Mailwatch(ed) Forum

This, from ITV Wales, is well worth 25 minutes of your time. So sad about dear beloved Glenys.

https://www.itv.com/walesprogrammes/art ... nock-at-80

I once read that if Neil Kinnock could have spent ten minutes with every voter in the country, every election would have been a Labour landslide. How we could do with him now.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:44 pm This, from ITV Wales, is well worth 25 minutes of your time. So sad about dear beloved Glenys.

https://www.itv.com/walesprogrammes/art ... nock-at-80

I worked with someone who had been a mate of Glenys back in Cardiff University when they were students.
He worshipped the ground she walked on.

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:46 am I once read that if Neil Kinnock could have spent ten minutes with every voter in the country, every election would have been a Labour landslide. How we could do with him now.

People who’ve worked with Kinnock as a commissioner (and Vice President) spoke very highly of him. Says more than whether you superficially liked him or not. Which I didn’t and didn’t take to him in person, either.

So pleased to see an emotional Neil celebrating this morning with the Starmers.

Being interviewed, there was a tear in his eye. And in mine.

I always liked him as a Labour leader. He did the heavy lifting in dealing with Militant and revising policy which enabled the Blair win on 1997. Where he came up short was 1987. If Labour had won a few more seats then, perhaps even another 10 or so, the election of 1992 would have been much more within their grasp. As it was they just came up short, but meant that whoever succeeded him was fighting the following election needed a much smaller swing for victory.

Labour have an enviable collection of PMs who should have been. Vs the Tories unenviable collection of PMs who shouldn’t have even been allowed in to parliament.

slilley wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 9:10 am I always liked him as a Labour leader. He did the heavy lifting in dealing with Militant and revising policy which enabled the Blair win on 1997. Where he came up short was 1987. If Labour had won a few more seats then, perhaps even another 10 or so, the election of 1992 would have been much more within their grasp. As it was they just came up short, but meant that whoever succeeded him was fighting the following election needed a much smaller swing for victory.

1987 was a hard election for Labour, because of the economic growth, excitement over buying council houses, particularly in the South. The Tories even won Thurrock which had been a rare southern Labour hold in 1983. In Scotland, the Tories did badly because of the Poll Tax, but that wasn't a factor in England.

Kinnock's reward for fighting a good campaign in difficult circumstances was to have Tony Benn challenge him for the leadership (he did awfully). Naturally Jez was a prominent Benn supporter.

Labour at that time was still getting a fair bit of bad publicity from local government. Lots of that was bollocks, naturally, but some Labour councils had pushed rates rises too far (understandably, perhaps because the cuts to the government grant had been substantial). The Tories gained Walthamstow on the back of that.

Ian Gilmour in his very entertaining book on Thatcherism reckoned that Labour took a while to suss how much of a gift the Poll Tax was because they thought anything to do with local government would be a bad issue for them.

Every late 80s leader in the Western world was riding high on the global economic boom. It even allowed Nigel Lawson to disguise what a rotten and foolish chancellor he was.

Nigel Lawson did some good work on simplifying the tax system, just like Ronald Regan did (on a bipartisan basis). Lawson's reputation was destroyed by the 1988 Budget (raise demand in an already existing boom). And, like any Tory Chancellor of the era, it was all very grim. And the low taxes were propped up by oil and privatisation proceeds.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 1:53 pm

slilley wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 9:10 am I always liked him as a Labour leader. He did the heavy lifting in dealing with Militant and revising policy which enabled the Blair win on 1997. Where he came up short was 1987. If Labour had won a few more seats then, perhaps even another 10 or so, the election of 1992 would have been much more within their grasp. As it was they just came up short, but meant that whoever succeeded him was fighting the following election needed a much smaller swing for victory.

1987 was a hard election for Labour, because of the economic growth, excitement over buying council houses, particularly in the South. The Tories even won Thurrock which had been a rare southern Labour hold in 1983. In Scotland, the Tories did badly because of the Poll Tax, but that wasn't a factor in England.

Kinnock's reward for fighting a good campaign in difficult circumstances was to have Tony Benn challenge him for the leadership (he did awfully). Naturally Jez was a prominent Benn supporter.

I think that was when John O'Farrell's dad pointed out how many flash cars were parked outside the polling station. It was an impossible election to win - the global economy coupled with Thatcher selling the family silver to buy votes would have done for anyone.

You also still had Alliance.

Strange, isn't it? We've spent years saying that winning is the only thing that matters, yet a leader who won three elections is vilified while a leader who lost two inspires great affection. Perhaps being a winner might not be so important after all.

davidjay wrote:Strange, isn't it? We've spent years saying that winning is the only thing that matters, yet a leader who won three elections is vilified while a leader who lost two inspires great affection. Perhaps being a winner might not be so important after all.

It's "Winning the argument" that counts.

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:56 pm Strange, isn't it? We've spent years saying that winning is the only thing that matters, yet a leader who won three elections is vilified while a leader who lost two inspires great affection. Perhaps being a winner might not be so important after all.

Blair is the living embodiment of living long enough to see himself become the villain. His government did a huge amount of good, but his quasi-religious war adventure with Bush is what he will be most remembered for. He may well have made decisions in good faith, as he claims. But faith of another sort very much seems to have weighted the outcome of those decisions.

I tend to think that both Blair and Brown should be judged on how quickly any gains they made for social justice were rolled back by the Cameron/Clegg government.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 1:24 pm Labour have an enviable collection of PMs who should have been. Vs the Tories unenviable collection of PMs who shouldn’t have even been allowed in to parliament.

Key side-effect of the conceit that powers the Tories: massively lower bar for success. Labour heavyweights have had to be true giants, not playacting dilletantes and/or pseudo-titans. See also Thatcher mythologising as always decisive, direct, forthright etc.

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:56 pm Strange, isn't it? We've spent years saying that winning is the only thing that matters, yet a leader who won three elections is vilified while a leader who lost two inspires great affection. Perhaps being a winner might not be so important after all.

I think in part what people have come to appreciate with Neil Kinnock is that he did the heavy lifting which got labour to the point where victory under Blair in 1997 was pretty much a given.

Blair and Brown are criticised for their actions in office, but that government achieved much and that seems to have been overlooked by some.

Mostly by Ed Miliband/Len McCluskey.