BBC- Prepare for 2007 Snap Election

[The Man From G.O.P.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6191013.stm



Wooooweeee, would be an exciting one, please discuss.

[bullmoose88]

Well...assuming Blair's gone...I'm hoping the parliamentary Labour party gets its ass kicked. (Thats right Al and Dave...BRING IT ON!!! )

One question...Thatcher (1979-1990)...on what date would Tony's tenure surpass Maggie's? Would he pass it in 2008?

[Peter]

One question...Thatcher (1979-1990)...on what date would Tony's tenure surpass Maggie's? Would he pass it in 2008?

He would equal Mrs Thatcher on 19 November, 2008.

A snap election would not surprise me - like Eden, Brown will want his own mandate and a full 4 years in front of him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, that's not what the article says. Learn to read please.

What the article says is that the LibDems think there might be an election as soon as October next year, and that the Tories want (or want to be seen to want) an early election after Brown becomes P.M.

In otherwords, meaningless fluff (btw, the LibDems always dread being caught off-guard by snap elections. From them, this is more paranoia than fluff).

Of more interest is the slightly older article which indicates that a snap election might be held in 2008.

[Rural Radical]

I cant see it happening.

I dont remember an election in early 1991 when John Major took over from Thatcher.

[afleitch]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

[Rural Radical]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

Youre right there wont be one until spring 2009 IMO.

As for Cameron he is un tested. When somebody (like Blair) in business or politics ays they are going you want them to go. So Cameron has not really had anyone to face as of yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

Too far out to tell for sure either way on that.

The main reason why a snap election is unlikely is lack of money. More money will flow in when Blair goes o/c, but Labour won't be in a position for a General Election until 2008 at the very earliest; and that's stretching things.

[Democratic Hawk]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

As of now, Labour would almost certainly lose its overall majority

Dave

[Rural Radical]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

As of now, Labour would almost certainly lose its overall majority

Dave

Yes we would, would be biggest part though IMO.

How do we compare to say the Tories polling in December 1988?

[afleitch]

They wouldn't dare as they would proably loose (and by loose I mean loose their majority)

As of now, Labour would almost certainly lose its overall majority

Dave

In December 1988, Gallup had the Tories leading 43/32/20 and ICM similarly 45/39/12. The Tories remained in the lead from the 87 election, Labour didn't start registering leads until the summer of 1989

Yes we would, would be biggest part though IMO.

How do we compare to say the Tories polling in December 1988?

[Cubby]

No, that's not what the article says. Learn to read please.

What the article says is that the LibDems think there might be an election as soon as October next year, and that the Tories want (or want to be seen to want) an early election after Brown becomes P.M.

In otherwords, meaningless fluff (btw, the LibDems always dread being caught off-guard by snap elections. From them, this is more paranoia than fluff).

Of more interest is the slightly older article which indicates that a snap election might be held in 2008.

TN2024 didn't understand the article because he thinks he's British but he's not. I on the other hand like British politics, but realize I know next to nothing about parliamentary procedure.

As much as I like Labour  I have to say that in 2008-09, I want David Cameron to win. The longer Labour stays in power, the bigger the backlash against them will be when they eventually lose (see 1997 election). Thats my cynical reason, but I also like Cameron as a politician and think he's doing a good job of dragging the Tories into the 21st Century.

(I don't deal with the Lib Dems only because as an American I have an aversion to 3rd Parties, maybe I'd like the Lib Dems, who knows?)

[afleitch]

but I also like Cameron as a politician and think he's doing a good job of dragging the Tories into the 21st Century.

That's exactly what Labour don't get, Cameron is pretty popular as a person (more so, it has to be said than his party) and Labour don't know how to deal with him- Early attacks, particularly on his class background just come off as a crass or childish (mocking David 'call me Dave' Cameron from the party that brought us Anthony 'call me Tony' Blair for example ) and one year on they still can't work out how to deal with him. When the election comes I expect Labour to ignore Cameron altogether and concentrate on the 'politics of fear' style positioning under Brown - 'Only Labour can keep you safe from terrorists with our ID cards and surveillance and 90 day detentions and ASBO's and cabinet condemnations of veil wearing' and so on which is 'more here and now' than their 'Remember the 80's weren't they sh-t' campaigns in recent years which are looking forced and stale as Labour will have a 12/13 year record it has to defend by the time of the next election.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

but I also like Cameron as a politician and think he's doing a good job of dragging the Tories into the 21st Century.

That's exactly what Labour don't get, Cameron is pretty popular as a person (more so, it has to be said than his party) and Labour don't know how to deal with him- Early attacks, particularly on his class background just come off as a crass or childish (mocking David 'call me Dave' Cameron from the party that brought us Anthony 'call me Tony' Blair for example ) and one year on they still can't work out how to deal with him. When the election comes I expect Labour to ignore Cameron altogether and concentrate on the 'politics of fear' style positioning under Brown - 'Only Labour can keep you safe from terrorists with our ID cards and surveillance and 90 day detentions and ASBO's and cabinet condemnations of veil wearing' and so on which is 'more here and now' than their 'Remember the 80's weren't they sh-t' campaigns in recent years which are looking forced and stale as Labour will have a 12/13 year record it has to defend by the time of the next election.

You're right, personal attacks have fallen flat for them, Blair always plays total "look at my record" defense during PMQ's, you say they have a decade old record to defend, what if any, is an avenue for attack for them.

And to you Pim, I make no claim to be British, I find I like America just fine, but having a British father who doesn't care about where he was born (damn stupid generation) and grandparents who reinforce it however they can, I find myself to be in an interesting situation, I find British politics to be far far more interesting then the bullsh!t here, and do all I can to learn about it.

[Cubby]

And to you Pim, I make no claim to be British, I find I like America just fine, but having a British father who doesn't care about where he was born (damn stupid generation) and grandparents who reinforce it however they can, I find myself to be in an interesting situation, I find British politics to be far far more interesting then the bullsh!t here, and do all I can to learn about it.

Oh you have a British father, well that explains it. Sorry for being sarcastic

I'm reading a book about Britain in World War II right now. Lord Halifax sounds like a traitor, he wanted Germany to win. The book says the Conservatives had a huge majority in 1935. If I recall they also had a huge victory in 1931.

Why did they do so well during the Great Depression? You'd think that with people suffering they'd vote for a left wing party. What was wrong with Labour? The only thing I can think of is that Russian Letter (Zinoviev) that implied that Labour listened to the Soviet Union. But there must be other reasons.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Halifax didn't WANT Germany to win, he just assumed they would and wanted to get out of it cheaply.

I consider his actions traitorous.


Labour had the most seats in the 1929 election - but it was a hung parliament and had to rely on the Liberals to get anything done.  It was Labour's inability to do anything about the depression which caused - a split in August 1931 - then Labour got the blame and got booted out in pretty spectacular fashion. Labor managed to pick up 102 seats in the next election and still languished until 1945.

[Cubby]

Halifax didn't WANT Germany to win, he just assumed they would and wanted to get out of it cheaply.

I consider his actions traitorous.


Labour had the most seats in the 1929 election - but it was a hung parliament and had to rely on the Liberals to get anything done.  It was Labour's inability to do anything about the depression which caused - a split in August 1931 - then Labour got the blame and got booted out in pretty spectacular fashion. Labor managed to pick up 102 seats in the next election and still languished until 1945.

Thanks for the info. So Britain had the opposite party situation compared to America. Here the Republicans were in power in 1929, and they got blamed and suffered a huge defeat. There, Labour and the Liberals were in power, but got blamed for the depression and lost to the conservatives.

Halifax=HP

[minionofmidas]

but I also like Cameron as a politician and think he's doing a good job of dragging the Tories into the 21st Century.

That's exactly what Labour don't get, Cameron is pretty popular as a person (more so, it has to be said than his party) and Labour don't know how to deal with him- Early attacks, particularly on his class background just come off as a crass or childish (mocking David 'call me Dave' Cameron from the party that brought us Anthony 'call me Tony' Blair for example )

Not to mention Anthony 'call me Tony Benn' Sedgwood-Benn!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour had the most seats in the 1929 election - but it was a hung parliament and had to rely on the Liberals to get anything done.

The Labour leadership of the early '30's also had no ideas or short term plans for anything.
You also had the ghastly influence of arch-Gladstonian Snowden as Chancellor...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The split resulted in MacDonald, Snowden et al and all Liberals who weren't personal friends of Lloyd George (that bit generally gets forgotten) essentially joining the Tories. IMO the defeat of Labour in '31 wasn't a backlash against the Depression (after all, MacDonald and Snowden were very much in bed with the Tories that election) so much as a huge anti-Left backlash (and as such, maybe a little comparable with the rise of fascism in other European countries...).
Basically, Labour was left with only it's core coalfield constituencies (including the old Spennymoor seat ) after that election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For most of the U.K, the Depression was actually worse in the late '30's than the early '30's (o/c the coalfields had been in their own personal economic hell since the return to the Gold Standard in the '20's. One reason why I've always hated Churchill actually). It's telling that Labour did very well (better than in the '20's in some areas IIRC) in the Pennine (ie; small town) textile constituencies that year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More like 1943 actually; in the aftermath of the publication of the Beveridge Report, people swung strongly towards Labour.

[minionofmidas]

More like 1940 actually I suppose.

The Depression took a peculiar turn in Britain in that it really didn't affect the South of England very much, while unemployment hovered at utterly grotesque levels in much of the remainder of the country rather longer than in America or on the continent.

Re all Liberals. That's not really true. The party split three ways. One wing essentially joined the Tories (and eventually really did). One wing merely allied with them until 1935. And one tiny wing - really just David Lloyd George, his children, and his retainers - remained in opposition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More like 1940 actually I suppose.

Probably, although it's hard to tell for sure. But from early 1943 onwards, a Labour landslide at the next election was always likely. The suprising (?) thing is that no one in the political establishment understood that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were echo's of that in the '80's o/c.

The interesting thing about the textile towns is that, initially, they weren't hit that hard by the Depression. Things only started to get very nasty between '31 and '35.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, although in 1931 the only real difference between the Liberals that allied with the Tories and the National Liberals was the name. The non-National Liberals broke with the Tories a few years later, though I always forget the exact date.

[Rural Radical]

Labour had the most seats in the 1929 election - but it was a hung parliament and had to rely on the Liberals to get anything done.

The Labour leadership of the early '30's also had no ideas or short term plans for anything.
You also had the ghastly influence of arch-Gladstonian Snowden as Chancellor...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The split resulted in MacDonald, Snowden et al and all Liberals who weren't personal friends of Lloyd George (that bit generally gets forgotten) essentially joining the Tories. IMO the defeat of Labour in '31 wasn't a backlash against the Depression (after all, MacDonald and Snowden were very much in bed with the Tories that election) so much as a huge anti-Left backlash (and as such, maybe a little comparable with the rise of fascism in other European countries...).
Basically, Labour was left with only it's core coalfield constituencies (including the old Spennymoor seat ) after that election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For most of the U.K, the Depression was actually worse in the late '30's than the early '30's (o/c the coalfields had been in their own personal economic hell since the return to the Gold Standard in the '20's. One reason why I've always hated Churchill actually). It's telling that Labour did very well (better than in the '20's in some areas IIRC) in the Pennine (ie; small town) textile constituencies that year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More like 1943 actually; in the aftermath of the publication of the Beveridge Report, people swung strongly towards Labour.

any chance of a map for the 1931 election?