The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.
It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.
Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.
Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.
Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.
Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?
Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?
The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.
The Tories are implementing the Leave vote 17 million voted for, a vote even Corbyn has promised to respect too
Not denying that, but it is trashing their reputation on economic and administrative matters.
"Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way. " And another way is that many saw their vote as a cost-free protest because the Tories were so far ahead in the polls that a Corbyn victory was just not on the cards.
If that was true, then why have those people stuck with Corbyn in the polls since?
While polls can be taken with a pinch of salt, the May local elections are looking to confirm the national picture.
Ed Miliband won the 2014 Local Elections the last time the seats up in May were contested and we know what happened the following year
The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.
It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.
Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.
Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.
Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.
Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?
Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?
The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.
The Tories are implementing the Leave vote 17 million voted for, a vote even Corbyn has promised to respect too
Not denying that, but it is trashing their reputation on economic and administrative matters.
If the Tories failed to fully implement the Brexit the clear majority of their voters voted for, then they really would be trashed
The date on improving productivity is the most important piece of news. Rising living standards would be the tories biggest ally.
It didn't work for Major in the late 1990's, indeed it made Labour seem more affordable to remedy the parlous state of public services.
Tories do better electorally when voters are feeling financially squeezed, and loath to forkout more in spending.
It didn't work for Major because Labour was run by Mr Blair who didn't seem like a threat to people's finances or aspirations.
Whether the voters will take the same view in relation to a Corbyn-led Labour is what is unclear. It depends on (a) his manifesto; (b) how far they believe him; and (c) their view of the Tories.
Conventional thinking now has it that the voters looked at Corbyn and were not scared by what they saw; indeed they saw much that was attractive. And that may be what happens next time.
Another way of looking at it is that they saw a Tory party threatening their assets and Labour which wasn't and a significant number moved to the party that wasn't attacking their finances. It is not a given that Labour will continue to be seen in that way.
Sure, we are in the phoney war phase between elections, so who knows?
Many voters vote on non economic factors, but even those that do, do not seem to find Corbynism any more threatening than the Tory Brexiteers. Why should we listen to their scare predictions for Corbynism while also accepting them rubbishing the Brexit economic forecasts?
The truth is that the Tories are trashing their 2 strongest suits: economic credibility and administrative competence.
The Tories are implementing the Leave vote 17 million voted for, a vote even Corbyn has promised to respect too
Not denying that, but it is trashing their reputation on economic and administrative matters.
If the Tories failed to fully implement the Brexit the clear majority of their voters voted for, then they really would be trashed
Yep. Trashed either way. A good time to be in opposition methinks.
She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.
She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.
Thanks for the very interesting report - sounds a good evening. A bit surprised that Stella seemed statist - she has always seemed to me very much a pragmatist on the lines that Tony Blair was at first ("let's do whatever works"), though not the zealous fan of private delivery of services that he later became.
But yes, the tendency to portray one's argument as the only sensible approach is an occupational hazard of MPs. One reason I like Oliver Letwin is that I've frequently heard him express doubt or even change his mind during discussion.,
The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.
I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......
Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.
She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.
She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.
There was a tendency with her and Monbiot to say that all the bad things which people brought up about the Left were not "really" the Left at all or not "their" Left. Understandable on a human level, maybe. But an intellectual sleight of hand, I'm afraid, nonetheless. And, bluntly, intellectually dishonest, though I don't doubt their honesty in condemning what they didn't like.
The weakness on the right was that they were not particularly specific about how they thought capitalism or conservatism could help people better than socialism. Nor did they really accept that one needs a strong left to keep capitalism honest, that many of the improvements which capitalism has brought about only happened because the left were there making the case for the poor and the dispossessed.
Oh - and Monbiot did not know that women were given the vote under a Tory government and that Mrs Pankhurst stood as a Tory MP. Tsk.....
I agree, but:
The Representation of the People act given Royal Assent on Feb 6 1918 was under PM Lloyd George's Wartime Coalition government. This included Cabinet level representation of Liberals, Tories and Labour. It was not a Tory government.
The best speeches were by Monbiot and Scruton though all of them were good. The MPs, particularly Creasey, tended to do the sort of speech that we lawyers call "jury speeches", high on emotion but short on argument. Monbiot was fluent and passionate and convincing; Scruton quieter and a touch more hesitant and personal, like an academic throwing thoughts out, seemingly randomly. But he had a very nice way of puncturing Monbiot's flights of fancy in a droll way which got the audience on his side.
There was a surprising amount of consensus. I liked Kwarteng and Creasy too. Both her and Monbiot were quizzed by someone in the audience about intolerance and anti-semitism and gave very good sincere answers. Tuition fees were raised: if the Tories think a year long review is the answer they need to think again. A lot of concern from all sides about crony capitalism and corporatism and the power of the Googles/Facebooks/Amazons of this world.
I'm looking forward to the next one which is on the topic: "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere."
I do hope Mr Meeks is in the audience.......
Stella Creasy is a star. She always comes over as sincere and empathetic.
She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.
There was a tendency with her and Monbiot to say that all the bad things which people brought up about the Left were not "really" the Left at all or not "their" Left. Understandable on a human level, maybe. But an intellectual sleight of hand, I'm afraid, nonetheless. And, bluntly, intellectually dishonest, though I don't doubt their honesty in condemning what they didn't like.
The weakness on the right was that they were not particularly specific about how they thought capitalism or conservatism could help people better than socialism. Nor did they really accept that one needs a strong left to keep capitalism honest, that many of the improvements which capitalism has brought about only happened because the left were there making the case for the poor and the dispossessed.
Oh - and Monbiot did not know that women were given the vote under a Tory government and that Mrs Pankhurst stood as a Tory MP. Tsk.....
IIRC Roger Scruton is one of those conservatives who isn't necessarily fond of capitalism.
It has been hard to hate the Tories much recently, more comedy party than nasty party. All this nonsense just adds to the already fairly widely held view that much of the printed press just spouts baseless right wing propaganda. I think if anything this kind of thing reinforces Corbyn and Labour.
My view is the Tories should try to keep on going with it, although I may not have their best interests at heart.
She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.
She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.
Thanks for the very interesting report - sounds a good evening. A bit surprised that Stella seemed statist - she has always seemed to me very much a pragmatist on the lines that Tony Blair was at first ("let's do whatever works"), though not the zealous fan of private delivery of services that he later became.
But yes, the tendency to portray one's argument as the only sensible approach is an occupational hazard of MPs. One reason I like Oliver Letwin is that I've frequently heard him express doubt or even change his mind during discussion.,
I would not want to overstate it. She came across very well and I can quite see why you would support her. I would vote for her.
She was trying to win an argument, that’s all.
Kwasi was a bit like Letwin in that he was very prepared to agree with some of what Stella and Monbiot said and, indeed, provided a very strong critique of the failure to nail responsibility for those in charge of banks during the crisis and of crony capitalism, though he did say at one point during this that he was not speaking as a Tory MP, which was interesting! I liked him. There was more of a tendency for both him and Scruton to agree with some of the critiques their opponents made but then explain why their solutions were better.
Well worth attending - based on the evidence of this one - if you’re ever in London.
It has been hard to hate the Tories much recently, more comedy party than nasty party. All this nonsense just adds to the already fairly widely held view that much of the printed press just spouts baseless right wing propaganda. I think if anything this kind of thing reinforces Corbyn and Labour.
My view is the Tories should try to keep on going with it, although I may not have their best interests at heart.
The whole Corbyn issue smacks of desperation....if it is the best the Conservatives can throw at him, they really are in trouble.....I just wonder what can be dug up about Boris J et al when the time comes.......what it says to me is a colourful past (like BJ) is likely to be discussed endlessly, it is Testament to May's dullness that running through the Cornfields is so aptly remembered.
We were told on here and elsewhere time and time again that juvenile attacks on Gordon Brown wouldn’t work and that he was a titan of good governance and integrity. All the way up until he was smashed at the election.
Corbyn starting from a far lower base - these blows are cumulative.
I don't believe the juvenile attacks did work. What worked was him being in charge when the financial crash came and the degree to which the public saw him as being responsible for our poor state of readiness. He also suffered from his personality which was seen to be clunking and dour in comparison to Cameron. I don't really see that any of the more specific personal attacks on him worked very well at all.
My sense at the time was that the juvenile attacks on Ed Miliband did work. I wonder if it’s because his policy offer wasn’t bold enough to get people’s attention - so people just focused on the silly stuff.
She does. I like her. My criticism of her would be that she is a bit too quick to assume that only her way is the right way. So she made the very valid point that we can achieve more when we work together, a point with which everyone agreed. But she seemed to think that this could only mean that the state needed to do everything rather than realising - or looking around at the world - and seeing that collective action can be in many forms. The state is not the only permissible form of collective action.
She criticised PFI deals but might have acknowledged that a very significant number of them were brought about by a Labour government. Crony capitalism and corporatism are not just failings of the right.
Thanks for the very interesting report - sounds a good evening. A bit surprised that Stella seemed statist - she has always seemed to me very much a pragmatist on the lines that Tony Blair was at first ("let's do whatever works"), though not the zealous fan of private delivery of services that he later became.
But yes, the tendency to portray one's argument as the only sensible approach is an occupational hazard of MPs. One reason I like Oliver Letwin is that I've frequently heard him express doubt or even change his mind during discussion.,
I would not want to overstate it. She came across very well and I can quite see why you would support her. I would vote for her.
She was trying to win an argument, that’s all.
Kwasi was a bit like Letwin in that he was very prepared to agree with some of what Stella and Monbiot said and, indeed, provided a very strong critique of the failure to nail responsibility for those in charge of banks during the crisis and of crony capitalism, though he did say at one point during this that he was not speaking as a Tory MP, which was interesting! I liked him. There was more of a tendency for both him and Scruton to agree with some of the critiques their opponents made but then explain why their solutions were better.
Well worth attending - based on the evidence of this one - if you’re ever in London.
Thanks for your report, sounds like a good evening out to think about next time I’m in London. Hopefully they end up online somewhere in due course.
It's hilarious. The rightwing press has made Corbyn electable and leveson2 inevitable.
Er...why?
I think you will find there is more to come out on all this....
Keep digging it's going so well.
What makes you think it’s going badly? Only amongst PB obsessive are day to day movements in sentiment monitored. Out in the country this all makes Corbyn look even less like PM material. Some of it will stick - rightly so.
It has been hard to hate the Tories much recently, more comedy party than nasty party. All this nonsense just adds to the already fairly widely held view that much of the printed press just spouts baseless right wing propaganda. I think if anything this kind of thing reinforces Corbyn and Labour.
My view is the Tories should try to keep on going with it, although I may not have their best interests at heart.
The whole Corbyn issue smacks of desperation....if it is the best the Conservatives can throw at him, they really are in trouble.....I just wonder what can be dug up about Boris J et al when the time comes.......what it says to me is a colourful past (like BJ) is likely to be discussed endlessly, it is Testament to May's dullness that running through the Cornfields is so aptly remembered.
This is not “the best the Conservatives can throw st him”. These are accusations made by an ex-Czech security officer in a national newspaper. At the very least they are questions Corbyn needs to answer.
If there is nothing there I am sure he will have no problem authorising the release of the file held on him by the East German secret police.
Comments
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/966454271800692736
But yes, the tendency to portray one's argument as the only sensible approach is an occupational hazard of MPs. One reason I like Oliver Letwin is that I've frequently heard him express doubt or even change his mind during discussion.,
My view is the Tories should try to keep on going with it, although I may not have their best interests at heart.
She was trying to win an argument, that’s all.
Kwasi was a bit like Letwin in that he was very prepared to agree with some of what Stella and Monbiot said and, indeed, provided a very strong critique of the failure to nail responsibility for those in charge of banks during the crisis and of crony capitalism, though he did say at one point during this that he was not speaking as a Tory MP, which was interesting! I liked him. There was more of a tendency for both him and Scruton to agree with some of the critiques their opponents made but then explain why their solutions were better.
Well worth attending - based on the evidence of this one - if you’re ever in London.
I wonder if it’s because his policy offer wasn’t bold enough to get people’s attention - so people just focused on the silly stuff.
What makes you think it’s going badly? Only amongst PB obsessive are day to day movements in sentiment monitored. Out in the country this all makes Corbyn look even less like PM material. Some of it will stick - rightly so.
If there is nothing there I am sure he will have no problem authorising the release of the file held on him by the East German secret police.