tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post3702550481141407585..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: Moving the centre of political gravityMark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-71363288706005510992011-03-22T18:08:06.420+00:002011-03-22T18:08:06.420+00:00Fair enough. You were closer to the coalface of th...Fair enough. You were closer to the coalface of this stuff than I was. I'd still be surprised though if the Tories had more political agenda setting influence than Labour between 2008 and 2010. It's still the government of the day that largely controls the legislative programme for example.<br /><br />Influence is just something that I suppose is very difficult to measure.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-24496351864610197982011-03-22T17:02:20.683+00:002011-03-22T17:02:20.683+00:00Ok I can clearly no longer use the internet. Forgi...Ok I can clearly no longer use the internet. Forgive me it's been a long strange day. <br /><br />My point was that although the election was close, it was seen as the Tories to lose. So they still had the ascendancy in narrative terms. <br /><br />Ceetainly as a former lobbyist/current campaigner, the 2 years prior to the election were all about attempts to onfluence Tory policy in the expectation of then being in Government.Emma Burnellhttp://scarletstandard.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-14415116615332030992011-03-22T16:59:37.123+00:002011-03-22T16:59:37.123+00:00While you're right that the 2010 election was ...While you're right that the 2010 election was a lot closer than expected, it was actually a contraction of what had been a pretty steady Tory lead.Emma Burnellhttp://scarletstandard.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-8967288147924881262011-03-22T10:23:35.578+00:002011-03-22T10:23:35.578+00:00Hi Emma.
Apologies if I misunderstood the thrust ...Hi Emma.<br /><br />Apologies if I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying.<br /><br />"imagine Michael Howard leading us through the global crash" *shudders* That's why we didn't elect him!<br /><br />I take your point in your second comment about how the steering of where the centre ground is is not always solely controlled by the incumbent government however I would argue they have by far the most influence. They have the bully pulpits of the various offices of state available as well as the entire civil service at their disposal. The opposition can only do so much in response to this. For example watch tomorrow how George Osborne uses his position to slowly nudge things in the direction he would like to see. All that the two Eds can do in response is say things which will have little effect on the direction of economic policy.<br /><br />There have been occasions when this rule is temporarily turned on its head but it tends to be when it is totally clear that an imminent change of government is about to occur. Tony Blair as leader of the opposition in late 1996 and early 1997 probably had more control of the political agenda than John Major for example. I would argue though that right up until the election in May 2010, Brown still had more control of the agenda than Cameron. It was by no means obvious that Cameron was going to be the next PM. If Labour had got a few thousand more votes in key seats a Lab/Lib coalition was very much on the cards.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-41345825415551039892011-03-22T09:11:29.622+00:002011-03-22T09:11:29.622+00:00Sorry - posting from an iPhone...
Labour were not...Sorry - posting from an iPhone...<br /><br />Labour were not in charge of the political narrative from the time of the election that wasn't. Gordon Vriwn's tradgedy was that he didn't have the skills to lead, only to respond. The Tories were in the ascendancy, and as a result they set the political weather. It's not about who is in government, but who is on the up. The Tories are strong at the moment, though the narrative of incompetence is starting to take hold, as such they are setting the agenda. Labour are getting stronger, and their "too far too fast" message is also starting to take hold. The Lib Dems are not strong at the moment, but as their economic messages are allied with the Tories, on these issues it matters less for them.<br /><br />The 2013 & 2014 conferences will be the ones to watch. Reaction to those will show who is setting the narrative.Emma Burnellhttp://scarletstandard.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-11176369071643911412011-03-22T09:01:29.112+00:002011-03-22T09:01:29.112+00:00Mark,
You've either totally misread me, or ar...Mark,<br /><br />You've either totally misread me, or are cherry-picking my post to suit the point you want to make. As we're old friends, I will assume the former. I'm sorry that the post wasn't clear on first reading.<br /><br />My point was not "why do they blame poor blameless Labour" at all. Anyone interested in Labour regaining power as I am would be foolhardy to ignore the strong numbers in the quoted Ipsos-Mori poll. What the post was all about was asking to look a bit deeper at what exactly it is Labour is blamed for in a split between overspending (the Tory/Liberal analysis) and leaving the economy vulnerable by relating too heavily on the financial sector. In the post I agree that the majority probably mix both with the former the far greater portion.<br /><br />So my point was not "how can Labour deny blame" but the more interesting questions of how we respond to it and what it really is. To illustrate, close your eyes again, imagine Michael Howard leading us through the global crash and ask yourself what he'd have done differently at which stages and how much worse off we'd be.<br /><br />On your wider point of the Centre ground, I think your analysis is flawed.Emma Burnellhttp://scarletstandard.co.uknoreply@blogger.com