Watching Panorama now -- God, Osborne is so petty.
I liked Osborne the best. So much brighter and sparkier than those dimwits who he used to sit around a cabinet table with. Why shouldn't he enjoy his moment? If he'd been anywhere near that election campaign the Tories would have won with a lanslide.
His political antenna seldom let him down, Theresa the overconfident hasn't got one.
Apart from that JC so much reminded me of Chance the Gardener. Meaningless little patitudes had them roaring. It was completely surreal.
My how times have changed on here over the last decade, back in those days the Osborne cheerleading team was made up of myself, Mike Smithson and a couple of other posters!
This is one of the ironies - I expect much of what the DUP will "want" (or provide a get-out clause to the Tories by saying they want!) is actually the abandonment of much of the "nasty" part of the manifesto! And yet to whatever extent it seeps into popular perception, the Tory association with the DUP is going to go down as Nasty Central, particularly with younger, more liberal or metropolitan voters. Probably even worse than if UKIP had won a few seats and they'd made a deal with them.
It won't if the Tories dump the unpopular stuff and do not adopt any of the DUP's social baggage, the young voters who might be put off would never vote Tory in a million years anyway
They won't vote Tory in a million years, they'll be dead by then. (Apologies for the facetiousness!)
The Tories do, however, need them to vote Tory in 5 or 10 or 15 years' time - and if they think the Tories are evil, they won't.
(I fully accept there's not a lot of point the Tories splurging their political capital on chasing the vote of teenagers and early twenty-somethings. But you do need to make sure they're not put off forever.)
As Churchill said 'if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a Tory when you are older then you have no head.' Of course if they get the disaster that would be a Corbyn and McDonnell government in a few years they may become Tory a bit sooner, it took the final Wilson/Callaghan government to get young people to vote for Thatcher in 1979 and it took the Carter administration to get young people in the US to vote for Reagan in 1980. A Sanders Presidency and a Corbyn Premiership would do wonders for a conservative revival
It is a great shame Sanders didn't win in the US. Then they could have been the salutary lesson to the Anglosphere about what happens when you elect a left winger rather than leaving it to us to be the cautionary tale.
Check out the second places in the highlands of Scotland (Ross, Inverness, Argyll)- all the old Lib Dem places of strength now have the blue team in second place.
Absolutely. Also see how well they did in some Central Belt seats eg Linlithgow and the Lanark seat. They were close to taking Ayrshire Central as well. Taking Ochil and the Ayr,Carrick and Cumnock seat amazed me, particularly the latter where the Ayr MSP seat is ideal for them but not including the traditionally Labour territory around Cumnock.
.... I thought that Cameron had genuinely shifted his party in the right direction of social liberalism. I also thought that Brown had to go for his economic incompetence.
I think that the coalition was a golden period of good government (with one or two exceptions, tuition fees being the glaring one).
In 2015 the loonies took over the Tory asylum, and we are living out that lunacy. Tories abandoned economic competence a year ago when they backed Hard Brexit. They will not recover it for a generation.
I do not regard Labour now as less financially competent. Sure, they want to open the financial taps, but by wanting soft Brexit they balance that out. I am not the only one who thinks this, most of London does too.
If we are not going to live within our means, then I prefer the Labour way of doing it.
Not so great post. Sorry
How do we win someone like you back, Beverley?
I read you as precisely the sort of voter the Conservatives should never have lost.
I thought you wrote me off as a dreadful person when I changed my avatar?
Anyway... to answer your question, I have voted Conservative in the past and more often than I have voted Labour. I am not a party loyalist and my vote always needs to be won at each election.
Setting Brexit aside for the purposes of your question - what would make me vote Tory? I started to answer your question but it quickly became a novelette rather than an answer. I will try and post a summary version in a while or maybe tomorrow
Thanks.
Yes, it is the flag that upset me. I am a massive patriot.
I'm not sure there's that much at stake for the DUP. If there was another election, the only seat they'd risk losing is Belfast South and even then does +/-1 Westminster seat really matter that much to them?
Also when you've maximised your seat count like the DUP have, holding a position of influence can only have downsides. If the DUP are effectively voting through every Tory budget, any fallout will suddenly land in their laps as well. Not to mention getting involved in any divisive Brexit decisions.
If the Tories make a good job of Brexit (Big if here) then they might be rewarded at the polls in 5 years time. If the party shows one tiny spec of indsicpline and a confidence motion fails then they'll pay a massive electoral price in any early election. They'll just have to bear the DUP thumbscrews.
Good for you. Had a few people been so inclined at the top of your party a few weeks ago, history could have unfolded quite differently. A problem for the Tories at the moment though, is that whatever you choose to offer you are going to be outbid!
Essentially a Grand Coalition on the biggest issue of the parliament.
Well they aren't very secret if the Telegraph knows about them!
It's not a bad thing.
I'd prefer full independence, of course, but the most important thing to me is breaking the back of the mainstream consensus that the UK's future lies in political membership of the EU, for good, and putting that to bed.
Like we did with the prospect of our membership of the Euro between 2001-2007.
If the UK can get out of the EU political structures, it will surely only take a decade of further divergence between the UK and EU to render re-entry an option beyond the mainstream. The pace of EU integration, and the ever-decreasing share of the UK's trade with the EU (a long-term trend that predates Brexit and is associated with economic growth of developing countries) will surely see to that.
The euro would have been a bloody difficult thing to get out of if we'd signed up to it. But the idea of joining it was killed off surprisingly quickly, given how many powerful people thought it would be a wonderful idea.
Thanks.
Yes, I agree. Had we joined the euro our hands would have been binded.
Essentially a Grand Coalition on the biggest issue of the parliament.
Well they aren't very secret if the Telegraph knows about them!
It's not a bad thing.
I'd prefer full independence, of course, but the most important thing to me is breaking the back of the mainstream consensus that the UK's future lies in political membership of the EU, for good, and putting that to bed.
Like we did with the prospect of our membership of the Euro between 2001-2007.
This is where the mistake of the moderate Brexiteers lies. The consensus before June last year was that we could have a semi-detached relationship in the EU but outside the Eurozone. That is what Brexit has shattered, and it makes it much more likely that we will end up as part of the inner core in the long term.
I think it's much more likely we'll stabilise in the outer orbit of Europe, in a looser economic trading bloc, based upon EFTA, but still having the geopolitical and economic weight to influence realpolitik through the continent to a degree as well.
We still carry between 1/5th to 1/4th of the hitpower of the whole of Europe, even today. That can't be ignored.
The trouble is getting there: nothing has happened yet.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
Which is exactly what he has always said. As you would know if you read anything he has written over the last 20 years or more.
He was interpreting the mandate from the referendum 20 years ago? That's some soothsayer!
Nope he has consistently written about the form in which the UK Leaving the EU should take for many years.
As he was never driven by the migration issue it was always about maintaining close ties but separation from the institutions and the general trend of the EU project towards statehood. He was an early advocate of returning to EFTA membership and preferred a Swiss arrangement to a Norwegian one as a model for Britain. There is, for example, a chapter on it in the book he wrote with Douglas Carswell in 2008 as well as various pamphlets and briefings done for the Bruges Group. He has been entirely consistent on this.
Comrades...it took me many months to reemerge here after the crushing losses of 2015 and Trump..... and your defeat I think is much much worse. After all, overnight, your politics were pretty much destroyed in the UK, and you were totally unprepared for it. The quote that a week is a long time in politics...well your ideology was blown up in a single night.
Well done for sticking around here. You have much more character than I had previously and I say that with all sincerity.
I'll take that as a compliment.
But, I would say Conservative politics is very far from destroyed in the UK, nor is the idea that the UK's only credible future lies solely in political and economic union with the continent.
The question for me is what is Conservative politics?
I used to know, fuck knows what they stand for now.
That's a very interesting point, actually.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
This is one of the ironies - I expect much of what the DUP will "want" (or provide a get-out clause to the Tories by saying they want!) is actually the abandonment of much of the "nasty" part of the manifesto! And yet to whatever extent it seeps into popular perception, the Tory association with the DUP is going to go down as Nasty Central, particularly with younger, more liberal or metropolitan voters. Probably even worse than if UKIP had won a few seats and they'd made a deal with them.
It won't if the Tories dump the unpopular stuff and do not adopt any of the DUP's social baggage, the young voters who might be put off would never vote Tory in a million years anyway
They won't vote Tory in a million years, they'll be dead by then. (Apologies for the facetiousness!)
The Tories do, however, need them to vote Tory in 5 or 10 or 15 years' time - and if they think the Tories are evil, they won't.
(I fully accept there's not a lot of point the Tories splurging their political capital on chasing the vote of teenagers and early twenty-somethings. But you do need to make sure they're not put off forever.)
As Churchill said 'if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a Tory when you are older then you have no head.' Of course if they get the disaster that would be a Corbyn and McDonnell government in a few years they may become Tory a bit sooner, it took the final Wilson/Callaghan government to get young people to vote for Thatcher in 1979 and it took the Carter administration to get young people in the US to vote for Reagan in 1980. A Sanders Presidency and a Corbyn Premiership would do wonders for a conservative revival
It is a great shame Sanders didn't win in the US. Then they could have been the salutary lesson to the Anglosphere about what happens when you elect a left winger rather than leaving it to us to be the cautionary tale.
He may do next time, PPP today has Sanders leading Trump 51% to 41% in a hypothetical 2020 race between the two
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
A term of Corbyn would solve the house price problem, house prices would go into freefall, just wages and job prospects would do too
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
Nope he has consistently written about the form in which the UK Leaving the EU should take for many years.
As he was never driven by the migration issue it was always about maintaining close ties but separation from the institutions and the general trend of the EU project towards statehood. He was an early advocate of returning to EFTA membership and preferred a Swiss arrangement to a Norwegian one as a model for Britain. There is, for example, a chapter on it in the book he wrote with Douglas Carswell in 2008 as well as various pamphlets and briefings done for the Bruges Group. He has been entirely consistent on this.
Yeah Hannan is essentially saying that the referendum and general election results prove that he was right all along.
Which is exactly what he has always said. As you would know if you read anything he has written over the last 20 years or more.
He was interpreting the mandate from the referendum 20 years ago? That's some soothsayer!
Nope he has consistently written about the form in which the UK Leaving the EU should take for many years.
As he was never driven by the migration issue it was always about maintaining close ties but separation from the institutions and the general trend of the EU project towards statehood. He was an early advocate of returning to EFTA membership and preferred a Swiss arrangement to a Norwegian one as a model for Britain. There is, for example, a chapter on it in the book he wrote with Douglas Carswell in 2008 as well as various pamphlets and briefings done for the Bruges Group. He has been entirely consistent on this.
So his interpretation of the mandate from the referendum is nothing of the sort and merely a restatement of his own longstanding personal view. Thanks for clarifying.
.... I thought that Cameron had genuinely shifted his party in the right direction of social liberalism. I also thought that Brown had to go for his economic incompetence.
I think that the coalition was a golden period of good government (with one or two exceptions, tuition fees being the glaring one).
In 2015 the loonies took over the Tory asylum, and we are living out that lunacy. Tories abandoned economic competence a year ago when they backed Hard Brexit. They will not recover it for a generation.
I do not regard Labour now as less financially competent. Sure, they want to open the financial taps, but by wanting soft Brexit they balance that out. I am not the only one who thinks this, most of London does too.
If we are not going to live within our means, then I prefer the Labour way of doing it.
Not so great post. Sorry
How do we win someone like you back, Beverley?
I read you as precisely the sort of voter the Conservatives should never have lost.
I thought you wrote me off as a dreadful person when I changed my avatar?
Anyway... to answer your question, I have voted Conservative in the past and more often than I have voted Labour. I am not a party loyalist and my vote always needs to be won at each election.
Setting Brexit aside for the purposes of your question - what would make me vote Tory? I started to answer your question but it quickly became a novelette rather than an answer. I will try and post a summary version in a while or maybe tomorrow
Thanks.
Yes, it is the flag that upset me. I am a massive patriot.
You should know that by now ;-)
Thanks to an accident of birth I get to be a dual patriot, so the Tricolour is my flag as much as the Union flag is.
But I grew up in a country divided against itself and Europe offered a path to healing that and, eventually, the EU helped provide a mindset that allowed the GFA. We joined the EEC when I was in primary school and it has been there all my life although very much in the background. Brexit shocked me because it made me realise how much the mindset of being a European had taken root. I was still British and still an Ulsterwoman / Irish, but having my Europe wrenched away from me was hurtful and that really surprised me.
I will always be British, Irish and European. I need to be all three of them because it is who I am.
As Churchill said 'if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a Tory when you are older then you have no head.' Of course if they get the disaster that would be a Corbyn and McDonnell government in a few years they may become Tory a bit sooner, it took the final Wilson/Callaghan government to get young people to vote for Thatcher in 1979 and it took the Carter administration to get young people in the US to vote for Reagan in 1980. A Sanders Presidency and a Corbyn Premiership would do wonders for a conservative revival
PB is full of these historical analogies, offered as conclusive insights on current circumstances. It is as if we have none of our own history to write!
Yes, the past repeats itself. The problem is you never know which bit.
This is one of the ironies - I expect much of what the DUP will "want" (or provide a get-out clause to the Tories by saying they want!) is actually the abandonment of much of the "nasty" part of the manifesto! And yet to whatever extent it seeps into popular perception, the Tory association with the DUP is going to go down as Nasty Central, particularly with younger, more liberal or metropolitan voters. Probably even worse than if UKIP had won a few seats and they'd made a deal with them.
It won't if the Tories dump the unpopular stuff and do not adopt any of the DUP's social baggage, the young voters who might be put off would never vote Tory in a million years anyway
They won't vote Tory in a million years, they'll be dead by then. (Apologies for the facetiousness!)
The Tories do, however, need them to vote Tory in 5 or 10 or 15 years' time - and if they think the Tories are evil, they won't.
(I fully accept there's not a lot of point the Tories splurging their political capital on chasing the vote of teenagers and early twenty-somethings. But you do need to make sure they're not put off forever.)
As Churchill said 'if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a Tory when you are older then you have no head.' Of course if they get the disaster that would be a Corbyn and McDonnell government in a few years they may become Tory a bit sooner, it took the final Wilson/Callaghan government to get young people to vote for Thatcher in 1979 and it took the Carter administration to get young people in the US to vote for Reagan in 1980. A Sanders Presidency and a Corbyn Premiership would do wonders for a conservative revival
Just as Theresa May's premiership is doing wonders for the Labour party now. :-)
Perhaps the sight of a pendulum swinging only to the right is something akin to the sound of one hand clapping.
Comrades...it took me many months to reemerge here after the crushing losses of 2015 and Trump..... and your defeat I think is much much worse. After all, overnight, your politics were pretty much destroyed in the UK, and you were totally unprepared for it. The quote that a week is a long time in politics...well your ideology was blown up in a single night.
Well done for sticking around here. You have much more character than I had previously and I say that with all sincerity.
I'll take that as a compliment.
But, I would say Conservative politics is very far from destroyed in the UK, nor is the idea that the UK's only credible future lies solely in political and economic union with the continent.
The question for me is what is Conservative politics?
I used to know, fuck knows what they stand for now.
That's a very interesting point, actually.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
Will reflect.
Immigration dropped by the biggest amount in years during the election campaign and the Tories barely mentioned it
As @Another_Richard points out quite often it is Osborne's policies that are at the root of alot of the Tories issues.
You've noticed
I do think Osborne was trying to implement his vision of some liberal, free-market, internationalist, metropolitan Conservatism.
But the same trends which he so admired when viewed from a Notting Hill dinner party or from the construction site of an executive skyscraper were also simultaneously destroying the Conservative position in London's suburbs.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
If you think I am a PB Tory then you need to read my "back catalogue"
Ooops sorry, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. My question still stands though - was the 2008 crash Gordon's fault?
The crash was not Gordon's fault. It was the fault of "smart idiots" selling CDOs in on the stock markets in the biggest Ponzi scheme of modern times.
What WAS Gordon's fault was the way his massive borrowing and lax financial structures left us poorly prepared to deal with the fallout. Debt was climbing prior to 2008. The CDO issue just made it get worse a lot faster.
Which is exactly what he has always said. As you would know if you read anything he has written over the last 20 years or more.
He was interpreting the mandate from the referendum 20 years ago? That's some soothsayer!
Nope he has consistently written about the form in which the UK Leaving the EU should take for many years.
As he was never driven by the migration issue it was always about maintaining close ties but separation from the institutions and the general trend of the EU project towards statehood. He was an early advocate of returning to EFTA membership and preferred a Swiss arrangement to a Norwegian one as a model for Britain. There is, for example, a chapter on it in the book he wrote with Douglas Carswell in 2008 as well as various pamphlets and briefings done for the Bruges Group. He has been entirely consistent on this.
So his interpretation of the mandate from the referendum is nothing of the sort and merely a restatement of his own longstanding personal view. Thanks for clarifying.
As is everyone's. I am surprised this is news to you. It certainly puts the lie to the idea that everyone was voting about immigration.
The big difference is that he does not seek to impose his view of the mandate on others, only to articulate it. This is in stark contrast to most politicians including Theresa May and also in stark contrast to many Remainers who never stop telling us why we voted to Leave even though they don't have the first idea and are just satisfying their own bigotries. .
This tweet holds the contradiction at the heart of Ruth Davidson boosters. Opposition has boosted Ruth into the stratosphere but opposition is the only card she's ever played so far. So now she's setting herself up as opposition to the UK Conservative party? Aye right.
Under what situation is she going to vote against her own party on a matter of confidence (or abstain). Is she actually really willing to bring down the government?
Yes? Okay then - she's an incredible woman of principle and I salute her but do you then see the MPs of that self same party then voting her in as leader?
No? Then she's just a regular old politician and the shine comes off at the first piece of controversial legislation that the SCons troop in behind the rest of the lobby fodder.
A commentator on Scotland Tonight made much of the fact that Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservative MPs are already pushing hard for some influence on Farming, Fishing and the North Sea Gas&Oil industry. Not a bad strategy when you consider where they performed most strongly in the GE in Scotland, and another political nail in coffin for a much diminished SNP contingent of MPs who could only have dreamed of that kind of influence even when there was 56 of them at Westminster.
Comrades...it took me many months to reemerge here after the crushing losses of 2015 and Trump..... and your defeat I think is much much worse. After all, overnight, your politics were pretty much destroyed in the UK, and you were totally unprepared for it. The quote that a week is a long time in politics...well your ideology was blown up in a single night.
Well done for sticking around here. You have much more character than I had previously and I say that with all sincerity.
I'll take that as a compliment.
But, I would say Conservative politics is very far from destroyed in the UK, nor is the idea that the UK's only credible future lies solely in political and economic union with the continent.
The question for me is what is Conservative politics?
I used to know, fuck knows what they stand for now.
That's a very interesting point, actually.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
Will reflect.
I know exactly what Corbyn stands for and would never vote for him.
I have no idea what May stands for and consequently didn't vote for her.
Instead of constant smearing and name calling the Conservatives need to outline a positive message. I'm not convinced they can which is why they're in such a mess.
As @Another_Richard points out quite often it is Osborne's policies that are at the root of alot of the Tories issues.
Killing Andy Burnham's very sensible social care proposals in 2010 has just turned out to be an excellent example of that.
Can you expand or link to those ?
Welcome to the site btw - your anecdotes will be useful as a Labour activist working Brentford - congratulations on the stonking Labour result there btw.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
Comrades...it took me many months to reemerge here after the crushing losses of 2015 and Trump..... and your defeat I think is much much worse. After all, overnight, your politics were pretty much destroyed in the UK, and you were totally unprepared for it. The quote that a week is a long time in politics...well your ideology was blown up in a single night.
Well done for sticking around here. You have much more character than I had previously and I say that with all sincerity.
I'll take that as a compliment.
But, I would say Conservative politics is very far from destroyed in the UK, nor is the idea that the UK's only credible future lies solely in political and economic union with the continent.
The question for me is what is Conservative politics?
I used to know, fuck knows what they stand for now.
That's a very interesting point, actually.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
Will reflect.
Immigration dropped by the biggest amount in years during the election campaign and the Tories barely mentioned it
Immigration is a lose-lose issue. Too high and everyone's whining about schools and waiting rooms full of Latvians. Too low and everyone's whining that we haven't got enough nurses and there's no-one to pick the broccoli. Ergo: it shouldn't be a political football.
This tweet holds the contradiction at the heart of Ruth Davidson boosters. Opposition has boosted Ruth into the stratosphere but opposition is the only card she's ever played so far. So now she's setting herself up as opposition to the UK Conservative party? Aye right.
Under what situation is she going to vote against her own party on a matter of confidence (or abstain). Is she actually really willing to bring down the government?
Yes? Okay then - she's an incredible woman of principle and I salute her but do you then see the MPs of that self same party then voting her in as leader?
No? Then she's just a regular old politician and the shine comes off at the first piece of controversial legislation that the SCons troop in behind the rest of the lobby fodder.
A commentator on Scotland Tonight made much of the fact that Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservative MPs are already pushing hard for some influence on Farming, Fishing and the North Sea Gas&Oil industry. Not a bad strategy when you consider where they performed most strongly in the GE in Scotland, and another political nail in coffin for a much diminished SNP contingent of MPs who could only have dreamed of that kind of influence even when there was 56 of them at Westminster.
It does also play to a very notable weakness in the SNP strategy over the last few years which has been to basically ignore the fact that there was any issue with the Oil and Gas Industry and let 120,000 people lose their jobs.
If this was in line with a general laisse faire philosophy then one could have understood it but given they have made great play over other job losses in other industries which were only a faction of those lost in the North Sea it did rather upset a lot of people in the North East.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
I love how people so casually talk about economic booms as if its merely a matter of choice whether to have one or not.
If it was so easy to create an economic boom you would think that politicians would do it more often, and in particular time them to come before general elections.
Once upon a time, back in the era of Keynesianism, that was pretty much how things worked, at least in terms of the timing. It all went to pot under Mrs T.
I think most contemporary economists would describe Keynesianism as a school of economic thought not a description of economic reality.
Would they? Really? It is that kind of thought that led to NOM. There are plenty of Keynesian economists.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This is so simple it shouldn't even be discussed. In London and parts of the South there are more people than houses, consequently rents are high. In Lincolnshire that doesn't apply.
I'll never comprehend how working class people support mass immigration. I know that to people like Dan Hannan (who I know and like very much) public school educated, great job in Brussels etc etc he's not concerned about it. But the average blue collar worker has seen his/her wages compressed and rent increased.
Why don't the tories capitalise on this now UKIP have gone?
This is one of the ironies - I expect much of what the DUP will "want" (or provide a get-out clause to the Tories by saying they want!) is actually the abandonment of much of the "nasty" part of the manifesto! And yet to whatever extent it seeps into popular perception, the Tory association with the DUP is going to go down as Nasty Central, particularly with younger, more liberal or metropolitan voters. Probably even worse than if UKIP had won a few seats and they'd made a deal with them.
It won't if the Tories dump the unpopular stuff and do not adopt any of the DUP's social baggage, the young voters who might be put off would never vote Tory in a million years anyway
They won't vote Tory in a million years, they'll be dead by then. (Apologies for the facetiousness!)
The Tories do, however, need them to vote Tory in 5 or 10 or 15 years' time - and if they think the Tories are evil, they won't.
(I fully accept there's not a lot of point the Tories splurging their political capital on chasing the vote of teenagers and early twenty-somethings. But you do need to make sure they're not put off forever.)
As Churchill said 'if you are not a socialist when you are young you have no heart, if you are not a Tory when you are older then you have no head.' Of course if they get the disaster that would be a Corbyn and McDonnell government in a few years they may become Tory a bit sooner, it took the final Wilson/Callaghan government to get young people to vote for Thatcher in 1979 and it took the Carter administration to get young people in the US to vote for Reagan in 1980. A Sanders Presidency and a Corbyn Premiership would do wonders for a conservative revival
Just as Theresa May's premiership is doing wonders for the Labour party now. :-)
Perhaps the sight of a pendulum swinging only to the right is something akin to the sound of one hand clapping.
It normally takes socialism for conservatism to come into fashion again
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
Exactly.
I also don't see why the coalition (which I always believed would last the full five years) is being compared to this Con-DUP confidence and supply deal.
- The Coalition was an actual formal coalition, which is more stable by nature than a confidence and supply agreement. - The Coalition was led by two people who weren't too dissimilar from each other and in some ways like minded. This is not the case with Theresa May and Arlene Foster. - Cameron still had authority and credibility among the public and his party when he was the leader of the senior coalition partner in 2010. This is not the case with Theresa May. - The coalition meant that the government had a comfortable majority in which to pass things, ensuring stability. This is not the case with the Con-DUP confidence and supply deal - which provides the government with a majority of just 2, meaning that every vote is on a knife-edge in effect. - The LDs played a significant role in the detoxification of the Conservative party brand, as a socially liberal party. The DUP are likely to have the exact opposite effect, especially among the groups the Conservatives need to win back. They do not need to win back voters in the Midlands who are unlikely to care about what DUP politicians have said in the past, but metropolitan liberal London, younger voters, and women - the kind of groups who *will* care. I have no doubt that Londoners are not too happy with a leader who seems to see Britain's future as allying closely as possible with Trump as opposed to having good relationships with European leaders. If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government, and by avoiding embracing Trump too much and realising that in the short-medium term while the situation in America is as it is, she needs to try and form productive and positive relationships with our European partners.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
I wasn't suggesting London becomes like Mansfield ! I doubt many people in London would want that In fact it is inevitable that tonnes of people rent in the large cities, but there should be much much more built than there is
Political parties run into trouble eventually when they define themselves more by who they are not - rather than who they are and what they are for.
In 2017 May was not Corbyn and in 2015 Labour were not the Tories.
They need to offer a positive vision and hope.
I think May was aware of the failings of the Osborne strategy and the problems facing Britain but didn't have any real ideas as to how to improve things.
To be fair its difficult to find realistic answers.
And this played into Corbyn's hands - he had plenty of positive vision and hope even though he was being totally unrealistic.
So we had Corbyn's unrealistic positivity compared to May realistic non-positivity. Very similar to the Labour leadership contests where Corbyn's unrealistic positivity overwhelmed the realistic non-positivity of Cooper and Burnham and then Owen Smith.
If you are still convinced that only hardcore Friedmanism as opposed to Keynes can work, have a look at what is happening in Kansas right now. Years of advice by Mr Laffer (he of the Curve) have lead to an eye-watering deficit, the denuding of public services, and a Republican administration voting for emergency tax rises.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
Exactly.
I also don't see why the coalition (which I always believed would last the full five years) is being compared to this Con-DUP confidence and supply deal.
- The Coalition was an actual formal coalition, which is more stable by nature than a confidence and supply agreement. - The Coalition was led by two people who weren't too dissimilar from each other and in some ways like minded. This is not the case with Theresa May and Arlene Foster. - Cameron still had authority and credibility among the public and his party when he was the leader of the senior coalition partner in 2010. This is not the case with Theresa May. - The coalition meant that the government had a comfortable majority in which to pass things, ensuring stability. This is not the case with the Con-DUP confidence and supply deal - which provides the government with a majority of just 2, meaning that every vote is on a knife-edge in effect. - The LDs played a significant role in the detoxification of the Conservative party brand, as a socially liberal party. The DUP are likely to have the exact opposite effect, especially among the groups the Conservatives need to win back. They do not need to win back voters in the Midlands who are unlikely to care about what DUP politicians have said in the past, but metropolitan liberal London, younger voters, and women - the kind of groups who *will* care. I have no doubt that Londoners are not too happy with a leader who seems to see Britain's future as allying closely as possible with Trump as opposed to having good relationships with European leaders. If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government, and by avoiding embracing Trump too much and realising that in the short-medium term while the situation in America is as it is, she needs to try and form productive and positive relationships with our European partners.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Talking about the standard of living in London compared with Mansfield is risible. Mansfield doesn't have multi million £ homes but neither does it have as many sink estates.
Complete and utter drivel about Davidson. The Tory MPs from Scotland will quickly be absoved into the Westminster life and will not under any circumstances vote to place that at risk.
As for your comments about the SNP they are simply not true. However we shall see how things pan out. The more things move towards a softer Brexit the stronger becomes the SNP's hand.
After all they proposed it first and consistently. Davidson was pro-EU before referendum, pro-single market after it, then against single market when instructed and now leading the charge for "open Brexit".
If you are still convinced that only hardcore Friedmanism as opposed to Keynes can work, have a look at what is happening in Kansas right now. Years of advice by Mr Laffer (he of the Curve) have lead to an eye-watering deficit, the denuding of public services, and a Republican administration voting for emergency tax rises.
Comrades...it took me many months to reemerge here after the crushing losses of 2015 and Trump..... and your defeat I think is much much worse. After all, overnight, your politics were pretty much destroyed in the UK, and you were totally unprepared for it. The quote that a week is a long time in politics...well your ideology was blown up in a single night.
Well done for sticking around here. You have much more character than I had previously and I say that with all sincerity.
I'll take that as a compliment.
But, I would say Conservative politics is very far from destroyed in the UK, nor is the idea that the UK's only credible future lies solely in political and economic union with the continent.
The question for me is what is Conservative politics?
I used to know, fuck knows what they stand for now.
That's a very interesting point, actually.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
Will reflect.
Overheard a middle-aged South of England married home-owning public-sector couple loudly agreeing with each other (like a shouty argument but without the disagreement) on this point. "All she could say is don't vote for Corbyn. Absolutely pathetic."
I wasn't suggesting London becomes like Mansfield ! I doubt many people in London would want that In fact it is inevitable that tonnes of people rent in the large cities, but there should be much much more built than there is
Realise that - it was Another Richard who ran off with baton, hence my question was aimed him. I know Mansfield very well. I live in London. I know where I would rather be!!
Political parties run into trouble eventually when they define themselves more by who they are not - rather than who they are and what they are for.
In 2017 May was not Corbyn and in 2015 Labour were not the Tories.
And it's still happening. PB Tories are convinced (as they were pre-election) that voters will 'find out' about *the real* Jeremy Corbyn. From where? The Mail, The Sun, The Express, and The Telegraph? The publications whose stories about Corbyn failed to swing the groups the Tories need to win over in this GE? I agree with what one PBer said. There is an actual chance that Corbyn may be detoxified among voters because of his ability to come across as the total opposite of how he has been portrayed in the print press on TV and when interacting with voters. Obviously, we don't know this for sure - we have to wait and see. But it is a possibility, and if it is true then the Conservatives cannot rely on the 'Corbyn is terrible' narrative to in of itself win them a majority. People want their concerns acknowledged and addressed. Running a competent government will also not be easy with just a majority of 2, and many groups in the Conservative party now feeling that they can flex their muscles as a result of the GE - particularly the Soft Brexiteers, who it seems are on a collision cause with Hard Brexiteers in the Conservative Party.
I wouldn't be remotely surprised if we had a hung Parliament again at the next GE.
A very close correlation between Labour strongholds and low home ownership.
And home ownership is declining (particularly amongst the 35-44yo who broke 50-30 for Labour). Meanwhile the Tory Party burbles on about Brexit. Tick tock.
I read you as precisely the sort of voter the Conservatives should never have lost.
I was never a party member nor a party loyalist. So what gets me to vote for them? Well, let us start with attributes:
Authoritarianism - I cannot stand it. People must be free to live their own lives, not have others try and live those lives for them.
Equality - I am a firm believer in equality and I will not tolerate racists or bigots. Life is difficult enough as it is. Having said that it is "Equality of Opportunity" not "Equality of Outcomes" that I believe in. The latter leads to authoritarianism.
Honesty - I like good news, but I can deal with bad news. Do not lie to me. I detest falsehood and bullsh*t.
Incompetence - I do not suffer fools gladly
So, what about policies?
I believe that we should have taken a very active role in the EU, we should have been a driving force in it but our eurosceptics destroyed that. Brexit looks like a done deal, so leave it aside...
Housing - the root of many problems. The young need to be able to get on the housing ladder and increasing supply would reduce house price inflation and probably wage inflation. It needs to be done and there are lots of ways it can be done.
Vocational training - get rid of the idea that everyone (or 50%) needs to go to Uni. and run up big debts. I know several youngsters who are getting a degree equivalent through work. They will be as qualified, are productive already and will be debt free. We need to lose the snobbishness in education.
Fox hunting - like Brexit, it is a done deal. Time to move on. Killing foxes for sport is no different from bear baiting or cockfighting. There are far more important things that need sorting.
Prisons - many of the inmates need medical help. Many should not even be there. Putting people in jail for watching TV is a crazy solution so scrap the TV licence and add 1p to taxation and give the same amount to the BBC as it gets via the licence fee.
NHS - It does need more money. Almost all countries spend more than we do. I wonder why?
Hmmm...
It is fast becoming a novel again. This could go on for a while.
Complete and utter drivel about Davidson. The Tory MPs from Scotland will quickly be absoved into the Westminster life and will not under any circumstances vote to place that at risk.
As for your comments about the SNP they are simply not true. However we shall see how things pan out. The more things move towards a softer Brexit the stronger becomes the SNP's hand.
After all they proposed it first and consistently. Davidson was pro-EU before referendum, pro-single market after it, then against single market when instructed and now leading the charge for "open Brexit".
The Vicar of Bray was more consistent.
A soft Brexit coupled with the general election battering the SNP received would be the final nail in the coffin for indyref2 anytime soon
I don't know what the solution is for you. No point telling you what it would take for me to vote for you, I'm too deeply unrepresentative (too radical and too interested in this stuff - you need the perspective of someone who only thinks about politics very rarely!).
But if I was going to stake two guesses, it would be: (a) Clear values, that don't scare the horses (TSE's moderate sense of indistinct unease about getting in bed with the DUP suggests he might just be waking up to the faintest whiff of what this could do to his beloved party), (b) A clear retail offer, with something pitched to each demographic segment - sex, geography, age, wealth, cultural background, public/private sector employment - but particularly those the Tories ought to be reasonably competitive, and given that class has become less important, remember that far more people are now "in play" than in years gone by.
There's also a link between (a) and (b). There are people you may not be able to persuade now, because you don't have the resources to chuck at them (trying to chase 18-24 year olds by slashing tuition fees and putting in extra financial support may simply be too expensive to be feasible; big increases in public sector pay to make up for the years of austerity pay likewise) but who are still potential future Tory voters. It's therefore particularly incumbent on you to not unnecessarily put them off for life by expressions of values that render you unpalatable, unacceptable or their self-declared enemy.
So, don't tick off young'uns by going all dinosaur on LGBT rights or calling them snowflakes when they stick up for people they consider oppressed.
Don't compound the misery of squeezed public sector workers by contrasting them to the "productive part of the economy" (rather than "private sector"), or insult people doing behind-the-scenes work by only praising public sector workers in the "frontline" (there's a tendency for management and admin staff to be portrayed as nothing more than "pen-pushers", "bureaucrats" or "overhead costs" to be slashed - DON'T! They're voters for goodness sake!).
Don't tell well-connected metropolitan types with homes of family connections abroad that as global citizens they are citizens of nowhere. You know all those Poles and other Europeans who are now settling down here and urgently seeking permanent residency/citizenship? The ones who are going to be able to vote, in substantial numbers - often in little market towns which have been prime Tory land - in a few years' time? (Aha, just realised who I am writing to - I know you know them very well!!) Well don't mouth off about Brexit and the joys of immigration control in such a way as to suggest you think they're all benefits scroungers and job-stealers, some kind of subspecies that Mother Theresa will banish from these shores.
It sounds a bit like I am suggesting Tory MPs take a course in political correctness. Perhaps I should redub it co-ordinated politically-expedient linguistic framing. The way you say things can speak volumes about your values, and Tories have a habit of sending out the wrong messages. This can easily undo the hard work of an expensive (fiscally, but also in terms of political capital) retail offer to voters, so it is genuinely worth being on-message about.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Touchy
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
Could you explain what Sinn Fein abstaining means in practice ? I saw that Eilish McCallion had resigned her assembly seat following the election as MP for Foyle.
What exactly does she still have to do as an abstaining MP ?
Nothing. Doesn't get paid either.
MPs have a strange job in that there is no job description and the employer generally only has a look at them every 5 years, and will probably decide whether to keep them on based on quite general views. So at one extreme it's possible to do almost nothing for your constituents (Sinn Fein being the extreme example, but Galloway wasn't far behind), and rely on them voting for the general idea that you represent. At the other extreme you can knock yourself out 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and do only marginally better.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Touchy
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government
Here's the rub though - much as I deeply agree with you and TSE about the long-term danger to the Conservative "brand" with key voting demographics if they get involved with the DUP, it's hard to give an active, realistic recommendation as to what they should do instead. May has landed herself and her party in a terrible Catch-22 situation.
Political parties run into trouble eventually when they define themselves more by who they are not - rather than who they are and what they are for.
In 2017 May was not Corbyn and in 2015 Labour were not the Tories.
They need to offer a positive vision and hope.
I can see the PPB now. Mansfield. Our vision for Britain.
A place where you can own your own home and have a higher standard of living.
Or perhaps this vision of Britain:
' A family of rogue landlords who crammed 31 tenants into a 'Slumdog Millionaire-esque' shanty home have been found guilty of breaching landlord licensing rules.
Mum and daughter, Harsha and Chandani Shah, along with Mrs Harsha Shah's brother, Sanjay Shah, were pocketing around £112,000 a year by stuffing 31 people into appalling conditions in a four-bedroom house in Wembley. '
If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government
Here's the rub though - much as I deeply agree with you and TSE about the long-term danger to the Conservative "brand" with key voting demographics if they get involved with the DUP, it's hard to give an active, realistic recommendation as to what they should do instead. May has landed herself and her party in a terrible Catch-22 situation.
I think May needs to reach out to Labour, the LDs, and other parties and try to reach a cross-party agreement on Brexit. This would make her look like she is acting in the national interest and may help her regain credibility and confidence among the public.
1 thing that should worry the tories - all governments have a sell by date, and the landslide eras of thatcher and blair are the exception to the norm. Note they both required landslides in order to allow for slow losses of seats in all following elections. Already we have had 7 years of the tories. The longer they wait for another election the greater the impact of "anti incumbency swing". A post brexit election in 2021 will mean 11 years of tory rule - the last 4 as a weak minority government. Simple gravity may mean the tories recover better with a brief election loss sooner rather than later, and not having to go through as long a recovery period.
The tories and labour increased their votes at this election largely due to collapses in the third parties (vote share wise) - I wouldn't take too much comfort from that 43% vote share. I don't see it getting much higher after 9, 10, or 11 years of tory rule.
Hi Nick, in your animal welfare role do you happen to know Gavin Grant? He has a rather fetching few minutes on-screen in this 1987 election broadcast, and I'm struggling to assimilate Wikipedia's information that he came from a South London housing estate with Roger's accurate description of his excellent elocution! For someone who never became an MP, he really did have the political patter in place.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Touchy
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
This tweet holds the contradiction at the heart of Ruth Davidson boosters. Opposition has boosted Ruth into the stratosphere but opposition is the only card she's ever played so far. So now she's setting herself up as opposition to the UK Conservative party? Aye right.
Under what situation is she going to vote against her own party on a matter of confidence (or abstain). Is she actually really willing to bring down the government?
Yes? Okay then - she's an incredible woman of principle and I salute her but do you then see the MPs of that self same party then voting her in as leader?
No? Then she's just a regular old politician and the shine comes off at the first piece of controversial legislation that the SCons troop in behind the rest of the lobby fodder.
A commentator on Scotland Tonight made much of the fact that Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservative MPs are already pushing hard for some influence on Farming, Fishing and the North Sea Gas&Oil industry. Not a bad strategy when you consider where they performed most strongly in the GE in Scotland, and another political nail in coffin for a much diminished SNP contingent of MPs who could only have dreamed of that kind of influence even when there was 56 of them at Westminster.
It does also play to a very notable weakness in the SNP strategy over the last few years which has been to basically ignore the fact that there was any issue with the Oil and Gas Industry and let 120,000 people lose their jobs.
If this was in line with a general laisse faire philosophy then one could have understood it but given they have made great play over other job losses in other industries which were only a faction of those lost in the North Sea it did rather upset a lot of people in the North East.
Absolutely correct. The sheer scale of the job losses in the Oil&Gas industry, and the subsequent painful economic fall out across the North East of Scotland over recent years should have been sending alarm bells ringing within the SNP Leadership. But Sturgeon and her team totally took their eye off the ball in their former North East heartlands to focus on trying to win and hang onto control of the central belt without realising just how damaging their domestic policies continued to be up here. The increases in stamp duty and council tax bands, which the SNP Government planned to cream off and use for pet projects in the central belt area, was I think one of the last toxic straws here for people when many were losing their jobs and their homes while local services were being cut to the bone and councils struggled to even fill teachers posts.
1 thing that should worry the tories - all governments have a sell by date, and the landslide eras of thatcher and blair are the exception to the norm. Note they both required landslides in order to allow for slow losses of seats in all following elections. Already we have had 7 years of the tories. The longer they wait for another election the greater the impact of "anti incumbency swing". A post brexit election in 2021 will mean 11 years of tory rule - the last 4 as a weak minority government. Simple gravity may mean the tories recover better with a brief election loss sooner rather than later, and not having to go through as long a recovery period.
The tories and labour increased their votes at this election largely due to collapses in the third parties (vote share wise) - I wouldn't take too much comfort from that 43% vote share. I don't see it getting much higher after 9, 10, or 11 years of tory rule.
The Tories did manage to win in 1992 after 13 years in power, Labour prevented a Cameron majority after 13 years in 2010, Blair in 1997 was the last leader to come into power with a clear majority and Corbyn is no Blair
If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government
Here's the rub though - much as I deeply agree with you and TSE about the long-term danger to the Conservative "brand" with key voting demographics if they get involved with the DUP, it's hard to give an active, realistic recommendation as to what they should do instead. May has landed herself and her party in a terrible Catch-22 situation.
I think May needs to reach out to Labour, the LDs, and other parts and try to reach a cross-party agreement on Brexit. This would make her look like she is acting in the national interest and may help her regain credibility and confidence among the public.
Merely "reaching out" to Labour and the LDs isn't, as far as I can see, a solution. A cross-party solution to Brexit doesn't undo the toxifying harm of a relationship with the DUP. But if the Tories decided against seeking a confidence & supply relationship with the DUP, they surely need the numbers from somewhere else. Nothing I have seen or read or heard suggests to me that either Labour (obviously) or the Lib Dems (which is where I may be wrong) would offer C&S in return for a role in the direction of Brexit. They really are between a rock and a hard place.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Touchy
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
So are you saying that all those stories of teachers, nurses and doctors not being able to have a decent standard of living in London weren't true ?
And have you looked up the home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing yet ?
Anyway enough of this - as I said each to their own and the best of luck to them.
My point I was making initially was that the Conservatives need to increase home ownership levels if they're to boost their natural support.
In London home ownership levels have been falling fast. For example in Ealing North from 67% in 2001 to 54% in 2011 and doubtless significantly lower now (data from UKPR).
This collapse in home ownership has been a big driver in the collapse in Conservatives support in London suburbia.
Whereas the comparison with Mansfield shows home ownership to be much more affordable, much higher and at stable levels, leading to a sound basis for Conservative support.
. So at one extreme it's possible to do almost nothing for your constituents (Sinn Fein being the extreme example, but Galloway wasn't far behind), and rely on them voting for the general idea that you represent.
Do Sinn Fein do nothing for their constituents ? I know they don't vote, but I can't imagine that'd exclude constituency work.
If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government
Here's the rub though - much as I deeply agree with you and TSE about the long-term danger to the Conservative "brand" with key voting demographics if they get involved with the DUP, it's hard to give an active, realistic recommendation as to what they should do instead. May has landed herself and her party in a terrible Catch-22 situation.
Not coming out and saying that they were their natural allies and friends and partners in a Downing Street speech when other options hadn't been explored might have been an idea.
Is this the peak of dup seats? Would they pick up the independent?
When Sylvia Hermon steps down the DUP will win North Down. They were within 1500 or so this time. The rest of the seats other than Fermanagh and South Tyrone are safely Nationalist
A very close correlation between Labour strongholds and low home ownership.
Yeah. That the Midlands doesn't show up light blue is psephologically interesting.
I suspect a house price crash would be the thing that would reeeeealy screw the tories.
You can guarantee there will be a house price crash under Corbyn, of course the rest of the economy would crash too
Yes, because for PB Tories, Corbyn has consistently undershot expectations. I am no fan, but you really need to start at least respecting him as a opponent.
If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government
Here's the rub though - much as I deeply agree with you and TSE about the long-term danger to the Conservative "brand" with key voting demographics if they get involved with the DUP, it's hard to give an active, realistic recommendation as to what they should do instead. May has landed herself and her party in a terrible Catch-22 situation.
Not coming out and saying that they were their natural allies and friends and partners in a Downing Street speech when other options hadn't been explored might have been an idea.
Agreed. I mean, just because you're caught between a rock and a hard place, nobody's suggesting you have to immediately start smashing your head against the rock just for good measure. (It was bizarre political theatrics - like Lucian Fletcher I half-wondered if she had got the UUP and DUP mixed up, but that's so unlikely it must be that someone senior had decided the fawning made good politics.)
. So at one extreme it's possible to do almost nothing for your constituents (Sinn Fein being the extreme example, but Galloway wasn't far behind), and rely on them voting for the general idea that you represent.
Do Sinn Fein do nothing for their constituents ? I know they don't vote, but I can't imagine that'd exclude constituency work.
Hmm. Good question.
I assumed the SF MP's are either retired prominent nationalists, or double jobbing politicians with actual meaningful positions in local govt/stormont.
I doubt they just sit there in an office watching BBC parliament, writing angry letters which never get replies.
. So at one extreme it's possible to do almost nothing for your constituents (Sinn Fein being the extreme example, but Galloway wasn't far behind), and rely on them voting for the general idea that you represent.
Do Sinn Fein do nothing for their constituents ? I know they don't vote, but I can't imagine that'd exclude constituency work.
I assumed the SF MP's are either retired nationalists, or double jobbing politicians with actual meaningful positions in local govt/stormont.
I doubt they just sit there in an office watching BBC parliament.
CBA to research.
Can some PB'er confirm?
Don't they still draw a salary? .. Edit: No, but they can claim expenses. I assume related to constituency work.
Housing is the huge issue for young people. Generation rent will never vote the Tories in. No wonder the Tories did fine in the East Midlands, houses are affordable here. They aren't down south.
This shows the fundamental error in the Osborne city strategy.
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
A successful Tory strategy would make London more like Mansfield? Now I have heard it all
What's home ownership levels in Mansfield and what are they in Ealing ?
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
Do you have a single shred of evidence that the "standard of living" is higher in Mansfield? You have a resentful dislike of London and a sneering way of talking about people who live here that is really quite odd.
Touchy
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
All that ONS data shows is that central London and the stockbroker belt are rich, which we already know, and highlights another London problem namely the great inequality which exists there.
Elections are not won by people on the extremes of wealth but those in the middle. And when those people in the middle have their relative lack of wealth constantly emphasised as happens in London is another thing detrimental to the Conservative party.
A very close correlation between Labour strongholds and low home ownership.
Yeah. That the Midlands doesn't show up light blue is psephologically interesting.
I suspect a house price crash would be the thing that would reeeeealy screw the tories.
You can guarantee there will be a house price crash under Corbyn, of course the rest of the economy would crash too
Yes, because for PB Tories, Corbyn has consistently undershot expectations. I am no fan, but you really need to start at least respecting him as a opponent.
I can respect his campaigning skills, that does not change the fact a Corbyn premiership would be a disaster
Comments
Yes, it is the flag that upset me. I am a massive patriot.
You should know that by now ;-)
https://twitter.com/sabrush/status/874386336186339330
Also when you've maximised your seat count like the DUP have, holding a position of influence can only have downsides. If the DUP are effectively voting through every Tory budget, any fallout will suddenly land in their laps as well. Not to mention getting involved in any divisive Brexit decisions.
If the party shows one tiny spec of indsicpline and a confidence motion fails then they'll pay a massive electoral price in any early election.
They'll just have to bear the DUP thumbscrews.
Price worth paying :>
Yes, I agree. Had we joined the euro our hands would have been binded.
Probably forever.
If you think I am a PB Tory then you need to read my "back catalogue"
We still carry between 1/5th to 1/4th of the hitpower of the whole of Europe, even today. That can't be ignored.
The trouble is getting there: nothing has happened yet.
They aren't down south.
As he was never driven by the migration issue it was always about maintaining close ties but separation from the institutions and the general trend of the EU project towards statehood. He was an early advocate of returning to EFTA membership and preferred a Swiss arrangement to a Norwegian one as a model for Britain. There is, for example, a chapter on it in the book he wrote with Douglas Carswell in 2008 as well as various pamphlets and briefings done for the Bruges Group. He has been entirely consistent on this.
If no-one knew what the Conservatives stood for, and thought the leader selling that was very wooden and lacked conviction and confidence, then I can understand why many might be attracted to another party that had a firm offering led by someone who did.
Will reflect.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/06/plurality-of-voters-think-trump-obstructed-justice.html
Instead of thinking that towns needed to become more like London they should have been trying to make London become more like Mansfield.
Affordable housing and rising home ownership has always been a basis of Conservative strategy.
But I grew up in a country divided against itself and Europe offered a path to healing that and, eventually, the EU helped provide a mindset that allowed the GFA. We joined the EEC when I was in primary school and it has been there all my life although very much in the background. Brexit shocked me because it made me realise how much the mindset of being a European had taken root. I was still British and still an Ulsterwoman / Irish, but having my Europe wrenched away from me was hurtful and that really surprised me.
I will always be British, Irish and European. I need to be all three of them because it is who I am.
Yes, the past repeats itself. The problem is you never know which bit.
Perhaps the sight of a pendulum swinging only to the right is something akin to the sound of one hand clapping.
I do think Osborne was trying to implement his vision of some liberal, free-market, internationalist, metropolitan Conservatism.
But the same trends which he so admired when viewed from a Notting Hill dinner party or from the construction site of an executive skyscraper were also simultaneously destroying the Conservative position in London's suburbs.
What WAS Gordon's fault was the way his massive borrowing and lax financial structures left us poorly prepared to deal with the fallout. Debt was climbing prior to 2008. The CDO issue just made it get worse a lot faster.
The big difference is that he does not seek to impose his view of the mandate on others, only to articulate it. This is in stark contrast to most politicians including Theresa May and also in stark contrast to many Remainers who never stop telling us why we voted to Leave even though they don't have the first idea and are just satisfying their own bigotries. .
I have no idea what May stands for and consequently didn't vote for her.
Instead of constant smearing and name calling the Conservatives need to outline a positive message. I'm not convinced they can which is why they're in such a mess.
Welcome to the site btw - your anecdotes will be useful as a Labour activist working Brentford - congratulations on the stonking Labour result there btw.
Pollsters should really be asking the question.
If this was in line with a general laisse faire philosophy then one could have understood it but given they have made great play over other job losses in other industries which were only a faction of those lost in the North Sea it did rather upset a lot of people in the North East.
Still if people prefer to have a lower standard of living and to be unable to own property in return for living in Ealing that's their choice. Each to their own and the best of luck to them.
I'll never comprehend how working class people support mass immigration. I know that to people like Dan Hannan (who I know and like very much) public school educated, great job in Brussels etc etc he's not concerned about it. But the average blue collar worker has seen his/her wages compressed and rent increased.
Why don't the tories capitalise on this now UKIP have gone?
In 2017 May was not Corbyn and in 2015 Labour were not the Tories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
Map of ownership.
I also don't see why the coalition (which I always believed would last the full five years) is being compared to this Con-DUP confidence and supply deal.
- The Coalition was an actual formal coalition, which is more stable by nature than a confidence and supply agreement.
- The Coalition was led by two people who weren't too dissimilar from each other and in some ways like minded. This is not the case with Theresa May and Arlene Foster.
- Cameron still had authority and credibility among the public and his party when he was the leader of the senior coalition partner in 2010. This is not the case with Theresa May.
- The coalition meant that the government had a comfortable majority in which to pass things, ensuring stability. This is not the case with the Con-DUP confidence and supply deal - which provides the government with a majority of just 2, meaning that every vote is on a knife-edge in effect.
- The LDs played a significant role in the detoxification of the Conservative party brand, as a socially liberal party. The DUP are likely to have the exact opposite effect, especially among the groups the Conservatives need to win back. They do not need to win back voters in the Midlands who are unlikely to care about what DUP politicians have said in the past, but metropolitan liberal London, younger voters, and women - the kind of groups who *will* care. I have no doubt that Londoners are not too happy with a leader who seems to see Britain's future as allying closely as possible with Trump as opposed to having good relationships with European leaders. If May wants to win those voters back, she'd be better off avoiding a further toxification of the Conservative Party brand by running a minority government, and by avoiding embracing Trump too much and realising that in the short-medium term while the situation in America is as it is, she needs to try and form productive and positive relationships with our European partners.
In fact it is inevitable that tonnes of people rent in the large cities, but there should be much much more built than there is
I think May was aware of the failings of the Osborne strategy and the problems facing Britain but didn't have any real ideas as to how to improve things.
To be fair its difficult to find realistic answers.
And this played into Corbyn's hands - he had plenty of positive vision and hope even though he was being totally unrealistic.
So we had Corbyn's unrealistic positivity compared to May realistic non-positivity. Very similar to the Labour leadership contests where Corbyn's unrealistic positivity overwhelmed the realistic non-positivity of Cooper and Burnham and then Owen Smith.
Gerry Rafferty wrote about it.
Complete and utter drivel about Davidson. The Tory MPs from Scotland will quickly be absoved into the Westminster life and will not under any circumstances vote to place that at risk.
As for your comments about the SNP they are simply not true. However we shall see how things pan out. The more things move towards a softer Brexit the stronger becomes the SNP's hand.
After all they proposed it first and consistently. Davidson was pro-EU before referendum, pro-single market after it, then against single market when instructed and now leading the charge for "open Brexit".
The Vicar of Bray was more consistent.
So I think there's something in that.
I wouldn't be remotely surprised if we had a hung Parliament again at the next GE.
Authoritarianism - I cannot stand it. People must be free to live their own lives, not have others try and live those lives for them.
Equality - I am a firm believer in equality and I will not tolerate racists or bigots. Life is difficult enough as it is. Having said that it is "Equality of Opportunity" not "Equality of Outcomes" that I believe in. The latter leads to authoritarianism.
Honesty - I like good news, but I can deal with bad news. Do not lie to me. I detest falsehood and bullsh*t.
Incompetence - I do not suffer fools gladly
So, what about policies?
I believe that we should have taken a very active role in the EU, we should have been a driving force in it but our eurosceptics destroyed that. Brexit looks like a done deal, so leave it aside...
Housing - the root of many problems. The young need to be able to get on the housing ladder and increasing supply would reduce house price inflation and probably wage inflation. It needs to be done and there are lots of ways it can be done.
Vocational training - get rid of the idea that everyone (or 50%) needs to go to Uni. and run up big debts. I know several youngsters who are getting a degree equivalent through work. They will be as qualified, are productive already and will be debt free. We need to lose the snobbishness in education.
Fox hunting - like Brexit, it is a done deal. Time to move on. Killing foxes for sport is no different from bear baiting or cockfighting. There are far more important things that need sorting.
Prisons - many of the inmates need medical help. Many should not even be there. Putting people in jail for watching TV is a crazy solution so scrap the TV licence and add 1p to taxation and give the same amount to the BBC as it gets via the licence fee.
NHS - It does need more money. Almost all countries spend more than we do. I wonder why?
Hmmm...
It is fast becoming a novel again. This could go on for a while.
But if I was going to stake two guesses, it would be:
(a) Clear values, that don't scare the horses (TSE's moderate sense of indistinct unease about getting in bed with the DUP suggests he might just be waking up to the faintest whiff of what this could do to his beloved party),
(b) A clear retail offer, with something pitched to each demographic segment - sex, geography, age, wealth, cultural background, public/private sector employment - but particularly those the Tories ought to be reasonably competitive, and given that class has become less important, remember that far more people are now "in play" than in years gone by.
There's also a link between (a) and (b). There are people you may not be able to persuade now, because you don't have the resources to chuck at them (trying to chase 18-24 year olds by slashing tuition fees and putting in extra financial support may simply be too expensive to be feasible; big increases in public sector pay to make up for the years of austerity pay likewise) but who are still potential future Tory voters. It's therefore particularly incumbent on you to not unnecessarily put them off for life by expressions of values that render you unpalatable, unacceptable or their self-declared enemy.
So, don't tick off young'uns by going all dinosaur on LGBT rights or calling them snowflakes when they stick up for people they consider oppressed.
Don't compound the misery of squeezed public sector workers by contrasting them to the "productive part of the economy" (rather than "private sector"), or insult people doing behind-the-scenes work by only praising public sector workers in the "frontline" (there's a tendency for management and admin staff to be portrayed as nothing more than "pen-pushers", "bureaucrats" or "overhead costs" to be slashed - DON'T! They're voters for goodness sake!).
Don't tell well-connected metropolitan types with homes of family connections abroad that as global citizens they are citizens of nowhere. You know all those Poles and other Europeans who are now settling down here and urgently seeking permanent residency/citizenship? The ones who are going to be able to vote, in substantial numbers - often in little market towns which have been prime Tory land - in a few years' time? (Aha, just realised who I am writing to - I know you know them very well!!) Well don't mouth off about Brexit and the joys of immigration control in such a way as to suggest you think they're all benefits scroungers and job-stealers, some kind of subspecies that Mother Theresa will banish from these shores.
It sounds a bit like I am suggesting Tory MPs take a course in political correctness. Perhaps I should redub it co-ordinated politically-expedient linguistic framing. The way you say things can speak volumes about your values, and Tories have a habit of sending out the wrong messages. This can easily undo the hard work of an expensive (fiscally, but also in terms of political capital) retail offer to voters, so it is genuinely worth being on-message about.
I see you haven't compared home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing.
Perhaps you'd might also compare earnings and costs of living in London with those elsewhere.
I've heard so many times here, usually from those on the political left, how teachers or nurses or doctors even can't afford to have a decent standard of living any more in London.
Surely you're not saying that we've been misinformed.
MPs have a strange job in that there is no job description and the employer generally only has a look at them every 5 years, and will probably decide whether to keep them on based on quite general views. So at one extreme it's possible to do almost nothing for your constituents (Sinn Fein being the extreme example, but Galloway wasn't far behind), and rely on them voting for the general idea that you represent. At the other extreme you can knock yourself out 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and do only marginally better.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/2015#highest-gdhi-nuts3-local-areas-remain-in-london-and-south-east
I suspect a house price crash would be the thing that would reeeeealy screw the tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/12/jennings-racing-boss-warned-staff-of-fobts-crack-down-if-tories-lost-fixed-odds-betting-terminals-election
Or perhaps this vision of Britain:
' A family of rogue landlords who crammed 31 tenants into a 'Slumdog Millionaire-esque' shanty home have been found guilty of breaching landlord licensing rules.
Mum and daughter, Harsha and Chandani Shah, along with Mrs Harsha Shah's brother, Sanjay Shah, were pocketing around £112,000 a year by stuffing 31 people into appalling conditions in a four-bedroom house in Wembley. '
https://www.brent.gov.uk/council-news/press-releases/pr6589/
Not Ealing I'll grant you but wherever Brent leads Ealing tends to follow.
The tories and labour increased their votes at this election largely due to collapses in the third parties (vote share wise) - I wouldn't take too much comfort from that 43% vote share. I don't see it getting much higher after 9, 10, or 11 years of tory rule.
And have you looked up the home ownership levels in Mansfield and Ealing yet ?
My point I was making initially was that the Conservatives need to increase home ownership levels if they're to boost their natural support.
In London home ownership levels have been falling fast. For example in Ealing North from 67% in 2001 to 54% in 2011 and doubtless significantly lower now (data from UKPR).
This collapse in home ownership has been a big driver in the collapse in Conservatives support in London suburbia.
Whereas the comparison with Mansfield shows home ownership to be much more affordable, much higher and at stable levels, leading to a sound basis for Conservative support.
I know they don't vote, but I can't imagine that'd exclude constituency work.
The rest of the seats other than Fermanagh and South Tyrone are safely Nationalist
I assumed the SF MP's are either retired prominent nationalists, or double jobbing politicians with actual meaningful positions in local govt/stormont.
I doubt they just sit there in an office watching BBC parliament, writing angry letters which never get replies.
CBA to research.
Can some PB'er confirm?
Elections are not won by people on the extremes of wealth but those in the middle. And when those people in the middle have their relative lack of wealth constantly emphasised as happens in London is another thing detrimental to the Conservative party.