How Long Can Labour Stay In Government?

Surely this depends on who the opposition are. If its the Tories, then yes, to an extent.

I say another nine years at least.

I wonder why this is.

the tories, on the other hand, despite themselves and a few duncan smith/david davis altercations, seem to know they can't say anything nasty to their new 'one of those'. they're learning to stage manage, though in a way entirely more disingenuous than labour.
their problem is, i find it enormously difficult they might believe anything they realise it's necassary to say. but being of a business background, largely anyway, they're approaching it as problem --> solution without much care for principle (for instance on the health service - heading to europe to study systems dependent on very european tax stsyems they seem so desperate to prevent us from). blair, for all his faults, and whatever he believes, seems to genuinely beliieve it. but new labour are lawyers, so they're meant to look like they believe it.

So it's the day-and-age that counts?

(Memo to Alistair - try the 1000 years stuff next time or not?)

Supplementary / alternative question to everyone: how long do you WANT Labour to stay in government?

There's a difference between genuine disgust/apathy and sheer blind ignorance.

(Yes, I know you adress this in yer other thread, but hey)

cant find the other 'when will brown call an election' thread, so, what do we all think

a) a snap election oct/nov?

risky, but cameron is still weak, and people won't actually be feeling the economic fallout yet, does look like panic though and shows an awareness of the shit thats coming

b) spring

when brown first came in, i figured he would go for spring, but the subprime trigger came a bit earlier than expected, and the affects will be filtering through properly by then, in terms of houses/jobs etc

c) as late as possible

surely not enough time left in this term for economy to be back on even keel?

you worry far to much about extra-uk factors that are not as exposing to the UK as you seem to think.

The real crash is still 2-3 years away because it hasn't been allowed to happen right now. It will be worse, but in the future.

so when do you think he will call?

what if there is no crash?

he still has to call an election!

His popularity will maintain as long as hee keeps up the impression that he's actually getting on with the job, not being a 'celeb'.

Plus, the tories are still 'eating' cameron like he's Tony Blair.

ok, all your options presume it though. what do you think the long term effects of the sup-prime meltdown will be for the uk jobs / housing market?

xp to fc

He has plenty of time and I doubt he'll go early. A recession is surely coming, but it's impossible to predict when. Even if Brown has to call an election during a downturn, he won't necessarily lost it.

my options do presume it. the other factors would appear to be Iraq, and personal popularity. Do we think Iraq is still a major player with the electorate, or have we become desensitized? personal popularity, he seems to be doing ok, he can only lose to cameron on this, cameron can not win from him. i think cameron started *reasonably* well, but i dont think he has enough to take brown on this, unless brown messes up

as for economy, i think subprime is merely a trigger, whatever you spend it on, a credit bubble is a credit bubble, its not supported by increasing wages. i guess it depends if you think the uks economy is strong, or whether its built on too much quicksand and debt

Even if Brown has to call an election during a downturn, he won't necessarily lost it

this is also correct, elections have been won in recessions before. the poisoned chalice election of 92 springs to mind

Do we think Iraq is still a major player with the electorate, or have we become desensitized?

it seems irrelevant in terms of leadership contest unless Cameron's attitude to Iraq is significantly different than Brown's - may well be potentially but many disillusioned by Blair may feel things can't get any worse but at the same time have no faith in either candidate really being capable of sorting it out any time soon.

Have we got a thread on the weird way the Daily Mail is tackling politics these days? Pro-Brown, anti-Cameron, but still anti-Labour pro-Tory?

xp
Altho you can argue Tories sneak in because too many unhappy with Iraq/Afghan./Israel situations switch vote to someone other than the big two. Don't know how likely this is tho.

people seem weirdly able to blame iraq on the americans -- and no-one sees afghanistan as a problem, so far as i can see. no-one gives much of a fuck about israel/palestine.

filey camp is right about 1992. the early '90s recession was no joke, and that was, apparently, the biggest vote (numerically? i forget, but by some measure) the tories ever won.

Labour core now has proper enemy in Team Cameron, common enemy and all that. Iraq can be blamed on the other guy.

the problem of iraq is present-tense. even blair sort of said he'd screwed the pooch back in 2002-03 by um apparently not considering what might happen once he and bush had kicked the door in. that's all in the past.

the problem for the electorate can't just be telling them they were wrong back then -- they had that chance in 2005, and in a way they (we?) don't seem that fussed by the death toll. is it only because the anti-war movement is run by islamo-trots?

considering how large the antiwar movement was, its amazing to see how withered it is now. perhaps a) due to ineffectuality, and disillusionment, b) due to not having an actual prowar sector to argue against, its like something no one wants to talk about it any more, what is there to say - weirdly started to feel like its occupying the role northern ireland used to

i suppose what i meant was: the presence of the brits in iraq, which is now limited to an airbase, i think, because it's too fucked to do anything else, is almost immaterial to the civil war. obviously us invading kicked off the war, but it's almost as if we ('we'?) repress this. is that because there is nothing we can do that will improve things there? is that too much reality to accept?

with afghanistan, news reporting is quite limited. because the UK body-count is more or less acceptable, there's really not much scrutiny of the mission's objectives. i'm writing this thinking back to what happened over suez, which was kind of small next to this.

the early and reasonably broad consensus re:afghanistan seems to have stayed fairly strong with almost no scrutiny whatsoever (perhaps this has been helped by the extreme uneasyness over iraq), despite the fact that afghanistan is probably as far from 'completion' as iraq.

if the british public are all-iraqed out, they certainly don't want to hear about afghanistan, under the carpet is where it is, and under the carpet is where it will stay

When do you think the election will be, one guy that quit?

filey camp is right about 1992. the early '90s recession was no joke, and that was, apparently, the biggest vote (numerically? i forget, but by some measure) the tories ever won

I remember Michael Heseltine in that election campaign saying (when asked about the huge recession) something to the effect of "Yes - we know we've fucked it up, and we're sorry about that, but trust me - we're the people who can get you out of this recession, Labour will just make it worse." This seemed to be good enough for 13 million people. Then, of course, six months or so later we came crashing out of the ERM and the backlash began.

no later than spring next year -- which in itself would be notable. that's only three years since the last, and labour have a working majority.

the tories were calling for a snap election as recently as quite recently -- maybe because they were saying brown 'wasn't elected'.

the workings of the media and the public are a bit of a mystery to me. brown's bounce seems to be based on his 'firm handling' of the london/glasgow attacks and the floods.

maybe all the talk of a snap election has more to do with tactical opportunity, with the wheels coming off the cameron project.

the question there is who the fuck can the tories replace him with, if they really do get rid of him? in a few years: hague, seriously.

its quite extraordinary that the tories still cant get themselves a decent manager, they remind me a bit of newcastle!

actually maybe thats not entirely fair, but you get what i mean,

Yeah, I can imagine that. (xpost*2)

I think the Tory resurgance, when it comes, if it comes, will come out of what is / was being discussed here: The Great Moving Right Show II: The Kirsty and Phil Years

Whether or not Afghanistan is under the carpet depends entirely on how many Brits are coming home in body bags, surely?

There was a good piece in the Graun a few weeks ago about how Brown shouldn't let poll figures seduce him into calling an early election, citing Wilson in 1970. The people calling for an early election know full well that it is Labour, not Tony Blair himself, that was elected. They aren't calling for an election because they want Brown to have his own democratic mandate, they're calling for an election because they think he might lose it!

It also made a valid point that voters generally smell a rat if an early election is called, probably that something is about to go wrong with the economy. No one is blaming the government for current market turmoil just yet, and if there is a downturn then Brown and Darling's best tactic may to present it as a global phenomenon, with them best-placed to steer the country through tough times. This could well work as long as voters continue to view Cameron as flimsy and lightweight.

My prediction is Brown will wait a couple of years and the troops will definitely be out of Iraq before any election is called.

Who do you (not you, specifically, the general you) vote for if you don't like this policy? I don't think the Tories would rush to reimplement a 10p tax rate. Lib Dems would have different tax rates depending on where you are the country, presumably.

They are raising taxes on people who, typically, vote less than other sections of society.

Or at least where they vote they tend to vote in the safest of labour seats.

'Conservative leader David Cameron has vowed to "stop the government in its tracks" and make them think again over the abolition of the 10p income tax.'

But what's this...

'The Tory leader stopped short of pledging to reinstate the 10p band if his party wins the next election, as he did not know how much money "there would be in the kitty".'

Labour should fight back with a campaign saying that this will disproportionately affect immigrants, (which it will do).

I think this is the sort of move that has Tories thumping tables and despairing in a "we'd *never* be able to get away with that!" way.

governments rarely reverse stuff their predecessors did, even if they've complained about it; cf new labour and the tories' changes to union laws in the 80s. (and maybe the tories and abolition of grammar schools in the 60s and 70s?)

in the end, it's more money for the government, and politicians of all sides like money.

That's because New Labour agreed with the Tories' changes to union laws, Cameron is pretending to disagree here

governments rarely reverse stuff their predecessors did

Its okay, Brown brought in the 10p band in the first place didn't he? If the Tories are lucky he'll have reversed a load of stuff his own government did before they get elected. Thus giving them the opportunity to take the moral high ground and saving them the bother of doing it themselves.

xpost there'd be much more money in the kitty if they raised the higher rate of income tax instead, no?

of course, but no elected govt Left or Right ever does that coz then the rich people just leave the country.

haha yup!

the poor should threaten to move en masee to switzerland. FACED, employers.

there'd be lots more money in the kitty if govts didn't fight costly foreign wars too!

of course, but no elected govt Left or Right ever does that coz then the rich people just leave the country.

They did when there were Left and Right parties in the UK

... but then Bev Bevan left the country, so it was counter-productive

Although, one could argue that capital flight was much harder in the days of Super Tax etc. Not that I disagree, the tax system ought to be more aggressively redistributive.

yeah, you couldn't take all your money with you i think, though i guess the rolling stones maybe disproved this? perhaps you just needed a decent tax lawyer.

couldn't you just get round this by offshoring yr money prior to making clear that you were about to move away?

The problem we have nowadays WRT punitive taxation is that our economy is based on having the loosest slots in town (our financial services industry).

Doesn't the City generate more tax revenue than, like, most of the rest of Britain put together? Although it's probably going to generate a lot less this year.

Very probably, but the marginal tax rate of the people who work there is much lower than your or mine. But basing your economy on being in a convenient time zone and having looser regulation than anywhere else doesn't seem that great to me.

Also its hardly "punitive" is it? Just ensuring the people who benefit most from the infrastructure that supports their wealth make the largest contribution to its upkeep. Sounds fair to me.

Also its hardly "punitive" is it? Just ensuring the people who benefit most from the infrastructure that supports their wealth make the largest contribution to its upkeep. Sounds fair to me.

-- Thomas, Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

their counterargument is what matt said, unfortunately.

so yuppies FTW then? fuck a London.

http://www.hbo.com/thewire/img/castcrew/character_season03/theport/franksobotka.jpg

You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.

We still do build stuff, just services rather than tangible objects. And the people on the factory (or callcentre) floor are still being shafted by policies favouring economic growth over equality and fairness. trickle-down effect is bollox innit.

We still do build stuff, just services rather than tangible objects.

yeah, like 'financial services', ie selling each other houses.

I love how trickle down is bollocks until such point as the money stops trickling down as much and then everyone is up in arms. The problem is it doesn't trickle down as much as we would like, or as much as they claim it does.

Also the difference is that communities and towns do not, generally, build up around call centres.

, though i guess the rolling stones maybe disproved this?

When you consider that George 'taxman' Harrison bought a house the size of a small town in England despite having to pay all that tax you've got to think there were ways around it.

i think 'trickle down' effectively means everyone works as a kind of servant class to the ballers in the city, selling them expensive shit (cf loads of articles in the right-wing press about the knock-on effect of the crunch) and not complaining that they don't pay their share of taxes because what they *do* pay is quite a lot. kind of sucks.

I love how trickle down is bollocks until such point as the money stops trickling down as much and then everyone is up in arms. The problem is it doesn't trickle down as much as we would like, or as much as they claim it does.

-- Matt DC, Monday, April 21, 2008 12:53 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Of course everybody is up in arms when this has been the basic promise/premise of economic policy over the last 30 years. Promise broken, we up in arms. why not? it is not the panacea claimed by the rich & powerful for their own greedy self-justification. The govt should recognise this and "force down" a little more, but so not gonna happen for all the reasons upthread :-(

Brown brought in the 10p band in the first place didn't he?

Yes, and if I recall correctly the Tories opposed it.

"Selling expensive shit" = "service economy", which is fine as long as the people who are buying your services want to buy them, less fine when the e economy goes tits-up and they're all cutting back. Which is what you said really.

I wonder if there was a left-wing, or even sensible and pragmatic opposition, that was prepared to make a stand and go "this is unsustainable, we can't allow this status quo to continue", would they get elected? What would probably happen would be painful and cathartic change (ie under Thatcher) rather than incremental (ie under Blair), and cathartic change is less difficult to implement when its the poor getting shafted rather than the rich.

(Actually what would probably happen is they wouldn't get elected unless the economy got REALLY bad)

Long-shot Tom D xpost:

It should in fairness be pointed out that top Tory drummer Bev "Bev" Bevan was one of the very few ROCK LEGENDS TM to remain in Britain during the days of

Denis Healey
FORMER CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

and his 98 per cent top rate income tax. He didn't dig it but he dug his heels hard into his Kidderminster soil and thus was able to contribute to such ELO classics as "Wild West Breakfast" and "Logical Xanadu."

I can't see this country ever electing an actual left-wing party. We seem completely wedded to the 2 party system. Talking to people who are going to vote tory next time,they don't like Cameron but just don't want to vote Brown. When I point out that they are replacing him with Blair Lite they just kind of shrug. Or say something like 'Well Blair took us into Iraq' - as if Cameron wouldn't have. I guess nothing much will change, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to be crapped on and then blamed for all of societies ills and foxes will once again be killed by dogs. It's very depressing.

xpost I wonder if there was a left-wing, or even sensible and pragmatic opposition, that was prepared to make a stand and go "this is unsustainable, we can't allow this status quo to continue", would they get elected?

i'm sure they're out there, just don't get the oxygen of publicity - not exactly murdoch's cup of tea is it? Also, we've lost the trust in our politicians... immediately post war we bought the argument of massively raised taxes for social benefit ( ie introduce NI contribs to pay for the welfare state), but now even we lefties would be skeptical that govt would be able or willing to deliver on such a promise.

http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/74_74.gif

Just heard on the world at one that the chancellor is talking about 'making adjustments to allowances' to compensate for the loss of the 10p rate, but this will amount to another across the board tax cut which amounts to Bushian folly or sneaky fiscal loosening at a time of crises depending on how you look at it.

foxes will once again be killed by dogs

nice bit of bathos from Ned there.

We seem completely wedded to the 2 party system

who is this 'we'?

The UK.

xpost to Ed

Or maybe just "oh shit we did something without thinking about it... again"

posts all xxxed

aye ILX speaks for the whole country as ever!

i read ned's post asthe poor will continue to be crapped on and then blamed for all of societies ills and killed by dogs.

otm

what arrogance to suggest that this country has been in a 2 party system for quite a while.

we like 2 party

xp
Well, England anyway.

Having the Scots voted for a left wing party? Or at least more left wing than the Labour Party?

Currently the Scottish Assembly is pwned by the party formerly known as the Tartan Tories.