Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
If the economy as a whole was so strong why did the Tories lose - by a landslide ? Ungrateful people ?
This is a very good article. Sitting on the centre-left, it disturbs me that talking about wealth creation seems to solely the preserve of the Tories. If, like me, you believe in the positive power of redistribution, you surely have to be equally as focused on wealth creation. https://twitter.com/freeman_george/status/902057982938230784
I agree it is a good article. The discussion about how to actively generate wealth is totally absent from the labour party at the moment, and it has sort of been subsumed in to a brexit fantasy world in the conservatives.
The labour party cannot seem to get past the mindset that the state is simply an enormous resource to plunder to pursue vague ideas of social and economic justice, and to improve the living standards of their voter base. Laura Pidcock is an excellent (for the wrong reasons) example of this flawed thinking.
I think like you my time in the labour party is over.
Are you in the Labour Party ? God help us!
I've survived two years of the Corbyn wasteland but watching Laura Pidcocks maiden speech again the other day truly marks the end of the road for me. These people really are the future of the labour party, which fills me with dread.
You should carry out your threat. Leave, for God's sake, leave !
On top of the Mandelson piece below, Blair will be meeting Juncker this week in Brussels. It's just like old times.
You do realize how utterly toxic Blair and Mandy are I suppose?
I think Jezza is doing great long term strategic damage aligning himself to the snakes of New Labour...
Next thing we know he'll be demanding some third world country is bombed...
Even more toxic than Theresa - the immigration number fiddler
Yes.
Theresa is unpopular. People find her cold, aloof and remote.
But I'd be surprised if people think she's a liar (if anything she was too honest with the problems we're facing in relation to social care etc.) I doubt the public think she's corrupt or especially self-serving.
Chances are they don't view TM as a complete fantasist and (so far) she hasn't started bombing the living crap out of third world nations...
If Corbyn ever becomes PM -and I find that unlikely because -and I am speaking as a Labour supporter, -I think he remains a huge liability, and that Labour has misinterpreted the June result as a vote for Corbyn and not a vote despite him -he will toxify Labour for a generation. Not only will he inevitably dash the expectations he has raised, but he will make such a mess of things that the Tories will have his face all over their election leaflets well into the 2ist century.
You must have missed the leader's approval ratings. Even after a recent fall, Corbyn's net ratings are 0, May's is -34.
Barnier has an article in Le Monde calling for integrated European defence and saying that Brexit will have consequences for British defence and security.
France is going to strengthen European security by cutting its defence spending ?
The EU army is a French ploy to get Germany to put its hand in its pocket. The shadow of WW2 meant Germany could not expand its own forces; the cold war meant it did not need to.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-argued piece, Cyclefree. I don't agree with a lot of it but there you go.
History has been brutal to Tony Blair but the events of 9/11 had ramifications with which we are still living today. It defined and dominated the second term of his Government which might otherwise have concentrated on reforms which while perhaps not as radical as the second Thatcher term might have shaped society in as profound a way. 9/11 opened the door to the Iraq intervention for the Washington hawks and Blair chose to follow the Thatcher rather than Wilson approach. It made little difference I think overall but destroyed him politically just as not intervening in Vietnam helped Wilson and arguably Heath.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
As for Cameron, he made the Referendum a political tactic without realising it was or could be more than that. I genuinely think Cameron thought he could come back with a deal which most (meaning his loyalists, the LDs and Labour) could back and sell to the electorate. This would forestall the worrying rise of UKIP which looked a real threat to the Conservatives at the time.
Initially, it worked - the Referendum pledge combined with the strategic disasters of Ed Miliband gave Cameron his majority in 2015 but the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him his deal so it became an In-Out vote which was a big gamble and, as you say, he could never make the positive sell for Europe so had to rely on fear which backfired disastrously.
Barnier has an article in Le Monde calling for integrated European defence and saying that Brexit will have consequences for British defence and security.
France is going to strengthen European security by cutting its defence spending ?
The EU army is a French ploy to get Germany to put its hand in its pocket. The shadow of WW2 meant Germany could not expand its own forces; the cold war meant it did not need to.
Barnier has an article in Le Monde calling for integrated European defence and saying that Brexit will have consequences for British defence and security.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown and Balls saved us from the Euro. One day they will have statues in Westminster for this.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
I totally agree with this. But it's interesting to wonder how things may have developed had they gone down this route. Would it have just delayed the flow?
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Cameron, 2015
If it was sustainable, why did May go for an election 2 years later ?
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-argued piece, Cyclefree. I don't agree with a lot of it but there you go.
History has been brutal to Tony Blair but the events of 9/11 had ramifications with which we are still living today. It defined and dominated the second term of his Government which might otherwise have concentrated on reforms which while perhaps not as radical as the second Thatcher term might have shaped society in as profound a way. 9/11 opened the door to the Iraq intervention for the Washington hawks and Blair chose to follow the Thatcher rather than Wilson approach. It made little difference I think overall but destroyed him politically just as not intervening in Vietnam helped Wilson and arguably Heath.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
As for Cameron, he made the Referendum a political tactic without realising it was or could be more than that. I genuinely think Cameron thought he could come back with a deal [Snipped]
Initially, it worked - the Referendum pledge combined with the strategic disasters of Ed Miliband gave Cameron his majority but the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him his deal so it became an In-Out vote which was a big gamble and, as you say, he could never make the positive sell for Europe so had to rely on fear which backfired disastrously.
Thank you.
I did contemplate making immigration Blair's biggest mistake - I would put it in his top three - but, for brevity, had to pick one. I think Blair's failure on migration was not just in relation to the Eastern European states (and I don't, to be honest, feel that having a lot of Poles moving here has been one of our big problems) but that he had, in effect, an open door policy before then, did not deal with the asylum question well and made no attempt to deal with the social consequences of migration from very different countries. Eastern Europeans moving here in large numbers then became the proverbial straw but would likely not have done had the migration question been handled intelligently in the years beforehand.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown and Balls saved us from the Euro. One day they will have statues in Westminster for this.
Good header. I agree Corbyn will let people down. Twas ever thus. I strongly suspect he and his key ministers will be so bogged down in Brexit related issues that they won't have time for anything else.
That's if he wins. Or indeed, doesn't stand down at 70 for Thornberry.
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown and Balls saved us from the Euro. One day they will have statues in Westminster for this.
I thought we'd given up on statues ?
Only for slave owners. I know Brown drove his staff hard, but not quite to that levels.
Watching CNN Weather last night, TS Harvey is going back where it made landfall and out into the Gulf. It will pick up more moisture but this time head NNW and pass over Galveston, Houston These places could receive rainfall equal to the amounts they have already had.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
I totally agree with this. But it's interesting to wonder how things may have developed had they gone down this route. Would it have just delayed the flow?
I watched the Diana programme last night and Blair was part of it, with clips from 1997 (as a footnote I thought he did really well with the whole Diana episode, and I can't stand the bloke).
I said to my wife how much the UK has changed in the 20 years since, and it has a great deal with the lack of transitional arrangements on migration.
I'm not sure we would even have had a referendum if those arrangements had been put in place back then.
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-argued piece, Cyclefree. I don't agree with a lot of it but there you go.
snip
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
As for Cameron, he made the Referendum a political tactic without realising it was or could be more than that. I genuinely think Cameron thought he could come back with a deal [Snipped]
Initially, it worked - the Referendum pledge combined with the strategic disasters of Ed Miliband gave Cameron his majority but the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him his deal so it became an In-Out vote which was a big gamble and, as you say, he could never make the positive sell for Europe so had to rely on fear which backfired disastrously.
Thank you.
I did contemplate making immigration Blair's biggest mistake - I would put it in his top three - but, for brevity, had to pick one. I think Blair's failure on migration was not just in relation to the Eastern European states (and I don't, to be honest, feel that having a lot of Poles moving here has been one of our big problems) but that he had, in effect, an open door policy before then, did not deal with the asylum question well and made no attempt to deal with the social consequences of migration from very different countries. Eastern Europeans moving here in large numbers then became the proverbial straw but would likely not have done had the migration question been handled intelligently in the years beforehand.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
iirc Blair himself believes his biggest mistake (at least as far as legislation goes) was Freedom of Information Act.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
I totally agree with this. But it's interesting to wonder how things may have developed had they gone down this route. Would it have just delayed the flow?
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown (and Balls) did not oppose joining the Euro.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Cameron, 2015
If it was sustainable, why did May go for an election 2 years later ?
Lt. Theresa: Permission to speak freely, sir? Admiral TSE: Granted. Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities. TSE: And why not? Theresa: Because... there was no way to win. TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you? Theresa: No, sir, it has not. TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say? Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me. TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Good header. I agree Corbyn will let people down. Twas ever thus. I strongly suspect he and his key ministers will be so bogged down in Brexit related issues that they won't have time for anything else.
That's if he wins. Or indeed, doesn't stand down at 70 for Thornberry.
Thornberry or Starmer. Neither is a Corbynista but did not behave like petulant children.
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Cameron, 2015
If it was sustainable, why did May go for an election 2 years later ?
Lt. Theresa: Permission to speak freely, sir? Admiral TSE: Granted. Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities. TSE: And why not? Theresa: Because... there was no way to win. TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you? Theresa: No, sir, it has not. TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say? Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me. TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Cameron, 2015
If it was sustainable, why did May go for an election 2 years later ?
Lt. Theresa: Permission to speak freely, sir? Admiral TSE: Granted. Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities. TSE: And why not? Theresa: Because... there was no way to win. TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you? Theresa: No, sir, it has not. TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say? Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me. TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Sunil, being prime minister isn't a test. Please join us in the real world.
Brown (and Balls) did not oppose joining the Euro.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
More of the usual revisionism when it comes to Germany and the Euro. This is how things were seen in 1999:
The biggest economy in the euro area, Germany’s, is in a bad way. And its ills are a main cause of the euro’s own weakness
The truth is that Germany is the poster child for the kind of structural reforms that are now showing success in Spain and elsewhere. They were just ahead of the curve.
Does Blair regret Scottish devolution? It has set back the Labour party greatly by loss of most of their MPs in Scotland (although a few seats were regained at GE2017), and possible Scottish independence (leading to the break-up of the UK) remains on the agenda.
Good point about PFI; costing us dear.
I've often said Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI but the Tories instead chose to blame him for the global financial crisis, which really did start in America, and prior to which the economy really was in good shape.
Brown took bank regulation away from the Bank of England and gave it to a new organisation, the FSA, which failed to set adequate capital requirements for banks nor curb excess lending at low ball interest rates.
Alonso will be starting from the back of the grid in all likelihood, although there is a small chance he'll receive sufficient penalties to have to start from Rome.
This is a very good article. Sitting on the centre-left, it disturbs me that talking about wealth creation seems to solely the preserve of the Tories. If, like me, you believe in the positive power of redistribution, you surely have to be equally as focused on wealth creation. https://twitter.com/freeman_george/status/902057982938230784
I agree it is a good article. The discussion about how to actively generate wealth is totally absent from the labour party at the moment, and it has sort of been subsumed in to a brexit fantasy world in the conservatives.
The labour party cannot seem to get past the mindset that the state is simply an enormous resource to plunder to pursue vague ideas of social and economic justice, and to improve the living standards of their voter base. Laura Pidcock is an excellent (for the wrong reasons) example of this flawed thinking.
I think like you my time in the labour party is over.
Are you in the Labour Party ? God help us!
I've survived two years of the Corbyn wasteland but watching Laura Pidcocks maiden speech again the other day truly marks the end of the road for me. These people really are the future of the labour party, which fills me with dread.
in that case we'll be stopping their diesel sales since the cars shouldnt be on the roads
tomorrow ok?
A question best posed to those in government (or those who support it), don't you think ? I'm not holding my breath....
In any event, technology is likely to deal with the problem, eventually - and the likelihood of May (and probably her successors) engaging in punitive action against German car makers in the meantime is extremely slim.
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown (and Balls) did not oppose joining the Euro.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
The criteria were dreamt up by Balls as a way of blocking Euro entry iirc.
Alonso will be starting from the back of the grid in all likelihood, although there is a small chance he'll receive sufficient penalties to have to start from Rome.
Without a new engine, he's likely to have been somewhere near the back anyway. He'll probably be slightly relieved that they manage to provide the upgrade. And I still think we might see him podium before the end of the season.
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown (and Balls) did not oppose joining the Euro.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
The criteria were dreamt up by Balls as a way of blocking Euro entry iirc.
The criteria were significantly vague that they could never be met. There was never a serious attempt by Britain to join, but it served our politicians to keep it open as an option.
Does Blair regret Scottish devolution? It has set back the Labour party greatly by loss of most of their MPs in Scotland (although a few seats were regained at GE2017), and possible Scottish independence (leading to the break-up of the UK) remains on the agenda.
Good point about PFI; costing us dear.
I've often said Brown should be put up against a wall for PFI but the Tories instead chose to blame him for the global financial crisis, which really did start in America, and prior to which the economy really was in good shape.
Brown took bank regulation away from the Bank of England and gave it to a new organisation, the FSA, which failed to set adequate capital requirements for banks nor curb excess lending at low ball interest rates.
There was a technical reason for removing bank regulation from the BoE, though I can't remember what it was -- a conflict of interest somewhere along the line. In any event, given the bank scandals that have occurred under the BoE's supervision, and that the BoE writ never ran to America, it is all irrelevant.
It is not enough to say that a hypothetical Conservative chancellor would have spent less or taxed more or done anything differently, if these things would not have made any material difference.
I know a couple of folk on here watched Philippe Sands' film on Lviv and his (& the sons of Franck & Wachter) relationship with it. The link is to an essay based on his lecture at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
Some interesting stuff; I'm quite struck by the loyalty & sense of connection that so many feel towards a city (Lviv), something that we tend to forget in this age of rampant individualism, family, nationalism and supra nationalism. Maybe the city state is the way ahead!
I'm sure his observations on Trump, Brexit & Scottish indy will go down a treat here.
This is a very good article. Sitting on the centre-left, it disturbs me that talking about wealth creation seems to solely the preserve of the Tories. If, like me, you believe in the positive power of redistribution, you surely have to be equally as focused on wealth creation. https://twitter.com/freeman_george/status/902057982938230784
I agree it is a good article. The discussion about how to actively generate wealth is totally absent from the labour party at the moment, and it has sort of been subsumed in to a brexit fantasy world in the conservatives.
The labour party cannot seem to get past the mindset that the state is simply an enormous resource to plunder to pursue vague ideas of social and economic justice, and to improve the living standards of their voter base. Laura Pidcock is an excellent (for the wrong reasons) example of this flawed thinking.
I think like you my time in the labour party is over.
Are you in the Labour Party ? God help us!
I've survived two years of the Corbyn wasteland but watching Laura Pidcocks maiden speech again the other day truly marks the end of the road for me. These people really are the future of the labour party, which fills me with dread.
Blair and Cameron were also seen as interlopers, to be tolerated as long as they were successful. Afterwards, in both parties, there was a sense that, "we've got our party back".
More fool both parties. The last time a non-Blair led LAB won a working majority was Wilson in 1966. The last non Thatcher CON sustainable working majority was Heath in 1970
Cameron, 2015
If it was sustainable, why did May go for an election 2 years later ?
Lt. Theresa: Permission to speak freely, sir? Admiral TSE: Granted. Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities. TSE: And why not? Theresa: Because... there was no way to win. TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you? Theresa: No, sir, it has not. TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say? Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me. TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Sunil, being prime minister isn't a test. Please join us in the real world.
iirc Blair himself believes his biggest mistake (at least as far as legislation goes) was Freedom of Information Act.
I think that was one of his better ideas - and that's speaking as someone who has dealt with some irritating FOI requests. Yes there are costs - but the benefits can be intangibly important.
Some interesting examples here collected by BBC - but perhaps the most significant was the Alec Salmond EU legal advice/Scottish independence debacle.
Edited because I got the date wrong - I had thought it was to mark 10 years as Chancellor.
Strikingly prescient......'meddler....psychologically flawed.....too much borrowing'
Never mind it started in America
You missed this part: Indeed, there should be comfort in the figures which show that he has overseen the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK in the last two centuries. The UK economy has expanded during every quarter since Mr Brown became chancellor, averaging 2.7% output growth per year, despite a string of global upheaval such as the Asian financial crisis, the end of the dotcom boom and the 11 September attacks.
And you this:
Mr Brown was fortunate in that he inherited a strong economy from the Tories.
As we know, it was when Brown deviated from Clarke's plans that things went awry, not least in his opposition to the Euro.
Brown (and Balls) did not oppose joining the Euro.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
The criteria were dreamt up by Balls as a way of blocking Euro entry iirc.
The criteria were significantly vague that they could never be met. There was never a serious attempt by Britain to join, but it served our politicians to keep it open as an option.
There's some fascinating detail on all this in an old independent article:
"[Balls] said that Blair and Brown "were united in their pro-Europeanism" but that Brown had become more cautious about the economic case, while "people around Tony Blair" were pushing hard for Britain to join."
Blair probably made a mistake over Iraq but then as Syria showed non.intervrntion also has a price. It was Brown who decided not to challenge him and few PMs set up an ideal successor, even Thatcher grew disillusioned with Major despite his victory. On the economy and public services etc he generally had a stronger record. His biggest mistake in my view was failing to follow other EU nations in imposing transition controls in the new accession countries in 2004
Cameron's problem on the EU was his heart was never in it, it was the least worst option in his view. The role the Coalition played sorting out the finances is also a legacy for him as is gay marriage
May could not agree to a soft Brexit without alienating most of her party and the majority of Leave voters who voted for Brexit in large part because of immigration. Her biggest mistake was the dementia tax, it was that not her Brexit stance which coat her her majority.
If Corbyn wins the next general election, which is not impossible, he will be the first PM since Heath to have lost his first general election but only come to power on his second attempt. Given the huge problems the Heath government faced and the fact it lost office after just 1 term and the likelihood Corbyn's economic policies combined with dithering over Brexit will damage the economy and lead to a similarly weak government that is not a good precedent. Labour may be better longer term to have Corbyyn lose again and replace him with a more moderate, telegenic leader like Umunna who is more likely to grow the economy and can take over when people may be more willing to accept a return to the single market if immigration has been reduced in the meantime
Mr. B, using 'podium' as a verb is bloody horrendous.
Anyway, the likeliest prospect is probably Singapore, but Red Bull will also be very good there. I'd guess that Singapore + rain would be Alonso's best chance.
I know a couple of folk on here watched Philippe Sands' film on Lviv and his (& the sons of Franck & Wachter) relationship with it. The link is to an essay based on his lecture at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
Some interesting stuff; I'm quite struck by the loyalty & sense of connection that so many feel towards a city (Lviv), something that we tend to forget in this age of rampant individualism, family, nationalism and supra nationalism. Maybe the city state is the way ahead!
I'm sure his observations on Trump, Brexit & Scottish indy will go down a treat here.
Mr. B, using 'podium' as a verb is bloody horrendous.
Anyway, the likeliest prospect is probably Singapore, but Red Bull will also be very good there. I'd guess that Singapore + rain would be Alonso's best chance.
It seems you would be quite at home in the French Academy Mr.D. I made my peace with the evolution of language some time ago... if one can win, why should one not podium ?
I don't think Singapore is the last chance, though. Honda will should manage another upgrade before the end of the season - indeed might have to if they want to stay in F1.
Mr. B, evolution is fine, degradation is not. Something being new does not mean it's necessarily progress.
Honda are miles back. Maybe 80bhp or so. And the other engine suppliers aren't standing still. This is their third year, and they seem to be getting relatively worse. It's just not acceptable.
I know a couple of folk on here watched Philippe Sands' film on Lviv and his (& the sons of Franck & Wachter) relationship with it. The link is to an essay based on his lecture at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
Some interesting stuff; I'm quite struck by the loyalty & sense of connection that so many feel towards a city (Lviv), something that we tend to forget in this age of rampant individualism, family, nationalism and supra nationalism. Maybe the city state is the way ahead!
I'm sure his observations on Trump, Brexit & Scottish indy will go down a treat here.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains.
The differences? Scotland, Obviously. And Blair appealed to Southern working class voters, and voters in the Midlands, whereas Corbyn repels them. And the Tory vote is much more efficiently distributed now than in 2001. A Tory lead of 2.5% in 2001 would still have put Labour 100 seats ahead of them, compared to a Tory lead of 56 today.
Mr. B, evolution is fine, degradation is not. Something being new does not mean it's necessarily progress.
Honda are miles back. Maybe 80bhp or so. And the other engine suppliers aren't standing still. This is their third year, and they seem to be getting relatively worse. It's just not acceptable.
We'll see, Mr.D. The other engine suppliers are necessarily standing still for much of the rest of the season, as they can't afford to take the penalties which Honda can, and must.
I remain unhorrified by 'podium', but these are, of course, matters of taste.
Blair probably made a mistake over Iraq but then as Syria showed non.intervrntion also has a price. It was Brown who decided not to challenge him and few PMs set up an ideal successor, even Thatcher grew disillusioned with Major despite his victory. On the economy and public services etc he generally had a stronger record. His biggest mistake in my view was failing to follow other EU nations in imposing transition controls in the new accession countries in 2004
Did Mrs Thatcher not have several favoured successors at various points? Cecil Parkinson, and was it John Moore?
I know a couple of folk on here watched Philippe Sands' film on Lviv and his (& the sons of Franck & Wachter) relationship with it. The link is to an essay based on his lecture at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
Some interesting stuff; I'm quite struck by the loyalty & sense of connection that so many feel towards a city (Lviv), something that we tend to forget in this age of rampant individualism, family, nationalism and supra nationalism. Maybe the city state is the way ahead!
I'm sure his observations on Trump, Brexit & Scottish indy will go down a treat here.
A précis in six words:
My nationalism good, your nationalism bad.
Fair play for being so honest..
Here's another six words:
I am righteous, you are not.
Its the mentality which dominates modern politics and is used to justify these nine words:
Take it from them and give it to me.
' I am righteous and you are not so take it from them and give it to me. '
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001.
"Save the Pound" was about as popular as May's appeals to strengthen her hand.
The Tories did win almost double the number of seats which they won in 2001. Euroscepticism is as popular among voters in the South West, East Anglia, Midlands and much of the North as it is unpopular in London and university towns.
Blair probably made a mistake over Iraq but then as Syria showed non.intervrntion also has a price. It was Brown who decided not to challenge him and few PMs set up an ideal successor, even Thatcher grew disillusioned with Major despite his victory. On the economy and public services etc he generally had a stronger record. His biggest mistake in my view was failing to follow other EU nations in imposing transition controls in the new accession countries in 2004
Did Mrs Thatcher not have several favoured successors at various points? Cecil Parkinson, and was it John Moore?
True but they came and went before she did, Blair I believe originally favoured Alan Milburn before moving to David Miliband but he could not get past Brown first
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains.
The differences? Scotland, Obviously. And Blair appealed to Southern working class voters, and voters in the Midlands, whereas Corbyn repels them. And the Tory vote is much more efficiently distributed now than in 2001. A Tory lead of 2.5% in 2001 would still have put Labour 100 seats ahead of them, compared to a Tory lead of 56 today.
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 (which voted Remain in the EU referendum) as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford (strong Leave areas in the EU referendum) and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains.
The differences? Scotland, Obviously. And Blair appealed to Southern working class voters, and voters in the Midlands, whereas Corbyn repels them. And the Tory vote is much more efficiently distributed now than in 2001. A Tory lead of 2.5% in 2001 would still have put Labour 100 seats ahead of them, compared to a Tory lead of 56 today.
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains.
The differences? Scotland, Obviously. And Blair appealed to Southern working class voters, and voters in the Midlands, whereas Corbyn repels them. And the Tory vote is much more efficiently distributed now than in 2001. A Tory lead of 2.5% in 2001 would still have put Labour 100 seats ahead of them, compared to a Tory lead of 56 today.
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well.
One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
That's interesting.
You might add that the likes of Wilson and Heath were also people of middling background who had wider experience of other people.
Cameron always seemed as someone who admired his own supposed cleverness too much and thought he could bullshit his way through things whether that was a Leaders debate, a Budget, an EU negotiation or a Referendum campaign.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
Even in 2005 they won far more seats in Kent and the Midlands and Essex than Corbyn did in 2017. Although Corbyn did well in university towns and cities, suburban and inner London and some northern marginals, he made a net loss of seats in the Midlands and in Kent and Essex only picked up 1 seat
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
You are right. Educated people vote Labour.
But so do Rayner and Corbyn...
Meanwhile, John Redwood votes Conservative (so far as we know).
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
You are right. Educated people vote Labour.
There are plenty of educated older people who never went to university and have or had professional and managerial jobs and vote Tory whose grandchildren are graduates due to university expansion and vote Labour
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
T
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
The 1975 referendum was still a considerable risk for Wilson. The polls were adverse since we joined in 1973. Only in early 1975 did they begin to turn. Unlike Cameron, Wilson played only a modest part in the campaign, leaving it mainly to the cross-party YES group. Cameron was very up-front throughout and appeared at times arrogant, patronising and, latterly, desperate. He should have taken his cue from Wilson, I think, and he may then just have prevailed.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
I would have thought a 1992 win (43-34) would deliver a pretty hefty majority. On UNS it would have given Major a majority of 77, and May's vote is quite efficiently distributed.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
T
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
The 1975 referendum was still a considerable risk for Wilson. The polls were adverse since we joined in 1973. Only in early 1975 did they begin to turn. Unlike Cameron, Wilson played only a modest part in the campaign, leaving it mainly to the cross-party YES group. Cameron was very up-front throughout and appeared at times arrogant, patronising and, latterly, desperate. He should have taken his cur from Wilson, I think, and he may then just have prevailed.
Do you think Wilson's low-key approach was because he wanted to be Father of the Nation rising above the fray, because he was ill, or because unlike Heath and Jenkins he was never that enamoured of the EU? Or a mixture of the lot?
Corbyn as the new Blair? A shuddering thought - did Blair really have so many red flags signifying inevitable difficulties ahead (other than over promising, which is a fairly common issue)?
No, up till 2001, Blair enjoyed most of the luck going and was the dominant figure in British politics and had been since (arguably) 1994. The 2001 GE, while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of his first term, was in many ways a worse result for the Conservatives than 1997. People with wealth were comfortable and secure and willing to see the fruits of economic prosperity shared in terms of rising spending. Look at the Conservative vote in 2001 across the Home Counties and the south - in many seats, the share was lower than 1997.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
There was a curious foreshadowing of the 2017 result in 2001. London (especially posh suburbia) moved further to Labour, as did middle class Southern seats. Working class Northern seats showed some big pro-Tory swings. But, the Tories were so far behind, these did not result in gains. .
Indeed, I campaigned for the Tories in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 as a student when Labour won by 5,953 votes, a feat they repeated this year when they won by 1,206 votes. 2001 did see 1 or 2 Tory gains in Essex and the border with London, Castle Point, Upminster and Romford and this year every Essex seat went Tory, including Braintree by a massive 18,422 votes, in 2001 I also campaigned in Braintree in the holidays and although there was a small swing to the Tories Labour narrowly won it by 358 votes
See how well Labour did in seats like Dartford, Chatham, Gravesham, Sittinngbourne, Amber Valley, North Warwickshire, in the Blair years, which now look completely out of reach.
Indeed, in 2001 Labour won 7 seats in Kent, 5 in Essex, 4 in Warwickshire and 10 in Derbyshire. Now they have just 1 seat in Kent, 0 in Essex, 1 in Warwickshire and 5 in Derbyshire. The seats they won in Kent and Warwickshire (Canterbury and Warwick and Leamington) both are full of students and academics from nearby Kent and Warwick Universities
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
T
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning.
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
The 1975 referendum was still a considerable risk for Wilson. The polls were adverse since we joined in 1973. Only in early 1975 did they begin to turn. Unlike Cameron, Wilson played only a modest part in the campaign, leaving it mainly to the cross-party YES group. Cameron was very up-front throughout and appeared at times arrogant, patronising and, latterly, desperate. He should have taken his cur from Wilson, I think, and he may then just have prevailed.
Do you think Wilson's low-key approach was because he wanted to be Father of the Nation rising above the fray, because he was ill, or because unlike Heath and Jenkins he was never that enamoured of the EU? Or a mixture of the lot?
In Wilson's own autobiography of the period he says he spoke at meetings every evening for a fortnight during the campaign. The broadcasters did not involve Wilson or Callaghan in various programmes for balance reasons.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
I would have thought a 1992 win (43-34) would deliver a pretty hefty majority. On UNS it would have given Major a majority of 77, and May's vote is quite efficiently distributed.
A lead of 43/39 would give the Conservatives a working majority.
In Wilson's own autobiography of the period he says he spoke at meetings every evening for a fortnight during the campaign. The broadcasters did not involve Wilson or Callaghan in various programmes for balance reasons.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
T
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Interesting, have you published your research anywhere?
The 1975 referendum was still a considerable risk for Wilson. The polls were adverse since we joined in 1973. Only in early 1975 did they begin to turn. Unlike Cameron, Wilson played only a modest part in the campaign, leaving it mainly to the cross-party YES group. Cameron was very up-front throughout and appeared at times arrogant, patronising and, latterly, desperate. He should have taken his cur from Wilson, I think, and he may then just have prevailed.
Do you think Wilson's low-key approach was because he wanted to be Father of the Nation rising above the fray, because he was ill, or because unlike Heath and Jenkins he was never that enamoured of the EU? Or a mixture of the lot?
I think it is a mixture of all of them. We have since learned that Wilson was weary of the recurring issues of the time and by 1975 had already decided to retire the following year. The YES campaign was well funded and stuffed full of what we would now call the 'establishment' or 'political elite'. In those days people were much more deferential towards such figures and would generally follow the advice they gave. Wilson did not need to pull out all the stops personally and had proved already everything he had wanted to prove.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
If he runs - I reckon that would be his main promise.
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
Nobody should believe anything Corbyn says either given his remarkable track record of dishonesty, but they do. For why? My guess is because they want to believe it.
As George W. Bush is alleged to have said, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should concentrate on.'
Edit - and considering Boris was sacked from his first ever job for forgery, the fact that people do still believe him suggests he would have a chance of cutting through.
It's just hard to imagine that he wouldn't be an awful Prime Minister.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75. People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State. In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning. Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well. One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
The Remain campaign was run by Conservatives. It was a hopeless campaign. Mrs May and her party have form.
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
Nobody should believe anything Corbyn says either given his remarkable track record of dishonesty, but they do. For why? My guess is because they want to believe it.
As George W. Bush is alleged to have said, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should concentrate on.'
Edit - and considering Boris was sacked from his first ever job for forgery, the fact that people do still believe him suggests he would have a chance of cutting through.
It's just hard to imagine that he wouldn't be an awful Prime Minister.
This has a resonance you might not be aware of. Prior to the 2016 referendum I did some research on prior referenda, here and abroad, and this included reading "The 1975 Referendum" (Butler, Kitzinger) and "Full-hearted Consent" (Goodhart), two books about the 75 referendum. One striking difference between 16 and 75 was the lack of preparation in 16 and the surfeit in 75. People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State. In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit ) for the EC entry but this is entirely unfair: the 75 Yes vote was the result of over six years of patient campaigning. Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
Thank you. Very interesting. I have thought for some time that the EU referendum was won/lost long before the campaign. An object lesson perhaps in not using referenda for tactical purposes unless you have a real strategy as well. One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
The Remain campaign was run by Conservatives. It was a hopeless campaign. Mrs May and her party have form.
Off topic, but the weather forecast for Houston is dire. At least 7 more days of rain predicted. This could make or break the Trump presidency. It could be worse than Katrina, in that Houston is much bigger and far more economically important than New Orleans. Let's hope the worst predictions prove unfounded. Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead. However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
This article was published on 24th August and has a map showing how uneven the impact of climate change in the US is predicted to be... basically the South, and particularly South East fares the worst:
Labour does not need a 1997 or 2001 win. 2005 would do.
While the Tories need a 1987 which with TMay as leader is simply a wild fantasy.
No, as SeanF has mentioned just a 4% Tory lead would give a small overall majority, perfectly possible for Boris if he goes in having dumped the dementia tax, allowed modest public sector pay increases and committed to ending free movement and leaving the single market within a year of taking office to appeal to Labour Leave voters
The only problem with that one is that nobody believes anything Boris Johnson says. Whatever happened to the 350,000,000 per week for the NHS?
Nobody should believe anything Corbyn says either given his remarkable track record of dishonesty, but they do. For why? My guess is because they want to believe it.
As George W. Bush is alleged to have said, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should concentrate on.'
Edit - and considering Boris was sacked from his first ever job for forgery, the fact that people do still believe him suggests he would have a chance of cutting through.
It's just hard to imagine that he wouldn't be an awful Prime Minister.
What Trump is doing right now.
Yes. Two cheeks of the same arse.
Although in fairness to Boris he's both much more intelligent and has much more experience of executive political power than Trump (or for that matter Corbyn). He'd more likely be a Chavez style figure - popular and doing strange things that ultimately lead to disaster but possibly after he has left.
Comments
Theresa is unpopular. People find her cold, aloof and remote.
But I'd be surprised if people think she's a liar (if anything she was too honest with the problems we're facing in relation to social care etc.) I doubt the public think she's corrupt or especially self-serving.
Chances are they don't view TM as a complete fantasist and (so far) she hasn't started bombing the living crap out of third world nations...
Even after a recent fall, Corbyn's net ratings are 0, May's is -34.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hckhp9mi9w/InternalResults_170816_MattFavourability_W.pdf
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-argued piece, Cyclefree. I don't agree with a lot of it but there you go.
History has been brutal to Tony Blair but the events of 9/11 had ramifications with which we are still living today. It defined and dominated the second term of his Government which might otherwise have concentrated on reforms which while perhaps not as radical as the second Thatcher term might have shaped society in as profound a way. 9/11 opened the door to the Iraq intervention for the Washington hawks and Blair chose to follow the Thatcher rather than Wilson approach. It made little difference I think overall but destroyed him politically just as not intervening in Vietnam helped Wilson and arguably Heath.
For me, Blair's biggest make was not agreeing to transitional arrangements on migration from the newly-joined Eastern European countries in 2004. Like Merkel, I believe, he saw the migration as cheap labour to continue to fuel the fire of economic prosperity but misjudged the numbers that would come to the money and failed to recognise the potential social, political and cultural consequences of open door migration.
As for Cameron, he made the Referendum a political tactic without realising it was or could be more than that. I genuinely think Cameron thought he could come back with a deal which most (meaning his loyalists, the LDs and Labour) could back and sell to the electorate. This would forestall the worrying rise of UKIP which looked a real threat to the Conservatives at the time.
Initially, it worked - the Referendum pledge combined with the strategic disasters of Ed Miliband gave Cameron his majority in 2015 but the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him his deal so it became an In-Out vote which was a big gamble and, as you say, he could never make the positive sell for Europe so had to rely on fear which backfired disastrously.
The events of 9/11 can't be blamed on Blair nor were their scale and severity in any way predictable. It was a unique event and the response to it needed to be on a different scale to anything preceding. It provided the opportunity for the hawks in the new Bush administration to argue for intervention in Iraq.
I did contemplate making immigration Blair's biggest mistake - I would put it in his top three - but, for brevity, had to pick one. I think Blair's failure on migration was not just in relation to the Eastern European states (and I don't, to be honest, feel that having a lot of Poles moving here has been one of our big problems) but that he had, in effect, an open door policy before then, did not deal with the asylum question well and made no attempt to deal with the social consequences of migration from very different countries. Eastern Europeans moving here in large numbers then became the proverbial straw but would likely not have done had the migration question been handled intelligently in the years beforehand.
Major too has some responsibility. The EU referendum feels like the last act of the Maastricht drama. Where all the focus was on the euro more attention should have been paid to freedom of movement of people and what that would actually mean. It seems to have come as a surprise years later and the government made no real attempt to deal with the consequences despite knowing full well that this freedom would inevitably have profound implications for the country, both good and bad.
That's if he wins. Or indeed, doesn't stand down at 70 for Thornberry.
I said to my wife how much the UK has changed in the 20 years since, and it has a great deal with the lack of transitional arrangements on migration.
I'm not sure we would even have had a referendum if those arrangements had been put in place back then.
They just set criteria of economic convergence with the EU countries before it should be attempted. The UK did not meet the economic convergence criteria.
Greece and Italy's problems in the Euro are because the absence of economc convergence was ignored and/or fudged. It is still the case that Germany has an undervalued currency whilst most of the other Eurozone countries have an overvalued currency.
Admiral TSE: Granted.
Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities.
TSE: And why not?
Theresa: Because... there was no way to win.
TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every Prime Minister may face. Has that never occurred to you?
Theresa: No, sir, it has not.
TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?
Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.
TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Please join us in the real world.
The biggest economy in the euro area, Germany’s, is in a bad way. And its ills are a main cause of the euro’s own weakness
http://www.economist.com/node/209559
The truth is that Germany is the poster child for the kind of structural reforms that are now showing success in Spain and elsewhere. They were just ahead of the curve.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41071953
Alonso will be starting from the back of the grid in all likelihood, although there is a small chance he'll receive sufficient penalties to have to start from Rome.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/15498470.Greg_Moodie__Diversity_Training/?ref=twtrec
https://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/08/keir-starmer-absolutely-clearly-and-unambiguously-declares-war-on-brexit-ambiguity-sort-of.html
Shakib becomes only the 4th bowler in test history after taking a 5 for against all nine test playing nations !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUk8E2U4pgc
I thought it was quite good.
I'm not holding my breath....
In any event, technology is likely to deal with the problem, eventually - and the likelihood of May (and probably her successors) engaging in punitive action against German car makers in the meantime is extremely slim.
And I still think we might see him podium before the end of the season.
https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-frustration-with-tillerson-rising-fast-2478123564.html
It is not enough to say that a hypothetical Conservative chancellor would have spent less or taxed more or done anything differently, if these things would not have made any material difference.
http://tinyurl.com/yabzvk2j
Some interesting stuff; I'm quite struck by the loyalty & sense of connection that so many feel towards a city (Lviv), something that we tend to forget in this age of rampant individualism, family, nationalism and supra nationalism. Maybe the city state is the way ahead!
I'm sure his observations on Trump, Brexit & Scottish indy will go down a treat here.
Some interesting examples here collected by BBC - but perhaps the most significant was the Alec Salmond EU legal advice/Scottish independence debacle.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30645383
"[Balls] said that Blair and Brown "were united in their pro-Europeanism" but that Brown had become more cautious about the economic case, while "people around Tony Blair" were pushing hard for Britain to join."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-the-blair-government-decided-against-adopting-the-euro-a6937736.html
It was Brown who decided not to challenge him and few PMs set up an ideal successor, even Thatcher grew disillusioned with Major despite his victory. On the economy and public services etc he generally had a stronger record. His biggest mistake in my view was failing to follow other EU nations in imposing transition controls in the new accession countries in 2004
Cameron's problem on the EU was his heart was never in it, it was the least worst option in his view. The role the Coalition played sorting out the finances is also a legacy for him as is gay marriage
May could not agree to a soft Brexit without alienating most of her party and the majority of Leave voters who voted for Brexit in large part because of immigration. Her biggest mistake was the dementia tax, it was that not her Brexit stance which coat her her majority.
If Corbyn wins the next general election, which is not impossible, he will be the first PM since Heath to have lost his first general election but only come to power on his second attempt. Given the huge problems the Heath government faced and the fact it lost office after just 1 term and the likelihood Corbyn's economic policies combined with dithering over Brexit will damage the economy and lead to a similarly weak government that is not a good precedent. Labour may be better longer term to have Corbyyn lose again and replace him with a more moderate, telegenic leader like Umunna who is more likely to grow the economy and can take over when people may be more willing to accept a return to the single market if immigration has been reduced in the meantime
Anyway, the likeliest prospect is probably Singapore, but Red Bull will also be very good there. I'd guess that Singapore + rain would be Alonso's best chance.
My nationalism good, your nationalism bad.
I made my peace with the evolution of language some time ago... if one can win, why should one not podium ?
I don't think Singapore is the last chance, though. Honda will should manage another upgrade before the end of the season - indeed might have to if they want to stay in F1.
Honda are miles back. Maybe 80bhp or so. And the other engine suppliers aren't standing still. This is their third year, and they seem to be getting relatively worse. It's just not acceptable.
The differences? Scotland, Obviously. And Blair appealed to Southern working class voters, and voters in the Midlands, whereas Corbyn repels them. And the Tory vote is much more efficiently distributed now than in 2001. A Tory lead of 2.5% in 2001 would still have put Labour 100 seats ahead of them, compared to a Tory lead of 56 today.
The other engine suppliers are necessarily standing still for much of the rest of the season, as they can't afford to take the penalties which Honda can, and must.
I remain unhorrified by 'podium', but these are, of course, matters of taste.
I am righteous, you are not.
Its the mentality which dominates modern politics and is used to justify these nine words:
Take it from them and give it to me.
' I am righteous and you are not so take it from them and give it to me. '
That's modern politics in under twenty words.
As an aside, Verstappen's not far off Alonso in the DNF stakes.
Trump is planning to go ther tomorrow which shows a level of concern and willingness to lead.
However, Don is perfectly capable of going there and making a fool of himself.
People forget how organised/communal society used to be. In present times we socialise in smaller groups or alone, have shorter relationships and accept suggestions from the State. In WW2 it was entirely organised (as somebody has already pointed out on this board, Britain went full-on command economy on the civilian population very early), socialisation was in larger groups, relationships were longer and people accepted instructions from the State.
In the 60's/70's the communal society was still in place and government organs such as the Central Office of Information still existed and were powerful. The idea of manufacturing consent was seen differently then, in the age of introducing compulsory vaccinations and trying to retard drunk driving and tobacco addiction, so campaigning to encourage a general pro-European stance was acceptable and effective. Such campaigning was done from the mid/late 60's to obtain consent, lasting across Wilson's 60's premiership, Heath's 70's, and Wilson's 70's. Heath gets most of the blame (credit
Wilson was a statistician and civil servant, Heath was a soldier: both were used to large systems that moved slowly and required enormous effort. Cameron was a party apparatchik and media employee, used to smaller groups that move quickly. In the latter case charm and a facility with people works well, in the former it is irrelevant. Cameron simply didn't realise what it took to win a referendum and did not have the tools to do so.
One thing shocked me during the campaign and that was when the immigration figures came out: the Remain campaign had simply nothing to say. It's as if the existence of such a statistic and its timing came as a complete shock. And it really shouldn't have. Why on earth were they not better prepared, even taking everything you have said into account?
You might add that the likes of Wilson and Heath were also people of middling background who had wider experience of other people.
Cameron always seemed as someone who admired his own supposed cleverness too much and thought he could bullshit his way through things whether that was a Leaders debate, a Budget, an EU negotiation or a Referendum campaign.
Meanwhile, John Redwood votes Conservative (so far as we know).
https://twitter.com/NWS/status/901832717070983169
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/24/new-study-finds-that-climate-change-costs-will-hit-trump-country-hardest
As George W. Bush is alleged to have said, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should concentrate on.'
Edit - and considering Boris was sacked from his first ever job for forgery, the fact that people do still believe him suggests he would have a chance of cutting through.
It's just hard to imagine that he wouldn't be an awful Prime Minister.
Although in fairness to Boris he's both much more intelligent and has much more experience of executive political power than Trump (or for that matter Corbyn). He'd more likely be a Chavez style figure - popular and doing strange things that ultimately lead to disaster but possibly after he has left.