Be Excellent To Each Other

I posted about him in the Celebrity Deathlist thread - Heath brows out.

Saying history proved his politics wrong or 'disagreed' with them isn't entirely fair, if you read into it their government of '74 picked up an economy in bad shape after the Heath tenure, there was a worldwide shock of massive oil price inflation, and the unions were in full militant mode. (The winter of discontent appeared to come off the back of Healey and the Labour government refusing to bow to their unreasonable demands.)

He also denied ever having said the famous 'tax the rich until their pips squeak' line.

But yes he does appear to have been a mighty fine man, extremely intelligent, fought bravely in the war, 65 years of faithful marriage to the same woman and three children, many and varied interests outside of politics and quite able to get on with past political opponents.

He famously said of Geoffrey Howe that debating with him was like 'being savaged by a dead sheep', but the two went on to be good friends outside the world of politics.

Yes.

Getting Lord Adonis (along with Lord Razzall, the best named member of the Upper House) to serve on an infrastrucutre committee is a good coup for the Tories even if the results get ignored by the administration. It sends the signal that the Labour right can find a home outside of Corbynland and, for Adonis himself, allows him to pursue his interests, especially as much of the Cameron administrations have been continuations of policies he designed or advocated in the first place.

Also, I can't write Lord Adonis without smiling and wondering what webfilter alarms it sets off.

I see Jeremy Hunt has possibly gone a bit 'off message' by suggesting that the tax credit cuts which are imminently due to make poor people poorer, will encourage them to work harder, like the Chinese.

Maybe they'll start committing suicide like the Chinese do, as well. Doubtless that'd make him happy.

Yes agreed mate; more shrewd, grown-up politics from the Tories. Osborne & Co. are actively courting 'Blairite' Labour MPs on the right flank of the Labour Party, who are still reeling from the appointment of Corbyn and his (ahem) "interesting" front bench; a politics far more alien to them than anything that the moderate, Centrist One Nation/Patrician Tory Party as under Cameron could possibly come up with.

Perhaps it might be too much to expect actual defections with the more sensible Labour contingent 'crossing the floor', but you never know... Hey, it'd be dead handy to shore up our rather slim outright parliamentary majority likes.

Is there any history of Labour ---> Tory conversions? I know there have been some Tory > UKIP and plenty of (anyone) > Independent swaps, but I've never heard of a straight red to blue.

Quentin Davies. Conservative > Labour. Criticised the direction of the Conservative Party under leadership of David Cameron.

It's called "Crossing the floor".

Here's a list of MPs that did it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... _the_floor

8 October 1977. Reg Prentice. Labour > Conservative. Believed Labour should be defeated at the next election.

Going back a bit!

Totally trawling that, right now

2002 was the most recent Lab -> Con one. Richard Balfe, apparently.

Thanks for that. Ah, how we loved the Major years. I'm surprised the alternative title isn't 'List of British politicians who have committed the most unpardonable sin in British politics'.

If I've read that list right, there's never been a Conservative who crossed to Labour. Did I miss it?

Fuck you, DavPaz!

Ha! I missed your post and his name on the list. Is he the only one?

I can see at least four after a quick scan.

I rather like one of the early entries:

One more I think

15 January 2005. Robert Jackson. Conservative > Labour. Disagreement with party over higher education funding.

edit: MOAR

18 December 1999. Shaun Woodward. Conservative > Labour
8 October 1995. Alan Howarth. Conservative > Labour

EDIT: EDIT: What Mark said.

18 December 1999 Shaun Woodward
8 October 1995 Alan Howarth

What the fuck is wrong with my eyes?!

It's not the most readable site, TBF.

I can only find Churchill's first floor-crossing on that list. He returned to the Tories in the 1920s.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of Osborne's very good mates who joined Labour thinking that was their best chance for power and fame would go to the Tories in a heartbeat if that became their best bet. Such is the depth of the principles in those circles.

Edit, man! That's how Wikipedia works.

Forgive my ignorance, but if an MP crosses from the opposition to the government, why are they allowed to keep their seat? Shouldn't there be an immediate by-election?

If my MP suddenly declared herself a Tory, she would no longer represent the will of her electorate.

Because we elect a person, not a party. But it's bad form not to stand down.

Wouldn't she? What if she didn't change any practises or anything?

Heh. Well, 'depth of principles' tends to be in short supply when talking Labour MPs (most especially New Labour drones MPs), but on the other hand it's a pretty brave thing to cross the floor, surely.

I'm not going to be utterly cynical about this; even Labour MPs must enter into politics with the express and earnestly-held desire to make things better for people, however idealistic that may be (or however cynically trampled-down such a laudable aim becomes subsequently).

It is surely genuinely the case that for these progressive Labour MPs, Corbyn's 'back to the 1970s' post-truth era politics is an utter anathema, and something many just cannot, in all conscience, avoid railing against?

Well, we shall see.

I imagine most voters on Merseyside (and in any relatively 'safe' seats) are not voting for the person on the paper, but rather the Party next to their name.

That's them not understanding UK politics and elections, rather than anything else.

Does anyone truly understand it?

I think most everyone votes for a party at a general election whilst also understanding that they are electing a local MP. Either that or the parties all competely waste a shit load of time, money and effort with campaigning and shoving their leaders in front of the cameras etc.

To be fair, I totally agree with this.

Absolutely they do - and I'm not convinced they're not right to do so. But the rules, including crossing the floor, are set up based on the myth that people elect a local representative, not a party.

Party politics isn't actually a real thing in this country. This is why the party leader has to go to the queen to ask permission to form a government - there's no 'you got the most seats therefore you're the government'. Technically a completely random MP could walk over at any time after parliament is dissolved, ask the queen to form a government with a completely random selection of cross party MPs, and she could say 'sure, knock your socks off'. Obviously wouldn't ever happen, but good for a laugh

Almost right. At dissolution MPs cease to be MPs but ministers remain part of the executive until a new administration is formed.

Pedantry corner. The incumbent Prime Minister remains until he resigns or the Queen sacks him (never going to happen...but the governor general in Australia did this in the 1970s using this power). Her Maj then invites whoever is most likely to command a majority to form the next administraiton. The outgoing PM is supposed to 'advise' her on who to pick as we don't really like the idea of Liz choosing it herself. Argubaly 1957 was the last time this happened, but even then senior Tories ('the magic circle') had plumped for Supermac.

But what I meant was there's no actual 'party' requirement to the formation of the new administration.

Heh.

Surely you mean politics representing people, and trying to help the less fortunate is what is anathema to the Red Tories et al. When I see May, Hunt, Osborne and the rest do their speeches, the main thing I see is insincerity. They are categorically not in this to create a better country for the majority.

This is the problem with sourcing so many politicians (and increasing the numbers) from the public school system: they look around and see success everywhere. Anyone they knew who hasn't succeeded likely fucked it up for themselves massively. They just don't understand that normal people don't get these opportunities and you can end up in a bad place without being fuck-ups.

To be fair Curio, whether one agrees or disagrees, your average Tory is not insincere, nor without a political ideology; there is a fundamental honesty about being a Tory which, I'm sorry, your typical Labour MP, sending their kids to private schools etc., just lacks. We've all witnessed this acute lack of ideology, political purpose and identity all too clearly these last couple of months, which no-one could deny.

Your typical Tory (yours truly included, as hailing from very humble immigrant and working class stock, having gone to a shit comprehensive) *does* believe that for a great many people (but not everyone, certainly), opportunities for self-betterment exist and these should and must be taken. This is the keystone of *our* political belief; help those who would help themselves.

... and balls to everyone who can't.

There's also the difference in philosophical/ideological outlook between the sides (not that any good Tory would ever admit to having a grand vision of how the world should be).

Tories might be just as concerned about poverty, disadvantages in life, famine, and the number 5 to Headington as those on the left, but feel that the state shouldn't, or can't, solve these problems. Such things are better left to the market or local communities through organisiations such as the church or civic life (Burke's 'little platoons').

Well, no. That's why I explicitly said "but not everyone, certainly"? You should have said "balls to anyone who could but CBA".

I've deliberately ignored the "Jeremy Hunt wants the low paid to commit suicide" type remarks and/or sentiment, here, because it's just a load of balls and has been done to death. If you or anyone else seriously thinks that's what I'm saying then there's not much else *to* say.

There's a figure of 600,000 Chinese workers dying of overwork per year, and Hunt is specifically citing the Chinese as being who working people in this country should be a bit more like. (Apart from, presumably, him and his mates.)

As such I conclude he isn't overly bothered about the consequences of what he's promoting, and to even suggest that making poor working people even poorer through a specific and targeted government policy will encourage them to work harder, is diabolical.

Hence I chucked in the comment about workers committing suicide making him happy, as that's how disgusting I find him.

Nah, just couldn't resist the dig

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Hey, no worries mate. I'll treat you to a drink at the Cottage, assuming the bottle's still intact and has survived its perilous transit.

Very well put, Kern.
Yes, that's how it is for me; I believe the State CANNOT solve these problems, nor indeed many others.

Niall Ferguson's 2012 Reith Lectures nailed it for me; his third of that series, Civil and Uncivil Societies is (IMO) particularly worth a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jmxsk

Interesting. Helping those who help themselves.