How dangerous is it for Blair if the Tories agree with him?
October 25th, 2005-
Could NuLab be forced into playing a different tune?
A key part of the success of Tony Blair’s New Labour has been the way it has occupied traditional Tory policy positions thus forcing the official opposition to the right. Time and time again the Tories have found themselves with little to say on an issue because Labour has adopted their position. This might be about to change.
For the current debate over Labour’s education reform programme is giving a glimpse of how a Cameron-led Tory party plans to deal with Tony Blair and gives a good pointer as to how UK politics could evolve in the next few years. Rather than the full frontal attacks that have characterised the Hague, IDS and Howard leaderships the Cameron plan is to agree with ministers where it is to the Tory advantage.
-
As Steve Richards points out in the Independent this morning Cameron is “the first Tory to see the advantage of backing Blair when he’s at odds with his party”.
Richards notes that Mr Cameron welcomed the Government’s proposals and his only concern was whether Tony Blair’s cabinet and party would let him carry through the reforms. “He made it clear that if Mr Blair was blocked by those old Labour dinosaurs, John Prescott and Gordon Brown, it would fall on the Conservative party to carry out the task.”
The article goes on: “There are important differences between the Government and Mr Cameron’s approach, but the aspirant Conservative leader has seized the broader political initiative. He is the first senior Tory to recognise that it is to the Conservatives’ advantage to support Mr Blair when he is at odds with his party and most of those on the centre left. .Mr Cameron’s strategic positioning has several consequences, all of them potentially fatal for the government if it is misguided enough to give him the political space. Most dangerously it places the battle for the centre ground firmly on the right of the political spectrum. In effect Mr Cameron is stating: Conservatives approve of a market in schools. As true believers we can do it better..If Mr Cameron is allowed to pop up too often with a message of support for the Government there will be only one loser. It will not be Mr Cameron.”
These are very early days but it does raise questions about what up until now has been the brilliant Blair approach of isolating the Tories by occupying their policy ground.
But Blair has always been the supreme strategist and watching him deal with a new Tory approach is going to be fascinating.
Leadership Betting
Best betting exchange prices; Cameron 0.16/1: Davis 6/1
Best bookmaker prices; Cameron 1/10: Davis 11/2:
IG’s Binary spread-market. Cameron 82-90: Davis 10-18
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I agree that Cameron putting himself forward as heir to Tony Blair’s legacy against the Luddite tendencies of the Browns and Prescotts is a danger for the Labour party. Fortunately I think two things will stop this happening. Firstly is the political nous of Gordon Brown who with the formidable machine that the Labour Party now is will see the danger a mile away and secondly the Consevatives ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity (forgive the cliche). I would also add that the Conservative brand is so poor that reviving it can’t be done in so short a time whoever is leader and whatever strategies he follows. This is something too many Tories ignore. The cities of the North and Midlands and Scotland and Wales are Tory free zones and Cameron is unlikely to change this
Surely this education idea will encounter lots of problems within the labour party. Firstly, Cameron as shadow education secretary will in principle support it as it’s a basic Tory policy. This will of course rankle even more with Prezza and the rebel gang. There is also the fact that it’s against the core labour instinct of control. This I wold imagine will lead to serious watering down of these initial proposals. If Cameron wins, then he needs a top man/woman in Education to cause as much trouble as possible.
Couldn’t the question be asked in the other sense too?
How dangerous is for Cameron if Labour agrees with him?
3 - That’s why he shouldn’t make any detailed policy announcements - it gives Labour more time to nick them.
On a wholly unrelated note Labour will lose overall control of Edinburgh later on today when the deputy Lord Provost defects to the SNP.
It looks a clever stratagey. The trouble for DC is that TB is far too canny a politician for it to work. I can’t see how at the moment, but I don’t think we’ll have wait long.
DC will never be as good a politician as TB—the bar is too high. But is possible to aspire to be a more effective PM, or a greater statesman, where the challenge is more modest.
5 I agree. The Labour Party will be wise to this from the off and I think the standard responce will just be that it proves the Tory party has no ideas of it’s own.
That said, in regards to the education debate I can see it working due to the strong feelings involved. Perhaps if this tactic was used sparingly it could work.
Does 50s throwback David Cameron play guitar too?
Mr Smithson, you have read my mind. I was delighted to read Cameron’s comments this morning; for the last 8 years I have been driven to despair as Tory MPs put on a show of fake anger and opposition to perfectly reasonable government suggestions. This approach does nothing but give an Opposition the image of a crazed, jealous bunch of charlatans. Labour did it throughout the Thatcher years and Hague/IDS/Howard have done it since ‘97.
8. unless if this new proposal won’t work and the tories will be blamed for having supported it.
6. “Perhaps if this tactic was used sparingly it could work.”
Yes, like when it actually applies (ie. when the Tories really do support a policy).
This is not the Magic Card that will get the Tories back in power - it is simply a sensible response. Why pretend to object to something you agree with? The electorate are not stupid enough to fall for fist-banging-on-table rants by an Opposition; they want to see a calm and credible alternative, and this approach is just one part of the Tories turning the corner and becoming that alternative.
I would think the best tory policy would be to support it initially, wait for the concessions to the labour rebels and then see about voting against it on the basis it doesn’t go far enough.
9. Did Labour not support joining the ERM? Who took the blame when it all backfired?
9. No the strategy is to support the govts. good idea and suggest that the Tories can help make it better, the govt refuses, and so when it goes wrong Cameron can say ‘ah but you didn’t want our assistance to improve the legislation don’t blame us now it’s all gone wrong’….
11. well, I suppose it’s what they usually do when Blair propose centre-right wing policies.
But Osborne seems more concerned not to enter the same lobby of Jeremy Corbyn
13. Considering Cameron regretted to have voted against tuition fees, I could picture him actually support the government until the end……..
OT: Breakin News:
Westminster’s sofas to be banned bacause of too passionate actions on them!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,1599978,00.html
The ERM fiasco was just symptomatic of the shambles that was the Tory party at that time and the Labour Party didn’t play a part. Thatcher/Major joined half heartedly in October 1990 and Geoffrey Howe resigned the same November accusing Margaret Thatcher of sending her Ministers to bat in europe but breaking their bats before they got to the crease. What chance did Britain stand in the ERM with that pantomime going on back home? And who would have heard the Labour party anyway under that avalanche of broken plates?
17. I don’t see how an economic catastrophe was influenced by a couple of Ministers bickering.
You seem to be mixing economics with Party politics. For example: “who would have heard the Labour party anyway under that avalanche of broken plates?”. What does that mean?! Did Labour not support joining the ERM? I was only nine years old at the time, so do correct me if I’m wrong.
18 - “Did Labour not support joining the ERM?”
Yes: more enthusiastically than the Tories. So did the Lib Dems
19. I think the “old dinosaurs” were against.
Yes it is interesting that Labour does not get flack for having supported the ERM much more positively than the Tory party did, and yet the Tory party has recieved flack for having supported Iraq. One does wonder, if this education bill turns out to be a dud, which one of those scenarios is more likely to follow for the Tories.
Early days yet anyway. Cameron’s main priority is to begin setting the agenda as far as future reforms go. It is much more dangerous for Blair to try and steal a Tory idea *after* the Tories have released it to the public. That is the real missed opportunity for the party over the last eight years.
16 - Are they going to ban the committee rooms and the beds in the Commons for the same reason?
21. “It is much more dangerous for Blair to try and steal a Tory idea *after* the Tories have released it to the public. That is the real missed opportunity for the party over the last eight years.”
Excellent point.
21 - not really. The decisions are taken by the government and ultimately the buck stops there whatever the opposition say or do. The Iraq war is especially a case as the decision was taken with very few Tories being privy to the intelligence that was available that led to the war.
Although the one big policy that the Tories backed Labour on since 1997 has been Iraq. It did not harm them as much as it harmed Blair by any means, but there can be little doubt that most regret it as at least an opportunity missed. Cameron may well be right to back Blair on some things, but there has to be a real temptation to go with the Labour rebels where there is a serious chance to defeat the government (who now have a sizeable but not ludicrously large majority). Unlike the Lib Dems, they are hardly in danger of being seen as communist fellow travellers because they troop through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn once in a while.
From memory…..Britain joined the ERM half heartedly. Lawson, Howe and Major were in favour Thatcher and her special advisor Walters were said to be against. Interest rates were out of control and the government were in a shambolic state. Thatcher seemed to have said ‘OK we’ll join but be it on your own head’ to her Ministers. She then set about undermining them at every turn. Geoffrey Howe, foreign secretary resigned blaming Thatcher for trying to ruin the UK’s chances of succeeding in the ERM. The Tory party, then split down the middle and sacked Thatcher but it was clear to all the speculators that there was a killing to be made on stirling. The UK had to keep stirling within tight limits but the speculators realizing the UK ecconomy was a basket case, it’s government split and unable to control events moved in with a vengiance. I think the Pound devalued by about 25% in one day. If you were only 9 you were lucky. Those old enough, will remember the house repossessions and interest rates that climbed to 15% overnight. The mistake people make is to blame Lamont. He was hopeless but it was the half hearted entry that led to our disasterous exit.
25.”Unlike the Lib Dems, they are hardly in danger of being seen as communist fellow travellers because they troop through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn once in a while. ”
They could always say it’s Jeremy Corbyn who is following them.
Then regarding Corbyn, it’s more than “once in a while”
26 - How do you think monetary policy would have differed in the scenario of a wholehearted entry?
We closing in on that 100,000th post yet?
As for monetary policy and the ERM, the failure as I see it is trying to have (almost) fixed exchange rates, but a completely free currency market. Any other country that fixes its exchange rates (eg China) has no free currency market for speculators to push vast weights of money on one side of.
If the speculators had thought that the BoE and government would support the currency with the tenacity that all the other countries who had joined the ERM had done they would might have failed as they did with France. They might also of had the support of the other countries of the ERM particularly Germany if their anti-Europeanism hadn’t been on show for so long.
22. are there beds in the Commons?
Why?
As to the 100,000 th It will be post 35 on this thread - unless there’s a post on another thread earlier.
29 - The ERM was utter garbage as Thatcher rightly saw. If we’d gone in “wholeheartedly” we’d have just looked more stupid. With our economic cycle we had no chance whatsoever of staying in the set boundaries. It was a crazy foolish idea just as joining the Euro would have been when it was started.
Is there a prize?
You shouldn’t have told us!
THIS WAS THE 100,000th comment on PB.C - MS
For post 35 I mean
Argh! Roger hath thwarted me!
“If the speculators had thought that the BoE and government would support the currency with the tenacity that all the other countries who had joined the ERM had done”
How much tenacity should have been shown? How much more of the reserves would you have run down to support the pound?
35/36. The one who has made post 100,000 should pay for a big pb.com party! He should pay for travel expenses of other pb.com posters to allow them to attend……..
39 - Prob not a wise post if there was to be a recount Andrea
Then why was the UK the only member to be forced to leave?
Britain went into the ERM at a very bad time at the wrong exchange rate. That is why speculators attacked so ferociously. It was a massive mistake to enter in the first place.
We were right to leave, we were wrong to enter.
We were lucky, Roger.
40. In a recount Julian is at risk to pay for all. We should be save
41 - From recollection, and I might be wrong, when Soros tried to do the same thing to the Franc, they just asked Germany to ‘lend’ them vast quantitys of DMarks to save them running down the reserves. As Germany could literally print as many DMarks as required Soros realized very quickly he was onto a no-brainer. When the UK asked Germany to help out they politely told them to go jump… (Probably due in not a small part to some of the Conservative govts blatent anti-Europeanism)
39 - Ryanair from Milan shouldn’t be too much: dig deep Julian!
38 - I think the argument is that you never have to demonstrate your commitment if people simply believe that you will. It is like Dr Strangelove. On a more mundane level, everyone at school had a teacher who everyone new not to cross and therefore never had the need to punish anybody. Not sure it would have worked in the case of the ERM though because it was always so transparently the case that the government saw it as an anti-inflationary device and not a monetary union project, so the level of commitment was always in doubt even if people hadn’t also thought that Major and Lamont were weak characters anyway.
46 - http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/ - £20 plus taxes… should be doable…
17 Ah Roger, your attempts to rewrite history are so amusing.
45 - “As Germany could literally print as many DMarks as required”
What could possibly have gone wrong with that plan? It had always worked before…
But requiring Germany effectively to devalue to keep the pound high against it doesn’t sound like the recipe for an incredibly stable system.
1 - The cities of the North and Midlands and Scotland and Wales are Tory free zones and Cameron is unlikely to change this.
To a certain extent, to paraphrase the female commedian who’s name slips my mind: “Are they bovvered?”
48. I could get it from Bergamo if it’s less expensive….. then I would prefer a first class ticket…like the MEPs.
O/T - I’m sure this will be of limited interest to you all but here goes anyway. Holyrood Magazine commisioned a Mori Poll for Scottish Parliament voting intentions. But just a note of caution the poll was done over 2 months (August and September) and IIRC correctly Mori in Scotland have tended to oversate Labour and the SNP and understate the LD’s and the Tories.
Results - Labour (37% and 31%)
- SNP (20% and 22%)
- LD’s (16% and 16%)
- Tories (15% and 13%)
50 - Yes, an inherently unstable system if required for long, but just threatening to do it forced the speculators to get scared and run away. It’s like poker - even you think they are bluffing, its either a very brave, or very wealthy man that calls the bluff.
11 Quite right tactically Woody.
It would have the effect of further isolating Blair from his party and demonstrating that only the Conservatives can help Blair get his policies through in the teeth of opposition from the ‘loony left’
(please excuse my hyperbole - that’s the recommended spin)
I agree with other writers though that Blair (unless he really is out to screw Brown) Brown and others are far to astute to see the scenario pan out this way, and nwill shape events accordingly in advance.
“Tories save Labour flagship Policies” with ( it seems) Cameron espousing the need for responsible/grown up Government and a marginalisation of the Union dinosaurs would be very tasty headlines indeed from our perspective.
If we’d gone into the ERM earlier, at a lower rate, when the British economy was under less pressure, we’d have been better served. Indeed, we might have only needed to make a realignment, like other ERM members, in 1992-3.
1 - Wales isn’t a Tory free zone we’re back up to about 3 seats there as far as I recall. Admittedly we only have one seat in Scotland and have made little progress in the cities but…. stop writing crap.
26 That to the contrary, your analysis here is much better.
Don’t forget that your mob were ardent supporters though !
TB at 49. I’m sure we all look back through rose tinted spectacles sometines but having just re-read my post 17 I can’t see any factual inaccuracies at all!
50 - Yes, inherently unstable if required for long, but it’s like Poker - it takes either a very brave, or very wealthy man to call such a (potentially) large bluff.
52 - That was from Bergamo… and I don’t think you can fly 1st class on Ryanair
39 - I’m sure Rik would stump up for you Andrea.
46/48. I’m sure he can hitchhike
41. History lesson. Britain’s exit from the ERM in 1992 was only part of a crisis that lasted until 1993 and encompassed many countries beyond Britain. Finland scrapped its ECU peg first. Then the UK and Italy both suspended their ERM membership. Spain and Portugal both devalued within the ERM. Norway scrapped its ECU peg, as did Sweden after attempting to defend the Krona with 500% overnight rates at one point. Ireland devalued 10% too. In 1993, speculative pressures on the France and the remaining ERM currencies became so strong that the ERM was effectively suspended by having its bands widened to +/-15% from +/-2.25%.
Funny - I’ve just had the same post disappear twice… Can’t think what the spam-trap didn’t like. Oh Well, my musings on the ERM and currency speculation will have to wait while I actually get on with some real work…
31: If there are beds in the Commons I’ve never seen one. It would have come in useful last year when I locked myself out at home and slept on a chair in the library.
The tactical problem about oppositions supporting governments is that it means that governments can stop worrying about rebellions on the issue. But of course it makes for more intelligent politics if people don’t pretend to be outraged by everything the other side says, and there is a constituency out there for intelligence (not sure how big).
58 Your subjectivity regarding the Conservatives being a shambeles at the time (which I don’t agree with) and failure to mention that your party fully supported joining the ERM (which most Conservatives didn’t) caused me to put fingers to keyboard.
We became a shambles AFTER joining it and are still paying the price for that fateful decision to this day in terms of the publics perception of our economic competence.
It’s probably (IMHO) the main reason why Brown is why the general public remain blind to the over taxing, over borrowing antics of our credit card Chancellor to this day.
They’ve tried ‘us’ and we screwed it, everything in the garden still appears rosy with ‘you’ so why change things.
That’s why many of us are watching developments in the economy with very close interest…. when the tide turns, so will NuLab fortunes
First of all congratulations Roger on being the man to post the big 100,000!!
Second, interesting story. I think this is a very good tactic by the Conservatives should they embrace it. Of course they need to watch out for Labour reactions and the possible press reaction that “if the tories back Labour - why change the government line”
But this policy will totally miff off Labour lefties, it will frustrate Prescott and as someone commented it will show that the so called political centre, is actually the centre-right!
I want to see how this strategy could work in more depth - but it has promise and what is more show some form of thought!
David R at 56.
“but…. stop writing crap”
Ok. I’ll try!
Lennon - you mentioned the name of a popular card game, often played online and frequently the subject of spam comments.
63. “slept on a chair in the library”.
Why didn’t you get a hotel room, Nick? I thought we paid MPs properly these days.
65 - I thought they were upstairs in hackland? Andrew Marr mentions them in “My Trade”.
Anyway. I’m not sure about whether people want to see that much intelligence in politics and “yah boo sucks” is such a noble (?) tradition in law and politics. Intelligent debate is usually the preserve of national crises. Hence “yah boo sucks” is also a good sign generally!
Mawnin’ everyone
Can we put to bed, with a cup of hot cocoa, the idea expressed at the top of this thread that the Tories are so far behind, that so many places are ‘Tory-free zones’, that it’ll take four centuries at least before the Tories attain power again.
In the last GE Labour got 36% of the vote. 36%. The lowest figure of any winning party since, ooh, the Ice Age. The Tories got 33%. 33%. They were three points behind, and indeed were the biggest party in England, a fairly important part of the United Kingdom.
Yes I know there are recherche psephological reasons why the Tories need to do better than good to win, but still. 3%. It’s not a mountain to climb. It’s barely a hill. Moreover, the British electorate is a mysterious beast, and fickle - it only takes a few people in the inner cities to fall in love with caring toff DC, and Labour are out. Judging by that rastaman who hugged DC, that is far from impossible. Labour complacency on all this is astonishing. Eight years of power breeding arrogance and sloth, methinks.
“it only takes a few people in the inner cities to fall in love with caring toff DC, and Labour are out.”
That’s the Phrase of the Morning for me.
“Judging by that rastaman who hugged DC, that is far from impossible”
Was he rastafarian? I don’t think he was…
73. Was he not Rastafari? Apologies if so, that’s what I read in the papers. To be honest I didn’t watch the exchange too closely, as the expression of fiercely suppressed anxiety on DC’s face (’when is this man going to stp hugging me?’) was simply too painful to bear.
But the guy was certainly keen, no doubt about that.
….and it only takes the spectre of Iraq to fade from memory and Labour’s percentage could be back to 40+. Frankly I was surprised that Labour did so well at the last election. I hardly met anyone who was going to vote Labour. All the Labour voters I’d known in the past were going to vote Lib/Dem or even Green. Iraq was THE factor. Perhaps it’s more realistic to marvel at a core Labour vote of 36%? Indeed if it wasn’t that Howard was openly touting the racist vote I’d have voted Lib/Dem myself in protest.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but it’s worth remembering the reason why Alan Walters didn’t want the UK to enter the ERM: he believed that the combination of higher than average interest rates, combined with a fixed currency band would force the pound to the top of the band, leading to the government having to cut interest rates to keep the pound within the band.
Needless to say, it didn’t work like that!
(For a very interesting take on the whole affair, I highly reccomend Nigel Lawson’s The View from Number Eleven.)
74 - he was also three sheets to the wind.
I wouldn’t get to excited about the Rastafarian Sean he was just after a score. One of his mates heard about his reputation
76 - was there an attempt to accommodate Walters’ view by increasing the rate at which we joined?
75. “Howard was openly touting the racist vote”.
You simply cannot throw around accusations like that and expect to be taken seriously. I disliked Howard’s campaign and its obsession with immigration and crime, but their proposing of a limit on immigration and asylum is certainly not racist, and in fact bears no relation to racism at all.
75 - That’s not what you were saying at the time was it Roger? Lets get this right you were prdicting a Conservative meltdown on the basis of finding no support for Labour?
80 - No Julian but there is a legitimate point that it gave succour to a section of the racist vote.
Re: 72 - and perhaps we should provide a nice mug of Horlicks to the idea that the Tories are certain to win the next election and that their vote share is certain to go up.
As to the “mountain”, I’ll try not to let unpleasant facts get in the way of their euphoria but here goes..the Conservatives have 198 seats, that’s 11 FEWER than Michael Foot’s Labour Party won in 1983. In terms of seats won, 2005 ranks fourth behind 2001,1997 and 1906 in terms of the fewest seats won by the Tories under universal suffrage.
In terms of vote share, 33% or so is an improvement on 31% in 1997 but compares poorly with 42% in 1966 (when the Tories lost to Labour by over a 100 seats). To form a majority Government, the Conservatives need to win 125 seats next time - to rob Labour of its majority, they need to win (or ensure Labour loses) some 33 or so. One looks easier than the other, doesn’t it ?
Of course, the Tories can point to the recovery made by Labour when in 1992 they polled 34% and in 1997 43% and got a swing of around 10.5% off the Tories. However, that was the biggest swing since 1945 and in virtually all other elections, the swing was on the level of 5% or so which wouldn’t be enough.
So, in terms of seats, the Conservatives are in a worse position than Labour was in 1983 and in terms of vote share in a sorse position than Labour in 1992. As I recall, in the weeks after the election, the general view was that Labour would never win…but they did.
The problem for both Labour and Conservatives is that their combined vote share at 69% was close to an all-time low. I think it was slightly lower in 1983 but not much. As a Lib Dem, I hope it falls further but I suspect that will be hard.
Can the Conservatives win the next election ? Yes, but they probably won’t. Will Labour lose its majority ? Yes, and they probably will.
As for Tory-free zones, I’ll remember to count the Tory seats in Liverpool, the North-East, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Birmingham. I’ve still got some fingers left…
Stodge that was a particularly silly use of stats and doesn’t become you. 1992 was an election Labour should have won and that was the reason for the immediate defeatism. Anyone who says that the Tories in 2005 are in a worse position than Labour in 1983 doesn’t belong in an intelligent discussion about politics.
79: GBP/DEM moved from 2.72 in March ‘90 to over 3.00 in August/September, so I guess there was some attempt to reflect Walters’ views. Ironically, if the government had taken *less* acccount of these, and the pound had gone in at 2.70 or so, then the debacle would have been somewhat less severe.
That said: I’m not sure that semi-fixed bands are a particularly smart move from an economic point of view. But hey, what do I know?
80 Julian. That isn’t how racists saw it. 48 sheet posters talking about curbing immigration with the ‘nod nod wink wink byline’ “Are you thinking what we’re thinking”. Ask any immigrant or asylum seeker what they made of it.
69 - Ahh, of course… Thanks BV - will try and remember that one in future.
86. Call me naive but “Are you thinking what we’re thinking” was surely just a way of portraying the Tories as the “common sense Party”, a way of linking the Party to the average Joe in the street. I can’t imagine any considerable number of people read it as “nudge nudge, we’re xenophobic and racist too, vote for us”.
Anyway, I’m off to Sunderland now. Have a good day everyone…
Calling those interested in small-l liberalism
You may be interested in this discussion forum, Liberal Views, which already contains a good number of contributors from this site. It is non-partisan, and we welcome contributors of all political shades. The ethos of the site is along the lines of what Mike and Robert have created here, ie civilised discussion of the issues with only occasional light-hearted party point-scoring. We particularly welcome liberals from the Labour tradition (which was the final home of a good section of the Liberal diaspora post-1930).
89 - I should add, because we have plenty of Conservative and Lib Dem liberals represented.
88. Dog whistles Julian, dog whistles…
65. An end to yah-boo politics, Nick? Whatever next! Discussions in Cabinet? ‘I don’t tink so.’
(By the way - for whoever asked - the comedienne whose character says ‘Am I bovvered’ is Catherine Tait.)
84 - ok, so in your opinion, when did the Tories stop being in a worse position than Labour were in 1983?
88 - Julian, I woudln’t dream of calling you naive, but the slogan “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” was appropriated from a notorious group famed for its malign influence on generations of children.
76. Actually sterling did inititally strengthen after joining the ERM, and rates also started to come down, from 15% to 10%. The problems really started when Germany hiked rates aggressively in late 1990 and early 1991, to head off inflationary pressures coming from unification. At the same time, the UK had entered a deep recession, so rates here should have been coming down further. Instead they had to be held up to maintain sterling’s parity in the ERM system. The market took the view that the UK economy could not come out of recession unless this constraint on rate policy was removed, and thus mustered its forces to force Britain out of the ERM (I know, I was there).
94 - indeed, here is a good example of their attempt to propagate their disgusting literature.
92 - thanks! I “couldn’t be bovvered” to google it
Max at 81. No that’s not what I was saying. if ex-Labour voters hadn’t got the Lib/dems or the Greens to vote for and the certain knowledge that the numbers were against the Tories then I don’t know what they would have done. My guess is they would have used Polly Toynbees clothes pegs and voted Labour if they’d had to
93 - We never have been. There has never been a time when a major political party was formed from an off-shoot of the Conservative Party and almost overtook us in vote-share. Only single-issue nutters have left us and formed UKIP who only provide opposition in Euro elections (and we’ve won both Euro elections that they have contested).
There are considerable differences with 1983.
1. Labour were 16% behind the Conservatives. The Conservatives are 3% behind Labour.
2. Labour needed a swing of c.11% to win the next election. The Conservatives need a swing of 5-6% (once the new boundaries are in place).
3. Labour lost c.50 seats compared with the previous election. The Conservatives gained 33.
4. In 1983, the Conservatives had a majority of 144. Labour has a lead of 66.
Personally, I think it’s unlikely that the Conservatives will win an outright majority next time round, and I think it’s unlikely that Labour will win one either - but anything can happen in 3/4 years.
WRT Roger’s views, I think he only says these things to provoke, rather than because he believes in them.
75 - Iraq is not going to fade in the way that you are hoping, it’s akin to thinking that Vietnam would fade away. The scars are deep and labour will be associated with the adventure for quite some years yet.
On another point, given the possibility that labour could get far fewer votes than the tories and still remain in power next time could be the catalyst needed for electoral reform.
Tabman - I get it now - bananas in traditional night-clothing chasing alien teddy bears who were infiltrating their beds - clearly a metaphor!
Right, I really am off now…
I don’t know if anyone else has pointed this out but Roger is factually wrong about most things with regard to the EMU (probably why his extreme partisan conclusions are also wrong).
The pound never fell anything like 25%…. it took several further years for it to hit the low. It was also by no means the only currency to be booted out. Italy and Spain were also ejected. Ireland had France had to make adjustments.
As for the failure to stay in being a failure of intervention what are you on?? The reason was that German interest rates were much higher than UK rates with very good reason. The only party that could have conducted unlimited intervention to support GBP would have been the Bundesbank, who didn’t want to for very sound reasons.
102 - yes, yet despite asserting their “traditional night-attire” views, they were in fact two male bananas living together.
99 David :
Only single-issue nutters have left us and formed UKIP who only provide opposition in Euro elections (and we’ve won both Euro elections that they have contested).
It very dangerously complacent.
They don’t ‘only’ contest Euro Elections.
They cost us between 10-20 seats in May 05 9depending on how you count them) and currently hold potentially key seats in the GLA.
Calling their (predominantly disaffected Conservative)voters’nutters’ was a particularly stupid tactic that we initiated in June 04 and rapidly reversed as it backfired and acted as a recuiting Sergeant for them.
103 Hi Jon,
Against the DM for instance it fell from 2.7780 on the day to 2.16
over a period of many months.
Regards
105 - I don’t know anyone who voted for them who I don’t regard as a little England nutter.
However you feel about them you can’t compare them to the SDP in terms of impact.
107 Hmm, surely whether they are or aren’t (nutters) isn’t the point.
Insulting people who hold profoundly different views from you but who nevertheless predominatly travel on a Conservative ticket isn’t likely to endear them to us or lure them back into th fold is it ?
107 - SDP and UKIP are totally different. Putting it crudely, the SDP left the Labour “nutters” and the UKIP “nutters” left the Tories, ie the movement (or lack of it) of moderate opinion was different in each case. The analogous happening would have been the TRG or Pro-European Tories leaving and setting up an independent party. IIRC the latter grouping did do that but have subsequently folded their tent and gone to join the Lib Dems.
101 ‘… given the possibility that labour could get far fewer votes than the tories and still remain in power next time could be the catalyst needed for electoral reform.’
There are some realistic Tories who agree with you, see:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/briefings/The%20Conservatives%20and%20the%20electoral%20system.pdf
1 - I think some of the Tory MPs for the Midlands and Wales would disagree with you Roger!
26 “stirling”!? Do you mean Sterling ?
45 - so in answer to “what have the Germans ever done for us?”, they helped save us from the ERM! Hooray!
83 - Stodge - hmmmmm - how many seats have the “all conquering” Lib Dems got then?!
65 Nick Palmer If an opposition supports government policy then those wanting to rebel feel freer to so do. But if this happens your whips would be wise to be very alert as the opposition can easily, and without an announcement, find a reason or two to legitimately and reasonably vote against a measure they support overall. An amendment put down by your rebels, say, where the opposition know those rebels will turn out in the lobbies. And, bingo, a series of government defeats.
And as Tories we know how destructive that can be. You are going to live in interesting times, I believe.
TB quite right - I was trading gbp/dem when it hit the low (that was caused by the Tories being a shambles!). It was in late 1995 more than 3 years after we were booted out of the ERM. The crisis itself took only 10% off the pound.
109. A wilfully fatuous remark. Ten years ago the ardent eurosceptics (the sort of people who vote UKIP) might have been regarded as nutters - for instance in their fierce opposition to the euro. But then this eurosceptic position was taken up by some of the papers, and most of the Tory party, forcing Blair to offer a referendum on the euro, a referendum he couldn’t win. Result: we never went into the euro, and we have avoided (to date) the grim economic stagnation of the continent. You may regard eurosceptics as nutters, but they did more for the future of this country than, say, Shirley Williams, by a factor of several billion.
BTW it’s the pro-European Tories who are the outstanding nutters in the party, not just because they are so obviously wrong in their beliefs, but because they cleave to this absurd minority position which prevents them gaining any power or leadership.
111 - the point, Rik, is that the Lib Dems now have seats in all regions and ina ll types of consitituency; rural, semi-urban, urban, England, Wales, Scotland. Admittedly in the East Midlands its only one seat.
IIRC the Tories do not hold any urban seats.
Aaaah The late Hunter S Thompson said that all politics was ultimately about betraying your own side - it seems David Cameron wants to fight the next election with the slogan ‘I’m more like Blair than you’ it could well work, but would make most of his party look a bit absurd.
115 - I’ve only visited London a few times but even the Tory bits seemed prety urban to me.
115. Other than in London… They also won the most votes across England and are the largest party, by far, in local government, including controlling Birmingham, I believe.
Re: 84 - Thank you for the trenchant response, David. I don’t think you’ve read my post properly. My point is that in terms of actual number of MPs, the Tories at 198 now have 11 FEWER than Michael Foot’s Labour Party had after the 1983 election. I don’t think I said that the Tories “were in a worse state” in terms of morale or membership because they clearly aren’t. All I was trying to point out was that, as Michael Howard himself said the Conservatives were “nowhere near to winning” in May. In terms of vote share, the Conservatives’ performances even in 1997 were better than Labour in 1983 or 1987.
To win next time, the Conservatives need to gain at least 125 seats - that is a very tall order and has only been done twice, both times by Labour (1945 & 1997) since the war. In 1997, Labour went from around 270 to 418 (seats on different boundaries). A similar gain would see the Tories with a narrow, but workable majority.
Re: 100 - Perhaps David can comment on Sean’s equally “selective” use of statistics though I suspect staitistics favouring the Tory position may be looked on more favourably than those which don’t. While Sean’s stats are all correct, I would take issue with his last two. In 1983, a Conservative Government was looking for a second term in office against a fractured opposition. In 2005, a Labour Government was looking for an unprecedented third term against a supposedly coherent Opposition.
Labour’s performance doesn’t compare well in terms of seats with the third-term victories of the Conservatives in 1959 and 1987 (both won with majorities of around 100 as I recall) but the very fact that Labour won a third term is remarkable.
Statistically, a fourth term looks very difficult. Both Tory Governments changed leaders or Prime Ministers during their third term. In 1964, Douglas Hume narrowly lost to Labour who then won a thumping victory in 1966. In 1992 John Major saw a majority of 100 become a majority of 21 albeit without a huge change in vote share and was then trounced in 1997.
I think if Labour win a small majority in 2009, they will lose heavily in the following election. The Tories could win a tiny majority but I think the electoral hill, to use Sean’s terms, will be too high. I think a hung Parliament is the most likely outcome after which all bets will be off.
108 - Well I get insulted plenty by people within the party it doesn’t make me take my bat and ball home and form a splinter group. People who vote for Roger Knapman to be Prime Minister are clearly not thinking straight. We can’t move the party to accomadate these people without making our own party more unelectable than it has ever been.
In the long run I think PR is probably only 5/10 years away. I fully expect there to be an election “won” by the Tories by about a million votes with Labour emerging as the largest party. When that happens electoral reform will be inevitable (and I speak as someone who still believes in many of the principles of FPTP).
114 - will you promise me that come the next election you’ll go on tour supporting DC, speaking, and distributing copies of your thoughtful blog articles (such as this one) in all the Tory/Lib Dem marginals? Please???
115 - Garbage of course we have urban seats…. admitedly they are all in London.
117 - thanks - I should have added “outside London”
Roger 75. You say Frankly I was surprised that Labour did so well at the last election. This seems to be in stark contrast to many of the comments you were making here in the final campaign week last May. Then you were very confident of a Labour victory.
All the 100,000 comments on the site are on record for anybody to see.
116 Hi P
I’ve already bought my GWB mask and crazy coloured party string.
111. Rik, it really is a poor show if the best you can add to a discussion on the challenges facing the Tories winning the next election is some fatuous question about the number of Liberal Democrat seats. As you well know, they hold Sutton and Cheam and 61 others.
You quoted someone, presumably Stodge as describing the Liberal Democrats as “all conquering”. Could you elaborate on where this quotation comes from?
And btw, it’s “all-conquering”.
Re: 111 - Rik, as you well know, we were talking about your Party, not mine. I’m happy to report on the trebling of our Parliamentary base since 1992.
Perhaps not…what I would argue is that for the first time we saw the LDs advance nationally as a Labour Government retreated. Yes, we can argue Guildford, Westmoreland, Taunton, Weston-Super-Mare, Newbury and Solihull until the cows come home and have done and will no doubt do so again..
BUT, the key point is that when previous Labour Governments have been in retreat, 1950,1951,1970,1979 - the Liberal vote has fallen away with it. Indeed, the Liberals were reduced to just 6 seats after the 1970 election. When the Tories have advanced, it has historically been at the main expense of the third party.
Remember that in 1951, Labour got more votes but lost because of the Liberal collapse. Despite the Winter of Discontent, 36% still voted Labour in 1979 - the Tories were aided by the collapse in the Liberal vote from 19% to 14%. It can work the other way as it did in 1964.
This puts us in unchartered waters in my view. The BIG question for me is - assuming the Tory vote picks up a little next time, will the LD vote remain vis-a-vis the Labour vote ? We could be squeezed between the two parties which wouldn’t help you - yes, you’d take seats off us but you have to take more off Labour to win and the Labour vote might be firmer than it was in May. If we do well, you won’t win anyway.
120. David, (just out of curiosity) as a Tory, if you were forced to pick a PR system to implement in this country, which would you go for?
121 That article is bang out of order.
No way should anyone be called a dwarf head !
119 - Thanks for the response. I agree that we are highly unlikely to win the next election (as I have stated repeatedly elsewhere) but I just had to take issue with the idea that we are in the same position as Labour were in 1983. I think a hung parliament will lead to a short-term coalition for one party with the Lib Dems for 12/18 months while an electoral reform bill is passed! Now that WOULD make for an interesting period.
114 - Sorry I don’t accept my position is one of a nutter as I follow the position of the vast majority of the press, the European single currency line taken by both Labour and the Conservative front bench and the majority of the population. People who merely think we should “pull-out of the EU” are the rampant eurosceptics only.
Re: 126 - I have never used the phrase “all-conquering” to describe the Lib Dems (though Rik has) nor did Rik ever say he would win Sutton & Cheam in May (though some people on here thought he did).
128 - I am actually (unlike a hell of a lot of people there) quite a fan of the Additional Member hybrid used in Scotland and Wales. I think the main problem is that it creates a two-tier system of members but I think we need to retain a constituency basis to provide parliamentary link with the country.
I hasten to say that this is a personal view and not necessarily a party-political view. I think a party political positive would be for multi-member constituencies of a larger size. I’ve certainly not studied the figures to see which would suit us most.
Good point Rik, how many seats etc have all conquering got. Perhaps more than you would really have preferred?
Looking at matters now I feel the Conservatives are quite comfortable and making some limited ground in much of southern Eengland and the very rural affluent areas elsewhere,which is a start. There also seems to be signs at local government level of cons and lib dems in third place switching to the best bet to defeat Labour.
If Dc gets the job! and then agrees with Blair policies where does that leave the Labour centre left and left,the Lib Dems and will it not frustrate many conservative MPs etc. Kennedy said on Sunday his party must have decided by next conference which path they will choose, the Laws, Clegg route or as they are now.
On Education “reform”, (I tend to see it as going backwards in terms of social cohesion), and student fees issues, I doubt if even the Laws of the world would side with DC on them.
Personally I think DC may have got into agreement mould too late, this Parliament may be the one for succesful strong and vocal “opposition” not what may seem reasonable to some as sensible agreement. A lot of people are crying out for opposition with a capital O now.
Any thoughts anyone?
124 - So I guess that answers the question I was going to ask yesterday Mike - Does the 100,000 include deleted comments (or even deleted threads…)?
130 - I deliberately put the word “nutter” in “inverted commas” as it wasn’t my view. FWIW the usage is not so much to do with the views expressed, but more to do with the holding of them in the face of pragmatic electoral reasons, and often to the exclusion of other issues (cf CND and the Euro at different times).
131. Perhaps not explicitly, but I am pretty sure he did predict the Lib Dem vote dropping to 16,000 in Sutton & Cheam, and I don’t think he anticipated them going to the Labour Party! He also predicted the Liberal Democrats would lose half their seats.
135 Tabman….
Or by those of us in the majority looking at those in the minority (and in power) adopting the (so called) pragmatic electoral position?
137 - TB, judging by the lack of a Euro referendum to date I would judge that the “majority position” has won out, wouldn’t you?
137 - I don’t THINK that makes sense?
I think the people in the majority are those in favour of the EU but not the Euro? UKIP and the Eurosceptics are in favour of pulling out of the EU. This is not a majority position. Even Rupert’s attack dogs at The Sun are not advocating that (despite the odd ‘bendy bananas’ story)
115 and subsequent - what a load of rot. I think Reading East counts as an urban seat (outside London), also Bournemouth East and West, Poole, Sutton Coldfield, Aldridge, and Altrincham to name but a few!!! I think Ann Milton thinks Guildford is pretty urban as well.
126 - I think in a Parliamentary democracy the number of seats is pretty important!
127 - Trebling your Parliamentary base still leaves you over 130 behind the Tories - a party you were going to replace as the opposition! lol
131 - but reading some of your postings (and Chrisco’s) one would think that the Lib Dems were close to a Parliamentary majority instead of a third party dustbin for protest votes!
140 No David, absolutely wrong.
You are repeating the same incorrect mantra that blinds many on matters European.
You can be a Eurorealist, without necessarily wanting to leave the EU.
138 Tabman,
Accept that obviously, but will wager any amount when (if ever) the time comes that the majority vote against joining the Euro (if it still exists !)
More interesting is on how the country would vote on leaving the EU itself … I suspect that would be a very close call.
Sorry David, that last one was a bit shrill - no offence intended
142. Rik, could you please provide any evidence to back up that assertion?
145 contd. (I speak for myself of course, not Stodge)
141 - Rik, your points would improve significantly without the use of phrases like “what a load of rot” - they don’t really add anything to the discussion and just make you look overly strident (which I know you aren’t in person). Your list of counter-examples is a list of Southern, affluent towns. Now, please point to any Cities (except London) where the Tories hold urban (as oposed to suburban) seats (hint: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea).
Jeez - I know we have to make our interests interesting, but to assume 2009 is anything like as wide open as some people here are saying is pure fantasy.
Despite however much us anorakios may want the public to share our in depth info and opinions, the fact remains that the Labour party is nothing like as unpopular as the Tories were after 1992, and indeed have maintained a credible opinion poll lead, that 2005 was an election with everything in the oppositions favour - and everything against the govt, and still the Tories made no inroads.
Look at the figures when talking about the Labour 36% - in safe Labour seats, people took the chance and voted against the govt because it was safe to do so - in marginal seats the fall was far less, and in many cases the Labour vote held steady in numbers, but more soft Tories bothered to turn out to vote than they had in 2001 and 1997 - see the Kent seats.
It has been estimated that 4% of the Labour vote switched to the Libs as a protest against the war, and because people were confident that Labour would be returned, but wanted them to have a reduced majority. This is what they got.
In 2009, most of those Lib votes will return to Labour (excepts in seats the libs actually won - which weren’t many…) - the more so if the Tories show any prospect of winning.
So the true picture of the Tory mountain is about a 7% gap between the parties as of May this year (33% - 40%)
Barring any major coc-ups (which of course their may be several) I would expect the Labour party to fare better in 2009 than they did this time.
Ken Clarke could have closed the gap and thereby kept the party behind him - Cameron will simply disunite his party, and then Fox will be the leader in c2008
Pimpernel - I’d like to see you put money on Labour INCREASING the number of seats next time, with
1) Adverse boundary changes 2)a faltering economy and housing market 3) A dull, charisma-free, taciturn Scot as Prime Minister 4) 12 years boredom factor.
David Cameron’s greatest strength will be wiping out the Lib Dems in the South of England - but I expect him to do well across the country wit