Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Only 3 LAB leaders have ever won overall majorities and th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Only 3 LAB leaders have ever won overall majorities and the creed of the most successful is now being dismissed as a “virus”
One of the things that is often said, particularly by Tories, is that excluding Tony Blair the last time Labour secured an overall working majority was in 1966. That was a very long time ago.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No stizzent. The Conservative Party has a clear overall majority of 12. Or 16, if you un-count Sinn Fein. Or 200, if you allow for the nincompoopismatic uselessness of the Labour opposition. And, unlike in 1992-1997, Conservative MPs aren't in the habit of dying these days, so the majority of 12 will remain virtually intact for all essential purposes.
Then in 2020, Prime Minister George Osborne will lead the Conservative Party into a landslide victory with 500 seats, compared with about 50 for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.
Was 1997-2007 really a Labour government?
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had temporarily gained control of the Labour Party...
People are aching for something different and real, even a codger in beard and sandals who makes Michael Foot look like the best PM we never had...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/20/article-2662719-1EEE326200000578-499_634x359.jpg
And the Freedom of Information Act was a big progressive win, although Blair personally turned against it.
I think the left would see the whole thing differently if it hadn't been for the Iraq War.
There is always a balance to be struck, of course, between how much any given candidate represents and articulates your views, and how likely that candidate is to win. But I think the view that many on the left are taking is that the other three candidates are offering compromises that they don't want to make without any particularly convincing chance of winning - the worst of all worlds. Faced with a selection of losers, why not just pick the loser you like best?
(Personally, I'm slightly surprised and slightly disappointed that the party seems so cold towards Liz Kendall, who originally struck me as by far the most engaging of the four, although her campaign hasn't really caught fire. But I can understand the lack of enthusiasm towards Yvette Cooper, whose tactics seem to be as inoffensive as possible and Hoover up the second preferences; and Andy Burnham, pithily summarised on Labourlist by one of his grudging supporters as "Andy 'he'll do, I suppose" Burnham'.)
And there really is more to politics than following public opinion. In my view, the most successful British politician was Winston Churchill in the Second World War, who (so my understanding of history goes) did not really reflect public opinion in 1940, which was more closely aligned with the fatalism of Lord Halifax. Instead, he successfully changed and mobilised public opinion to support a course of action he thought worthwhile. (He didn't, of course, have to win an election, but I think the point still holds.)
Just to be clear, I am not likening Jeremy Corbyn to Winston Churchill. My point is that there is more to politics than simply following public opinion. Politicians should sometimes try to persuade public opinion, rather than simply reflect it.
(Please excuse any random words which have crept in; I'm writing this on an iPad which seems strangely determined to change what I'm trying to type.)
The SNP is only a regional power rather than a national one.
We are thankfully back to the norm of two party politics - if indeed we ever really left it.
In fairness to Tories, I think they are having fun with the 1966 stat as for ages they were made fun of for not having won at all since 1992, and loads of us didn't think they could this time either.
It's true the same applies for the Conservatives since 1992. But they did manage it in England this year, as well as winning an overall majority, and have the prospect of clocking it again with a Corbyn-led Labour party and consequent tactical votes in GE2020.
Labour do not.
The irony is that most of the Conservative leadership, and 3/4 of the Labour candidates would be quite at home in the LDs, who lost. Of course under Conrad Corbyn there will be no such problem
If only Tony Blair had listened a bit more. Corbyn is weak on economic policy, but on social and foreign policy he tends to be correct.
On topic, it is also well worth noting that Harold Wilson was on the right of the Labour party and was certainly no socialist - in fact, he achieved his first steps in cabinet when Bevan and the other genuine socialists stormed out in a huff over emergency measures to try and deal with the huge debts their policies had run up.
That means that the only socialist - well, left-wing social democratic, as Attlee was not a 'socialist' in the classic meaning of the word - to ever win an election in this country was Attlee in 1945, under very unusual circumstances and against a government that had been more or less discredited by the events of the late 1930s. He fought no fewer than five elections, winning one by a huge margin, one by a very narrow margin, losing one by a narrow margin, and losing the other two by very large margins. Not exactly a walking advert for the electoral appeal of Socialism.
Nor of course are 1931, 1983 and 1987, when Labour again tried to be genuinely socialist...
So I will ask Nick again just in case he missed my question.... As he was an MP.....
"Agreed Nick. Many in difficulties agreed again. My problem here and my only one is why do thousands and thousands cross so many safe countries then risk death under the wheels of a truck or in front of an express train just to get here?
What's wrong with France?"
Over to you Nick.
( just for the record as Nick knows I am quite a fan as he is one of the very few MPs and now former MPs that still puts himself in front of us the electorate and at least takes the incoming flak... Even if he is Labour)
Although I fundamentally disagree with Corbyn I respect him, he stands up for what he believes, a refreshing contrast to the other 3 candidates. I wish more politicians adopted the approach where they say what they think and invite the public to vote, rather than simply saying what people want to hear.
He's a breath of fresh air and has created real interest, I wish him well. Assuming he wins, PMQs will become fascinating.
:tyson-is-a-joke:
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/626868674578808832
One should note NPXMP trying to make a statement that is only his own opinion and make it look like fact. It really isn't fact, its only an opinion.
In any event all this argument about immigration brought up by the left has sweet fanny adams to do with immigration and everything to gettting leadership soundbites in the news.
Nothing Labour says about immigration should be trusted. We know what they did in office.
They seem to have a real problem with offering soemthing to the aspirational working class, self employed, and non-metropolitan Middle-England.
Perhaps they just don't want to.
He would have talked to SF under any circumstance. The British government only did so once they'd secured a measure of stability such that SF knew they could never win by force.
Reporter on Today this morning spoke to a Sudanese man. She was very surprised at how open he was: the reason (he said) why people want to come to England rather than stay in France or Italy is because they think they can get jobs there.... at least they are reporting it, which is the first step...
This Sudanese guy said that the security measures have stepped up so much that a lot of migrants are getting injured or killed trying to cross. Therefore he has decided that the risk/return profile has shifted & hence has decided to claim asylum in France. The BBC's conclusion: improved security measures are beginning to work (without crediting the government)
As it was..... The rest is history.
Tories don't tend to get exercised like this when they lose - we don't see protest marches against Labour HMGs in Trafalgar Sq, except for once in my lifetime. When Tories are in power, they're ten a penny.
The electorate are neither stupid or evil, they vote in their self-interest. When the majority thinks the economy can stand a spending splurge and the Tories haven't dished out enough apple pie - Labour gets back in.
I find the swings from one to the other rather reassuring - hence my horror at Gordon's Legacy - it wasn't just a blip of spending - it totally screwed us for a generation. The Winter of Discontent was a brief shower in comparison.
last time I checked, there wasn't a double dip!
So he considered the UK better for jobs and settled for socialist France instead of potential injury or death. Very sensible. I now have the solution to the entire problem, it would end the camps overnight and the occupants would seek a better life and more opportunity in such places as ohhhh Libya, Syria, North Korea?
On every other concrete post they put up to support the fence at the Chunnel they put a loudspeaker with a live feed from R5 news.
Sorted !
It is a mobile world and increasingly one where even the poorest in Africa can aspire to live a new life elsewhere. Africa is a very young continent, in Malawi for example half the population is under 15.
And can we really distinguish between political and economic migrants? Economic policy is a core of politics and if a dominant group decides to control access to economic resources then is that economic migration or political? To go back to our own history: was the exodus from Ireland to the USA and empire in the 19th Century due to political or economic factors? Ditto the Highland clearances and the Enclosures.
Liberal societies with sound economies are very attractive to potential migrants in a globalised world. The paradox is that liberal immigration policies run the risk of destroying the liberality on which they are based. This is a phenomenon throughout Europe, and particularly in Scandanavia where the nationalist parties are quite keen on the welfare state. A welfare state is incompatible with a fairly open border. We have to choose.
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Speaking of, it's been a few weeks since our refusal to negotiate, as they term it, has been decried as an appalling neo colonial outrage, we must be due another one soon.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
But CiF is thrilled so all is well in the world.
However, by the time he was in office he was firmly on the right of the party, insofar as he was ever firm on anything. Who was it said that he only had two problems - his face?
My one disappointment was that the lib dems were not treated as well as they should have been at the ballot box given the circumstances. Clegg and the LD took one for the team ( country) . The coalition turfed Brown out of No10. There were also lib dem ministers that acted as excellent members of government for 5 years as did Tories working in cooperation and achieving a single goal.
I make special mention of Danny Alexander here. I am not a lib dem either but I do recognise when people put country before themselves. I was saddened to see Danny lose his seat it was not warranted. I really want to see Danny back in the front line of politics quickly.
On the other hand Cable should have crossed the floor in 2010 and played with his nuke button from the oppo benches.
@BBCNormanS: If @Corbyn4Leader becomes leader Labour will be out of power for up to 15 years - Ken Jackson @BBCr4today
As Cookie rightly puts it, there's a balance to be struck between campaigning for what you believe in and engaging in an electoral strategy that will deliver it.
That said, I think Labour's currently reeling from having lost an election they expected to win (i.e. end up in office; an overall majority was always a push), from being wiped out in Scotland, and from the near-annihilation of the Lib Dems (who many still see as natural allies, particularly in places they've already written off themselves), and consequently have no idea of what *does* make an electoral strategy to deliver power.
I was in the pub with friends the day it was announced by the barmaid. My best friend was on shore leave and we all just looked at him and our hearts sank - he looked stunned and excited. He was 18. Fortunately, he came back safely - but it really did make me extremely patriotic/defender of our Armed Services. Talking about the Falklanders like chattles makes my hackles rise.
Blair and Attlee, public school boys.
Wilson, grammar school like Corbyn.
Comprehensives have so far failed to produce a successful Labour leader.
Hollande won (and will likely lead to Le Pen next time round)
Syriza won (and Greece is even more ****ed)
Corbyn can win...
He said that they were cutting locks to enter the lorries - spoiling or ejecting the goods and then he had to go through insurance clams, which are proving troublesome. Who in France is selling them bolt-cutters?
This seems to be a perfect picture of swarming.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
However, it should also be noted - and this severely weakens the case for renationalisation - is that one key reason reason the railways are so much more expensive is because they have had to have massive investment in them to deal with what one of the Bob Reids called 'the crumbling edge of quality' - in other words, to make up for the fact that BR had not put any money into most of them for over forty years. This was of course because the civil servants at the Department of Transport believed that railways were out of date and needed to be gradually run down and replaced by roads ('managed decline' in their jargon) and although a few ministers, mostly Labour, tried to beat against it they were unable to make much headway. So as railways were to be got rid of, why waste money on them?
Renationalisation would have its advantages, starting with reintegrating the track and trains (possibly the worst idea in history to break the two up) but it's certainly not a panacea.
But was it Blairism that won it, or was it a) the unpopularity of the Conservatives b) the good economic times, which meant that voters could take a risk and c) Blair's sleazy salesman charm (which always eluded me, but had Beeboids and others slavering over him)?
We'll never know, but the polls, for what they're worth, had Labour 20 points ahead before Blair had been elected, and he was actually less popular in 1997 than when he became Labour leader in 1994. That may not prove that Blairism, which was unveiled better 1994-7, was unpopular, but it hardly proves that it was that, and nothing else, that won in 1997.
Most people who've given this any thought agree that John Smith would most likely have won handsomely in 1997, had he lived (or, such was the unpopularity of the Conservatives, maybe had he not ...) Of course it is pointless to speculate about 2001 and 2005 under him.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
Chalk and apples.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
I think the answer to "why not France?" Is two fold: firstly the better economic prospects, and secondly the greater tolerance of subcultures where migrants can live in a half way house between European and their original culture. It is why they go to London rather than Cumbria etc. Much the same applies to the Scandinavian countries.
It is a mobile world and increasingly one where even the poorest in Africa can aspire to live a new life elsewhere. Africa is a very young continent, in Malawi for example half the population is under 15.
And can we really distinguish between political and economic migrants? Economic policy is a core of politics and if a dominant group decides to control access to economic resources then is that economic migration or political? To go back to our own history: was the exodus from Ireland to the USA and empire in the 19th Century due to political or economic factors? Ditto the Highland clearances and the Enclosures.
Liberal societies with sound economies are very attractive to potential migrants in a globalised world. The paradox is that liberal immigration policies run the risk of destroying the liberality on which they are based. This is a phenomenon throughout Europe, and particularly in Scandanavia where the nationalist parties are quite keen on the welfare state. A welfare state is incompatible with a fairly open border. We have to choose.
Thanks and good post.
I have worked a lot in Africa mainly west Africa and the South. I started around 25 years ago My last was around 4 years ago in Congo and Demo ReP pf Congo,
Despite the pop concerts, the foreign aid and god knows how many other initiatives nothing has changed not a thing except one.
The children I saw sitting outside the same ( and I mean the precise house) ramshackle homes are no longer children any more but parents. Their children looked like their parents did 25 years ago. That is the tragedy here because it matters not how much you pay for your pop concert ticket the people at the bottom are still in the same situation as they ever were.
You only really really appreciate it when you see it first hand. Many don't see it and can never understand simply from their armchairs with google maps on windows 10
The cost of the war was £1,000,000 per Falklander plus one dead soldier per 12 Falklanders. We could have upped the "bribe" to £250,00 per head (say £1,000,000 per family) and it would still be a win/win. A win for the Falklanders if they preferred a £1,000,000 to staying put. A win for Britian in saving a lot of money, lives and ships.
Jingoism blinkers you to creative win/win solutions.
Was that apocryphal or some truth in it? Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
Of course, we all know how reliable the polls are, but...
Widespread support for a Corbynite policy of free tuition fees and restoration of student grants would prompt Osborne to reassess the current situation. Everyone knows that much of the Student loan book will not be repaid, so why not be honest and have a debt jubilee, combined with future funding from taxation?
There certainly would be that risk with electing Corbyn: that the changes he might make to selection and recruitment procedures, promotions to the shadow cabinet (that change Miliband made away from PLP elections to it isn't looking quite so clever now), and the effect that the general tone of policy might have on the balance of membership - bring in Stop The War-ers and alienating Blairites - may make it difficult not just for an electable leader to take over in 2018 or 2019 but after the election in 2020 too.
Privatisation of the railways was one of the things that first led me to believe I was a Conservative supporter in the 1990s.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
The lease on the New Territories was expiring, it wasn't going to be extended. Giving the people a vote on it wouldn't have changed that. Not giving them passports, maybe, as I doubt many would have actually decided to move to Britain.
Surely a pragmatic decision to try and end the hostilities? Note that the Argentinians decided that negotiations weren't going anywhere, and invaded (the opposite order of the IRA).
Anyway, none of that changes the fact her statement on the Falklands was well said.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
From a position of legal and, given the context, extreme military weakness, Thatcher negotiated for the Hong Kongers to have one country, two systems until 2047. Given the recent democratic protests to protect the spirit of that deal, it could still lead to more widespread democracy in what will be the world's superpower. That would never happen had all the liberals left.
Yes, at some point this bullet will probably need to be bitten, probably when the Student Loan Company does something even more cretinous than usual (that would have to be seriously cretinous) and loses a couple of billion down the back of the sofa. But I don't think it will be done yet.
And grants, of course, would mean a big increase in upfront costs - yes, I know, it would make no actual cashflow difference but the accountants would wince over it.
Similar problems regarding PFI (even worse shambles). Taking PFI contracts off their holders today would be the right choice administratively, but it would cause the collapse of the government finances tomorrow.
That's also of course assuming that there is administrative capacity to deal with these things directly left in the government, which there may not be.
The reason I'm only here occasionally is that I'm having a long holiday in the US - a week touring California doing all kinds of things I've never done from seal-watching to trampolining to painting to scary Disneyland rides, and currently 3 days in Las Vegas. I've just come in from a 3-hour poker session with eight affable, drunken rednecks, who adopted me as their English mascot, alternately calling me a frigging idiot and their best friend as they got through the Budweisers and I got through their stacks.
My general plan is that if I'm taking a possibly permanent holiday from serious politics, I may as well catch up with the rest of life. It's proving not such a bad idea.