The scripted narrative will surely deliver a Tory landslide or will it? We will see tomorrow how strong the Establishment spin machine remains in France. There seems to be rather a lot of Rovian type telekinesis being practised by the Neo-Liberal apologists who invariably do not acknowledge their ideological master.
— Chris Prosser (@caprosser) May 5, 2017
What more evidence do they need? What more proof do the Labour leadership and its supporters require? This was not an opinion poll.
Funny that suddenly everyone seems to have forget that polls were giving Tories a 20% lead. Actual result: 11% lead. Turn out: 26%!
If anything, it looks like the Tories are not on course to the crushing parliamentary majority that they wished for. And on that kind of turnout, it could only take a 35% turnout on the 8th of June to turn the GE into squeaky bum time for the Maybot.
— Roger Glyndwr Lewis (@RogerGLewis) May 11, 2017
The Starting Point
First, we should make a virtue of what we do understand – the nature of Labour’s victory in 1945. Did the reasons for Labour’s great victory have any relevance in 1950 and 1951?
The causes of the ’45 victory can be simply summarised:
- Labour was more in tune than the Conservatives with public opinion, especially with the wartime ethos of equality and ‘fair shares’ and with hopes for a new welfare state. Hence its manifesto promises had wide appeal.
- Labour had a better front bench team than the Conservatives, appearing both more talented and more trustworthy.
- In the improvised campaign of 1945 Labour’s electoral machinery was no longer inferior to that of its rival.
- The British ‘first past the post’ system gave Labour a huge majority of seats (just over 61 per cent) even though they won less than half of the popular vote.
Undoubtedly Labour had promised more than the Conservatives in the 1945 election. Yet such promises, while resulting in temporary popularity in the polls, might turn out to be hostages to fortune. Such had been the case with the Lloyd George Coalition, elected at the end of the First World War. Yet Labour exhibited a steely determination to make Britain a better place in which to live, and the 1945-50 administration goes down in history as the government that fulfilled more of its promises than any other.
In total, the 1945 parliament passed no fewer than 347 acts of parliament. Clearly there is no opportunity here to focus on details, but we do need to be aware of broad contours. On the home front, the Beveridge report was implemented, with the National Insurance Act of 1946 and the National Assistance Act of 1948. Furthermore, Labour inaugurated the National Health Service in 1948 (generally seen as one of the most valuable reforms in the whole of British history), built over a million new houses, and raised the school leaving age to 15. Labour also fulfilled its promise to nationalise key areas of British industry, including the coal mines, the railways, gas and electricity. Externally, Labour granted independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, pulled out of Palestine, and helped set up an important new security pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Inevitably the 1950 general election revolved around Labour’s record in office. Had they done enough to earn re-election? The party chairman claimed at the 1950 annual conference that ‘Poverty has been abolished, hunger is unknown. The sick are tended. The old folk are cherished, our children are growing up in a land of plenty.’ Yet against this seductive exaggeration – and even against Labour’s modest 1950 manifesto statement that ‘By and large the first majority Labour Government has served the country well’ – could be set postwar shortages, continuing rationing and high taxation, a series of financial crises, and general drab austerity. (The little bit of fun and glamour for which Labour was responsible, the Festival of Britain in May-September 1951, came too late to change perceptions of the period.) Objectively, it was a mixed record, as is that of every government, but what mattered at the polls were voters’ subjective responses, which reflected a mixed bag of concerns, including personalities as well as policies.
Attlee and his Ministers
Even some Conservative politicians, like Harold Macmillan, admitted that Labour’s ministerial team constituted an exceptionally talented group of people. Labour had seemed to dominate the home front during the war, thanks to Winston Churchill’s willingness to promote so many politicians outside his own Conservative party. Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton, Cripps, Bevan – here was a formidable team indeed. Yet by 1950, and even more by 1951, some of the gloss had been removed.
Recommended by you and 2 others
Completing ‘Super-Smart Democracies: Dissolving Neoliberalism, Managerialism and Elitism’. Former Research Fellow in Participation Research Unit at MBS.
… to meet the significant economic and social challenge we face…requires a government with the sort of progressive reforming zeal typified, albeit in very different ways, by Clement Attlee or Tony Blair.
Observer Editorial.April 9 2017i
To which David Murray responded:
… your editorial (“May must focus on deep-seated structural ills, not just Brexit”) last week mentions Clement Attlee and Tony Blair in the same breath: leading, progressive, reforming governments with zeal, “albeit in very different ways”. Not half.
Before his government, though bankrupt, founded the National Health Service and built more than a million homes, Attlee, who was voted the greatest prime minister of the 20th century, became and called himself a socialist.
Thus, Attlee is not an easy figure for New Labour or an Observer editorial to appropriate.
On the other hand, Blair’s toxic legacy was to prolong Thatcherism…
The implied comparison between Jeremy Corbyn, Blair and Attlee is invalid, though, because Blair was not trying to return a belief system to its roots, which Corbyn is, those roots being closer to the socialism of Attlee than the New Labour of Blair.
No doubt Mr. Murray could have gone into much greater detail to dismiss the Observer’s false equivalence between a great British Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, and a despicable one, Tony Blair, as could I, but I won’t waste my time or yours on so tedious a subject.
From ‘Sharing Attlee’s DNA’
you will see that I am a fervent admirer of the legacy of social and economic reform that Democratic Socialists such as Clement Attlee built up in the first half of the 20th Century. It is to the immense credit of Jeremy Corbyn and his followers that they are trying to preserve and build upon that legacy.
Perhaps Mt Trump will be in receipt of similar reports from his CIA resident in London.
´´Óbservers Agree that the Election campaign has been relatively quiet and attribute this to a serious British Electorate thinking hard about the issues.´´
The British Electorate may deliver a trump style FU moment to the British and international Neo-Liberal Establishment. It has been shown that in spite of David Cameron and George Osbourne assuring we in the Precariat that we are all in this together we have seen the huge rises in the wealth of the top of society and particularly of the Bankers whose bacon we saved back in 2008.
The NHS is not safe with Theresa May and her Neo-Liberal Fake conservatives
Brexit is not safe with Theresa May and her Fake Neo-Liberal Tories
The truth and freedom of speech are not safe with Theresa May and her Fake Neo-Liberal Tories.
Moore asks his audience permission to read something he had just written in the official Hotel recommended to acts appearing at the hosting theatre, he sits at a desk with his ring bound folder. A scholarly setting redolent of fire side chats beloved of broadcaster continuity over festive holidays. Suitably posed Moore reads his freshly penned polemic and it is this polemic which appears on the Internet. Top trending on reddit and hurriedly ripped and pasted around the web the source of course missing. Rumours abound that it is not even Moore speaking these words. The words he speaks are powerful and cut through to the essence of the deep anger sadness and confusion of the American people. This righteous anger Moore concludes will lead to ´´The biggest Fu ever delivered´´. A Trump Victory in the presidential race of 2016.
Moore’s polemic is an extraordinarily powerful summation of the failure of the Establishment of the four Estates and nails the injustice and the inequality which the United States has come to be associated with in ´Awake ´circles, both in the US and abroad.
In a strange way, Theresa Mat is the Fake Tory Neo-Liberal Version of Hilary Clinton, a terrible candidate with an appallingly low-grade front bench. In truth the Tories are in the midst of the same Bastard problem that John Major battled with. Boris Johnson wobbles goofily in the back ground waiting to unleash his own brand of incipid entitled privilege on the unsuspecting ´´Thoughtful´British Electorate.
Don’t Get Fooled again.
An old Etonian Toff
was often noted to scoff
Whilst Brosiering His dame
Economical actualité is the name of the game
I’ll tax the upper Crust off your pasty
now your all Fagging for me
I always preferred Cheshire Porky Pies
In Cuisine and in Deed you see.
Clark left Parliament in 1992 following Margaret Thatcher’s fall from power. His admission during the Matrix Churchill
trial that he had been “economical with the actualité ” in answer to parliamentary questions about what he knew with regard to arms export licences to Iraq, caused the collapse of the trial and the establishment of the Scott Inquiry
, which helped undermine John Major
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE