This election campaign so far - A Tale of Two Manifestos.
One of them is Alice in Wonderland, the other is Reality Bites.
One of them is pushed by a party that doesn't seriously believe it's going to form the next government, and one is being pushed (or maybe pulled?) by a party that knows it's nailed on to win.
The Labour manifesto is wholly unrealistic, every right thinking person knows that. I believe if the polls started closing, and it even became an extreme outside chance that Corbyn could become PM, the public would quickly put a stop to it. That's why their manifesto is superficially attractive. A free lunch always is. It also takes away (successfully, it has to be admitted - so far) the spotlight on the three crackpots at the helm - Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. It's a manifesto written by the Unions for the Unions.
The Tory manifesto is less of an election prospectus, but more of a blueprint for actual government. It's less eye catching than Labour's, and there's no free lunch. It's stark, brutal in parts, efficient, sincere and determined - and crucially, grown up. And it is precisely why it will win the war.
Knowing the British electorate as the serious, sensible and sober bunch they are, they will not be swayed by Corbyn and McDonnell's socialist Utopia, because they know it is them who will end up paying for the inevitable car crash.
Remember this - when people go to cast their votes, some of those (many, probably) who have been partly seduced by Labour's reckless promises of free money, will come to the same conclusion as all the other sensible folk. This is a straight choice between who is PM - May or Corbyn.
I hope I have helped to calm Tory nerves here (Sean T appears to be having some sort of a breakdown).
The problem here isn't that Theresa May loses, victory next month is certain.
The problem is what happens when she only gets, say, a 60 - 70 seat majority (e.g. Con 46%, Labour 35%), not impossible on current polling.
There's a convincing case to be made in this scenario that either:
a) Labour's policies are appealing to voters and a more palatable leader than Corbyn could lead a hard left Labour party to victory in 2022 or
b) Corbyn stays on and in a scenario where Brexit proves unpopular and/or you get a John Major style, fag-end Conservative five years that leave the party looking worn out, Corbyn sweeps to power in 2022.
That's the sort of thing that worries SeanT. Me too.
Viewed another way, that would the fourth election in a row in which the number of Labour seats fell.
Definitely! But if you were hoping for a rout that kicked Labour out of power for a generation and delivered an indisputable rejection of hard left politics for all to see, this election is turning out to be a bit of a disappointment.
Mr. Concanvasser, didn't Heseltine stand as a National Liberal at one point?
Yes I believe he did, although I think he was 'Conservative AND National Liberal'.
I think the late John Nott (he of 'be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Flag flies again over Port Stanle'y fame in '82) stood simply as a National Liberal.
My apologies. I am very glad to learn he is still with us. Not so many of Mrs T's first term cabinet left now. I remember him storming out on Sir Robin Day on the BBC.
Last minister to resign honourably, as far as I can recall.
Cook over Iraq?
OK. I'll go with Cook. He resigned over a point of disagreement, whereas Carrington resigned over personal responsibility for a disaster. For the same reason I'll accept Cameron.
Carrington was the last to resign under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility - ie, when your department screws up in a big way, you take the bullet, even if it wasn't your fault.
Cook's resignation was brought about by a different doctrine, collective responsibility - he couldn't continue as a member of government whose policy he couldn't support.
Different convention in each case.
Honourable men, both.
Edit: I should of course have added that plenty of departmental screw ups have happened since 1982 but for some reason ministers haven't felt the same need to do the honourable thing.
IFS have report on the Dementia Tax proposal. Pretty damning conclusion:
"the Conservative plan makes no attempt to deal with the fundamental challenge of social care funding. That is the big problem – not how many people might win or lose."
The IFS is wrong about this. It presupposes that the problem is an insurance problem necessarily requiring extensive coverage. But there is no evidence that the public wants more than safety net coverage. It's seeking to force comprehensive insurance on people that apparently only want to pay for third party, fire and theft.
Voters are coming to this cold. Government needs to sell the populace on a bargain with the basic question, Do you want or might you need social care? The answer presumably is, yes. So then it's a question of how it gets paid for. The government offers you co-funding as well as a cap. Does that sound like a deal? It needs detailed thought, which I am not convinced the government has given it. But it also needs time as people understand what's on offer.
Mr. Concanvasser, didn't Heseltine stand as a National Liberal at one point?
Yes I believe he did, although I think he was 'Conservative AND National Liberal'.
I think the late John Nott (he of 'be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Flag flies again over Port Stanle'y fame in '82) stood simply as a National Liberal.
Yes, according to Michael Crick's great biography of Heseltine, he stood in 1955 in the (then) safe Labour seat of Gower as a "National Liberal and Conservative."
Fascinating organisation, the National Liberals, a legacy of the pre-war split in the traditional Liberal Party. In the early 1950s, they were a significant Parliamentary force with 19 MPs. One of their number, Lloyd George's son Gwilym, even served as Home Secretary in Churchill's last Government. A former Liberal himself, Churchill liked the Conservative alliance with them because he felt it kept the Liberal name alive within the Toryism. But by the late 1960s, the National Liberals were wholly subsumed within the Conservative Party. Interestingly, their last chairman was the corrupt architect John Poulson, who used the group as a vehicle for developing political contacts.
Fascinating. Are you the Leo M who writes in the Mail quote a bit? If so I enjoy your articles (along with Robert Hardman and Quentin Letts).
I was delighted to see the Con Manifesto headed "Conservative and Unionist". When was the last time we stood as that?
I sincerely hope to see Conservative & Unionist on ballot papers in every part of the UK in the future.
This election campaign so far - A Tale of Two Manifestos.
One of them is Alice in Wonderland, the other is Reality Bites.
One of them is pushed by a party that d
The Tory manifesto is less of an election prospectus, but more of a blueprint for ad - and crucially, grown up. And it is precisely why it will win the war.
Knowing the British electorate as the serious, sensible and sober bunch they are, they will not be swayed by Corbyn and McDonnell's socialist Utopia, because they know it is them who will end up paying for the inevitable car crash.
Remember this - when people go to cast their votes, some of those (many, probably) who have been partly seduced by Labour's reckless promises of free money, will come to the same conclusion as all the other sensible folk. This is a straight choice between who is PM - May or Corbyn.
I hope I have helped to calm Tory nerves here (Sean T appears to be having some sort of a breakdown).
The problem here isn't that Theresa May loses, victory next month is certain.
The problem is what happens when she only gets, say, a 60 - 70 seat majority (e.g. Con 46%, Labour 35%), not impossible on current polling.
There's a convincing case to be made in this scenario that either:
a) Labour's policies are appealing to voters and a more palatable leader than Corbyn could lead a hard left Labour party to victory in 2022 or
b) Corbyn stays on and in a scenario where Brexit proves unpopular and/or you get a John Major style, fag-end Conservative five years that leave the party looking worn out, Corbyn sweeps to power in 2022.
That's the sort of thing that worries SeanT. Me too.
I personally expected a 50+ majority from day 1. It will be enough. If Brexit is a disaster no matter what the majority the Tories will get the blame and be thrown out. In fact like most things in politics it will end up meh and everyone will move on.
I started at 60-100, moved up to 70-120 and am now probably back at 60-100. 50 would of course be a lot better than now and would nullify the Cash, JRM, Redwood group.
First off I doubt whether anyone will notice that Brexit is a failure. It is (my) oft-quoted 5p on beer and fags in the budget. People are worse off but most won't notice or care. If they do notice, TMay will of course blame Europe, together with the other parties for not supporting her every move (it was of course a main motivation, we were told, for holding the early GE). As Lab haven't really come out for leaving or for staying, they will be pushed to capitalise on it all.
That said, by 2020 we will have had 10 years of a Cons govt one way or another and people might be fed up regardless.
It is starting to feel to me that the Conservative party is 'absorbing' a chunk of the LD vote.
Would not be the first time .There were plenty of Con voters (and indeed the odd Con MP) in the period '45-to roughly '79 who would say they were really 'Old Liberals' but voted Con as they were not Socialists. They were especially prevalent in the South West.
Mrs May is imho pitching to this group quite successfully.
I remember a PBer from the south west once claiming that the SW LibDem voters were a lot more Eurosceptic than LibDems elsewhere and that a fair proportion voted UKIP or its predecessors in Euro Parliament elections.
Not just the voters. A surprising number of members confidentially told me they voted UKIP in 2009.
Haven't been following/don't understand the "dementia tax" debate, but it seems to me that we should look after our parents the way that they looked after us when we couldn't fend for ourselves. The moral way would be to take time out and tend to them.
Didn't TM the PM unveil a policy recently that an employee with a sick relative could take a lot of time off to look after them? This should cover Parents w dementia
That's a Conservative manifesto commitment:
"As the majority of care is informally provided, mainly by families, we will give workers a new statutory entitlement to carer’s leave, as enjoyed in other countries."
It's an excellent idea.
Yes, I think so too. If either of my parents suffer from dementia, I am not sure I would want strangers looking after them in any case. My Grandad was treated disgracefully in a care home that we had to sell his house to pay for in the 90s, so we have been burned already. Couldn't put my folks through that
Haven't been following/don't understand the "dementia tax" debate, but it seems to me that we should look after our parents the way that they looked after us when we couldn't fend for ourselves. The moral way would be to take time out and tend to them.
Didn't TM the PM unveil a policy recently that an employee with a sick relative could take a lot of time off to look after them? This should cover Parents w dementia
Yes.
In the last year or so the Tories have sanctioned a 2% Social Care Surcharge on council tax bills, pledged £2bn additional funding in the last budget and have committed to workers' rights to Statutory Carer's Leave.
Looks like Starmer will challenge Corbyn if he loses
Looks like, and that the challengers no longer think Corbyn will do worse than Ed M, in vote share at least - the belief is growing, even as the seats tally is still expected to be very bad.
Good points.
Nevertheless, if Corbyn could get,say, 35% of the vote then he could point out that he had been able to attract just over one million more people to vote for the him than Ed Miliband.
He could argue (plausibly) that in a special year such as this one that he did better than the Blairites would have (in part because there would be little differentiation between Blairite and Mayism)
Oh, I have long thought if he faced a shellacking he would, despite statements to the contrary, stand down for fear of provoking a split...but if he does get that many votes, which will save some number of seats, then I fully expect he will stay on with that as his defence, and the others will be too cowed by his relative out performance to split.
Well hold on, if he does get that number of votes then why shouldn't he stay on? He can say that Brexit was a unique set of circumstances, that the party was in the middle of a reorganisation, and that people had just given him a mandate to complete the move leftwards.
Not sure that is a relevant question at this stage. you just have to suck it up.
Yeah, I know. Rhetorical. Nicola Sturgeon was very popular in Scotland for losing an independence referendum. Theresa May is popular for pursuing somewhat incompetently a third best option after Brexit. Quite similar really.
Mr. Concanvasser, didn't Heseltine stand as a National Liberal at one point?
Yes I believe he did, although I think he was 'Conservative AND National Liberal'.
I think the late John Nott (he of 'be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Flag flies again over Port Stanle'y fame in '82) stood simply as a National Liberal.
Yes, according to Michael Crick's great biography of Heseltine, he stood in 1955 in the (then) safe Labour seat of Gower as a "National Liberal and Conservative."
Fascinating organisation, the National Liberals, a legacy of the pre-war split in the traditional Liberal Party. In the early 1950s, they were a significant Parliamentary force with 19 MPs. One of their number, Lloyd George's son Gwilym, even served as Home Secretary in Churchill's last Government. A former Liberal himself, Churchill liked the Conservative alliance with them because he felt it kept the Liberal name alive within the Toryism. But by the late 1960s, the National Liberals were wholly subsumed within the Conservative Party. Interestingly, their last chairman was the corrupt architect John Poulson, who used the group as a vehicle for developing political contacts.
Fascinating. Are you the Leo M who writes in the Mail quote a bit? If so I enjoy your articles (along with Robert Hardman and Quentin Letts).
I was delighted to see the Con Manifesto headed "Conservative and Unionist". When was the last time we stood as that?
I sincerely hope to see Conservative & Unionist on ballot papers in every part of the UK in the future.
Officially, it's been the Conservative & Unionist Party since 1912!
Looks like Starmer will challenge Corbyn if he loses
Looks like, and that the challengers no longer think Corbyn will do worse than Ed M, in vote share at least - the belief is growing, even as the seats tally is still expected to be very bad.
Good points.
Nevertheless, if Corbyn could get,say, 35% of the vote then he could point out that he had been able to attract just over one million more people to vote for the him than Ed Miliband.
He could argue (plausibly) that in a special year such as this one that he did better than the Blairites would have (in part because there would be little differentiation between Blairite and Mayism)
Oh, I have long thought if he faced a shellacking he would, despite statements to the contrary, stand down for fear of provoking a split...but if he does get that many votes, which will save some number of seats, then I fully expect he will stay on with that as his defence, and the others will be too cowed by his relative out performance to split.
Well hold on, if he does get that number of votes then why shouldn't he stay on? He can say that Brexit was a unique set of circumstances, that the party was in the middle of a reorganisation, and that people had just given him a mandate to complete the move leftwards.
That was my point - he will have a legitimate justification for saying he should stay on if he does that well, and because he did that (relative) well, his opponents won't dare split.
Mr. Concanvasser, didn't Heseltine stand as a National Liberal at one point?
Yes I believe he did, although I think he was 'Conservative AND National Liberal'.
I think the late John Nott (he of 'be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Flag flies again over Port Stanle'y fame in '82) stood simply as a National Liberal.
Yes, according to Michael Crick's great biography of Heseltine, he stood in 1955 in the (then) safe Labour seat of Gower as a "National Liberal and Conservative."
Fascinating organisation, the National Liberals, a legacy of the pre-war split in the traditional Liberal Party. In the early 1950s, they were a significant Parliamentary force with 19 MPs. One of their number, Lloyd George's son Gwilym, even served as Home Secretary in Churchill's last Government. A former Liberal himself, Churchill liked the Conservative alliance with them because he felt it kept the Liberal name alive within the Toryism. But by the late 1960s, the National Liberals were wholly subsumed within the Conservative Party. Interestingly, their last chairman was the corrupt architect John Poulson, who used the group as a vehicle for developing political contacts.
Fascinating. Are you the Leo M who writes in the Mail quote a bit? If so I enjoy your articles (along with Robert Hardman and Quentin Letts).
I was delighted to see the Con Manifesto headed "Conservative and Unionist". When was the last time we stood as that?
I sincerely hope to see Conservative & Unionist on ballot papers in every part of the UK in the future.
Comments
http://reports-tv.com/ex-motogp-champion-nicky-hayden-is-dead-breaking-news/
I was delighted to see the Con Manifesto headed "Conservative and Unionist". When was the last time we stood as that?
I sincerely hope to see Conservative & Unionist on ballot papers in every part of the UK in the future.
First off I doubt whether anyone will notice that Brexit is a failure. It is (my) oft-quoted 5p on beer and fags in the budget. People are worse off but most won't notice or care. If they do notice, TMay will of course blame Europe, together with the other parties for not supporting her every move (it was of course a main motivation, we were told, for holding the early GE). As Lab haven't really come out for leaving or for staying, they will be pushed to capitalise on it all.
That said, by 2020 we will have had 10 years of a Cons govt one way or another and people might be fed up regardless.
Hope the arsehole has been paying his fair dues in child support.
In the last year or so the Tories have sanctioned a 2% Social Care Surcharge on council tax bills, pledged £2bn additional funding in the last budget and have committed to workers' rights to Statutory Carer's Leave.
NEW THREAD
Rather the opposite in fact.