Her Majesty's Opposition
Oct. 6th, 2002 10:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerUnlike the good old US of A, we don't have a two party system. Like the good old US of A, we have an effective two party system. Well, in many ways, anyway.
On the right we have the Conservatives, who believe that the government should stay out of the business of its citizens. Unless they are gay, or take drugs, or black, poor or think the wrong thoughts. In which they should be hung and then flogged and then sent off to boot camp. On the plus side, they seem to have a firm grasp of economics, mostly because they're all rich businessmen (or nobility).
On the left is the Labour party, who care deeply about employment, poor people and the rights of the common man. Mostly the rights of the common man to tax the rich until they all leave the country and give it all to the unions so that they can work 6 hours a week.
Somewhere in the middle are the Liberal Democrats, who believe that, deep down, people are nice and we should just jolly well all get along a bit better with each other. Strangely, they don't get many votes.
All of which now looks a bit dated. Following Labour making a complete mess of the economy back in the mid to lates 70s, the Conservatives were swept to power. Thanks to the there being lots of money about in the 80s, plus the occasional war, the Tories stayed in power until 1997 (despite a close shave in 1992), when they were replaced by Labour in a huge landslide.
Labour were made electable because:
The landslide Labour win was incredible - the 1992 results were Conservative - 319, Labour - 195, Liberals - 10. The 1997 results were Labour 328, Conservative 165, Liberals 34. Note that the actual voting percentage swing was only around 10%, but because it's a first-past-the-post system, a small swing in close-run constituencies can cause a large swing in the number of seats. Lots more details here
Everyone pretty much expected the Tories to bounce back from their defeat, and the swing to move back the way in 2001. It didn't happen. The percentages stayed remarkably unchanged in fact. The new Conservative leader resigned and a leadership contest was held to replace him. This turned into a farce, with the one person capable of making the Tories electable failing to make it to the final vote. The conservative party was completely split between those who wanted to reform the party to conform to public opinion and those who wanted to force a return to old style values, belieiving the country would go to them. The final winner (Iain Duncan Smith) was widely regarded (outside the Tories) as an implacable right winger who would alienate the general population. In fact, he did worse than that - he simply vanished from the radar, taking the Tories with him.
This may have been a tactic designed to allow the Conservatives to reappear with a flourish, proposing new ideas which would bring them back to public favour. Certainly their first conference would be the time to unveil these new policies, sadly it's not looking like it will go well. A major right-wing magazine (owned by a Tory MP) has published a story deriding Iain Duncan Smith's leadership. Simultaneously, The Sunday Times (a major Tory supporter) has published quotes from a former deputy prime minster stating that Duncan Smith has to go, as he is making no impact. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrats have been claiming that after the next election, the Tories will be a memory and they will be the next opposition. A recent poll found that nearly double the number of people thought that Kennedy would make a good prime minister than thought Duncan Smith would.
The next week will be very interesting, with all eyes focussed on the Conservative Party Conference. Will Iain Duncan Smith pull himself back from the brink? Will there be outright rebellion in the ranks? Will any MPs abandon the party for either Labour or the Liberal Democrats (as has happened previously)? Nothing is certain at this point, and I can honestly say that I'm fascinated to see where they stand this time next week and indeed after the next election.
On the right we have the Conservatives, who believe that the government should stay out of the business of its citizens. Unless they are gay, or take drugs, or black, poor or think the wrong thoughts. In which they should be hung and then flogged and then sent off to boot camp. On the plus side, they seem to have a firm grasp of economics, mostly because they're all rich businessmen (or nobility).
On the left is the Labour party, who care deeply about employment, poor people and the rights of the common man. Mostly the rights of the common man to tax the rich until they all leave the country and give it all to the unions so that they can work 6 hours a week.
Somewhere in the middle are the Liberal Democrats, who believe that, deep down, people are nice and we should just jolly well all get along a bit better with each other. Strangely, they don't get many votes.
All of which now looks a bit dated. Following Labour making a complete mess of the economy back in the mid to lates 70s, the Conservatives were swept to power. Thanks to the there being lots of money about in the 80s, plus the occasional war, the Tories stayed in power until 1997 (despite a close shave in 1992), when they were replaced by Labour in a huge landslide.
Labour were made electable because:
- Everyone was completely fed up with the hypocritical moralising of the Tories (they started a "back to basics" campaign, immediately followed by shocking revelations of affairs by at least 6 of their MPs), their mishandling of the economy (the pound had been forced out of the European Exchange Rate mechanism and effectively devalued, and there was a lot of feeling that they'd expected to be forced out in 1992 and therefore had deliberately left the economy in a bad state for whoever followed them. Oops.), and a general feeling that the Conservatives just didn't care about anyone but themselves and had lost touch with the common people, an accusation that their next leader agreed with.
- Labour had become New Labour, ditching their attachment to central control (well, total central control) and redistribution (see the bottom of this page). They promised to give freedom to the Bank of England to set its own interest rates and to follow Tory spending limits for the first two years, to show they could be trusted.
The landslide Labour win was incredible - the 1992 results were Conservative - 319, Labour - 195, Liberals - 10. The 1997 results were Labour 328, Conservative 165, Liberals 34. Note that the actual voting percentage swing was only around 10%, but because it's a first-past-the-post system, a small swing in close-run constituencies can cause a large swing in the number of seats. Lots more details here
Everyone pretty much expected the Tories to bounce back from their defeat, and the swing to move back the way in 2001. It didn't happen. The percentages stayed remarkably unchanged in fact. The new Conservative leader resigned and a leadership contest was held to replace him. This turned into a farce, with the one person capable of making the Tories electable failing to make it to the final vote. The conservative party was completely split between those who wanted to reform the party to conform to public opinion and those who wanted to force a return to old style values, belieiving the country would go to them. The final winner (Iain Duncan Smith) was widely regarded (outside the Tories) as an implacable right winger who would alienate the general population. In fact, he did worse than that - he simply vanished from the radar, taking the Tories with him.
This may have been a tactic designed to allow the Conservatives to reappear with a flourish, proposing new ideas which would bring them back to public favour. Certainly their first conference would be the time to unveil these new policies, sadly it's not looking like it will go well. A major right-wing magazine (owned by a Tory MP) has published a story deriding Iain Duncan Smith's leadership. Simultaneously, The Sunday Times (a major Tory supporter) has published quotes from a former deputy prime minster stating that Duncan Smith has to go, as he is making no impact. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrats have been claiming that after the next election, the Tories will be a memory and they will be the next opposition. A recent poll found that nearly double the number of people thought that Kennedy would make a good prime minister than thought Duncan Smith would.
The next week will be very interesting, with all eyes focussed on the Conservative Party Conference. Will Iain Duncan Smith pull himself back from the brink? Will there be outright rebellion in the ranks? Will any MPs abandon the party for either Labour or the Liberal Democrats (as has happened previously)? Nothing is certain at this point, and I can honestly say that I'm fascinated to see where they stand this time next week and indeed after the next election.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-10-07 12:37 pm (UTC)a) intelligent enough to manipulate these things to the absolute domination of the British £
b) Charismatic enough to have the public like him
c) Interesting enough to have the public hate him too. (The lack of even hatred speaks volumes about IDS)
d) Willing to actually sort out the cock-swill that is this countries public service.
Get me someone like that, and I'll vote for him. If Tony Blair demonstrates enough traits along those lines, I'll vote for him too. But he doesn't. He fails on a and d.
Kennedy is a bit of an unknown... but I think he's more likely to fall down on b and c. And a prime minister needs to keep the publics interest. He should wear a gimp suit. But if I were in Scotland, I'd vote liberal.
Adam
no subject
Date: 2002-10-07 01:15 pm (UTC)He's definitely doing something what with all this PFI stuff and more money being pumped into public services. Only time will tell if it's something useful.