|
|
Post by batman on Oct 4, 2024 9:24:28 GMT
Well it took me about 30 seconds. Pete himself did the notionals, and they show that the Conservatives would have won this seat on the present boundaries in both 1997 & 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 4, 2024 9:51:05 GMT
Well it took me about 30 seconds. Pete himself did the notionals, and they show that the Conservatives would have won this seat on the present boundaries in both 1997 & 2001. I knew someone else would check 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 4, 2024 10:13:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 4, 2024 13:46:23 GMT
Pete Whitehead can you please unblock me? I wanted to ask about autism. You might be able to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 10, 2024 1:18:18 GMT
50 years ago today was the last time that the Conservative Party got 200-and-something MPs in a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 10, 2024 5:44:47 GMT
Jenrick would be the first Cambridge graduate to win a competitive Conservative party leadership election. The first party leader to have studied at St John's College, Cambridge since George Hamilton-Gordon, the Earl of Aberdeen. Michael Howard (Peterhouse, Cambridge) was elected unopposed in 2003. Stanley Baldwin (Trinity College, Cambridge) was elected in a different time. Kemi Badenoch would be the Tories' fourth female leader and the third in under a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 10, 2024 6:07:17 GMT
50 years ago today was the last time that the Conservative Party got 200-and-something MPs in a general election. Yes, whenever we lose, we need to learn how to do it narrowly again.. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 10, 2024 6:22:26 GMT
50 years ago today was the last time that the Conservative Party got 200-and-something MPs in a general election. Yes, whenever we lose, we need to learn how to do it narrowly again.. 1950, 1964, 1966 weren’t so bad. How come Labour manage that then? Why do they never go sub-200? Their vote is far more concentrated. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 10, 2024 8:15:49 GMT
50 years ago today was the last time that the Conservative Party got 200-and-something MPs in a general election. Yes, whenever we lose, we need to learn how to do it narrowly again.. What needs to be learned is that any party must have firm political principles, reflect the aims and objectives of the core base, and to be basically competent. Give all the attention to saying and doing 'the right things' and ignore the other side, the media and the Blob. Then such a party will win in good years and lose far more narrowly in poor years. The Conservatives got a better result this year than they deserved because Labour was so dull and plodding. They now have a wonderful opportunity to rebuild and completely restructure the party as a mechanism for winning, and then to develop appropriate policies for this age that radically attack the liberal left consensus in absolutely everything. Attack every concept, every 'given' and every 'sacred cow'. Attack on every front, every day until Starmer is at his wit's end and a core demographic seeth to chuck him out and all modernist thinking with it. This must be a crusade to undo 50-years of fatal damage. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Oct 10, 2024 15:50:56 GMT
Yes, whenever we lose, we need to learn how to do it narrowly again.. What needs to be learned is that any party must have firm political principles, reflect the aims and objectives of the core base, and to be basically competent. Give all the attention to saying and doing 'the right things' and ignore the other side, the media and the Blob. Then such a party will win in good years and lose far more narrowly in poor years. The Conservatives got a better result this year than they deserved because Labour was so dull and plodding. T hey now have a wonderful opportunity to rebuild and completely restructure the party as a mechanism for winning, and then to develop appropriate policies for this age that radically attack the liberal left consensus in absolutely everything. Attack every concept, every 'given' and every 'sacred cow'. Attack on every front, every day until Starmer is at his wit's end and a core demographic seeth to chuck him out and all modernist thinking with it. This must be a crusade to undo 50-years of fatal damage. I suspect it won't happen, the lust for power and the need to appear 'moderate' and to avoid frightening the horses will crush hopes of radical reforming/thinking in many policy areas |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 10, 2024 16:01:37 GMT
What needs to be learned is that any party must have firm political principles, reflect the aims and objectives of the core base, and to be basically competent. Give all the attention to saying and doing 'the right things' and ignore the other side, the media and the Blob. Then such a party will win in good years and lose far more narrowly in poor years. The Conservatives got a better result this year than they deserved because Labour was so dull and plodding. T hey now have a wonderful opportunity to rebuild and completely restructure the party as a mechanism for winning, and then to develop appropriate policies for this age that radically attack the liberal left consensus in absolutely everything. Attack every concept, every 'given' and every 'sacred cow'. Attack on every front, every day until Starmer is at his wit's end and a core demographic seeth to chuck him out and all modernist thinking with it. This must be a crusade to undo 50-years of fatal damage. I suspect it won't happen, the lust for power and the need to appear 'moderate' and to avoid frightening the horses will crush hopes of radical reforming/thinking in many policy areas Milquetoast centrist status quo management sucks. It's just the most overrated politics. In the 80s, we knew what the Conservatives stood for. If they'd held firm, UKIP may never have come along in the first place. And the Cameron interview about fruitcakes, closet racists and swivel-eyed loons was so patronising - it was only right that Brexit forced Cameron out in 2016. I only joined the Greens because of Starmer's loathsome centrism and lack of policies on right to buy and student debt. We can all agree that it's better when centrism gets cast aside and we have a left wing Labour Party and a right wing Tory Party. Polarisation is just another way of saying voters have a choice. Elections aren't really won from the centre. Blair wasn't a centrist. He was a right wing Labour leader who accepted full throated Thatcherism. Similarly, Corbyn got many more votes than Starmer because he has a coherent set of views that are obscured by a right wing press. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Oct 10, 2024 16:36:23 GMT
As PB is reporting, it's 50 years ago to the day since the second General Election of 1974.
With only slight changes in vote share from the February election, Labour won an overall majority of just three. It would be the Conservatives' worst performance until 1997 and led to the end of the Heath leadership the following February.
Oddly enough, as with this year, the polls overestimated Labour - Harris and Marplan had 43/44% shares for Labour but in the end they got just over 40%.
Had the shares been right and Labour won a convincing 50 seat majority, it's interesting to speculate (perhaps in our alternate history forum) what the impact of that would have been on 1970s politics.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 10, 2024 16:46:53 GMT
It might have been possible to have done things over housing policy that senior Party figures were certainly intrigued by but which were not possible with a tiny majority by 1974 (though would likely have been with a small majority in 1970: but things had changed a lot and very rapidly). Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Oct 10, 2024 16:53:17 GMT
I suspect it won't happen, the lust for power and the need to appear 'moderate' and to avoid frightening the horses will crush hopes of radical reforming/thinking in many policy areas Milquetoast centrist status quo management sucks. It's just the most overrated politics. In the 80s, we knew what the Conservatives stood for. If they'd held firm, UKIP may never have come along in the first place. And the Cameron interview about fruitcakes, closet racists and swivel-eyed loons was so patronising - it was only right that Brexit forced Cameron out in 2016. I only joined the Greens because of Starmer's loathsome centrism and lack of policies on right to buy and student debt. We can all agree that it's better when centrism gets cast aside and we have a left wing Labour Party and a right wing Tory Party. Polarisation is just another way of saying voters have a choice. Elections aren't really won from the centre. Blair wasn't a centrist. He was a right wing Labour leader who accepted full throated Thatcherism. Similarly, Corbyn got many more votes than Starmer because he has a coherent set of views that are obscured by a right wing press. It's as simple as that. I see.... So politics has to be a contest between two wholly divergent philosophies, each equally impractical and impossible, just in order to present a "clear choice" to the electorate. The truth however is politics, as life, isn't like that. All too often, it's a difficult choice between unattractive alternatives whose outcomes aren't always easy to predict and whose implementations might lead to new problems and issues. In addition, words like "left" and "right" have lost all meaning - the dividing lines (where they exist) tend to be economic, societal and cultural (nationalist, internationalist, globalist). If you define "the centre" as not standing for anything at all, you're wrong. If you define "the centre" as those who recognise the problems of trying to govern a complex post-industrial society yet are determined to try to ensure said society works for all its members, then fine. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 10, 2024 18:33:52 GMT
Milquetoast centrist status quo management sucks. It's just the most overrated politics. In the 80s, we knew what the Conservatives stood for. If they'd held firm, UKIP may never have come along in the first place. And the Cameron interview about fruitcakes, closet racists and swivel-eyed loons was so patronising - it was only right that Brexit forced Cameron out in 2016. I only joined the Greens because of Starmer's loathsome centrism and lack of policies on right to buy and student debt. We can all agree that it's better when centrism gets cast aside and we have a left wing Labour Party and a right wing Tory Party. Polarisation is just another way of saying voters have a choice. Elections aren't really won from the centre. Blair wasn't a centrist. He was a right wing Labour leader who accepted full throated Thatcherism. Similarly, Corbyn got many more votes than Starmer because he has a coherent set of views that are obscured by a right wing press. It's as simple as that. I see.... So politics has to be a contest between two wholly divergent philosophies, each equally impractical and impossible, just in order to present a "clear choice" to the electorate. The truth however is politics, as life, isn't like that. All too often, it's a difficult choice between unattractive alternatives whose outcomes aren't always easy to predict and whose implementations might lead to new problems and issues. In addition, words like "left" and "right" have lost all meaning - the dividing lines (where they exist) tend to be economic, societal and cultural (nationalist, internationalist, globalist). If you define "the centre" as not standing for anything at all, you're wrong. If you define "the centre" as those who recognise the problems of trying to govern a complex post-industrial society yet are determined to try to ensure said society works for all its members, then fine. Moderates and centrists don't make history. Attlee is the most popular PM. Why? Because he stood for things. He got things done, challenged interests. He took on the BMA etc. We need a new Clement Attlee. I hope Starmer becomes like Attlee. We are not a post-industrial society. The industries have certainly changed, though. We still have lots of industry. Bombardier, Nissan, and many more besides. |
|
|
|
Post by stodge on Oct 12, 2024 8:24:23 GMT
I see.... So politics has to be a contest between two wholly divergent philosophies, each equally impractical and impossible, just in order to present a "clear choice" to the electorate. The truth however is politics, as life, isn't like that. All too often, it's a difficult choice between unattractive alternatives whose outcomes aren't always easy to predict and whose implementations might lead to new problems and issues. In addition, words like "left" and "right" have lost all meaning - the dividing lines (where they exist) tend to be economic, societal and cultural (nationalist, internationalist, globalist). If you define "the centre" as not standing for anything at all, you're wrong. If you define "the centre" as those who recognise the problems of trying to govern a complex post-industrial society yet are determined to try to ensure said society works for all its members, then fine. Moderates and centrists don't make history. Attlee is the most popular PM. Why? Because he stood for things. He got things done, challenged interests. He took on the BMA etc. We need a new Clement Attlee. I hope Starmer becomes like Attlee. We are not a post-industrial society. The industries have certainly changed, though. We still have lots of industry. Bombardier, Nissan, and many more besides. Once again, I profoundly disagree, though not about Clement Attlee. Politics isn't always about two or more competing radical philosophies for Government - more often it's about arguing over the same philosophy and asserting which side can make it work "better". Inasmuch as the radical changes redefine the positions you would describe as "moderate" or "centrist", the fact remains once there has been general acceptance of the change, it becomes about how that change is managed and that's where the centrists and moderates come in. Sometimes, parties put up radical manifestos even during periods of relative stability either because they don't like where the changes are going or they see the current position as untenable and want to promote the next change. The 1970 Conservative Manifesto was a radical document (proto-Thatcherism) but couldn't be implemented as it turned out. Labour put forward radical manifestos in 1983 and 2017 but both were rejected. The radical Party of the 1950s were the Liberals who didn't support the Butskellite concensus. It's not just a question of trying to work out the next radical shift in Government or governance but getting the timing right to do it. You can argue (and I wouldn't disagree) we've been in this post-Thatcherite social democratic soggy mushy non-descript vaguely globalist state since arguably 1990 and certainly since 1997. Johnson might have tried to change things had Covid not intervened - we'll never know. Corbyn would have tried to change things in 2017 but he didn't get enough votes. There is a growing tendency against the current governing philosophy but no clear notion of what will replace it - "populism" is simply saying what you think the people in front of you want to hear so it's naturally confused and inherently riddled with its own contradictions (though often starts by scapegoating groups). It's possible, as has happened before, technological progress and innovation (AI) will so fundamentally re-shape the economic and cultural landscape as to force the political landscape to change. The huge over-reaction to people working at home for example suggests there is a very strong 20th century mindset around work, life and the compartmentalisation of these things still out there along with the notions of command, control and presenteeism we've had since the coming of mines and factories. I don't know what the "next big idea" is - it's probably not Wagenknecht any more than it is Farage. It might be environmentalism in a broader sense but it comes back to the individual, societies, communities and the relationship of all three with "the State" (however you define that) and with the growing power of global business. I suspect it might start with a re-definition of capitalism or a new model (possibly less individualistic and/or a revivial of a more paternalist model).. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 12, 2024 9:55:21 GMT
In any case, Attlee wasn't by any means regarded in the same way at the time as he largely is now. There is a genuinely "superb" editorial in the New Statesman just after Labour left office in 1951, which is *incredibly* similar to Corbynite criticisms of Blair/Starmer's version of Labour now - even using a few of the same buzz phrases. One thing any serious student of politics soon learns, is that far less is actually new than we imagine.
(also very amusing how so many on the Labour left now claim to admire Wilson in comparison to modern leaders - at the time they absolutely *hated* him)
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 12, 2024 10:02:57 GMT
In any case, Attlee wasn't by any means regarded in the same way at the time as he largely is now. There is a genuinely "superb" editorial in the New Statesman just after Labour left office in 1951, which is *incredibly* similar to Corbynite criticisms of Blair/Starmer's version of Labour now - even using a few of the same buzz phrases. One thing any serious student of politics soon learns, is that far less is actually new than we imagine. (also very amusing how so many on the Labour left now claim to admire Wilson in comparison to modern leaders - at the time they absolutely *hated* him) Some people will never be satisfied. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 12, 2024 10:09:34 GMT
In any case, Attlee wasn't by any means regarded in the same way at the time as he largely is now. There is a genuinely "superb" editorial in the New Statesman just after Labour left office in 1951, which is *incredibly* similar to Corbynite criticisms of Blair/Starmer's version of Labour now - even using a few of the same buzz phrases. One thing any serious student of politics soon learns, is that far less is actually new than we imagine. (also very amusing how so many on the Labour left now claim to admire Wilson in comparison to modern leaders - at the time they absolutely *hated* him) Maybe, but there were decent Ministers who were on the left - say Judith Hart or Albert Booth - Wilson actually disliked some of the old Labour Right, whereas the liberal Right - Crosland and Jenkins, worked well. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 12, 2024 10:11:54 GMT
The people I am thinking of will have regarded the left Labour ministers under Wilson as sellouts.
Just imagine if social media had been around then....
|
|
