A key point that gets missed in some of the cruder takes on the "Red Wall". Tory success here may owe less to a new electoral phenomenon than an old one: the "property-owning democracy"; but one that's spread unevenly between generations & doesn't map neatly onto class lines. 1/5
2. The idea of a "property-owning democracy" was coined by a Conservative MP, Noel Skelton, in 1923. It recognised that home-ownership was likely to have a fundamental effect on voting behaviour & political values. The same idea inspired the sale of council houses in the 1980s.
3. Yet the spread of home-ownership has taken a peculiar shape. Today, more than half of all UK home-owners are over 55. Ownership rates are lower in affluent cities than in poorer towns. We shouldn't be surprised that this is bending party alignment into very new shapes.
4. In the long term, that poses challenges to both parties - and suggests that the politics of inheritance is going to become increasingly fraught. But in the short-term, it's likely to mean more electoral pain for Labour, with no quick fix in sight for a longer, structural issue
The introduction of the penny post was a major step on the road to democracy, won from government "by the clamour of a nation". As a radical newspaper put it: "The landlords were caught napping when they allowed Rowland Hill to steal a march upon them". [1/5]
Within 10 years, the Royal Mail was carrying 347 million letters a year. Pamphlets & fliers could be sent out at a fraction of the previous cost, transforming the prospects of groups like the Anti-Corn Law League. "The penny postage will repeal the corn laws!", Cobden predicted.
Cheap postage could also be used for advertising, with adhesive "wafers" or stickers bearing political or religious slogans. Millions of envelopes carried slogans from the Anti-Corn Law League, the Peace Society and the anti-slavery movement.
When Gladstone reformed the civil service in 1854, abolishing ministerial patronage, critics called it "an immense stride" towards democracy. They were right: which is why scandals like Greensill, and the return of patronage, are so dangerous. [THREAD] ft.com/content/590367…
2. Before 1854, ministers routinely appointed their friends, business contacts & financial patrons to positions in govt, that came with salaries, access & influence on policy. The Head of the Civil Service, Trevelyan, warned of "a stream of corruption" gushing through public life
3. Gladstone abolished the patronage system, laying the basis for a career civil service recruited by exams. He called this a "parliamentary reform", not just an administrative change, because it weakened corrupt influences, opened govt to talent and made it harder to buy access.
Excellent piece by the @ConUnit_UCL on the "shocking" collapse of parliamentary govt over the last year. Five changes, in particular, "amount to a fundamental undermining and exclusion of parliament from crucial decisions". Some extracts follow. [1/9] constitution-unit.com/2021/04/21/cov…
1. Emergency Legislation. The far-reaching Coronavirus Act was rushed through Parliament in a single day. "In the year since it was passed, ministers have provided just five hours debating time for MPs to consider ongoing measures", with speeches limited to just 4 minutes each.
2. Radical new laws, "shutting down businesses, forcing people to stay at home, imposing hotel quarantines or mandatory testing", have routinely been made by Statutory Instruments, issued by ministers without parliamentary scrutiny, even when there was no immediate time pressure.
Many voters, I suspect, don't much care if ministers are lining their own pockets - they may even expect it - unless they come to believe it's at their own expense. The assault on "sleaze" in the 1990s worked, in part, because it ran alongside the attack on "22 Tory Tax Rises".
That's partly why the culture war is so important. So long as someone else can be cast as "the elite" - universities, judges, human rights lawyers, the BBC - govt can position itself on the side of "ordinary people". So long as that holds, it will be hard to make "sleaze" stick.
Throw in posters like this, on top of the memory of "Black Wednesday", and it's easier to see why the attack on sleaze "bit" in the 1990s.
This is a desperately silly question.Polls have to move beyond this childishness.
I'd like a party that's inspired by the best of our history while learning from its failings; that builds on what's good & improves what's bad;that wants Britain to be better tomorrow than today.1/
A nation's history is a tissue of different events, personalities, peoples & processes stretched across centuries. It is built, like all things human, out of "the crooked timber of humanity", embracing every shade of good & ill. You can't just tick a box marked "pride" or "shame"
If I am to feel "proud" of Alan Turing, must I also feel proud of those who hounded him to death? Must pride in Chartists or suffragettes involve pride in those who locked them up and force-fed them? Must I choose between celebrating slavery or denigrating Shakespeare?
One of the biggest dangers to the Union today is the Westminster model at its core: a "winner-takes-all" contest between two overwhelmingly English parties, propped up by an archaic electoral system. If we want to rebuild a Union of consent, we should start here. [THREAD]
2. Britain's "winner-takes-all" system assumes two broad parties that alternate in govt. Until 2015, Scotland mostly fitted that model. The "Big Two" usually won >80% of MPs, & in 11 out of 18 elections from 1945-2010, the biggest party at Westminster won the most Scottish seats.
3. Scotland had a visible presence, not just in the governing parties at Westminster, but in Cabinet. Scotland supplied Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Foreign & Defence Secretaries, including major figures like Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Malcolm Rifkind, Donald Dewar and John Smith