seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
The Tories are trying to re-invent themselves in the same vein as Labour did 15 years ago. Anyone under a certain age will not have personally experienced adult life under a Thatcher Government.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
David Cameron's excellent speech in MK
- Thread starter goldstone
- Start date
Dandyman
In London village.
I did the test and came out that I should vote Green
Give up on the "racial nationalism" and do what you know is right, then.
coventrygull
the right one
Give up on the "racial nationalism" and do what you know is right, then.
But the BNP are green
We have sacked Wallace, say BNP - Halifax Today
Dandyman
In London village.
There's this great myth grown up about the 70s that it was a time of absolute horror. Much of this was perpetuated by the Sun who did, an admittedly brilliant, hatchet job on Callaghan's government. I'm not pretending everything was rosy - most myths are based on some facts - but the country was far from the mess that you and other commentators portray.
There were indeed a lot of public sector strikes when the Callaghan government tried to implement a third year of income control for public sector workers and yes, that did lead to the apocalyptic headlines in the Sun but for most people life went on as before. Most of didn't experience any of the effects of the strike, we were dealing with the worst winter for about 30 years.
It's worth noting that the Tories won the 1979 election comfortably but Labour got something like 37 percent of the popular vote - a higher share than it got in 2005 when it won. If the country was really in the "horrific mess" that you say it was then there would have been widespread rejection of Labour, but that just didn't happen.
What I remember about the 70s was that I left school and got a job straight away. When, after a couple of years I wanted to go to uni, I got a grant (and could even sign on in the holidays). Mrs Gwylan left school in 1977, also got a job and got a council flat when she left home. In fact, for most of us back then, life was pretty good. But the Thatcher campaign was brilliant, focusing on aspirations of the skilled working class - exactly where the biggest swing in votes was. It was a campaign based on doing all right for oneself, rather than saving the country.
The Callaghan government inherited a bad hand. The Tories had left the economy in a mess with inflation running at about 20% and we were just getting over the 3-day week (the power cuts you mention were part of the Tory government of 70-74 not the Labour one). The government spent too much of its time trying to get parliamentary business through as it had such a slim majority. The biggest mistake that Callaghan made was not calling an election in the autumn of 1978 when he was ahead in the polls - if he'd won that then British history would have been very different.
- Thread starter
- #46
Well, I thought it was a bloody good speech ... at least, what I heard of it. Made me think that at least here was a politician who had been listening to the electorate. Of course, how much of it would be implemented who knows, politicians being politicians. But at least he's talking sense.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
On balance I've been impressed with Cameron on this whole affair, though with the current debacle that is politics that is akin to saying he stinks off piss rather than shit.
He's actually come out and say that he would do something, would change something about how things happen. Perhaps it is all bollocks but listening to him I get the impression that he actually does want to change some things.
I don't get that from Brown, I think he just wants this all to go away so he can get on with what he was doing prior to all this blowing up. Perhaps that is what he thinks will win votes as he is getting back to business trying to fix the economy, but I think he has misjudged the mood. He should be doing things, anything, to show that he understands how low an estimation the general public have of him and his ilk.
He's actually come out and say that he would do something, would change something about how things happen. Perhaps it is all bollocks but listening to him I get the impression that he actually does want to change some things.
I don't get that from Brown, I think he just wants this all to go away so he can get on with what he was doing prior to all this blowing up. Perhaps that is what he thinks will win votes as he is getting back to business trying to fix the economy, but I think he has misjudged the mood. He should be doing things, anything, to show that he understands how low an estimation the general public have of him and his ilk.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
She did inherit a creaking country run by unions and with an inflation rate that peaked at 24%. Was Britain not dubbed the 'sick man of Europe'? That wasn't going to be fixed by some antiseptic gel and a couple of plasters. We need a triple heart bypass and a frontal lobotomy.
User removed 4
New member
its not a myth , i was there as well, and the reasons that labour got 37% of the popular vote are twofold, firstly there was a far higher proportion of people working in traditional manual labour, where labour is the obvious choice, and secondly the lack of choice, there were far less parties and candidates to vote for then than there are now.
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
After hearing so many out of touch politicians, it is a relief to hear a politician make the right noises. Gordon Brown isn't even in the game as far as that goes.
However, these are just noises. Cows go moo. Pigs go oink. And youngish politicians wanting to get elected make sounds about redistributing power to the people. Cameron is using warm words that sound nice, but they don't actually translate into anything.
Look about what he says about electoral reform. He makes out that proportional representation is the only alternative to the First-Past-The-Post system, conveniently ignoring the claims of popular alternatives such as the Single Transferable Vote, Additional Members System and others. And then his depiction of PR is simply a ridiculous caricature. He expresses the view:
"Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers would choose a government on the basis of secret backroom deals. How is that going to deliver transparency and trust?"
Does he think that? And that that is enough for the whole case for electoral reform to be shut? He is either stupid or a liar. I don't he is stupid.
Last edited:
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Did Heath not inherit an economy in decline from Mr Macmillan?
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
No, Heath won in 1970, after six years of Harold Wilson's Labour Government.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Sorry, I did mean Wilson. They came thick and fast in those days. I am relying on my Economics A-Level, which I finished 11 years ago, so the accuracy has been dulled somewhat...(quite clearly!)
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
There weren't by the time Thatcher had finished
I'm not sure that this has much relevance. In fact, you could argue that there was more choice then as there were parties of the extreme right and extreme left and all shades in between. The only one that was missing was a Green party.
The Liberals had certainly benefited from a protest vote in the past (and would in the next election) so if the country was really in an "economic mess" why was there not a wholesale rejection of Labour?
coventrygull
the right one
I thought that was a myth
It was realsed by the Government 3 years ago. I watch a programe on it, they did not say it was a myth on that.
I have never heard of it as a myth until a min ago.
coventrygull
the right one
"In his book "Spycatcher", the former Security Service officer Peter Wright claimed that up to 30 members of the Service had plotted to undermine the former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. This allegation was exhaustively investigated and it was concluded, as stated publicly by Ministers, that no such plot had ever existed. Wright himself finally admitted in an interview with BBC1's "Panorama" programme in 1988 that his account had been unreliable."
Not sure if its the same thing?
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
The reasons for shares of votes are multiple and complex. It's easy to say that a main party gets less votes when there are more parties available, but then, there might be more parties available as it reflects growing alienation from the two-party system.
What is noticeable in that from a peak in 1951 when Labour and the Tories polled 97% share of the vote between them, this has fallen to 68% between them in 2005.
See Share of seats and votes in UK General Elections since 1945
To partly back up Bushy's point, it's almost certainly true that in 1979, there were probably a lot more voters 'attached' to particular parties, whereas nowadays, there are far more floating voters.
What is noticeable in that from a peak in 1951 when Labour and the Tories polled 97% share of the vote between them, this has fallen to 68% between them in 2005.
See Share of seats and votes in UK General Elections since 1945
To partly back up Bushy's point, it's almost certainly true that in 1979, there were probably a lot more voters 'attached' to particular parties, whereas nowadays, there are far more floating voters.