise in futility it takes some beating!

I don’t think the polling evidence supports that contention There’s been some movement over the past couple of months, towards Remain.

Alistair

Scott_P said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/928979790819885056

That's like amending the Scotland bill to say that Scottish devolution is permanent.

hamiltonace

My son has just joined one of the top architects in London. Their office does work across Europe and the world and 60% of its London staff are eu nationals. They just moved to a new office in 2 weeks across London. So far they are just watching and waiting on brexit. If however they decide to move they will go fast. This is the problem the uk faces. It is highly dependent on a small percentage of its population for much of its tax income. These people are mobile and if they don't like the future they will move.

Can it happen? Maybe we should think about China and how it destroyed and then rebuilt its entrepreneurial class.

RochdalePioneers

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.

It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.

And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.

Hubris. It will destroy them.

Thing is, it's not 'the internal loons' that Brexit is being pursued for. If that was the only place the pressure was coming from, the leadership would ignore them, as Tory leaderships have done pretty much since 1957. What makes it almost impossible to back down from is the 17.4m Leave votes in the referendum.

Now, if Brexit really does look that bad, it may be that ducking out in some way becomes an option - but don't underestimate the political and social consequences of any party and any government that does so. As with the Corn Laws, even if it is the right decision, there's a pretty good chance that it won't solve the immediate problem anyway.

People voted to leave the EU. It's a pretty specific question about a very specific task. The loons have driven the Tories to interpret this in the most extreme way. The loons have also driven the Tories to disregard all the expert evidence and factual analysis from their supporters and patrons.

Leaving the EU does not have to mean hurling ourselves off the cliff. Some leave voters may have objected to a sane Brexit, saying we had to be out of the EEA and CU as well. At which point a decent politician would ask them where those things were on the ballot paper - then we could have been in the realm of leavers wanting a second referendum on those other things.

I am not asking the government to back down from Brexit - I voted for it remember. I am asking them to back down from the lunacy of giving us less trading rights than Turkey. Leave the EU was half the question, the other half was "and do x". The Tories can't agree on x, and that is why we are this badly screwed.

foxinsoxuk

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Lots of the under 50's voted for Brexit. People aged 35-50 divided pretty evenly.

What clinched it for both Leave and the Tories in 2017 was the grey vote.

The key determinant of how politics changes over the next decade or so is whether the current young carry forward their current attitudes into middle age, or whether they turn into their parents.

That vote would not have been enough on its own. What clinched it for Leave was that 42 was the age at which Leave voters started to outnumber Remain. Had it been 52, Remain would have won.

Which is why it matters whether their attitudes will change over time. Will those 42 year olds feel the same in 10 years? if so then the Tories are doomed.

Brexit is not just an economic decision, or an abtruse one about judicial sovereignty, it is a fundamental cultural view. Is Britain an ethno-state or a state based on ideas and values?

Yesterdays Yougov is illustrative of this. 70% of Remain voters think of Britons who were born abroad and then naturalised as British, while only 36% of Leavers do. The party breakdown is as one would expect from this:

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/929231641641406464

tlg86

RochdalePioneers said:

david_herdson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A great piece- history is always instructive, especially in a climate where when idiots decry "experts" and facts.

It's seems crystal clear why we are here. The Tories have been bitterly divided on Europe for decades, and having seen an existential threat to their perceived primacy decided they should put the question to the people and let them decide.

And so here we are. All the experts, business, industry, diplomats and the government's own assessments show how calamitous and insane a no-deal would be. Yet they pursue it anyway to try and placate their internal loons and thus keep the party together. Because maintaining the perceived primacy of the Conservative Party has been confused with the national interest.

Hubris. It will destroy them.

Thing is, it's not 'the internal loons' that Brexit is being pursued for. If that was the only place the pressure was coming from, the leadership would ignore them, as Tory leaderships have done pretty much since 1957. What makes it almost impossible to back down from is the 17.4m Leave votes in the referendum.

Now, if Brexit really does look that bad, it may be that ducking out in some way becomes an option - but don't underestimate the political and social consequences of any party and any government that does so. As with the Corn Laws, even if it is the right decision, there's a pretty good chance that it won't solve the immediate problem anyway.

People voted to leave the EU. It's a pretty specific question about a very specific task. The loons have driven the Tories to interpret this in the most extreme way. The loons have also driven the Tories to disregard all the expert evidence and factual analysis from their supporters and patrons.

Leaving the EU does not have to mean hurling ourselves off the cliff. Some leave voters may have objected to a sane Brexit, saying we had to be out of the EEA and CU as well. At which point a decent politician would ask them where those things were on the ballot paper - then we could have been in the realm of leavers wanting a second referendum on those other things.

I am not asking the government to back down from Brexit - I voted for it remember. I am asking them to back down from the lunacy of giving us less trading rights than Turkey. Leave the EU was half the question, the other half was "and do x". The Tories can't agree on x, and that is why we are this badly screwed.

Start from 1:35:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghdvVbtowM

Alanbrooke

Erdogan tells muslim women it is their duty to have lots of children

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article170516511/Erdogan-befiehlt-Musliminnen-sich-zu-vermehren.html

it will be the tootbrush moustache next

SquareRoot

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

When the result of the referendum on membership in the

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/10/why-are-the-white-working-classes-still-being-held-responsible-for-brexit-and-trump/

You may be interested in this graphical expression. 4th in the thread:

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752

Apart from the top decile of prosperity being for Remain, there is very little correlation, and quite a significant number of the most deprived seats voted Remain. The thread concludes not with the question of why Stoke voted Leave, but why Aylesbury did.

https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752

The correlation with age seems a lot stronger than with prosperity. Old people voted Leave, young for Remain. Brexit is forced on the young by the old and that in turn is part of the generational inequality that drove the June GE result. A few council houses and tinkering with student debt is not going to be enough. The Tories need to abandon Hard Brexit to get any chance of the under 50 vote back.

Lots of the under 50's voted for Brexit. People aged 35-50 divided pretty evenly.

What clinched it for both Leave and the Tories in 2017 was the grey vote.

The key determinant of how politics changes over the next decade or so is whether the current young carry forward their current attitudes into middle age, or whether they turn into their parents.

That vote would not have been enough on its own. What clinched it for Leave was that 42 was the age at which Leave voters started to outnumber Remain. Had it been 52, Remain would have won.

Which is why it matters whether their attitudes will change over time. Will those 42 year olds feel the same in 10 years? if so then the Tories are doomed.

Brexit is not just an economic decision, or an abtruse one about judicial sovereignty, it is a fundamental cultural view. Is Britain an ethno-state or a state based on ideas and values?

Yesterdays Yougov is illustrative of this. 70% of Remain voters think of Britons who were born abroad and then naturalised as British, while only 36% of Leavers do. The party breakdown is as one would expect from this:

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/929231641641406464

Don't forget under FPTP 60% can back returning to the EU but the Tories can still win most seats as long as they get to 40%. Plus of course the Tory leader at the time of the EU referendum backed Remain if it ever got to 70% wanting to return to the EU, which is pretty unlikely, the Tories could adjust accordingly.

AlastairMeeks

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

HYUFD

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

The majority of the country could not even vote at the time of Peel and Gladstone, if we still had the 19th century franchise Remain would have won comfortably.

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

youre not exactly volunteering supporting evidence yourself

SquareRoot

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

hmmm.. that's why you spoiled your ballot. they are awful, pure and simple.. Lets look at it.. Cable old man.. party only has 8 seats.. The less said about Corbyn the better.. and Momentum that runs Labour.. UKIP joke party.. Who do you suggest might run the country..

DavidL

AlsoIndigo said:

Christ on a bike, another thread of handwringing about BrExit...

No, no we are making progress. David is brave enough to suggest that millions won’t die as a result of Brexit and, so far, no one has disagreed. Of course in William Glen’s case this is only because he clings to his delusion that it is not going to happen but it’s a definite step in the right direction.

Sean_F

There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.

Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.

Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.

London, the South East and East.

In the North East and Northern Ireland house prices have actually fallen compared to ten years ago.

FF43

Leave voters think Brexit doesn't change anything (ironically), so they don't see any need to make compromises with the EU. As long as Theresa May's government serves that constituency she won't make the compromises for them or try to educate them about the consequences of not doing so.

The question is what happens when reality can no longer be denied. I doubt many Leavers will accept responsibility for their vote choice, so it will always make compromise very difficult.

I don't get the impression most Conservative MPs are enthusiastic about Brexit. I think they secretly wish it would just go away.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/925648309880066053

rkrkrk

HYUFD said:

Even the risks of a so called 'Car Crash Brexit' can be exaggerated.

'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent. Set against our new commercial opportunities overseas, and our deregulatory opportunities at home, that doesn’t seem so bad.'
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html

Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says on economics.

As a case in point - the estimates he is referring to only apply to UK exports of goods, and only apply to the reduction from tariffs.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/164821505330746382/Short-term-impact-of-Brexit-on-the-United-Kingdoms-export-of-goods

For the UK, services are rather important. Also non tariff barriers for goods.

For an overall look- this World Bank paper estimates a 28% drop in value added from no deal.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/853811484835908129/pdf/WPS7947.pdf

HYUFD

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

hmmm.. that's why you spoiled your ballot. they are awful, pure and simple.. Lets look at it.. Cable old man.. party only has 8 seats.. The less said about Corbyn the better.. and Momentum that runs Labour.. UKIP joke party.. Who do you suggest might run the country..

It is really a rejection of the electorate rather than the parties. After all it was the electorate which voted Leave and the electorate which gave Corbyn 40% of the vote, indeed the strongest vote for both came from unskilled working class and unemployed DE voters.

I think the likes of Alistair Meeks are sometimes tempted to turn the clock back to a time before universal suffrage than we can again get politicians who tell the masses what to do rather than having to respond to what the masses tell them to do at the ballot box.

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

youre not exactly volunteering supporting evidence yourself

I've only advanced one proposition. My evidence for it is Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond. Need I go on?

CarlottaVance

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.

Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.

London, the South East and East.

In the North East and Northern Ireland house prices have actually fallen compared to ten years ago.

I sold property in the North East in 2010 - for most of the time after the sale the absolute value fell - its since recovered and is now worth a bit more than the sale price - though in real terms its still worth less.....

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

youre not exactly volunteering supporting evidence yourself

I've only advanced one proposition. My evidence for it is Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond. Need I go on?

no harm advancing a proposition, but it's a weak argument that cant present a viable alternative when asked

Scott_P

rkrkrk said:

Dan Hannan is a wonderful writer and speaker but I would be very cautious about trusting anything he says

on anything.

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market."...

SquareRoot

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

youre not exactly volunteering supporting evidence yourself

I've only advanced one proposition. My evidence for it is Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond. Need I go on?

no harm advancing a proposition, but it's a weak argument that cant present a viable alternative when asked

You have an answer.. Do tell us.. the DUP.. Sinn Fein?

MJW

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!

Thanks.

I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!

Ultimately we are all complex individuals and there are limits to this sort of determainistic social analysis.

Liverpool was European Capital of Culture in 2008 and the city got a huge boost from it - and not totally because of EU funds but because the whole thing sparked a resurgence in the city as a tourist destination and inspired people to instigate their own projects. As a result, there's a lot more affection for the EU than perhaps elsewhere. You still have your 'left behind' groups but they are more on the margins. You'd find it a lot more tricky doing Brexiteer VoxPops where some bloke says the town's been going downhill for years and he's glad we're out. It's an extreme example of something I think is an underrated factor in the leave vote - namely that cities that were the subject of largely successful regeneration projects - Manchester and Newcastle, voted in. The split one is Leeds, which is notorious for its very affluent city centre and comparatively deprived outskirts (in fact, it took EU money to address this - but has struggled. It voted almost exactly 50-50. Then you have Sunderland, which voted out despite its position next to Newcastle and the fact they share a metro system. Why? Well you can perhaps point to the fact that Sunderland's regeneration efforts stalled in the 2000s. Sheffield, which voted leave, is a case study in how to botch regeneration projects - as Meadowhall has harmed the city centre and you had things like the ill-fated Pop Museum. Obviously, towns outside the home counties commuter belt have had it even harder - and were even liklier to go leave.

You can overstate this, the margins are slim (even big 'remain' or 'leave' votes are 60-40). But It think it may have made a big difference between voters who were generally unbothered but unenthusiastic about the EU feeling a sense of decline and opting to leave and feeling more optimistic and opting to stay in those areas - and ultimately, those voters, not the cartoon character racists or ludicrous Hannanites, are the ones who matter.

The sad thing of course is that Brexit will do nothing to solve these issues, even if it's not a complete disaster.

AlastairMeeks

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

hmmm.. that's why you spoiled your ballot. they are awful, pure and simple.. Lets look at it.. Cable old man.. party only has 8 seats.. The less said about Corbyn the better.. and Momentum that runs Labour.. UKIP joke party.. Who do you suggest might run the country..

I spoiled the ballot paper because no party deserved my vote. They were all differently bad. Labour were not a worse option than the Conservatives, just as appendicitis is not a worse option than kidney stones.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.

Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.

That is a direct consequence of Osborne’s tax policies and he was right to discourage it. The problem is that lenders will require much bigger deposits when the market is stable than when it is rising. Whilst affordability is superficially improving a combination of static wages, more insecure employment and the demand for higher deposits is excluding too many people from the market.

My daughter is house hunting at the moment. She is being offered a fairly high multiple of her salary but needs to produce a 25% deposit. When I bought my first house my deposit was less than 10%.

another_richard

Sean_F said:

There's an interesting item on housing on the BBC, and how prices have changed over the past 10 years. Overall, house prices have fallen in real terms since 2007, quite sharply in some regions. London is the glaring exception. For young people, the problem is not house prices per se, but that lenders require much bigger deposits than they did ten years ago.

Interestingly, buy to let's have collapsed, compared to ten years ago.

The owning v renting chart is politically significant.

foxinsoxuk

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SquareRoot said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The modern Conservative party has no politicians of the calibre of Peel and Gladstone.

No political party has, that's the problem. The Tories are awful, but every other option would be worse.

Your final proposition is lacking supporting evidence,

youre not exactly volunteering supporting evidence yourself

I've only advanced one proposition. My evidence for it is Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond. Need I go on?

I think that Hammond should not be in that trio. He can be a little bit politically clumsy, but he is the voice of economic reason in the cabinet. He is not a political giant, but is at least a giant relative to his colleagues.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

IanB2 said:

Imposing radical change - which is what Brexit is - upon the country ought to be contrary to conservative DNA. But so many have the illusion that this is simply 'unwinding' to Britain's pre-1970s status, having obsessed about refighting the first referendum ever since, and therefore reassuringly familiar. Leavers appear largely blind to the fact that in forty five years Britain's institutional framework has converged significantly with that of the EU, and the mere fact of leaving now represents a dramatic upheaval and shock to society and our economy.

Even if they are right that the end destination offers the UK opportunities that are closed to us within the EU (and it didn't look that way back in the 1970s as we were overtaken by our European competitors), the question of whether the price of breaking from B back to A is worth paying to access these is never properly considered.

Big changes always win more enemies than friends. I think the Conservatives have already lost a chunk of their traditional AB/business support for a long time, and they are struggling to adapt their offering to the new position of having as much C1/2DE support as Labour. If the latter people end disillusioned with what Brexit delivers them - which appears almost inevitable given the unrealistic expectations raised by Leave's thoroughly disingenuous selling exercise - then the Tories, who will remain tied to Brexit in voters' minds for a generation, will have an enduring political problem.

Conservative DNA has plainly changed. No one can claim that Brexit was unpopular with Conservative voters in general. They are no longer unideological people who simply react to the ideological Labour Party.

That's a very good summary of how Conservative Governments operated for most of the 20th Century.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Very good article, Mr Herdson.

If Mrs May has a sense of duty to her country, she would do everything possible to avoid a crash Brexit. That would allow her to leave office - even if she were forced out by the loons in her party - with something of her reputation intact. It would be best for the country (and also the Tories) for a crash Brexit to be avoided.

But the country comes first. It is a pity that too many Tories fail to see that.

The fixing of exit date seems bizarre and dangerous.

Extension of A50 period is the most obvious way of avoiding car crash Brexit without cancelling Brexit.

May is the ultimate Brexit saboteur. Fixing the exit date is an obvious ruse to make cancellation the only option.

I think she is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope hence the law on the date and Brexit means Brexit vacuity and generally boxing herself and, more importantly, the country into a corner from which the only options are a climbdown or a car crash.

Any sensible politician would have realised that unpicking a relationship of over 40 years duration would take time and should be done slowly and gradually and methodically and with some thought and care.

Instead we’ve had grandstanding and threats and bluff and bluster and time wasted on pointless fights.

I was glad that the Tories did not get a huge majority in June because they become unbearably arrogant when they do have such majorities. Now I’m beginning to wish that they would just crawl away into some dark corner never to be heard of again.

You want the Left to dominate the UK forevermore?