Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 12:32:02 GMT
The campaign for a non-inscrits room starts today! Why did you leave the Lib Dems? Your political journey seems to have tracked theirs reasonably closely. I left for personal reasons. I'm not that far removed from them politically. Don't take this forum's labels as being a reflection of what any of us actually believe  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2022 13:20:42 GMT
Dear friend, we epitomize the problems inherent in the party, in that I oppose everthing in this post of yours. We have massive set of differences on Economic policy Tax policy Social policy Interest policy Defence policy Immigration policy Energy policy (and a complete lack of one by the government) Debt and Deficit policy Transport policy Environment policy Global Warming polcy Covid Protection policy EU and other organisations policy Crime and punishment policy Medical and Care policy Education policy Cultural policy We are a coalition of at least 3 quite different parties and two of those are very broad church in themselves. I assume the post is a directed toward David and not me? Because I consider us to be pretty similar in terms of ideology. I agree that we have a similar ideology but it was directed to your own final paragraph in that post where I disagree all those issues. No animosity at all, I just disagree. I could make a good case for each of your points but on balance I disagree them all. It is that very small selectiion in itself between two generally like-minded supporters of the right that exposes rather starkly our present problems. The rest of my post was very much an 'At Large' observation of the party. The Party in parliamentary terms cannot form effective policy because whatever the subject area there will be very strong opposition to nearly everything. We have in the past 30-years become a much less homogenous society and a much less homogenous party. In fact the general membership is far more homogenous than the parliamentary party because it comes from a narrower demography. And that doesn't help either! |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Nov 19, 2022 13:29:50 GMT
I assume the post is a directed toward David and not me? Because I consider us to be pretty similar in terms of ideology. I agree that we have a similar ideology but it was directed to your own final paragraph in that post where I disagree all those issues. No animosity at all, I just disagree. I could make a good case for each of your points but on balance I disagree them all. It is that very small selectiion in itself between two generally like-minded supporters of the right that exposes rather starkly our present problems. The rest of my post was very much an 'At Large' observation of the party. The Party in parliamentary terms cannot form effective policy because whatever the subject area there will be very strong opposition to nearly everything. We have in the past 30-years become a much less homogenous society and a much less homogenous party. In fact the general membership is far more homogenous than the parliamentary party because it comes from a narrower demography. And that doesn't help either! There’s an argument to be made that the parliamentary party is even more out of touch with the average Tory leaning voter than the general membership. I also stated that Likud is in favour of legalization of Marijuana, I am actually opposed to it (I do support legalizing sex work though). |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 19, 2022 13:59:19 GMT
I assume the post is a directed toward David and not me? Because I consider us to be pretty similar in terms of ideology. I agree that we have a similar ideology but it was directed to your own final paragraph in that post where I disagree all those issues. No animosity at all, I just disagree. I could make a good case for each of your points but on balance I disagree them all. It is that very small selectiion in itself between two generally like-minded supporters of the right that exposes rather starkly our present problems. The rest of my post was very much an 'At Large' observation of the party. The Party in parliamentary terms cannot form effective policy because whatever the subject area there will be very strong opposition to nearly everything. We have in the past 30-years become a much less homogenous society and a much less homogenous party. In fact the general membership is far more homogenous than the parliamentary party because it comes from a narrower demography. And that doesn't help either! The messages were spelt out more clearly in the Thatcher years and maybe the last 30 years have lacked such 'robustness'. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2022 14:15:26 GMT
I agree that we have a similar ideology but it was directed to your own final paragraph in that post where I disagree all those issues. No animosity at all, I just disagree. I could make a good case for each of your points but on balance I disagree them all. It is that very small selectiion in itself between two generally like-minded supporters of the right that exposes rather starkly our present problems. The rest of my post was very much an 'At Large' observation of the party. The Party in parliamentary terms cannot form effective policy because whatever the subject area there will be very strong opposition to nearly everything. We have in the past 30-years become a much less homogenous society and a much less homogenous party. In fact the general membership is far more homogenous than the parliamentary party because it comes from a narrower demography. And that doesn't help either! There’s an argument to be made that the parliamentary party is even more out of touch with the average Tory leaning voter than the general membership. I also stated that Likud is in favour of legalization of Marijuana, I am actually opposed to it (I do support legalizing sex work though). I agree entirely with that first paragraph. When I was first a member, the party was socially, economically and politically well to the right of the present position, but crucially very homogenous and very close to the parliamentary party. Then the parliamentary party tended to be older and slightly more conservative than the then much younger membership. There were of course vocal minorities on the fringes with desire for more 'progresive' and socialist polcies, many of whom became ministers. Very gradually it morphed away from the majority like me to embrace women's rights, homosexuality, the EU, anti-hunting, neglect of the agrarian, anti-capital punishment, anti-corporal punishment, less fixated on the nuclear family and marriage, disassociated from the CofE and any form of morality, softer on drugs, less censorious on prostitution and gambling, far less concerned about sound money, deficits and debt, very financial services oriented, much more Metropolitan, far less northern, urban and Scottish, fixated on efficiency/money/low interest, neglectful of tradition/defence/standards. At each stage it shed membership and support but gained transitory ephemeral voters. Now it is a hollowed-out party with no essential core principles or ideals that I can discern, other than wising to deny Labour and to be in office even if palpably for no particular purpose. They are in the essentially mad position of having an 80-majority and in no way at all are they in power. A wholly ridiculous position. And to cement into place the total bifurcation, they have elected/appointed the three major strands (insofar as one can even identify strands in this modern party?) into office in turn, and then sniped at, briefed against and stabbed all three in the back, thus clearly showing that the party as now constituted is not just 'Not Fit For Purpose', but not capable of coalescing around any one person or group of policies without a vicios backlash from other factions. This cannot be permitted to go on in such a manner. There are now people advocation a coup against Sunak! For me he is clearly miles better than the previous two incumbents. Is he my first choice and my model? No, of course not. I am on record here stating much to his detriment and my disfavour of him. But his plans and policies have inherent cohesion and sense in a manner not see since Cameron. This party cannot drift from pillar to post and grasp at policies as if they were nettles. It has to calm down and to compromise and to be sensible and pragmatic. Or it may well be so badly damaged as to be dead. What may save it is the basic smallconservative majority in the nation with no other place to go than this tired burnt out hulk of a party. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 19, 2022 14:29:49 GMT
There’s an argument to be made that the parliamentary party is even more out of touch with the average Tory leaning voter than the general membership. I also stated that Likud is in favour of legalization of Marijuana, I am actually opposed to it (I do support legalizing sex work though). I agree entirely with that first paragraph. When I was first a member, the party was socially, economically and politically well to the right of the present position, but crucially very homogenous and very close to the parliamentary party. Then the parliamentary party tended to be older and slightly more conservative than the then much younger membership. There were of course vocal minorities on the fringes with desire for more 'progresive' and socialist polcies, many of whom became ministers. Very gradually it morphed away from the majority like me to embrace women's rights, homosexuality, the EU, anti-hunting, neglect of the agrarian, anti-capital punishment, anti-corporal punishment, less fixated on the nuclear family and marriage, disassociated from the CofE and any form of morality, softer on drugs, less censorious on prostitution and gambling, far less concerned about sound money, deficits and debt, very financial services oriented, much more Metropolitan, far less northern, urban and Scottish, fixated on efficiency/money/low interest, neglectful of tradition/defence/standards. At each stage it shed membership and support but gained transitory ephemeral voters. Now it is a hollowed-out party with no essential core principles or ideals that I can discern, other than wising to deny Labour and to be in office even if palpably for no particular purpose. They are in the essentially mad position of having an 80-majority and in no way at all are they in power. A wholly ridiculous position. And to cement into place the total bifurcation, they have elected/appointed the three major strands (insofar as one can even identify strands in this modern party?) into office in turn, and then sniped at, briefed against and stabbed all three in the back, thus clearly showing that the party as now constituted is not just 'Not Fit For Purpose', but not capable of coalescing around any one person or group of policies without a vicios backlash from other factions. This cannot be permitted to go on in such a manner. There are now people advocation a coup against Sunak! For me he is clearly miles better than the previous two incumbents. Is he my first choice and my model? No, of course not. I am on record here stating much to his detriment and my disfavour of him. But his plans and policies have inherent cohesion and sense in a manner not see since Cameron. This party cannot drift from pillar to post and grasp at policies as if they were nettles. It has to calm down and to compromise and to be sensible and pragmatic. Or it may well be so badly damaged as to be dead. What may save it is the basic smallconservative majority in the nation with no other place to go than this tired burnt out hulk of a party. The 2nd paragraph made me think again you are Peter Hitchens! |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Nov 19, 2022 14:38:34 GMT
There’s an argument to be made that the parliamentary party is even more out of touch with the average Tory leaning voter than the general membership. I also stated that Likud is in favour of legalization of Marijuana, I am actually opposed to it (I do support legalizing sex work though). I agree entirely with that first paragraph. When I was first a member, the party was socially, economically and politically well to the right of the present position, but crucially very homogenous and very close to the parliamentary party. Then the parliamentary party tended to be older and slightly more conservative than the then much younger membership. There were of course vocal minorities on the fringes with desire for more 'progresive' and socialist polcies, many of whom became ministers. Very gradually it morphed away from the majority like me to embrace women's rights, homosexuality, the EU, anti-hunting, neglect of the agrarian, anti-capital punishment, anti-corporal punishment, less fixated on the nuclear family and marriage, disassociated from the CofE and any form of morality, softer on drugs, less censorious on prostitution and gambling, far less concerned about sound money, deficits and debt, very financial services oriented, much more Metropolitan, far less northern, urban and Scottish, fixated on efficiency/money/low interest, neglectful of tradition/defence/standards. At each stage it shed membership and support but gained transitory ephemeral voters. Now it is a hollowed-out party with no essential core principles or ideals that I can discern, other than wising to deny Labour and to be in office even if palpably for no particular purpose. They are in the essentially mad position of having an 80-majority and in no way at all are they in power. A wholly ridiculous position. And to cement into place the total bifurcation, they have elected/appointed the three major strands (insofar as one can even identify strands in this modern party?) into office in turn, and then sniped at, briefed against and stabbed all three in the back, thus clearly showing that the party as now constituted is not just 'Not Fit For Purpose', but not capable of coalescing around any one person or group of policies without a vicios backlash from other factions. This cannot be permitted to go on in such a manner. There are now people advocation a coup against Sunak! For me he is clearly miles better than the previous two incumbents. Is he my first choice and my model? No, of course not. I am on record here stating much to his detriment and my disfavour of him. But his plans and policies have inherent cohesion and sense in a manner not see since Cameron. This party cannot drift from pillar to post and grasp at policies as if they were nettles. It has to calm down and to compromise and to be sensible and pragmatic. Or it may well be so badly damaged as to be dead. What may save it is the basic smallconservative majority in the nation with no other place to go than this tired burnt out hulk of a party. The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 19, 2022 14:48:12 GMT
I agree entirely with that first paragraph. When I was first a member, the party was socially, economically and politically well to the right of the present position, but crucially very homogenous and very close to the parliamentary party. Then the parliamentary party tended to be older and slightly more conservative than the then much younger membership. There were of course vocal minorities on the fringes with desire for more 'progresive' and socialist polcies, many of whom became ministers. Very gradually it morphed away from the majority like me to embrace women's rights, homosexuality, the EU, anti-hunting, neglect of the agrarian, anti-capital punishment, anti-corporal punishment, less fixated on the nuclear family and marriage, disassociated from the CofE and any form of morality, softer on drugs, less censorious on prostitution and gambling, far less concerned about sound money, deficits and debt, very financial services oriented, much more Metropolitan, far less northern, urban and Scottish, fixated on efficiency/money/low interest, neglectful of tradition/defence/standards. At each stage it shed membership and support but gained transitory ephemeral voters. Now it is a hollowed-out party with no essential core principles or ideals that I can discern, other than wising to deny Labour and to be in office even if palpably for no particular purpose. They are in the essentially mad position of having an 80-majority and in no way at all are they in power. A wholly ridiculous position. And to cement into place the total bifurcation, they have elected/appointed the three major strands (insofar as one can even identify strands in this modern party?) into office in turn, and then sniped at, briefed against and stabbed all three in the back, thus clearly showing that the party as now constituted is not just 'Not Fit For Purpose', but not capable of coalescing around any one person or group of policies without a vicios backlash from other factions. This cannot be permitted to go on in such a manner. There are now people advocation a coup against Sunak! For me he is clearly miles better than the previous two incumbents. Is he my first choice and my model? No, of course not. I am on record here stating much to his detriment and my disfavour of him. But his plans and policies have inherent cohesion and sense in a manner not see since Cameron. This party cannot drift from pillar to post and grasp at policies as if they were nettles. It has to calm down and to compromise and to be sensible and pragmatic. Or it may well be so badly damaged as to be dead. What may save it is the basic smallconservative majority in the nation with no other place to go than this tired burnt out hulk of a party. The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. The Monday Club was a very distinctive element within the Tory right, though. While that element of the right still exists the idea of what a Conservative is has less agreement - take say aargauer and his libertarian / classical liberal view - miles away from the Monday Club. Of course you now have the curious phenomenon of Asian Tories taking views on immigration which would have seen their parents refused entry. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 19, 2022 14:52:50 GMT
I have asked but generally people felt contributors with the socialist label shouldn't join the red room Can't think why.... |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Nov 19, 2022 14:56:36 GMT
The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. The Monday Club was a very distinctive element within the Tory right, though. While that element of the right still exists the idea of what a Conservative is has less agreement - take say @aarguer and his libertarian / classical liberal view - miles away from the Monday Club. Of course you now have the curious phenomenon of Asian Tories taking views on immigration which would have seen their parents refused entry. Libertarians/Classical Liberals are more than welcome, the problem was/is that the genuinely Conservative (not Con as the party, but as the ideology) wing of the party got hollowed out and that it was replaced by liberal Spads who should have probably been LibDems rather than Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2022 14:57:25 GMT
The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. The Monday Club was a very distinctive element within the Tory right, though. While that element of the right still exists the idea of what a Conservative is has less agreement - take say @aarguer and his libertarian / classical liberal view - miles away from the Monday Club. Of course you now have the curious phenomenon of Asian Tories taking views on immigration which would have seen their parents refused entry. The Chairman of the Young Monday Club when I joined it in the 1980s was Sanwar Ali. Plus ça change |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2022 15:10:41 GMT
I agree entirely with that first paragraph. When I was first a member, the party was socially, economically and politically well to the right of the present position, but crucially very homogenous and very close to the parliamentary party. Then the parliamentary party tended to be older and slightly more conservative than the then much younger membership. There were of course vocal minorities on the fringes with desire for more 'progresive' and socialist polcies, many of whom became ministers. Very gradually it morphed away from the majority like me to embrace women's rights, homosexuality, the EU, anti-hunting, neglect of the agrarian, anti-capital punishment, anti-corporal punishment, less fixated on the nuclear family and marriage, disassociated from the CofE and any form of morality, softer on drugs, less censorious on prostitution and gambling, far less concerned about sound money, deficits and debt, very financial services oriented, much more Metropolitan, far less northern, urban and Scottish, fixated on efficiency/money/low interest, neglectful of tradition/defence/standards. At each stage it shed membership and support but gained transitory ephemeral voters. Now it is a hollowed-out party with no essential core principles or ideals that I can discern, other than wising to deny Labour and to be in office even if palpably for no particular purpose. They are in the essentially mad position of having an 80-majority and in no way at all are they in power. A wholly ridiculous position. And to cement into place the total bifurcation, they have elected/appointed the three major strands (insofar as one can even identify strands in this modern party?) into office in turn, and then sniped at, briefed against and stabbed all three in the back, thus clearly showing that the party as now constituted is not just 'Not Fit For Purpose', but not capable of coalescing around any one person or group of policies without a vicios backlash from other factions. This cannot be permitted to go on in such a manner. There are now people advocation a coup against Sunak! For me he is clearly miles better than the previous two incumbents. Is he my first choice and my model? No, of course not. I am on record here stating much to his detriment and my disfavour of him. But his plans and policies have inherent cohesion and sense in a manner not see since Cameron. This party cannot drift from pillar to post and grasp at policies as if they were nettles. It has to calm down and to compromise and to be sensible and pragmatic. Or it may well be so badly damaged as to be dead. What may save it is the basic smallconservative majority in the nation with no other place to go than this tired burnt out hulk of a party. The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. That is essentially and effectively true. The party has had two Cultural Revolutions concerned with Powellism and the Monday Club which caused the backlash of Thatcherism. Then Modernism/Globalism/the European Ideal with the consequent backlash of Brexit. I was closely involved with the first and more peripherally involved in the second. The first revolution destroyed the party I knew and that I had loved. Heath was viscerally anti-Powellite, pro-immigration and pro-Managerial/EU/Globalism. I loathed that man more than any other politician in my life. He destroyed my nation and many of my hopes and aspirations completely. The utterly transformed aspect of much of urban Britain and our structural problems must be laid at least in part at his door. The utter tragedy was our failure to persuade Powell to stand as a populist token for us to fight against Immigration, Modernism and the EU. He was perfect for that job and his moment had come. We could have destroyed modern, semi-socialist, progressive, 'One Nation' conservatism stone dead and won over the Red Wall areas decades earlier on a subject of vital interest to them. He failed us and I am sure he later saw that mistake and went to Ireland as a sort of penance. The Brexit battle was essentially still the same fight against change, modernism and immigration written over a backdrop of the EU as a mere token of all we saw as the ills of a nation, betrayed by a new slick manergialist class with no soul and no nationalist feeling at all, just a love of wealth and success. And here we remain. Utterly divided now on nearly everything, with every faction and element with that party feeling utterly betrayed. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 19, 2022 15:59:40 GMT
The Monday Club wing of the party was essentially cleansed, which combined with the infamous A-list program left the party with no clear conservative conscience and a parliamentary party that has no idea what a Conservative is supposed to be. That is essentially and effectively true. The party has had two Cultural Revolutions concerned with Powellism and the Monday Club which caused the backlash of Thatcherism. Then Modernism/Globalism/the European Ideal with the consequent backlash of Brexit. I was closely involved with the first and more peripherally involved in the second. The first revolution destroyed the party I knew and that I had loved. Heath was viscerally anti-Powellite, pro-immigration and pro-Managerial/EU/Globalism. I loathed that man more than any other politician in my life. He destroyed my nation and many of my hopes and aspirations completely. The utterly transformed aspect of much of urban Britain and our structural problems must be laid at least in part at his door. The utter tragedy was our failure to persuade Powell to stand as a populist token for us to fight against Immigration, Modernism and the EU. He was perfect for that job and his moment had come. We could have destroyed modern, semi-socialist, progressive, 'One Nation' conservatism stone dead and won over the Red Wall areas decades earlier on a subject of vital interest to them. He failed us and I am sure he later saw that mistake and went to Ireland as a sort of penance. The Brexit battle was essentially still the same fight against change, modernism and immigration written over a backdrop of the EU as a mere token of all we saw as the ills of a nation, betrayed by a new slick manergialist class with no soul and no nationalist feeling at all, just a love of wealth and success. And here we remain. Utterly divided now on nearly everything, with every faction and element with that party feeling utterly betrayed. Is that you Simon Heffer?  |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Nov 19, 2022 16:21:32 GMT
That is essentially and effectively true. The party has had two Cultural Revolutions concerned with Powellism and the Monday Club which caused the backlash of Thatcherism. Then Modernism/Globalism/the European Ideal with the consequent backlash of Brexit. I was closely involved with the first and more peripherally involved in the second. The first revolution destroyed the party I knew and that I had loved. Heath was viscerally anti-Powellite, pro-immigration and pro-Managerial/EU/Globalism. I loathed that man more than any other politician in my life. He destroyed my nation and many of my hopes and aspirations completely. The utterly transformed aspect of much of urban Britain and our structural problems must be laid at least in part at his door. The utter tragedy was our failure to persuade Powell to stand as a populist token for us to fight against Immigration, Modernism and the EU. He was perfect for that job and his moment had come. We could have destroyed modern, semi-socialist, progressive, 'One Nation' conservatism stone dead and won over the Red Wall areas decades earlier on a subject of vital interest to them. He failed us and I am sure he later saw that mistake and went to Ireland as a sort of penance. The Brexit battle was essentially still the same fight against change, modernism and immigration written over a backdrop of the EU as a mere token of all we saw as the ills of a nation, betrayed by a new slick manergialist class with no soul and no nationalist feeling at all, just a love of wealth and success. And here we remain. Utterly divided now on nearly everything, with every faction and element with that party feeling utterly betrayed. Is that you Simon Heffer? tbf, no self respecting conservative should adore Ted Heath |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,455
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 19, 2022 17:01:26 GMT
Is that you Simon Heffer? tbf, no self respecting conservative should adore Ted Heath Powell felt he had veered away from the 1970 manifesto but even if they had followed much of it through the EEC clash would still have occurred |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Nov 19, 2022 17:09:06 GMT
I've still got a badge that says "I Trust Ted!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 19, 2022 18:16:38 GMT
The Conservatives are failing at the moment because they are trying to do what the media is telling them to, rather than dictating the narrative to the / through the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Nov 19, 2022 18:24:41 GMT
The Conservatives are failing at the moment because they are trying to do what the media is telling them to, rather than dictating the narrative to the / through the media. elaborate |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 19, 2022 18:37:45 GMT
The Conservatives are failing at the moment because they are trying to do what the media is telling them to, rather than dictating the narrative to the / through the media. elaborate
There is no narrative to the government, their policies are trying to accomodate all demands from all media; they are trying to be woke, pro-nhs, pro-tax cuts, pro-Green, anti-crime, pro-everybody, anti-poverty, pro-worker, anti-poverty, anti-benefits, anti-benefits cuts, pro-balancing the books, pro-deficit is ok, etc etc. They can't balance it all, but they're trying rather than being honest. Historically when they have been successful it has been because their agenda has been parroted by the media for them. New Labour won because they worked this out and the Conservatives forgot, the Conservatives have currently forgotten again, though Labour haven't fully remembered as yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 19, 2022 18:56:17 GMT
There is no narrative to the government, their policies are trying to accomodate all demands from all media; they are trying to be woke, pro-nhs, pro-tax cuts, pro-Green, anti-crime, pro-everybody, anti-poverty, pro-worker, anti-poverty, anti-benefits, anti-benefits cuts, pro-balancing the books, pro-deficit is ok, etc etc. They can't balance it all, but they're trying rather than being honest. Historically when they have been successful it has been because their agenda has been parroted by the media for them. New Labour won because they worked this out and the Conservatives forgot, the Conservatives have currently forgotten again, though Labour haven't fully remembered as yet.
I wouldn’t underestimate the difficulty of establishing a narrative, when everyone, opposition and media alike, and often even your own members, are trying to run interference. Nonetheless I agree the general point. One major criticism of the Labour campaigns in the 2015 and 2019 elections was that there was no coherent narrative, just a hotchpotch of disconnected promises. In 2017, despite internal opposition, there was much more of a message, which generated some enthusiasm, and the results showed this. The Conservatives had a clear narrative in 2019, and also in 2010, and it made a difference. Edit: I ought to add that a narrative is not enough. The Liberals for example had a clear narrative in 2015, but no-one was listening to it. |
|
