The Sunday Post: A Right Kick in the Balls
There is a scene in the TV ‘Game of Thrones’ which is referred to simply as “the Red Wedding”. All addicts of the show will instantly know of this famous, or indeed, infamous scene. Without giving too much away, there is carnage as generations of a family are slaughtered in a few brief, unexpected moments. And that is sort of how it felt on Friday morning, as I awoke to find that Labour had been annihilated in Scotland and conclusively rebuffed in England, the Lib Dems had been annihilated just about everywhere, Balls was gone and then the resignations started. Swift and brutal stuff. John Piennar, BBC’s chief political correspondent, took up my ‘Game of Thrones’ analogy and ran with it. ‘Right now’, he said, ‘David Cameron must be feeling like Don Corleone in The Godfather as his rivals are serially mowed down in a dramatic coup de grace.’ Leaving aside the vagaries and deficiencies of our voting system, why did Cameron win and The Millipede lose? In brief, I think this is why.
Of course, it is obvious there is Scotland. Labour’s utter annihilation at the hands of the SNP means that Labour is always going to struggle. It has to make up too much ground in England, and in particular what I, and the Daily Mail, will call “Middle England,” meaning everywhere but the inner metropolitan constituencies. And why can’t it do that? Because it can’t make progress when “Middle England” doesn’t trust it on the economy, or like or trust its leader.
It’s not that anyone’s particularly in love with “Call Me Dave” Cameron or the Tories. Voters are just pragmatic. As I observed in a comment on yesterday’s post, I am not that keen on “Flashman” as Cameron is known to his own backbenchers, and I do not accept all that “we are all in this together” bollocks. We have a cabinet stuffed with major public school rich kids who will never know what it’s like to worry about what might happen if they lost their job or their business failed. That may not disqualify them from being effective ministers, by the way. In my experience a lot of rich, privileged people have got that way because they come from rather bright stock. But we are most certainly not “all in this together”.
And it’s been a rough few years for a lot of people, including me. But things are, for the most part, stable. Inflation is next to nothing, interest rates are low. There is some growth, and some new employment, though I have concerns about the quality of those jobs. I have no doubt that five years ago the UK was close to the financial brink, caused by both an international banking crisis and government spending which was spiralling out of control in reckless manner. I think we were going the way of Greece, in a handcart, fast. I don’t want to go back there.
First there is that basic issue that Labour has with credibility on debt and financial responsibility. Ed Balls was a problem, not an answer. His speech congratulating his Tory conqueror in the election was gracious. He might be a very smart man. But I have always taken the view that when it comes to taxing and spending, putting him (and The Millipede) in charge is the equivalent of the proverbial vampires in charge of a blood bank. I think a lot of people feel the same. Then there is The Millipede/Beaker person/thing himself. I am sorry, but he’s weird. The English are traditionalist, rather deferential but occasionally quite cruel people. I think people can accept that Cameron is capable of being a bullying “Flashman” type, as I understand his Parliamentary nick name to be. That’s sort of…well, to be expected really. That’s what toffs do, isn’t it? But the English don’t like weird, they don’t like geeks. There is no long-standing worship of “the intellectual” in England, as you might find in France, for example. A good thing, I would say. Hence all that cruel “Fuck off Beaker” stuff on Twitter. Harsh, but inevitable.
Then there was the SNP. The prospect of a Labour SNP axis, though denied by Millipede, was obvious and toxic to the hobbit folk of the Shires on England. The prospect of Scottish raiders pouring south and looting the Treasury is anathema to many English voters. My impression from being out and about is that this played large, as the Tories thought it would. Then there was THAT BLOODY STONE. I’m sorry, but what the HELL was that all about?
And then – a minor detail. Russell Brand. There was a pithy line in The Times yesterday:
“The trouble with democracy is that sometimes it refuses to be influenced by a narcissist with logorrhoea and a YouTube Channel.”
(Logorrhoea: noun. 1. Pathologically incoherent, repetitious speech. 2. Incessant or compulsive talkativeness; wearisome volubility – I didn’t know that until I looked it up).
Noting more betrayed The Millipede’s lack of judgment than getting down and personal and obtaining the endorsement of old “Rusty Rockets”. Will it engage you with “the kidz”, Ed? No, it won’t because the moronic and impressionable airheads who follow this ghastly shit are too lazy and to busy playing The Simms or World of Warcraft to be bothered to vote (even if they could work out who was who on the ballot paper), whereas grim, curmudgeonly hard-working (yes THAT phrase) faintly middle-class people like me will be so incensed and disgusted that you had anything to do with the colossal arse that they will get out and vote for anyone to stop you being anywhere near the keys to No. 10. As a strategy, it disgusted me. Russell Brand disgusts me. He is everything that is wrong with the modern world. Russell Brand was probably worth a good five seats to the Conservatives. All of these mean that a significant percentage of was “Middle England” was prepared to get out and stop you, even if it meant voting for a party for whom they have no real affection. Not all of them, of course, but enough to make a difference.
And then there was the awkward matter of those segregated rallies in Birmingham, which I found shocking, disturbing and profoundly disgraceful. I have heard nothing from you on these. But then, I didn’t expect to. But then, that leads to my final point: Here there is a problem. Labour’s bedrock vote was, of course, always founded on the urban working-class. To what extent does this exist anymore, and even where it does exist, can Labour rely on it?
One of the problems is that deep down, Labour’s ruling elite hate it. To be more precise, Labour hates white, working-class voters who in turn have always hated Labour’s positive fixation with immigration and multiculturalism. Not so deep down inside, many – not all, but many – of Labour’s elite and opinion formers actually hate the section of society the party was originally created to serve and represent. They hate what they regard as its small-minded bigoted stance on the Great Multicultural Experiment. In this context, as we remember from Gordon Brown’s classic Gillian Duffy gaffe, “bigot” is defined as anyone who happens to raise reasoned and legitimate concerns based on real life experience. The intellectual Labour elite secretly despise the cultural “norms” of the white working-class. They don’t like their drinking habits, they don’t like their food, they despise their smoking, they don’t trust them to manage their own affairs, and if they show any aspiration, they don’t like that either. Thatcher was much more in tune with working-class “aspirational values” than Labour has ever managed to be.
Labour has become the party of a “metropolitan elite”, embodied by Te Millipede (and I suspect a rather disgruntled David Dimbleby, who looked like he was chewing wasps as the polls came in and the results went the Tories way). But it is now dependant on inner city, ethnically diverse constituencies for its votes. Just look at a map of the constituencies which the parties hold, coloured for each party. England is a sea of blue surrounding inner city islands of red. And in Scotland, it has been destroyed completely. The result is it cannot command a majority unless it woos the more affluent, more “small c” conservative middle ground.
The demographics of immigration may mean that in the end the traditional politics of England may well have been too deeply disturbed for this to be anything but a last hoorah for the Tories. But for now, it got a right kick in the Balls.
Atticus Flinch
- Dioclese
May 10, 2015 at 9:43 am -
I loved that even the Labour voters themselves didn’t trust Balls to handle the economy so they took no chances and voted him out. A delicious moment that made my day and, I suspect, saved the country. We should grateful to Balls for delivering a Tory majority.
And as for the £30,000 EdStone, it was a William Hague baseball cap moment wasn’t it?
- AdrianS
May 10, 2015 at 12:16 pm -
We could always bore a hole in the gravestone and then Red Ed could wear it round his neck as a charm
- AdrianS
- Mudplugger
May 10, 2015 at 9:55 am -
In Millipede’s defence, it is alleged that his panic call on Brand followed early (and illegal) information on the Postal Vote returns – these had already been opened, officially uncounted, but party observers can see how it’s stacking up. Ed’s desperate gamble was that, being seen to align with Brand might just cause some of Brand’s devotees of non-voting to turn out and vote Labour in the last few days.
What he didn’t recognise was that Brand had encouraged the hard-of-thinking not even to register, so any last-minute vote couldn’t happen anyway. He also miscalculated the anti-Brand backlash, causing enough possible Labour voters to turn elsewhere on the day.
Sadly, this merely goes to prove how modern politics is no longer about policies and principles, but rather about only the PR strategies of the campaign and the hyped personalities of the headliners. - GildasThe Monk
May 10, 2015 at 10:02 am -
In the Sunday Times this morning: it seems Miliband believed he would win. Labour were genuinely shocked by the exit poll. Also, Rod Liddle in terms reaching much the same conclusion as our author above:
“Labour is the party of the liberal white middle class” and “The choice now isn’t between Blairism and the trade union driven leftism of Ed Miliband. It is between either re-connecting with voters outside the capital, or remaining an metropolitan entity obsessed with identity politics and supported by white middle class liberals in London and the immigrant communities – thus estranging millions of voters from Northampton to Inverness”.
He adds
“If Chukka Umunna becomes the new leader, it will be crystal clear that Labour has chosen the latter option”.
Quite so. - Peter
May 10, 2015 at 10:10 am -
Logorrhoea… John Prescott immediately springs to mind…
- Nathan Brittles
May 10, 2015 at 10:36 am -
And Kinnochio.
- Bunny
May 10, 2015 at 2:15 pm -
Another Kinnock is now in the Commons, we now have Kinnock the Elder and Kinnock the Younger.
- Bunny
- Nathan Brittles
- Little Black Sambo
May 10, 2015 at 10:16 am -
What effect do you think UKIP voting had on the result?
- AdrianS
May 10, 2015 at 12:18 pm -
It would have probably been an even bigger Tory majority if ukip hadn’t been about
- Joe Public
May 10, 2015 at 1:20 pm -
Seconded. But just MHO.
As a resident within a constituency which swings more than Henry VIII did, I was prepared to show my contempt for incumbent blue, and previous red, by choosing purple.
- Johnnydub
May 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm -
I don’t think so. I think the ex Labour voters stuck with UKIP, but a lot of the ex-Tory voters took a look at Beaker and the SNP and took the safe option.
- Johnnydub
May 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm -
I think this explains how Farage lost but UKIP took the council.
- Mr Wray
May 12, 2015 at 6:28 pm -
Scuttlebutt is that Labour were imploring their voters to vote Tory to keep Farage out! And then there are the late postal votes to consider …
- Mr Wray
- Johnnydub
- Joe Public
- AdrianS
- Oi you
May 10, 2015 at 10:16 am -
Very good post. This is why this blog is a cut above the rest. Keep it up!
- Poptart
May 10, 2015 at 10:33 am -
Brilliant, Atticus, brilliant.
- AdrianS
May 10, 2015 at 12:19 pm -
Agree with the above
- Johnnydub
May 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm -
Agreed. Solid analysis.
- Johnnydub
- AdrianS
- The Blocked Dwarf
May 10, 2015 at 10:34 am -
“The trouble with democracy is that sometimes it refuses to be influenced by a narcissist with logorrhoea and a YouTube Channel.”
That’s really rather good, a good summation …almost as good as ‘Dammit Thanet’ and ‘Porridge Wogs’ .
- Chris
May 10, 2015 at 11:39 am -
The reactions (leading up to and since) I’ve seen on Twitter by Labour supporters is hysterical – in some cases similar to the signs of delusions & serious mental illness.
Austerity is now seen as a ‘Tory” thing, but it was the inevitable – and, in my opinion, planned – result of the New Labour boom & bust and deregulation of the banks, signed off by Blair, Brown & Mandelson. Fielding Beaker as the next potential Prime Minister was a deliberate act of sabotage – they didn’t want to get in as the cuts are carved in stone and have to be executed, preferably by still leaving an illusiory “political choice” for the naive who see left & right as a black & white ‘good and bad’. It is becoming clearer with every passing day what is happening to UK politics and UK society – whether people want to accept this or not is up to them, but it will not change things and denial will not take us back 20 years to when school leavers were, in the main, intelligent adults who respected others without being specifically instructed to do so at every turn.- JimmyGiro
May 10, 2015 at 11:45 am -
Spot on.
- AdrianS
May 10, 2015 at 12:46 pm -
Sounds about right
- AdrianS
- Nick
May 10, 2015 at 2:21 pm -
“New Labour boom & bust and deregulation of the banks, signed off by Blair, Brown & Mandelson”
This is disingenuous to say the very least. Are you suggesting that financial deregulation had nothing to do with Thatcher and Lawson? Are you forgetting that Cameron and Osborne used to complain that deregulation wasn’t going far enough? Are you suggesting that Cameron and Osborne were not just as enthusiastic about spending as Brown and Darling? Regarding the past, I think you’re suffering from selective amnesia.
And regarding the present, I think you’re suffering from attention deficit disorder. You talk about necessary cuts, but there haven’t been any. Just as Margaret Thatcher blew the North Sea bonanza on funding unemployment rather than infrastructure investment, our present day Conservative geniuses have decided not to use the unprecedentedly cheap supply of money available to renew the national infrastructure, which would create the conditions for prosperity, but instead have blown billions upon billions on funding austerity (aka cheap labour based on zero hour contracts, falling wages and immigration).
Labour are useless by and large, but they are at least not quite as useless as the Conservatives.
- Chris
May 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm -
I never mentioned cuts being ‘necessary’ – just that what we are experiencing now is all etched in stone, and that it is the 21st Century Tories executing the plan in order to leave the illusion that the architects of “New Britain” are there as a genuine alternative to it all. Both sides are selling out their traditional values, and what will be left is a culturally-bereft Totalitarian Police State.
35 years ago the Yanks elected an empty-headed actor for President, our system now is a scaled-down facsimile of the USA.
Probably the most worrying aspect of it all is the “Education Education Education” reforms, which have gifted us a puppy-dog generation which, unless we see some drastic action soon, will mean that by the time I am 65 practically everyone under 50 will be an idiot, unable to think laterally. https://chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/generation-ga-ga/- ivan
May 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm -
Chris, we know that Labour took 1984 as an handbook for the surveillance state (now being continued by May) but it appears that they also assumed that Idiocracy (2006) was a documentary and not light entertainment.
- ivan
- Chris
- JimmyGiro
- Antisthenes
May 10, 2015 at 11:39 am -
“The demographics of immigration may mean that in the end the traditional politics of England” and “Labour hates white, working-class voters who in turn have always hated Labour’s positive fixation with immigration and multiculturalism”
Labour here as are the Democrats in the USA both are now really only a parties of the urban immigrant population. It was said Labour opened our borders to allow large numbers of immigrants in to gain votes. This has now been proven to be true and does not bode well as the future will undoubtedly draw a new them and us groupings those being non indigenous(they now dominate the politics of envy apart from their very different cultural beliefs) and indigenous people.
Labour not only almost destroyed our economic well being(and will continue to do so again at every opportunity) their legacy will also give us political, democratic and cultural instability for a long time to come.
- Roderick
May 10, 2015 at 1:57 pm -
Has anyone seen any “analysis” on how those recently-arrived immigrants actually voted?
Wouldn’t be hilarious if they had taken one look at their paradisal multi-culti neighbourhoods and decided to vote for “anyone but Labour”.- Margaret Jervis
May 10, 2015 at 8:10 pm -
Too right! You can see the upwardly mobile ethnic vote gravitating towards the Tories. But the recently arrived would have no vote – but if they had they would probably vote for those giving them the most freedom to work, not benefits, the NHS etc.
Nevertheless there are huge structural problems in our economy which relies too much on the ‘property ladder’ which merely inflates costs for creative industrial enterprise and encourages a narrow ‘me first’ outlook, while ignoring (or possibly embracing)the micromanaging of ‘behaviour’ and the infantilisation of the electorate that marks out all the main parties.
That’s why nearly 40 per cent of the electorate didn’t vote. As they say, none of the above.
- JimmyGiro
May 11, 2015 at 9:03 am -
“…they would probably vote for those giving them the most freedom to work, not benefits, the NHS etc. ”
So true. And consider Orwell’s account of tramps, in his book: Down and out in London and Paris; where he observes the tramps’ contempt after receiving charity.
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2015 at 9:45 am -
Get yer facts straighter: “The closest campaign in years and sunny May weather led to a bumper election turnout with 66.1 per cent of the electorate casting their votes, the highest number in 18 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html
- JimmyGiro
- Margaret Jervis
- Roderick
- JimmyGiro
May 10, 2015 at 11:41 am -
None voters are like eunuchs playing hard to get: politically active by political inactivity [Rusty Rockets anybody?].
Or maybe I’m being too rash; maybe they are the necessary political buffer, as they are composed of at least two different elements: the recalcitrant, who are obstinately cussed, who when pushed to vote will simply vote against them who pushed. And then there is the ‘indolent voter’; not necessarily a lazy person, but certainly one that isn’t fussed either way, to vote.
So when their is too much authoritative ‘acid’ in the political campaigning, the recalcitrant types will fizz into action, and save our political dyspepsia with ‘negative feedback stabilisation’.
Or if the campaigning turns too morally ‘bitter’, the indolent type may be stung into action, and apply the ameliorative vinegar upon the swelling.
What must not be done however, is to drink the buffer solution straight from the bottle, as did young Millipede, who soon learnt that you cannot throw up the buffer, the buffer throws you up.
- Daft Lassie
May 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm -
As Con + LD had a majority, Con capturing LD-held seats would continue to keep Con + LD in power. If enough were captured, Con on its own would have power, but the policy would mean staying in power at worst as a continuing coalition. Con policy didn’t rely on gaining a Scottish seat or really winning any Lab held seat. Clearly, holding their one Scottish seat was useful, and winning some Lab seats was perhaps a bonus, but remember that Con lost seats as well. Overall, Con had a policy to stay in power that worked. If they stayed in power in a coalition, then they had added leverage from a smaller LD contribution. Let’s face it, 50+seats is a big contribution to the 2010-2015 Coalition.
Lab’s policy was what? Take LD seats? Take Con seats? They could only do that if they won the political argument, or ‘hearts and minds’ of the electorate, and they came with too much baggage from the Blair and Brown years to do that. But Lab gambled that they would. Not only that, but the SNP gambled on it too. They both believed their own narrative that the country had moved to the left. They believed that Labour had the electoral advantage from the LD reneging on the boundaries. And they couldn’t see Con taking those LD held seats. And neither seems to have realised that SNP taking Lab-held seats was going to stop Lab’s aspirations to be the biggest party!
In the circumstances, SNP-Lab’s biggest error was to believe their own propaganda, LD to believe theirs – which was that they would stay a force to be reckoned with, and Con to run afraid of the SNP-Lab-LD-UKIP positions. I’m a Conservative, but I am shocked at the seeming injustices: Greens-UKIP-SNP even taking into account that I favour FPTP.
- Frankie
May 10, 2015 at 12:08 pm -
A succint and accurate assessment of the situation – the best I have read thus far of all of the post election analysis… and its free here for all to read on AnnaRaccoon!
Labour were in a ‘lose lose’ situation all along, once they lost their support in Scroteland, never mind having that colossal plonker in charge.
I received a last minute e.mail from Nick Clegg just before the election. I had once contacted my local (liberal democrat) MP and had foolishly supplied my e.mail address at the head of the letter. Dispite serving a Data Protection Act notice, I still got unwanted e.mails. Strangely, enough, he survived the cull.
Anyway, the e.mail from Nick said ‘Dear ….. Your vote really matters’. I emailed him back and said ‘Dear Nick, No… it really doesn’t – in your instance!’
- GildasTheMonk
May 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm -
Good points, being well made. In essence it comes to this. Labour has lost Scotland to nationalist. It scares the middle class on tax and spending, and many of its traditional working class supporters sense its disdain for them and their fears on immigration. They turn to UK to voice their protest. The result? It loses its support in much of England, becoming the party of a disdainful metropolitan elite, and elsewhere relies heavily on the “ethnic” vote in the inner cities. That’s a circle which is very hard to square.
- Daft Lassie
May 10, 2015 at 7:39 pm -
Gildas,
SNP is Labour in tartan. They staged a coup, that’s all.
- Mudplugger
May 10, 2015 at 8:25 pm -
Rather than the Labour Party, I suspect that the SNP is actually the ‘Communist Party in Tartan’, it’s just another facet of the ever-popular ‘useful idiots’ strategy. Check their policies, and history suggests they’re quite good at staging a coup now and then.
That Sturgeon woman certainly has a hint of the Rosa Klebb about her. . . . .- Alex
May 11, 2015 at 12:16 am -
I think they’re more like National Socialists.
- Mr Wray
May 12, 2015 at 6:35 pm -
Exactly like, more like!
- Mr Wray
- Alex
- Mudplugger
- Daft Lassie
- JonT
May 10, 2015 at 12:17 pm -
Excellent post!
I’m not a “natural” Tory voter” and preferred the UKIP manifesto. However I voted Tory and this constituency returned a Conservative with a much increased majority (over 5,000 from just over 300 last time). I feel relieved with the result BUT I really hope they don’t screw up. A sensible energy policy would be a start/
- Duncan Disorderly
May 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
“I feel relieved with the result BUT I really hope they don’t screw up.”
Oh, but you know they will.- JonT
May 10, 2015 at 3:52 pm -
[Dinner in the officers’ mess. The captain is inebriated, but asks apparently seriously]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Do you see those two weevils doctor?
Dr. Stephen Maturin: I do.
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Which would you choose?
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [sighs annoyed] Neither; there is not a scrap a difference between them. They are the same species of Curculio.
Capt. Jack Aubrey: If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there was no other response…
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [Exasperated] Well then if you are going to *push* me…
[the doctor studies the weevils briefly]
Dr. Stephen Maturin: …I would choose the right hand weevil; it has… significant advantage in both length and breadth.
[the captain thumps his fist in the table]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: There, I have you! You’re completely dished! Do you not know that in the service…
[pauses]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: …one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
[the officers burst out in laughter]
- macheath
May 10, 2015 at 5:00 pm -
I think the same insect-themed extract may have been knocking around in my subconscious recently; I’ve been unable to shake off the idea that voting in this election was rather like having to decide whether you prefer to be bitten by fleas, lice or bedbugs.
- Alex
May 11, 2015 at 12:19 am -
Ah – good old Patrick O’Brian – one of my favourites!
- macheath
- JonT
- Duncan Disorderly
- Jim McLean
May 10, 2015 at 12:35 pm -
At Last!! An analysis of the last 72 hours from a human perspective rather than an up-your-own-arse college graduate or political activist.
The comments, the reasons behind Labour’s failure (rather than the Tories success) are spot on from a real-life point of view. I wanted to be able to vote Labour. In all conscience I couldn’t. And they wouldn’t have thanked me if I did.- AtticusFlinch
May 10, 2015 at 4:39 pm -
Thank you, Jim. That is a treasured compliment from a man of obvious insight and integrity.
- AtticusFlinch
- Chris
May 10, 2015 at 2:04 pm -
Bunter wants to step into Two-Jag’s old slip-ons. This must surely an unnecessary request for funds – his paymasters at Slater & Moron would slip him £22K without a blink.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/597358400146644992- JimmyGiro
May 10, 2015 at 4:05 pm -
Indeed, why would he need funds for what is an in-house campaign?
- JimmyGiro
- Bill Sticker
May 10, 2015 at 4:25 pm -
” A narcissist with logorrhoea and a YouTube Channel.”
I’ve never heard Brand encapsulated so succinctly until now. A little verbose, but classic nonetheless. Although if they’d dropped in “unfunny” somewhere in the quote it would have been over egging the pudding.
- ivan
May 10, 2015 at 6:35 pm -
I thought he was a motor mouth and narcissist as well as being a very naughty boy.
- James E Shaw
May 10, 2015 at 7:49 pm -
I do find Russell Brand does tend to inspire strong emotions in people, not least with the comment “he is everything that is wrong with the modern world”, which is frankly getting a bit silly.
In partial defence of him I should stress that I am not an uncritical admirer, or saying he doesn’t let himself down with a narcissistic ego and a lack of maturity, but he does ask the right questions and his popular appeal is far more helpful than the celebrities that I remember cueing up to hero worship Tony Blair circa 1994 to 1997 and taking part in patronizing campaigns to encourage the young to vote. If you don’t remember the ‘Rock the Vote’ movement supported by people like Eddie Izzard it’s probably a sign you’ve led a far more interesting a fulfilled life than I ever have.
Once we overlook his flaws what we have is a fine and highly intelligent comic mind with a quick wit that, if carefully applied, like Chris Morris, would be capable of creating shows of the calibre of The day Today and brass Eye, and the film Four Lions. It’s just a question of finding a broadcaster capable of nurturing his talents carefully.
- Alex
May 11, 2015 at 12:25 am -
As Mr. McEnroe might have put it – “You cannot be serious!”
- Bill Sticker
May 11, 2015 at 2:05 am -
Talent? I’ve never heard it called that before. He believes he has talent for comedy, but having seen his material, well, I’m not convinced. As for spending money on him, I wouldn’t.
Obscurity beckons. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
- Engineer
May 11, 2015 at 9:08 am -
I’m sorry to be direct Mr Shaw, but Brand is just a self-regarding loud-mouthed pillock. As an entertainer, he may be some peoples’ cup of tea, but as a political thinker he fails miserably. Why any sane politician should wish to associate with him is utterly beyond me, and whilst Middle England rarely voices it’s opinion, I suspect a good proportion of it agrees.
- James E Shaw
May 11, 2015 at 1:45 pm -
My original point was, yes he is a self-regarding loud mouth pillock, but if he wasn’t, he’d be capable of the kind of quality of work Chris Morris has achieved, eg, The Day Today, Brass Eye and the film Four Lions and that listening to that sort of criticism might just bring out the best in him.
- James E Shaw
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2015 at 9:41 am -
Eddie Izzard? Is th the guy who used to cross-dress to get attention and now runs marathons like Jimmy Savile? Goodness gracious. I’m old enough to remember “Rock Against Racism” and Tom summat or other who sang that we should all be glad to be gay and then settled down with his wifey in suburbia to spend his royalties. Everybody’s a hero, everybody’s a star, and everyone’s in showbiz, doesnly matter who y’are.
- Alex
- ivan
- Robert Edwards
May 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm -
I rather agree with several commentators in the press re. Scotland’s role in this. I don’t know who really runs the SNP (but half of Scotland didn’t vote for them) but I rather think that it ain’t really the semi-fragrant Sturgeon.
But the clumsy announcements re. a forced alliance with Labour were hubristic in the extreme.
Tactical voting played a huge role – UKIP came second in 120 seats, none of them (I think) in the South West, where I am. Many of these voters, rather more energised by the Farage message, diverted their choice away from Labour, because that message was rather more focused on what they themselves may feel. It sends a message.
The Lib Dem collapse was one of the few areas of polling which was correct. This reflects the idiocy of assuming that one can hand out money during a record deficit to student grants.
But recall Captain Oates: “I am just going outside and may be some time.” There is something of that about Clegg.
Cameron now has a hard job. He has a small majority and big pending issues, the most looming of which is Europe, but the most daunting of which is the National debt. The latter will take years to address, the former can be dealt with rather more quickly and this matter can be put to bed. The boundary changes can be zipped up with a three-line whip. But there is a price for everything. The wording of the referendum (if we get it) might be that price.
Am I pleased? Yes, of course. The Labour Party has been giving me nightmares for years…
As a Gladstone Liberal, I am optimistic but not hopeful.
- binao
May 10, 2015 at 7:06 pm -
Boundary changes, fine, but wouldn’t it be satisfying to sort out the BBC; in a totally non partisan way of course?
The wails from the luvvies would be heard round the world.- Robert Edwards
May 10, 2015 at 9:11 pm -
You may be entirely right – I have proved, empirically, that avoiding the BBC (particularly the Today programme and QT) has lowered my blood pressure by 5 points.
I reckon their course is run. But then, I am an optimist…
- Alex
May 11, 2015 at 7:36 am -
God I’d love to see the demise of the BBC. I wonder if I’ll live long enough to see it happen, I’m in my late fifties?
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2015 at 9:50 am -
Be interesting to see the luvvies scrambling to get their shares in the sell-off… Nothing like money to pop the champagne socialist bubble.
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2015 at 5:31 pm -
Fings can only get better…
“Mr Javid is replaced as Culture Secretary by John Whittingdale, who will deal with the renewal of the BBC charter, which covers how the organisation is funded. In October, Mr Whittingdale said the licence fee was “worse than the Poll Tax” and said it was “unsustainable over 20 to 50 years”.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iain-duncan-smith-keeps-pensions-job-211431052.html#or9rtln
- Moor Larkin
- Robert Edwards
- Mr Wray
May 12, 2015 at 6:46 pm -
A large part of the Liberal vote was from Labour voters tactically voting to stop the Tories in 2010. This vote was bound to be reduced this time around as not only did they not oppose the Tories but they got straight into bed with them. The Tuition Fees U-turn didn’t help either. Add in them putting their hands up and saying ‘not me guv’ in the last year and trying to pretend they weren’t part of a coalition cooked their goose.
Good riddens to bad rubbish etc.
- Moor Larkin
May 12, 2015 at 7:55 pm -
The Tories gained the vast majority of their “wins” from previously Lib Dem seats.
There has been some theorising that Labour suffered from their voters drifting to UKIP but the evidence is against that. Your theory seems superficially more plausible, but I’d have to look at the numbers more closely to know if it holds moor water.
- Moor Larkin
- binao
- Carol42
May 10, 2015 at 7:21 pm -
What I heard most here was anger about the SNP saying that they would lock David Cameron out even if they won most seats to votes. The sheer arrogance infuriated people and acting with Labour was not to be tolerated by Middle England. I wonder if Sturgeons rhetoric was quite deliberate ? but Mr. Cameron owes her a thank you letter. Labour has lost its way, it seems to have no understanding of normal middle income, aspirational people it seems to despise. Some of my friends in Scotland are horrified by the SNP success and said it was like mass hysteria. I am Scottish though in England for some 20 years now and must say I am glad to be out of it all.
- Carol42
May 10, 2015 at 7:30 pm -
My best moment was seeing Vince Cable lose I couldn’t stand him. Ed must be the only man who designed his own tombstone!
- Henry Wood
May 10, 2015 at 8:46 pm -
A very good post though it took a while until you finally got round to it:
“One of the problems is that deep down, Labour’s ruling elite hate it. […]”
And BTW, one point in the last couple of weeks’ news which was discussed at great length in what would once have been my local saloon bar, now a rather fancy smanshy eatery – in the North East of England – was the threat by Miliband to “outlaw” Islamophobia.
As one man of few words said to the rest of the company, “Do you mean that if I say I don’t care for their ways, it will be against the law?”
There was no absolutely definitive answer given by the half dozen blokes nursing their pints of bitter but everyone seemed to know what everyone else was thinking.
And I do not think they were thinking along the same lines as Ed Miliband.p.s. I must agree with Carol42 about Cables demise. Though perhaps, of course, that will only apply to the House of Commons. Bets on Lord Cable of …. ?
- JimmyGiro
May 11, 2015 at 9:06 am -
Gethsemane.
- JimmyGiro
- Engineer
May 10, 2015 at 9:10 pm -
I think one significant difference between Conservatives and Labour is one of outlook. The Conservative approach to politics is fairly pragmatic – identify problems besetting the country and find solutions to them that the electorate might approve of. The Labour approach is to gain power by any means available, and work out why later.
Some of the things Labour has done during it’s history have now become accepted parts of the political landscape – universally available healthcare, welfare for those in need. The battles to establish those (such as they were – healthcare evolved during the multi-party emergency government of WW2, and would have been enacted in some form by whatever party had won the 1945 election) are long since done and dusted, and only squabbling about the details remains; there is no dissent about the principles.
Some of Labour’s measures turned out to be abject failures; nationalistaion of the means of production was propped up by governments of both stripe long after the faults had become obvious, finally being killed off by the 1979 Conservative government after subsidising it came to absorb 45% of public spending. More recently, the opening of the immigration floodgates has been a spectacular own goal. The sudden influx of cheap labour alienated Labour’s natural supporters, the white working class. Any votes Labour might have gained by importing them was more than offset by the outflow of it’s traditional supporters to other parties – UKIP being one beneficiary. Labour also made some spectacular mistakes – the splitting of responsibility for bank regulation in 1997 from the Bank of England to a three-pronged approach of Financial Services Authority, BoE and Treasury (intended as a ‘divide and rule’ strategy) resulted in a situation in which nobody was quite sure who was responsible for what; the banks took full advantage, and the almighty mess in 2008 was the direct result. Other countries with strong regulation – Australia and Canada, for example, were barely touched by the ‘global crisis that started in America’.
In short, Labour have forgotten who they were supposed to represent – the ordinary working man and woman. One incident in 2010 really encapsulated that – Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy. “All these immigrants. Where are they flocking from?” “Some bigotted woman.” No, Gordon – an ordinary, decent working-class woman worried about the employment chances of her people.
Unless Labour find their roots again – and so far they don’t show much signs of so doing – they are stuffed. Possibly terminally.
- Alex
May 11, 2015 at 12:31 am -
Dear Atticus Flinch, what an excellent post. One of the very best. May I ask how you came to write it? I dont’ recall seeing your name on here before, or are you known by another name perhaps? Anyway, this was a really good read, and I do so agree with your comments re that odious creature Brand. Thank you.
- JuliaM
May 11, 2015 at 5:42 am -
“Noting more betrayed The Millipede’s lack of judgment than getting down and personal and obtaining the endorsement of old “Rusty Rockets”. “
Plus the #EdStone…
- Cloudberry
May 12, 2015 at 11:57 am -
There’s a tribute to Ed Milliband at the start of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFIq_cmpruk
Also an ode to the new justice secretary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meSAJGc3-Hw - Si
May 14, 2015 at 4:41 pm -
“The demographics of immigration may mean that in the end the traditional politics of England may well have been too deeply disturbed for this to be anything but a last hoorah for the Tories”
I had my car serviced on election day. On the way to retreive my car I expressed to the Asian taxi driver who drove me that I was unsure of how to vote. Within seconds he was imploring me to vote Conservative.
To paraphrase him: “all I’ve heard since I got here was Thatcher this and Tories that and to vote Labour. Since the Tories got in 5 years ago it’s been nowhere near as bad I was lead to beleive. You must for Consrvative”*Insert anecdote is not data anecdote here*
{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }