Smith may well have been 'decent' although he certainly likes a drink but there he would not have won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury, Putney, Rugby and Kenilworth and Shipley Blair won in 1997 and 2001.
On the other hand, even if he'd had a majority of around 50, it's not hard to imagine he would have governed more effectively than Blair who was in thrall to Gordon Brown and spent much of his time bungling basic points of administration while backing down in the face of very mild intraparty opposition.
Blair didn't really understand governing until after 2001, by which time he was obsessed with the bogey of Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern instability rather than meaningful bread and butter policies at home. It's striking to reflect that insofar as he was interested in such things he spent much of the time undoing his previous work.
There is of course the risk that had Smith not died in 1994, he'd have died some time in 1997-2001.
It is quite remarkable that no UK PM has died in office in over 150 years, when you think about the number of near-misses.
That's a fair point I hadn't thought of.
Campbell-Bannerman was obviously one near miss and Churchill was ill for much of the last two years of his premiership. But who else were you thinking of? Even allowing for the advanced ages of Salisbury, Gladstone and Disraeli they weren't seen as close to death at the time they left office.
Chamberlain died within months of leaving office. Bonar Law is another near miss.
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
It’s debatable whether the centre has been abandoned or just shifted leftwards. The Tories are talking energy caps, workers reps on boards, going after the wealth of the elderly to fund social care, borrowing to pay for building etc...
The Tories are no longer talking about going after the wealth of the elderly to pay for social care as it cost them their majority and support with the middle aged too, Corbyn opposed the dementia tax for just that reason.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
The odd thing is, May's ratings are not particularly poor (37% approval is not bad for a PM). But, her judgement is bad.
She has a certain competence. She can master a brief and deliver a speech, so long as no actual vision is required. She crosses the low bar of looking more competent than Corbyn (as does my daughter’s cat). But she can’t run a government because she can’t build a team. Without that very little can be achieved.
Smith may well have been 'decent' although he certainly likes a drink but there he would not have won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury, Putney, Rugby and Kenilworth and Shipley Blair won in 1997 and 2001.
On the other hand, even if he'd had a majority of around 50, it's not hard to imagine he would have governed more effectively than Blair who was in thrall to Gordon Brown and spent much of his time bungling basic points of administration while backing down in the face of very mild intraparty opposition.
Blair didn't really understand governing until after 2001, by which time he was obsessed with the bogey of Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern instability rather than meaningful bread and butter policies at home. It's striking to reflect that insofar as he was interested in such things he spent much of the time undoing his previous work.
There is of course the risk that had Smith not died in 1994, he'd have died some time in 1997-2001.
It is quite remarkable that no UK PM has died in office in over 150 years, when you think about the number of near-misses.
That's a fair point I hadn't thought of.
Campbell-Bannerman was obviously one near miss and Churchill was ill for much of the last two years of his premiership. But who else were you thinking of? Even allowing for the advanced ages of Salisbury, Gladstone and Disraeli they weren't seen as close to death at the time they left office.
Chamberlain died within months of leaving office. Bonar Law is another near miss.
True, had forgotten them. Doubly careless as they both featured heavily in my PhD thesis!
Macmillan of course thought he was dying - ironically he then lived to be over 90!
The Leave/Remain divide is largely artificial. Boris, it should be recalled, wavered hugely before coming down for Leave; likewise many others on either side. May was an extremely reluctant Remainer. Most MPs - certainly most Remain MPs - had no great loyalty to that cause and took it on out of pragmatism: it was the least-worst option and (or in some cases no doubt, a bigger 'or'), happened to be the leadership's stance. The people having spoken and the leadership having changed, there are precious few Remainers who'll die in a ditch. This is why talk of a new centrist party is for the birds. If defections were going to happen over Brexit, they'd have done so already. (This too is a contrast to the 90s, where three Tory MPs defected, one to Labour and two to the Lib Dems, not counting resignations or withdrawals of the whip or last-minute strops).
No, while there undoubtedly are divisions of opinion on the type of Brexit that should be sought, they're relatively slight; the bigger divisions on the topic are (1) how far to push it if push comes to shove - does the UK ultimately walk away or sign if the EU doesn't offer what the government can easily live with, and (2) about the level of enthusiasm for Brexit, between the true believers and the pragmatists.
Even so, those divisions are either bridgeable or for the future.
The problems in party management are in fact far more mundane. In the absence of a central driving focus to the government, ministers are lacking an esprit de corps, ambitions are running beyond ability and jockeying for position is undermining collective endeavour. The whole thing is drifting because apart from Brexit and some fine words about inclusion and opportunity - not yet translated into meaningful policy - the government itself doesn't seem to be sure what it's for. Keeping Corbyn out is far from sufficient. The result is that it's constantly reacting to events and on the defensive, lacks ideas or a recognisable philosophy that voters and activists will buy into and would appear weak even if it wasn't prone to periodically lapsing into infighting. To that extent, it is the 90s again, other than 'keeping Corbyn out' is something large parts of the country will accept as a valid cause, if an uninspiring one. But of itself, it won't be enough: the Tories need a message, a vision and the clear means to deliver it.
That’s a very good comment. We’re less than three weeks away from the budget, which should be a good opportunity to unite the Conservative party. The borrowing numbers have been better than expected this year, maybe there’s a little room for manoeuvre there.
It’s debatable whether the centre has been abandoned or just shifted leftwards. The Tories are talking energy caps, workers reps on boards, going after the wealth of the elderly to fund social care, borrowing to pay for building etc...
The conservatives have at times spoken as Corbyn light or Milliband heavy, but it seems bitty and piecemeal with one cabinet minister been contradicted by another.Housing should be essential to any future they wish to project but I can see that been the same.As for Universal Credit house owners with a mortgage who lose their job through sickness or redundancy will be hard hit.Before the interest would be paid capped at 2.9% after 13 weeks now it is 39 weeks and all payments received added to the existing loan.So any unfortunate people in this position are in a worse position by far than persons renting ,who would receive assistance after six weeks with housing benefit.
Finally of course Universal Credit will replace the immorality left by Labour where you could lose all your benefits by working more than 16 hours a week.
Do you have the slightest clue how UC works? Not the rhetoric, the practicalities? Your 16 hours a week being a good example. Pre-UC you could work part time because you have kids. Under UC you get sanctioned for not spending another 19 hours a week looking for work. Under UC the marginal tax rate is 63%. You find this system to be both practical and moral do you?
Pre UC you lost all your benefits for doing part time work of more than 16 hours a week and making people out of work look for work as part of the requirement to receive benefits is entirely sensible.
So yes a necessary reform to the immoral benefits system Labour left.
I didn't manage to get into the article (because I could finds a way of doing it without losing its internal direction) but which I'll mention now is that despite appearances, the Tory Party is actually a good deal less divided by policy than it was in the 90s.
The Leave/Remain divide is largely artificial. Boris, it should be recalled, wavered hugely before coming down for Leave; likewise many others on either side. May was an extremely reluctant Remainer. Most MPs - certainly most Remain MPs - had no great loyalty to that cause and took it on out of pragmatism: it was the least-worst option and (or in some cases no doubt, a bigger 'or'), happened to be the leadership's stance. The people having spoken and the leadership having changed, there are precious few Remainers who'll die in a ditch. This is why talk of a new centrist party is for the birds. If defections were going to happen over Brexit, they'd have done so already. (This too is a contrast to the 90s, where three Tory MPs defected, one to Labour and two to the Lib Dems, not counting resignations or withdrawals of the whip or last-minute strops).
No, while there undoubtedly are divisions of opinion on the type of Brexit that should be sought, they're relatively slight; the bigger divisions on the topic are (1) how far to push it if push comes to shove - does the UK ultimately walk away or sign if the EU doesn't offer what the government can easily live with, and (2) about the level of enthusiasm for Brexit, between the true believers and the pragmatists.
Even so, those divisions are either bridgeable or for the future.
The problems in party management are in fact far more mundane. In the absence of a central driving focus to the government, ministers are lacking an esprit de corps, ambitions are running beyond ability and jockeying for position is undermining collective endeavour. The whole thing is drifting because apart from Brexit and some fine words about inclusion and opportunity - not yet translated into meaningful policy - the government itself doesn't seem to be sure what it's for. Keeping Corbyn out is far from sufficient. The result is that it's constantly reacting to events and on the defensive, lacks ideas or a recognisable philosophy that voters and activists will buy into and would appear weak even if it wasn't prone to periodically lapsing into infighting. To that extent, it is the 90s again, other than 'keeping Corbyn out' is something large parts of the country will accept as a valid cause, if an uninspiring one. But of itself, it won't be enough: the Tories need a message, a vision and the clear means to deliver it.
The issue is less to do with the Tories' internal differences on what they thought about Brexit a year ago, but rather the impact on the party as and when it dawns on them all that they simply cannot turn even a half decent outcome from it.
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
Yes. But the Peelites never had the slightest intention of working with Derby, and particularly Bentinck and Disraeli. So I think Wilson's crown is safe!
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841 to 1860 - they could just never command a majority after 1846 and the other groupings - Whig, Peelite, Radical, Irish - agreed to keep them out of power. I wonder if we might face the same problem again for a few years? It's really hard to see how Labour, particularly the Kafkaesque version Corbyn leads, could win most seats, but as frequently discussed it's easy to see they could lead a government from second place if the Conservatives fall about 30 short.
I have to go and get a haircut. Have a good morning.
Smith may well have been 'decent' although he certainly likes a drink but there he would not have won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury, Putney, Rugby and Kenilworth and Shipley Blair won in 1997 and 2001.
On the other hand, even if he'd had a majority of around 50, it's not hard to imagine he would have governed more effectively than Blair who was in thrall to Gordon Brown and spent much of his time bungling basic points of administration while backing down in the face of very mild intraparty opposition.
Blair didn't really understand governing until after 2001, by which time he was obsessed with the bogey of Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern instability rather than meaningful bread and butter policies at home. It's striking to reflect that insofar as he was interested in such things he spent much of the time undoing his previous work.
Perhaps though by 2005 a Smith led Labour, perhaps by then a Brown led Labour, may well have lost its majority even if it avoided the Iraq War.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level.
But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week.
They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland.
The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
In terms of national equivalent vote shares, the local by elections tell much the same the same story as the opinion polls, except that the Lib Dems are doing a bit better.
And the Tories are doing much worse
The LDs won plenty of Tory seats in council by elections before June too.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
I think the Tories are ruined. Their brand is trash. Large sections of the population detest them, including the great majority of the under 45s (even under 65s?).
And there is no way back with Brexit hanging about like a dead albatross.
We need either a Brexit "everyone" can unite behind - an opportunity May has squandered grotesquely with her horrible rhetoric and cowardly inaction - or a Remain "everyone" can unite behind, the lineaments of which I don't think I've seen anyone spell out anywhere.
It needs huge political imagination.
There is certainly nobody in the current leadership of any party that comes close.
Our best bet is a coup by Conservative Young Turks who are untarnished by the irresponsibility, selfishness, and moral turpitude of the current squad. But the new leadership - whoever they are - would have to repudiate the existing adminstration.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not vote Tory in June but the Tories won 42% and most seats and (with the Brexit backing DUP) have a majority in the Commons you can clearly be classified as Europhile left now.
As for 'over' absurd the fact is not one poll currently has Corbyn anywhere near a majority let alone a 1990s style landslide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw for you to clutch. An inept ideologue like Corbyn should be nowhere near the levers of power. He was created by Momentum, facilitated by £3 Tories who saw it as a 'wizard wheeze' to destroy moderate Labour, and now through arrogance and incompetence the Conservative Party are pushing him through the door of Downing Street. Perhaps they will see sense and drag the old fool back, but there is little evidence of that presently.
Smith may well have been 'decent' although he certainly likes a drink but there he would not have won seats like Braintree, Shrewsbury, Putney, Rugby and Kenilworth and Shipley Blair won in 1997 and 2001.
On the other hand, even if he'd had a majority of around 50, it's not hard to imagine he would have governed more effectively than Blair who was in thrall to Gordon Brown and spent much of his time bungling basic points of administration while backing down in the face of very mild intraparty opposition.
Blair didn't really understand governing until after 2001, by which time he was obsessed with the bogey of Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern instability rather than meaningful bread and butter policies at home. It's striking to reflect that insofar as he was interested in such things he spent much of the time undoing his previous work.
There is of course the risk that had Smith not died in 1994, he'd have died some time in 1997-2001.
It is quite remarkable that no UK PM has died in office in over 150 years, when you think about the number of near-misses.
That's a fair point I hadn't thought of.
Campbell-Bannerman was obviously one near miss and Churchill was ill for much of the last two years of his premiership. But who else were you thinking of? Even allowing for the advanced ages of Salisbury, Gladstone and Disraeli they weren't seen as close to death at the time they left office.
Also Bonar Law, as a genuine near-miss. In addition, it doesn't take much counter-factual fiddling to add that Churchill was excessively willing to expose himself to danger during WWII; Thatcher and Major both survived assassination attempts; Smith and Gaitskell died while LotO, in Gaitskell's case having already fought an election (albeit that Labour lost heavily) and in Smith's, facing a divided government with next to no majority; or even something like Eden's botched operation.
This isn't the 90s. It's far worse than that. There was a real optimism about the future then, things hadn't been good for many people but could get better, with MrTonyBlair and his endless grin promising a bright future for a Britain seen as a global hub for culture.
What are we the global hub for now? Predator politicians? An economy that proclaims higher ever employment whilst the government demands the self employed cease trading and become unemployed? A suicidal threat to expell ourselves from the single market into the abyss because we support free trade?
I don't think a new leader is a cure-all for the Tories. They are as broken morally and ideologically as they are politically. Sex scandals are de jure, but scandals of how the government has broken people on the wheel of Universal Credit are around the corner- 'how can they treat people like That's won't just be an MP being "handsy". Let's say they bin the zombie and select someone else. What changes? Still the palace of sleaze. Still hopelessly divided about the Hard Brexit ELE.
But that's not to say "Labour win the next election". If that's 2022 I have no idea what the country will look like. Its not the mid 90s with a dynamic Labour party offering a bright future. We have no clear future beyong March 19. With mass upheaval comes shifting of tectonic plates. I cannot see how we do not get a new political party of significant size competing in that election. And that being the case analogies of Tories vs Labour feel redundant
Agree with most, but your forgetting that it was not Blair who made Labour electable, it was John Smith. On Smith's unfortunate and premature death, Blair took over as the heir apparent who took the party in a different direction away from the heart, which lead to a weakening of support from the membership. Corbyn has excited the core support who have come back in such numbers to the party.
Smith of course took on the unions with OMOV but while he would have won he would never have won a majority of 179 like Blair.
I think we will have to disagree. Smith was seen as a decent and honest person, respected and listened to by all. Heck, even at the Conservative party conference, there was a sense of shock and sorrow at his passing. If I remember correctly, the Tories cut short their conference in respect. Blair, without the background so carefully laid by Smith, would have been seen as the smarmy snake oil salesman that he actually came to be seen.
Smith didn't embody the change like Blair. Doutbless he did the groundwork (or, much was done on his watch) and certainly made their economics credible for the first time. But I am with HY in doubting he would ever have reaped a landslide.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
I think the Tories are ruined. Their brand is trash. Large sections of the population detest them, including the great majority of the adminstration.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw for you to clutch. An inept ideologue like Corbyn should be nowhere near the levers of power. He was created by Momentum, facilitated by £3 Tories who saw it as a 'wizard wheeze' to destroy moderate Labour, and now through arrogance and incompetence the Conservative Party are pushing him through the door of Downing Street. Perhaps they will see sense and drag the old fool back, but there is little evidence of that presently.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or 1979 but they did and of course Corbyn lost his first general election.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
For the record Ive always voted Labour (except once for the Lib Dems) but I wouldn't vote for them this time with Corbyn in charge. That's saying something when you consider the grizzly alternative.
Two overriding reasons. 1. His disloyalty to all previous leaders 2. He has the weakest shadow cabinet this country has ever seen including some who are literally morons (possibly with an IQ even lower than the SNP Westminster branch)
And the best Manifesto since WW2
Maybe he should hand it over to someone who hasn't been disloyal to every previous leader and one who would use all the talents in the parliamentary party not just ex girlfriends ex cronies and the few who didn't vote against him last year
You mean the disloyal talents.
Methinks you contradict yourself.
A fair point actually!
Also, Corbyn never - literally never, even privately - was disloyal to Blair or Brown personally. He still doesn't say a word against either of them, and readily agrees that they did many good things. He simply disagreed with them on a range of issues and declined to support those. By contrast, many of his critics have attacked him personally and repeatedly. He's declined to respond in kind (except by not going out of his way to promote them), and got on with his job. That, to my mind, is good leadership, and his government, if it happens, will be a refreshing change from the sleazy soap opera that much of the current government presents.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
As far as I can see this sex scandal stuff is hitting POLITICS in a similar way expense's hit all political parties.
I suppose the Tories suffer the most bu virtue of the fact they are in government right now (as Labour happened to be when the expense's scandal hit) but I suspect all this hullabaloo will be at best peripheral come the election.
Where it could be important is if it forces a series of Con by elections which they lose and eventually wind up losing a no confidence vote. But we're a long way from that yet.
Obviously Con will get a new leader before the election so until we see who that leader is and what the public makes of him/her the rest is all speculation.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Thatcher ended that. The Conservatives ceased to be the non-ideological party that just dealt with events as they came up. Centre-right voters are now ideological, and strongly supportive of Brexit.
He lied to them in the house about his intentions post referendum and that lie has destroyed the Tory party.
He took one for the team.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
I think the Tories are ruined. Their brand is trash. Large sections of the population detest them, including the great majority of the adminstration.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw for you to clutch. An inept ideologue like Corbyn should be nowhere near the levers of power. He was created by Momentum, facilitated by £3 Tories who saw it as a 'wizard wheeze' to destroy moderate Labour, and now through arrogance and incompetence the Conservative Party are pushing him through the door of Downing Street. Perhaps they will see sense and drag the old fool back, but there is little evidence of that presently.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or 1979 but they did and of course Corbyn lost his first general election.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
I think you're wrong about both 1945 and 1979. In WWII, there was a clear indication from the success of Common Wealth candidates that there was a mood for a much more collective approach from the government. The size of Labour's win might have surprised but not the fact of it. And in 1979, there was plenty of evidence from by-elections and the polls that the Tories were in with a decent shout, not to mention the backdrop of the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent.
For the record Ive always voted Labour (except once for the Lib Dems) but I wouldn't vote for them this time with Corbyn in charge. That's saying something when you consider the grizzly alternative.
Two overriding reasons. 1. His disloyalty to all previous leaders 2. He has the weakest shadow cabinet this country has ever seen including some who are literally morons (possibly with an IQ even lower than the SNP Westminster branch)
And the best Manifesto since WW2
Maybe he should hand it over to someone who hasn't been disloyal to every previous leader and one who would use all the talents in the parliamentary party not just ex girlfriends ex cronies and the few who didn't vote against him last year
You mean the disloyal talents.
Methinks you contradict yourself.
A fair point actually!
Also, Corbyn never - literally never, even privately - was disloyal to Blair or Brown personally. He still doesn't say a word against either of them, and readily agrees that they did many good things. He simply disagreed with them on a range of issues and declined to support those. By contrast, many of his critics have attacked him personally and repeatedly. He's declined to respond in kind (except by not going out of his way to promote them), and got on with his job. That, to my mind, is good leadership, and his government, if it happens, will be a refreshing change from the sleazy soap opera that much of the current government presents.
On current form, a Labour government would be another sleazy soap opera.
He lied to them in the house about his intentions post referendum and that lie has destroyed the Tory party.
He took one for the team.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
Looks like his damage limitation has really worked out!
What a mess we're in. Two parties tied to bad policy, including the worst (Brexit), and with no way and no one, seemingly capable of changing course.
Those bastard voters, eh....
The LibDems tried changing course on Brexit in June. Trouble is, voters said "nope, we told you what we wanted. We wanted what the Tories and Labour were offering. Brexit"....
And the same voters delivered a parliament that struggles for a majority on any type of Brexit deal. A significant part of the Labour vote was and still is, actively anti-Brexit, but see the party's waffling on the issue and public spending plans as preferable to a Tory party in thrall to its hard right. Just as in the referendum, voters didn't get much of an offer on what things would turn out like - but have to pick a side.
Anyway, my earlier point was that the country is still incredibly divided in the same way as it was during the referendum. The parties are caught in this proxy war, and as they are badly led, neither can find a way of either a) producing a Brexit deal that can unite enough voters behind its consequences to produce a convincing majority for its implementation, or b) convincing leave voters that they were misled, and they can live with staying in and your government. Although I'd prefer the latter, I feel the former is more politically plausible.
Part of the reason for that was the nature of the referendum - you could get a majority for 'Leave' but not for the consequences of any particular way of leaving. Whatever approach to Brexit you try, some who voted for it will feel betrayed - and that's before you get to the 48% who polls show are becoming increasingly angry and fearful that Brexit is a national betrayal, fraud and disaster. That means healing the divides and problems with the country, is a difficult task and is perhaps impossible - but neither May nor Corbyn appear up to it.
Sun - "Dirty 3 Dozen" - pic of St Ruth in tank with a pitchfork DM - "Sexminster" - pic of Palace drapped in lingerie, boxer shorts, y-fronts etc ! Sunday Sport - the mind boggles last week - https://www.sundaysportonline.co.uk
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
He lied to them in the house about his intentions post referendum and that lie has destroyed the Tory party.
He took one for the team.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
Cameron was right to step down. There's no way he could have carried on after campaigning so vigorously for REMAIN and losing the the referendum. His authority was shot and he recognized that fact to his credit.
It all started going wrong when LEAVE effectively went into hiding over that weekend after the vote followed by Boris and Gove blowing each other up after the following week.
Everything that's happening in the Tory Party now stems not from the fact LEAVE won the referendum but from how the Tories have behaved ever since.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Thatcher ended that. The Conservatives ceased to be the non-ideological party that just dealt with events as they came up. Centre-right voters are now ideological, and strongly supportive of Brexit.
He never stayed around long enough to find out.
A shrug of the shouders, an admission that he got it wrong, onwards to deliver the voters' Brexit....
Although Osborne would have had to go, as the price for staying on. I'm not sure Cameron could have stomached firing him.
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
Yes. But the ad never had the slightest intention of working with Derby, and particularly Bentinck and Disraeli. So I think Wilson's crown is safe!
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841 to 1860 - they could just never command a majority after 1846 and the other groupings - Whig, Peelite, Radical, Irish - agreed to keep them out of power. I wonder if we might face the same problem again for a few years? It's really hard to see how Labour, particularly the Kafkaesque version Corbyn leads, could win most seats, but as frequently discussed it's easy to see they could lead a government from second place if the Conservatives fall about 30 short.... .
That is a very good point. Given how much of various segments of the electorate have migrated in recent decades, and are likely to wander around further in the wake of Brexit, it's not an impossible scenario.
It might conceivably lead to the Torie finding a renewed identity... in a decade or so's time.
Regarding the Tories continuing poll position: I expect that to blow away as we approach leaving the EU. Who supports the Tories at the moment? Hard-core members/ believers, but we know that's a dwindling number. They don't represent an ideology any more, they absolutely have some support who see them as the least worst option vs Corbyn.
But let's be honest. The only reason the Tories are anywhere near this is that they have swallowed much of the Kipper Hard Brexit or Die voters. Who having won the referendum realised the next battle was to secure the hardest of hard Brexit possible.
Tories should be worried about the impact their basic immorality is having on their appeal to anyone who is younger than 50 / not sociopathic / not obsessed about Brexit. In an election you can't just point at the opposition and say "they're worse". Because if that's all you've got, one day, you will be worse.
And then you're done
Yep I couldn't agree more. The likes of Redwood, IDS, Fox are as if not more dangerous as the Corbyn and McDonnells. They and their views are increasingly electoral poison to anyone younger than the self satisfied baby boomer generation.
Sure, half of them will melt away after their life's work is done (and good riddance). But don't think the Tories will not be punished for allowing them to steer their agenda, and with it take the country over a cliff.
The country might, to some extent, want Brexit, but it does not want the Darwinist Brexit vision espoused by the far right. I can see parallels with 1945. The country will turn away from the Tories to shape the post Brexit paradigm.
For the record Ive always voted Labour (except once for the Lib Dems) but I wouldn't vote for them this time with Corbyn in charge. That's saying something when you consider the grizzly alternative.
Two overriding reasons. 1. His disloyalty to all previous leaders 2. He has the weakest shadow cabinet this country has ever seen including some who are literally morons (possibly with an IQ even lower than the SNP Westminster branch)
And the best Manifesto since WW2
Maybe he should hand it over to someone who hasn't been disloyal to every previous leader and one who would use all the talents in the parliamentary party not just ex girlfriends ex cronies and the few who didn't vote against him last year
You mean the disloyal talents.
Methinks you contradict yourself.
A fair point actually!
Also, Corbyn never - literally never, even privately - was disloyal to Blair or Brown personally. He still doesn't say a word against either of them, and readily agrees that they did many good things. He simply disagreed with them on a range of issues and declined to support those. By contrast, many of his critics have attacked him personally and repeatedly. He's declined to respond in kind (except by not going out of his way to promote them), and got on with his job. That, to my mind, is good leadership, and his government, if it happens, will be a refreshing change from the sleazy soap opera that much of the current government presents.
I don’t quite understand how you’ve reached your conclusion. whatever Corbyn’s personal merits the party under his leadership has had plenty of leaks, briefings against internal opponents, obfuscations and attacking the external opponents as distraction. Why exactly will that stop if he is in government?
Corbyn may well be a nice man. But the things that are grubby about politics are not specific to one party or one person, they are political skills, political activities. Even if Corbyn himself tries to avoid that stuff, he cannot stop politics being politics, and he will have supporters who do the sleazy soap opera stuff for him, even if we accept he personally doesn’t want that. We know this to be true because it already happens - lieutenants or supporters of his can participate in the soap opera, with or without his blessing.
You’ve gone from ‘Corbyn is a good man’ to ‘therefore the business of politics and government involving hundreds and intense political argument will magically be different’ and that seems overly optimistic. Believing because person or party Xis good therefore they clearly won’t suffer from standard political non partisan issues is not very likely I think.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
Or....the real message to take is that you are mardy gits with a shite Manifesto.
What a mess we're in. Two parties tied to bad policy, including the worst (Brexit), and with no way and no one, seemingly capable of changing course.
Those bastard voters, eh....
The LibDems tried changing course on Brexit in June. Trouble is, voters said "nope, we told you what we wanted. We wanted what the Tories and Labour were offering. Brexit"....
And the same voters delivered a parliament that struggles for a majority on any type of Brexit deal. A significant part of the Labour vote was and still is, actively anti-Brexit, but see the party's waffling on the issue and public spending plans as preferable to a Tory party in thrall to its hard right. Just as in the referendum, voters didn't get much of an offer on what things would turn out like - but have to pick a side.
Anyway, my earlier point was that the country is still incredibly divided in the same way as it was during the referendum. The parties are caught in this proxy war, and as they are badly led, neither can find a way of either a) producing a Brexit deal that can unite enough voters behind its consequences to produce a convincing majority for its implementation, or b) convincing leave voters that they were misled, and they can live with staying in and your government. Although I'd prefer the latter, I feel the former is more politically plausible.
Part of the reason for that was the nature of the referendum - you could get a majority for 'Leave' but not for the consequences of any particular way of leaving. Whatever approach to Brexit you try, some who voted for it will feel betrayed - and that's before you get to the 48% who polls show are becoming increasingly angry and fearful that Brexit is a national betrayal, fraud and disaster. That means healing the divides and problems with the country, is a difficult task and is perhaps impossible - but neither May nor Corbyn appear up to it.
IMO the 52% will be fairly content with whatever deal emerges. The reason is that there's a big ideological divide between Leave and Remain voters on a whole range of issues, aside from the EU, but that each group has a pretty coherent world outlook. Rich bankers in Kensington now have more in common politically with students in Brighton than with middle class homeowners in Kent or Essex. The latter now have more in common politically with ex-miners in the Midlands than they have with professional people in university cities. One camp votes Conservative, the other Labour.
He lied to them in the house about his intentions post referendum and that lie has destroyed the Tory party.
He took one for the team.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
Looks like his damage limitation has really worked out!
It would have been a lot lot worse had he have stayed.
I know people like Gove, Grayling, Patel et al would have come out and strongly supported Dave staying on, but the Leadbangers and Boris destabilising him would have been worse.
Had he lost the Indyref he would have resigned then, his view is that if you're the front man for a nation changing referendum and you lose, you must resign.
Despite what people think, I was more upset by Dave resigning than the vote to Leave.
It still feels like a kick to the bollocks by someone wearing steel capped Doc Martens when he announced he was going, even though I had been told it was happening.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
The mp in onevseat is being tried for alleged illegal practices in2015, and there have been fines for various other errors -how many charges are you anticipating from2017, since that is a bold accusation, particularly given the ld result was in line with polls and expectations.
Personally while there were other factors theclds didn’t deserve my vote this time as they put no effort in - all focused on a nearby seat, which they did indeed win, so my vote was a sacrifice for that.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
Or....the real message to take is that you are mardy gits with a shite Manifesto.
It was probably the better one in terms of presentation. But who really knows among the general public, given labour didn’t collapse the ld pitch to become the main opposition didn’t really get much headway.
According to reports on Friday night, the Conservative whips received an allegation about Mr Elphicke shortly after Theresa May became Prime Minister, but the woman who made the complaint did not want to involve the police.
Mrs May is likely to face questions about why the party has only now referred the matter to police if whips were aware of the allegations more than a year ago.
On topic, it might have been a point better made if made by someone other than Jo Brand. Jo Brand, who has made a career in stand-up out of belittling men...
What a mess we're in. Two parties tied to bad policy, including the worst (Brexit), and with no way and no one, seemingly capable of changing course.
Those bastard voters, eh....
The LibDems tried changing course on Brexit in June. Trouble is, voters said "nope, we told you what we wanted. We wanted what the Tories and Labour were offering. Brexit"....
And the same voters delivered a parliament that struggles for a majority on any type of Brexit deal. A significant part of the Labour vote was and still is, actively anti-Brexit, but see the party's waffling on the issue and public spending plans as preferable to a Tory party in thrall to its hard right. Just as in the referendum, voters didn't get much of an offer on what things would turn out like - but have to pick a side.
Anyway, my earlier point was that the country is still incredibly divided in the same way as it was during the referendum. The parties are caught in this proxy war, and as they are badly led, neither can find a way of either a) producing a Brexit deal that can unite enough voters behind its consequences to produce a convincing majority for its implementation, or b) convincing leave voters that they were misled, and they can live with staying in and your government. Although I'd prefer the latter, I feel the former is more politically plausible.
Part of the reason for that was the nature of the referendum - you could get a majority for 'Leave' but not for the consequences of any particular way of leaving. Whatever approach to Brexit you try, some who voted for it will feel betrayed - and that's before you get to the 48% who polls show are becoming increasingly angry and fearful that Brexit is a national betrayal, fraud and disaster. That means healing the divides and problems with the country, is a difficult task and is perhaps impossible - but neither May nor Corbyn appear up to it.
IMO the 52% will be fairly content with whatever deal emerges. The reason is that there's a big ideological divide between Leave and Remain voters on a whole range of issues, aside from the EU, but that each group has a pretty coherent world outlook. Rich bankers in Kensington now have more in common politically with students in Brighton than with middle class homeowners in Kent or Essex. The latter now have more in common politically with ex-miners in the Midlands than they have with professional people in university cities. One camp votes Conservative, the other Labour.
One camp voted Leave the other Remain more accurately. It was Labour holding most of its Leave seats and the Tories losing a few which cost May her majority while the Tories held most of their Remain seats the LDs were targeting but lost a few to Labour.
As if If Brexit hasn't made us enough of a laughing stock in Europe I've just heard an MP on radio say she wants a department to be set up to deal with improper behaviour......
......like a Grope Tzar or a Minister for leg touching?
Wouldn't it be a vote winner if some of these MPs started concentrating on their day job
As if If Brexit hasn't made us enough of a laughing stock in Europe I've just heard an MP on radio say she wants a department to be set up to deal with improper behaviour......
......like a Grope Tzar or a Minister for leg touching?
Wouldn't it be a vote winner if one of the parties started concentrating on their day job
You would hope so, but no. And infairness while there should already be a set up to deal with inappropriate behaviour, they do need to resolve the allegations presently coming forward.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
I think the Tories are ruined. Their brand is trash. Large sections of the population detest them, including the great majority of the adminstration.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw ntly.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or 1979 but they did and of course Corbyn lost his first general election.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
I think you're wrong about both 1945 and 1979. In WWII, there was a clear indication from the success of Common Wealth candidates that there was a mood for a much more collective approach from the government. The size of Labour's win might have surprised but not the fact of it. And in 1979, there was plenty of evidence from by-elections and the polls that the Tories were in with a decent shout, not to mention the backdrop of the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent.
Churchill clearly expected to win in 1945 and Callaghan treated Thatcher as a joke when she first became Tory leader. The fact like Corbyn she grew into the opposition leader role does not change the fact she was considered unelectable in 1975 as Corbyn was in 2015.
According to reports on Friday night, the Conservative whips received an allegation about Mr Elphicke shortly after Theresa May became Prime Minister, but the woman who made the complaint did not want to involve the police.
Mrs May is likely to face questions about why the party has only now referred the matter to police if whips were aware of the allegations more than a year ago.
People who complain to parties but say they don’t want the police involved need to be told ‘sorry, but now we know, given the nature of your allegation we have no choice but to refer this to thecpolice’
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
As if If Brexit hasn't made us enough of a laughing stock in Europe I've just heard an MP on radio say she wants a department to be set up to deal with improper behaviour......
......like a Grope Tzar or a Minister for leg touching?
Wouldn't it be a vote winner if some of these MPs started concentrating on their day job
75 grand a year plus expenses on the bottom rung, and they need to be told how to behave!
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
The odd thing is, May's ratings are not particularly poor (37% approval is not bad for a PM). But, her judgement is bad.
She has a certain competence. She can master a brief and deliver a speech, so long as no actual vision is required. She crosses the low bar of looking more competent than Corbyn (as does my daughter’s cat). But she can’t run a government because she can’t build a team. Without that very little can be achieved.
Agree entirely apart from where you place the blame. She's a perfectly reasonable performer and in another time would have made a perfectly servicable if not very memorable PM. But you'd need the leadership skills of a superhero to build a team out of the current crop of Tories.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The big mistake was for a narrow win to be spun as a swingeing victory, and all sorts of idiotic red lines drawn shortly afterwards as a leader who was unsuited to the task at hand showboated in front of the home stand.
The arrogance has been on the side of leavers for closing their ears to anything remainers had to say. It's a godawful mess.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue.
According to reports on Friday night, the Conservative whips received an allegation about Mr Elphicke shortly after Theresa May became Prime Minister, but the woman who made the complaint did not want to involve the police.
Mrs May is likely to face questions about why the party has only now referred the matter to police if whips were aware of the allegations more than a year ago.
People who complain to parties but say they don’t want the police involved need to be told ‘sorry, but now we know, given the nature of your allegation we have no choice but to refer this to thecpolice’
That is a difficult one , many people go to the police , but do not want to proceed for whatever reason with the complaint.Nevertheless if you were laid up in hospital unconscious after an assault they would investigate without a complainant statement.In domestic violence cases if a complaint has been received but then withdrawn the police can now still proceed .Previously it was a regular occurrence for a complaint of domestic violence received one day then withdrawn the next after pressure from the partner.
This is a good thread, but I agree with others that the decade the current situation most resembles is not the 1990s, but the early 1940s? During both decades, Britain had an overwhelming foreign policy issue (WW2, Brexit), that cut across party lines. And during both decades, the Conservative cause was effectively allowed to go by default in the country, with no real party organisation or propaganda, while Labour reenergised itself, despite its disastrous record in the 30s. That had an ominous short-term result in a massive Labour landslide, though in the longer term, the Conservatives regenerated in opposition and came to terms with the welfare state and nationalised industries, leading to their 13 years of power 1951-64.
Of course, the main difference between the 40s and the 2010s is that the Conservatives had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, whereas now they don't. History never repeats itself exactly.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
Indeed. The 2016 EU referendum was the first time a majority of working class C2DE voters have beaten a majority of ABC1 middle class voters since Wilson beat Heath in October 1974.
As a result the middle class, especially rich highly educated upper middle class metropolitan voters, are furious at the plebs for their 'ignorance.'
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue.
I think you have proved CD13s point! It's far too easy to pigeonhole 17.4 million people - who you obviously think you are superior to in your mind.
"Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue."
In the same way, that even if many Remainers had perfectly good reasons to vote Remain, it doesn't mean that some aren't nasty and thick hypocrites, and with added arrogance.
You are at least honest, Roger. You don't pretend to believe in democracy, and I respect you for that. It certainly has its faults.
One aspect of the header I didn't manage to get into the article (because I could finds a way of doing it without losing its internal direction) but which I'll mention now is that despite appearances, the Tory Party is actually a good deal less divided by policy than it was in the 90s.
The Leave/Remain divide is largely artificial. Boris, it should be recalled, wavered hugely before coming down for Leave; likewise many others on either side. May was an extremely reluctant Remainer. Most MPs - certainly most Remain MPs - had no great loyalty to that cause and took it on out of pragmatism: it was the least-worst option and (or in some cases no doubt, a bigger 'or'), happened to be the leadership's stance. The people having spoken and the leadership having changed, there are precious few Remainers who'll die in a ditch. This is why talk of a new centrist party is for the birds. If defections were going to happen over Brexit, they'd have done so already. (This too is a contrast to the 90s, where three Tory MPs defected, one to Labour and two to the Lib Dems, not counting resignations or withdrawals of the whip or last-minute strops).
No, while there undoubtedly are divisions of opinion on the type of Brexit that should be sought, they're relatively slight; the bigger divisions on the topic are (1) how far to push it if push comes to shove - does the UK ultimately walk away or sign if the EU doesn't offer what the government can easily live with, and (2) about the level of enthusiasm for Brexit, between the true believers and the pragmatists.
Even so, those divisions are either bridgeable or for the future.
The problems in party management are in fact far more mundane. In the absence of a central driving focus to the government, ministers are lacking an esprit de corps, ambitions are running beyond ability and jockeying for position is undermining collective endeavour. The whole thing is drifting because apart from Brexit and some fine words about inclusion and opportunity - not yet translated into meaningful policy - the government itself doesn't seem to be sure what it's for. Keeping Corbyn out is far from sufficient. The result is that it's constantly reacting to events and on the defensive, lacks ideas or a recognisable philosophy that voters and activists will buy into and would appear weak even if it wasn't prone to periodically lapsing into infighting. [snip]
I do think the EU question is as big a faultline in the Conservative Party as it ever has been. Mrs May doesn't dare even discuss Brexit policy in cabinet because she knows doing so will blow it apart. Those calling for the head of Philip Hammond are all Leavers while erstwhile Remainers are aghast at the self-indulgence. It it were simply an issue of personality or competence, you would see members of both groups for and against removing Hammond.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
Perhaps if Farage came back - but Henry Bolton's UKIP has effectively disappeared and already splintered with the leadership candidates who came 2nd and 4th already leaving and forming their own parties and the 3rd placed one having a massive public falling out with him and being sidelined. I expect many of those voters will just sit on their hands or just vote Tory as there is no alternative on the ballot.
You wonder how things might have been different for UKIP over the last 15 months had Steven Woolfe got his leadership nomination papers in 18 minutes earlier! How politics can turn on such small margins.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can sit in the Cabinet and Labour seem in awe of the Corbyn machine whilst Scots Nats, Greens and UKIP think about their own survival- opportunity beckons for the potential leader out there who can round up that elusive centre - the last was Cameron and that seems ages ago already (only 2.5 years) the interesting thing is is where will this messiah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
The mp in onevseat is being tried for alleged illegal practices in2015, and there have been fines for various other errors -how many charges are you anticipating from2017, since that is a bold accusation, particularly given the ld result was in line with polls and expectations. Personally while there were other factors theclds didn’t deserve my vote this time as they put no effort in - all focused on a nearby seat, which they did indeed win, so my vote was a sacrifice for that.
There was not enough evidence to prove in a court of law that the guilty Conservatives in 2015 actually did know what they were doing. So they got away with it. On the other hand, the Electoral Commission whacked them with the heaviest fine it could. So guilty as anything, but not proven.
Their 2017 wrongdoings are, as far as I know, still under investigation.
We are still waiting to hear to what extent the polls and expectation were rigged by the Russians. And the Trump-Americans, of course. So that point is not valid either, Mr Kle.
As if If Brexit hasn't made us enough of a laughing stock in Europe I've just heard an MP on radio say she wants a department to be set up to deal with improper behaviour......
......like a Grope Tzar or a Minister for leg touching?
Wouldn't it be a vote winner if some of these MPs started concentrating on their day job
75 grand a year plus expenses on the bottom rung, and they need to be told how to behave!
True TWF but where you work which is in the main a male dominated profession and I used to work the Police , which is now less so . There was some unsavoury characters.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
Perhaps if Farage came back - but Henry Bolton's UKIP has effectively disappeared and already splintered with the leadership candidates who came 2nd and 4th already leaving and forming their own parties and the 3rd placed one having a massive falling out and being sidelined. I expect many of those voters will just sit on their hands.
Farage would come back at the drop of a hat if the Tories abandoned Brexit.
Though a dead gerbil could lead UKIP and they would gain lots of Leaver votes if Brexit was abandoned.
Corbyn may well be a nice man. But the things that are grubby about politics are not specific to one party or one person, they are political skills, political activities. Even if Corbyn himself tries to avoid that stuff, he cannot stop politics being politics, and he will have supporters who do the sleazy soap opera stuff for him, even if we accept he personally doesn’t want that. We know this to be true because it already happens - lieutenants or supporters of his can participate in the soap opera, with or without his blessing.
You’ve gone from ‘Corbyn is a good man’ to ‘therefore the business of politics and government involving hundreds and intense political argument will magically be different’ and that seems overly optimistic. Believing because person or party Xis good therefore they clearly won’t suffer from standard political non partisan issues is not very likely I think.
I agree he won't put an end to normal politics. But Labour has different fault lines to the current government. Corbyn's critics have been primarily motivated by the fear that he woulfd lead the party to repeated defeat, and to residual unease that the attractive programme will really be feasible. There are few obvious leadership candidates jockeying for position or briefing against each other, and criticism of dissidents has been low level at most - the deselectionists have been marginalised and no attempt is made to get favoured supporters into selections.
By contrast, the current Cabinet, with exceptions like Gove, seem to do little but maneouvre and brief about the uselessness of their rivals. What else is Boris, for instance, really about?
For the record Ive always voted Labour (except once for the Lib Dems) but I wouldn't vote for them this time with Corbyn in charge. That's saying something when you consider the grizzly alternative.
Two overriding reasons. 1. His disloyalty to all previous leaders 2. He has the weakest shadow cabinet this country has ever seen including some who are literally morons (possibly with an IQ even lower than the SNP Westminster branch)
And the best Manifesto since WW2
Maybe he should hand it over to someone who hasn't been disloyal to every previous leader and one who would use all the talents in the parliamentary party not just ex girlfriends ex cronies and the few who didn't vote against him last year
You mean the disloyal talents.
Methinks you contradict yourself.
A fair point actually!
Also, Corbyn never - literally never, even privately - was disloyal to Blair or Brown personally. He still doesn't say a word against either of them, and readily agrees that they did many good things. He simply disagreed with them on a range of issues and declined to support those. By contrast, many of his critics have attacked him personally and repeatedly. He's declined to respond in kind (except by not going out of his way to promote them), and got on with his job. That, to my mind, is good leadership, and his government, if it happens, will be a refreshing change from the sleazy soap opera that much of the current government presents.
That's a persuasive argument but there are also team loyalties and if he felt that he could pleasure himself by voting against his party over 500 times knowing that if everyone had been similarly self indulgent his party would have been destroyed you have to question whether he's a leader or simply a selfish narcissist.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
True all over the western world, class is no longer the key dividing line between right and left but age and culture.
The political centre ground appears up for grabs.......Lib Dems aint got their MOJO back, the Conservatives cant even agree on who can siah come from - my thinking it is someone who can suddenly (if ever possible) move the UK on from BREXIT
Not much there to agree with! Yesterday there was a thread about this week`s local elections, which got hijacked by speculation and scandal at government level. But the fact was that, of the six local government byelections that took place, the Liberal Democrats won three of the seats from the Conservatives. They are still a force to be reckoned with, certainly in some places, if not everywhere.
Nah, this was the line that was trotted out before June, when the LDs were making consistent good, sometimes spectacular, gains week-on-week. They then crashed to their worst general election result in terms of votes-per-candidate since 1886, and but for the Tory collapse during the campaign, which had nothing to do with Farron, could have been wiped out outside Scotland. The message to take about LD local by-elections is that LDs care more than most parties about local by-elections.
The real message to take is that it is very hard to win when the Tories play with loaded dice.
The mp in onevseat is being tried for alleged illegal practices in2015, and there have been fines for various other errors -how many charges are you anticipating from2017, since that is a bold accusation, particularly given the ld result was in line with polls and expectations. Personally while there were other factors theclds didn’t deserve my vote this time as they put no effort in - all focused on a nearby seat, which they did indeed win, so my vote was a sacrifice for that.
There was not enough evidence to prove in a court of law that the guilty Conservatives in 2015 actually did know what they were doing. So they got away with it. On the other hand, the Electoral Commission whacked them with the heaviest fine it could. So guilty as anything, but not proven.
Their 2017 wrongdoings are, as far as I know, still under investigation.
We are still waiting to hear to what extent the polls and expectation were rigged by the Russians. And the Trump-Americans, of course. So that point is not valid either, Mr Kle.
When all is said and done, Conservative sharp practice is not responsible for the Lib Dems falling to 7.6%.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
I think most people voted Leave because they don't like the EU very much and are even less interested. They just want to get out. The practical stuff about markets, freedom of trade, movement and capital, preferential trade agreements, origination rules and regulatory conformance passes them by.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
If you are casting your vote on the basis of what you imagine other people think of you rather than the weighing up the pros and cons of the issue, you aren't really doing democracy right.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
Perhaps if Farage came back - but Henry Bolton's UKIP has effectively disappeared and already splintered with the leadership candidates who came 2nd and 4th already leaving and forming their own parties and the 3rd placed one having a massive falling out and being sidelined. I expect many of those voters will just sit on their hands.
Farage would come back at the drop of a hat if the Tories abandoned Brexit.
Though a dead gerbil could lead UKIP and they would gain lots of Leaver votes if Brexit was abandoned.
25% said they would feel betrayed if Brexit was abandoned, and that would be their constituency.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
Its been the working classes who have suffered mostly from the negative effects of globalisation whilst the middle classes have often benefitted.
As the middle classes increasingly suffer negative effects their views may well change.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
No. He stepped down, because, in his words, "Why should I do the hard shit?" It was a frivolous decision taken at early in the morning after a personal disaster - hardly the time when you are thinking rationally. It was also utterly dishonest, because he had repeatedly promised not to during the referendum campaign. He was an irresponsible, lazy shyster who blew massive opinion poll leads to achieve a hung Parliament in 2010 against Gordon f---ing Brown for Christ's sake, despite sacrificing many of his Pary's principles. He then achieved a tiny majority in 2015 against an even more hopeless opponent, faute de mieux. He was a passable politician, but to present him as a disinterested patriot is just bizarre.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw ntly.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or 1979 but they did and of course Corbyn lost his first general election.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
I think you're wrong about both 1945 and 1979. In WWII, there was a clear indication from the success of Common Wealth candidates that there was a mood for a much more collective approach from the government. The size of Labour's win might have surprised but not the fact of it. And in 1979, there was plenty of evidence from by-elections and the polls that the Tories were in with a decent shout, not to mention the backdrop of the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent.
Churchill clearly expected to win in 1945 and Callaghan treated Thatcher as a joke when she first became Tory leader. The fact like Corbyn she grew into the opposition leader role does not change the fact she was considered unelectable in 1975 as Corbyn was in 2015.
Churchill never had much feel for the electorate and the election was in 1979, not 1975. I'll take your migration on the point in question as evidence you concede it.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
Perhaps if Farage came back - but Henry Bolton's UKIP has effectively disappeared and already splintered with the leadership candidates who came 2nd and 4th already leaving and forming their own parties and the 3rd placed one having a massive falling out and being sidelined. I expect many of those voters will just sit on their hands.
Farage would come back at the drop of a hat if the Tories abandoned Brexit.
Though a dead gerbil could lead UKIP and they would gain lots of Leaver votes if Brexit was abandoned.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
Its been the working classes who have suffered mostly from the negative effects of globalisation whilst the middle classes have often benefitted.
As the middle classes increasingly suffer negative effects their views may well change.
That also explains the rise of Corbyn, Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon etc as well as Brexit, Trump and anti immigration parties in Europe.
To add to my previous post probably the greatest of May’s many failings is her complete inability to build a team. She builds factions or narrow cotieries which seek to exclude or disregard most of the party. They are impervious to advice and regard reservations as disloyalty. The fundamental problem is her. She needs to go.
No, the problem is that the massive upheaval of Brexit cannot be reconciled with the Conservatives' long-term USP of economic competence and being, well, conservative...
Except about 80% of current Tory voters are full on Brexiteers and voted for Brexit even when the Tory leader opposed it.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
Perhaps if Farage came back - but Henry Bolton's UKIP has effectively disappeared and already splintered with the leadership candidates who came 2nd and 4th already leaving and forming their own parties and the 3rd placed one having a massive falling out and being sidelined. I expect many of those voters will just sit on their hands.
Farage would come back at the drop of a hat if the Tories abandoned Brexit.
Though a dead gerbil could lead UKIP and they would gain lots of Leaver votes if Brexit was abandoned.
25% said they would feel betrayed if Brexit was abandoned, and that would be their constituency.
That would be more than the LDs got even in 2005 and 2010 and more than Le Pen got in the first round in France.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
Its been the working classes who have suffered mostly from the negative effects of globalisation whilst the middle classes have often benefitted.
As the middle classes increasingly suffer negative effects their views may well change.
The irony of course is that the Global Britain free trade paradise envisioned by the likes of Fox and co on the far right will serve those beset by globalisation even more harshly, especially as the safety nets will be ever weakened.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
If you are casting your vote on the basis of what you imagine other people think of you rather than the weighing up the pros and cons of the issue, you aren't really doing democracy right.
"Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue."
In the same way, that even if many Remainers had perfectly good reasons to vote Remain, it doesn't mean that some aren't nasty and thick hypocrites, and with added arrogance.
You are at least honest, Roger. You don't pretend to believe in democracy, and I respect you for that. It certainly has its faults.
You only think democracy works because the weight of numbers irons out some of the faults. If the only voters were from the bingo club in Preston where Laura Kuenssberg did a vox pop and all of them turned out to be Nazis you too would find the result disturbing.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
Every day you churn out your 42% mantras. It seems like the final straw ntly.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or taken place.
I think you're wrong about both 1945 and 1979. In WWII, there was a clear indication from the success of Common Wealth candidates that there was a mood for a much more collective approach from the government. The size of Labour's win might have surprised but not the fact of it. And in 1979, there was plenty of evidence from by-elections and the polls that the Tories were in with a decent shout, not to mention the backdrop of the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent.
Churchill clearly expected to win in 1945 and Callaghan treated Thatcher as a joke when she first became Tory leader. The fact like Corbyn she grew into the opposition leader role does not change the fact she was considered unelectable in 1975 as Corbyn was in 2015.
Churchill never had much feel for the electorate and the election was in 1979, not 1975. I'll take your migration on the point in question as evidence you concede it.
So what the election here was in 2017 when Corbyn got his unexpectedly good result not 2015 so the point still stands.
"Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue."
In the same way, that even if many Remainers had perfectly good reasons to vote Remain, it doesn't mean that some aren't nasty and thick hypocrites, and with added arrogance.
You are at least honest, Roger. You don't pretend to believe in democracy, and I respect you for that. It certainly has its faults.
You only think democracy works because the weight of numbers irons out some of the faults. If the only voters were from the bingo club in Preston where Laura Kuenssberg did a vox pop and all of them turned out to be Nazis you too would find the result disturbing.
But, then, you may not like the alternatives. There's no guarantee that your side would be in power, in an undemocratic state.
"Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue."
In the same way, that even if many Remainers had perfectly good reasons to vote Remain, it doesn't mean that some aren't nasty and thick hypocrites, and with added arrogance.
You are at least honest, Roger. You don't pretend to believe in democracy, and I respect you for that. It certainly has its faults.
You only think democracy works because the weight of numbers irons out some of the faults. If the only voters were from the bingo club in Preston where Laura Kuenssberg did a vox pop and all of them turned out to be Nazis you too would find the result disturbing.
If the only voters were people like you, we'd be in just as much a mess as we are now. Luckily for us we all get a chance to vote, however much you don't think anyone outside London should get the chance.
The EU referendum has changed everything in politics, and not in a good way.
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but." And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The Referendum has coincided with the big political shake out of the past 50 years, in which the working classes have moved rightwards, and the middle classes have moved leftwards.
Its been the working classes who have suffered mostly from the negative effects of globalisation whilst the middle classes have often benefitted.
As the middle classes increasingly suffer negative effects their views may well change.
The irony of course is that the Global Britain free trade paradise envisioned by the likes of Fox and co on the far right will serve those beset by globalisation even more harshly, especially as the safety nets will be ever weakened.
What follows worries me.
Most likely at the moment we get an end to free movement under the Tories and then a Corbyn minority government which ends austerity and bashes the rich which is what working class Leavers largely voted for.
This is not back to the 1990s by any stretch, this is back to the 1970s.
Like then both parties have been divided by a major referendum on Europe, like then (as we no now) there is plenty of sexual impropriety about, the unions are flexing their muscles, inflation is rising and like then both parties are entrenched on around 40% of the vote.
Indeed there were an astonishing 4 general elections in the 1970s, all of which were reasonably close and 1 of which produced a hung parliament where the largest party even lost the popular vote. The 2010s may be heading for similar.
Yet the Tories are consistently polling 40%, a poll rating IDS, Hague and Howard would have given their eye teeth for. Yet more wishful thinking from the Europhile left.
Dumb to paint me as Europhile left when I've spent most my life on the Eurosceptic right. I even voted Hague in 2001!
I'm sorry, HYUFD - it's over.
Sorry having voted Remain in a country which voted Leave and when you did not votelide.
tly.
Why should he not? Nobody thought Attlee or Thatcher would get anywhere near the levers of power in 1945 or 1979 but they did and of course Corbyn lost his first general election.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
I think you're wrong about both 1945 and 1979. In WWII, there was a clear indication from the success of Common Wealth candidates that there was a mood for a much more collective approach from the government. The size of Labour's win might have surprised but not the fact of it. And in 1979, there was plenty of evidence from by-elections and the polls that the Tories were in with a decent shout, not to mention the backdrop of the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent.
Churchill clearly expected to win in 1945 and Callaghan treated Thatcher as a joke when she first became Tory leader. The fact like Corbyn she grew into the opposition leader role does not change the fact she was considered unelectable in 1975 as Corbyn was in 2015.
Churchill never had much feel for the electorate and the election was in 1979, not 1975. I'll take your migration on the point in question as evidence you concede it.
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill.
Comments
Macmillan of course thought he was dying - ironically he then lived to be over 90!
If this kind of joke is now not ok, comedians aren’t going to have much of an act...
So yes a necessary reform to the immoral benefits system Labour left.
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841 to 1860 - they could just never command a majority after 1846 and the other groupings - Whig, Peelite, Radical, Irish - agreed to keep them out of power. I wonder if we might face the same problem again for a few years? It's really hard to see how Labour, particularly the Kafkaesque version Corbyn leads, could win most seats, but as frequently discussed it's easy to see they could lead a government from second place if the Conservatives fall about 30 short.
I have to go and get a haircut. Have a good morning.
He lied to them in the house about his intentions post referendum and that lie has destroyed the Tory party.
Corbyn is a champion of the anti austerity and anti big business culture that has grown up post the 2008 Crash, indeed he won the 2016 local elections and had a few poll leads before the EU referendum had even taken place.
If the Tories abandon Brexit UKIP are waiting in the wings.
I suppose the Tories suffer the most bu virtue of the fact they are in government right now (as Labour happened to be when the expense's scandal hit) but I suspect all this hullabaloo will be at best peripheral come the election.
Where it could be important is if it forces a series of Con by elections which they lose and eventually wind up losing a no confidence vote. But we're a long way from that yet.
Obviously Con will get a new leader before the election so until we see who that leader is and what the public makes of him/her the rest is all speculation.
Had he have tried to carry on after June 24th, the Leadbangers would have tried to force him out which would have fatally damaged the Tory party. Once again, Dave put country and party ahead of himself.
You can see why she might be bitter. First Sir Michael (allegedly) is highly inappropriate with her.
Then he conducts a campaign to have her sacked from the Cabinet.
He should have been more careful about choosing his enemy quite frankly...
Anyway, my earlier point was that the country is still incredibly divided in the same way as it was during the referendum. The parties are caught in this proxy war, and as they are badly led, neither can find a way of either a) producing a Brexit deal that can unite enough voters behind its consequences to produce a convincing majority for its implementation, or b) convincing leave voters that they were misled, and they can live with staying in and your government. Although I'd prefer the latter, I feel the former is more politically plausible.
Part of the reason for that was the nature of the referendum - you could get a majority for 'Leave' but not for the consequences of any particular way of leaving. Whatever approach to Brexit you try, some who voted for it will feel betrayed - and that's before you get to the 48% who polls show are becoming increasingly angry and fearful that Brexit is a national betrayal, fraud and disaster. That means healing the divides and problems with the country, is a difficult task and is perhaps impossible - but neither May nor Corbyn appear up to it.
Sun - "Dirty 3 Dozen" - pic of St Ruth in tank with a pitchfork
DM - "Sexminster" - pic of Palace drapped in lingerie, boxer shorts, y-fronts etc !
Sunday Sport - the mind boggles last week - https://www.sundaysportonline.co.uk
It all started going wrong when LEAVE effectively went into hiding over that weekend after the vote followed by Boris and Gove blowing each other up after the following week.
Everything that's happening in the Tory Party now stems not from the fact LEAVE won the referendum but from how the Tories have behaved ever since.
A shrug of the shouders, an admission that he got it wrong, onwards to deliver the voters' Brexit....
Although Osborne would have had to go, as the price for staying on. I'm not sure Cameron could have stomached firing him.
Given how much of various segments of the electorate have migrated in recent decades, and are likely to wander around further in the wake of Brexit, it's not an impossible scenario.
It might conceivably lead to the Torie finding a renewed identity... in a decade or so's time.
Sure, half of them will melt away after their life's work is done (and good riddance). But don't think the Tories will not be punished for allowing them to steer their agenda, and with it take the country over a cliff.
The country might, to some extent, want Brexit, but it does not want the Darwinist Brexit vision espoused by the far right. I can see parallels with 1945. The country will turn away from the Tories to shape the post Brexit paradigm.
Corbyn may well be a nice man. But the things that are grubby about politics are not specific to one party or one person, they are political skills, political activities. Even if Corbyn himself tries to avoid that stuff, he cannot stop politics being politics, and he will have supporters who do the sleazy soap opera stuff for him, even if we accept he personally doesn’t want that. We know this to be true because it already happens - lieutenants or supporters of his can participate in the soap opera, with or without his blessing.
You’ve gone from ‘Corbyn is a good man’ to ‘therefore the business of politics and government involving hundreds and intense political argument will magically be different’ and that seems overly optimistic. Believing because person or party Xis good therefore they clearly won’t suffer from standard political non partisan issues is not very likely I think.
I know people like Gove, Grayling, Patel et al would have come out and strongly supported Dave staying on, but the Leadbangers and Boris destabilising him would have been worse.
Had he lost the Indyref he would have resigned then, his view is that if you're the front man for a nation changing referendum and you lose, you must resign.
Despite what people think, I was more upset by Dave resigning than the vote to Leave.
It still feels like a kick to the bollocks by someone wearing steel capped Doc Martens when he announced he was going, even though I had been told it was happening.
I can understand why Sir Craig Oliver threw up.
Personally while there were other factors theclds didn’t deserve my vote this time as they put no effort in - all focused on a nearby seat, which they did indeed win, so my vote was a sacrifice for that.
https://twitter.com/ChrisCaesar/status/926546199011786752
Mrs May is likely to face questions about why the party has only now referred the matter to police if whips were aware of the allegations more than a year ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/03/tory-mp-charlie-elphicke-suspended-referred-police-following/
......like a Grope Tzar or a Minister for leg touching?
Wouldn't it be a vote winner if some of these MPs started concentrating on their day job
People who complain to parties but say they don’t want the police involved need to be told ‘sorry, but now we know, given the nature of your allegation we have no choice but to refer this to thecpolice’
There are many advantages about staying in the EU, but there are disadvantages too. Overall, I'd prefer to be governed by incompetent British politicians than by incompetent European ones, so I voted Leave.
But the response by some to the result has polarised things. The sheer overwhelming arrogance by some of what's been called the Metropolitan elite has been breath-taking. They lost a democratic vote but they refuse to accept it. They know better, they are the wise ones, the leavers were nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and should never be allowed to make decisions.
This has provoked a mirror reaction by some of the Leavers. Should we stay in the EU now, for whatever reason, it will be blamed on the machinations of these unelected, self-appointed hypocrites who begin their sentences with "I accept the result of the referendum ... but."
And who then proceed to show that they don't and never will.
The bitterness will last a long time and I worry for the future of political discussion, and even democracy. My own reaction ... I'll stop voting entirely, and remember that politics isn't all that important anyway - it's not like real life.
The arrogance has been on the side of leavers for closing their ears to anything remainers had to say. It's a godawful mess.
Of course, the main difference between the 40s and the 2010s is that the Conservatives had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, whereas now they don't. History never repeats itself exactly.
As a result the middle class, especially rich highly educated upper middle class metropolitan voters, are furious at the plebs for their 'ignorance.'
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/926751893975650304
"Just because it's the Metropolitan elite who think most Leavers are nasty, thick, racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthals doesn't make it untrue."
In the same way, that even if many Remainers had perfectly good reasons to vote Remain, it doesn't mean that some aren't nasty and thick hypocrites, and with added arrogance.
You are at least honest, Roger. You don't pretend to believe in democracy, and I respect you for that. It certainly has its faults.
You wonder how things might have been different for UKIP over the last 15 months had Steven Woolfe got his leadership nomination papers in 18 minutes earlier! How politics can turn on such small margins.
Their 2017 wrongdoings are, as far as I know, still under investigation.
We are still waiting to hear to what extent the polls and expectation were rigged by the Russians. And the Trump-Americans, of course. So that point is not valid either, Mr Kle.
Though a dead gerbil could lead UKIP and they would gain lots of Leaver votes if Brexit was abandoned.
By contrast, the current Cabinet, with exceptions like Gove, seem to do little but maneouvre and brief about the uselessness of their rivals. What else is Boris, for instance, really about?
I give it a few posts. Usual Auntie-Hortence and Butt-face rules seem to be stiffling debate and opportunities....*
:tumbleweed:
* flob-a-gob did not last long as the Staines residency.
As the middle classes increasingly suffer negative effects their views may well change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p053r2q1
Its a documentary about the effects of high unemployment in Hartlepool. The sort of progrma which was often made in the 1980s onwards.
But this was from 1963.
What follows worries me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41856442
- Winston Churchill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/03/venezuela-faces-epic-default-china-russia-pull-plug/