Brown V Major

[Oxfordite]

Anyone else noticed this?

Both came into office after a long (debt fuelled) boom, both came in after domineering PMs, both were previous chancellors, both presided/presiding over a HPC, both look incompetent and give the appearance of a complete lack of control of the situation or even know what's really going on.

To be honest I don't know which one is worse.

[Cogs]

Anyone else noticed this?

Both came into office after a long (debt fuelled) boom, both came in after domineering PMs, both were previous chancellors, both presided/presiding over a HPC, both look incompetent and give the appearance of a complete lack of control of the situation or even know what's really going on.

To be honest I don't know which one is worse.

And yet John Major won the 1992 General Election

[General Melchett]

Anyone else noticed this?

Both came into office after a long (debt fuelled) boom, both came in after domineering PMs, both were previous chancellors, both presided/presiding over a HPC, both look incompetent and give the appearance of a complete lack of control of the situation or even know what's really going on.

To be honest I don't know which one is worse.

Brown is in class of his own.

Major was at least competent, numerate and a reasonably nice guy, as politicians go, but was just not leader material and his spell at the top was shaded by the implosion and backstabbing in his own party, preventing him from acheiving much. Oh, and he did win one election.

[whistleblower]

Please leave Edwina Currie out of this thread

Former Prime Minister John Major has admitted he had a four-year affair with the former Conservative minister Edwina Currie.

[General Melchett]

Major is much underrated.

He inherited a dysfunctional Party at war with itself with no absolute majority in the Houses of Parliament. That requires a certain style of leadership that is more inclusive and can therefore be easily perceived as 'weak'.

Frankly I don't know how he got in and then managed to hold it all together for a full term given the circumstances.

At least he was honest and considered. That's all you can ask.

I agree.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Major is much underrated.

He inherited a dysfunctional Party at war with itself with no absolute majority in the Houses of Parliament. That requires a certain style of leadership that is more inclusive and can therefore be easily perceived as 'weak'.

Frankly I don't know how he got in and then managed to hold it all together for a full term given the circumstances.

At least he was honest and considered. That's all you can ask.

Agreed. Major has always been underrated - it's partly what allowed him to take power - his intellectual abilities and understanding of his historical place were far greater than he was given credit for. For example, he once said that he much admired Chamberlain, which was a very courageous thing to say in a party that had written him off as a failure and an appeaser.

And he kept a party together that had already broken apart for much longer than anyone else could have - even, or especially Thatcher.

And he went straight to Lord's to watch the cricket and took the piss out of the journos from the balcony the morning after losing the election. Respect. Can you imagine Brown doing that?

[OnlyMe]

Not quite sure what to think of Major. I hindsight in one way you could say he was a genius - he did almost nothing, no great plans, no expensive ideas, just left well alone and let the economy and country work itself out of the mire it was in.

This meddling lot and their spivvy central bank are micromanaging us into the pit.

[poorman]

Major= wife always by his side

Broon=Wife hardly seen together

[Driver]

And he went straight to Lord's to watch the cricket and took the piss out of the journos from the balcony the morning after losing the election. Respect. Can you imagine Brown doing that?

The last day of campaigning John Major went to the Labour stronghold of Stevenage (where crash Gordon started the local election campaign this year) stood on a box next to Tesco and gave as good as he got from the locals. As the few Tories shouted "Four more years" the locals shouted back "One more day". I had the privilage of witnessing this first hand.

He never looked happier than that day. Compare that with the look on old crash's face when he gets stick.

[SpewLabour]

Not quite sure what to think of Major. I hindsight in one way you could say he was a genius - he did almost nothing, no great plans, no expensive ideas, just left well alone and let the economy and country work itself out of the mire it was in.

This meddling lot and their spivvy central bank are micromanaging us into the pit.

2 things spring to mind when we talk about Major

1) The ERM fiasco - what people forget was that Labour was in favour of joining the ERM as well. Major took us out when he realised it was all going tits up. Would Labour have ?

2) Tory "Sleaze" - Aitken and Archer were "personal matters", as Labour now use as their frequent excuse. And Neil "cash for questions" Hamilton. Problem with that is the person who accused him was Al-Fayed - who has turned out to be a serial nutcase when it came to the Diana enquiry. How can he be believed ? Perhaps Neil Hamilton should reopen this ?

Edit : Aitken and Archer got what they deserved. Problem is that there are alot of Labour MPs who didn't.

Edited April 11, 2008 by SpewLabour

[davidg]

Big difference, Major surrounded himself with a half way competent team. Clarke, Hesseltine, Bottomley, John Gummer, Hague. Gummer? I hear you splutter... a competent environment secretary who wasn't taken in by the mad-cow bull (!?!). Even the sleaze was on a more moderate scale, a few bungs here and there and the odd hotel room or hooker. It seems almost quaint by nuLabor standards.

Railtrack was Major's greatest error, although something had to change, and is only big policy idea.

[Cogs]

2 things spring to mind when we talk about Major

1) The ERM fiasco - what people forget was that Labour was in favour of joining the ERM as well. Major took us out when he realised it was all going tits up. Would Labour have ?

2) Tory "Sleaze" - Aitken and Archer were "personal matters", as Labour now use as their frequent excuse. And Neil "cash for questions" Hamilton. Problem with that is the person who accused him was Al-Fayed - who has turned out to be a serial nutcase when it came to the Diana enquiry. How can he be believed ? Perhaps Neil Hamilton should reopen this ?

No, Tory sleaze wasn't a "personal matter", the problem was Major's 1993 "Back To Basics" initiative which basically made his party hostages to fate.

In retrospect it was a move of great hubris and he got his reward.

[Moo]

Anyone else noticed this?

Definately noticed it. However...

Not quite sure what to think of Major. I hindsight in one way you could say he was a genius - he did almost nothing, no great plans, no expensive ideas, just left well alone and let the economy and country work itself out of the mire it was in.

This meddling lot and their spivvy central bank are micromanaging us into the pit.

This, to me, is almost spot on. Major struck me as bright enough to realise there weren't any silver bullets in draw, but sadly lacked the charisma to get away with telling the country this. Brown's somewhat more worrying, as I get the feeling he thinks there.

[patprimer74]

Major= wife always by his side

Are you sure? Even when he was, allegedly, sh@gging that tart, Edwina Curry?

p

[SpewLabour]

Are you sure? Even when he was, allegedly, sh@gging that tart, Edwina Curry?

p

You've crawled out of your hole, then ?

[CharlieChuck]

And yet John Major won the 1992 General Election

As I remember it, he had a tiny majority (20 odd seems to ring a bell). Towards the end of his term, due to losing MP's thorugh by-elections, he could only form a majority with the help of the ulster unionists. With such a small majority and a party split down the middle, it was always going to be a hit and miss government. However he did remarkably well to bring some sort of order to the economy. Labour inherited a very good, growing economy in 97 and ruined it. Sleaze was a big problem, but with the back to basics and victorian values they bought it on themselves a bit.

Another thing he did was start talks with Sinn Fein, which helped start the road to peace in Northern Ireland. Thatcher refused to even starts talks with them.

On the other hand, Brown has inherited a mess of an economy that is of his own making. He has very little charisma and his talking/debating skills are very poor. Brown will always just be Tony's side-kick.

[General Melchett]

Another thing he did was start talks with Sinn Fein, which helped start the road to peace in Northern Ireland. Thatcher refused to even starts talks with them.

Indeed, let us never forget this... Possibly his greatest acheivement, and dwarfing any acheivements of Blair-Broon in the last 10 years. And what really sickened was watching Blair on his 'Farewell world tour' making out it was TB who had started this, singlehanded.

[Moo]

As I remember it, he had a tiny majority (20 odd seems to ring a bell). Towards the end of his term, due to losing MP's thorugh by-elections, he could only form a majority with the help of the ulster unionists. With such a small majority and a party split down the middle, it was always going to be a hit and miss government. However he did remarkably well to bring some sort of order to the economy. Labour inherited a very good, growing economy in 97 and ruined it. Sleaze was a big problem, but with the back to basics and victorian values they bought it on themselves a bit.

IMHO, the first bold bit is the reason for the second two bold bits.

Small majorities accentuate divisions within parties, for the fairly obvious reason that it only takes a few votes the other way to bring on a crisis. When you compare the magnitude of the rebellions Labour's seen on a good few occasions with those Major saw, it's pretty easy to see that with a big majority you can get away with almost anything, and because you win the vote, you don't look divided.

Much the same goes for the sleaze. MPs in a party with a small majority (especially when they're looking at a bouyant opposition) are a bit like employees who know their factory is closing a few months - they're hardly likely to give it their best, if the place is going down whether you raid the stationary cupboard or not, why not fill yer boots? Impending Doom definately brings out the naughty streak in some. [Added after edit] Furthermore, there's the discipline problem. With a dinky majority, MPs are a lot less 'expendable'. Going to kick a serious offender out of the party when you need their vote? I think not.

There's actually a slightly sadistic part of me that would love to see Labour get back in with a totally trivial majority, as I suspect they'd actually fall apart completely with some of the more right-leaning Blairites bailing out completely.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Moo

[CharlieChuck]

IMHO, the first bold bit is the reason for the second two bold bits.

It's a long time ago now, but I think the major (no pun intended) split was to do with our friend Europe. That split would have existed with a larger majority, but I think you're right that a small majority magnified all the little issues, and created problems that weren't really there.

There's actually a slightly sadistic part of me that would love to see Labour get back in with a totally trivial majority, as I suspect they'd actually fall apart completely with some of the more right-leaning Blairites bailing out completely.

Agreed. It destroyed the tories for the best part of 10 years, it will probably destroy labour for at least 10. The problem is it would mean putting up with Brown for another 6 years.

[Bingley Bloke]

Anyone else noticed this?

Both came into office after a long (debt fuelled) boom, both came in after domineering PMs, both were previous chancellors, both presided/presiding over a HPC, both look incompetent and give the appearance of a complete lack of control of the situation or even know what's really going on.

To be honest I don't know which one is worse.

Major was just incompetent. Brown is pure, calculated evil. Comparing the two is like comparing Mr Bean and Hitler.

[lets get it right]

Major is much underrated.

He inherited a dysfunctional Party at war with itself with no absolute majority in the Houses of Parliament. That requires a certain style of leadership that is more inclusive and can therefore be easily perceived as 'weak'.

Frankly I don't know how he got in and then managed to hold it all together for a full term given the circumstances.

At least he was honest and considered. That's all you can ask.

I'd second that. Extremely able, not quite ruthless enough.

Brown is an idiot.

[housestag]

Major went on to the Carlyle group.

Maybe Brown will go there to, as soon as possible...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A9629C8B63

is it the same thing ?

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...rgin-calls.html

Edited April 11, 2008 by housestag

[patprimer74]

You've crawled out of your hole, then ?

Ooops! Sorry I spoke!

p

[juvenal]

Anyone else noticed this?

Both came into office after a long (debt fuelled) boom, both came in after domineering PMs, both were previous chancellors, both presided/presiding over a HPC, both look incompetent and give the appearance of a complete lack of control of the situation or even know what's really going on.

To be honest I don't know which one is worse.

Both have strong links to circuses.....

[Guest happy?]

2 things spring to mind when we talk about Major

1) The ERM fiasco - what people forget was that Labour was in favour of joining the ERM as well. Major took us out when he realised it was all going tits up. Would Labour have ?....

Disingenuous - either that or a faulty memory on your part. It's true that other political parties were in favour of ERM but not at the price Major bought in at. Major dithered and missed the moment and consequently went in at far too high a rate.

On the day it went tits up Major could not be found and his Chancellor was found by his civil servants hiding in a cupboard.

Major/Lamont's economic policy essentially imploded and Ken Clarke a much more pragmatic man (and lacking the ideological baggage of some of his predecessors) followed the advice of his bureaucrat advisers making-up policy on the hoof - which in the long run turned out to be a rather good strategy.