Guest article: Is Labour’s century-long Party over?
July 7th, 2006A guest contribution from Tabman
“The founding of the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marx. Discuss.”
At the heart of this classic A-Level Politics question is an examination of the founding coalition of the Labour Party – the finding of common interest between the “Working Man”, in the form of the TUC, and the “Concerned Middle Class” represented by socialist intellectuals such as the Fabians. This founding coalition has changed shape and emphasis over the last 100 years, but its continued existence remains the reason why the Labour Party is in government today.
The extension of the Universal Franchise, the Liberal Party’s self-destruction and ruthless exploitation of the political situation by the Labour leadership led the party to become the natural home of the “progressive left” by the end of the Second World War; a situation that has pertained for over 60 years.
But could “Time” soon be called on Labour’s Party?
The signs of fracture are there. Membership has fallen below 200,000, the calls for Blair’s departure grow ever louder, and articles by the likes of John Harris chronicle the disillusionment felt within the activist base. That article hints at the reason for the strength of the Labour movement in retaining its middle class support, and the potential catastrophic effects if it loses it:
After four decades of membership, [Rina Silverman] left the Labour party in 2005 … As with so many activists, the party is in the family; her late father-in-law was the Labour MP Sidney Silverman, whose private member’s bill led to the abolition of capital punishment. When she resigned her membership in 2005, she felt a bracing sense of guilt. “You think about the people who came before you and how they would regard you. I was letting my family down. I suppose it’s a minority of people who really are that committed to this. But for us, it’s like a religion. It’s taken the place of religion.”
This Concerned Middle Class vote, once characterised on this site as “GMW” (Guardian Men and Women), and represented within the activist base by the likes of Ms Silverman, has deep roots. The Labour Party is deep in its psyche, and its loyalties are strong. But it is only part of the Labour-voting coalition. The other two important elements can be characterised as the Urban Working Class (UWC), and Aspirant New Middle Class (ANMC).
Ever since it got the vote, the UWC have viewed the Labour Party as “their” party. They have always believed Labour has had their interests at heart, although that loyalty has been severely tested as of late. That is why Labour has put so much effort into the likes of ASBOs – yet turnout in urban constituencies has declined dramatically, and the rise of the likes of the BNP highlights that this group feel marginalised. The UWC are on the front-line as recipients of the State’s support, and as their expectations are raised above the ability of services to deliver, their frustration seeks an outlet. Until now the chasing pack have been so far behind in these constituencies that Labour has been able to ignore them without suffering the consequences. Yet May 2005 showed the initial tremors of a potential electoral earthquake, if the core vote stay-at-homes increase, or the opposition coalesces around the main challenger.
The other key element in New Labour’s coalition of voters are the ANMC. Such voters are not overly ideological, but tend to support the party who they think best reflects their aspirations. This group has been characterised as “Mondeo Man” or “Worcester Woman”, and tend to be the swing voters in key marginals upon whom much attention is focussed. Whilst they remain comfortable and optimistic, my hunch is that they will continue to vote Labour - “It’s the economy, stupid”. But any economic downturn that affected their actual or perceived well-being would see this group head off into the sunset. The Conservatives would most likely assume that these voters will “return” to them, and in many cases they would be right. But nothing in politics can be taken for granted, and the Lib Dems’ recent tax-cutting initiatives could, if played properly, persuade some of this group that there is an alternative that isn’t Tory.
What does the imminent accession of Gordon Brown hold for these three types of voter?
Brown is often portrayed as having the Labour Party at his very core, and he carries the aspirations of the Labour Left, for so long marginalised under Blair. Yet Brown knows he has little room to manoeuvre if he is to retain the ANMC support deemed crucial to Labour success. Yet, “more of the same” tests the loyalty of the bedrock of Labour support – GMW and UWC. This dam of disillusionment threatens to burst, and the deluge could take the Labour Party with it. But where will the final, spent trickle of votes end up?
On the face of it, the Conservatives are best placed to benefit from those UWC who decide to vote, especially in the marginals. But the in the real homeland of the UWC, the main opposition is now in many cases in the form of the Liberal Democrats. But there are ominous signs that it could be none of the “traditional” parties who ultimately benefit, with many staying at home, or going with the populists.
Cameron has made much of trying to woo the GMW vote with recent pronouncements on tax and the public services, and here, too, he could make gains for the blue column. But many of the public sector middle class would rather cut their arms off than vote Conservative, so he has much still to do to turn things around. The Lib Dems may benefit, especially if Civil Liberties issues come to the fore, but Labour is a religion for this group and its faith has been shaken greatly without collapse before.
But there is now a strong sense that Labour’s coalition is starting to look at its collective watches, drink the remains of its drinks, and eye the door. There are other events that now look more enticing, and this will make the politics of the next decade fascinating. We could be entering a phase of electoral developments similar to the events of the 1920s - four elections and massive swings between parties in terms of votes and seats. The relative size of the Third and Minority party blocs in Parliament is a massively unpredictable factor on outcomes.
This will prove an exhilirating white-knuckle ride for the activist and the punter. Fasten your seatbelts!
Tabman is a Liberal Democrat activist and a regular contributor to discussions on this site.
MessageSpace Advertising
That’s an excellent article, Tabman. I agree with virtually every word. I’ll want to comment in more detail later, but some points are worth considering.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties are potentially under as much strain as Labour. It would be good if you performed a similar analysis of the groups that vote for those two parties, and how disaffected they may be.
Tony Blair’s political success has forced the Conservatives to move leftwards. Unlike the Labour left in the early nineties, the Conservative right do not consider that they have been proved wrong - and that causes tensions. Nor can the Conservatives rely on deference in this day and age, as they could in the Fifties, when they also moved left.
The new parties threaten the Lib Dems position as the anti-politics party. To take an extreme case, look at the results in East London in the recent local elections. Although never an area of great Lib Dem strength, Havering, Newham and Barking & Dagenham have all elected Lib Dem councillors, and some wards have generated big Lib Dem votes, in the recent past. Now they’re winning 2/3% per constituency, as protest voters turn to the newer parties and Independents.
Many thanks to Tabman for the thought-provoking article.
One of the things that comes through from this is the move back to political parties being run more through activists (in the ‘ideologically pure’) sense as opposed to members. This could be a problem for Labour - especially as they were determined to ‘water-down’ the activist base in the run-up to 1997.
However, it is also a fact of life that oppositions are better at gaining new members that opposition parties.
The Tories obviously suffered from this post 1997 with a large contingent of die-hards left in the party who were not representative of many strands of modern Britain. I’m never sure how the activist/membership/leadership balance works with the LibDems though as the leadership seems content to make up policiy which seems to be against all the instincts of the activists I know but which they then accept without complaint.
I also find Respect’s coalition of socially conservative muslim voters and (I assume) the traditional left socially liberal outlook (eg abortion, gay rights etc) to be quite incredible.
An interesting article from tabman on the challenge for Gordon Brown.
For sometime now I have had the view that unless Labour “renewed” itself under the right Leader it may fall further into a terminal decline. The loss of half its Members matches a decline in Councillors of nearly a half since 1997 (11,000 to 6,000). Within these figures is a major decline in its activists. The Labour party problem with Blair, is that his policy positions are so far adrift from the activist base that many have simply gone off and found something better to do. Labour may be entering the next GE (circa 08) with Membership well below 150,000 and a councillor base of 4,000 (less than LDs).
Gordon Brown knows that the answer is renewal. But to do that he has to first achieve the Leadership and secondly make policy statements more in line with his activist base. Unfortunately Brown seems incapable of getting the top job quickly and has shifted his policy positions closer to Blair. The reality for many activists is that they see the future as moving from a Ramsey McBlair (Dianne Abbot’s nickname) to a Ramsey McBrown.
When the Tories fell out of favour with the electorate, there was not a massive policy gap between activists and their sitting PM (Major). Europe was the one divisive issue, it was a very public matter and spawned UKIP. However within the Conservative party the breach was a narrow one. But with Labour the policy gaps are more extensive and more insidious. Blair has become a Tory PM in charge of a Labour party and Brown now looks likely to operate in a similar fashion.
Brown may have little choice. He has fewer years ahead of him than most of his MPs. He needs the middle ground voters now and therefore will sacrifice the activist base to try and win an election. These activists just cannot summon up the enthusiasm to go out and campaign with the voters for policy positions that are little different from Thatcher’s.
The Lib Dems have shown that it is the activist base that creates strong foundations for a party and Labour’s base looks to be built on sand. To get MPs requires Councillors, to get Councillors requires activists. A simple truth that Labour just does not get. It needs to renew itself but Gordon’s need to win in 08 will just delay that process as it will not be a true renewal more a “papering over the cracks”. I therefore agree with tabman that further decline for Labour just looks inevitable.
Top class article, Tabman. I also take Sean Fear’s point - I think there may soon be another guest contribution expanding on it…
Parties in government lose membership - end of story - and of course Labour has never been continuously in government for so long before.
4 - yes, this is the first in a mini-series of two contributions on the theme
It may worry Tabman to learn that I broadly agree with what is a thoughtful piece! There is probably a time lag but the loss of Councillors and members can only have a detrimental effect upon a party’s ability to campaign. It means for example that the local newsletters dont get delivered, that the fundraising functions are less likely to be arranged and attended, and ultimately that there is no-one to be the face of that party locally.
In SUtton with the wiping out of the Labour Party from the Council, that ability for them to obtain some free publicity from their Cllr activity has gone. Across the country this is being mirrored and it is similar to the loss of Conservative representation in many of the major cities of the North.
The only answer as I can see it is for parties to actively seek out good local people who will fly its flag for many years in an area without any real hope of electoral success initially. Only when the party is seen as re-established will electoral support return. This was why it was so important in Reading for the Conservatives to start making the incremental gains that we have. Progress which was massively helped by the election of a Conservative MP in Reading East.
Possibly the best guest article yet, especially in terms of the potential for debate it generates. FWIW much as I would like to believe Labour’s natural support base is set to crumble, I have a feeling it may prove surprisingly durable. One of the main reasons for this is economic - in an economy with a large public sector, there will be a large constituency dependent directly or indirectly on the state. Recent data showing how large a % of regional GDP is created in the public sector in some parts of the UK underlines this. Labour has also worked hard to extend this ‘welfare dependent’ vote in its latest period in office.
I think Labour will remain the best party to appeal to this constituency, notwithstanding the inroads the Lib Dems may have made into the more middle-class end of it. This sets some floor on their level of support, although they remain at risk of losing a large chunk of the key part of their 1997 coalition, the ‘Blair Tories’.
Does this article imply, that Lib Dems might replace Labour as the main centre-left force in the British politics? Then what will happen to the new economic liberalism which is raising its head within the Lib Dems?
Very well written and argued article Tabman. The immediate thought that came to me from your introductory question is “Who do Methodists vote for now?” I realise that in your article you equated them to GMW, but I wonder if they are the same thing? Personally the Methodists (and low church, socially caring, CofE) people that I know are divided almost exactly 3 ways - Hold ones nose and vote Labour, stay at home, or vote Lib Dem; the vote Lib Dem tendancy seems to be very much in the ascendancy though, with people increasingly disillusioned with Labour.
This is a genuinely insightful article that rings true for me. The hardest of the hard Labour vote is starting to splinter now.
Does the analysis of Labour’s support need to consider changes in ethnic minority voting patterns? (I’m particularly thinking of the impact of the Iraq / Afghanistan situation).
Agree with others - an excellent article and excellent comments that followed. Like Sean I would like to see similar analysis on LD and Tory supporters
v. interesting: does this analysis of various groups of voters imply that, if you are middle class and you don’t vote Labour and read the Guardian, you have less/no interest in the general well being of your fellow human beings, by not being “concerned”?
Meanwhile, the Prescott story continues to build - not only are senior colleagues apparently begging Blair not to leave him in charge next month, but some interesting evidence has come to light about how his department tried to squash a rival plan to take over the Dome..thereby helping his fellow Wilberforce fan Mr.Anschutz….(Torygraph today).
With the Conservative Party currently in 30 million of debt, and The Labour Party with similar problems.
Both I presume will be more favourable to state funding of political parties.
If this needs all party agreement, the Lib Dems should hold support until there is a fair voting system of PR.
If that was ever granted Labours century could be over.
However there isn`t a chance in hell of that happening, so as long as the present system is in place, the Labour Party is still in a good position.
Just as I never believed the Conservative Party was finished after 97, the same will apply for Labour after 2010 or 2015.
Just as claims of the Tories imminent collapse and replacement by the LIB Dems were greatly exagerated so claims that Labour will defenestrate itself and be replaced by ( guess who ? ) are unrealistic also.
The collapse in party political engagement may be a more pronounced problem for the left as its sucess is much more wedded to an active participation in democracy - It traditionaly does not have the economic and media resources that the right enjoys.
However you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century and Labour therefore has found itself adopting the Con position of defending the status quo, while the right has moved toward the ‘progressive’ position of actively organising to ‘change’ society.
I would argue that as well established mass parties both Lab and Con are here to stay and that that is just as important as any policies. They both have experience of power and Structurally they are inherently more stable and disciplined than the Lib dems .
For example I would point to all three main parties Leadership’s relationships with their members and activists and in particular argue that the LD’s while ‘popular’ with their activist base are actually in a similar position to labour in the early 80’s
Tabman jnr. I wish I could smash this cosy mutual admiration society on your mock A level paper answer. But I agree with the other teachers and regret to say it’s a sound analysis Tabman and much better than your usual contribution in class.
I could have done without the chewing gum on the back of the paper and the other stains look suspiciously teenage in origin. You only lost marks for lack of a bar chart and the use of orange ink was unfortunate. See me later.
Mark : A-
Signed : The Headmaster.
Tabman, good article, but the Conservatives get a very good rural working class vote and also get a slice of the urban working class vote.
That said, I have thought for a while that if we return to two party politics it is most likely going to be Conservatives v Lib Dems.
Agreed. A solid, thoughtfull piece. One thing that jarred a bit: “The Lib Dems may benefit, especially if Civil Liberties issues come to the fore…” Seems to me that Lib Dem credentials on civil liberties are as suspect as the other parties. Genuine civil liveries end where currently fashionable PC hobby-horses begin. The manufactured hunting ‘issue’ is a case in point.
Also, I was surprised at no mention of the potential for an English National backlash against the current devolution settlement and how that might shake down. Seems to me that Labour are in a cleft stick on that one no matter which way you cut it
8. It’s not new, and it’ll stay where it is. Lib Dem social justice, unlike the Labour sort, is perfectly compatible with economic liberalism, which is why said economic liberalism has always been there.
Good article, Tabman. I think there are many ‘religious’ GMWs who take a very long term view, and for whom the very fact that change seems inevitable means it has already occurred in their minds (and ‘change’ means anybody else, it seems, regardless of whether it’s actually more of the same). Only if Blair really does go on and on - for years and years - will they feel cheated. The question is whether they’ll be able to carry things on their own without the rest of the coalition.
[16] Crossland wrote you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century - er, why didn’t anyone tell me that economic inequality and insecurity had been abolished?
O/T but I did only dream I saw somewhere that house prices were falling?
Imteresting and thoughtful piece - thanks, tabman. Before commenting more generally, a small factual point that affects the disucssion: Labour membership is now stable at the reduced 200K level and has been for some time. This is roughly evenly divided between the tribally Labour left (Dennis Skinner is a good example - thinks every Labour government too right-wing but rallies round when it counts) and people who are broadly satisfied with Labour’s record (for example, my branch, unprompted by me, voted to endorse the recent Education Bill when it was under criticism). NEC elections mostly reflect that generally even division though I think the left will do well this year.
It’s important to separate long-term trends from current unpopularity: I remember articles in the 80s arguing that Labour was now a coalition of disapppearing manual workers and left-wing ideologues, and would never form a government again. Similarly, there have been suggestions that the Conservatives would never revive, which now look less plausible. Parties generally in the end do what is necessary to “compromise with the electorate”.
However, I do think that the classic quasi-Marxist concept of class-based voting is increasingly inaccurate. DE voters are still predominantly Labour, for good reason, but often disinclined to vote. ABC voters are open to persuasion by all sides, and increasingly unwilling to align themselves for the longer term with any party.
There are a few touchstone issues that still generate a core vote for each party. People who rate patriotism (whether British or English) as their key value normally vote Tory; fighting poverty and increasing overseas aid still are overwhelmingly associated with Labour; the LibDems increasingly get the votes of unideological libertarians (as opposed to the ones who read Ayn Rand and want to abolish tax).
Beyond that, it’s competence, competence, competence. Labour has lost ground partly because of Iraq but also partly because of the perception of serial mistakes. The Tories and LibDems have not yet gained much ground in this area except in some local councils, and the DC ‘I’m a nice chap’ approach is at best neutral in terms of generating a perception of competence. This is GB’s strongest card and may yet prove decisive next time. However, in the long term competence is an apolitical issue and over time each party will have periods where it seems the most competent. Moreover, few people join a political party because they merely think it more competent, so there is a risk of long-term decline both of membership and of committed politicians in all parties. The American model is a possible future (not IMO an attractive one): parties with faint historical associations with left and right but which basically don’t stand for anything and could exchange positions on any issue. When someone like Colin Powell weighs up a political career in the US, he considers which party would offer him the best prospects, rather than thinking instinctively “I’m a Democrat/Republican”. I meet this sort of careerist thinking among some new members and I’m sure the Tories do too (the LDs, being further from power, must see it less). I don’t think either major party will go into long-term decline in this context, but they could gradually mutate into alternative associations of people who’d simply like to be in government. If British politics were already like that, I’d still be peacefully earning double my current salary as an IT manager - if it had just been another career instead of a cause, there was nothing wrong with my old career, so why switch?
Societies get the parties they want and perhaps deserve, and if we are becoming a predominently individualist and consumerist society this is perhaps inevitable. On the other hand, as people get wealthier they also become more idealistic in some ways. Environmentalism and overseas aid are vote-winners in a way that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. To the extent that this increases, it will predominantly benefit Labour and the LibDems as things stand, and I think that Cameron also has an eye to this when he tries to make the Tories seem nicer; it will make it more plausible if he promises to (say) give reduction in pollution priority over tax cuts, which could one day be a popular position.
We’re talking very long-term here. In the next 10-20 years, I think Labour and the Tories will retain a 30% core vote and the remainder will be fought over mainly on the competence issue. But 20-30 years from now, we may see all three parties still in contention, but with more apolitical messages than they still have today. The consolation for those of us with reformist ideals is that this reflects the fact that the worst extremes of poverty and deprivation in Britain have in fact largely disappeared, and if in 20 years nearly everyone is reasonably OK economically (as is already the case in, say, Scandinavia), then it’s reasonable if they no longer feel so strongly that the country needs huge reforms.
I’ve mainly talked about the major parties, but in principle this de-alignment could benefit the LibDems. Their difficulty is that they aren’t really seen as the ‘competent middle ground’ of Jo Grimond, but as angry insurgents some way from power. That’s a good position for by-elections, but strategically they may need more Ming Campbells and Vince Cables to put themselves in contention as a serious alternative government: if one of the major party hits a 1983/1997-style shipwreck, that could give them their chance.
9 Lennon. I’ve tried to dig out the research on voting patterns and religeon, but so far the usual suspects haven’t coughed it up.
The Liberals of course owed much of their success in the late 19th century and early 20th to the non conformist vote. Indeed after WWII the pockets of Liberal support were Free Church strongholds in the Celtic fringe.
Anyone have any news from yesterday’s local by-elections?
21 - O/T but I did only dream I saw somewhere that house prices were falling?
I hope you don’t dream about the Daily Mail, IA
25 book value. Or worse the Diana Express !
[25] Nope - it’s here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5153140.stm
24 - Not yet Iain but as there is no Labour candidate in 3 of the 4 including one where they won the ward last year perhaps there is more than a grain of truth in Tabman’s article .
I can only assume that particularly incidence is one almightly cock-up.
Probably the best article I’ve read on here, thanks for the time and effort that went into it. As an ex labour member (well, twenty years ago) it rings very true as regards the uneasy coalition and how it may react.
There is, of course, no way of knowing which way the cards are going to fall but that’s the fascination of politics. One thing could blow any presumptions out of the water. A ‘white knuckle ride’ is probably not short of the mark.
21: House prices fell in the latest report after surging in the previous one. No clear trend at the moment, and there are arguments, too O/T to repeat here, for either a resumption of the rapid rise or a long period of stagnation.
I think the Liberal Democrats’ emergence as the main challengers in many of our urban areas is more to do with organisation and perception of potential success than any great identification with the LibDems.
Compare Manchester (strong LD organisation, Conservatives struggling) with here in next-door Salford (weaker LD organisation, Conservatives a clear second in vote share with 30% plus).
O/T: British support for the EU surges:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1164557.ece
Even as a long-standing Europhile, I must admit to some surprise! But as the article says, it’s probably a recovery from the depths explored after the referendum in France.
You might also ask simply whether there’s still much demand for a socialist party and, if so, whether that demand will last long. Labour tried to change, with a good deal of apparent success, but that was more because Blair was in the right place at the right time. The result is a party that continues to behave in very socialist ways (authoritarian, centralist). With less underlying - and intellectual - demand for a socialist party continues to weaken, how long can it be kept up?
34. sorry, I meant to say ‘If underlying…’ not ‘with less’.
Valerie you may have a point. Socialism is dead as a political ideology here, and Labour moved to the right but retaining their less pleasant aspects.
However quite a bit of the party will want to move them back there and it will be interesting to see what happens.
Valerie, if socialism were simply authoritarian and centralising then your implied conclusion would follow. But that is only one kind of socialism - although admittedly the kind that Labour politicians (or those few of them who are socialists) in office get seduced by. It’s those wicked civil servants, you know…
Re. house prices - three successive subdued monthly rises on the Nationwide measure, on the Halifax measure a marginal rise in May followed by a steep fall in June. These are the main two surveys, though there are a host of less important ones. It certainly seems from them that things have cooled off a bit in the last couple of months after a healthy start to the year, probably in reaction to rising long-term interest rates. I’m not sure we can say much more than that, though.
RESULT OF THE BY-ELECTION FOR THE LYDDEN VALE WARD OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL
The by-election for the Lydden Vale Ward of the District Council took place on Thursday, 6 July 2006, the result was as follows:-
David Charles Thomas Fox - Liberal Democrat 429 Elected
Ian Johns - The Conservative Party Candidate 324
39. This was in North Dorset DC
House prices falling in Nottingham - because of overbuilding - too many flats in old mills and high crime rates.
Thanks Tabman and Nick - will try and coment further this afternoon - when am at work! I find Gordon Brown an enigma. He has given massive and under appreciated (both by the recipients and us concerned middle income types) help to low wage earners but his treasury managerial efforts seem to have undermined the core economy. He has boosted public spending (hence the lift in the economy) on Health, Education and Defence but the outcomes are at best patchy.
39 - Do you have the previous result?
I never believe any house price surveys. Ones done by lenders generally survey the initial asking price of instructions, not the eventual sale price. At least they weight them. The RICS base it on the valuations, usually the same as the price accepted, but do not weight them, and this approach will often leave out cash buyers - eg. the very rich and those trading down. Not sure about the government’s own index - it may be the most trustworthy. None of these indices headline figures give any idea of the fluidity of the market.
I live in Reading, and for many sorts of houses, there has been no increase for about 3 years. Anecdotally, in our road, there is nothing for sale, but many extensions, garage conversions and so on going on. The buy to let market is dead too; whilst house prices increased rapidly here from 1998 to 2003, there has been no great shift in the cost of renting for 8 years.
There was a report in the FT (I think) about six months ago, saying it was likely there would be no real increase in property prices for about 20 years. A little harsh, I think, but not too far wide of the mark.
There are an increasing number of borrowers who have interest only mortgages, but no capital repayment vehicle. This will have an effect in the long term, and will baby boomers selling their houses to pay nursing home fees.
Of course, any mortgage lender or estate agent will tell you different…
“and will baby boomers” should read “as will baby boomers”
42. Not yet. I will post a full list of all results, vote shares & changes as soon as ALDC have them up at http://www.aldc.org
42 - the previous Councillor for Lydden Vale was an Independent who garnered over 75% of the vote last time. So it is a Liberal Democrat gain from Independent, but almost impossible to draw any wider significance without being on the ground there.
39/42 As my post yesterday 2003 result was IND ( disqualified ) 491 CON 94 LDEM 62 so LDem gain from Ind
Another result from which we can deduce litlle :-
Lincolnshire CC Bourne Castle Con hold
2005 CON ( disqualified ) 1979 LAB 1131 LDEM 1093
Yesterday CON 657 No Party Desc 435 LDEM 255 UKIP 127
33. Thanks - interesting. It seems to have gone up in a large number of other countries, too, with the only countries to see falls, or increases in opposition, being Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal. The Netherlands are on 74% (increase).
The survey is here(table is on p. 11)http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb65/eb65_first_en.pdf
37. What are the other kinds of socialism? (and have they ever been successfully practised?)
Thanks Tabman - a very interesting piece indeed. I am equally impressed by Nick’s thoughtful contribution at (22), and the quality of response in general. In such circumstances, I hesitate to contribute my own humble views, However, as “Devil’s Advocate”, let me put a couple of reasons why I think Labour will NOT decline.
Firstly, we cannot tell what sort of constitution we will have in the future, and what voting system. Someone mentioned PR earlier. If this were to come in then ALL parties would implode into very different groupings of right/left/special interests. It happens practically everywhere where PR is in force. (Even Scotland
) Amongst these, there is always a strong conservative and Labour/Social Democrat party.
Secondly, the present level of material affluence will not continue - with profound implications for us all.
(a) The issue of ‘Peak Oil’ has been discussed at length on this site. Some people are in denial - but then some people still think that the Earth is flat, or that John Prescott is an honourable politician. The coming oil shortage will dampen the world economy into a dull recession which will take us years to escape from (if ever).
(b) The great growth economies of the East led by China and India will continue to dominate manufacturing and start to compete with us head-on with all of the other services in which we in the West still currently have an edge (IT, Research, Banking, etc)
The cumulative effect of all this will be large structural unemployment, and much lower living standards.
Quite simply people won’t like this, and will turn towards a left-wing (Labour) solution of redistribution of wealth.
It could be that Labour’s golden age is only just beginning.
DISCLAIMER. I am not a cheerleader for the Labour Party (or any other party) - whatever the good people on this site might think of anyone who does not automatically talk Labour down
Nonetheless a bit suprising that LDs winning anywhere called Vale in North Dorset… it tends to be the towns that lean to the LDs in the West Country.
OT. The fallout from the Tories wretched foray into the WLQ continues as they scrap an Opposition day debate on the issue next week amid reports that Dunky Dinky is off Cameroon’s Christmas card list :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/65487.html
Are there any countries in Europe without a left leaning party? For the same reason i always believed the need for a right-wing party made the disappearance of the Tories most unlikely If they ceased to exist (under IDS for example someone would have had to (re)invent them. Whether the Lib Dems will survive when the other two parties become really competative is a more salient question. If you believe that them to be a lazy option for those who can’t make up their mind which government they want then a close contest could see them seriously squeezed.
53 - So ostrich-like Cameron thinks that burying his head in the sand will disguise the fact that the Conservatives are split between the Little Englander faction and the old Unionist faction .
religion and voting preference - as i remember, in ball park terms, it goes like this:
- Minority religions favour Labour with a big majority
- Catholics vote heavily for Labour
- Secular/Atheist voters strong preference for Labour, Lib Dems do very well with this group and the tories very badly
- Protestants still vote in the majority for the tories, even during labour’s landslide years.
Haven’t ever seen anything that breaks down the proddie vote any further.
“Protestants still vote in the majority for the tories” - do you really mean over 50%?
Re. 51, indeed, it’s possible to see the parties re-coalescing in the following fashion:
a) Cameroons and Portillistas join up with Orange Book LDs to form a party rather like Eire’s Progressive Democrats
b) Cornerstone and UKIP
c) Campaign Group and Compass with left-wing of LDs
A very good article by Tabman. What was worrying for Labour in the local elections was the UWC going to the BNP in Barking & Dagenham, and the AWC deserting to the Tories in places such as Ealing. The Concerned Middle Class, meanwhile, had left Labour in droves at last May’s GE (accounting for notable LD gains in Hornsey & Wood Green and Manchester Withington).
2 policy announcements both flops. This could show that Cameron is still a novice when politics moves to the serious stuff or it could show that the Tories are serial mavericks who can’t be disciplined as they have been since Maggie was forced out.
54 - Roger - what about Ireland? I’ve never really understood Irish politics, but it seems to be dominated by two virtually indistinguishable parties of just right of centre. They have a Labour Party, but they seem a distant third.
If anyone has any knowledge of this area, I would be very interested in an explanation. A future guest piece from somebody?
For what it’s worth, I can’t see Labour declining much further. There is still a hard core who believe in socialism, and, less trumpeted but just as strong, a hard core who believe in New Labour’s soft-left managerialism.
Just because people don’t have extreme opinions doesn’t mean they don’t have firm convictions.
Great piece Tabman. My only quibble would be the that the UWC in traditional areas can still have the same visceral anti-Tory mindset as any Guardian reader . As an example, many of my family live in Makerfield constituency (former pit villages around Wigan). If you look at the demographics, it has decent levels of homeownership, low unemployment, few large council estates, and hardly any ethnic minorities. It also remains one of the safest Labour seats in the country, in part because many people still feel in their gut that they are born and bred Labour and that the Tories are for other people. The one thing that the smaller parties give is the ability to express displeasure with “The Labour” without having to vote Tory. Thankfully in Makerfield it has been Community Action rather than the BNP who have benefited at the local level.
The one election result that really struck me in recent years was neighbouring St Helens, where Labour flagrently took the mickey out of the UWC Labour voters by forcing a millionaire former Tory MP (Woodward) who had never even been to St Helens as the Labour candidate, and he still got in with a safe (albeit reduced) majority despite a good LibDem local candidate.
57 - majority in the fptp sense
There are some interesting MORI tables in this article:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01030
OT. The Tories having got their credit card statement in todays post find themselves the odd copper over their spending limit :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2259692,00.html
54. Neither of Ireland’s leading political parties could be called left-leaning, though Fianna Fáil certainly win more working-class support than Fine Gael.
That said, when put together Labour, the Green and Sinn Féin are polling at around 28pc, which is as high as Fine Gael and means that at least one and possibly two of them will be needed to form a new coalition next year.
48 Apparently the No Party Description candidate was the Labour candidate . The swing in his favour from the Conservatives was possibly due to this and the disqualification of the Conservative councillor and former leader of the council by the standards commision
Cookie. i just believe that there are at least 30% of the UK population that will always identify themselves as “left” and Labour has that tag. In the same way that in contests in far of lands about which posters on here no nothing, Tory supporters always cheer on the “Right-Wing”candidate
65 - in the circumstances I’d mark that down as a good solid hold.
Other results from yesterday
Kings Lynn/West Norfolk DC Hunstanton Con Hold Con 908 Lab 727 - 2003 result Con 1371/1110/1069 Lab 1020/841/725 Ind 933
Boston DC Fishtoft Con Hold Con 495 LDem 428 UKIP 184 - 2005 Byelection Lab 316 LDem 310 Con 254 UKIP 75
Halton DC Castlefields Lab Hold Lab 359 LDem 345 Ind 87 Con 52 - This May Lab 448 LDem 332 Ind 156 Ind 122 Con 105
Don’t know where the last byelection came from LOL
60 - “what about Ireland? I’ve never really understood Irish politics, but it seems to be dominated by two virtually indistinguishable parties of just right of centre.”
I think Irish politics is still based on whose side your (great-)grandparents were on in the civil war. Wikipedia gives FF’s ideology as “Irish nationalism, Conservatism, Republicanism, Populism”, and FG’s as “Christian Democracy, Conservatism”. Doesn’t really help, as I always thought that FG were just a bit more socially and economically liberal.
FG tend to side with Labour these days, but does that make them left wing?
Don’t get fooled into thinking that Mrs T’s warmer relationship with FG meant that FG were more Thatcherite; I think it was because FG were less nationalistic.
68 Mark. Thanks for digging those results out. Even with the usual caveats not sure we may read too much into the results.
54. Poland doesn’t have a strong traditional left-wing party at the moment. You’ve got a conservative populist/nationalist and not very economically-liberal party in government with even more nationalist and statist partners, and the main opposition party a liberal economic party. The Democratic Left party only got 11% of the vote.
68. A bit of a scare for Labour in Halton, where, in a piece of intra-family political divergence, my uncle was the Labour candidate! Thanks for letting me know the result - I must call and congratulate him!
69 - Thanks for that SBS - fascinating. What a strange polity Ireland is.
66 - canb’t disagree with that too much Roger.
66, 69 - I guess what both of these illustrate is the extent to which politics is still tribal - even when you’re not born into the tribe. It’s surprising the extent to which even amongst politically quite sophisticated people, gut politics are a starting point for opinions and arguments, when all logic dictates it should be the other way around.
I seem to recall that the non-conformist vote is very strong for lib dems.
Mark, are the figures right for the Boston DC result? labour seemed to have the most votes last time with your figures.
71 - some of the Samoobrona MEPs sit in the PES, don’t they?
71. Yes (isn’t it all of them?)
76. no, sorry, only one of them (as far as I can count).
Only a couple according to Wikipedia (but you may be more up to date!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoobrona#Members_of_European_Parliament
OT. Peter Riddell in “The Times” gives the Lib Dems emerging tax policies two cheers :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2259693,00.html
77. I can’t count. Two sit with the Socialists, the other four are non-attached.
What’s the real-time weather like for that byelection/match/race?:
http://www.wunderground.com/stationmaps/gmap.asp?zip=00000&magic=1&wmo=03791
75. Book Value - yes. Strange how there is apparently no problem with Labour MEPs being in the same group as them, isn’t it? But then I suppose your leader making anti-semitic remarks and praising Hitler’s economic policies shouldn’t be any bar to membership of the international socialist brotherhood.
82 - indeed: surprised not to have heard that from more Tories re the EPP debate.
HUGE BREAKING POLITICAL NEWS !!
Our Valiant Viscount Steps In Where Others Fear To Tread !!
…………………………………………………..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2259693,00.html
84 - Think that might be the wrong link Jack - you’ve just posted the Peter Riddell article again
Sorry
link is :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2259800,00.html
Yup, add my voice to the swelling chorus - a well-observed article, Tabman.
I think Labour (and the Tories, to a lesser extent) are following the same route as the Anglican church in its long twilight. Back in 1900 there were lots of different classes of people who went to church: the middle classes for social reasons, the rural poor for deference reasons, intellectuals for cultural reasons, etc. But over the decades they have all peeled off, finding fewer and fewer reasons to show up on Sunday.
Of course the church (i.e. Labour) will never die out completely, there might even be mild flurries of renewal from time to time. But for most people the serious faith has gone: only the reflex respect for a venerable old institution now remains.
And where have the believers gone? People these days tend to have a private faith, if they have a faith at all. And people who do, still, really care about their religion, often opt for new niche faiths - New Age stuff, Buddhism, Mormonism, happy clappy protestant sects, etc.
Similarly in politics, people have either stopped voting - or they vote for smaller parties that suit them best on single issues.
Natch, the same thing has happened and will happen to the Tories. However I don’t think this will be quite as drastic a decine, simply because the Tories’ core vote is bigger than Labour - maybe 30% over 20%. And this is because the Tories’ basic values - individualism, consumerism, capitalism, are slightly better suited to the coming age….
85 Lennon. Cunning plan to make posters read it again.
The Lib Dems are coming under fire for their plan to limit tax relief on pensions for higher rate tax payers. However, it is ludicrous at present that to put £100 into a pension, a basis rate taxpayer needs to chip in £78, but a higher rate taxpayer £60. Generally speaking, the higher rate taxpayers need less incentive to save for their retirement as they are probably already doing it.
Personally I would favour a flat rate of tax relief on pensions - at say 25-30%. This would then be coupled with a flat rate on pension income at the same level.
Cable and Campbell continue to come up with interesting ideas on tax.
87. “…the Tories’ basic values - individualism, consumerism, capitalism, are slightly better suited to the coming age.”
I agree that these values appear to be the dominant ones of the CURRENT age, but this is because of the current high standard of living.
There is NO guarantee that this will continue (see my post at 51).
If we hit a period like the 1930’s Depression in the West (and I’m beginning to feel like Cassandra, but I think that we will), then the beneficiaries will be Labour, IF WE ARE LUCKY. If we are not lucky, well, we all know the routes that some countries took in the 1930’s.
Latest GE odds on B/f - some movement in recent days
Most Seats
Lab 2.08
Cons 1.95
LD 60 (£1,630 matched (!)- some people have more money than brains)
On the majority market
NOM 2.38 (was at nearly 2 some weeks ago)
Cons 3.25 (was over 4)
Lab 3.45 (and rising)
Thanks to Billy at 62 for the very interesting link on religious voting groups. There is a division among “other religions” - Muslims are traditionally Labour but now divided between Lab, LD and Respect (and a few Tories and specialist parties), for familiar reasons. Hindus and especially Sikhs tend to be part of the bedrock Labour vote, as do West Indian voters, who I guess are generally in the Protestant group. When I was canvassing in Colliers Wood, Merton, which looked so likely to go Green, it was partly the rock-solid ethnic vote which saved us.
Conversely, fundamentalist Protestant Christians tend to be instinctively suspicious of Labour, because of the (correct) perception that we are not against homosexuality and generally relaxed about Islam. But they are often strong-minded people who don’t readily fit any British party - e.g. I have a local Daily Mail-reading evangelical preacher who thinks homsexuality a serious sin, worries about the ‘Papist-dominated’ EU, but wants to see a big rise in tax to pay for a huge increase in overseas aid. He tells me he scratched his head in 2005 and voted for me as the least evil: although a pro-EU Islam-tolerating atheist I was sound on world poverty. It’s increasingly important to know people individually and identify things one can agree about.
89. Great idea - should push even more people into means testing - I do despair at the Statler and Waldorf show…
84. Skimping on boots, eh? Typical.
If anyone fancies a little lunchtime escapism, I suggest they search Google Images for ‘Rhiconich’.
87 - Always enjoy a good analogy, Sean. To extend it further -
People didn’t just go to church for the reasons you mentioned, they went because - incredible as it seems now - they believed in God. They went to chuch because that was so self-evidently the Right Thing To Do that it was given little analysis.
In the same way, there were people who Truly Believed in Socialism.
Now, as more and more empirical evidence has made religion seem redundant, so has been the case with socialism - fewer people Really Believe in state ownership of the means of production, etc… as it so demonstrably didn’t work.
Conservatism doesn’t suffer in quite the same way, because few people held the ideology (inasmuch as Conservatism is an ideology) with the same conviction.
93 - no it won’t.
89. You might equally say it is odd that people earning what are now quite modest amounts are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%. Still if you really want to iron out all these anomalies, you could go for a flat income tax.
74 ALDC always compare hold or gain with same ward fought last time but give figures of the most recent election for any seat in that ward. I’m guessing the last time the actual seat itself was fought was a Tory win but last time there was any election, it was a Lab win.
98 - Thanks. Seems pretty strange to call a seat that has been gained a hold though, almost as though the pesky loss never happened in the first place……
Fred @ 97 - alternatively increase the threshold above which the 40& rate kicks in.
Hang on … that’s exactly what the Lib Dems are proposing
At the time of the 1983 election, similar analyses were being made about Labour. I recall the SDP/Liberal Alliance stating it was their aim to overtake Labour as the main opposition. Even though it was the moment of the Conservative zenith, I knew even then that there was more chance(albeit a very small chance) of them overtaking the Conservatives…
The favourable distribution of the Labour vote is such that under FPTP, Labour will always be either the Government or the main Opposition. The Conservative and Lib Dem vote are structured more similarly, and the moment when the Lib Dems could have replaced the Tories was 1997 or 2001. Had the vote shares between these two been analogous to the relative standing of the Alliance and Labour in 1983, the Lib Dems would have come close to doing so.
For the time being that opportunity seems to have passed, although I don’t believe the Tories have any chance of forming a government at the next election. My bet is still on Labour, quite possibly with a working majority. The next Labour leader( whoever he or she is) will gain a bounce and the weakness of the Tories will be more apparent. The only way I can see a Labour collapse, is a simultaneous disaster on all fronts: to the SNP in Scotland, to Respect in Muslim areas, to the Lib Dems in Liverpool and Manchester, and to People’s Choice in the Welsh Valleys…. Unlikely.
Party loyalties are very strong and long-lasting. I well remember a study done (by I think Michael Steed) of the 1970 General Election. Focusing on very elderly voters(over-80s) he made the somewhat surprising discovery that the Liberals were by far the most popular party, with Labour a very poor third. The reason being that when those elderly people cast their first ballots sixty years earlier, those were the relative standings of the three parties…..
Late lunch - only just looked at the site. Excellent piece Tabman.
I may post an opinion when I’ve mused a little longer…
P.S. Don’t forget Liberal Views.
Going back to Richard’s post at 58, if we did get a party of Portilistas and Cameroons, would they be Cameratilla’s pr Portaloons?
On another note, in the survey on my blog, 100% of respondents said my blog “makes me think”, and before any casts aspersions, it was not me who voted!
98 True - Labour gained a seat in the ward from the Conservatives last July ( the tutnout was very low ) but failed to put up a candidate at all this time .
104 but it was a Conservative hold as the election was to replace the 2nd Conservative councillor elected in 2003 .
A very good article Tabbers although I’m not sure the outlook is quite so bleak for Labour.
It does seem that there vote is holding up well in the North even though they seem to be doing rather worse in the South and Midlands. And it does appear there are probably at least 175-200 Labour seats that are extremely safe and won’t be lost even in the long term. It also has to be considered that despite all the recent bad publicity they don’t look in much danger of sliding into the sub-30% range which is where we were not so very long ago. I certainly don’t think they are in as bad a position as we were from 1997-2005. So I’m afraid the party may still continue for another 100 years!
97 - I have had a good look at flat tax. Nice idea, and good for emerging democracies like Russia, where tax collection from the rich has been a problem. Really not convinced it would work here.
What ever happened to the old Lib Dem policy of integrating tax and national insurance? I expect it to be unearthed soon again to much song and dance.
“If we hit a period like the 1930’s Depression in the West (and I’m beginning to feel like Cassandra, but I think that we will), then the beneficiaries will be Labour, IF WE ARE LUCKY. If we are not lucky, well, we all know the routes that some countries took in the 1930’s”
In really hard times, people tend to shift rightwards, rather than leftwards. If our economy were to collapse, then I imagine that the beneficiary would be an authoritarian party of the right, rather than a left wing party. Such a party might adopt a number of economic policicies that would today be regarded as left wing, such as protectionism, but it would not be a left wing party.
RE 108, Sean you mean like what actually DID happen in the thirties?
107. It certainly has particular advantages in jurisdictions like that, where historical yields from income tax have been very weak. The flat rate can be set quite low then, and you still normally get improved revenues. In the UK there is a problem because the higher rate tax payers actually cough up a very big share of the total yield from income tax..so the flat rate would have to be rather higher than Russia, Slovakia etc.
109 - Funny how National Socialists are always portrayed as being “right wing” - in actual fact their economic policies were incredibly “left wing”
110 - Yes, that’s right. America provides a counter argument, but most of Europe (including the UK) shifted rightwards in the depression.
In such a situation people are likely to want strong government, be furious with people who are perceived to be sponging off the welfare state, be fearful of foreigners, be desperate to retain whatever property or savings they have, and be reluctant to give a hard time to the businessmen who are essential to get the economy moving again.
107. It’s also worked fine in countries with levels of tax collection closer to ours. You can’t condemn a flat tax on the basis of a comparison with Russia.
I don’t think it’s an idea to be implemented uncritically. Still, what the Lib Dems are proposing is a significantly flatter tax structure than at present.
RE 111, I was thinking of here, not there. But I agree with you that Nazi’s seem fundamentaly left rather than right.
The Nazis’ economic policies were corporatist, and involved a heavy measure of state intervention, but not left wing per se, IMO. They weren’t interested in redistributing wealth, but rather in preparing the economy for war.
108 Sean. “If our economy were to collapse, then I imagine that the beneficiary would be an authoritarian party of the right….”
Another landslide for NuLabour then !!
21 - innocent abroad
“[16] Crossland wrote you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century - er, why didn’t anyone tell me that economic inequality and insecurity had been abolished? ”
Sorry for taking so long,
I was thinking of the working class aspect that has its roots in Chartism and the trade union movevement and struggled for 100 - 150 years to gain its chief concerns around representation,universal suffrage, union recognition and ‘mutual aid’ which reached its end point in the formation of the welfare state.
Historians such as Eric Hobsbawn put forward the sucess of the above as one reason for the decline of social democracy across Europe From the 70’s onward and the curious switch between ‘radical change’ and ‘defending the Status Quo’ that occured between left and right in the 80s onward.
15. ‘Siege economy’ would be the best description I think, Sean. Ferocious exchange controls, a lot of state direction of industry(if not actual state ownership), strict price, wage and import controls and very loose fiscal policy.
So similar in many ways to what the Labour-allied Cambridge Economic Policy Group were suggesting for the UK in the late 1970s and early 1980s. To be fair the Cambridge lads did baulk at the idea of using slave labour, though.
103 Re Survey. I cannot tell a lie Benedict. I am that man.
With regard to politics in the Republic of Ireland, I believe it was best summarised by Dr Garret Fitzgerald, who called it a “necrocracy”, that is, government by the dead (i.e. which side a candidate’s grandfather was on in 1922 mattered far more than his/her views on policy matters.
110. You can’t compare Slovakia and Russia on that count.
Slovakia’s shadow economy was 18.3% in 2000/1, Russia’s was 45.1. The UK’s was 12.5% (according to one of the best studies, done before either Slovakia or Russia adopted a flat tax - http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=10337)
So, although it’s difficult to get good figures for this sort of thing, Slovakia’s is (was) closer to the UK’s than Russia’s.
Re 119, Gladstone, thank you very much for the kind vote!
I hope to be able to “make people think” even if they don’t agree with me.
I agree with Sean F, et al. If there were a collapse in the world economy, with concomitant social turmoil in the West, I do not for a minute think the European nations would swing left. If only for this reason - the first people to get the blame would be recent immigrants, or even not-so-recent immigrants.
This is practically a universal law of human behaviour - When in trouble, blame the outsider. It’s also a sensible if unsavoury reaction in a way. It means you preserve the cohesion of the nation (or tribe) in the midst of troubles.
As a result, if we hit a Depression (or worse) I think the people would almost certainly elect a hardline anti-foreigner, end-all-immigration party, which would (presumably) be on the right.
Immigration is already a hot topic in this time of relative plenty…
63 >>>>. Tories deny “The Times” story that Smith Square is to hold the mother of all car boot sales ……. Jack W bags the door case and fireplaces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5157566.stm
113 - I certainly would not rule flat tax out. (It’s a bit like nuclear power, in that it may well be the way forward - but I need to know more first.)
I recall Richard Teather on Radio 4 a few months ago stating how wonderful it was, and that everybody, yes everybody, would pay less tax… provided it was coupled with massive cuts in public expenditure.
I do like the idea of flat tax, but I feel that its introduction, with an increase in the nil rate band, would have to hit somebody - probably in the middle - fairly hard.
From my simplistic point of view the problem with a flat tax is that those earning squillions are BOUND to benefit so those earning less will have to pay more. The saving on collection I’m told is neither here nor there though accountants might go through a bad time.
20 - Garret Fitzgerald himself is probably one of the best examples of that. One of the most highly regarded statesmen and political leaders Ireland has produced in the last 50 years, yet consistently beaten by elections by a scandal ridden, populist, machine politician like Charles Haughey.
123. Isee. . . you think that we’ll stop being forward looking investors in future technology and become (for want of a better description) fascists?
In short moving from the NASDAQ to the NSDAP.
Can’t see it. The Conservative party is just not like that - it is a respectable party - and that is what the right will rally around.
However, people will not give up without a fight. They didn’t shift to the left in the 1930’s, but there had never been a majority Labour government, or a welfare state. IMHO, people will cling to the safety blanket as long as they can - and that means Labour or LibDem.
In the meanwhile, some nasty right wing experiments in other countries will put people off going down that route.
We will get some Conservative governments, but Labour will set the agenda. In fact I would not be at all surprised if the Conservatives prove to be more effective managers of the new order. (As when they took over the welfare state in the 1950s)
126 - i think the theory is that by simplifying the tax code, and having less exemptions/allowances/schemes and lower tax rates, you reduce the incentive for tax avoidance/evasion and the overall tax collected goes up. You also reduce the number of economic distortions driven by tax planning rather underlying economic purposes - people making decisions they would rather not do just to avoid tax consequences.
129 - but how much does it go up? I can see it having an effect in Russia where tax avoidance is a massive problem - is there such a big scope in this country for it to be recouped?
I’m a fan of flatter taxes in principle - I’m in favour of simplification, and of generally lower taxes. I’d like to believe this can work here, and I’m definitely open to persuasion, but I’m not yet convinced.
128. Er, you’ve lost me! It was YOU who hypothesized a massive breakdown in the social network, an eco-catastrophe, leopards whelping in The Mall, etc. I merely said that IF such a thing happened, people would opt for an authoritarian rightwing anti-immigrant party, as that is what has happened in the past on almost every occasion.
I certainly didn’t say it was desirable, just understandable and likely: in the fairly wild circumstances you posit.
As it happens, I have a much more optimistic vision of the world than you. Yes, I think there may be, at some point, a stand-off between Islam and the West (or rather between Islam and the Rest) but it’ll be that - a stand-off. Otherwise I believe genetic medicine, the internet, cybertechnology etc promise a rosy future for us all. Hooray!
129, 130 - My reservations are that a lot of very high earners that have assets offshore as tax avoidance wont suddenly move them back again. So the tax is now 10% rather than 40%, but if I’m paying 0% in Jersey what do I care? There is an arguement for simplification of the tax regime (and what the Lib Dems are looking at doing is interesting), but in my opinion it needs to be revenue neutral and not assume from nowhere that you suddenly take more tax.
Mmmm - can recall numerous aimilar articles by the likes of George Gale appearing in papaers such as the Express over 25 years ago all predicting the forthcoming demise of the Labour Party …
Never underestimate the extent of class division in British Society and the cyclical nature of politics or the ability of the Labour Party to adapt to change …
I’m not sure I understand what is meant by simplification of the tax regime? If we’re talking about flat tax V unflat tax then even I, numerically illiterate, can work out the tax payable on any income with the existing tax bands and a calculator in about 30 seconds.
Latest Mori Poll Con 36 Lab 33 LDem 21 - Sorry leaving work for home now .
[131] I didn’t for one minute suppose that global warming (and the associated rise in sea levels) existed in Sean T’s world…
I’m very dubious about the whole argument that reducing higher rates of income tax will pay for itself by reducing tax avoidance. I find it hard to believe that high earners who are able to find ways of avoiding paying tax at (say) 40% aren’t going to use exactly the same means to avoid paying tax at 22%, or indeed any other rate.
Re: Nazis [left/right] - I think this is more a matter of emphasis [and history].
In early 1930s Germany, the Nazi’s were certainly regarded in many respects as a party of the Left - Trotsky himself wrote about the three “types” of Socialist in Germany [SDP, Nazi, Communist] who would meet on street corners and have arguments.
However, the Nazi heirarchy saw themself very specifically as being anti-Communist, first and foremost, and it was for this reason [probably] that much of the English upper classes/right wing flirted with the Nazis during the 30s.
So you can see that the Nazi’s were a blend of two ideologies: Nationalism [normally considered as right-wing] and Socialism [left-wing].
I would argue that, in modern times, the Nationalism has been the more dominant part of the ideology. Also, it’s not for no reason that the Communist Manifesto declares “Workers of the World, Unite!”. Internationalism is a compulsory part of Socialism, without it you are left with simply words and phrases.
132. They did do just that in Russia - I think the thing was they thought they might as well bring their assets back and put them to productive use - in an economy with a lot of opportunity for business growth - now that they were going to be taxed less than previously. The UK not offering quite those sorts of growth opportunities, though, they might prefer to keep them stashed.
Plus that was a few years ago - I wonder whether there would be such a rush to bring it all back home if the same thing happened in Russia now. Very probably not. I’m not sure what the situation is now, but I imagine funds are making their way out again…
34 - Speak to someone that has tried to use the tax credits system… not simple (I understand).
126/129/130: flat-tax advocates generally favour protection of the poorest (e.g. through higher initial thresholds). However, given any specific amount of money to be raised, simple arithmetic shows that with flatter tax people on middle incomes then pay substantially more. To take a back-of-the-envelope example, if you:
a) charge the top 20% a third less tax and
b) exempt the bottom 10% altogether
then
c) you have to recover an extra 16.6% of the total tax take from the middle 70%, which will put their tax up by nearly a quarter.
A completely flat tax requires even more drastic effects. As a Labour politician I’d be thrilled if any other party adopted this - the next election would be in the bag at once.
Advocates counter this with Reagan’s belief that lower taxes on the rich would result in so more more declared income that revenue would rise, which for a while seemed to be true but appears over time not to have been the case - there is some gain but it’s heavily outweighed by the lower rate. They also claim a saving in bureaucracy, but collecting one percentage rate or another is not much simpler and doesn’t really save very much. Finally they say that hey, too much is spent anyway, but that is a different argument - to have a sensible discussion of tax systems you have to agree that you’re talking about some specific sum X to be raised.
There is a stronger case for simpler (as distinct from flatter) tax - fewer exemptions do mean less bureaucracy, and as paul says reduce artificial tax-avoiding decisions, but the affected people will complain vehemently while everyone else gains only marginally from each exemption abolished, hence the survival of some odd ones.
RE 137, Jeremy, they avoid (rather than evade) tax by all the various different schemes for tax releif on this different tax on that etc.. and so on. Part fo a flat tax system is that all those are removed.
134 - Roger simplification relates not just to the rates but also the multitude of exemptions and deductions that people can claim on their tax returns. For anyone who owns a business, rents property etc these can be extremely complex, and distortive.
132 Jersey income tax is 20%. Any flat/flatter UK tax regime with a top rate of 23% or less would ruin the offshore banking business in the Channel Islands.
And Mori’s “All those naming a party preference” has Labour four points ahead. Is the Cameron bubble bursting? Or is it Mori asking the wrong people the wrong question?
Nonetheless the two latest polls have shown the two main parties very close. Surely questions will now be asked about whether Cameron’s abilities stretch to those of a politician or whether he will always be Coco the Clown?
RE 141, Nick Palmer MP, you forgot to mention that proponents of a flat tax argue that it stimulates growth as well, hence higher income for the treasury.
BY ELECTION RESULTS: - THURSDAY 6TH JULY 2006
Boston BC, Fishtoft
Con 495 (44.7; +6.8)
LD Malcolm Chapman 428 (38.7; –2.1)
UKIP 184 (16.6; +16.6)
Majority 67. Turnout 23.6. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Halton BC, Castlefields
Lab 359 (42.6; –1.2)
LD Peter Blackmore 345 (40.9 +25.4)
Ind 87 (10.3; –8.1)
Con 52 (6.2; –6.4)
[BNP (0.0; -9.7)]
Majority 14. Turnout 18.3. Lab hold. Last fought 2004.
Hunstanton TC,
Ind 650 (47.9)
Con 629 (46.4)
Ind 77 (5.7)
Majority 21. Turnout 32.9 Ind gain Con.
Huntington TC, North
Con 726, 721 (47.5)
LD Peter Fleming 616. Roy Purchase 555 (40.3)
Lab 187, 169 (12.2)
Majorities 110 & 105. Turnout 21.8 Con hold x 2.
Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, Hunstanton
Con 908 (55.5; +14.3)
Lab 727 (44.5; +13.8)
[Ind (0.0; -28.1)
Majority 181. Turnout 33.2. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Lincolnshire CC, Bourne Castle
Con 657 (44.6; –2.5)
No Description (Lab) 435 (29.5; +2.6)
LD Tim Fitzgerald 255 (17.3; –8.7)
UKIP 127 (8.6; +8.6)
Majority 222. Turnout 23.5. Con hold. Last fought 2005.
North Dorset DC, Lydden Vale
LD David Fox 429 (57.0; +47.4)
Con 324 (43; +28.5)
Majority 105. Turnout 50.0. LD gain Ind. Last fought 2003.
St Neots TC, Eynesbury
LD Andrew Boulton 327 (48.7)
Con 296 (44.1)
Lab 48 (7.2)
Majority 31. Turnout 10.6. LD hold.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
131. “It was YOU who hypothesized a massive breakdown in the social network, an eco-catastrophe, leopards whelping in The Mall, etc.”
Sean - pray tell me where I prophesised this? You really must stay off the sauce at lunchtimes!
The only thing that I have suggested will happen in my posts is an economic depression, and that people in the UK will support Labour values in trying to maintain a wlfare state and a ‘fair’ society.
And as for Islam, I never mentioned that at all. But I won’t wind you up on that given the recent unpleasantness you suffered on that subject, or you’ll go off into permanent voluntary retirement….again.
I don’t want that to happen. I disagree with you profoundly on this particular subject, but your views are always interesting. (Sincere compliment, BTW - but comes across as a bit clumsy in print)
I think Slovakia’s motivation was mostly about becoming a poster-child for investment in a crowded field. They knew it would get them extra publicity. Even now they’ve voted in a government that’s distinctly unphotogenic, the flat tax is staying (except in VAT).
Although no doubt BV will be along in a minute to point out, rightly, that many flat-tax countries have high payroll taxes. Still, the general movement of the latter is downwards, too.
146. St. Neots’ turnout 10.6%?! What’s the record for lowest-ever turnout, by the way?
So much in tax law benefits lawyers and financial advisers, as well as off-shore havens. Inheritance tax is in theory a sensible tax, but it costs a fortune to collect, and until recently raised very little in net terms. It is a tax on the naive and unprepared middle-classes, as the savvy and prepared manage to avoid it.
Of course, tax simplification would be hated by much of the financial advice and legal sectors. All the more reason to go for it. But I think a true flat rate income tax is a step too far.
144,
Too early to say, if the bubble is bursting.
But with all Labours recent difficulties thought that Cameron`s Conservatives would be making hay in opinion polls by greater numbers.
Will be intresting to see, when the pressure does inevitably fall, how will the wider party react if they suddenly realise, that they might not win next time.
Blair from 94 never had this problem, so he could keep the distractors on board.
RE 144 and 152, I don’t read it that way. Firstly we know that winning the next GE will be very hard work. Secondly we also know that we have been so hated that it will take time to get the right sort of opinion poll lead.
Much done, much left to do.
138. Originally, in the 19th century, ‘nationalism’ was normally considered left-wing, having its roots in the French Revolution, e.g. Balkan, Polish, Irish. The right-wing was represented by ‘Imperialism’ e.g. Austrian, Russian or British.
Cameron faces a huge problem in the very near future with the EPP announcement. Are things building up to a ‘we’ll leave after 2009′ fudge?
Fraser Nelson’s article in the Spectator is interesting, and really very damning.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/23533/camerons-epp-pledge-would-not-have-plagued-him-if-hed-been-less-evasive.thtml
155. Sorry for the ridiculously long link - do links that go outside the box mess things up on some people’s browsers?
60. The two main parties in Ireland often appear indistinguishable from this side of the Celtic Sea, because the main difference between them is how they see Ireland’s relationship with the UK. Broadly, FF are more nationalist, whereas FG are more relaxed about having a close relationship with London. Historically, FG have their roots in the more pragmatic IRA groups who accepted the 1922 Treaty of Partition, and FF are descended from the Irregulars’- those IRA units who rejected the treaty (and continued to fight the Free State government in the Civil War).
153-Benedict, agree with you that some/many in the con are aware that they will not/are unlikely to win the next GE and it is along hard slog etc.
What I feel Dez is getting at 152 is how the Con party at large will react to Cameron if/when another defeat looks likely.
Labour were able to stick with Kinnock for close to 10 years for the very reasons you highlight. However Nulab has seen off 3 con leaders in a similar period.
Bottom line - are the Con party able to stick with a leader who while he may be on the right track might not get the party back into power for 6-10 years ?
55 - Valerie, I know that we are all obsessed by the intricacies of the Conservative Party position within the EPP, but out there in Voterland does anyone care? OK, so the Tories choose to sit with one bunch of dodgy foreigners rather than another - big deal. One or two activists and newspaper columnists will get a bit hot and bothered about it, but it’s not exactly a resignation issue, is it?
155. [Groan] Yet another website that wants you to ‘register’ by giving your email address so that they can send you lots of spam.
I’ll take your word for it that the Conservatives have messed up again over Europe. Just when they seem to be getting their act together on so many other issues, Europe comes back to haunt them. I have no idea how they cauterize this wound - but they really must get to grips with it once and for all, or their opponents will be rubbing their hands with glee.
157 - Thanks Bernie - all interesting stuff. Is the Irish Republic’s relationship with the UK still the issue of political cleavage there after 80 years? I can see that Northern Irish politics is still dominated by the issue, but I’m amazed that it’s still so prevalent in the Republic.
59 - Do people in Voterland care? No. Couldn’t give a monkeys in all probability. But if the media spin it as dissention amongst Tories about Europe, and if MEP’s defect over it, then the voters might think Tories argueing amongst each other about Europe again - clearly not the chiny new party I thought they were…
62
shiny not chiny obviously.
Very good article- if the labour vote did implode, which isn’t an impossibility, it would be interesting to see how the Working Class vote would fall between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I live in Neath- a Labour stronghold and a lot of people I talk to no longer are disgusted at voting Tory: the only reason they never considered going blue was the miners’ strike. But as the generations of hardcore Labour voters and miners begins to disappear, Labour would be foolish to take the vote in the valleys for granted.
161 - the RoI’s relationship with UK is really not a huge political issue there. It does help differentiate FF and FG but only because there is so little to differentiate them ideologically. It’s all about perceptions as well - Haughey as FF leader lambasted Fitzgerald’s Anglo-Irish agreement in opposition before going on to work it well in government (the opportunism of this being much to his discredit, whether it ranks higher or lower than largescale corruption, phone-tapping or alleged gun-running as his greatest disgrace is a tough call). So both parties are very pragmatic - even on relations with the UK, perceived as a differentiator between them, there is little to separate them. I agree with the earlier poster who felt that the biggest difference was class (or perceptions of) - FG traditionally being thought of as the party for barristers and big farmers and FF as the party for the working class.
160. You can uncheck the ‘please send me email news’ box…Nelson essentially berates Cameron for lack of foresight. Inc. this:
‘What Mr Cameron had not bargained for is the avalanche of criticism from politicians whom he badly needs to befriend.
(..Sarkozy…Merkel…John McCain..)
Their words badly hurt Mr Cameron. By now, he should be being feted by centre-right politicians, just as Tony Blair was by Europe’s centre-left in the mid-1990s. Instead Mr Cameron faces an international chorus of ‘you stupid boy’ from his would-be allies.’
159. Since some MEPs seem likely to defect if you leave (especially if it’s with no mates) and more than a few activists if you stay, then it does seem like a resignation issue. The question is how staying until 2009 (if that’s the solution they come up with) will go down with the activists.
144, 155: yes this is the begining of the end for cameron and the torys. the bubbles burst and the torys will be tearing themselves apart any day soon!!!!! (I know you get this prediction quite a lot on this site - ie twenty times a day - but this time its really going to happen!!!!)
It won’t take long with Labour in opposition for traditional supporters to return.
For Labour to get into big trouble, there would have to be either massive campaigning in many of their traditional seats, or a huge media narrative about how left-wingers were now going over to another specified party.
There are simply never going to be enough activists for a ground-war led loss of inner city and impoverished seats. Lib Dems manage to target a couple of dozen seats at a time, and even the Tories only target a few more than that. Most minor parties are incapable of running an effective grass-roots campaign in a single seat. If they learn, they will only be able to do it in two or three.
So it must be the media narrative. This is the kind of thing that could happen if polls indicated a big surge for the Liberal Democrats and it became received wisdom that left-wingers were going over to them. The longer Labour remains in power, the more voters will stay at home, the more activists will switch and the more Labour seats will be lost to the Lib Dems.
What is hugely more likely, though, is that Labour will lose power. They will either retain it, probably in coalition or minority government in 2009/10, and then be trounced the election afterward; or lose it this next election. Labour’s long-term status as one of the two parties of government is most likely to be threatened if they retain power at the next election. Even then, as soon as Tories are in power and upsetting traditional Labour supporters, Labour support with solidify and the basis for a permanent recovery will be set.
167 - Crazy name, crazy guy, crazy post
166: “…it does seem like a resignation issue.”
Valerie, are you a spoof of the type of Liberal Democrat prone to melodrama and soaring fancies?
?? I meant MEPs/activists, not Cameron or Hague!
171: Phew, that is a relief.
What an excellent article - thank you!
I agree with just about everything. My fear, as a Lib Dem, is that unless we are sufficiently well organised, the winner will be the apathy party or the lunatic fringe. The founding fathers of the Labour Party must be spinning in their graves.
:roll:looks like John McDonnel(campaign group)may get the jump on Michael Meacher and anounce himself as a leadership challenger to Blair at tomorrow’s Miners gala in Durham ( Hazel Blears will be present also - Ouch !).
If true this could ignite a real farce on the labour left of Judean peoples front proportions.
exactly what we dont need….:-(
One thing we do know is that Hague was a very poor tactician. Not just his 2001 election campaign but the whole gamut of wrong decisions primarily grouped around appointing Amanda Platell as his press secretary. This EEC mess looks like it’s got his fingerprints all over it. Remember X days to save the pound! He loves the grand gesture.
176 - Nelson also adds the following in the same Spectator article:
“It is an open secret that William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary and a man of impeccable Eurosceptic credentials, thinks that the withdrawal plan is doomed. He has never once spoken with enthusiasm about it. Instead he has muttered that the Conservatives will not leave the EPP grouping until they have formed a new bloc of Eurosceptic parties — a much harder task than the simple withdrawal to which Mr Cameron is unequivocally committed.”
Gladstone, fair enough. And well-spotted about the sauce by the way - I had downed half a bottle of Marks & Spencer bubbly - in preparation for my appearance this afternoon on… Richard & Judy!!
I’ve just got back from the studio. Live TV is unbelievably nerve-racking. This episode of R&J was especially tense and memorable - for me anyway - coz me and the other guests asked Richard Madeley, live, on-air, what would be his criteria for the ‘ideal woman’.
He turned to Judy and said ‘blonde, clever.. and with great tits’ staring at her cleavage. She then freaked out and he said ‘but you have got great tits’ at which point the whole show went off the rails.
Surreal. Not sure it’ll sell any copies of me book - but amusing..
175. How things change. Hague used to be associated with the Tories becoming more Eurosceptic - against today’s background, though, he’s at the other end of the line-up.
I’ve never been much of a fan of his, but at the moment I have to say I feel some respect - and I also feel quite sorry for him.
177. that’s hilarious…
Funny how Hague got that priviledged reputation reserved for plucky losers who deserved better. I always thought he was promoted well above his talent and even though he couldn’t have won in 2001 I think his behaviour and tactics in office were as responsible for the Tories present plight as anything done by John Major and the ‘bastards’
Hi All!
Did I miss anything important in the last week? Especially issues that really matter in British politics?
Ex. how many time did Hazel Blears pop out on TV to say it’s all great for Labour?
Did Simon Hughes find a woman to marry? I know Councillor Ginger La Grange was after him.
How many “it’s a snab for Scotland” press release did the SNP put out?
Was Gordon blamed for England’s defeat?
Now seriously speaking, what did I really miss? Polls, defections, candidates selections, retirements,…
thanks|
Great article Tabman; all the more so because I agree with you !
I was attracted to the Liberal Party forty years ago by Jo Grimond’s articulation of how the party is the “non-socialist alternative to Conservatism”. The lack of achievement during the Wilson years, apart from surviving as a governing party, merely re-inforced my beliefs. And I had Blair sussed from his early days as leader for being a man without principles. His election victories were all built on sand and spin - but anything was better than the Conservatives for floating voters.
Now we can see the result of the Blair years - a few positives and a multitude of negatives. No wonder his party is beginning to collapse. In many constituencies, the Labour Party barely functions. In my area, it’s gone from being a few votes short of winning in 1997 & 2001, to a poor second in 2005 and only four members left on the district council. This state of affairs is echoed in many areas, although currently most of them are in the southern half of England.
Without PR, the Labour Party is unlikely to completely collapse, but there will be many constituencies like there were for the Liberal Party in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Little activity, no councillors, few members, and a distinct lack of enthusiasm from those who remain. Without its working class union roots and a belief in “socialism” there is no reason for the Labour Party to continue to exist. Only tribal loyalty from the remaining and ever dwindling activists, and a decreasing proportion of the electorate will prevent Labour from utter irrelevance.
The Liberal Party went from absolute dominance in 1906, through hung parliaments in 1910, the coupon election in 1918 relying on a pact with the Tories, to become also-rans by the end of the 1920s. Electoral downfall can be swift ! And just because most European countries have a Social Democrat Labour-type party in government or as the main oppostion, Canada does not. Canada has a first past the post electoral system….draw your own conclusions.
And unfortunately the likes of Nick Palmer, an MP we can respect if not agree with, will be swept away with the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party which contains far too many timeservers, unprincipled careerists and second rate lightweights. I hope for the sake of Nick and a few of his colleagues that a Lib Dem can feel comfortable with, that their retirement precedes Labour’s inevitable demise.
181 Andrea. Hi Andrea ….. hope you had a (man)full of fun time !!
Summary :
Hunky Dunky in the poo over comments that a Scottish MP couldn’t be Prime Minister.
Prezza in the poo …. well only the depth varies.
New MORI poll today . Con 36 .. Lab 33 .. Lib Dem 21 ..
Local by-elections @ 146. Nothing too exciting.
Tommy Sheridan court case starts …. he is in the poo !!
seanT is back …. the site is in the poo !!
Nick Palmer said to be backing Hain for Deputy …. Nick in the poo ??
Jack W resolved the WLQ …. England in the poo !
bookvalue in control ….. Mike Smithson in the poo !!
Lot of brown stuff around …. Gordon included !
181. Welcome back Andrea.
There’s controversy amongst West Hill Tories in Putney as Julian H realises his account has not been debited of the £35 necessary to attend Sandown tomorrow. Did the cheque never arrive? Will Julian H have to stay at home? Will the West Hill Tories even break even from this expedition? Rumours are that local Lib Dems are hoping for a defection from the inevitable fall-out. Except that there are no local Lib Dems.
In other news, Anna has joined the Socialist Workers Party and decided to quit her degree and get a job making Fords in Dagenham.
183. Thanks Jack. I knew I can count on you!
First Alan Simpson reprimanded, then Alan Duncan reprimanded….is there a whips plot against MPs called Alan?!
I saw the Countess of Marr news! I’m so sorry, Jack.
184. Julian, I will blame Justine Greening for all your problems.
Not surprised by the Anna news…she always had that inclination!
185 Andrea. The Countess!! We Wos Robbed
… of at least 100 votes !! 
183. All that brown stuff and no mention of Mark Oaten - a serious ommission I feel.
Welcome back, andrea!
Thanks for the kind thoughts, yet another david. I think you’re mistaking the short with the long term, but we’ll see. I would prefer to go down fighting for the cause than amble off into retirement and see someone else lose, but winning would be better still. Despite the narrow majority the Tories will not find Broxtowe easy to take - their organisation on the ground appears barely to exist at the moment (no leaflets at all except the odd photocopied councillor newsletter since May 2005), and I’m deeply dug in. (They’ll select a PPC very shortly, likely to be different from last time’s.)
Can’t see any reference to a new MORI today, Jack - where did you see it? If so, it’s exactly the same as the last MORI, and tends to confirm the ICM picture of only a narrow Tory lead.
189 Nick P. It’s the monthly monitor, not the Observer headliner.
Fieldwork 20-26 June. Sample 1,931.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/mpm060626.shtml
Survey before was 19 June for the soraway Sun.
189. Thanks Nick!
Labour has selected their candidates for regional lists at next year’s elections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5159620.stm
Btw, I see that when he took the oath, Dai Davies chose Dr Taylor and Adam Price as “sponsors”
184 Julian: How very dare you!!! I’ll make announcements about my future myself thanks…
Thanks, Jack. A couple of weeks old, so of limited value, but mildly interesting details. The Tory lead is 7% down on the previous month (the 10% which I think most of us thought was probably a bit of a rogue) and a 2% Tory lead on “general sympathy” (regardless of certainty) has become a 4% Labour one, with TB’s personal approval up from 26 to 32, the same as Cameron (but many more negatives - most people still say “don’t know” about DC)..
193 Nick P. That MORI is positively futuristic compared to the last poll in Scotland carried out over 3 months !!
BTW Labour lead if the poll isn’t just those who 10/10 on voting intention.
Can I join in the genuflection before Tabman (especially for helping elevate this thread’s comments)?
I’m not sure we can expect any dramatic collapse (or rise) in support for any party. But there will doubtless be more volatile swings in the future as voters’ political loyalties dealign still further. Only c.15% of Labour or Tory voters now identify strongly with their respective parties (cf 50%+ in the 1950s and ’60s).
Which is why 2-party politics (regardless of which two parties) is not going to happen.
194 - As they do on all unweighted polls.
OT. Labour veteran Lord (George) Foulkes has been selected to top the Edinburgh and Lothians List for the 07 Elections :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5159620.stm
……………
196 ukpaul. Indeed.
197. Jack, darling, I see you don’t read my comments (look at 191), whilst I’ve been looked to all your last week’s posts (and I saw you blamed me for the Countess’ loss!)
Interesting thread Tabman with some good posts in reponse - agree with 195 that 2-party politics won’t happen since it is now being replaced with 4/5/6 parties - the introduction of PR will only hasten this demise when and if it’s installed.
198. Groveling apologies !
Did you enjoy the Fens ??
200. Jack, talking about Scottish candidates, I see that during my absence Labour realized that their MSP for Glasgow Govan is rubbish…I suppose Nicola will be happy.
Evening all :). A very interesting piece, Tabman, and a well-constructed argument. It’s ironic that as we celebrate the centenary of the election of what was arguably one of the 20th Century’s three most radical Governments (Liberal 1906, Labour 1945 and Conservative 1979) we should be seeking to see another form of re-alignment or re-positioning of the parties.
Both Cameron and Campbell are also trying to read the runes of the post-Blair world and it’s always true to say that all parties are changed by the disintegration of an established “coalition”.
The truth is of course that socio-economic and demographic shifts play a large part in this too. The period of Tory-Labour duopoly coincided with the polarisation between “capital” and “labour” but with the demise of manufacturing industry and the re-ordering of the economic infrastructure arose the new service-led economy.
Labour realised after 1983 that its traditional base had gone and that it needed to build a new constituency. The Conservative constituency that give Thatcher and Major their election victories from 1979 to 1992 was built on a number of foundations. One of the key elements was the middle class which had endured the economic and social dislocation of the 1970s. For those under 30, it’s hard to imagine annual inflation at 15-20% and sky-high interest rates. Millions were economically insecure and Thatcherism offered if nothing else the opportunity to maintain and even improve that economic prosperity. The prevailing philosophy became “enrichessez-vous” as Guizot would have said.
A decade later, it was the Tory reputation for economic management that was destroyed first by the Lawson-induced recession and then by the events of September 1992. With that gone, the Coalition was gone too. Elements went to Labour and it was Blair’s raison d’etre in the mid-90s to convince ex-Thatcherite Tories that the economy and their economic well-being would be safe with him. With the collapse of Communism in Europe, Labour could safely re-brand itself as a non-socialist centre-left party without any overtones.
Now that coalition too seems to be ebbing away more as a cumulative result of events rather than from one single event. I don’t know what a post-Blair or post-Brown Labour Party will look like - no one does but I’m convinced that the Labour party will continue. I think Labour stared in to the abyss in 1981 with the possibility of electing Benn as deputy leader. One might even argue the road back to power began with that one vote as I suspect had Benn been elected, the size of the split to the SDP would have been much greater.
The Conservatives, since 1997, have had to respond to the Blair Coalition and with Cameron they have begun their own process of coalition-building. The presence of the LDs complicates matters and it’s fascinating to view the Menzies strategy as it evolves. The re-assertion of economic liberalism (echoing much of the 1950s Liberal Party standpoint) makes the electoral landscape, as Tabman argues, ever more difficult to read.
Will it be like the 1920s ? FPTP doesn’t like 3-party politics and the political graveyard is full of intended fourth parties from Oswald Mosley to Arthur Scargill.
I see Wossy has yet another lovable druggie on the show tonight. It is becoming a theme.
201 Andrea. Don’t avoid the question !! ve hav vays ov makin u skqeeeeel ! …. ve vill send Frau Blears rownd.
204. Jack, can’t understand your question
Did you see that Peterborough Labour Party is selecting their new candidate?
Btw, Chris Bryant was a chaplain in Peterborough, the Venerable Helen was an MP there, if I find a connection between the Fugitive and Peterborough, could we declare that city the source of all evils?!
Nuts , nuts , nuts - I wonder what you folk all do for for a living or indeed where you all live - but there is no way that the Labour Psarty is ging to implode , either now or in the future …
205 Andrea. And of course our Stewart posts here from time to time !
206 graham h. Whether “the Labour Psarty is ging” is a mystery to us all !
07 - ‘ging’, short for ginger? I thought that they’d managed to put Kinnock behind them but he may be onto something.
Ah the joys of Larios - prize Spanish Gin , much prized ib Galicia …
207. Jack, I just saw the pics from Dave’s summer party or whatever it was…..I still have to recover… the women pictured made Paris Hilton looking a somehow elegant lady and Boris Johnson made Diane Abbott look like a statewoman.
Not sure why some people think they look trendy, when they just look trashy (and not the cult trash type like Helen)
210 Andrea. Ah…. yes, I should have warned you about those pics …. you’ll recover by Thursday.
… probably.
…………………………
G’Nite all …….. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
211. JAck, and you have not told me Vlad was in London last weekend either!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1869.html
(you’ll recover by Thursday from Ben Bradshaw’s outfit towards the end too)
206 - “Nuts , nuts , nuts - I wonder what you folk all do for for a living or indeed where you all live - but there is no way that the Labour Psarty is ging to implode , either now or in the future … ”
Somebody probably said this about the Liberals 80 years ago.
Should have said it earlier - excellent article, Tabman.
206- Don’t be so sure…
If the Libdems were smart they ought to turn their attention to Labour rather than this obsession they have with the Conservatives. There will always be a right of centre party, the Conservatives and a left of centre party.
The left of centre party does not have to be Labour. We would all be so much better off without them.
“Not sure why some people think they look trendy, when they just look trashy”
Very well put Andrea! My thoughts exactly. i wondered why, having seen the guests arrive Cameron’s well oiled PR machine didn’t do a quick confiscation of all cameras! Though Bradshaw’s shirt was interesting the Euro Pride pictures don’t do the event justice. I don’t know whether you’ve visited Soho in London but even on a normal summers evening it can be a wonderfully multi-coloured zoo.
215. Roger, sometimes some women seem not to understand they can be sexy and elegant at the same time and they chose the sexy and “slutty” route.
No, I’ve not been in Soho…my next trip, maybe!
212 Andrea. Thank you not for that Bradshaw pic …. I’m sure he could be prosecuted under the noise abatement legislation !
217. Oh, Jack, don’t be too esigent…btw, I confused Michael Cashman for John Reid in that link!