I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
Thank you for the (as always) erudite response. I rarely agree with you but as a debater and one willing to look over the partisan fence, you're one of the best on this site.
I'm less convinced about the role of Hague re: the euro. The opportunity existed before 2001 but Brown was never in favour (and indeed others in both the Cabinet and the wider Labour Party were sceptical) and Blair was never willing or able to go against Gordon.
I would also contend the Conservative campaign's ineptitude aided Labour as much if not more than the LDs.
I'm also not convinced about this notion of "huge numbers of voters being up for grabs". When you have two such immensely polarising figures as May and Corbyn, the notion becomes that to oppose one you must vote for the other. To vote for a third choice means the least preferred choice might win.
Leyla Moran, new Lib Dem in Oxford West, is not a patch on Sarah Olney, the Richmond Lib Dem MP who lost her seat at the general election after winning the by-election against Zac Goldsmith.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
and no sex
Who do you want sex with? Verhoftstadht, Merkel, or Juncker?
Can we at least add Justin Trudeau to the list? He must qualify under the new Canada / EU treaty.
As a red-blooded male, I'm not sure I can think of a female leader..
I'm fairly confident this Government will last until May-June 2019, whereupon we get the next Queen's speech. All its key Bills announced today will pass 2nd reading, but will be vulnerable to heavy amendment in the Commons/Lords, and there'll be some nailbiters at 3rd reading.
Questions are: does May last the course? Is she replaced in 2019 by Hammond, or someone else? Do the DUP continue to dance post A50 period? Is there a GE that year? Is there an economic downturn at the same time? Who wins it?
I can't see the point of replacing May with Hammond in 2019.
There's an argument for doing it now so he can deal with Brexit, but if May continues until we've left the EU then I think it will be time for a completely fresh start.
May, Davis, Hammond, Gove, Boris, etc. Should all depart after Brexit and let the Tories renew with a new generation.
Boris won't depart of his own accord, his raison d'etre is to make Boris PM.
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since).
Sorry but Hague was a complete muppet as leader with his campaign to keep the pound, not least because Gordon Brown had already saved the pound in 1997 with his five tests, and Labour had committed to a referendum if the tests ever were met. It is a nonsense to say Hague won the argument because it had already been settled: there was no argument to win. There were also reports that CCHQ ignored feedback from the constituencies of how badly Hague's irrelevant and unnecessary campaign was received on the doorstep.
We may have to disagree about this but to put the other side:
- Brown had provided the framework for saving the Pound but the decision remained to be made; it had not been saved in 2001. - Blair, Cook, Mandelson and other leading figures in Labour at the time were enthusiastic about the Euro. Brown could not be guaranteed to exercise a veto. - Following, had Blair done even better, he might well have moved Brown from the Treasury - as advisors lobbied him to do - in which case the decision on the five essentially political tests could have been determined differently. - For that matter, Brown's opposition was at least as much political as practical; it certainly wasn't ideological. His support could perhaps have been bought for the right price. - Hague had to find ground on which he could fight. By 2001, the country was comfortable with a moderate Labour government and any attempt to contest the centre ground would have been steamrollered (as Hague found when he tried his own modernisation project in 1997/8). The core-vote strategy ensured party unity, a coherent and distinctive message and, consequently, a base from which to advance in future when conditions allowed. Put simply, the fact that some might have regarded the Tory campaign as "irrelevant and unnecessary" does not mean that voters would have switched with a different campaign, even if they felt warmer towards the Tories.
Hague's leadership is much underrated. He understood where the party needed to go but also why it couldn't go there at the time. He developed an effective Plan B and in doing so, ensured Britain stayed out of the Euro.
The conservative official position was remain - Labours position was to basically not bother to hard to support staying in (we all know how their leadership felt about the EU) - remind me which areas of country voted most heavily for leave?
But only sections of conservative party to be blamed?
Even going back a few years which tory leader was it who went to sign a certain treaty on his own after the main event which bound us closer to the mess that is the EU?
Oh wait, that was Brown / Labour.
Plenty of blame to be spread around
The overriding blame must fall on the Tory party which tolerated and then collaborated with the cancer of Euroscepticism at its heart. Wet pragmatists like Cameron became so used to appeasing these people that in the end they and became consumed by them. Decades of avoiding the argument instead of winning the argument caught up on them.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
That's what democracy is, Roger, as shown in every general election ever.
The conservative official position was remain - Labours position was to basically not bother to hard to support staying in (we all know how their leadership felt about the EU) - remind me which areas of country voted most heavily for leave?
But only sections of conservative party to be blamed?
Even going back a few years which tory leader was it who went to sign a certain treaty on his own after the main event which bound us closer to the mess that is the EU?
Oh wait, that was Brown / Labour.
Plenty of blame to be spread around
The overriding blame must fall on the Tory party which tolerated and then collaborated with the cancer of Euroscepticism at its heart. Wet pragmatists like Cameron became so used to appeasing these people that in the end they and became consumed by them. Decades of avoiding the argument instead of winning the argument caught up on them.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
That's what democracy is, Roger, as shown in every general election ever.
Roger - I am not happy about it either, but the country has decided according to the flawed method we have always used.
I'm fairly confident this Government will last until May-June 2019, whereupon we get the next Queen's speech. All its key Bills announced today will pass 2nd reading, but will be vulnerable to heavy amendment in the Commons/Lords, and there'll be some nailbiters at 3rd reading.
Questions are: does May last the course? Is she replaced in 2019 by Hammond, or someone else? Do the DUP continue to dance post A50 period? Is there a GE that year? Is there an economic downturn at the same time? Who wins it?
I can't see the point of replacing May with Hammond in 2019.
There's an argument for doing it now so he can deal with Brexit, but if May continues until we've left the EU then I think it will be time for a completely fresh start.
May, Davis, Hammond, Gove, Boris, etc. Should all depart after Brexit and let the Tories renew with a new generation.
Boris won't depart of his own accord, his raison d'etre is to make Boris PM.
Somebody who wants the job that badly will probably make a mess if they ever get the job. Look at Gordon...
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Bloody close.
Has anybody worked out how many votes we were from Jezza being PM?
The companies that advised him on the price (£3.30) were allowed to take a very large holding at that price. On day one, in October 2013, the share price went up 36% to £4.50 and the advisers were allowed to sell their shares at a vast profit. The public were restricted to 227 shares, but if they applied for more than £1000 they got none. It was an absolute scandal and Cable was responsible for it.
The current price is nothing to do with the scandal.
PS From your comment I think you might be confusing the 2013 sale at £3.30 with the sale in 2015 at £4.55 which was nothing to do with Cable.
I was referring to the first day close (which I thought was 455p but could have been 450p). 450p less a 20% ipo discount would be around 360p, so there was some money left on the table, but not as much as people think.
If you had bought at 330p in 2013, and held it through today (at 450p) you would have made 36% + dividends of around 20% [I can't be bothered to check the formal TSR]. That's around 14% p.a. return - which is reasonably good in absolute terms (I aim for RPI + 5% on my overall portfolio, but higher on my equities) but not great given some of the fundamental risks involved.
The advisers received no shares in the IPO. They don't do that. The sub-underwriters would have received some, but that's because they invested pensioners money.
If the demonstrators trash London in the name of democracy, could someone pick me up a nice pair of trousers from M&S?
I suspect in this modern age where M&S find retailing difficult, a nice pair of trousers from M&S may be an oxymoron.
It is unbelievable how inept M&S are at identifying the needs and requirements of their potential customers, the styles that are required and providing a retail experience that is conducive to getting those potential customers to purchase. While some may consider it to be science, it isn't rocket science.
I recall buying some socks in M&S .... I think it was 1974 ....
Their food halls are passable at a push. What I don't understand is this modern vogue for wire baskets and trolleys that customers are encouraged to walk around with. Don't these people employ footmen in appropriate livery and at the very least personal shoppers?
Of course not. These days the shopkeeper delivers the food to me.
Not convinced. It would be right to do it on a UK level, but not sure that a provincial government should be involving in the affairs of another region.
Closed 455p first day of trading. A 15-20% discount on IPO is market standard so this was at bottom of range because government didn't want hedges in register
So we sold it for 330p and within a day it was 455p? So within a day you get a 38% return? That doesn't seem great value for the taxpayer.
Apparently shares were over 24 times oversubscribed and the same companies that advised on the share price also bought shares for their clients and made a packet.
And members of the public were allowed a maximum of 227 shares unless they asked for more than 1,000 in which case they got none. It was a disgrace and down to Cable.
The rest went to institutional investors, managing money on behalf of pensioners and public authorities who are... drum roll... members of the public
Comments
I'm less convinced about the role of Hague re: the euro. The opportunity existed before 2001 but Brown was never in favour (and indeed others in both the Cabinet and the wider Labour Party were sceptical) and Blair was never willing or able to go against Gordon.
I would also contend the Conservative campaign's ineptitude aided Labour as much if not more than the LDs.
I'm also not convinced about this notion of "huge numbers of voters being up for grabs". When you have two such immensely polarising figures as May and Corbyn, the notion becomes that to oppose one you must vote for the other. To vote for a third choice means the least preferred choice might win.
NEW THREAD
- Brown had provided the framework for saving the Pound but the decision remained to be made; it had not been saved in 2001.
- Blair, Cook, Mandelson and other leading figures in Labour at the time were enthusiastic about the Euro. Brown could not be guaranteed to exercise a veto.
- Following, had Blair done even better, he might well have moved Brown from the Treasury - as advisors lobbied him to do - in which case the decision on the five essentially political tests could have been determined differently.
- For that matter, Brown's opposition was at least as much political as practical; it certainly wasn't ideological. His support could perhaps have been bought for the right price.
- Hague had to find ground on which he could fight. By 2001, the country was comfortable with a moderate Labour government and any attempt to contest the centre ground would have been steamrollered (as Hague found when he tried his own modernisation project in 1997/8). The core-vote strategy ensured party unity, a coherent and distinctive message and, consequently, a base from which to advance in future when conditions allowed. Put simply, the fact that some might have regarded the Tory campaign as "irrelevant and unnecessary" does not mean that voters would have switched with a different campaign, even if they felt warmer towards the Tories.
Hague's leadership is much underrated. He understood where the party needed to go but also why it couldn't go there at the time. He developed an effective Plan B and in doing so, ensured Britain stayed out of the Euro.
If you had bought at 330p in 2013, and held it through today (at 450p) you would have made 36% + dividends of around 20% [I can't be bothered to check the formal TSR]. That's around 14% p.a. return - which is reasonably good in absolute terms (I aim for RPI + 5% on my overall portfolio, but higher on my equities) but not great given some of the fundamental risks involved.
The advisers received no shares in the IPO. They don't do that. The sub-underwriters would have received some, but that's because they invested pensioners money.