Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Theresa May's conference speech is a political earthquake Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    What gave you that impression? I'm not particularly bothered about surveillance and think she's handling brexit right that's about it.

    Her traditionalist views are often antithetical to mine (I'd abolish faith schools not create more! Plus I'd legalise most victimless crimes)

    She was also a reluctant if ambivalent remainer whereas Rudd was like me passionately Pro remain (trashing Vote Leave and Boris on Live TV)
    I suppose it would be her willingness to challenge the establishments vested interests and her economic position. Rudd seems much more an establishment politician.

    I suppose you just value your social positions more than i thought although you were a Lib Dem so perhaps not a shock.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I think the key thing here is how much the political space has changed. Right now May can drag middle class liberals along because most Tories will put the economy first (we may care about transgender policy, but it's generally a secondary issue) and they have nowhere to go. This was not the case during the coalition for example when the Orange Bookers would have welcomed those people with open arms.

    I certainly think that a classically liberal party could make waves but i'm not sure where the Blairites could go.
    It reminds me a bit of how Blair won the hard left vote in 1997 and 2001 because quite simply they had nowhere else to go. The middle class liberal tories seem the same now. They may go along with May for a couple of elections but at some point there is likely to be a more liberal party that will come along. Not classically liberal, probably just fairly socially and economically liberal.

    A lot could depend on whether the likes of Umunna and Hilary Benn could see themselves having more in common with the likes of Osborne and Nicky Morgan than they do with May.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It reminds me a bit of how Blair won the hard left vote in 1997 and 2001 because quite simply they had nowhere else to go. The middle class liberal tories seem the same now. They may go along with May for a couple of elections but at some point there is likely to be a more liberal party that will come along. Not classically liberal, probably just fairly socially and economically liberal.

    A lot could depend on whether the likes of Umunna and Hilary Benn could see themselves having more in common with the likes of Osborne and Nicky Morgan than they do with May.
    That would be simply a mildly classically liberal party. You never get a pure party. In the long run i do feel that is the winning position for the Tories and indeed i thought Goldsmith would have done well in London being close to that view. For now though, that door seems to have closed (not that i actively dislike May or anything).

    Well May and Farron are closer on the whole. There are only a few social issues in which they'd prefer Osbourne.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They also loved Thatcher's economics.

    I actually think, given the current state of the Labour party and the way that May appears to be shifting the tories, that history will be kind to Miliband.

    For all his faults, he held the Labour party together which now seems an incredible achievement and May seems keen on implementing pretty much his entire economic policy.
    The underlying logic is sound.. except for one important thing..

    Miliband was a one term loser.. for that reason, history will forget him.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The underlying logic is sound.. except for one important thing..

    Miliband was a one term loser.. for that reason, history will forget him.
    I often wonder if it would have made a difference had Miliband stayed on as a caretaker leader until the new election, rather than resigning straight away.

    It could have steadied the labour ship rather than creating the power vacuum that it did.*

    I also wonder what state labour would be in now had Burnham won.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I often wonder if it would have made a difference had Miliband stayed on as a caretaker leader until the new election, rather than resigning straight away.

    It could have steadied the labour ship rather than creating the power vacuum that it did.*

    I also wonder what state labour would be in now had Burnham won.
    Well Burnham was worse than Miliband given that he came behind him once however Miliband was actually the 4th best loser since 1945 in terms of vote share so i'd say that he'd have done a better job in polling.

    I don't think there was really a power vacuum, you simply had an election which went wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I suppose it would be her willingness to challenge the establishments vested interests and her economic position. Rudd seems much more an establishment politician.

    I suppose you just value your social positions more than i thought although you were a Lib Dem so perhaps not a shock.
    Yeah I'm more relaxed economically ( I could well be more free market than May - I think her 'workers on boards' policy is bonkers) and I am essentially a moderate Neo libertarian* which is fiercely anti theistic (particularly against the 'religion of peace')


    *https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-libertarianism
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well Burnham was worse than Miliband given that he came behind him once however Miliband was actually the 4th best loser since 1945 in terms of vote share so i'd say that he'd have done a better job in polling.

    I don't think there was really a power vacuum, you simply had an election which went wrong.
    Burnham is a complete duffer with nothing to offer. I think I've got more respect for Corbyn than I do for him.

    What would have been interesting to see is if Liz Kendall been elected instead.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well Burnham was worse than Miliband given that he came behind him once however Miliband was actually the 4th best loser since 1945 in terms of vote share so i'd say that he'd have done a better job in polling.

    I don't think there was really a power vacuum, you simply had an election which went wrong.
    I saw Burnham as Miliband 1.5*
    Same ideas but a better orator, less awkward and better looking.
    *
    He surely would have held the Labour Party together rather than the mess it's in now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When Ed Miliband made a very similar speech (except immigration) he was regarded as anti-business and anti-aspiration.

    Yet the Daily Mail today headlined about how wonderful it is that May is going after tax dodgers.

    Suddenly being 'liberal' and not hating immigration makes you the enemy of the state.
    To be fair, Milliband's speeches were constantly talking about the "undeserved rich" like he himself didn't fall into that catagory. It was entirely anti-aspirational. That's not the same as denouncing tax dodgers.*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Isn't any strategy a justifiable one if your opponent is ****?
    I think that May's grand strategy goes far beyond the considerations of Corbyn. This involves both her own ambitions for the country and political ideas that differ quite dramatically from the Bullingdon Boys and the Orange Bookers of the Lib Dems. Second, she is considering the interests of the Conservatives long-term; how can they appeal to voters who are just ordinary, non-political types? I think she knows that in the aftermath of 2008, people are less willing to simply accept classical liberal economics and I don't think she accepts it herself.

    The thing is, Corbyn's utter incompetence and lack of appeal means she could pretty much follow any strategy she likes. She could just sit back and support the status quo. But that's not her style and she wants more for this country and for the Conservative Party
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Some of this was mainly just red meat for the party faithful at conference. It's not uncommon.
    This is not Tory red meat. Tory red meat is attacks on trade unions, making it easier to sack people and cutting welfare benefits. Political red meat generally means the cruder and more prejudiced sorts of policies that appeal to the activists; what she is saying is not the ordinary sort of thing that sends Tory activists into a feeding frenzy.

    I understand your point being that she is just saying this for political reasons, but from everything I've seen she is very different from her predecessors and really does have a Keynesian streak and a belief that government intervention really can benefit the economy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I saw Burnham as Miliband 1.5*
    Same ideas but a better orator, less awkward and better looking.
    *
    He surely would have held the Labour Party together rather than the mess it's in now.
    He would have held it together if he'd been elected, I agree. But what we saw during the leadership election in 2015 (his desperate attempts to appeal to Corbyn supporters, even if it completely went against his past political beliefs) and the fact he has just kept his head down and not said anything against Corbyn out of political self-interest... that causes me to think less of him.

    Back in 2015 as the leadership election was starting, I would have been okay with any of the non-Corbyn three. But these days (despite having voted for Kendal, even though I am very much to her left economically) I think only Cooper would have made a good leader.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    This is not Tory red meat. Tory red meat is attacks on trade unions, making it easier to sack people and cutting welfare benefits. Political red meat generally means the cruder and more prejudiced sorts of policies that appeal to the activists; what she is saying is not the ordinary sort of thing that sends Tory activists into a feeding frenzy.

    I understand your point being that she is just saying this for political reasons, but from everything I've seen she is very different from her predecessors and really does have a Keynesian streak and a belief that government intervention really can benefit the economy
    I disagree with your analysis. This is red meat, in that it's what they wanted to hear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    I disagree with your analysis. This is red meat, in that it's what they wanted to hear.
    Really? Tories wanted to hear that there needs to be more government intervention in the economy? That there is too much inequality and the government needs to be in the driving seat in pushing back? That the government should subsidise private industry in the manufacturing sector? How often do you spend time around Tory activists?

    For the most part the activists are happy with her because she is a strong leader, she scratches that Thatcher-based itch for a dominating woman and she has united the party. But most of the activists I speak to believe that she won't end up carrying out these policies and that it is just a pitch. They aren't supportive of the actual substance (except on immigration and Brexit)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Really? Tories wanted to hear that there needs to be more government intervention in the economy? That there is too much inequality and the government needs to be in the driving seat in pushing back? That the government should subsidise private industry in the manufacturing sector? How often do you spend time around Tory activists?
    Yes, exactly. They wanted to hear change, and they wanted to hear a more interventionist Tory government doing what it does best - righting inequality. If you'd listened to people leaving the hall that was precisely the sentiment. Your view is certainly with merit, but with respect, there are more people in the Tory party than you and your analysis, and how you see things is not necessarily gospel. Neither is my view. We are, after all, a relatively broad church, still.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    To be fair, Milliband's speeches were constantly talking about the "undeserved rich" like he himself didn't fall into that catagory. It was entirely anti-aspirational. That's not the same as denouncing tax dodgers.*
    I see the word 'aspirational' as totally meaningless, hollow management talk. It's a bit like a training day at work where some cringey 'motivator' goes on about how you need to be 'dynamic' and 'innovative' etc.

    Most people would describe themselves as aspirational. The point is that everyone's view of what it means are different. Miliband saw the idea of a more equal society, where workers have more powers, with a greater role for the state in preventing poverty as aspirational. Others saw aspiration as the state just letting people get on with it.

    Everyone's view of aspiration is different and none are inherently right or wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I see the word 'aspirational' as totally meaningless, hollow management talk. It's a bit like a training day at work where some cringey 'motivator' goes on about how you need to be 'dynamic' and 'innovative' etc.

    Most people would describe themselves as aspirational. The point is that everyone's view of what it means are different. Miliband saw the idea of a more equal society, where workers have more powers, with a greater role for the state in preventing poverty as aspirational. Others saw aspiration as the state just letting people get on with it.

    Everyone's view of aspiration is different and none are inherently right or wrong.
    Precisely. 'Aspirational' is very much a motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiment. Show me someone who doesn't want to be more economically secure, more keen to make the most of their life. The manifestation of aspiration may be different, but the destination is the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Yes, exactly. They wanted to hear change, and they wanted to hear a more interventionist Tory government doing what it does best - righting inequality. If you'd listened to people leaving the hall that was precisely the sentiment. Your view is certainly with merit, but with respect, there are more people in the Tory party than you and your analysis and how you see things is not necessarily gospel. Neither is my view. We are, after all, a relatively broad church, still.
    Fair enough. In fairness to your view, a family friend of mine is a city solicitor; his father is an ennobled former Conservative minister (not senior, he was something like Minister of State for Health in Wales or something like that). He is the sort of person who should be core Tory votes, but he voted Labour last year. His reason being that inequality has gotten completely out of control, that it's becoming ever more difficult for young people from decent families to buy a house in a decent area in London. When reasonably prosperous people with good, professional jobs are finding they can't give their children a leg up on the housing market (at least, in a decent area) because it's too expensive, something is out of whack

    Maybe the loyal, reliable activists in the shires are looking at this differently to the more metropolitan Cameroonian ones?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    She has so many plates to juggle that we can only wonder how much of it is intended or at whom, she has to bring the party together as one, she has to come across as a safe par of hands to steer us into these uncharted waters of Brexit (who else would we like to see us through it, Corbyn?), she has to please brexiteers and UKippers as political strategy (with UKIP falling apart as they are the race is on for their voters and for the Tories it is a matter of bringing many of them back to the fold), the economic markets have to be reassured as much as possible, the very serious issue of 'concerns about immigration' compels her into having to say something soothing, so much of what she says is just what she just has to say.

    People, these are historical times and I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see in charge of things. Can't see a better option within the Conservative party as successor to Cameron and definitely can't see Corbyn as a viable alternative from elsewhere. Good luck to her, my only concern is that she may get carried away with it all.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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