|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2018 14:08:46 GMT
Disappointment followed 1997 soon enough as well. It wasn't soon enough for us! Christ, we had to wait over a decade to gain a seat in a by-election. It took till well after 2001 before there was a serious recovery of the local government base |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 12, 2018 14:19:09 GMT
Torrington, 1958. I was living in Devon at the time and was then a Labour party activist, but was still delighted at the first Liberal by- election gain of my lifetime - indeed the first time I was really aware that such things were possible. I have had a lifetime of exciting by elections ever since including those where I have played a part in the victory, notably Eastbourne, but Torrington was the daddy of them all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:33:48 GMT
Disappointment followed 1997 soon enough as well. I agree those were brilliant times, but more recent history can't be forgotten. I would've voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001. I think 1997-2003 was a pretty exciting time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:35:07 GMT
My favourites were during the 1992-97 Parliament. The best was Wirral South - I came back from uni for two weekends to work on that one. I remember the campaign HQ having to turn people away because we had more volunteers than we knew what to do with! It was clear that the usual pre-election swingback to the government just wasn't happening and the Conservatives were doomed. Frankly if I had been the Tory Chief Whip, I would have tried to keep the seat vacant until the GE, or alternatively got it out of the way as soon as possible rather than leaving it until eight weeks before a general election. Another one that stood out was South East Staffordshire as I spent a weekend campaigning there. There was a feeling that it could be close - unlike in some of the other by-elections during that period the Tories didn't just roll over and play dead, they actually put up a bit of a fight. Although the doorstep feedback indicated that we were likely to win, it didn't feel like a landslide. As it happened, we won by about 15,000. I remember meeting Tom Sawyer, who was the General Secretary at the time - he seemed like a good guy. I remember those times and feel immensely privileged to have been politically active during them. And I feel quite sad for all the enthusiastic young Corbynites who are giddy with excitement because they're level pegging in the polls. I don't think they will ever taste the sweet taste of triumph that we did. And if they do, it will be followed by the bitter taste of disappointment when their vastly inflated expectations are not fulfilled. What's interesting is that at the peak of Blair's popularity in 1995 (I believe Labour recorded a 39% lead in one of the polls that year) - Labour didn't win the Littleborough & Saddleworth by-election. A couple of Labour's leads that year: 23 June - 22% 10 September - 43.5% |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 12, 2018 14:38:07 GMT
.......it will be followed by the bitter taste of disappointment when their vastly inflated expectations are not fulfilled. Nothing could sum up Labour's period in government from 97-10 better! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 12, 2018 14:42:09 GMT
.......it will be followed by the bitter taste of disappointment when their vastly inflated expectations are not fulfilled. Nothing could sum up Labour's period in government from 97-10 better! The silly thing about that was that the 1997 manifesto and campaign was very modest, and the eventual government delivered far more in terms of service improvements than it ever promised to. It wasn't down to any deliberate raising of expectations; what actually went on before 1997 was concerted attempts to lower expectations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:42:23 GMT
.......it will be followed by the bitter taste of disappointment when their vastly inflated expectations are not fulfilled. Nothing could sum up Labour's period in government from 97-10 better! If Blair had stuck to the Granita agreement and quit in 2003 pre-Iraq he would've been one of the greatest post-war PMs. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 12, 2018 15:21:36 GMT
Nothing could sum up Labour's period in government from 97-10 better! The silly thing about that was that the 1997 manifesto and campaign was very modest, and the eventual government delivered far more in terms of service improvements than it ever promised to. It wasn't down to any deliberate raising of expectations; what actually went on before 1997 was concerted attempts to lower expectations. I think many of us were happy to take things slowly and there were some clear achievements. But then Blair got caught up in foreign policy exploits which were very divisive and started to disappoint with regard to domestic policy. I think that you are actually right in the sense that expectations were not based on promises but on the assumption that Labour really wanted to do more than it promised. When it clicked that Blair really believed in his ideas was when the disillusion set in and party members left. Including me. In 2005 I didnt vote until just before the end of the poll. At that time we were in marginal Crosby. I recall staring at the paper for about 5 minutes and in the end I did vote Labour for two reasons - civil partnerships, and the thought of Dracula as PM. I regretted it almost as soon as I put the ballot paper in the box snd vowed Id never vote for anything I disagreed with just to keep someone else out again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 15:29:06 GMT
The silly thing about that was that the 1997 manifesto and campaign was very modest, and the eventual government delivered far more in terms of service improvements than it ever promised to. It wasn't down to any deliberate raising of expectations; what actually went on before 1997 was concerted attempts to lower expectations. I think many of us were happy to take things slowly and there were some clear achievements. But then Blair got caught up in foreign policy exploits which were very divisive and started to disappoint with regard to domestic policy. I think that you are actually right in the sense that expectations were not based on promises but on the assumption that Labour really wanted to do more than it promised. When it clicked that Blair really believed in his ideas was when the disillusion set in and party members left. Including me. In 2005 I didnt vote until just before the end of the poll. At that time we were in marginal Crosby. I recall staring at the paper for about 5 minutes and in the end I did vote Labour for two reasons - civil partnerships, and the thought of Dracula as PM. I regretted it almost as soon as I put the ballot paper in the box snd vowed Id never vote for anything I disagreed with just to keep someone else out again. I voted Tory in 2017 but less enthusiastically than I would have had I been able to vote in 2015. For similar reasons, I didn't want PM Corbyn. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 12, 2018 15:34:02 GMT
Even post-Iraq, if Blair had stood down after that widely rumoured "family incident" in 2004 (and apparently it was quite close to happening) he would be better regarded now. That might have given Brown more of a chance to make a favourable impression as well - and win an election off his own bat!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 16:27:00 GMT
Even post-Iraq, if Blair had stood down after that widely rumoured "family incident" in 2004 (and apparently it was quite close to happening) he would be better regarded now. That might have given Brown more of a chance to make a favourable impression as well - and win an election off his own bat! An interesting “what if?” would’ve been Brown vs Portillo in 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2018 18:21:39 GMT
And can you explain why the distinction between the nominative and accusative form of the pronoun affects the clarity of the sentence you were complaining about in any way? It's a fossilised artefact, which wouldn't even impede meaning in a heavily-inflected language, let alone a weakly-inflected one like modern English. The difference is between the object and subject forms of the pronoun. English doesn't have an accusative case, because we don't make the distinction between direct and indirect objects since we figured out there was no point doing that about 1150 years ago. You're not wrong that it doesn't impede meaning these days. If in doubt, I'd say go for the more natural-sounding phrase. 'Between you and I' is a transatlantic attempt at a hypercorrection that has unfortunately now found its way over here as a linguistic nuisance, because moronic Americans don't understand how the word 'and' works. 'Between you and me' is not only correct usage, but as a bonus it sounds like it rolls off the tongue much more naturally as well. If you're going to complain about hypercorrection, you should probably realise that the distinction between subject and object is the same thing as the distinction between nominative and accusative. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 12, 2018 19:27:44 GMT
Torrington, 1958. I was living in Devon at the time and was then a Labour party activist, but was still delighted at the first Liberal by- election gain of my lifetime - indeed the first time I was really aware that such things were possible. I have had a lifetime of exciting by elections ever since including those where I have played a part in the victory, notably Eastbourne, but Torrington was the daddy of them all. Torrington titbits:-   Yorkshire Libs were quick to ask for cash:-  |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
Member is Online
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 25, 2018 23:33:52 GMT
The difference is between the object and subject forms of the pronoun. English doesn't have an accusative case, because we don't make the distinction between direct and indirect objects since we figured out there was no point doing that about 1150 years ago. You're not wrong that it doesn't impede meaning these days. If in doubt, I'd say go for the more natural-sounding phrase. 'Between you and I' is a transatlantic attempt at a hypercorrection that has unfortunately now found its way over here as a linguistic nuisance, because moronic Americans don't understand how the word 'and' works. 'Between you and me' is not only correct usage, but as a bonus it sounds like it rolls off the tongue much more naturally as well. If you're going to complain about hypercorrection, you should probably realise that the distinction between subject and object is the same thing as the distinction between nominative and accusative. The object form of a noun encompasses more than just the accusative case, which should strictly refer only to direct objects. If we have come to use 'accusative' as shorthand for 'objective' in English, it's only because we haven't had the distinction in our own grammar for over a thousand years... but that doesn't make what you said correct. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Apr 26, 2018 8:36:06 GMT
If you're going to complain about hypercorrection, you should probably realise that the distinction between subject and object is the same thing as the distinction between nominative and accusative. The object form of a noun encompasses more than just the accusative case, which should strictly refer only to direct objects. If we have come to use 'accusative' as shorthand for 'objective' in English, it's only because we haven't had the distinction in our own grammar for over a thousand years... but that doesn't make what you said correct. Ah, good to have you back, Foggy. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 26, 2018 10:19:54 GMT
Seconded, hope that all is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 26, 2018 12:44:49 GMT
If you're going to complain about hypercorrection, you should probably realise that the distinction between subject and object is the same thing as the distinction between nominative and accusative. The object form of a noun encompasses more than just the accusative case, which should strictly refer only to direct objects. If we have come to use 'accusative' as shorthand for 'objective' in English, it's only because we haven't had the distinction in our own grammar for over a thousand years... but that doesn't make what you said correct. welcome back, foggy- we've missed you for a few of these! |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Apr 26, 2018 13:21:01 GMT
This will mean nothing to most members here, but I miss really Vincent Hanna. My University Liberal club had some very fine by-election parties in the early 1980s, and part of that were his round-ups as soon as the polls closed. His interviewing of politicians was forensic and he was merciless when it came to flawed candidates. My other main memory of him was at an Assembly glee club singing Irish Republican songs and playing the guitar. www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-vincent-hanna-1252092.html |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 26, 2018 16:00:35 GMT
This will mean nothing to most members here, but I miss really Vincent Hanna. ... I think that it will mean a lot to everybody who is old enough to remember Vincent Hanna (i.e. anybody over about 40). |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Apr 26, 2018 17:10:12 GMT
This will mean nothing to most members here, but I miss really Vincent Hanna. ... I think that it will mean a lot to everybody who is old enough to remember Vincent Hanna (i.e. anybody over about 40). I'm 35. My family bought the video with all the episodes of Blackadder III in about 1996 - not long after I first starting following politics closely - so I first came across him then. Is it fair to say he had largely departed from the by-election scene by that time? I don't remember seeing much of him on live TV after that. This was of course about a year before he died (an event I remember being reported; I was on holiday in Jersey at the time as well). |
|
