J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 12, 2022 17:41:52 GMT
This is *exactly* what I mean by 'narrative' and spin and perception overtaking reality. The 'Tory mismanagement of the economy' idea took hold, because people had an interest in the idea taking hold, and nulab were firmly in bed with big finance by then, but it didn't have a whole lot of substance.
The impact of Black Wednesday was, in the bigger scheme of things, far less than doomsayers claimed at the time and, more importantly, by 1997 the economy was booming and the ERM debacle should've been relegated to sidenote status.
By way of comparison. The estimated 'cost' of Black Wednesday was about £3.3 billion. The estimated cost of the lowball sale of gold reserves was about £7 billion. (And I don't even consider that to be *that* big of a deal either).
I'm highly skeptical of the very nature of 'economics' anyway, and question its fundamental importance. It's a big house of cards, quite 1984ish in truth, and for individuals life will carry on regardless. The idea that big economic events in themselves (rather than correlated spin-off events) somehow have a uniform, collective impact is always bullshit scaremongery.
It didn't seem like that, and the problems caused were not just about the ERM. It started with a huge property boom based on cheap money, profits from privatizations, deregulation of financial services, and 100% + mortgages Then to put the tin hat on it the decision to phase out double income tax relief, but allow 6 months warning so giving an added boost to the market which was overheated anyway. When reality check happened in the form of black Wednesday a lot of people were left looking at negative equity while interest rates headed skywards with the government floundering around in a total panic. It is difficult to forget. We bought at the bottom of the market when interest rates were 15% ! Hard to believe from this distance. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
|
Post by slon on Feb 13, 2022 17:45:14 GMT
It didn't seem like that, and the problems caused were not just about the ERM. It started with a huge property boom based on cheap money, profits from privatizations, deregulation of financial services, and 100% + mortgages Then to put the tin hat on it the decision to phase out double income tax relief, but allow 6 months warning so giving an added boost to the market which was overheated anyway. When reality check happened in the form of black Wednesday a lot of people were left looking at negative equity while interest rates headed skywards with the government floundering around in a total panic. It is difficult to forget. We bought at the bottom of the market when interest rates were 15% ! Hard to believe from this distance. It was a scary time for many people .... and those people were aspirational working class. It was not just the unlucky ones who had lost their homes or ended with negative equity for a few years, it came across as betrayal of dreams and aspirations for an important group |
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Feb 13, 2022 18:06:33 GMT
As an aside, I think history will judge Michael Howard's brief period as leader as the turning point. The gain of seats at the 2005 election shouldn't be underestimated as psychologically the Party had been losing elections badly since 1992 and clawing some seats back made the Party relevant again. He also laid the ground for the Cameron and Osborne ascendancy. It's easy to forget just how unpopular Duncan-Smith was and there were a lot of serious commentators speculating in 2002/3 that the Conservatives could become a third party behind the Lib Dems.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Feb 13, 2022 19:10:42 GMT
As an aside, I think history will judge Michael Howard's brief period as leader as the turning point. The gain of seats at the 2005 election shouldn't be underestimated as psychologically the Party had been losing elections badly since 1992 and clawing some seats back made the Party relevant again. He also laid the ground for the Cameron and Osborne ascendancy. It's easy to forget just how unpopular Duncan-Smith was and there were a lot of serious commentators speculating in 2002/3 that the Conservatives could become a third party behind the Lib Dems. I think it may have been speculated elsewhere about a 2005 election with IDS in charge still, Lab maj nearer 100?Noone can say for sure, the Iraq war did severe damage to trsut in the government |
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Feb 13, 2022 19:30:05 GMT
As an aside, I think history will judge Michael Howard's brief period as leader as the turning point. The gain of seats at the 2005 election shouldn't be underestimated as psychologically the Party had been losing elections badly since 1992 and clawing some seats back made the Party relevant again. He also laid the ground for the Cameron and Osborne ascendancy. It's easy to forget just how unpopular Duncan-Smith was and there were a lot of serious commentators speculating in 2002/3 that the Conservatives could become a third party behind the Lib Dems. I think it may have been speculated elsewhere about a 2005 election with IDS in charge still, Lab maj nearer 100?Noone can say for sure, the Iraq war did severe damage to trsut in the government We'll never know but personally I think it would have been a similar result to 1997 and 2001 probably with the Lib Dems gaining a few more seats from Labour. IDS was for me the worst Conservative Leader of modern times by far. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Feb 14, 2022 6:51:00 GMT
Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson ... yeah, they were all crap. (I exclude Major from that list, which most people probably wouldn't, because I believe it was his party that was rubbish rather than him).
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 14, 2022 7:58:27 GMT
Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson ... yeah, they were all crap. (I exclude Major from that list, which most people probably wouldn't, because I believe it was his party that was rubbish rather than him). I certainly wouldn't have excluded Major from that list of crap leaders, and that makes 7 in a row which suggest to me the problem was the the party rather than the weaknesses of individual leaders.. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 14, 2022 10:00:34 GMT
Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson ... yeah, they were all crap. (I exclude Major from that list, which most people probably wouldn't, because I believe it was his party that was rubbish rather than him). I certainly wouldn't have excluded Major from that list of crap leaders, and that makes 7 in a row which suggest to me the problem was the the party rather than the weaknesses of individual leaders.. But, here we embark on the trivial, the subjective and the very tribal. I have issues with all of those people but none of them are 'crap' and it demeans both English and discourse to suggest that they are, and certainly to suggest that all of them were. I could easily assert that all Liberal PMs have been utter 'crap'. Where does that get us? |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Feb 14, 2022 10:56:40 GMT
Point taken - occasionally I am not a model of probity. It was not entirely tribal though - I rate Major as a PM, and Thatcher in her earlier years although I detested her. But those six compared with Heath, Wilson, Blair or Brown are pretty poor in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 14, 2022 11:24:26 GMT
Point taken - occasionally I am not a model of probity. It was not entirely tribal though - I rate Major as a PM, and Thatcher in her earlier years although I detested her. But those six compared with Heath, Wilson, Blair or Brown are pretty poor in my view. The major stumble here is over the tribal and the policy differences, but there is always that complete difference in world view that makes so much difference in how we perceive everything and everybody. I find it impossible to se how anyone could rate Corbyn as other than a bell end. Or fail to see the quality in an Attlee. I use them because I am fairly well to the right. On the right I rated MacMillan and Heath political entities and on competence whilst having reservations of many areas of the actual policies. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Feb 14, 2022 11:44:09 GMT
By the way, if we are talking about Liberal leaders rather than PMs I would tend to agree with you if you meant that seriously - Swinson, Clegg, Farron (nice bloke though), Campbell (very able but not as a leader). The further back one goes the more nuanced one's opinions have to become I think - probably because the tribalism with which one viewed people at the time dissipates, hence my ability to see Thatcher in more balanced ways than I could at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 14, 2022 12:51:14 GMT
I certainly wouldn't have excluded Major from that list of crap leaders, and that makes 7 in a row which suggest to me the problem was the the party rather than the weaknesses of individual leaders.. But, here we embark on the trivial, the subjective and the very tribal. I have issues with all of those people but none of them are 'crap' and it demeans both English and discourse to suggest that they are, and certainly to suggest that all of them were. I could easily assert that all Liberal PMs have been utter 'crap'. Where does that get us? probably unanimity? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 14, 2022 13:05:56 GMT
But, here we embark on the trivial, the subjective and the very tribal. I have issues with all of those people but none of them are 'crap' and it demeans both English and discourse to suggest that they are, and certainly to suggest that all of them were. I could easily assert that all Liberal PMs have been utter 'crap'. Where does that get us? probably unanimity? No. It doesn't. I can get angry. I doubt competence. I have issues with most policy. But I know most of the people are far from being 'crap' and I am often in a minority over policy emphases. And I recognize that much activity is predicated on available cash, what the civil service can cope with, what the public can and will endure, party hesitancies, and the political moods and fashions of that moment. So much policy is predicated on mood and fashion rather than logic and utility. Green, transgender, equality, multiculturalism, Euro-something, NHS obsessive, Covid-obsessive, cost over value, short-termism. To triumph and assert is often very unpopular as with Thatcher and Attlee, at the time. A successful, assertive and achieving PM would be seen as an autocrat who failed to listen and he would be to achieve it. We want the success without the payment, the disruption, the direction and the impinging on freedoms. Not possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Feb 14, 2022 13:50:20 GMT
Prime Ministers who last longer, generally have a better reputation than those who hold the post for a short period of time. How long a Prime Minister lasts can be down to ability, but it can also be down to the vagaries of the time they are in post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Feb 14, 2022 18:48:26 GMT
Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson ... yeah, they were all crap. (I exclude Major from that list, which most people probably wouldn't, because I believe it was his party that was rubbish rather than him). I completely disagree with that. Cameron was, quietly, one of the most consequential post war PM's. For starters, when he took over the party was debt laden, in a rut, unpopular and utterly defeated. Within a decade, we were five years into government, popular, had won a majority and the party was in fine financial shape. In 2010, he won more seats in a single election night than any leader had since the aftermath of the Great Depression. Once in government, he set about reforming the NHS, education reform, cutting corporate taxes, bringing in an austerity program, welfare reform, 0.7% in law and implemented marriage equality. He also wasn't a complete interferer in government. I think he tried to be what a good Prime Minister should be, a Chief Executive overseeing autonomous Department Heads, who are left to get on with it, and who's main responsibility is reporting to Her Majesty, representing the country abroad and dealing with foreign threats. Cammy was a great PM. |
|
|
|
Post by jakegb on Feb 14, 2022 21:05:47 GMT
Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson ... yeah, they were all crap. (I exclude Major from that list, which most people probably wouldn't, because I believe it was his party that was rubbish rather than him). I completely disagree with that. Cameron was, quietly, one of the most consequential post war PM's. For starters, when he took over the party was debt laden, in a rut, unpopular and utterly defeated. Within a decade, we were five years into government, popular, had won a majority and the party was in fine financial shape. In 2010, he won more seats in a single election night than any leader had since the aftermath of the Great Depression. Once in government, he set about reforming the NHS, education reform, cutting corporate taxes, bringing in an austerity program, welfare reform, 0.7% in law and implemented marriage equality. He also wasn't a complete interferer in government. I think he tried to be what a good Prime Minister should be, a Chief Executive overseeing autonomous Department Heads, who are left to get on with it, and who's main responsibility is reporting to Her Majesty, representing the country abroad and dealing with foreign threats. Cammy was a great PM.Electorally Cameron was the opposite of a bad leader. In the run up to the 2010 election, people forget how far Cameron was behind Labour - and he managed to take the party from a distant second place to a clear first place (even if he didn't quite win the election). And his surprise victory in 2015 further cemented his electoral 'heavyweight' status amongst many pundits. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 15, 2022 0:05:55 GMT
So much policy is predicated on mood and fashion rather than logic and utility. Green, transgender, equality, multiculturalism, Euro-something, NHS obsessive, Covid-obsessive, cost over value, short-termism. I find it slightly odd that the last two items on your list are the complete opposite of the first item. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Feb 15, 2022 7:24:38 GMT
As far as Cameron is concerned I acknowledge that my view of him is heavily affected by tribalism. Any of the others on my list would have come pretty much as close as he did to winning the 2010 general election because Labour had run out of steam after 13 years in power. NHS reform and austerity were disastrous,, education changes were heavily influenced by David Laws, 0.7% and marriage equality were LibDem policies, etc. He was a decent Prime Minister in a Coalition situation because he was basically weak - had no clear ideology and tried to hold everything together. As soon as he no longer had the LibDems to blame for everything the hard-liners in the Conservative Party complained about he conceded the Europe Referendum, lost, and ran away to his shed. I suspect that history's verdict on him will tend towards my view rather than yours - I won't be around to know so perhaps you may have the last laugh!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 15, 2022 12:42:53 GMT
Cameron was indeed successful electorally, shame about almost everything else though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2022 21:10:53 GMT
What if Ken Clarke became Tory leader in 1997?
|
|
