Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBritishArmy)
    You seem to be equating your own personal views with a party's electoral success
    What are you talking about? The Tories failure to win a majority for the last two decades is not my personal view, it's historical fact.

    You may be in favour of gay marriage, but nearly half of people in this country aren't and it's not a policy that most people take into account when deciding who to vote for.
    It's a good thing that human and civil rights are not a popularity contest, but even if they were, the loud, radical anti-marriage equality minority would be easily defeated.

    The Tories need to move over to the right post-2015 because it would win more votes than it would lose.
    Ah yes; after years of trying to detoxify the brand, after decades without a clear electoral win, being 10 points behind labour in the polls... you think they should tack sharply to the right!? Where are all these mythical new votes going to come from?

    But I would hasten to add; I'm not going to stand in the Tories way if they think that's the best course. In fact, knock yourselves out. Follow your hearts.

    Cameron seems desperate to attract socially liberal voters but why on earth would they vote Tory when there's a Labour party that appeals to them more overall (and the Lib Dems too?). Gay marriage won zero new support for Cameron and lost him plenty of his traditional supporters to UKIP.
    Perhaps he did it because it's the right thing to do?

    The electoral politics is clear; it was suicidal because there remain a significant, noisy minority of radical anti-family, anti-marriage right-wingers who will attack their party leader.

    At least he gave himself to a good cause, and it will be remembered as the one good, significant thing that happened 2010-2015. He did it with an eye on his legacy and the history books.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Only because of constituency boundaries favour Labour to the tune of about twenty seats.
    Ahh, twenty seats. If Labour comes in at 2001 levels, that's still a majority of 50-odd.

    But hey, I'm sure when Labour goes into the 2015 election with a ten point lead and comes out with a 50 seat majority, you'll still say it's communist plot and that YouGov has been infiltrated by Stalinists, and that all the psephologists are secret Trotskyites, and all the scrutineers are members of the SWP (especially the Conservative ones!).

    Don't let me get in the way of your conspiracy theories.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    No, but it would be good for you to check your facts.
    1) As I said, it was a mental typo

    2) On the other hand, you truly were under a misapprehension about the Sheffield rally. You really should check your facts
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    1) As I said, it was a mental typo

    2) On the other hand, you truly were under a misapprehension about the Sheffield rally. You really should check your facts
    I was mistaken by two weeks or so, but you were wrong by about 5 years.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Labour will win outright in 2015. We dont play games with the LibDems.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    During the 1970s and 1980s, it was quite typical for the left to squabble amongst itself, form factions, disunite, and so on. Note the SDP breakaway from the Labour Party, militant tendency, and so on.

    In the 2010s and 2020s, I suspect that it will be conservatives who will take the reputation for political infighting, squabbling and factions. You already have the major parliamentary division between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives (both of which are centre-right parties).

    Then you have the split between most of the party and the social conservatives. And then the EU split within the party, and between the Conservatives and UKIP.

    On the issues of Europe, gay marriage and lords reform, the Tory Party is tearing itself apart and one wonders whether the right of the party really still has enough in common with the leadership to continue to be a single party.

    Seeing that the Conservatives have not won a parliamentary majority since 1987 and that their share of the vote has continually declined since then and they will probably lose the next election, I suspect this will continue until we see some kind of "New Conservative" rebranding and rehabilitation.

    I think this is a great post and an accurate prediction. Definitely going to see a rebranding in the next few decades, Cameron already laid the foundation for it with his oxymoronical 'The conservative party = the party for change'.

    But will it be to the right? I've been reading so many conflicting stances on this that I no longer even know my own.


    (Original post by Dombs)
    Liberal Democrats are not centre-right, they are classed as centre-left. That's why it was completely ridiculous for them to form a coalition with the Conservatives, as they have much more in common, politically, with the Labour Party.

    That's actually quite a large misconception based around 'political branding'. If you judge them purely on individual actions on each piece we've seen in government they're definitely centre right.


    (Original post by meenu89)
    I was mistaken by two weeks or so, but you were wrong by about 5 years.
    You're completely right, but don't use one error to dodge discussing the OP. Interested to hear your actual thoughts on this rather than a grammar nazi worthy discussion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I think this is a great post and an accurate prediction. Definitely going to see a rebranding in the next few decades, Cameron already laid the foundation for it with his oxymoronical 'The conservative party = the party for change'.

    But will it be to the right? I've been reading so many conflicting stances on this that I no longer even know my own.





    That's actually quite a large misconception based around 'political branding'. If you judge them purely on individual actions on each piece we've seen in government they're definitely centre right.




    You're completely right, but don't use one error to dodge discussing the OP. Interested to hear your actual thoughts on this rather than a grammar nazi worthy discussion.
    Well, I think it could be right. Absence of boundary changes will mean they wouldn't be able to win. Happy now?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I was mistaken by two weeks or so, but you were wrong by about 5 years.
    You were wrong entirely, whereas I wrote 1987 because I was a little distracted. Quite a difference. In my case, I was referring to 1992 and accidentally wrote 1987. In your case, you just didn't know.

    But hey, I'm absolutely happy if you are afraid to debate the substance because you're more comfortable with trivia.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    During the 1970s and 1980s, it was quite typical for the left to squabble amongst itself, form factions, disunite, and so on. Note the SDP breakaway from the Labour Party, militant tendency, and so on.

    In the 2010s and 2020s, I suspect that it will be conservatives who will take the reputation for political infighting, squabbling and factions. You already have the major parliamentary division between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives (both of which are centre-right parties).

    Then you have the split between most of the party and the social conservatives. And then the EU split within the party, and between the Conservatives and UKIP.

    On the issues of Europe, gay marriage and lords reform, the Tory Party is tearing itself apart and one wonders whether the right of the party really still has enough in common with the leadership to continue to be a single party.

    Seeing that the Conservatives have not won a parliamentary majority since 1987 and that their share of the vote has continually declined since then and they will probably lose the next election, I suspect this will continue until we see some kind of "New Conservative" rebranding and rehabilitation.
    You are maybe short on some more recent knowledge of Conservative history. The party was riven with division over Europe from the first leadership challenge to Thatcher in 1989 and they still managed to soldier on until 1997. After the disastrous period between then and 2003, I feel that there was already a "compassionate" rebrand after Cameron became leader in 2005, hug a hoodie and all that, though of course it was all water under the bridge by the time the *******s got into power.

    You could equally say that if you count New Labour as a Thatcherite party (which they are), Labour haven't won an election since 1966.

    I think it's fair to say all opposition parties are divided, all of the time, particularly if out of power for more than one parliament.

    However I do think you're right in saying the right-wing vote is now split in a similar manner to the SDP/Labour split in the 1980s except due to the entrance of a new party rather than the breaking of an old one. And it is also true that the Conservative vote has been declining overall for decades on end.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    You were wrong entirely, whereas I wrote 1987 because I was a little distracted. Quite a difference. In my case, I was referring to 1992 and accidentally wrote 1987. In your case, you just didn't know.

    But hey, I'm absolutely happy if you are afraid to debate the substance because you're more comfortable with trivia.
    Google it. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ne...hrome&ie=UTF-8

    See my answer to the question in a reply to another post.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Well, I think it could be right. Absence of boundary changes will mean they wouldn't be able to win. Happy now?

    Just wanted to hear your thoughts, sorry if made you sad :console:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    During the election night, when the result was still far from clear, he said to camera, in a knowing voice, "I know we're going to win".

    Every exit poll and pre-election survey had him losing, especially in key marginals. There was an alleged 'late surge' of Tories in those marginals on the night.

    Just makes one wonder - is the count in this country always quite as clean, fair and untroubled as one hopes? Or do Florida things happen here sometimes? Surely that nice Mr Major wouldn't have stooped to using the MI5 his government had controlled since 1979 to serve their interests, would they?? Would they?
    no
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I think this is a great post and an accurate prediction. Definitely going to see a rebranding in the next few decades, Cameron already laid the foundation for it with his oxymoronical 'The conservative party = the party for change'
    A good point well made. I mean, conservatives can certainly argue that they're a change insofar as there will be different ministers for the crown. But if they're actually arguing that they're a part "of" change, then we really must know to what.

    That's actually quite a large misconception based around 'political branding'. If you judge them purely on individual actions on each piece we've seen in government they're definitely centre right.
    Totally agree. I think that the reason that many thought the Lib Dems were left is because a very large degree of superficiality reigns amongst the less engaged voters. Very much a form of intellectual laziness that means they rarely actually engage with the ideas and political philosophies that are (or at least, purport) to underlie the manifesto and actions of the parties.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Just wanted to hear your thoughts, sorry if made you sad :console:
    Now convince OP that there was a Sheffield rally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    During the 1970s and 1980s, it was quite typical for the left to squabble amongst itself, form factions, disunite, and so on. Note the SDP breakaway from the Labour Party, militant tendency, and so on.

    In the 2010s and 2020s, I suspect that it will be conservatives who will take the reputation for political infighting, squabbling and factions. You already have the major parliamentary division between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives (both of which are centre-right parties).

    Then you have the split between most of the party and the social conservatives. And then the EU split within the party, and between the Conservatives and UKIP.

    On the issues of Europe, gay marriage and lords reform, the Tory Party is tearing itself apart and one wonders whether the right of the party really still has enough in common with the leadership to continue to be a single party.

    Seeing that the Conservatives have not won a parliamentary majority since 1987 and that their share of the vote has continually declined since then and they will probably lose the next election, I suspect this will continue until we see some kind of "New Conservative" rebranding and rehabilitation.
    Very interesting. I love how UKIP will divide the right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There are a few myths about the 1992 election. It wasn't quite the shock that some people on here are describing.

    Labour were well ahead in the polls and on course for victory during 1990 due to the Poll Tax and unpopularity of Mrs Thatcher, then Major came in, the Poll Tax was scrapped, and during 1991 the Tories recovered. Also Kinnock was never really a very credible PM, which was a problem for Labour throughout his time as leader - so the closer it got to election time the more that became a factor when people started to envision him as leader.

    During late 1991 and early 1992, within Labour there was talk of replacing Kinnock with John Smith. Tony Blair was a big advocate of this - he was adamant that Labour would not win with Kinnock as leader, but Smith was too much of a loyalist to go for it. My personal suspicion is that Smith sensed he would only get one shot at the leadership, and that Labour were probably not quite there in the public's minds to win that election in 1992, so rather than have a few months as leader and lose an election he would be better having a full term in opposition after the election, as he was the likely successor to Kinnock.

    The election campaign of 1992 was the most exciting one in recent history because the outcome was so uncertain however, as the campaign went on, momentum ebbed away from Labour. Even Kinnock reflected after the election (before that Sheffield 'we're all right!' rally which was trying to maintain false hope), that he had sensed the public weren't with them. John Major had done much better during the election campaign with his soapbox campaigning, going out in the street doing ad lib speeches, and dealing with the hecklers, whilst Labour's campaign team kept Kinnock away from the public, he was put out in carefully choreographed TV appearances. I remember the press coverage during the time, was all around "can Labour overcome the obstacle of an unpopular leader and win the election anyway).

    In the last week of the campaign the expectation wasn't of a Labour victory. The expectation was for a hung parliament. Paddy Ashdown was unlikely to do a deal with the Tories like Clegg did, so it was about whether the Tories could sneak an overall majority, or miss out by a small enough majority to go in coalition with the Ulster Unionists, or whether it would be a hung parliament and Kinnock form a deal with the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems would have no doubt secured PR as part of that deal and Ashdown, a much more confident and powerful personality than Kinnock, would have been a very influential member of Cabinet.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You could equally say that if you count New Labour as a Thatcherite party (which they are), Labour haven't won an election since 1966.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...,_October_1974
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You are maybe short on some more recent knowledge of Conservative history
    Do you really need to start off with ad hominem? Is it possible you failed to understand the post? Or can we retract the claws and just debate?

    The party was riven with division over Europe from the first leadership challenge to Thatcher in 1989 and they still managed to soldier on until 1997.
    We would be in agreement that the Tories are often divided. But they've never been divided like they are now, and they've never been in the position of having to fight a mass-movement party to the right of them like UKIP.

    The implication of the post was that UKIP will be the Conservatives SDP.

    You could equally say that if you count New Labour as a Thatcherite party (which they are), Labour haven't won an election since 1966.
    That would be if you can count New Labour as a Thatcherite party. And leaving aside Labour's 5 years in power in the 1970s. Considering there's really no basis in policy to do so, I guess we can leave that aside.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    During the 1970s and 1980s, it was quite typical for the left to squabble amongst itself, form factions, disunite, and so on. Note the SDP breakaway from the Labour Party, militant tendency, and so on.

    In the 2010s and 2020s, I suspect that it will be conservatives who will take the reputation for political infighting, squabbling and factions. You already have the major parliamentary division between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives (both of which are centre-right parties).

    Then you have the split between most of the party and the social conservatives. And then the EU split within the party, and between the Conservatives and UKIP.


    On the issues of Europe, gay marriage and lords reform, the Tory Party is tearing itself apart and one wonders whether the right of the party really still has enough in common with the leadership to continue to be a single party.

    Seeing that the Conservatives have not won a parliamentary majority since 1987 and that their share of the vote has continually declined since then and they will probably lose the next election, I suspect this will continue until we see some kind of "New Conservative" rebranding and rehabilitation.
    I think it's going to happen on both sides myself. The trade Unions are beginning to flex their muscles and attempt to take advantage of a weakened economy. I think if this general strike that is being talked about comes about we'll be seeing splits in Labour as even they've realised their old ways didn't work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Now convince OP that there was a Sheffield rally.
    There was one. Just not the night before
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.