is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme.
I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
Yes, they're getting less coverage (or less high-profile coverage; what was once on BBC2 is now on BBC Parliament).
The Lib Dems' coverage reduction was also compounded by their reduced status. Two elections at 7-8% and with no more than a dozen MPs means they're really not a major party these days.
But I believe that the Liberal Assembly was broadcast - as were the Tory & Labour Conferences - pretty much in its entirety as far back as the Jo Grimond era in the early 1960s. The broadcasters have long cut back their coverage on debates and now tend to focus on little beyond the speeches of the party leaders.
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme.
I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
Yes, they're getting less coverage (or less high-profile coverage; what was once on BBC2 is now on BBC Parliament).
The Lib Dems' coverage reduction was also compounded by their reduced status. Two elections at 7-8% and with no more than a dozen MPs means they're really not a major party these days.
But I believe that the Liberal Assembly was broadcast - as were the Tory & Labour Conferences - pretty much in its entirety as far back as the Jo Grimond era in the early 1960s. The broadcasters have long cut back their coverage on debates and now tend to focus on little beyond the speeches of the party leaders.
The parties themselves, through their leaders, seem to welcome the shift in focus . They want the message to be simple and personified by the leader, and the internal discussion and other events to only be known to the party faithful.
Once again you make the wrong assumption. Not being a Tory does not make me a Labour supporter.
When did you last vote Tory then? You clearly prefer Labour governments to Tory ones
If this board is representative of public opinion (and I don't necessarily see that as desirable), some 40% of it should have voted for Corbyn's Labour party. I think that highly unlikely.
My guess would be we are over-represented on Lib Dems and Conservatives. Under-represented on UKIP and Labour.
In 2015 a poll was done here of which party PBers voted for, as I said earlier Tory and Labour voteshare almost exactly matched the UK average but as you say LDs were overrepresented and UKIP underrepresented.
Where this site is underrepresented is working class Leave voters not left-wingers
That makes sense to me. I think the proportion of left-wingers on this board who dislike Corbyn/won't vote for him is probably quite a bit higher than nationally.
That is true but then of course Corbyn won 20% of 2015 UKIP voters last time too
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
Churchill had already been PM when he lost and would almost certainly have won a 1940 election
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Considering that we are all suffering under the present total incompetence of the Conservative Party, can anyone be worse. Even Vince Cable would be better as PM than May. It is now more likely that it will be any party rather than the Tories for the next 20 years. Just imagine of the hoohaa if Moodies had dropped the the credit rating of the UK on a Labour party watch? Or the value of the currency falling against the Euro/Dollar, or having a disastrous referendum result, or an incompetent general electoral campaign when many on this site would have been questioning the legitimacy of the Labour Party in government and demanding a re-run to let those fine, public school and Oxbridge types to take on their natural mantle of quality leadership - not that I am being sarcastic or anything like that......
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
I did see something about Uncle Vince making a speech but that is honestly all I picked up from it. And the speech was in anticipation not after he made it.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
Also Attlee, who lost in 1935 before going on to win in 1945 (I know that 1935 is more than 80 years ago but 1945 isn't, so it depends on your definition).
But then there aren't two many who lost a first election and then fought a second. Apart from Attlee, Churchill and Heath, only Kinnock lost one and carried on to fight a second (Gaitskell very probably would have done had he not died - difficult to say whether he would have won given how close the 1964 actually was).
So arguably, the odds of winning at the second go are quite reasonable.
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
I did see something about Uncle Vince making a speech but that is honestly all I picked up from it. And the speech was in anticipation not after he made it.
Which is another curse of modern politics. Let’s all discuss a keynote speech the morning after it was made, rather than the morning before.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
And in terms of the popular vote Churchill lost all three elections he fought as leader! Moreover , had it not been for the Ulster Unionists then taking the Tory Whip the 1951 election would have produced a Hung Parliament.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Considering that we are all suffering under the present total incompetence of the Conservative Party, can anyone be worse. Even Vince Cable would be better as PM than May. It is now more likely that it will be any party rather than the Tories for the next 20 years. Just imagine of the hoohaa if Moodies had dropped the the credit rating of the UK on a Labour party watch? Or the value of the currency falling against the Euro/Dollar, or having a disastrous referendum result, or an incompetent general electoral campaign when many on this site would have been questioning the legitimacy of the Labour Party in government and demanding a re-run to let those fine, public school and Oxbridge types to take on their natural mantle of quality leadership - not that I am being sarcastic or anything like that......
The government are not very good at politics, but I don't think many of use are suffering due to poor governance.
Bollocks to Uber, they'll be government owned once Lab get in.
Listening to Macca is pretty scary stuff.
Is there any chance this new found confidence will be Labour undoing by offering stuff that seems excessive and irresponsible- I fail to see how Labour would have the money to bring PFIs to an end or bring in house, whilst nationalising water, energy, the royal mail, rail etch with our current level of debt. And free tuition fees.
Who on earth do you think is listening? Almost no one without a fixed voting position. And quite right too. The next election is years away.
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
I did see something about Uncle Vince making a speech but that is honestly all I picked up from it. And the speech was in anticipation not after he made it.
Which is another curse of modern politics. Let’s all discuss a keynote speech the morning after it was made, rather than the morning before.
Completely agree but the polys are complicit. They give all the media a script before it is delivered so they have something to talk about.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
The world has changed enormously since then. Companies wouldn't look elsewhere and see similar market conditions in other countries. The rest of the world is not likely to follow us in the time machine back to the 1940s.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
Obviously some assets can't be moved to escape Labour's grasp, but the message it would send out is that if the government feels like it it will seize your assets and pay you a fraction of their value. Do you really think a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
But maybe that is what we need to finally kill off the scourge of Socialism in this country.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
And in terms of the popular vote Churchill lost all three elections he fought as leader! Moreover , had it not been for the Ulster Unionists then taking the Tory Whip the 1951 election would have produced a Hung Parliament.
Yes and as I said he would have won in 1940 by a landslide but WW2 postponed the general election. Wilson lost the popular vote in February 1974 too but won most seats
is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme. I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.
The Lib Dems had a conference?
Yes indeed, a week ago. There was a record attendance, with 4000 members present.
To a large extent, our foreign-owned media failed to notice.
I did see something about Uncle Vince making a speech but that is honestly all I picked up from it. And the speech was in anticipation not after he made it.
Which is another curse of modern politics. Let’s all discuss a keynote speech the morning after it was made, rather than the morning before.
Completely agree but the polys are complicit. They give all the media a script before it is delivered so they have something to talk about.
Yep it’s a stitch-up between the politicians and media, but I’d rather hear the speech as delivered than listen to a bunch of half-informed hacks discussing the key points hours earlier. But then again I’m an old fuddy duddy (39) who thinks that key speeches about government policy should be made in Parliament.
A cursory search for 'compensation' in Hansard for the 1940s shows the kinds of debates that went on about all the various factors that must be considered to decide on the 'how' and 'how much', and same debates would probably go on in any future nationalisations. The arguments back then that it would terminally damage British industry don't seem to have played out.
How does, say, the East Coast mainline get moved elsewhere? Or any of the UK utilities for that matter?
hink a government behaving like that will attract much investment into UK industry?
The type of nationalisations being discussed would only bring us back into line with most of Europe, so yes I think investment into UK will be fine.
The market would sink like a stone if McDonnell got anywhere near power and private pension investments would collapse
He would also have to oversee the biggest cuts in the NHS ever. Within six months, it would be the most reviled Govt. of all time.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore.
5 years of Corbyn and co could be fun, but worth noting that single term governments are a rarity, so could well be 10 or more.
The last leader to lose his first general election and become PM as Corbyn is trying to do was Heath in 1970 whose government lasted a single term
A very rare event indeed. The only other example in the last 80 years was Winston Churchill, who lost his first two elections as leader.
And in terms of the popular vote Churchill lost all three elections he fought as leader! Moreover , had it not been for the Ulster Unionists then taking the Tory Whip the 1951 election would have produced a Hung Parliament.
Yes and as I said he would have won in 1940 by a landslide but WW2 postponed the general election. Wilson lost the popular vote in February 1974 too but won most seats
I think the result of a 1940 election is pretty unknowable given the circumstances of the time and the fact of a Coalition Government having been formed - and Churchill only succeeded Chamberlain as Tory leader in the Autumn of that year. There is certainly some evidence from polling and the by election successes of Common Wealth and other candidates that an election held in 1942 or 1943 would have produced an even bigger Labour landslide than happened in 1945.
There’s no anti-Semitism in Labour, they had an enquiry and everything. https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/labour-fringe-expel-jewish-activists-israel-like-nazis/ A fringe event at Labour conference has heard calls to expel Jewish activists from the party, while a speaker compared Israel to Nazis and the audience was banned from tweeting in an attempt to silence “hostile” coverage.
Just seen the news. Rest in peace Mark. A thoughtful fellow who came across as a real gentleman. I'm sure he'll be missed by the many people who knew him in politics and beyond.
Comments
I doubt Corbyn or any Labour leader for that matter could even get such a budget through parliament.
- A government with a refreshingly new programme
- A reinvigorated centre-left opposition
- An AfD exposed to real scrutiny
But then there aren't two many who lost a first election and then fought a second. Apart from Attlee, Churchill and Heath, only Kinnock lost one and carried on to fight a second (Gaitskell very probably would have done had he not died - difficult to say whether he would have won given how close the 1964 actually was).
So arguably, the odds of winning at the second go are quite reasonable.
So, yes, one could get a good deal worse.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/labour-fringe-expel-jewish-activists-israel-like-nazis/
A fringe event at Labour conference has heard calls to expel Jewish activists from the party, while a speaker compared Israel to Nazis and the audience was banned from tweeting in an attempt to silence “hostile” coverage.