Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next election will be decided in Britain, not Venezuela

2»

Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    1976 was the best summer we've had, people weren't happy because of the government it was because the sun was shining
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    Socialism in one post:

    Happier if everyone is poorer, the country is politically divided, and Labour are nominally 'in charge'.
    Replace Labour with the Conservatives and you'd have a good summary of your own position on Brexit.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    As Gladys Knight wisely noted (in 1974), as bad as we think they are, these will become the good old days of our children.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    1976 was the best summer we've had, people weren't happy because of the government it was because the sun was shining

    Yes, it was Peak Global Warming that year.

    The weather has never really been the same since.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Vinny said:

    Trouble is, Mr Herdson, you speak as though the Tories were only a handful of seats ahead. They were 60 ahead of Labour. Further, Mrs May, despite this left-leaning propaganda, caused the Conservative vote to increase, not decrease. At least three seats were lost by student votes in University towns. They won't make that mistake again. Also, there will be no election until the boundaries come into force. Taken together, about 5 or 6 seats more?
    I just do not believe that the British public will elect a Marxist.

    - The Tories are only a handful of seats ahead. There are only three meaningful groups when it comes to forming a government: those who would support the Tories but not Labour, those who would support Labour but not the Tories, and those who would support (or not vote against) either. The Con-plus block is only slightly ahead of the Lab-plus block.

    - Mrs May did lead the Tories to an increased vote, though to nothing like the level it should have been. But that's not as important as Corbyn leading Labour to a vote rising more rapidly.

    - Boundary reform will almost certainly fail to pass the Commons. There is no majority for it. There'll be Con rebels as well as a near- (if not total-) unanimous vote against from the other parties.

    - That is a belief founded on faith rather than evidence, given how close the last election was.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited August 2017
    A depressing conclusion to a very good article. The Tories are an utter shower.

    Corbyn's economics - tried disastrously in the 1970's - will be disastrous again. His support for Leveson and controls on a free press, his desire to reverse all trade union legislation, his unthinking adoption of every anti-Western cause going, his tolerance (at best) of some dark currents in his own party, the risks he would pose to our fight against terrorism, his very poor moral judgment fill me with gloom.

    He is right to say that the economy should work for all not the few; he is right to focus on the future for our young: he is right to say that we should not unthinkingly do whatever the US tells us to. These things need saying and, more importantly, they need acting on.

    Labour - rather than the Tories - are saying these things and it is why they have done better than they expected.

    But I still could not vote for a Labour party led by the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne no matter how much Corbyn's message about what is wrong now resonates and no matter how genial he appears. I simply do not trust his default instincts or those of the people around him. He is wrong on Brexit now and he has been wrong on every major political issue of the last 40 years, save for Iraq and on that he was right for the wrong reasons. But in any case it is an old story. The challenges of the future do not relate to our possible military intervention in the Middle East but to how we will earn our living. And on that I have no idea what he thinks but, based on his record, I fear the worst.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2017
    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Very good thread header by Mr Herdson.

    The reason why Venezuela's situation is irrelevant is because people neither know nor care. Go into Tesco today and conduct a survey, ask 100 people what they think of the crisis in Venezuela. Expect 100 blank looks in return. Time and again anoraks on here assume the wider electorate is as obsessed with politics as they are.

    As somebody else points out, the Conservatives need to make a case for free trade and capitalism and stop banging on about Hamas and Marxists.

    I think it'd be more like 80 rather than 100 blank looks. But out of the twenty, seven or eight will be Corbynites who whole-heartedly approve, seven or eight will be confirmed and informed Tories, whose opposition is merely confirmed, and the rest will say 'meh, so what?'
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Dr. Foxinsox, the left is skilled at revisionism. Hence, Thatcher the milk snatcher. There was a wonderful moment on the Sky papers review several years ago. The newsreader was probably a fiftysomething and the guests were a similar-aged fellow and a young chap.

    The younger chap attacked Thatcher as the milk snatcher, and the newsreader said he was glad it was taken away because it was either frozen solid or warm and disgusting. The older guest agreed, and then the younger chap said he was too young to know about it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    ydoethur said:

    @freetochoose

    Quote is not working, sorry.

    Longest since the post was officially recognised and carried a salary in 1937 is Kinnock (9 years) but the longest overall is Charles James Fox (1783-1806).

    I'm not sure that you can count Fox, as he didn't consistently lead a party through that period (indeed, there weren't really parties at the time, simply different groupings of Whigs or independents).

    I'd nominate Lord Derby, if you're looking for a pre-1922 candidate. He led the Tories for close to 22 years, the great majority of which were in opposition, despite three short periods as PM.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
    That link suggests reasons ranging from the death of Chairman Mao, a Mars lander, Starsky and Hutch, ABBA, Taxi Driver, an that Wurzel's song about the combine harvester.

    All of those are great things - apart from the Wurzels, obviously.

    I'm not sure it's the link and the evidence you're hoping for.

    All this happiness thing is a load of bollocks made up by the lefty New Economics Foundation. Screw them and their socialist agenda. I don't know why anyone either side of the political spectrum gives it the time of day.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Inflation didn’t really kick in before the early 70’s. I went to a professional conference.... best part of 1000 people there ..... in Belfast in 1969, when things were just beginning to go wrong, and I think there was one disturbance, but nothing significant. And, TBH, I don’t recall the unions as a problem then.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    1976 was the best summer we've had, people weren't happy because of the government it was because the sun was shining

    Well, it can't have been because they were England cricket fans (though the WIndies were pretty useful that year).
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Inflation didn’t really kick in before the early 70’s. I went to a professional conference.... best part of 1000 people there ..... in Belfast in 1969, when things were just beginning to go wrong, and I think there was one disturbance, but nothing significant. And, TBH, I don’t recall the unions as a problem then.
    In Place of Strife? How did that work out? And why was it needed in the first place?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2017
    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    When unions can bring governments down and effectively impose their own settlement, they're too powerful.

    Workers or their representatives do need to have meaningful power but as with all things political, there is a sweet spot and a balance to be struck.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Inflation didn’t really kick in before the early 70’s. I went to a professional conference.... best part of 1000 people there ..... in Belfast in 1969, when things were just beginning to go wrong, and I think there was one disturbance, but nothing significant. And, TBH, I don’t recall the unions as a problem then.
    In Place of Strife? How did that work out? And why was it needed in the first place?
    IIRC many of the strikes were unofficial; but yes, you’re right. I suppose it was that what unrest there was didn’t affect me much, if at all. IIRC I had three very good cars from 62 onward, a Mini, a Ford Cortina and a Cortina GT. All British made.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    When unions can bring governments down and effectively impose their own settlement, they're too powerful.

    Workers or their representatives do need to have meaningful power but as with all things political, there is a sweet spot and a balance to be struck.
    I don’t recall the British unions ever bringing a Government down. Heath was like May, architect of his own misfortune.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Where unions work in conjunction with business, and business with unions, they can be a brilliant success.

    Where unions are at war with business and the public, or want to change governments, they are poison. The problems at Southern Rail are a classic example of this: the strikes and work-to-rule are nonsensical and political.

    In this country, the latter happens much more than the former. Whilst some of this is the fault of business, the unions frequently p*ss in their own pool.

    As I've said passim, the best thing unions could do is allow members to select which party they want their subscriptions to support. This way, all parties would be keen to get on the good side of the unions and the union members.
  • At the very least they say something about his judgement; they quite possibly also reveal something about what he considers legitimate behaviour from a state in pursuit of a legitimate goal or to counteract opposition. But the natural conclusions to be drawn from such an assessment are so beyond the range which we are accustomed to UK politicians operating in (hence the ‘they’re all the same’ comment, despite the evidence), that they recoil from the conclusions and reject them.
    Come now. Corbyn is hardly the first leader of a major UK party with an embarrassing history of lending support to authoritarian regimes. Successive prime ministers from both parties have had warm relations with Saudi Arabia, Cameron infamously went on a nice little jolly to apartheid-era South Africa funded by a pro-apartheid group, and Thatcher publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge when she was in office.

    You're forgetting that most people have little awareness of the political situation in any given foreign country, and that most people are resigned to the fact that there are so many unsavoury regimes around the world that our government is inevitably going to have to work with some of them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    edited August 2017
    Username said:

    ACameron infamously went on a nice little jolly to apartheid-era South Africa funded by a pro-apartheid group, and Thatcher publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge when she was in office.

    .
    And sent troops to help in training the Khmer Rouge army. She was also about Gen. Pinochet’s only ally.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Where unions work in conjunction with business, and business with unions, they can be a brilliant success.

    Where unions are at war with business and the public, or want to change governments, they are poison. The problems at Southern Rail are a classic example of this: the strikes and work-to-rule are nonsensical and political.

    In this country, the latter happens much more than the former. Whilst some of this is the fault of business, the unions frequently p*ss in their own pool.

    As I've said passim, the best thing unions could do is allow members to select which party they want their subscriptions to support. This way, all parties would be keen to get on the good side of the unions and the union members.
    I certainly agree. The actions of the unions at our European and Japanese owned car plants in terms of engagement with long term developments and flexibility are a large part of their success, and for these jobs to be well paid and secure. This is a world away from Red Robbo and BL. Co-operation with staffside organisations works well for John Lewis too.

    The over confrontational approach by both sides on Southern Rail is a throwback, as in a different way is the contempt for employees at Sports Direct. SD workers need a decent union.
  • The headline says it all.

    Ask yourself what is going to resonate more strongly with the electorate:

    Tories saying "Labour supports Venezuela - a failed state"

    Labour saying "Tories pledged to bring in a cap for gas/electric prices and they have broken the pledge"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
    That link suggests reasons ranging from the death of Chairman Mao, a Mars lander, Starsky and Hutch, ABBA, Taxi Driver, an that Wurzel's song about the combine harvester.

    All of those are great things - apart from the Wurzels, obviously.

    I'm not sure it's the link and the evidence you're hoping for.

    All this happiness thing is a load of bollocks made up by the lefty New Economics Foundation. Screw them and their socialist agenda. I don't know why anyone either side of the political spectrum gives it the time of day.
    I've no idea how one could measure something as subjective as happiness.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Colin, indeed.

    That said, if the voters wanted the Conservative manifesto implemented they should've given the Conservatives a majority.

    Not broken up myself at a stupid policy that should never have been in the manifesto being ditched. Commodity price-fixing was debunked by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
    That link suggests reasons ranging from the death of Chairman Mao, a Mars lander, Starsky and Hutch, ABBA, Taxi Driver, an that Wurzel's song about the combine harvester.

    All of those are great things - apart from the Wurzels, obviously.

    I'm not sure it's the link and the evidence you're hoping for.

    All this happiness thing is a load of bollocks made up by the lefty New Economics Foundation. Screw them and their socialist agenda. I don't know why anyone either side of the political spectrum gives it the time of day.
    I've no idea how one could measure something as subjective as happiness.
    The Bhutanese do it, but I’m not sure how.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. F, it's like measuring poverty. You decide what you want the answer to be, then invent a bullshit filter to feed the numbers in to show how bad things are.

    And lo, was relative poverty born.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    When unions can bring governments down and effectively impose their own settlement, they're too powerful.

    Workers or their representatives do need to have meaningful power but as with all things political, there is a sweet spot and a balance to be struck.
    I don’t recall the British unions ever bringing a Government down. Heath was like May, architect of his own misfortune.
    When governments fall there are always many factors (albeit that one often stands out), but even if Heath made tactical errors, surely his inability to deal with the industrial unrest that led to the three-day week was critical? The unions' activities played an important part in the fall of each of the three governments turfed out in the 1970s.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Username said:

    At the very least they say something about his judgement; they quite possibly also reveal something about what he considers legitimate behaviour from a state in pursuit of a legitimate goal or to counteract opposition. But the natural conclusions to be drawn from such an assessment are so beyond the range which we are accustomed to UK politicians operating in (hence the ‘they’re all the same’ comment, despite the evidence), that they recoil from the conclusions and reject them.
    Come now. Corbyn is hardly the first leader of a major UK party with an embarrassing history of lending support to authoritarian regimes. Successive prime ministers from both parties have had warm relations with Saudi Arabia, Cameron infamously went on a nice little jolly to apartheid-era South Africa funded by a pro-apartheid group, and Thatcher publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge when she was in office.

    You're forgetting that most people have little awareness of the political situation in any given foreign country, and that most people are resigned to the fact that there are so many unsavoury regimes around the world that our government is inevitably going to have to work with some of them.

    There is a difference between working with unsavoury regimes and expressing admiration and support for them - and indeed a difference between a government with trade and defence interests to promote, and a backbencher doing so for reasons of personal values.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    When unions can bring governments down and effectively impose their own settlement, they're too powerful.

    Workers or their representatives do need to have meaningful power but as with all things political, there is a sweet spot and a balance to be struck.
    I don’t recall the British unions ever bringing a Government down. Heath was like May, architect of his own misfortune.
    When governments fall there are always many factors (albeit that one often stands out), but even if Heath made tactical errors, surely his inability to deal with the industrial unrest that led to the three-day week was critical? The unions' activities played an important part in the fall of each of the three governments turfed out in the 1970s.
    Feeling about the Unions didn’t, I’m certain, have much to do with Wilson’s defeat in 1970, but I agree about Feb 74. As I recall it ..... and memory is a lying jade,...... June 79 was much more about a perception of Labour incompetence and incipient disunity.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    Pong said:

    On topic - Great article, David. I agree with most of your logic, but not your conclusion.

    4/1 on JC next PM is value, imo. 2/1 would be fair.

    I'm not invested, though, for bankroll reasons.

    off topic - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/new-messiahs-jesus-christ-second-coming-photos/

    The Trories just cannot go into the next election with May as PM. So Corbyn may be PM but not the next one.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.

  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    All politics is local, but personality and credibility are important in leaders. So the only why Venezuela plays out is if it damages the credibility of Corbyn's team with those who already vote for him.

    The problem with Corbyn is that he's already peaked. Those he could reach, he already has. Those who didn't bother to oppose him because they thought he couldn't win, won't make that mistake again.

    Corbyn has driven political engagement, but not only for his support, but for his opposition.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    For Jeremy Corbyn's past utterances to cut through, they need to be related to the present. To date the Conservatives have failed to do this with younger voters (older voters are fully on board).

    I'm doubtful about David Herdson's last line: in May 2022 Jeremy Corbyn will be 73. I expect he will have passed on the baton by then.

    On that particular point, I think it's possible for youngsters like yourself to underestimate the energy of *healthy* people in their 60s and 70s. I'm 67. I recently resumed full-time work, and in addition have a thriving translation business in the evenings and do politics when the opportunity arises. It's fun. The idea of retiring seems eccentric, like going to live in Mongolia - why would I? Add to that Corbyn's dedication - life is about helping the cause, not about your personal comfort - and I don't think he's going anywhere. Eventually one gets ill and dies, which is a bit of a bummer, but in the meantime, life is for living.

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.
    Agree with you re working. I am embarking on a freelance career and, if all works out, don't ever envisage not doing some sort of work, for the next 10/15 years, God willing.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    edited August 2017
    Good article and you're totally correct that most of the public don't care about Corbyn's past - e.g. most people under 40 don't even remember the IRA as a terrorist force; but I think making predictions of what might happen in 2022 is pointless at this point. Who could have predicted the current political situation in 2012? The narrative at the moment is 'Tories doomed, Corbyn a shoe-in' but the narrative has been consistently wrong for the last two and half years at least.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Argh, Bairstow out for 99
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Pong said:

    On topic - Great article, David. I agree with most of your logic, but not your conclusion.

    4/1 on JC next PM is value, imo. 2/1 would be fair.

    I'm not invested, though, for bankroll reasons.

    off topic - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/new-messiahs-jesus-christ-second-coming-photos/

    The question is: if May looks likely to lose, how likely is it that she'll survive? Against that, how big is the chance that her government might fall to be replaced by Corbyn, either at an election or directly?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
    That link suggests reasons ranging from the death of Chairman Mao, a Mars lander, Starsky and Hutch, ABBA, Taxi Driver, an that Wurzel's song about the combine harvester.

    All of those are great things - apart from the Wurzels, obviously.

    I'm not sure it's the link and the evidence you're hoping for.

    All this happiness thing is a load of bollocks made up by the lefty New Economics Foundation. Screw them and their socialist agenda. I don't know why anyone either side of the political spectrum gives it the time of day.
    I've no idea how one could measure something as subjective as happiness.
    I'm really happy right now as GeoffMjnr is firing up the bbq and we're having a party this afternoon. This follows last night's effort for MrsM's father's 80th birthday which ended at 4am.

    My neighbour is much less happy that the festivities are continuing.

    It's nice that there's an "index" somewhere which tells the world how happy we all are without anyone needing to check with us first.

    To be fair, it saves us a bit of occasional effort reporting in our levels of cheerfulness.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    houndtang said:

    Good article and you're totally correct that most of the public don't care about Corbyn's past - e.g. most people under 40 don't even remember the IRA as a terrorist force; but I think making predictions of what might happen in 2022 is pointless at this point. Who could have predicted the current political situation in 2012? The narrative at the moment is 'Tories doomed, Corbyn a shoe-in' but the narrative has been consistently wrong for the last two and half years at least.

    It's always worth trying to predict the future: that's what betting is about. Though if the last five years have told us anything, it's that the value is with the unexpected (sometimes the extraordinarily unexpected).

    And the next election might be in October rather than 2022, depending on May's ability to keep the DUP on side.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.
    In that case, perhaps. In others, not so much. Southern Rail atm is the classic example of where the unions are playing a political game, and one not to the advantage of their members, yet alone the public.

    A big problem for unions is changing technology. If a technology means that 10% of the workforce are no longer required, should they try to prevent those job losses, or mitigate the effects of those losses?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Obscure cricket fact: Jimmy Anderson is the player to bowl in a Test match (just now) from an End named after himself ... and to take a wicket!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    I don't think The "Equality" Trust is exactly a neutral observer and purveyor of unbiased data.
    Do you think their data wrong on income distribution and Gini? if so could we have your sources.

    1976 as the best year ever:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

    Certainly the top 10% have done well in recent decades, but the other 90% have not shared in those good times. Material things have changed but while 30 somethings now have an ipad, they do not have a home of their own. They have cheap flights, but not a job with a pension. They do not have fear of nuclear oblivion, but they do have a fear of cultural extinction.

    This is the fuel that fires the enthusiasm for change. PB tories could either listen, or to ignore it, but seem keen to choose the latter.

    The victors write the history, but for many Brits the sixties and seventies were the good years.
    That link suggests reasons ranging from the death of Chairman Mao, a Mars lander, Starsky and Hutch, ABBA, Taxi Driver, an that Wurzel's song about the combine harvester.

    All of those are great things - apart from the Wurzels, obviously.

    I'm not sure it's the link and the evidence you're hoping for.

    All this happiness thing is a load of bollocks made up by the lefty New Economics Foundation. Screw them and their socialist agenda. I don't know why anyone either side of the political spectrum gives it the time of day.
    I've no idea how one could measure something as subjective as happiness.
    Happiness is not a constant. I'm a fairy happy chap most of the time, and whilst the black dog's probably never bitten me, I occasionally have low periods.

    These low periods help me appreciate the good times. If I was a more negative fellow, I might concentrate on the low periods instead.

    Since happiness is so subjective, it seems a fairly meaningless measure.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited August 2017
    Yeah, the general public position (of which we're all guilty every now and then) is to care too much about inconsequential things and not care about consequential things, and in fairness it much more arguable when it comes to pronouncements made about foreign regimes, however despicable. At the least it becomes harder for people to care, even when the nature of the pronouncements vs the reality is significant - the praise/admiration vs pragmatic/cynical nature of working with the unsavory, as has been noted.

    It is quite clear nothing any politician actually believes or says really matters, it is how people feel about the politician that matters, even if actions do not justify the feelings. We saw it meet its limit with the as it turns out hollow popularity of May which could not survive her actual qualities, and we see it working perfectly with others.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Username said:

    At the very least they say something about his judgement; they quite possibly also reveal something about what he considers legitimate behaviour from a state in pursuit of a legitimate goal or to counteract opposition. But the natural conclusions to be drawn from such an assessment are so beyond the range which we are accustomed to UK politicians operating in (hence the ‘they’re all the same’ comment, despite the evidence), that they recoil from the conclusions and reject them.

    Come now. Corbyn is hardly the first leader of a major UK party with an embarrassing history of lending support to authoritarian regimes. Successive prime ministers from both parties have had warm relations with Saudi Arabia, Cameron infamously went on a nice little jolly to apartheid-era South Africa funded by a pro-apartheid group, and Thatcher publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge when she was in office.

    You're forgetting that most people have little awareness of the political situation in any given foreign country, and that most people are resigned to the fact that there are so many unsavoury regimes around the world that our government is inevitably going to have to work with some of them.

    There is a difference between working with unsavoury regimes and expressing admiration and support for them - and indeed a difference between a government with trade and defence interests to promote, and a backbencher doing so for reasons of personal values.
    That last paragraph is spot on. Western governments don't go gushing about how wonderful places like China and Saudi are, and how their people have great lives that we should emulate - we deal with these places purely because it benefits us through trade. Realpolitik not praise.

    This is Corbyn saying how wonderful Venezuela is, and how we should aspire to be more like them, posted by himself on social media only four years ago.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDaUHEP4wdI
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    A director of EMI told me that they made the decision to open factories abroad after a shouting match with their unions.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.
    In that case, perhaps. In others, not so much. Southern Rail atm is the classic example of where the unions are playing a political game, and one not to the advantage of their members, yet alone the public.

    A big problem for unions is changing technology. If a technology means that 10% of the workforce are no longer required, should they try to prevent those job losses, or mitigate the effects of those losses?
    It takes two to make a dispute. SR management (like that of the management at Grunwick) have their role in this.

    Like much of life, if you treat people fairly, they will be fair back. The same goes for industrial relations.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/893801803279740928
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    PAW said:

    A director of EMI told me that they made the decision to open factories abroad after a shouting match with their unions.

    Why are factories moving overseas nowadays? Hardly over powerful unions!

    Bosses have always threatened workers with replacing them with cheaper foreign labour. There is nothing new under the sun.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.
    In that case, perhaps. In others, not so much. Southern Rail atm is the classic example of where the unions are playing a political game, and one not to the advantage of their members, yet alone the public.

    A big problem for unions is changing technology. If a technology means that 10% of the workforce are no longer required, should they try to prevent those job losses, or mitigate the effects of those losses?
    It takes two to make a dispute. SR management (like that of the management at Grunwick) have their role in this.

    (Snip)
    I might suggest you read the Gibb report. The situation is complex, but the union is right at the core of the problem.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619795/chris-gibb-report-southern-rail.pdf
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/893801803279740928

    Were it not for the human tragedy of the spiralling situation there, it would almost be nice to find ourselves in a situation with a crystal clear case of right and wrong (at least as clear as it is possible to be in international relations), of a shamelessly bad regime we are, for geopolitical reasons, able to actually criticise (and which was not always as shamelessly bad as it is now)
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    PAW said:

    A director of EMI told me that they made the decision to open factories abroad after a shouting match with their unions.

    Why are factories moving overseas nowadays? Hardly over powerful unions!

    Bosses have always threatened workers with replacing them with cheaper foreign labour. There is nothing new under the sun.
    I think the problem with this kind of historical move abroad, is that before the China Price came into effect in the 2000's, had the unions of the 1970's and early 80's been more sensible, we would have been so much more efficient in the UK.

    Had we been world leaders in technology and efficiency, rather than haggling over the jobs that would have been lost to new practices, we'd have still have the means of production here because it would not have been worth the marginal gain in labour prices to move. China pricing might not have been enough to make offshoring worth the risk. We fell behind, we never caught up sufficiently, so we were playing with a weak hand.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.
    In that case, perhaps. In others, not so much. Southern Rail atm is the classic example of where the unions are playing a political game, and one not to the advantage of their members, yet alone the public.

    A big problem for unions is changing technology. If a technology means that 10% of the workforce are no longer required, should they try to prevent those job losses, or mitigate the effects of those losses?
    The unions at Southern have completely lost the plot. Even in the south of England £70k is a bloody good salary and there's no public support for the action that's ongoing. I'd go as far as to say that transport companies need to have forced arbitration imposed on them by government - on pain of drastic action such as happened with the US air traffic controllers in 1981.

    As @foxinsoxuk says above, the car plant unions in 2009 showed how co-operative working between management and workers in the face of a decline in demand can be beneficial to all parties. The public sector and transport unions need to take note that their services are run for their customers rather than their staff.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited August 2017

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    geoffw said:

    "The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons."
    If you lived through that period and hold that view you must have been a child, or else on drugs.

    They were. The three big problems were the IRA, inflation , and over-mighty unions, but most people saw a steady rise in living standards.

    Political correctness was non-existent, children were left to do as they please, and life was easier for professional people than it is today, so some people do remember those decades as happy times.
    Over powerful unions is very much a value judgement. People like their own advocates to be powerful advocates of their pay and working conditions, less keen when other people have the same!

    Rising worker prosperity in the postwar period, both here and across the world was in large part because of strong private sector unions. The only people now with that sort of advocacy and access to government are the bosses representatives.
    Mass picketing was violent and nasty, and many strikes were called for the most obnoxious reasons. And often self-defeating, as they were just destroying the companies the strikers were working for.
    Undoubtably so, and there was an element of deliberate political strikes, but other disputes were very valid such as the Grunwick strike. This strike (though unsuccessful) was a landmark in race equality in this country. When the issues are now looked at, it is hard to disagree that the workers were in the right and the company in the wrong.
    In that case, perhaps. In others, not so much. Southern Rail atm is the classic example of where the unions are playing a political game, and one not to the advantage of their members, yet alone the public.
    A big problem for unions is changing technology. If a technology means that 10% of the workforce are no longer required, should they try to prevent those job losses, or mitigate the effects of those losses?
    Eventually union action like this will lead to an even bigger loss of jobs. In the Wapping dispute, unions that were as strong (and overpaid) as the Rail unions lost all its workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute
    " All of the strikers were dismissed. The failure of the strike was a devastating defeat for the print unions, and it led both to a general decline in trade union influence in the UK, and to a widespread adoption of modern newspaper publishing practices."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    edited August 2017

    ydoethur said:

    @freetochoose

    Quote is not working, sorry.

    Longest since the post was officially recognised and carried a salary in 1937 is Kinnock (9 years) but the longest overall is Charles James Fox (1783-1806).

    I'm not sure that you can count Fox, as he didn't consistently lead a party through that period (indeed, there weren't really parties at the time, simply different groupings of Whigs or independents).

    I'd nominate Lord Derby, if you're looking for a pre-1922 candidate. He led the Tories for close to 22 years, the great majority of which were in opposition, despite three short periods as PM.
    He was the Protectionist Leader of the House of Lords, not the Leader of the Opposition. Leaders of the opposition under him were Bentinck, Lord Granby, J. C. Herries and a certain Benjamin Disraeli.

    Fox was acknowledged as the Leader of the Opposition by all opposition politicians of the period, even though he was never party leader. A more plausible argument against him is he found it so frustrating opposing Pitt that he wasn't there very often.

    Edit - come to think of it Disraeli must have had around 22 years as LotO between 1849-1874, although they were not of course consecutive.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited August 2017
    Pulling together a few threads. First 1976 was when we were happiest because it was the best summer. The heat had a downside for those working through it. The Grunwick dispute started in August 1976 when the factory had no air conditioning and some workers understandably struggled with the output targets.

    Most of the workers were asian immigrant females and at a time of full employment they worked for almost 1/3 of the national average wage and even less than the london average wage. Think of a factory employing people today at less than £9,000 a year in London for a current comparison.

    Without the immigrants the factory would have had to pay more and have better conditions. During the first part of the strike the company raised pay by 15% for example.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @freetochoose

    Quote is not working, sorry.

    Longest since the post was officially recognised and carried a salary in 1937 is Kinnock (9 years) but the longest overall is Charles James Fox (1783-1806).

    I'm not sure that you can count Fox, as he didn't consistently lead a party through that period (indeed, there weren't really parties at the time, simply different groupings of Whigs or independents).

    I'd nominate Lord Derby, if you're looking for a pre-1922 candidate. He led the Tories for close to 22 years, the great majority of which were in opposition, despite three short periods as PM.
    He was the Protectionist Leader of the House of Lords, not the Leader of the Opposition. Leaders of the opposition under him were Bentinck, Lord Granby, J. C. Herries and a certain Benjamin Disraeli.

    Fox was acknowledged as the Leader of the Opposition by all opposition politicians of the period, even though he was never party leader. A more plausible argument against him is he found it so frustrating opposing Pitt that he wasn't there very often.

    Edit - come to think of it Disraeli must have had around 22 years as LotO between 1849-1874, although they were not of course consecutive.
    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    CD13 said:

    Labour always looked upon the unions as their fellow comrades who wanted the best for everyone. That made it difficult for them to to say no.

    Unions' aim is to improve the lot of the workers they represent. They're more like defence lawyers rather than altruistic seekers after truth. The altruism is directed more at socialism abroad. I think they can do a good job, and I say that after 15 years as a union rep, but don't expect them to put the good of the country first. That's far too subjective.

    Yes, I think that's a fair assessment. They also put themselves before the Labour Party, perfectly understandably - they need a political voice and we're the best available, but it's not a deep love.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited August 2017
    Grunwick was also a company created by technological change (requirement for mass colour processing) which could not be cheaply met by the previous local chemist based operations.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.

    Chavez became President of Venezuela in 1999. At that time, the price of oil was - inflation adjusted - about $20. Aside from a small blip around the GFC, he enjoyed prices that rose and then plateaued north of $100. Given that over 80% of Venezuela's exports are of petroleum products, he benefited massively from someone turning on the taps and showering the Venezuelan state in money.

    Chavez-ism "worked" because oil money kept flowing in. But what is extraordinary is that Venezuela, even as the oil price soared, was still living beyond its means.

    And, inevitably, as the commodity cycle turned, the money dried up. Tens of billions had been stolen by cronies of the regime. Other businesses had been frightened away by Chavez' policies, and so there was nothing else to rely on.

    It's hard to think of anyone in recent memory who so f**cked his people over. Not because he was venal, but because he was ignorant of basic economics and because he assumed that the oil price would remain elevated for ever.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    kle4 said:

    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:
    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/893801803279740928

    Were it not for the human tragedy of the spiralling situation there, it would almost be nice to find ourselves in a situation with a crystal clear case of right and wrong (at least as clear as it is possible to be in international relations), of a shamelessly bad regime we are, for geopolitical reasons, able to actually criticise (and which was not always as shamelessly bad as it is now)
    Unlike Eastern europe and Cuba, we have in Venezuela a "socialist paradise" that starts off with massive potential oil revenues and has still completely screwed up its economy. In the region it has happened before, Trinidad being one example flourishing in the 80s which backfired by the end of the 90s. Socialists eventually run out of money.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    edited August 2017
    @Sean_F, @JosiasJessop, @GeoffM, @OldKingCole

    I note your discussion about measuring happiness. One of Cameron's better initiatives was the creation of a happiness index in 2010(?), done by the ONS.

    The latest release (April 2017) is here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc364/dashboard/index.html

    The Excel datasets are here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/datasets/measuringnationalwellbeingdomainsandmeasures

    The methodology is here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/qmis/subjectivewellbeingannualpopulationsurveyapsqmi

    A discussion of the change since last year (and 3 years before) is here:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/measuringnationalwellbeing/apr2017#quality-and-methodology
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009
    edited August 2017
    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    Considering he's a politician and a human being, some of the criticisms may be fair. But on the odd occasions I've bothered to look into it, I didn't think they were particularly fair. People aren't generally complete fools, and I think they probably take the outpourings of the tabloid press with at least one grain of salt.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    edited August 2017

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    The Liberals, although officially they had the same system, in practice always gave primacy to the leaders in the Commons - Hartington from 1875-80 and Harcourt then Campbell-Bannerman from 1896, even though Rosebery was still active and an ex-PM (although one who had said he would never hold office again). Interestingly the Liberals only had two fully acknowledged party leaders from the Lords* - Rosebery from 1894-96 (who was more or less forced on them by Queen Victoria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    rcs1000 said:

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.

    Chavez became President of Venezuela in 1999. At that time, the price of oil was - inflation adjusted - about $20. Aside from a small blip around the GFC, he enjoyed prices that rose and then plateaued north of $100. Given that over 80% of Venezuela's exports are of petroleum products, he benefited massively from someone turning on the taps and showering the Venezuelan state in money.

    Chavez-ism "worked" because oil money kept flowing in. But what is extraordinary is that Venezuela, even as the oil price soared, was still living beyond its means.

    And, inevitably, as the commodity cycle turned, the money dried up. Tens of billions had been stolen by cronies of the regime. Other businesses had been frightened away by Chavez' policies, and so there was nothing else to rely on.

    It's hard to think of anyone in recent memory who so f**cked his people over. Not because he was venal, but because he was ignorant of basic economics and because he assumed that the oil price would remain elevated for ever.
    I think that your last sentence is unfair.

    I'm pretty sure he was venal as well.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Sandpit said:

    >
    The unions at Southern have completely lost the plot. Even in the south of England £70k is a bloody good salary and there's no public support for the action that's ongoing. I'd go as far as to say that transport companies need to have forced arbitration imposed on them by government - on pain of drastic action such as happened with the US air traffic controllers in 1981.

    As @foxinsoxuk says above, the car plant unions in 2009 showed how co-operative working between management and workers in the face of a decline in demand can be beneficial to all parties. The public sector and transport unions need to take note that their services are run for their customers rather than their staff.

    There's polling on this, and on the Tube disputes which have some similarities. It's not correct to say that they have no public support - in general the tendency is to blame them marginally more than the management but mostly to blame both sides.
  • Chris said:

    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    Considering he's a politician and a human being, some of the criticisms may be fair. But on the odd occasions I've bothered to look into it, I didn't think they were particularly fair. People aren't generally complete fools, and I think they probably take the outpourings of the tabloid press with at least one grain of salt.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.

    The people I know who know Corbyn all describe him as a decent, sincere and gentle man. Perhaps the Tory attacks during the GE failed because something of this came across as the spotlight turned on him, and those who previously were acquainted with him only through the hostile sections of the media drew their own conclusions on the evidence of their own eyes. If that is so, you would think that Conservative Party HQ might try a different strategy next time, if he runs again. But then on CPHQ's current form, who knows?

    Corbyn does have a reputation for mixing with questionable company, and lending support to questionable causes. Personally I don't like it, but mainly because it's smacks too much of the kind of student politics of the seventies, which I loathed when I was a student back then. But it's hardly the greatest of crimes, if only because they all tend to do it - May with the Saudis, Fallon with Assad, Blair with Gaddafi and so on and so far back as far as you like. My own favorite is Roosevelt and Churchill with Stalin, but they of course were only following a long and dishonorable tradition. The public generally takes these things with a pinch of salt, and rightly so.

    What matters to the electorate is what is happening now and which leaders look the most credible. Incredibly, Corbyn is ahead on that one. Who'd have thunk that a year ago?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Chris said:

    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.

    The people I know who know Corbyn all describe him as a decent, sincere and gentle man. Perhaps the Tory attacks during the GE failed because something of this came across as the spotlight turned on him, and those who previously were acquainted with him only through the hostile sections of the media drew their own conclusions on the evidence of their own eyes. If that is so, you would think that Conservative Party HQ might try a different strategy next time, if he runs again. But then on CPHQ's current form, who knows?

    Corbyn does have a reputation for mixing with questionable company, and lending support to questionable causes. Personally I don't like it, but mainly because it's smacks too much of the kind of student politics of the seventies, which I loathed when I was a student back then. But it's hardly the greatest of crimes, if only because they all tend to do it - May with the Saudis, Fallon with Assad, Blair with Gaddafi and so on and so far back as far as you like. My own favorite is Roosevelt and Churchill with Stalin, but they of course were only following a long and dishonorable tradition. The public generally takes these things with a pinch of salt, and rightly so.

    What matters to the electorate is what is happening now and which leaders look the most credible. Incredibly, Corbyn is ahead on that one. Who'd have thunk that a year ago?
    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    ydoethur said:

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    The Liberals, although officially they had the same system, in practice always gave primacy to the leaders in the Commons - Hartington from 1875-80 and Harcourt then Campbell-Bannerman from 1896, even though Rosebery was still active and an ex-PM (although one who had said he would never hold office again). Interestingly the Liberals only had two fully acknowledged party leaders from the Lords* - Rosebery from 1894-96 (who was more or less forced on them by Queen Victoria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
    So we're discussing whether Derby was Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the opposition? Very PBC?!

    While I agree re the convention about peers and elections, is that relevant in this case? Surely the question about who the LotO was - to the extent that it can be answered at all - is one for which the answer sits inside Westminster? On that basis, Derby was the Tories' leader and hence the de facto LotO.

    I think however we can agree that prior to the early 1920s, it's fairly definitional as to who the longest-serving leader of the opposition (or Leader of the Opposition) was and that there are various candidates that could reasonably be argued?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On Venezuala - yes, it was good to see Chavez making an effort and it did help people for a while, but it's clearly gone very badly wrong and Maduro is behaving as a dictator. That's a common viewpoint which I expect most of the left share, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn went on about it, and even if he said exactly what people wanted to hear, I think the average voter would feel he should be focusing on Britain, not some place in South America.

    Chavez became President of Venezuela in 1999. At that time, the price of oil was - inflation adjusted - about $20. Aside from a small blip around the GFC, he enjoyed prices that rose and then plateaued north of $100. Given that over 80% of Venezuela's exports are of petroleum products, he benefited massively from someone turning on the taps and showering the Venezuelan state in money.

    Chavez-ism "worked" because oil money kept flowing in. But what is extraordinary is that Venezuela, even as the oil price soared, was still living beyond its means.

    And, inevitably, as the commodity cycle turned, the money dried up. Tens of billions had been stolen by cronies of the regime. Other businesses had been frightened away by Chavez' policies, and so there was nothing else to rely on.

    It's hard to think of anyone in recent memory who so f**cked his people over. Not because he was venal, but because he was ignorant of basic economics and because he assumed that the oil price would remain elevated for ever.
    I think that your last sentence is unfair.

    I'm pretty sure he was venal as well.
    I suppose Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Un are worse, but there aren't many.
  • Chris said:

    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.

    T


    What matters to the electorate is what is happening now and which leaders look the most credible. Incredibly, Corbyn is ahead on that one. Who'd have thunk that a year ago?
    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.
    Yes, I was aware of the inappropriateness of the Stalin analogy but it does serve to show how the guilt by association meme can misfire. A better and more telling parallel might be John Major's courageous decision to pick up the IRA's tentative feeler to open peace negotiations. He was only too aware that if the initial contacts had become public knowledge, he was dead politically. It was a chance he decided was worth taking. Well done, John.

    I'm not sure Corbyn deserves the same praise, but there are times when sleeping with the enemy can pay off. It can't just be dismissed out of hand, as some of his critics would have it.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The problem with historical trends is that they are broken. Yes, it is true, that no government which has lost its majority since 1900 has gone on to recover it -although 1923/24, when Baldwin's Tories lost their majority but were the largest party, lost power for a year and then recovered it is an interesting stand alone.

    However, it was equally true that no prime minister since 1900 who had been in power for 4 years, or more ever increased the percentage of the vote at the subsequent election -till Cameron broke that trend in 2015. He remains the only PM since we became a democracy to do so.

    It was equally true that no party ever won 4 elections in a row since 1827. Until the Tories did so in 1992.

    It does not follow therefore that because the Tories have lost their majority, they cannot get it back again next time -especially with a Labour leader as dreadful as Corbyn.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046

    ydoethur said:

    Both the 3 day week and peak inflation were under the Heath government I believe, but apart from the winter of discontent the Wilson and Callaghan gover ments worked out rather well. If Callaghan had gone for a GE in the autumn of 78 he would probably have won, and Maggie would be a little known footnote in British history.

    The sixties and seventies were good years for the majority of Britons.

    Unlikely. Healey in 1977, the year Britain was forced to apply to the IMF for emergency credit:

    'Let me say, Mr Speaker, that of course people's standards of living fell last year. And they will fall this year and fall again next year.'

    Which is probably why private polling by Labour suggested they would come second.

    Moreover they had surrendered repeatedly on public sector pay and that was indeed the whole reason for the strikes in the first place.
    Yet 1976 was Britain's happiest ever year, and the Gini coefficient at its lowest.

    https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

    In the sixties and seventies prosperity was more generalised and places like Coventry thriving. Workers had rising prosperity year on year.

    There were certainly problems (Ireland for example) but the reason so many older and working class Brits are nostalgic for the country of past decades is that they were generally good years, for them, if not for the elites.
    As Gladys Knight wisely noted (in 1974), as bad as we think they are, these will become the good old days of our children.
    Until things stop getting worse.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

  • MP_SE2MP_SE2 Posts: 77
    edited August 2017
    This paper reviews Eurobarometer surveys from 1995 to 2010 and shows how Euro-barometer selects and frames questions in ways that systematically produce “integrationist” outcomes. The violations of the rules of good public opinion research concern incomprehensible, hypothetical, and knowledge-inadequate questions, unbalanced response options, insinuation and leading questions, context effects, and the strategic removal of questions that led to critical responses in previous Eurobarometer waves. It is highly unlikely that the violations happen unintentionally. Eurobarometer therefore blurs the line between research and propaganda.
    http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp15-6.pdf

    An interesting paper from the Max Planck Institute on the eurobaromoter surveys.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    No, not after six months. But then a parliament runs five years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744

    ydoethur said:

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    The Liberals, although officially they had the same system, in practice always gave primacy to the leaders in the Commons - Hartington from 1875-80 and Harcourt then Campbell-Bannerman from 1896, even though Rosebery was still active and an ex-PM (although one who had said he would never hold office again). Interestingly the Liberals only had two fully acknowledged party leaders from the Lords* - Rosebery from 1894-96 (who was more or less forced on them by Queen Victoria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
    So we're discussing whether Derby was Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the opposition? Very PBC?!

    While I agree re the convention about peers and elections, is that relevant in this case? Surely the question about who the LotO was - to the extent that it can be answered at all - is one for which the answer sits inside Westminster? On that basis, Derby was the Tories' leader and hence the de facto LotO.

    I think however we can agree that prior to the early 1920s, it's fairly definitional as to who the longest-serving leader of the opposition (or Leader of the Opposition) was and that there are various candidates that could reasonably be argued?
    Alright, that's a point I'll accept. Can we now move on to the vital question of how many angels can dance on a head of a pin and whether Dawid Malan qualifies as a batsman?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    stevef said:

    However, it was equally true that no prime minister since 1900 who had been in power for 4 years, or more ever increased the percentage of the vote at the subsequent election -till Cameron broke that trend in 2015. He remains the only PM since we became a democracy to do so.

    Attlee 1950-51. The irony being of course that although he increased his vote share, he lost the election!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Chris said:

    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    Considering he's a politician and a human being, some of the criticisms may be fair. But on the odd occasions I've bothered to look into it, I didn't think they were particularly fair. People aren't generally complete fools, and I think they probably take the outpourings of the tabloid press with at least one grain of salt.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.

    It was suggested on pb that even the Tories' anti-Corbyn attack video which had various clips of Corbyn speaking in favour of sending small boys up Venezuelan chimneys and slaughtering the first-born, or as close to these things as CCHQ researchers could find, actually backfired in that if you ignored the words, Corbyn seemed calm, statesmanlike and even charismatic.

    It might be interesting to know if there is any research into the effects of each party's videos. Were votes swung or were both sides preaching to the converted?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    toria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
    So we're discussing whether Derby was Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the opposition? Very PBC?!

    While I agree re the convention about peers and elections, is that relevant in this case? Surely the question about who the LotO was - to the extent that it can be answered at all - is one for which the answer sits inside Westminster? On that basis, Derby was the Tories' leader and hence the de facto LotO.

    I think however we can agree that prior to the early 1920s, it's fairly definitional as to who the longest-serving leader of the opposition (or Leader of the Opposition) was and that there are various candidates that could reasonably be argued?
    Alright, that's a point I'll accept. Can we now move on to the vital question of how many angels can dance on a head of a pin and whether Dawid Malan qualifies as a batsman?
    Of course David Malan qualifies as a batsman. He plays for Middlesex.

    If he played for any other county he would be more likely to qualify as an accountant, but he's Middlesex, so he's in.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    >
    The unions at Southern have completely lost the plot. Even in the south of England £70k is a bloody good salary and there's no public support for the action that's ongoing. I'd go as far as to say that transport companies need to have forced arbitration imposed on them by government - on pain of drastic action such as happened with the US air traffic controllers in 1981.

    As @foxinsoxuk says above, the car plant unions in 2009 showed how co-operative working between management and workers in the face of a decline in demand can be beneficial to all parties. The public sector and transport unions need to take note that their services are run for their customers rather than their staff.

    There's polling on this, and on the Tube disputes which have some similarities. It's not correct to say that they have no public support - in general the tendency is to blame them marginally more than the management but mostly to blame both sides.
    Was that polling after they'd turned down the £70k salaries? I can't imagine many Southern customers commuting to London or Brighton to earn a lot less than that are very supportive.

    On the wider point, yes there are two sides in any industrial dispute, and more often than not there is a amount of belligerence on both sides.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    toria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
    So we're discussing whether Derby was Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the opposition? Very PBC?!

    While I agree re the convention about peers and elections, is that relevant in this case? Surely the question about who the LotO was - to the extent that it can be answered at all - is one for which the answer sits inside Westminster? On that basis, Derby was the Tories' leader and hence the de facto LotO.

    I think however we can agree that prior to the early 1920s, it's fairly definitional as to who the longest-serving leader of the opposition (or Leader of the Opposition) was and that there are various candidates that could reasonably be argued?
    Alright, that's a point I'll accept. Can we now move on to the vital question of how many angels can dance on a head of a pin and whether Dawid Malan qualifies as a batsman?
    Of course David Malan qualifies as a batsman. He plays for Middlesex.

    If he played for any other county he would be more likely to qualify as an accountant, but he's Middlesex, so he's in.
    Don't be silly, Peter.

    Accountants can get past twenty.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    But Derby did form three administrations during 1846-68 while no other Tory / Conservative did. I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't primus inter pares and the effective head of the Opposition, at the least from his first administration in 1852.

    Bentinck announced in December 1846 - one of just two Conservative leaders in the Commons to be selected in Opposition from a standing start until 1965, the other being Bonar Law in 1911 - that he considered Derby overall leader of the party, and all his successors were nominated by Derby. But while he may have been the most senior figure in an opposition party, he was not 'Leader of the Opposition' which is a title used only in the House of Commons at that time. Remember, the convention was that members of the Lords took no part in elections and abstained from the knockabout of politics. I know the second part of that convention was ignored in the nineteenth century and the first was breaking down, but nevertheless it was still considered appropriate to interfere only on the quiet.

    toria) and Asquith from 1925-1926 (because he couldn't hang on to a seat in the Commons) despite the eminence of some of their leaders in the Lords (Granville springs to mind).

    *Not counting Russell from 1865-66, who was Prime Minister but not technically Leader of the party.
    So we're discussing whether Derby was Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the opposition? Very PBC?!

    While I agree re the convention about peers and elections, is that relevant in this case? Surely the question about who the LotO was - to the extent that it can be answered at all - is one for which the answer sits inside Westminster? On that basis, Derby was the Tories' leader and hence the de facto LotO.

    I think however we can agree that prior to the early 1920s, it's fairly definitional as to who the longest-serving leader of the opposition (or Leader of the Opposition) was and that there are various candidates that could reasonably be argued?
    Alright, that's a point I'll accept. Can we now move on to the vital question of how many angels can dance on a head of a pin and whether Dawid Malan qualifies as a batsman?
    Of course David Malan qualifies as a batsman. He plays for Middlesex.

    If he played for any other county he would be more likely to qualify as an accountant, but he's Middlesex, so he's in.
    Don't be silly, Peter.

    Accountants can get past twenty.
    :-)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744

    ydoethur said:

    Of course David Malan qualifies as a batsman. He plays for Middlesex.

    If he played for any other county he would be more likely to qualify as an accountant, but he's Middlesex, so he's in.

    Don't be silly, Peter.

    Accountants can get past twenty.
    :-)
    On the subject of cricket and counties, I must admit I thought with the retirement of Masters Essex would go straight back down. While you seem rather reliant on Simon Harmer and to a lesser extent Jamie Porter for wickets, your batsmen are all doing amazing things. Who is this Mr Lawrence I have never heard of who is averaging over 50?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Chris said:

    Sections of the press have been attacking Jeremy Corbyn in every way imaginable since the day he was elected. That's for a period of nearly two years.

    The Tory election campaign leaned pretty heavily on personal attacks against Corbyn. Although that campaign was widely considered to be incompetent, I assume its architects would at least have had the wit to select the most effective anti-Corbyn material that was available. During that campaign, Corbyn's popularity rose considerably.I wouldn't be surprised if that was partly due to negative campaigning proving counterproductive. Who knows?

    But in any case, I doubt that further negative campaigning against Corbyn will achieve much for the Tories. And if they do feel they have something devastating that they unaccountably missed before, I think they would do better to save it until the appropriate time, rather than squandering it four and a half years before the next election.

    T


    What matters to the electorate is what is happening now and which leaders look the most credible. Incredibly, Corbyn is ahead on that one. Who'd have thunk that a year ago?
    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.
    Yes, I was aware of the inappropriateness of the Stalin analogy but it does serve to show how the guilt by association meme can misfire. A better and more telling parallel might be John Major's courageous decision to pick up the IRA's tentative feeler to open peace negotiations. He was only too aware that if the initial contacts had become public knowledge, he was dead politically. It was a chance he decided was worth taking. Well done, John.

    I'm not sure Corbyn deserves the same praise, but there are times when sleeping with the enemy can pay off. It can't just be dismissed out of hand, as some of his critics would have it.
    It depends what the purpose of sleeping with the enemy is. Trying to persuade them to behave themselves, or acting as their apologist.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.
    The Conservatives' Brexit Bill, to implement a settlement negotiated with the EU, gets voted down in the Commons, and there is a general election, offering a straight choice between the Conservatives implementing Brexit, and Labour opposing it.

    Or, the Conservatives choose a new leader, who is widely perceived as more competent than Corbyn.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.
    Don't see how he wins enough seats to become PM at any election between now and 22.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.

    If the NEC pass his amendment he might well resign in favour of Macdonnell. Whether Macdonnell would win is a different question.

    But I think it very unlikely that he would stay as leader if this parliament goes for five years. No Prime Minister has taken office for the first time aged 73. Palmerston holds the record and he was 70 (and the circumstances were very unusual).

    Moreover I think it is a bold claim to say the Conservatives are inevitably 'not' going to be in government after the next election. It was that sort of silly complacency that did for May. Ultimately, he's still a not very intelligent, highly incompetent and controversial figure with the unenthusiastic backing of his parliamentary party whose policy is directionless and whose management of his colleagues is dire. That he unexpectedly made a net gain of seats rather than a net loss doesn't alter those simple facts.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,744
    Sean_F said:



    The Conservatives' Brexit Bill, to implement a settlement negotiated with the EU, gets voted down in the Commons, and there is a general election, offering a straight choice between the Conservatives implementing Brexit, and Labour opposing it.

    Or, the Conservatives choose a new leader, who is widely perceived as more competent than Corbyn.

    Labour do not oppose Brexit. Corbyn sacked three shadow cabinet ministers a short time ago for trying to slow it down.

    That is of course one reason why Labour were able to get close this time - by accepting the government line on Europe they moved it on to austerity and claimed there were loads of free goodies that other people would pay for. They were lying of course, but then what do you expect from a man with Corbyn's long track record of dishonesty?

    That's really where the attacks should have focussed if CCO had wanted to go negative - not on his links with the IRA or Eisen or the Islington paedophile scandal, but the fact that he repeatedly lied about them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    New thread.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    New thread.

    Some of us have already strolled on over ... and I've even read the thread header too for a change.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.
    Political realignment - the centre ground is currently vacant and will not remain so for ever. Or the left vote may fragment.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    PeterC said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:


    Churchill and Roosevelt had good reason of course to work with Stalin - and of course, ceased doing so as soon as the war was over (slightly earlier, in many ways).

    But you're right: the public don't see Corbyn's choices in his company as important. They should but they don't.

    If he becomes PM - and there's a good chance he will - they'll find out why they should have made better use of the information they had and have.

    With respect, David, you're a Conservative activist. It's hard to imagine you being positive about any Labour leader - I suspect if this forum had existed in the mid-90s, you would have warning us all about Blair and how inexperienced he was and how "the Left" were still there and hadn't gone away etc, etc.

    I like Corbyn - always have done. There was a time when I still would have chosen May over him in a forced choice for PM but now I would go the other way.

    Much as I like Corbyn personally, that's not to say I don't have a number of concerns over Labour policies but I'd be lying if I said I thought the Conservatives had shown any claim to competence or good governance.

    We've essentially drifted since 2015 and especially since 23/6/16. The diminishing of May's personal authority via the 2017 GE is analogous to the damage Major suffered after September 1992.

    Come 2022 and the notion of "giving Labour a chance" will have a lot of resonance and for those Conservatives who say they need to remain in power the inevitable response will be "you've been in power 12 years. How much more time do you need to sort things out ?"

    I neither fear a Labour Government led by Corbyn nor do I think I will be queuing for butter after 6 months.

    I'm not expecting food shortages if Corbyn becomes PM. I am expecting an unpleasant time.
    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.
    Political realignment - the centre ground is currently vacant and will not remain so for ever. Or the left vote may fragment.
    Do you really think so?

    I find the current Conservatives horrendously and awfully centre ground. Can't think of a single radical policy that they are pursing.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Of course David Malan qualifies as a batsman. He plays for Middlesex.

    If he played for any other county he would be more likely to qualify as an accountant, but he's Middlesex, so he's in.

    Don't be silly, Peter.

    Accountants can get past twenty.
    :-)
    On the subject of cricket and counties, I must admit I thought with the retirement of Masters Essex would go straight back down. While you seem rather reliant on Simon Harmer and to a lesser extent Jamie Porter for wickets, your batsmen are all doing amazing things. Who is this Mr Lawrence I have never heard of who is averaging over 50?
    He is an outstanding 20 yo batsmen who has been having a brilliant season. Don't worry though if you have never heard of him. Neither have the England selectors.
This discussion has been closed.