I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
Strange to see 3% in 2010 rising to 13% in 2015 described as 'taking a beating'
Semantics – and to lose half your MPs at a GE when it counts most, is hardly a triumph.
Who said it was a triumph? Or are there only two options 'triumph' or 'take a beating' ?
If Labour were to elect Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservatives were to seek to occupy the centre ground as a consequence, that is doubly good news for UKIP if they can organise themselves to exploit the possibilities. Triply good news if the Conservatives then feel confident enough to indulge their own internal differences.
That may be right but at the last election the Tories lost 6-7% from their right and gained 7-8% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems). I think they would absolutely be up for a repeat of that and the budget set the agenda of how they hope to achieve it.
The consequences of such a shift are catastrophic for the Lib Dems and very bad for Labour who have insufficient room left in which to win. Moving left with Corbyn is certainly not the way to do it.
He seems to have completely back tracked on his "let Corbyn win and see once and for all where that gets us" strategy and is now urging Kendall to withdraw.
I suggest that Hodges re-thought what will happen after a Corbyn win in this excerpt. "Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs."
The decision on the mandatory reselection of MPs under Foot in 80/81, was a key factor in pushing 28 Labour MPs to defect to a new party. Faced with reselection under CLPs taken over by the hard left, they had little to lose by jumping before they were pushed out.
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
@Plato Just as matter of interest, when you were canvassing in the tight Eastbourne constituency, did you pick up any general reasons for people not voting LD?
I've already received invitations to join the GE2020 team. Anyone who thinks that the Tories aren't going to push their advantage all the way is fooling themselves.
Barnesian, anyone who thinks the Tories are ever "astonishingly complacent" wasn't paying attention to their level of planning for the General Election.
There is of course a danger that the Tories could become complacent in the aftermath of their win. That said, it could also be the case that labour are overestimating the level of Tory complacency that might occur by mistaking the celebratory and occasionally overly optimistic mood of the Tories now as signalling that the Tories will not plan and approach matters for the next GE as carefully as the last one.
That is, it ispossible the Tories will get carried away, but it is not assured that they will just because some of their number are getting over excited.
Pointing out JC's previous poor judgment is questioning his ability to do the job, in a perfectly legitimate way.
That these political friends aren't from 30yrs ago or some student aberration, makes it much harder to bat away. And given that he invited the IRA types to tea within weeks of their attempt to assassinate HMG, demonstrates that he has a long track record when it comes to making these sort of undesirable friends.
Mr. Barnesian, people criticised attacks on Miliband (particularly the campaign quote from Fallon raising the spectre of David Miliband), but in the end the Conservatives won more seats than in 2010, and Labour made precious little progress in England and went backwards dramatically in Scotland.
snip
...
snip
This time, the dead cat was supplied by the defence secretary Michael Fallon. The day after Labour’s non-dom announcement, Fallon launched a deliberately excessive attack on Miliband, suggesting he would betray the country by surrendering the Trident nuclear deterrent in order to reach a deal with the Scottish National party: “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.” Miliband’s team seethed at the tactic, though several confessed a lingering admiration for its effectiveness.
OK - it was an effective campaign tactic to change the subject away from non-doms and upset the Labour strategists. But I don't think it changed the election. An airing on non-doms wouldn't have won it for Labour.
We were discussing - do nasty tactics of playing the man work in politics? This is one small tactical example of it working. Going for Corbyn the man (not his ideas) is a bit more than a small campaign tactic. It might work but it has serious dangers for the Tories, as I outlined above, and they shouldn't be so complacent in their chortlement.
The billboards, leaflets, viral presentations etc need only be a series of photos from his past and a "Would you trust this man?" title
He seems to have completely back tracked on his "let Corbyn win and see once and for all where that gets us" strategy and is now urging Kendall to withdraw.
I suggest that Hodges re-thought what will happen after a Corbyn win in this excerpt. "Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs."
The decision on the mandatory reselection of MPs under Foot in 80/81, was a key factor in pushing 28 Labour MPs to defect to a new party. Faced with reselection under CLPs taken over by the hard left, they had little to lose by jumping before they were pushed out.
Probably a WW2 reference to Hitler's buildings along the English Channel.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
It's true that he could make Cameron look like a manufactured lightweight, or a public-school bully, or indeed a lazy, flip-flopping weakling. Ed Miliband of course found it difficult to make those charges stick because he was all those things too.
But although I have talked about emotion, once you have captured people's hearts (the first stage) you need to give them practical reasons to stay on your side. That was the mistake both sides made in the referendum last year - No forgot about the heart and appealed solely to the head until very near the end, the SNP appealed to visceral matters and completely forgot that they then needed to consider practical policies as well. The result was a total shambles that has done nobody any favours.
Corbyn's problem is that although he has captured the emotions brilliantly, he will then need some policies to hold on to. And he can't put forward election winning ones - his supporters would go ballistic - so he can only put forward left-wing ones that nobody will actually want, e.g. higher taxes. The snag is everyone loves higher taxes - but only when they are on other people, and taxes have a nasty habit of extending their reach. The same could be said for nationalised oil, or gas, or LEAs.
Cameron, meanwhile - yes, snake oil salesman, lightweight, as insincere as an official of the Student Loan Company - all those charges can be levelled against him. But he is in government. And therefore he can point to actual things he is doing, and explain how he will develop them in future, while appealing to emotion by saying why he is doing it (sounds horribly cynical, but the sad story of Ivan gives him a shield on the NHS if he chooses to use it) and what Corbyn would do to stop them. And over five years or indeed twelve months, it's hard to imagine that won't tell.
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Ted Heath was standing next to her in a picture. It doesn't say he recognised Heath because he was standing next to Thatcher, just that he was
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
He seems to have completely back tracked on his "let Corbyn win and see once and for all where that gets us" strategy and is now urging Kendall to withdraw.
I suggest that Hodges re-thought what will happen after a Corbyn win in this excerpt. "Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs."
The decision on the mandatory reselection of MPs under Foot in 80/81, was a key factor in pushing 28 Labour MPs to defect to a new party. Faced with reselection under CLPs taken over by the hard left, they had little to lose by jumping before they were pushed out.
Probably a WW2 reference to Hitler's buildings along the English Channel.
Yes. But if I were a man associated with Hamas, who say that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews to justify the creation of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of the local inhabitants, I would go easy on references that had even tangential associations with Adolf Hitler.
It's a striking piece of poor judgement, at the very least. Why didn't he say something like a 'bulwark', which is a good, English word and completely neutral in its connotations?
R.e Hodges' point on the membership changes looks like it's speculation more than anything else, 'reportedly'. I'll start taking it seriously when I see it in the NS - which to all intents and purposes is Labour's in-house magazine. Furthermore, such plans would only fire-up Corbyn's detractors to dispose of him fairly quickly after he was elected anyway to prevent such a move.
On a Corbyn win seeing the Conservatives seize the centre-ground - that's incredibly unlikely IMHO. Labour haven't even gotten a leader now, and arguably since the election the Conservatives have drifted more rightwards than anything else. They feel confident showing their real clothes, so to speak now that they have an image of competence against a Labour party who are seen as incompetent and purposeless. If Corbyn were elected this would merely reinforce this feeling. Corbyn would attempt to take Labour signifcantly to the Left, and this would likely lead to the polarisation of British politics even more so as Conservatives would feel there is far less of need to even try and bid for the centre-ground. They'll sight the 1980s, saying that in a choice between very right-wing, and very left-wing, Britain will go for very right-wing government. This in the short-term will likely shore up their very right-wing vote - but what could undermine it is the government's ability to deal with the immigration issue - amplified by the Calais crisis - and the terms' Cameron gets from EU negotiations.
On the Tory strategy in case Corbyn doesn't win - I don't see that having any massive potency unless Labour's internal divisions continue and are not resolved. People mention the Fallon strategy, but there are voters out there who cannot even tell the difference between David and Ed Miliband, yet alone recall their messy failing out as brothers. As for the Miliband team admiring it's 'effectiveness'; this is the same team which thought Ed Stone was a good idea...
As for the Corbyn Left wanting to have their say - CLP have very little influence on policy, and the Corbyn Left only had 10% of Labour MPs to their cause.
On Labour members being relaxed about this - well, there's nothing much they can do, is there? All that can be done is seeing what events unfold. @rottenborough makes a good point r.e. many young voters opting for Corbyn, and how likely it is they'll turn out.
He seems to have completely back tracked on his "let Corbyn win and see once and for all where that gets us" strategy and is now urging Kendall to withdraw.
I suggest that Hodges re-thought what will happen after a Corbyn win in this excerpt. "Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs."
The decision on the mandatory reselection of MPs under Foot in 80/81, was a key factor in pushing 28 Labour MPs to defect to a new party. Faced with reselection under CLPs taken over by the hard left, they had little to lose by jumping before they were pushed out.
The Atlantic Wall was not a particularly effective defence either!
Miss Plato, didn't Miliband have a 10 point lead at times during the last Parliament?
Don't think Miliband ever had a lead over Cameron, but Labour had an average 12-13 point lead over the Conservatives in early 2013, down to about March (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2).
But then, so did the Conservatives over Labour in 2003 after Howard took over, and much good it did them.
Eastbourne was incredibly tight. The LD candidate had a big personal vote and something of a super councilor type. It was more a case of anti-SNP, keep Labour out that tipped it amongst the undecideds/soft Kippers.
I was really surprised how often that was mentioned spontaneously. Incidentally, the Labour candidate was a charming young chap.
@Plato Just as matter of interest, when you were canvassing in the tight Eastbourne constituency, did you pick up any general reasons for people not voting LD?
I've already received invitations to join the GE2020 team. Anyone who thinks that the Tories aren't going to push their advantage all the way is fooling themselves.
Barnesian, anyone who thinks the Tories are ever "astonishingly complacent" wasn't paying attention to their level of planning for the General Election.
There is of course a danger that the Tories could become complacent in the aftermath of their win. That said, it could also be the case that labour are overestimating the level of Tory complacency that might occur by mistaking the celebratory and occasionally overly optimistic mood of the Tories now as signalling that the Tories will not plan and approach matters for the next GE as carefully as the last one.
That is, it ispossible the Tories will get carried away, but it is not assured that they will just because some of their number are getting over excited.
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
None of the contenders can win a GE in my opinion. at least Corbyn will give voters a choice
I'm glad people have enjoyed the article. Apologies for it being, as Simon StClare said, exceedingly long. One day I will learn the art of brevity.
Antifrank, tip from somebody who has marked a great many essays of many sorts. It is far easier, and far better, to read a really good essay that is long, than to read a short essay that is rubbish. That includes long essays that have been condensed.
If you take a while to say something worth saying, don't worry about it. Because if it's worth saying, it's worth reading. And this was.
He seems to have completely back tracked on his "let Corbyn win and see once and for all where that gets us" strategy and is now urging Kendall to withdraw.
I suggest that Hodges re-thought what will happen after a Corbyn win in this excerpt. "Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs."
The decision on the mandatory reselection of MPs under Foot in 80/81, was a key factor in pushing 28 Labour MPs to defect to a new party. Faced with reselection under CLPs taken over by the hard left, they had little to lose by jumping before they were pushed out.
Probably a WW2 reference to Hitler's buildings along the English Channel.
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
None of the contenders can win a GE in my opinion. at least Corbyn will give voters a choice
Do the voters really need the choice of "bat-shit crazy" on the ballot paper though?
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
None of the contenders can win a GE in my opinion. at least Corbyn will give voters a choice
Do the voters really need the choice of "bat-shit crazy" on the ballot paper though?
Not a second one. After all, we've had the choice of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party for years without Labour becoming the Unofficial MRLP too. (Cue jokes about other parties as well!)
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
None of the contenders can win a GE in my opinion. at least Corbyn will give voters a choice
Do the voters really need the choice of "bat-shit crazy" on the ballot paper though?
Mr. Doethur, poorly phrased my prior post. I meant Miliband-led Labour had a 10 point lead over the Conservatives.
As you suggest, we should expect a double-digit lead for Labour at some point during this Parliament.
Seems probable. Surely very few governments, particularly second term (for the PM anyway), can maintain a lead given the unpopular things governments have to do (as well as the ones they don't, and the inevitable screw ups at some point). I was surprised at how long it took for Labour to take the lead last time, perhaps I should have taken that as significant.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
It's true that he could make Cameron look like a manufactured lightweight, or a public-school bully, or indeed a lazy, flip-flopping weakling. Ed Miliband of course found it difficult to make those charges stick because he was all those things too.
But although I have talked about emotion, once you have captured people's hearts (the first stage) you need to give them practical reasons to stay on your side. That was the mistake both sides made in the referendum last year - No forgot about the heart and appealed solely to the head until very near the end, the SNP appealed to visceral matters and completely forgot that they then needed to consider practical policies as well. The result was a total shambles that has done nobody any favours.
Corbyn's problem is that although he has captured the emotions brilliantly, he will then need some policies to hold on to. And he can't put forward election winning ones - his supporters would go ballistic - so he can only put forward left-wing ones that nobody will actually want, e.g. higher taxes. The snag is everyone loves higher taxes - but only when they are on other people, and taxes have a nasty habit of extending their reach. The same could be said for nationalised oil, or gas, or LEAs.
Cameron, meanwhile - yes, snake oil salesman, lightweight, as insincere as an official of the Student Loan Company - all those charges can be levelled against him. But he is in government. And therefore he can point to actual things he is doing, and explain how he will develop them in future, while appealing to emotion by saying why he is doing it (sounds horribly cynical, but the sad story of Ivan gives him a shield on the NHS if he chooses to use it) and what Corbyn would do to stop them. And over five years or indeed twelve months, it's hard to imagine that won't tell.
Mr ydoethur, well put, however. Although plenty on here have disagreements we share more than a passing interest in current affairs and politics, the electorate doesn't, it is completely disengaged, which is why when somebody like Farage, Galloway and Corbyn comes along they attract attention simply by being different.
We saw that in Scotland the anti austerity message is very powerful, irrespective of it's reality.
Mr. 63, aye, although I'd be wary of comparing Scotland to the rest of the UK, for reasons that are many and varied.
It was Labour-land for a long time. 'Tory' was used by many as a swear word (and by some as anti-English). Because it was Labourtastic and the blues were almost nowhere, that meant AN Other could take the stage as the opposing force to Labour. There's also the independence agenda (because the SNP is pro-independence and anti-austerity we can't tease out the difference between support for the party for the former and support for the latter). And, Scotland has devolution, and has had an independence referendum, and now feels in a post-referendum, more-powers-coming [and perhaps Referendum 2: Refer Harder] sort of time.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
Voters want a government that will hate and hurt people they (the voters) don't like. The voters, however, are confused about who to hate and hurt.
If JC wins, I genuinely expect there to be an uptick for Labour in the polls - giving away apple pie and fair trade sweeties is appealing.
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
I'm about to do a U-turn, I'm beginning to think Corbyn will be bad for the tories. He is straight talking and has inadvertently collected the populist vote through being different to the other candidates.
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
None of the contenders can win a GE in my opinion. at least Corbyn will give voters a choice
Do the voters really need the choice of "bat-shit crazy" on the ballot paper though?
Nice to have a choice at all
I suspect that if NOTA had been on the 2015 ballot paper, it would have made a good showing and could even have won some seats.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
The current govt is hardly 'very right wing'... If you swapped the names on the table it could be labour under Blair
Middle East meddling, mass immigration, EU subservience, gay rights, increasing debt, police softness, failing comprehensives...
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
Is that what it showed? My prejudices showing, but I had thought it showed voters say they want one thing, in left-right terms, but actually it doesn't affect their vote as much as they say, since my recollection was it showed voters place themselves in the centre, which is where they also placed the LDs, and yet the LDs got slaughtered.
Being portrayed as too left or right win might and often does impact the public's willingness to vote for someone perhaps, but not as a direct corrollation, but because it gets perceived as dangerous or otherwise not going to work, not because in of itself the public do not want someone who is actually left or right wing - as someone commented I think on the graph, it showed Cameron was perceived as more right wing than Ed M was perceived as left wing, so being extreme didn't hurt, just that the particular extremity was seen as not going to work.
We saw that in Scotland the anti austerity message is very powerful, irrespective of it's reality.
I think moreso than that, the public can pay more attention to the messenger than the message. I believe in a social attitudes survey that Scotland was not particularly more left wing than England... but Miliband's ratings were utterly dire compared to Sturgeon who was very very high.
Of course Indyref helped galvanise the Nat cause in Scottish politics, but Sturgeon's ratings helped the polling convert to concrete at the GE.
Corbyn's ratings rather than Labour's polling is what we should look at for the next few years.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
Voters want a government that will hate and hurt people they (the voters) don't like. The voters, however, are confused about who to hate and hurt.
Voters want what is best for themselves and their families, without too much HMG intrusion.
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Ted Heath was standing next to her in a picture. It doesn't say he recognised Heath because he was standing next to Thatcher, just that he was
Don't know but the story doesn't ring true to me... Maybe I've read too many Viz conspiracy piss takes
It doesn't ring true to me either. I cannot see how there can be a fair investigation more than 50 years later, without any witnesses or forensic evidence. We are entering witch hunt territory.
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Ted Heath was standing next to her in a picture. It doesn't say he recognised Heath because he was standing next to Thatcher, just that he was http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-edward-heath-child-abuse-6188388 Don't know but the story doesn't ring true to me... Maybe I've read too many Viz conspiracy piss takes
"He goes on to detail how in 1965, when the man was 15-years-old, he saw a picture alongside a newspaper article with Heath standing next to Margaret Thatcher. Addressing the female Tory PM by her maiden name Roberts, he writes: “In the picture was Margaret Roberts (who became Margaret Thatcher), Edward Heath.....and a lady (somthing) (I think Smith)."
He is specifically quoted as saying Thatcher. But he went on to call her Margaret Roberts. Thatcher married Dennis in 1951 and went under her married name as an MP (from 59). The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
If Britain’s Labour party rounds off this golden summer for Conservative voyeurs by electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader, here is an abridged account of the aftermath.
First, the sugar rush of novelty. A republican Marxist peacenik fronting Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is a story to please radicals and entertain bored neutrals. As Jeremania spreads, commentators, devoted to the craft of reading too much into transient commotion, will suggest he “has a point” about capitalism and “engages young people” with his “authentic” idiom.
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Ted Heath was standing next to her in a picture. It doesn't say he recognised Heath because he was standing next to Thatcher, just that he was http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-edward-heath-child-abuse-6188388 Don't know but the story doesn't ring true to me... Maybe I've read too many Viz conspiracy piss takes
"He goes on to detail how in 1965, when the man was 15-years-old, he saw a picture alongside a newspaper article with Heath standing next to Margaret Thatcher. Addressing the female Tory PM by her maiden name Roberts, he writes: “In the picture was Margaret Roberts (who became Margaret Thatcher), Edward Heath.....and a lady (somthing) (I think Smith)."
He is specifically quoted as saying Thatcher. But he went on to call her Margaret Roberts. Thatcher married Dennis in 1951 and went under her married name as an MP (from 59). The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
Well fair play to you it takes a lot to defend someone accused of paedophilia nowadays... But the story seems a little dodge... The fact that everything that could have identified Heath ( eg conductors baton, pictures of yachts) were 'seen' at the flat make me wonder if it's jackanory
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
Red Ken showed that it is possible to win elections with Corbynite policies, at least in some parts of the country. Corbyn needs to look outside London though.
If Britain’s Labour party rounds off this golden summer for Conservative voyeurs by electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader, here is an abridged account of the aftermath.
First, the sugar rush of novelty. A republican Marxist peacenik fronting Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is a story to please radicals and entertain bored neutrals. As Jeremania spreads, commentators, devoted to the craft of reading too much into transient commotion, will suggest he “has a point” about capitalism and “engages young people” with his “authentic” idiom.
For some reason, you can access the article without paying as long as you google the exact title - in this case, 'The soft left is the real threat to Labour'. This applies to any FT article (although I'm not sure how many you can get away with it for).
Mr. Isam, fair enough, it just seemed a list of criticisms.
Libya isn't Middle East, it's North Africa. If nothing had been done, Libya might well still be terrible (cf Syria), and Cameron would be criticised for having done thing.
There was a fascinating little exercise a few years ago comparing the policies of New Labour vs Cameron Tories - and the vox pops couldn't tell which was which most of the time.
IIRC there was also a most amusing/frustrating bit of polling about Osborne's flagship policy about something or other - and most asked thought it was a Labour one.
They really can't win or rely on the voters paying any attention most of the time.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
The current govt is hardly 'very right wing'... If you swapped the names on the table it could be labour under Blair
Middle East meddling, mass immigration, EU subservience, gay rights, increasing debt, police softness, failing comprehensives...
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
Voters want a government that will hate and hurt people they (the voters) don't like. The voters, however, are confused about who to hate and hurt.
Voters want what is best for themselves and their families, without too much HMG intrusion.
I think we are really saying the same thing. If I prefer my family to yours - and I know of no religion or philosophy which justifies my doing so - I am being morally vicious. Yes, it's a natural thing to do - but isn't one of the functions of government to restrain our "natural" urges?
The dates and references are a bit odd. Thatcher was not well known in 1965. She had a junior slot in the opposition and not in the shadow cabinet until 1967. Not impossible to be in same photo as Ted in 1965 albeit not as a shadow cabinet minister. But she was not a recognisable face for most in 1965.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as to whether Ted Heath was standing next to her in a picture. It doesn't say he recognised Heath because he was standing next to Thatcher, just that he was http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-edward-heath-child-abuse-6188388 Don't know but the story doesn't ring true to me... Maybe I've read too many Viz conspiracy piss takes
"He goes on to detail how in 1965, when the man was 15-years-old, he saw a picture alongside a newspaper article with Heath standing next to Margaret Thatcher. Addressing the female Tory PM by her maiden name Roberts, he writes: “In the picture was Margaret Roberts (who became Margaret Thatcher), Edward Heath.....and a lady (somthing) (I think Smith)."
He is specifically quoted as saying Thatcher. But he went on to call her Margaret Roberts. Thatcher married Dennis in 1951 and went under her married name as an MP (from 59). The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
Well fair play to you it takes a lot to defend someone accused of paedophilia nowadays... But the story seems a little dodge... The fact that everything that could have identified Heath ( eg conductors baton) were at the flat make me wonder if it's jackanory
Yes you are right to point out these factors. There was a biog referring to him having a photo of an old girlfriend by his bed for many years. No mention of that here. Was Ted heavily into yachting in 61?
The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
The problem is that there will never be more than "we couldn't find any evidence to prove the claims".
No smoke without fire, etc. etc.
Surely there must be a case for not disclosing the name of the accused until proven guilty? The damage to his name and reputation is already done
Mr. Isam, fair enough, it just seemed a list of criticisms.
Libya isn't Middle East, it's North Africa. If nothing had been done, Libya might well still be terrible (cf Syria), and Cameron would be criticised for having done thing.
It is not unusual for the predominantly islamic cultures across north africa to be referred to as being in the Middle East I find. Not geographically, certainly, but as a political and diplomatic shorthand it works reasonably.
I know - I've said it before. And I'll say it again. And this: England, apart rom its multicultural cities, is a one-party State. And in those cities the only serious opposition to Toryism is militant Islam.
Only because of the FPTP system. The Tories get about a third of the vote in England. In any other system that would not be a one-party state. It demonstrates how sick our democracy has become under FPTP, nothing else.
Mr. Isam, fair enough, it just seemed a list of criticisms.
Libya isn't Middle East, it's North Africa. If nothing had been done, Libya might well still be terrible (cf Syria), and Cameron would be criticised for having done thing.
Minimum wage, selling stuff on the cheap....
I don't think the general public get too bothered when we don't bomb nasty countries that aren't a threat to us... I certainly don't
There was a fascinating little exercise a few years ago comparing the policies of New Labour vs Cameron Tories - and the vox pops couldn't tell which was which most of the time.
IIRC there was also a most amusing/frustrating bit of polling about Osborne's flagship policy about something or other - and most asked thought it was a Labour one.
They really can't win or rely on the voters paying any attention most of the time.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
The current govt is hardly 'very right wing'... If you swapped the names on the table it could be labour under Blair
Middle East meddling, mass immigration, EU subservience, gay rights, increasing debt, police softness, failing comprehensives...
Or alternatively, it shows that actually, most elections are won and lost in the centre ground and the party that people listens to, that proposes such policies, is the one that gets elected. It was the genius of Blair that he really got this. Rather like Baldwin, he never quite worked out what to do next. Cameron and Major both got it to a lesser extent, as did Wilson and Macmillan. Attlee and Thatcher were special cases due to the particular circumstances of the time - yet even Thatcher was, in her earlier years, much more centrist than legend would have us believe.
This may be where emotion vs. policy becomes the issue. Because if you haven't got that connection with voters - as, say, Miliband hadn't - then they won't listen to your policies at all. But if you have the connection and no policies, gradually people fall away from you (cf. Gordon Brown).
If Britain’s Labour party rounds off this golden summer for Conservative voyeurs by electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader, here is an abridged account of the aftermath.
First, the sugar rush of novelty. A republican Marxist peacenik fronting Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is a story to please radicals and entertain bored neutrals. As Jeremania spreads, commentators, devoted to the craft of reading too much into transient commotion, will suggest he “has a point” about capitalism and “engages young people” with his “authentic” idiom.
The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
The problem is that there will never be more than "we couldn't find any evidence to prove the claims".
No smoke without fire, etc. etc.
Surely there must be a case for not disclosing the name of the accused until proven guilty? The damage to his name and reputation is already done
Isn't the story a follow up to the police revelation that they didn't investigate previous allegations?
Yes you are right to point out these factors. There was a biog referring to him having a photo of an old girlfriend by his bed for many years. No mention of that here. Was Ted heavily into yachting in 61?
I don't think he was - apart from anything else, he couldn't afford it until much later. Moreover, he did not take up conducting in a serious way until the 1970s - prior to that, he directed a couple of local music festivals in Kent, but was much more of a recitalist so it is surprising he had a conductor's baton. (I would have thought, incidentally, that the source of his wealth would be where any murky secrets would come out.)
The story about the girlfriend, Kathleen Rivers if memory serves, is in his autobiography, dealt with in two paragraphs with the rather brusque conclusion: 'Perhaps I was taking too much for granted...I subsequently learned she had a happy life with her children, but we never saw each other again.'
There are a few oddities in the Ted Heath story, some of which have already been noted. Also:
1) The accuser's age doesn't add up. We are told that he was 12 in 1961 and that he's 64 now. Perhaps the story is a couple of years old and has just been made public. But we're told he only told his secret this year.
2) Why would the accuser break down in tears four years later about this particular abuser when on his own account he'd been selling his body for five years before that and it didn't bother him?
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
You make my point well about posters on here v the electorate, Sturgeon's message was "we'll end austerity imposed on us by England", total nonsense but the Scots lapped it up. Galloway has made a living that way, Farage got 4m votes with a simple message.
My point originally was that it would be unwise for the tories to underestimate public opinion and a simple message, people will listen to what they want to hear. A month ago nobody had heard of Corbyn, now look, which sort of proves my point.
The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy. Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
The problem is that there will never be more than "we couldn't find any evidence to prove the claims".
No smoke without fire, etc. etc.
Surely there must be a case for not disclosing the name of the accused until proven guilty? The damage to his name and reputation is already done
Isn't the story a follow up to the police revelation that they didn't investigate previous allegations?
Yes, but my point is that Ted Heath's name is now forever tarnished with this accusation. Regardless of whether it is true or false.
(I would have thought, incidentally, that the source of his wealth would be where any murky secrets would come out.)
Didn't he advise the Chinese government for many years?
Yes - but that was after he had become rich. There has always been some disquiet about how he seemed to become very wealthy very quickly while PM.
Of course, it may simply be because he had a large salary and not a lot to spend it on, as a single man with no dependents. I'm a lot better off than most of my peers, for that simple reason. Or he may have made wise investments (although that would have been pretty inappropriate for a serving PM). But that wouldn't necessarily explain how he could afford an expensive hobby like yachting.
@isam - Mass immigration isn't a deliberate policy. The Tories official line is being 'tough' on immigration - it's just that well....whatever they are doing isn't working.
- Increasing Debt? That's not a deliberate policy either. Labour would have most likely pursued cuts at a more slower pace (although it seems Osborne is doing that, incidentally).
- EU - Under Blair we wouldn't even have a EU referendum. Nor we would have the fox-hunting vote, EVEL, or a 'British Bill of Rights' instead of the HRA. Nor would Blair be looking at IDS' sick pay proposal, or Cameron's reported proposals to exempt temporary workers from EU working hours/rights.
- IHT, Welfare reforms, and generally the reduction of the state is something I can't see the Blair government actively doing.
@kle4 On your first point - I'm not sure I agree. I think it showed, in an ideal world that voters would like a moderate, pragmatic centrist government, but it's simply not on offer right now. Therefore, they'll opt for the most competent option, which appeared to be the Conservatives. The LDs didn't get a look in because no one took them seriously as a prospective government (ironic really) and no one saw them as competent. Clegg in particular was a toxic figure who was unlikely to get a hearing. I also think the electorate generally tend to take bids for the centre-ground from the main two seriously. Minority parties/third party usually gain success by being more ideological than the main two.
I think that voters tend to associate being too left or right wing with being 'extreme' or 'dangerous' generally. Cameron was seen as more right-wing than Ed Miliband, yes but he was also seen as far more competent than Ed Miliband. Voters, perhaps because Cameron was actually PM could picture Cameron as a credible 'PM', and in his mannerisms, voice, and general approach he could be taken seriously. Ed Miliband, regardless of his politics simply wasn't taken seriously - his many mishaps and awkward moment collided together, along with his 'weird' appearance to mean that voters didn't take him seriously. And that meant, that the Tories were always the default option.
@Innocent_Abroad I think that's true to some extent. In contrast to an idea that governments can, through positive policies improve people's' lives, voters now appear to think that if certain groups are 'dealt with' that that will improve their lives. A lot of this based off resentment - that if immigrants, and benefit claimants weren't here, or on the dole that middle classes' would have more prosperity, on that the average White Van Man would have his 'community back'. These are the very successful narratives of the right. However, they also require large swathes of people to feel that, as welfare changes take a hold - their lives are improved. If they are not, then that narrative is broken. Less people on the dole does not suddenly make your life better. Likewise, the right's inability to actually deal with the issue of immigration, as opposed to simply tough-talking will eventually come-back to be a problem for them.
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
Red Ken showed that it is possible to win elections with Corbynite policies, at least in some parts of the country. Corbyn needs to look outside London though.
Yes, but that's in London - it's unusually left-wing place. In any case, all that is needed is a Conservative candidate that is moderate - e.g. Boris - to oust Ken.
Mr apocalypse, you say: Mass immigration isn't a deliberate policy. The Tories official line is being 'tough' on immigration - it's just that well....whatever they are doing isn't working.
I disagree, its a deliberate policy because they're doing nothing, hence immigration rising. There is no appetite within govt to curb immigration, absolutely no evidence to suggest measures are being taken.
I think that's very valid re connection vs policies.
The other aspect is that horrible expression of Check Your Privilege as it applies to credibility. The same policy can be proposed by two different politicians and one will be seen as *good* and by the other *bad*.
We saw this again and again over the last couple of years in relation to Osborne giveaways that Ed Balls could never get away with.
There was a fascinating little exercise a few years ago comparing the policies of New Labour vs Cameron Tories - and the vox pops couldn't tell which was which most of the time.
IIRC there was also a most amusing/frustrating bit of polling about Osborne's flagship policy about something or other - and most asked thought it was a Labour one.
They really can't win or rely on the voters paying any attention most of the time.
Do voters really want a 'choice' being very right and left wing though? The YG graph posted on this site some weeks ago, appears to imply voters want a much more moderate government than that.
The current govt is hardly 'very right wing'... If you swapped the names on the table it could be labour under Blair
Middle East meddling, mass immigration, EU subservience, gay rights, increasing debt, police softness, failing comprehensives...
Or alternatively, it shows that actually, most elections are won and lost in the centre ground and the party that people listens to, that proposes such policies, is the one that gets elected. It was the genius of Blair that he really got this. Rather like Baldwin, he never quite worked out what to do next. Cameron and Major both got it to a lesser extent, as did Wilson and Macmillan. Attlee and Thatcher were special cases due to the particular circumstances of the time - yet even Thatcher was, in her earlier years, much more centrist than legend would have us believe.
This may be where emotion vs. policy becomes the issue. Because if you haven't got that connection with voters - as, say, Miliband hadn't - then they won't listen to your policies at all. But if you have the connection and no policies, gradually people fall away from you (cf. Gordon Brown).
Logically it is not possible to prove a negative. You can't realy show the absence of something, only that there is nothing to the contrary.
This is why people are assumed to be innocent until found guilty from the evidence against them
To an extent. Although if it was proven that Heath was on holiday in Scotland in the time, that would go a long way to discrediting the allegation. The problem is, after such a lapse of time, it is usually hard to prove exact dates and ergo exact whereabouts.
@isam - Mass immigration isn't a deliberate policy. The Tories official line is being 'tough' on immigration - it's just that well....whatever they are doing isn't working.
- Increasing Debt? That's not a deliberate policy either. Labour would have most likely pursued cuts at a more slower pace (although it seems Osborne is doing that, incidentally).
- EU - Under Blair we wouldn't even have a EU referendum. Nor we would have the fox-hunting vote, EVEL, or a 'British Bill of Rights' instead of the HRA. Nor would Blair be looking at IDS' sick pay proposal, or Cameron's reported proposals to exempt temporary workers from EU working hours/rights.
- IHT, Welfare reforms, and generally the reduction of the state is something I can't see the Blair government actively doing.
I think that voters tend to associate being too left or right wing with being 'extreme' or 'dangerous' generally. Cameron was seen as more right-wing than Ed Miliband, yes but he was also seen as far more competent than Ed Miliband. Voters, perhaps because Cameron was actually PM could picture Cameron as a credible 'PM', and in his mannerisms, voice, and general approach he could be taken seriously. Ed Miliband, regardless of his politics simply wasn't taken seriously - his many mishaps and awkward moment collided together, along with his 'weird' appearance to mean that voters didn't take him seriously. And that meant, that the Tories were always the default option.
I do actally agree that generally people do associate being too left or right wing with being extreme, and this affects their electability - what I was trying to say, which you've done I think, is that on its own that is not necessarily enough to swing things. That is, people placed themselves in the centre with the LDs but, for other reasons, decided to categorically reject them (not just not consider them government material), and they opted for the option they regarded as more extreme because other factors were more important, so the point is that actually being or being perceived as too left or too right may well result in being seen as too extreme and cost someone an election, but, circumstances permitting, it might not if other factors mitigate this.
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
You make my point well about posters on here v the electorate, Sturgeon's message was "we'll end austerity imposed on us by England", total nonsense but the Scots lapped it up. Galloway has made a living that way, Farage got 4m votes with a simple message.
My point originally was that it would be unwise for the tories to underestimate public opinion and a simple message, people will listen to what they want to hear. A month ago nobody had heard of Corbyn, now look, which sort of proves my point.
On the SNP - yes, but it was the 'imposed on us by England part' that made the message so effective, not the anti-austerity part.
Farage got 4m votes, but there is a reason why the OUT side of the referendum do not want him fronting their campaign. Because although he can attract a large minority vote-share of disgruntled ex-Labour voters, protest-voters, and right-wingers he cannot appeal to the vast majority of people, who are more moderate, and, importantly care about how competent a leader/party is.
People do listen to what they want to hear - arguably the Tories know this, and have used it in a very effective way - especially on welfare. It's even arguable whether the public are likely to listen to Corbyn. It's very easy to portray someone associated with Sinn Fein, Hamas, who opposes the nuclear deterrent as an extremist regardless of what he has to stay.
I don't see Corbyn's popularity proving your point. He's popular among Labour party members and activists - a demographic far-apart from most of the electorate. In particular, young people who go on twitter idiotically tweeting 'I'm hard-left' are a completely rarity in this country. Even among lefties I know, no one that insane.
@isam - Mass immigration isn't a deliberate policy. The Tories official line is being 'tough' on immigration - it's just that well....whatever they are doing isn't working.
- Increasing Debt? That's not a deliberate policy either. Labour would have most likely pursued cuts at a more slower pace (although it seems Osborne is doing that, incidentally).
- EU - Under Blair we wouldn't even have a EU referendum. Nor we would have the fox-hunting vote, EVEL, or a 'British Bill of Rights' instead of the HRA. Nor would Blair be looking at IDS' sick pay proposal, or Cameron's reported proposals to exempt temporary workers from EU working hours/rights.
- IHT, Welfare reforms, and generally the reduction of the state is something I can't see the Blair government actively doing.
I think that voters tend to associate being too left or right wing with being 'extreme' or 'dangerous' generally. Cameron was seen as more right-wing than Ed Miliband, yes but he was also seen as far more competent than Ed Miliband. Voters, perhaps because Cameron was actually PM could picture Cameron as a credible 'PM', and in his mannerisms, voice, and general approach he could be taken seriously. Ed Miliband, regardless of his politics simply wasn't taken seriously - his many mishaps and awkward moment collided together, along with his 'weird' appearance to mean that voters didn't take him seriously. And that meant, that the Tories were always the default option.
I do actally agree that generally people do associate being too left or right wing with being extreme, and this affects their electability - what I was trying to say, which you've done I think, is that on its own that is not necessarily enough to swing things. That is, people placed themselves in the centre with the LDs but, for other reasons, decided to categorically reject them (not just not consider them government material), and they opted for the option they regarded as more extreme because other factors were more important, so the point is that actually being or being perceived as too left or too right may well result in being seen as too extreme and cost someone an election, but, circumstances permitting, it might not if other factors mitigate this.
I know but my original point was that voters, in an ideal world don't want candidates too to the left or right because they perceive them as extreme - that in an ideal situation, they want centrist, moderate candidates. Not that in all situations they'll go for the centrist candidate. It's just that generally, centrist leaders have been seen as generally coming from the big two, and have generally been seen credible, electable figures. The LDs being seen as centrist, with a leader who was not seen as credible is something of an anomaly.
Mr. Royale, I do wonder if Germans, tired of propping up Greece with cash and taking a horde of immigrants in a single month, might reconsider their dream of ever-closer union.
Mr. Royale, I do wonder if Germans, tired of propping up Greece with cash and taking a horde of immigrants in a single month, might reconsider their dream of ever-closer union.
Oh my god! A horde?! You're dehumanising them, someone call the PC police.
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
The worry with Germany is just where it sends in its army...
As I understand it, it can't be deployed at all, even in Germany. It is supposed to be kept in reserve in case Germany is invaded, just as a self-defence force.
Shades of the old Reichswehr (1919-34) and Wehrmacht (1934-45) squashing political opponents rather brutally...
Hmmm, you make an interesting point. @rcs1000 mentioned that some European countries - namely France, Italy and Germany - take far tougher approaches on the issue of employing illegal immigrants that we do. Yet if it's such an issue, in regard to undercutting wages - why don't we toughen up our measures, like other countries have done?
If the government are going to say one thing and do another - then they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I think the hard left will give up on Labour if Corbyn doesn't get chosen. It could be a decent opportunity for the Greens to get up to around 7 or 8% on a regular basis. I don't think there would be any strong demands for the new leader to enact Corbyn's views, just to provide strong opposition to the Tories rather than abstaining/pandering to them.
Mr. Royale, I do wonder if Germans, tired of propping up Greece with cash and taking a horde of immigrants in a single month, might reconsider their dream of ever-closer union.
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Winning PMQs doesn't really matter. William Hague was apparently brilliant at PMQs, it didn't mean much during the 2001 GE - it hardly helped his 'save the pound' campaign afterall (lol). Corbyn pleasing the BBC doesn't mean much either - the BBC is probably far more liberal than most of the country!
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Winning PMQs doesn't really matter. William Hague was apparently brilliant at PMQs, it didn't mean much during the 2001 GE - it hardly helped 'save the pound' campaign afterall (lol). Corbyn pleasing the BBC doesn't mean much either - the BBC is probably far more liberal than most of the country!
Michael Foot was also very good in the House of Commons. It was about the only thing that kept his leadership going.
The worry with Germany is just where it sends in its army...
As I understand it, it can't be deployed at all, even in Germany. It is supposed to be kept in reserve in case Germany is invaded, just as a self-defence force.
Shades of the old Reichswehr (1919-34) and Wehrmacht (1934-45) squashing political opponents rather brutally...
Comments
Cameron will swot the other lightweights away, they stand for nothing, he'll have his hands full with Corbyn. This could backfire on the £3 tories.
The consequences of such a shift are catastrophic for the Lib Dems and very bad for Labour who have insufficient room left in which to win. Moving left with Corbyn is certainly not the way to do it.
Still, the Berlin Wall kept all that Soviet milk and honey free of Western contamination.We all know it was built to keep us out.
Just as matter of interest, when you were canvassing in the tight Eastbourne constituency, did you pick up any general reasons for people not voting LD?
The billboards, leaflets, viral presentations etc need only be a series of photos from his past and a "Would you trust this man?" title
But although I have talked about emotion, once you have captured people's hearts (the first stage) you need to give them practical reasons to stay on your side. That was the mistake both sides made in the referendum last year - No forgot about the heart and appealed solely to the head until very near the end, the SNP appealed to visceral matters and completely forgot that they then needed to consider practical policies as well. The result was a total shambles that has done nobody any favours.
Corbyn's problem is that although he has captured the emotions brilliantly, he will then need some policies to hold on to. And he can't put forward election winning ones - his supporters would go ballistic - so he can only put forward left-wing ones that nobody will actually want, e.g. higher taxes. The snag is everyone loves higher taxes - but only when they are on other people, and taxes have a nasty habit of extending their reach. The same could be said for nationalised oil, or gas, or LEAs.
Cameron, meanwhile - yes, snake oil salesman, lightweight, as insincere as an official of the Student Loan Company - all those charges can be levelled against him. But he is in government. And therefore he can point to actual things he is doing, and explain how he will develop them in future, while appealing to emotion by saying why he is doing it (sounds horribly cynical, but the sad story of Ivan gives him a shield on the NHS if he chooses to use it) and what Corbyn would do to stop them. And over five years or indeed twelve months, it's hard to imagine that won't tell.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-edward-heath-child-abuse-6188388
Don't know but the story doesn't ring true to me... Maybe I've read too many Viz conspiracy piss takes
I'm sure some of his manifesto will get some good %s in favour of them. However, and its a big however - the electorate can play Snog, Marry, Avoid for quite a while - then they pick a suitable bride as PM.
It's a striking piece of poor judgement, at the very least. Why didn't he say something like a 'bulwark', which is a good, English word and completely neutral in its connotations?
On a Corbyn win seeing the Conservatives seize the centre-ground - that's incredibly unlikely IMHO. Labour haven't even gotten a leader now, and arguably since the election the Conservatives have drifted more rightwards than anything else. They feel confident showing their real clothes, so to speak now that they have an image of competence against a Labour party who are seen as incompetent and purposeless. If Corbyn were elected this would merely reinforce this feeling. Corbyn would attempt to take Labour signifcantly to the Left, and this would likely lead to the polarisation of British politics even more so as Conservatives would feel there is far less of need to even try and bid for the centre-ground. They'll sight the 1980s, saying that in a choice between very right-wing, and very left-wing, Britain will go for very right-wing government. This in the short-term will likely shore up their very right-wing vote - but what could undermine it is the government's ability to deal with the immigration issue - amplified by the Calais crisis - and the terms' Cameron gets from EU negotiations.
On the Tory strategy in case Corbyn doesn't win - I don't see that having any massive potency unless Labour's internal divisions continue and are not resolved. People mention the Fallon strategy, but there are voters out there who cannot even tell the difference between David and Ed Miliband, yet alone recall their messy failing out as brothers. As for the Miliband team admiring it's 'effectiveness'; this is the same team which thought Ed Stone was a good idea...
As for the Corbyn Left wanting to have their say - CLP have very little influence on policy, and the Corbyn Left only had 10% of Labour MPs to their cause.
On Labour members being relaxed about this - well, there's nothing much they can do, is there? All that can be done is seeing what events unfold. @rottenborough makes a good point r.e. many young voters opting for Corbyn, and how likely it is they'll turn out.
But then, so did the Conservatives over Labour in 2003 after Howard took over, and much good it did them.
I was really surprised how often that was mentioned spontaneously. Incidentally, the Labour candidate was a charming young chap.
As you suggest, we should expect a double-digit lead for Labour at some point during this Parliament.
If you take a while to say something worth saying, don't worry about it. Because if it's worth saying, it's worth reading. And this was.
We saw that in Scotland the anti austerity message is very powerful, irrespective of it's reality.
It was Labour-land for a long time. 'Tory' was used by many as a swear word (and by some as anti-English). Because it was Labourtastic and the blues were almost nowhere, that meant AN Other could take the stage as the opposing force to Labour. There's also the independence agenda (because the SNP is pro-independence and anti-austerity we can't tease out the difference between support for the party for the former and support for the latter). And, Scotland has devolution, and has had an independence referendum, and now feels in a post-referendum, more-powers-coming [and perhaps Referendum 2: Refer Harder] sort of time.
Middle East meddling, mass immigration, EU subservience, gay rights, increasing debt, police softness, failing comprehensives...
Being portrayed as too left or right win might and often does impact the public's willingness to vote for someone perhaps, but not as a direct corrollation, but because it gets perceived as dangerous or otherwise not going to work, not because in of itself the public do not want someone who is actually left or right wing - as someone commented I think on the graph, it showed Cameron was perceived as more right wing than Ed M was perceived as left wing, so being extreme didn't hurt, just that the particular extremity was seen as not going to work.
Also 'Middle East meddling'? You're against bombing ISIS?
Of course Indyref helped galvanise the Nat cause in Scottish politics, but Sturgeon's ratings helped the polling convert to concrete at the GE.
Corbyn's ratings rather than Labour's polling is what we should look at for the next few years.
Meanwhile Hezbollah and (some of) the IRA are clear and present dangers....
The middle East meddling I meant was bombing Libya
He turned me into a newt...
Addressing the female Tory PM by her maiden name Roberts, he writes: “In the picture was Margaret Roberts (who became Margaret Thatcher), Edward Heath.....and a lady (somthing) (I think Smith)."
He is specifically quoted as saying Thatcher. But he went on to call her Margaret Roberts.
Thatcher married Dennis in 1951 and went under her married name as an MP (from 59).
The dates and people references do not ring true. Fishy.
Ted is one of my least favourite Leader's, almost a figure to spit at over Europe, but this allegation has holes.
Farage and Galloway are minority phenomenons. By virtue of their divisiveness they attract headlines, but they cannot unify large swathes of the electorate together in a way a more moderate candidate can. The SNP are a rarity in being much to the left of British politics, but crucially do not come across as extreme to their own electorate. I think @SouthamObserver made a good point that the SNP's rallying cry has not been its leftist politics, but its potent narrative on Scottish identity. The idea that the SNP are the only party who can stand up, or care for Scotland's interests and be effective against the villainous Westminster elite is a non-ideological message which has managed to unite large groups of voters from all kinds of politics and backgrounds. Because this isn't a stereotypical left-right narrative, it's even harder to combat.
But data shows that the Scottish electorate are not that much left-wing than the English electorate. They still believe that Labour spent too much - which undermines the idea that the anti-austerity message was really that powerful.
If Britain’s Labour party rounds off this golden summer for Conservative voyeurs by electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader, here is an abridged account of the aftermath.
First, the sugar rush of novelty. A republican Marxist peacenik fronting Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is a story to please radicals and entertain bored neutrals. As Jeremania spreads, commentators, devoted to the craft of reading too much into transient commotion, will suggest he “has a point” about capitalism and “engages young people” with his “authentic” idiom.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a623fd1e-393b-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html#axzz3hpiWUCM5
Libya isn't Middle East, it's North Africa. If nothing had been done, Libya might well still be terrible (cf Syria), and Cameron would be criticised for having done thing.
IIRC there was also a most amusing/frustrating bit of polling about Osborne's flagship policy about something or other - and most asked thought it was a Labour one.
They really can't win or rely on the voters paying any attention most of the time.
Oh, and how much is "too much"?
No smoke without fire, etc. etc.
Surely there must be a case for not disclosing the name of the accused until proven guilty? The damage to his name and reputation is already done
It demonstrates how sick our democracy has become under FPTP, nothing else.
I don't think the general public get too bothered when we don't bomb nasty countries that aren't a threat to us... I certainly don't
This may be where emotion vs. policy becomes the issue. Because if you haven't got that connection with voters - as, say, Miliband hadn't - then they won't listen to your policies at all. But if you have the connection and no policies, gradually people fall away from you (cf. Gordon Brown).
The soft left is more electable than the hard left but then Mars is more habitable than Neptune: neither planet will host human life anytime soon.
What's the catch.
The story about the girlfriend, Kathleen Rivers if memory serves, is in his autobiography, dealt with in two paragraphs with the rather brusque conclusion: 'Perhaps I was taking too much for granted...I subsequently learned she had a happy life with her children, but we never saw each other again.'
1) The accuser's age doesn't add up. We are told that he was 12 in 1961 and that he's 64 now. Perhaps the story is a couple of years old and has just been made public. But we're told he only told his secret this year.
2) Why would the accuser break down in tears four years later about this particular abuser when on his own account he'd been selling his body for five years before that and it didn't bother him?
For now I'm reserving judgement.
My point originally was that it would be unwise for the tories to underestimate public opinion and a simple message, people will listen to what they want to hear. A month ago nobody had heard of Corbyn, now look, which sort of proves my point.
Of course, it may simply be because he had a large salary and not a lot to spend it on, as a single man with no dependents. I'm a lot better off than most of my peers, for that simple reason. Or he may have made wise investments (although that would have been pretty inappropriate for a serving PM). But that wouldn't necessarily explain how he could afford an expensive hobby like yachting.
- Mass immigration isn't a deliberate policy. The Tories official line is being 'tough' on immigration - it's just that well....whatever they are doing isn't working.
- Increasing Debt? That's not a deliberate policy either. Labour would have most likely pursued cuts at a more slower pace (although it seems Osborne is doing that, incidentally).
- EU - Under Blair we wouldn't even have a EU referendum. Nor we would have the fox-hunting vote, EVEL, or a 'British Bill of Rights' instead of the HRA. Nor would Blair be looking at IDS' sick pay proposal, or Cameron's reported proposals to exempt temporary workers from EU working hours/rights.
- IHT, Welfare reforms, and generally the reduction of the state is something I can't see the Blair government actively doing.
@kle4 On your first point - I'm not sure I agree. I think it showed, in an ideal world that voters would like a moderate, pragmatic centrist government, but it's simply not on offer right now. Therefore, they'll opt for the most competent option, which appeared to be the Conservatives. The LDs didn't get a look in because no one took them seriously as a prospective government (ironic really) and no one saw them as competent. Clegg in particular was a toxic figure who was unlikely to get a hearing. I also think the electorate generally tend to take bids for the centre-ground from the main two seriously. Minority parties/third party usually gain success by being more ideological than the main two.
I think that voters tend to associate being too left or right wing with being 'extreme' or 'dangerous' generally. Cameron was seen as more right-wing than Ed Miliband, yes but he was also seen as far more competent than Ed Miliband. Voters, perhaps because Cameron was actually PM could picture Cameron as a credible 'PM', and in his mannerisms, voice, and general approach he could be taken seriously. Ed Miliband, regardless of his politics simply wasn't taken seriously - his many mishaps and awkward moment collided together, along with his 'weird' appearance to mean that voters didn't take him seriously. And that meant, that the Tories were always the default option.
This is why people are assumed to be innocent until found guilty from the evidence against them
Goddamn it. I tried to edit that bit but lost connectivity!
I disagree, its a deliberate policy because they're doing nothing, hence immigration rising. There is no appetite within govt to curb immigration, absolutely no evidence to suggest measures are being taken.
The other aspect is that horrible expression of Check Your Privilege as it applies to credibility. The same policy can be proposed by two different politicians and one will be seen as *good* and by the other *bad*.
We saw this again and again over the last couple of years in relation to Osborne giveaways that Ed Balls could never get away with.
Farage got 4m votes, but there is a reason why the OUT side of the referendum do not want him fronting their campaign. Because although he can attract a large minority vote-share of disgruntled ex-Labour voters, protest-voters, and right-wingers he cannot appeal to the vast majority of people, who are more moderate, and, importantly care about how competent a leader/party is.
People do listen to what they want to hear - arguably the Tories know this, and have used it in a very effective way - especially on welfare. It's even arguable whether the public are likely to listen to Corbyn. It's very easy to portray someone associated with Sinn Fein, Hamas, who opposes the nuclear deterrent as an extremist regardless of what he has to stay.
I don't see Corbyn's popularity proving your point. He's popular among Labour party members and activists - a demographic far-apart from most of the electorate. In particular, young people who go on twitter idiotically tweeting 'I'm hard-left' are a completely rarity in this country. Even among lefties I know, no one that insane.
https://commonspace.scot/articles/2038/corbyn-and-the-snp-5-ideas-they-agree-on-5-they-don-t
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/full-2015-clp-leadership-nominations-list-and-whats-changed-from-2010/
I think we agree about Corbyn's policies, where it seems we differ is the tory response. If he wins at PMQs he'll get some great soundbites that will motivate backbenchers and please the BBC, Cameron shouldn't underestimate his appeal.
Bargain !
Shades of the old Reichswehr (1919-34) and Wehrmacht (1934-45) squashing political opponents rather brutally...
It's Ms Apocalypse
Hmmm, you make an interesting point. @rcs1000 mentioned that some European countries - namely France, Italy and Germany - take far tougher approaches on the issue of employing illegal immigrants that we do. Yet if it's such an issue, in regard to undercutting wages - why don't we toughen up our measures, like other countries have done?
If the government are going to say one thing and do another - then they are shooting themselves in the foot.
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/627928157862109185