Great Piece. Not enough is written about overcorrections and lack of confidence in politics and how this shapes future political outcomes. I mean, there is a big difference from being actually uninspiring or reclusive compared to just giving that vibe off but, in reality, having inventive or radical policy.
1992 --> 1997 is completely correct! Look how it empowered more radical wings within the party, feeling like a missed generational opportunity.
Switch it to the Tories, and I feel 2017 ---> 2019 is another example. Not confident enough to portray a vision of government (arguable if they ever could / wanted to), and spent the campaign fighting it on 2017 battle lines, leaving no plan for government and the right of the party (Truss and co) empowered enough by the gap to push the post-Brexit 'singapore' style economics Vs the underdeveloped Johnsonian big government brexit.
Both TB / BJ got to power, and with great majorities, but both (to varying degrees, of course) left office with regrets of lack of reform / progress. I think you nail it - both for elections and governments. Confidence is key, and its borne out of tough oppo / campaigns, media strat and (as much as they can be without spooking the electorate) foundational manifestos. Without having that belief to do something and unabashedly *sell* it to the country, you will be resigned to doing nothing in government - or worse still, remain in opposition!
I'm 68, I remember '92 and feeling at the time that the triumphalism before the election would provoke a backlash turning positive polls into a negative election result. The electorate - or at least enough of the electorate to turn victory to defeat - are fickle. Even more so now with enough of the electorate aware that negative polling or a by-election defeat could make a government change track - but that doesn't mean they will vote the same way when it comes to a GE.
Yes, Blair had to get the electorate's trust by sticking to Tory spending plans in his first term but could have been more 'Socialist' less neo-classical economist in his second term and embracing the Financial Services sector as the main engine of growth was, IMHO, a big mistake. Hopefully the financial crash in 2008, flat growth due to austerity since 2010, and this latest shambles of the markets rejecting unfunded tax cuts for the rich has made the electorate ready for some home truths. As Mervyn King recently said you can't have European standards of Public Services with USA levels of taxation. I believe the electorate want higher quality public services and are prepared to pay a bit more tax for them if it is fairly shared. Even moderate Tory voters can see that to get growth going and pay for services, that way we need investment at the roots of the economy - a well-educated, healthy workforce, good infrastructure, law and order and a prosperous (or at least not poverty stricken) consumer base.
Rehabilitate Income Tax as the fairest progressive tax, incorporate NI to make it more progressive, introduce many more tax bands, even every 1%, to spread the load, rejig it so the low paid keep more of their pay to spend in their local economies - the money goes round and around and gets sucked up - trickle down doesn't work, scrapping the 50p tax rate didn't work, reducing interest rates down to 0% didn't work, £800bn QE poured in at the top hasn't worked. Putting up interest rates when we need growth is ridiculous. Inflation is being caused by a war not run-away growth, putting up interest rates will reduce growth and cause unemployment designed to reduce wage rates - that is how it is supposed to reduce inflation and it should be unacceptable in a modern society. We need to produce more here but putting up interest rates artificially bolsters the £ - that may be good short term for the price of imported goods - but longer term it makes our exports more expensive making the negative trade balance worse as well as being a strategic mistake.
Top earners shouldn't have to pay more because they have the broadest shoulders - that's charity - they should pay more because they benefit most from the growth brought about by paying low earners more and leaving more in low earners pay packets. As I say, it gets sucked-up it doesn't trickle down.
Great Piece. Not enough is written about overcorrections and lack of confidence in politics and how this shapes future political outcomes. I mean, there is a big difference from being actually uninspiring or reclusive compared to just giving that vibe off but, in reality, having inventive or radical policy.
1992 --> 1997 is completely correct! Look how it empowered more radical wings within the party, feeling like a missed generational opportunity.
Switch it to the Tories, and I feel 2017 ---> 2019 is another example. Not confident enough to portray a vision of government (arguable if they ever could / wanted to), and spent the campaign fighting it on 2017 battle lines, leaving no plan for government and the right of the party (Truss and co) empowered enough by the gap to push the post-Brexit 'singapore' style economics Vs the underdeveloped Johnsonian big government brexit.
Both TB / BJ got to power, and with great majorities, but both (to varying degrees, of course) left office with regrets of lack of reform / progress. I think you nail it - both for elections and governments. Confidence is key, and its borne out of tough oppo / campaigns, media strat and (as much as they can be without spooking the electorate) foundational manifestos. Without having that belief to do something and unabashedly *sell* it to the country, you will be resigned to doing nothing in government - or worse still, remain in opposition!
I'm 68, I remember '92 and feeling at the time that the triumphalism before the election would provoke a backlash turning positive polls into a negative election result. The electorate - or at least enough of the electorate to turn victory to defeat - are fickle. Even more so now with enough of the electorate aware that negative polling or a by-election defeat could make a government change track - but that doesn't mean they will vote the same way when it comes to a GE.
Yes, Blair had to get the electorate's trust by sticking to Tory spending plans in his first term but could have been more 'Socialist' less neo-classical economist in his second term and embracing the Financial Services sector as the main engine of growth was, IMHO, a big mistake. Hopefully the financial crash in 2008, flat growth due to austerity since 2010, and this latest shambles of the markets rejecting unfunded tax cuts for the rich has made the electorate ready for some home truths. As Mervyn King recently said you can't have European standards of Public Services with USA levels of taxation. I believe the electorate want higher quality public services and are prepared to pay a bit more tax for them if it is fairly shared. Even moderate Tory voters can see that to get growth going and pay for services, that way we need investment at the roots of the economy - a well-educated, healthy workforce, good infrastructure, law and order and a prosperous (or at least not poverty stricken) consumer base.
Rehabilitate Income Tax as the fairest progressive tax, incorporate NI to make it more progressive, introduce many more tax bands, even every 1%, to spread the load, rejig it so the low paid keep more of their pay to spend in their local economies - the money goes round and around and gets sucked up - trickle down doesn't work, scrapping the 50p tax rate didn't work, reducing interest rates down to 0% didn't work, £800bn QE poured in at the top hasn't worked. Putting up interest rates when we need growth is ridiculous. Inflation is being caused by a war not run-away growth, putting up interest rates will reduce growth and cause unemployment designed to reduce wage rates - that is how it is supposed to reduce inflation and it should be unacceptable in a modern society. We need to produce more here but putting up interest rates artificially bolsters the £ - that may be good short term for the price of imported goods - but longer term it makes our exports more expensive making the negative trade balance worse as well as being a strategic mistake.
Top earners shouldn't have to pay more because they have the broadest shoulders - that's charity - they should pay more because they benefit most from the growth brought about by paying low earners more and leaving more in low earners pay packets. As I say, it gets sucked-up it doesn't trickle down.