Could Gordon go the way of Dean and Davis?
November 30th, 2005
-
Is the Chancellor really a 73.5% certainty?
With the long awaited Turner Report on pension due to be published today and the attention focusing again on the Chancellor the PBC index puts his chances of taking over Tony Blair at 73.5%. Our chart shows the the implied probability of him getting the job and is based on best betting prices. The only decision, for the Labour party, it is said, is whether he goes through unopposed or whether there is a contest. For however you view the contest it is hard to see how anybody else could come through.
-
Yet for the third time in two years I have become convinced that a heavy odds-on favourite to be his party’s standard-bearer might not make it - and there’s betting value at current price levels.
Two years ago the ex-Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, looked all set to win the Democratic nomination. By the start of December 2003 he was trading at about 0.6/1 and poll after poll reinforced his favourite status. Yet there was something in his character that provoked doubts in me and I started to lay (bet against) heavily. I could not see how his sharp temper and aggressive style would go down well - and indeed it didn’t.
Then, this summer, came David Davis. Although the early polls and the betting pointed to his near certain victory in the Tory leadership race I was not convinced that someone who had such poor public speaking skills could make it. At the time I could not decide who would do it so again I began laying him heavily at the odds-one prices.
Now I feel the same way about Gordon Brown. Sure - the polls rate him higher than Blair but is that simply because he is not Blair? How will he be if ever the electorate assess him on his own. The great thing about a leadership race is that it puts a candidate’s style and personality under the most intense scrutiny and in the Democrat and Tory races it became apparent that the favourites were not right.
-
Come Labour leadership election time there might be a realisation that Brown’s hallmark of reeling off lists of bullet points at a rapid rate is not the right way to engage voters.
I was very struck by this comment on the site by Alex a few days ago. “I still think the real issue is the extent to which Gordon Brown could implode. He has always had a bit of potential to get attached to politically disastrous/divisive policies, but freed of the restraining hand of Blair there maybe nobody to let his stubbornness overrule other people’s heads. People have focused on the extent to which strategically there may be little change once Brown replaces Blair but the way policies are sold (tactics) could change massively for the worse. The latest claims over pensions are not a good sign.”
So with some of my anticipated winnings from David Davis’s failure I’m having a punt that Gordon will not be the next Labour leader. You can lay him at 0.36/1 - so a lay of £100 would cost me £36 if he does it and give me the £100 if he does not.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I agree that Brown is way over-rated. Mostly that’s because these things are just not that predictable but you make good points about his lack of style and the ‘not Blair’ effect. History isn’t kind to leaders in waiting.
Sadly my betting money is mostly tied up on the Tories so I can’t back that. And don’t take me too seriously, I’m not in the black on political betting!
who is the alternative? who would be more likely to win a general election for Labour?
For a government obsessed with news management, what could be a bigger story on 6th December than George Cameron winning the tory leadership. Only one — Tony stepping down. Back Tony quitting before Xmas — 40/1 on Betfair.
I suspect you could be on to something here Mike. It has been long assumed that Brown would inherit the top job by way of a coronation. If that wasn’t the case, and he was instead put under the spotlight in the way Cameron and Davis have, then he could really struggle. He appears to have little or no charisma and I believe he spends most of his existence in his bunker because of this. I further believe that his financial chickens are slowly coming home to roost and once it becomes apparent that he hasn’t been the great chancellor that he is so often portrayed to be, then that too could work to his disadvantage.
As long as Blair steps down before the net election, and Brown doesn’t seriously mess up with the Labour party, he will become leader because everyone expects him to become leader. Unlike Dean and Davis, there is no extensive pre-election to go through (other than the last 8 years), but nothing different.
Brown will become PM, if for no other reason than virtually everyone, including the cabinet expects him to.
What happens in a Labour leadership election? Isn’t it all over in a matter of a few weeks? If it was as long as a Tory one, I think Brown would really suffer from the spotlight, as he will if he eventually makes it to leader. Tory leaders tend to be people who nobody had ever thought of as leader before the election process began: that applies to everyone apart from Howard since Thatcher. However, Labour party members get votes so that favours the well-known in a short process.
It’s interesting how Brown gets so much coverage and yet actually makes public statements so rarely. Incidentally that gives him plenty of time for the day job of actually running the economy. Could a PM do that? Surely foreign secretary or home secretary couldn’t, as they wouldn’t get the coverage.
The problem with this bet is the discrepancy between paddy power and betfair. Paddy power have GB at 1-8. To make a substantial margin, they could offer the field at (at least) 6-1. You’ve backed the field at about 3-1. Clearly, 6 or 7-1 is good value; I’m less certain about your bet.
We still have very few political betting markets, despite your best efforts. I’d be interested in one on the number of months GB is PM. (To cap it, you could assume that if he is PM in July 2009, it makes up the number of months he has already been in office plus 50). I agree with your general feel, and I’d be a seller at 25.
6. Gavin, I think you’re absolutely right. Brown may get the premiership and then lead Labour to defeat, or at least to no majority, which might as well be the same thing.
There is another point I forgot to mention and that’s that if somehow Brown did not win, the new leader would have to cope with him in the mother of all sulks - presumably still in the cabinet. Somthing the possible other contenders no no doubt consider. Going by the betfair market, the second favourite is David Miliband, which seems to say that the expectation is that the only way it won’t be Brown is if Blair does a Thatcher and outlasts all his generation.
Betting exchanges have better odds on heavy favourites than traditional bookies precisely because they offer you a bet on ‘the field’, so that they can balance their books. Traditional bookies force you to choose one of the outsiders which means they have fewer takers. It’s a good idea that bookies should offer odds on the field.
8.”Going by the betfair market, the second favourite is David Miliband, which seems to say that the expectation is that the only way it won’t be Brown is if Blair does a Thatcher and outlasts all his generation”
Miliband’s surge happened after it was clear the tories were going to select Cameron and some like Diane Abbott (but she probably meant that Glenda is too old to be the stalking horse) suggested that Labour should skip a generation too.
Btw, the list of MPs who voted to reduce the age of vote to 16 is out: the Libdems, some tories (from Bercow to Bob Spinik), the Nats, some Labourites (Corbyn, Skinner, but also people like Chiris Bryant), Gorgeous George and Dr Taylor.
The dilemma facing anyone wanting to take GB on is timing. If they feel GB will win the next election then he’ll probably be there until at least 2013 and is likely to lead them into the election around that time. If he wins that election too he may well step down during that period giving a newcomer about 10 years waiting time from now.
However, to strike before the next election any contender has to be sure that Labour can win that election under any leader - otherwise there will be the ‘Brown would have won it for us’ accusation.
If a leadership contender does not feel GB will win the next election, the question must be party or self - a failure in 2009 will open the way for a new leader but in opposition, making 2013 the likely point that such a new leader could hope to be in power again - not much different to scenario 1.
The bottom line for any challenger is - they would have to be sure - as in scenario 2 - that by becoming leader in this parliament instead of Brown, they would be able to win in 2009 by a healthy margin. Not a certainty as the climate currently stands, but by no means unlikely!
11. re challenger and ‘Brown would have won it for us’ accusation, seems likely to be factor, thinking back to May with Blair glued to Brown for the campaign.
re Brown’s hallmark of reeling off lists of bullet points at a rapid rate, that’s not his only mode though.
This is all dreamland fantasy politics stuff. I’ve yet to read a single comment that answers the fundamental question - who would Labour pick that they believe would win them more seats at a general election than Gordon Brown? Howard Dean was never a shoe-in at all, neither was Davis. Anyone with half a brain cell saw Dean could never win a general election. I posted the day after the election - if the Tories are serious about winning an election they have to pick Cameron.
I wonder about that bet. On the one hand I don´t think Brown is a kight on a white horse for the Labour Party. On the other hand, he was a pretty impressive politician before he became the bitter and moody Chancellor we now see.
Mike is backing a hunch (and why not) but I don´t see real value in such a bet.
David Davis may have been the tory favourite at the start of the contest, but there was no evidence that he was popular with voting public at large, if anything quite the reverse. However, opinion data suggests Brown is more popular with voters than Blair. So, not only does he start any contest from a position of political strength as chancellor, he can also draw upon public support.Furthermore, there no obvious rivals of any strength. Therefore, he is surely, and rightly, priced as a very strong favourite.
THis is not to say I believe he is wonderful, just that the markets seem logical to me.
In a land/party of pygmies we are all (even Gordon Brown) giants.
I think that the changed perceptions that Peter suggests at 14 reflect the very real shift of tactics by the anti-Labour section of the press more than any change in personality. Up to the last election, the Tory press subtext was “Blair is a manipulative liar, shame that relatively decent and competent Brown isn’t taking over”. The line is now “Brown is a darkly brooding Scot, Labour won’t be half as good without that genius Blair”. It’s all a bit silly.
The public doesn’t change its perceptions to order quite that easily (not least because not everyone reads the Tory press), and will make up their minds firstly on the basis of the economy, since Brown’s in charge of that, and on the whole they feel for the moment that he’s done very well and is still doing OK. Secondly on the basis of the intense coverage that he’ll get when he takes over (and I’m sure it’s “when”, frankly). The belief that he doesn’t have charisma is IMHO seriously mistaken - he dominates a room when he comes in to an almost uncomfortable extent. Remember that he’s in a relatively technical job which people want taken seriously - it’s hard to be jolly and laid-back when you’re talking about macroeconomic impact on people’s jobs.
The question is whether three years of Tory attack on these lines will wear him down. I don’t think so, but it’s in anticipation of this line of attack that I’ve always thought it’s in his and the party’s interest that he takes over late in the Parliament, to give the media less time to grind his image down in the top job before he can reasonably ask for a mandate. As for Blair standing down from being Prime Minister to distract people from the immense event of Cameron’s arrival - I don’t want to be rude, but ROFL!
I think a more pertinent question would be who are the likely candidates in any future leadership contest. Gordon is a shoe-in to stand. I remain to be convinced that Miliband would stand against him. Afterall, what was “the deal” in the first place if it was not to divide the right of party vote? Straw is said to be well integrated into any future Gordon campaign. Milburn is too tainted and frankly doesn’t demonstrate the drive for the top job. Clarke doesn’t really have a core group of supporters. There is also no credible bastion of the left candidate. Benn and Johnson are just not well known enough in teh country as a whole. I think in all probability Brown could go uncontested.
All the serious manouvering about the succession happenned a few years ago, I can’t see anyone with either the desire or the ability to reopen it.
The deputy leadership, now that is an open race.
There is an interesting comment article by Daniel Finkelstein in today’s Times on the difference between Cameron and Davis. It is Cameron’s optimism that may well do for the dour, chippy and charisma-free Brown. This may happen before Blair goes, as Brown’s economic chickens do head homewards - Macmillan’s “Events, dear boy, events.” Brown is favourite to win partly because the polls show him ahead. If this changes, many Labour MP’s may well vote with their survival instincts. I agree it is difficult to see an obvious challenger among the extinct volcanos on Labour’s senior front bench team - but if the Conservatives can change generations so can Labour.
I don’t think Brown can cut it as PM. It is possible for Cameron to beat him, especially if the economy hits serious trouble. You can just hear a replay of Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again!” demolition of Jimmy Carter, as Brown reels off another burst of bullet points. And don’t forget Reagan’s slogan “It’s morning in America”. Optimism works.
I hope Mike Smithson is wrong. Brown should be the Tory pick PM for a party that will have been in government for 13 unlucky years at the next election.
He is on record as having supported all the Blairite policies from Iraq to 90 days internment, he is well tainted with the past, and the chaos yet to come.
While there will, I pray, be no economic meltdown there will be plenty of angst at rising tax levels, financial waste, government vacillation and high levels of debt to more than take the bloom of this rose.
Add to that the now irreversible sour, dour resentful persona that so often comes across these days to the underwhelming political skill and judgement (if it is so good how come he has lost out to Blair for so long and so deeply).
Then he has to find a way through the constitutional mess he has helped make, and explain why he should govern England in the context of a Scottish parliament and his Scottish constituency and a Tory majority in England. Will he adopt the Tories solution here?
And to cap it all Blair will be giving his ‘advice’ from the ringside.
As the Chinese proverb says, Once bitten by a snake, you are even frightened by a rope that resembles a snake.
It will be rather hard to find an optimistic way of saying “if you re-elect Brown he carry on runing the economy the way he has been for the past decade” which I think will be strongest Tory line of attack.
[21] Quoting Chinese proverbs is a tricky business, B2W
Here’s what I found with a little, a very little Googling:
“A word by word translation of the original is “Bitten by a snake this year, he’ll be scared of well ropes in the next ten.” In days when people had to draw water from wells instead of getting it from the tab, ropes, which bear resemblance in appearance to snakes, were a dispensible utility. The proverb decries those who are discouraged by their first failure and are afraid of trying again”
[23] Oh, the joys of cut and paste… “tab” ahould be “tap” of course!
look i know you tories are desperate but labour is still ahead in economic confidence polls and all polls showing that brown would beat cameron. for god’s sake major got the largest number of votes of any PM in the middle of a (tory made) recession! it’s getting really boring reading day after day predictions of economic gloom from some of you lot. we had 3m unemployed in the thatcher years and she won 2 elections despite that fact.
Nick Palmer is spot on when he points out that very few people read the broadsheets. I’ve always thought that they are irrelevant, and I’m surprised how often they are quoted on here.
I usually only take the Sun in an election year, but maybe I’ll have to take it again. What’s their take on GB?
now irreversible sour, dour resentful persona, dour, chippy and charisma-free - seriously, you don’t see anything else?
Being on an almost exclusively Tory site can be very funny. You realize how distorted the world becomes through those dark blue tinted glasses. I also found myself rolling on the floor laughing at some of the posts.
Anyway keep it up. The world would be poorer without Terry Gilliams.
28 - And that coming from you Roger!
I posted this on the previous thread about the Tory contest this morning, but am copying it here in case anyone’s interested.
“ERS will not open and count the ballots until the morning of the 6th. They think they will have a result by 3pm, though some people fear slippage.
Voting by close of play on Monday was 65.4%. Has settled at about 2% coming in per day… though some of us are expecting a last week rush.
Bets on total turnout? I’ll go for 80%.”
25 - I don’t think we face an impending economic disaster at all. But that doesn’t meen I think GB is infallible and I think their are legitimate criticisms that ca be levelled against him particularly WRT pensions. As a Tory he is, by a country mile, the Labour leader I would most fear.
21 - B2W I agree the constitution could become an issue if an unpopular measure that exclusively affects England is pushed through using the votes of Scottish Labour MP’s. I don’t know how long the English will put up with having what are in effect second class MP’s. And if the Labour Party really thought this was a non-issue then why press so hared for a North-East assembly?
28 - If only we could all see the political world with your dispassionate clarity Roger!
Perception is everything - and whether or not the majority on this site like it, the perception of the great British public is that GB has done an excellent job. You may not like that, but it is true. And remember, post TB, a high percentage of disillusioned Labour voters will return to the colours. I think Mike has got it wrong
21-Blue2win-Hard to see anything othet than a labour coronation,but will his tenure as PM be longer than Alec Douglas Home?
Agree that GB will have all the baggage of the TB years (which he fully supported) without the personality and presentational skills of TB and with the charisma of Michael Ancram.
Believe that TB with the help of the Tories will survive until at least 2008 and for several reasons will not be rushing to hand over to GB;what the economy will be like by then and the mood of backbench labour MP’s is anyone’s guess.
21 Blue2Win. I always enjoy your misifs from the land of misrule. Your enthusiatic banging of the drum for the Tories would put Ring Star to shame.
BTW I note you now advocating Lib Dem policy of federalism for the UK !!
Chinese/Jacobite Proverb : Voters bitten by Tory shake for 18 years are frightened by Monty Python return of same !
Happy St. Andrews Day !!!!!!!
28. Roger - if I didn’t get the chance at least once a day to laugh myself silly at your posts, life really would be dull. So we are obviously great therapy for each other.
The next election is dead simple for the Tories. They have to play it on the ‘it’s time for change’ line. it’s that easy. if people want a change they’ll vote tory. if they don’t, they will vote labour again. 4 years away from the election it’s impossible to predict which mood will come out on top. the rest is for the birds …
What I think that people are not looking at is who Blair wants to follow him and ‘ensure his legacy holds’ (whatever that may be). I remain unconvinced that it’s Gordon, but am not sure who he would be looking at instead.
As for the economy - whilst it is said that it’s all about the economy, what people actually look at is there own personal well-being, not the general economic environment. In this regard I think Brown has been very astute in putting a lot of economic problems into the future without it being obvious.
No, we’re not heading for economic meltdown, we’re heading for gentle decline, mediocre growth, higher taxes, dysfunctional public services, screwed-up pensions and general eurosclerosis and dreariness. Quite enough to economically doom a government which will, by then, have been in power for 13 long years…
your average voters couldn’t give a toss about legacy. they want a job, a mortgage they can afford, decent local schools and hospitals.
All Governments lose in the end; just like all political careers end in failure.
The wishful thinking going on here though is absurd, the Tories have a very long, painful road ahead - Cameron might get them there in the end, but the strategy he seems set upon requires him to go through the Lib Dems before he even starts denting Labour.
36 bally eric. I think the “time for a change” arguement will be nullified by Gordon taking over from Tony, as Major/Thatcher. The more so as GB is seen as the antitheseis in style to TB and on that count alone will not disqualify Labour for another term.
not sure that’s true. major came from nowhere as far as the average non-political junkie voter was concerned. most voters known brown and blair as part of the same team. i think it’ll be harder for gb to get away with it like major did…
34 - In the long run it may be the only way to hold the UK together. I fear that the present settlement is not sustainable.
Hope you have good St. Andrews day - about the only SNP policy I agree with is it should be a public holiday - although I will be having a good swally in honour of our patron saint this evening!
42 bally eric. Agreed but GB’s ratings remain very good in contrast to TB. Presently GB has the advantage of not being Tony, having wide experience of government and remaining popular.
This bet depends very much on when Our Dear Leader departs. I think DC’s strategy of supporting Blair over certain issues, could keep him in number ten longer, whilst stirring up trouble in the Labour party. The longer this goes on, the less chance of a coronation.
28 Come on Roger. Having recently acquired ‘Brazil’ on DVD I can unequivocally say that Terry Gilliam is a genius. But that is not a word that I’d ever even think of applying to Blue2Win
By the way, JackW, I saw your comment on a previous thread about your conjugal whatnots. If you wanted regular s*x, why on earth did you get married? See two websites: nomarriage.com and americanwomensuck.com
It’s an odd thing about men - we all saw our mothers make our fathers’ lives miserable, and we all thought it would be different for us …
47 - More to the point if Jack wants regular s*x he probably shouldn’t use the phrase ‘rumpy-pumpy’ - it’s not exactly the language of love!
43 Hi Max. I’m having a longish !! lunch in celebration with Scottish friends ….. and if we have time later this afternoon we’ll take over the rest of the government and the Conservatives !! … and all before teatime …… and is there honey for tea !!
No daily politics because of a Bishop being coronated. Bad business.
47/48 Fergus/Max. Not all married couples abstain after age 30 !! Mrs Jack W and I regularly troop through the “Aye” lobby !! … it’s a highly popular amendment chez Jack W …. and we have yet to lose a vote of confidence on the matter !!
48 and 49. Max and JackW - a happy St Andrew’s Day to all us Caledonians - wha’s like us!
Alba gu brath
Micheal Howard has just delivered a great line. ‘The only retirement the chancellor is planning for is the Prime Ministers’
53 woody. I think Blair used the line against Major when Redwood challenged him for the leadership. The old ones are the best !
32-Laptop ‘And remember,post TB,a high percentage of disillusioned labour voters will return to the colours’
If that were to happen,it would certainly be the first time,as all previous evidence is that votes lost during a party’s tenure in government stay that way.
If GB had resigned from the government on a matter of principle e.g war in Iraq,top up fees,90 day detention then voters would have a reason to return.
54. Fitted in better with the circumastances though.
47 - “See two websites… americanwomensuck.com”
Quite often without even being asked, I hear.
57. Quite, BV, but only if you are not married to them …
57book value. Shocking !! …. where abouts in America ?!?!
59 - I only know the East Coast, Jack, the red states are no doubt a different kettle of fish.
Happy St Andrew’s Day to you!
60 book value. Thank you. See you all later.
Its an attractive bet - lets see how Cameron does next Wednesday at PMQs.
I agree with those who say there’s a deal of wishful thinking on here from the Tory-inclined. If there is a historical parallel, then it’s the resignation of Wilson in 1976. Brown, like Callaghan, has been at the power centre of Labour for years. I don’t doubt he will succeed Blair and, as Major did in 1990, he will be able to re-unite the party behind him. It may even be enough to win him the next election as it was for Major in 1992 who triumphed despite a pretty poor economic record in the preceding couple of years.
There is, however, a longer-term issue and it’s that all Governments have a shelf-life. This can be defined quite simply. In the first term, an incoming Government spends its time putting right the mess and mistakes of its predecessor. Then, in the second term, it begins to enact the policies created and crafted in Opposition. This may or may not continue into the third term after which the problems begin. It is very difficult for any Government to intellectually renew while in office. The Government either runs out of steam or seeks to implement ever more radical legislation, often initially mooted by parties in Opposition, which causes internal political strife. Both the Tory Governments of the 1950s and 1980s eventually succumbed and there are signs Labour will too.
It is through the process of re-assessment and the luxury of the time to do it that parties re-invent. The Conservatives have had plenty of time to come up with new ideas and policies and there is plenty of evidence of that. However, it will not be until the second term of a Cameron Government that we will really know what he is about.
It may be that Brown will get his mandate next time though there’s no guarantee. In 1964, Labour won by only 4, in 1992 Major won by 21. I think it’s a fair bet that next time the result will be very close - perhaps a hung Parliament. My only thought is that a narrow Labour win next time makes a heavy Labour defeat in say 2013 more likely.
The other point is that the waning of a Government’s powers is often accompanied by a wider cultural and social change. The Conservatives looked out-of-touch in 1964 whereas Labour under Wilson appeared modern. In 1997, Major looked a thing of the past while Blair seemed to have the zeitgeist. By 2009, we may be moving into a new social and cultural phase - if Cameron can identify with that, he has a big chance. I’m almost certain a Davis-led Tory Party would not have been able to identify with the economic, social, cultural and political aspirations of Britain in 2009. Cameron MAY be able to but he may also have to recognise that the new zeitgeist may not sit entirely happily with core Tory beliefs. Just as Wilson and Blair slaughtered some sacred cows to match the mood of the time, it may be that Cameron has to drag elements of his party, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.
[52] “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us? Dam’ few and they’re all deid!”
A Sassenach writes: I’m always thankful for small mercies…
Happy St Andrews all! After celebrating the last 4 days up in Scotland I am now in Lancashire - but I will be there in spirit as you all sup on those spirits!
63. “Just as Wilson and Blair slaughtered some sacred cows to match the mood of the time, it may be that Cameron has to drag elements of his party, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.”
I live in hope.
An excellent musing, Stodge, well written.
63 - Excellent summary and analysis if I may say so. But what sacred cows did Wilson slay? Curiously, he was the ‘left-wing’ candidate in 1963 and once said, “I’m a bolshevik leading a tsarist Shadow Cabinet”. I rate Blair immeasurably higher in that respect. I would say this, wouldn’t I, but I don’t feel Cameron’s task in reshaping the party will in practice be as onerous.
52&65 - Of course the sad thing is more people (in Scotland) will probably celebrate St Patricks day than will celebrate St Andrews day - thanks largely to the marketing department at Guiness! If only Scotland’s national drink manufacturer would get behind St Andrews day in the same way - anyone know the number for Buckfast Abbey?
stodge - wise words. can we have that posted up every day please? i think it’ll be hard for labour to win because govts naturally run out of steam/become lazy/etc etc. but i’m tired of reading tory prophets of doom on the economy when i remember nearly ALL of my family losing their jobs under the Thatcher govt and many friends losing theirs under Major.
67 - Wilson changed Labour’s nationalisation policies from previous ’shopping list’ or broad schemes to a small number of specifics (steel industry most notably) in 1964. While in office he became more and more radical about dropping old Labour ideas, including nationalisation, planning, anti-Europeanism and (regrettably) raising the school leaving age. In 1970 he was clearly to the right of Crosland. The 1970 manifesto is bland and vague and in many ways ideologically foreshadows New Labour. However, the Conservatives nearly managed to absorb the 1964 ‘modernisation’ theme for themselves. If they had elected Maudling (or Macleod) in 1963 I think they would have won in 1964 after a successful renewal of their ideology and appeal.
63 “it may be that Cameron has to drag elements of his party, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century” -there’s no ‘may’ about it.
71. I certainly hope he drops some the Daily Mail driven policies. The choice of party chairman will be interesting.
Still Brown if Blair goes soon. There is no single alternative which there needs to be.
68 - Max, didn’t you know that Buckfast is actually an invidious English drink sold to Scots to keep them in their unionist skackles?
Surely Tennents would be a more suitable home-grown (or is that home-groan?) product? Can’t see Jack McConnell or any of the MSPs coming out to promote the idea of though…
72-What are the Daily Mail driven policies? Are they unpopular with the country at large or merely with the chattering classes?
oh dear…have 3 election defeats not told you anything?
63. What he said.
75. Perhaps I should have said Daily Mail tone.
75. btw, are you the same Peter I had the Portillo discussion with?
74 - I did! But it’s been adopted as one of our own. Tennents is OK but nothing tastes quite as sweet as the purple nectar! I remember having a bottle of it before a rugby club disco - it wasn’t a pretty sight.
21. “Brown should be the Tory pick PM for a party that will have been in government for 13 unlucky years at the next election.”
Cameron can even look at Blair’s record and use the same slogan as Wilson did:
“after 13 years of Tory misrule. . . . .”
John B at 46. I agree that Gilliam is sometimes a genius but he is always a fantasist and it was this that put me in mind of the Tory posters.
82. I thought you were mellowing Roger.
Oh, I think Roger is a much kinder gentler poster than he was in the run up to May 5th.
Re. 67, didn’t Mrs Thatcher say that she was a revolutionary leader trapped in a Conservative government, or words to that effect?
Re. Brown, when I saw him answer a question at the CBI Conference as if he was giving a speech or lecture, I was reminded of Queen Victoria’s complaint about Gladstone (and, indeed, Brenda’s complaint about Ted Heath) that the PM addressed her as if he was speaking to a public meeting. It may not be long into a Brown Premiership before Blair’s more conversational style is missed, and Cameron is nothing if not conversational in style (as well as being optimistic in a way Blair hasn’t been for years). Watching old clips of Ted Heath as PM, I’m often reminded of Brown (except, of course, the strangulated vowels). Leaders in waiting often don’t have a happy time, from Balfour onwards (and, of course, there’s the unhappy parallel with Paul Martin in Canada).
On the other hand, I think all this is far more likely to be a problem for Labour and Brown once he is PM, rather than representing an obstacle to his becoming PM after Blair (unless Blair can hold on sufficiently long for a viable, or half-viable, successor - such as Hillary Benn - to be found). Certainly after having witnessed scenes akin to those of the Politburo under Stalin at Conference last year(when no-one, least of all the regional organisers, dared to be seen to be the first to stop clapping after Brown’s speech, and my own hands were sore from clapping), there’s little doubt that Brown will win the CLP vote.
Dean’s last minute derailment in the Iowa Caucasus may have more import for Hillary Clinton than Brown. Apart from fear that he would lose the General Election (and heavily), it was lack of likeability that cost him. While Hillary isn’t short-tempered and snarly like Dean, she is, on the other hand, often seen as very frosty, the sort of politician who looks over people’s shoulders to see if there’s anyone more interesting to talk to (completely different from Bill, whose ability to make people the centre of the world was memorably captured in the novel Primary Colours). That’s what may well allow Mark Warner to beat her, being more likeable (or, as with Kerry beating Dean, less dislikeable).
Re. Bill, I meant, of course, his ability to make other people feel as if they’re the centre of the world.
79-no! Sorry.
I think where most people express an opinion they are more likely to back Daily Mail-like policies/tone, eg. gay rights, immigration, Europe, taxation, crime. However, this need not mean they are prepared to vote solely on these issues. Yet. Whether this will change or not, time will tell.
82. Roger, I think maybe you should try making one or two accurate predictions on this site, before calling others fantasists.
I wonder if the following shows that Charles Clarke realises a slight improvement in the Tory vote will dish the Lib Dems chance of damaging Labour.
“By David Barrett, PA Home Affairs Correspondent
An extraordinary appeal to the new Tory leader to reform his party for the benefit of democracy was made by Home Secretary Charles Clarke today.
A strong party to confront Labour in the centre ground in British politics would strengthen democracy, he told the Newspaper Society’s Newspaper Conference annual lunch in London.
Mr Clarke took the unusual step of offering the Conservatives advice on how to improve their party.
The reforms they needed to make could be based on tactics used by Labour in opposition, including those Mr Clarke himself used while chief of staff to former Labour leader Neil Kinnock, he said.
“I think our democracy would be stronger if we had a major opposition party that was confronting us in the centre of British politics rather than the nonsense we have seen recently,” said Mr Clarke.
He urged the Tories to formulate strong policies.
“Unless we have a clear sense of policy … then the people of this country will not turn to an alternative,” he said.
“My challenge to David Cameron and David Davis is that they need to sort out this policy question.”
They also needed to improve the Conservative Party’s communications operation, he added.
“Communications is very difficult. Michael Howard in his last Prime Minister’s Question Time this morning paid tribute to Peter Mandelson.
“Peter’s great genius, as some would see it, is to focus on communications as a means of taking things forward.
“He was a genius at that in the early days.
“The Conservatives have to do that. It’s no good inventing statistics and misquoting.
“They have to communicate in a clear way what they are going to do.”
Mr Clarke went on to say that the general election campaign this year had seen a very low level of debate.
“I’m absolutely determined we will not have another election campaign like that, with such scurrilous campaigning taking place,” he told an audience of 60 journalists and newspaper executives at the Lanesborough Hotel at Hyde Park Corner.
Woody at 83 and Sean at 84 …..Do I detect Tory splits….?
Interesting prog on radio about whether Tories have or should change.
74. In my parts Buckfast is known as ‘Lurgan Champagne’, and in some places can be bought by the glass! Classy.
Michael Cockerell has made a documentary on the Tory party apparently. Question to him; can the new Tory leader beat Gordon Brown? He answered
He thinks the Tories have a good record of choosing innovative leaders. First Jewish leader, first woman leader and now the first leader who doesn’t know what he’s doing (sorry the last one was me thinking aloud!)
87. That’s OK then. Getting back to policy and tone, our last manifesto was rubbish. It was Victor Meldrew stuff and offered little hope or vision. Throughtout the campiagn, we were perceived as the anti party. Anti immigrants, anti gypsys ect. While that may appeal to essex man who rings up talksport to complain about ‘them bloody foreigners’, it turns off many people including the middle classes who used to be the bedrock of our vote.
What we need to do is keep the sensible policies with regards to crime ect and start making progress on our non core issues such as the envoirnment. We should have come out against this ludicrous SIPS tax plan on 2nd homes to help remove the perception that we are a selfish party. We need to show how lower taxes doesn’t mean slash and burning of public services but helps growth to provide more money for the services. Until we offer positive rather than negative tone and policy, then we’ll be going nowhere.
93 - DC will hardly be the first one who doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing. Or has IDS been forgotten already?
94 - I agree with a lot of that Woody. I think that tone (superficial as that may sound)was a big part of the problem. Michael Howard was never going to come across as a nice guy nor do I think Davis would have. Cameron on the other hand seems pleasant and is perhaps better placed to win back some of the AB’s who have deserted us in recent years.
For those who want to get into the details of the Canadian election:
http://www.nodice.ca/etalk/viewtopic.php?t=42&sid=61b70aa545930798347b27275bac1b15
92 - I’m sure there used to be a pub in Edinburgh that served Bucky fom a crystal decanter - doubt it made it taste any better!
96. 94 - I agree with a lot of that Woody
Seconded
Re: 93 - It’s a fascinating question and probably the key to how everything will pan out politically in the next three or four years. As a non-Conservative, I imagine some Tories will be of the view that it’s none of my concern whether and how their party should change. I would argue that some outside perspective may not be such a bad thing given that the Party will not only need to re-capture those who voted Tory until 1997 but also a number of those who have never voted Tory.
If the Conservative Party doesn’t actually have to change, it has to appear different. That doesn’t mean wholesale abandonment of core principles but it does mean a recognition that the priorities of society in 2009 won’t be those of the 1980s or 1990s. I do think that while it might be tempting to pursue a line of tax cuts for example, that policy would fail to recognise that people do appreciate and want quality public services and there remains a latent fear that the Tories will resort to spending cuts that will compromise the delivery of these services.
More than anything else, I think the Conservatives have to campaign with a smile on their face - they have to look optimistic and positive. I think Howard in particular spent too much time being negative. Cameron could go a long way with a smile and a more upbeat tone. People will be more interested in hearing what he intends to do, not simply attacking the Government.
But Woody, Max et al, who was it who wrote the manifesto at the last election?
I think it was a good manifesto/campaign for getting back into the game by motivating our supporters in marginal seats, and it achieved that aim; it was not a good manifesto for winning a majority, but I suspect that that was not the aim.
100 - Again I agree wholeheartedly - another well thought out and constructive post Stodge. Although I feel Howard probably did as well as he could with the hand he been dealt.
I don’t believe GB is as dour as some make out but Cameron will still be an interesting conrast to him.
101 - It’s a fair point Sean - and as I said above I think Howard (and Cameron as part of the team) did as well as could have been expected given the circumstances. I don’t feel it was a manifesto for government though - more a manifesto that set out to stop further erosion and further loss of seats and this was precisely what it did.
Completely and utterly off-topic but the SNP’s latest document on the mechanics of Scottish independance states, “Every person domiciled in Scotland on the date Scotland becomes independent acquires Scottish citizenship.“.
Given a) his castle in Ross-shire and b) the continual refusal to grant him a British Passport, will Mohammed al-Fayed be supporting the SNP in forthcoming elections?
101. It was probably the best that could be cobbled together in the aftermath of IDS and the worries about Lib Dem inroads into our vote. The manifesto saw off the Lib Dems and has given us an inroad into the labour vote to move on from.
What we must never do though, is get into the situation where we have to produce that kind of manifesto again. I would hope the core vote are so fed up with labour that they’ll vote for us whatever (like old labour and new labour). What we have to do now is reverse perceptions. We must reverse the perpection we are a selfish party by explaning how our policies benefit society and those at the bottom. We also need to go into traditional left wing terrority. Show we care about the envoirnment (which Oliver Letwin has made a good start to), show conservative principles apply to international development. If we don’t do this, we’ll never get the young vote and have all the future of a snowman.
On Sky News (really!), there was a program the other day on people’s perceptions of Tory policies. The conclusion seemed to be they liked the (Daily Mailesque) policies, but were turned off when told they were Tory policies. I think the presence of a Colonel Blimp character in the piece rested some credibility to the program though.
103-Agree! What happened to the days when CK confidently predicted the LDs would overtake the Tories? Reminded me of David Steel’s “go back to your constituencies and prepare for government…”
104 - And if you’ve been happy to be a British citizen all your life will you be allowed to retain it?
63 Stodge Excellent summary, if I may say so. It hits most of the key issues and arguments smack on.
Milburn could be a winner. Although I find him a bit of a bullshitter. Or Charles Clarke comes across very well in the broadcast media. On the other hand he’s mishandled the politics of both tuition fees and terror detention laws, so he’s been Blair’s weak spot in that respect, and may have made more than his fair share of enemies. If Hilary Benn tacks right a little he could be a winner. Alistair Darling? And by the time we’ve had a leadership election campaign we may find there are one or two others emerge that we hadn’t realised before.
Blue2win - are you seriously suggesting that more than 1% of voters care about devolution?
Bally eric. I think the economy needn’t be in nearly as bad a shape for Brown to start losing votes as it had to be for Thatcher. Thatcher was being compared to ultra-unionised Britain. And we’ve got used to economic success now. Labour is in the lead on economic competence at the moment but I doubt if that assessment runs very deep. It could switch back with a mild recession.
It’s a really interesting point about Blair and his ‘advice’ from the sidelines to his successor. Surely he’ll have the sense and loyalty not to do a Thatcher to Labour? Also there’s the issue of the Blair endorsement someone mentions. Failure to endorse Brown publicly and with some warmth will be seen as ‘vote anyone but Brown’.
106. Roger reported that (wrongly as it happened). A lot of the policies are thing you can’t disagree with though. Do you want more police, less MRSA ect.
107 - Mysteriously yes: “Scottish citizenship may be held alongside British citizenship or that of any other country” although I assume that Britain here refers to continuing union between Wales and England.
104 - interesting that the SNP would retain sterling on independence: interest rates presumably would be determined by the BoE with reference to conditions in England, Wales and NI only.
[112] BV, your use of the word “interesting” reminds me of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In (which you can’t possibly have seen at your age…):
“Interesting… but stupid“
111 - It’s probably pretty academic anyway. I don’t believe devolution has killed nationalism ’stone dead’ but I can’t see a big SNP breakthrough in 2007 either. So hopefully we wont see the 300th anniversary of the Union being interupted by divorce proceedings!
112 - Remeber also that Scotland has its own banking system so I’m not sure whether an independant Scotland using Sterling means BoE sterling or something called Sterling issued by, say, the Bank of Scotland or other central banking body. I can’t really see a future independant SNP government relying on the City of London to issue bonds (although it would be a perfectly logical thing to do but would lack prestige).
I notice that the issue of the Scottish share of debt repayment obligations wasn’t really tackled either.
Nice change of tone by the SNP. Weren’t they cheerleaders for the Euro at one point? Does this shilly shallying over the great issues of the day demonstrate continued political immaturity.
Taking the example of Ireland, from 1922 to 1978 (or was it 1979?) they were in a Sterling union with the rest of the UK. Presumably a similar notion is entertained by the SNP?
55. Gordon may appear more left-wing than Blair even after his election. If so then I think some Labour voters may come back from the Lib Dems, but there may also be Labour voters who go Tory.
Of course if Gordon were to find a popular war to win just before the election then it’ll be yet another Labour landslide …
Stoodge, good posts. However I’m not convinced by the conventional wisdom that governments don’t ıntellectually renew while in office. Isn’t what happens, simply that no-one likes the people in charge and this strengthens as time goes on? Also we’re focussing too much on the British experience. It is possible for democracies to re-elect the same party for decades. Look at Japan, Sweden and India - admittedly all against fragmented oppositıon, but Britain is moving that way with what’s now nearly two major opposition parties.
Advising your opponents on what to do, as Clarke did, is really arrogant and is at least as potentially humiliating as being scornful.
Woody at 105. The Tories don’t seem to have made inroads into the Labour vote in the last election. They polled the same as last time. Overall, there was a swing from Labour not to the Tories but to the Lib Dems. Clearly this didn’t happen in Tory-Lib Dem marginals, and it was concentrated in previously safe Labour seats. I think what happened was that (a) tactical Labour voters could no longer bring themselves to do it, and went Lib Dem, and (b) old Labour supporters finally deserted the party. Both these groups had probably already moved over in Tory-Lib Dem marginals under the barrage of Lib Dem leaflets.
115 - true. It’s a bit of a tendentious description in their manifesto, though, if what they really mean is using a curreny called the pound but not issued by the BoE. I know that in the current system, the Scottish banks issue notes, but these presumably are backed by their holdings of sterling. Retaining that system under independence would still amount to abandoning any real consideration of Scotland in interest rate setting.
Gavin, the House of Commons report on the election is interesting, because it measures swings by types of constituency. Overall, in seats where the Conservatives were in first place, and the Lib Dems second, and vice versa, there was a small swing in percentage terms from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives . In fact, the swing ought in theory to have been enough to give the Conservatives a net gain of 5 seats from the Lib Dems, rather than a net gain of 2.
In percentage terms, the Conservative vote share fell very slightly in Labour seats, but this marks a real division between Labour marginals (where the Conservative vote share rose) and safe Labour seats (where the Conservative vote share dropped markedly).
117. Small point so lets just say the labour victory margin was reduced. As you’ll see from my posts, I’m not claiming the last election was any great success.
No disrespect to those of you with the detail to hand but surely the reality of the General Election was virtual stalemate for the my party, a large but ‘affordable’ drop in support for New Labour and a swing in support for the Lib Dems away from disaffected Tories and to disaffected Labour voters.
The interesting point is that what the parties are going to do about it. For Labour the obvious answer as referred to frequently on here, is a re-birth with Gordon Brown doing a kind of John Major and filling his cabinet with a bunch of new (more left wing) faces and generally dumping many of his predecessors less popular policies; for us the answer is also clear - as has also been well debated here with a consensus that a new optimism and wider policies incorporating the environment, more inclusiveness and ‘one-nation’ fairness is the answer, especially if those policies are fronted by the new face of David Cameron.
But what do the Lib dems do next? Where do they go if the Conservatives renew support across the spectrum and labour succeed in reasserting themselves as a proper left of centre party?
I have a number of friends and colleagues who have voted Lib Dem pretty consistantly and are for the first time unsure of what to do with their votes if and when the other political parties really do shift in the way we expect.
What would the chances then be of the Lib dems making 100 seats?
“We must reverse the perpection we are a selfish party by explaning how our policies benefit society and those at the bottom”.
This is self evident but if you had listened to the Cockerell interview on radio yeaterday (or presumably watch his documentary this Saturday) you’ll realize how difficult this simple aspiration is. You’ll hear Norman Tebbit say that if this is the kind of Tory party you want “go and join the Liberals or the ‘Socialists’”. I know Tebbitt isn’t center stage anymore but it can’t be easy having him and his ilk throwing stones from the sidelines.
It is also a very long process to change the perception of a party (or anything for that matter) in a short timescale. It took Labour at least ten years and even then a majority still thought they were “Socialists” and wanted to nationalize everything. Tebbit still does!
122. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. In a world of image led politics, Cameron might be able to turn it round quicker than you might imagine. Tebbit is as relevant to many voters as Hattersley is to labour voters.
Sean - thanks for that, that’s interesting. Why do you think the Tory share dropped sharply in safe Labour seats, but rose elsewhere?
Marcus - if both of those recommendations are fulfilled, then presumably Lib Dems are vulnerable in both directions. However (a) I’m not clear this is a good Labour strategy, as it would lose votes where it matters most, to the Tories, and (b) as you say it will be extremely difficult for the Tories to persuade people they aren’t only interested in their ‘rich friends’. They will need policies that spend money on poor people at the expense of rich people, and that will be difficult to get through the party. Cameron is going to have to find a clause 4 style battle.
First, thanks for the kind words about my comments yesterday. This is generally one of the more civilised forums and it’s good to be able to contribute in an environment where thoughtful debate flourishes.
Re: 121 - This will of course be the core question of the LDs and to a certain extent underlines the dilemma the Party has had for many decades - namely, that it’s electoral fate is not in its own hands. I have some causes for optimism, however. First, this is not 1970 - the party is far stronger numerically and electorally and a wipeout of that scale isn’t, I think, likely. Second, LD incumbents aren’t that easy to shift as Marcus and Rik will confirm. It may be that a degree of “personal” vote plus hard work will enable a number of seats to be held against any national swing.
I also think that there is a substantial minority of people who would not vote Conservative even if David Cameron walked up their garden path with a wheelbarrow full of tenners. There is anecdotal evidence that, especially in the age groups 35-54, there is deep-seated hostility to the Tories as a throwback from the Thatcher/Major years as there is doubtless a growing core of younger voters who would never vote Labour. Experiences like negative equity create a resentment that will be almost impossible to shift. Finally, tribal political allegiences aren’t what they were - the LDs will get their share of coverage in the election and, despite much of the comment on here to the contrary, CK is probably still the LD’s main asset. The opinions of the policy wonks and activists in other parties aren’t terribly important. Most of the polling evidence suggests that if not thought of Prime Ministerial, there is no wide loathing for Kennedy. It remains to be seen how the public will take to Cameron after a couple of years. As I recall, Mrs T. wasn’t widely liked though she was respected before 1979.
Re: 117 - Of course the British experience isn’t paralleled elsewhere, Gavin, and I fully accept that some Parties have had significant periods in office in other countries. I don’t want to talk about this on a country-by-country basis as everywhere is slightly different whether it is a different voting system or different historical political development or a different political culture which may be far more dynastic than exists here.
“Tebbit is as relevant to many voters as Hattersley is to labour voters”
I just don’t agree. Tebbit represents many peoples ideas of a Tory and I’m sure a lot of the membership see the world through similar eyes. The Sky program mentioned above showed that when it comes to perceptions of the Tories Tebbit is spot on.
Nonetheless a few straws in the wind. The Tories have shown in the last few months what an irrelevance the Lib Dems are. All this talk of becoming the main opposition was just pie in the sky. They are a protest party no more and no less.If anything vaguely interesting is happening with the Tories they disappear altogether. Their 22% at the last election just showed a larger protest than usual. If the Tories do manage to get their act together they will be in a straight fight with Labour.
Interesting post as always Stodge. I can’t agree with your optimism for the Lib Dems though. The third party have always done well when the conclusion has been foregone. If I remember the Alliance even outpolled CK’s Lib Dem ‘05 result in ‘83 when Thatcher was a cast iron certainty. The public always like a punt to nothing.
Gavin, I think that good targetting had a lot to do with it. It’s probably more illuminating though to look at changes in vote numbers, rather than changes in vote share. On average, the Conservative vote barely moved in safe Labour seats, but vote share fell due to higher turnout. On average, the Conservative vote rose by c.800 per constituency in Labour marginals; and on average, it rose by c.1,200 in Con/Lib Dem battlegrounds.
Overall, I’d say the Conservatives did pick up net votes from Lib Dems, Labour and former non-voters, but in turn lost some support to a variety of minor parties. Interestingly, the Conservatives wouldn’t have to pick up many further votes from the Lib Dems to make quite an impressive gain in terms of seats.
The Lib Dems of course picked up a drove of former Labour voters, especially Muslims, urban intellectuals and students.
Gavin at 124 “Cameron is going to have to find a clause 4 style battle” I hope it’s not as bloody, but we do have to prove that we want to make life better for anyone who wants to get on, and not just those who already have.
One idea I favour is looking at some universal ‘benefits’ like child allowances and perhaps looking to exclude the very wealthy from recieving them by right.
I think it is morally unsustainable that someone earning less than the minimum wage is paying income tax so that extremely high earners can recieve completely unneccessary but expensive benefits like free dental and eye care while pregnant, and of course the child allowance.
And I also wonder about the fairness of wealthy pensioners living in £1m homes still benefitting from free tv licences, and the winter heating allowance while some of their less well-off neigbours can’t meet their council tax payments from the state pension.
To tackle these issues and others like them will involve upsetting large numbers of our ‘traditional’ supporters. I am certain, having spoken to many of our memebers, that we are ready to do this.
129. I quite agree Marcus. I think the income tax threshold is something we really need to address. Of the other issues, whilst it’s a ridiculous situation that a millionaire gets the same pensioner benefits as poorer pensioners, to remove them would increase means testing and maintain or increase the bureaucracy or dealing with them.
As it happens Marcus, I think a fair amount of our support (in London and the South) on May 5th did come from those who want to get ahead, whether professional people in West London, or skilled working class voters in the new towns.
I think we have more of a problem retaining the votes of people who already have a lot - a point which Nick Palmer has made.
In general, I’m not convinced that an extension of means-testing would either encourage people to save more for their retirement, which they need to, or be electorally popular.
Like I said, these are difficult issues.
I hate means testing too - but the concept of universality of benefits - precious to the socialist founding fathers of the Welfare State in anticipation of a society where there weren’t going to be any rich people - was introduced to encourage ‘buy-in’ of the concept of a genuine welfare state.
The concept was that if everyone apprently benefited from the welfare system then society would continue to feel cohesive and unified (as it had done during the war) and the better off would not resent paying in to the system, nor would all members of society mind or notice that post war levels of taxation would stay largely in line with wartime levels, with the state taking a level of control over the economy way in advance of anything seen in peacetime before.
This was fine sentiment no doubt 50 years ago for the war-weary and largely socialist civil servants who cooked it up - ever fearful of the terrible social damage inequity and poverty had wreaked on Europe during the 1930’s - but in todays world where we are 90% of the population are middle class, but just with variable degrees of prosperity against 1% who are super rich and 9% who are the underclass the system is riddled with faults, of which a few are pointed out in my earlier post.
The Labour party have missed the opportunity they were given by the country in 1997 to radically overhaul the five giants of the welfare state - housing, health, education, employment and pensions. They have missed their chance to be radical and bring the system into line with the reality of the modern world.
The public are ahead of the politicians on this. They know full well that the system is outdated and old-fashioned and they want change.
I don’t often agree with Blair but I was nodding like mad when he said at the Conference that he hadn’t been radical enough in his early years.
We must be prepared to take the decisions that Blair has missed, and that means questioning many of the founding principles that lie at the heart of the welfare system as well as changing the delivery end.
Like I said, these are difficult issues.
I hate means testing too - but the concept of universality of benefits - precious to the socialist founding fathers of the Welfare State in anticipation of a society where there weren’t going to be any rich people - was introduced to encourage ‘buy-in’ of the concept of a genuine welfare state.
The concept was that if everyone apprently benefited from the welfare system then society would continue to feel cohesive and unified (as it had done during the war) and the better off would not resent paying in to the system, nor would all members of