Lessons from the election
All the parties must learn lessons from the election campaign we have just had - and that includes the two parties, Conservative and SNP, who were successful.
The Labour party ran on a programme more out of touch with the needs of modern Britain than any that they had offered since 1983, when their manifesto was called "The longest suicide note in history."
Labour received, and very richly deserved, their biggest humiliation at the ballot box since 1983.
But however vital for Britain I may think the rejection of that Labour programme was, it appears to have been practically at the very last minute, often in the very voting booth itself, that the British electorate could bring itself to reject that programme by voting Conservative.
This in turn suggests that many of those who voted Conservative on Thursday did so reluctantly on the basis that the alternatives were much worse, and that we need to listen more and build a much better rapport with people if we want to have any chance or retaining that support.
But if even the Conservatives need to recognise that they are not popular with the electorate, all the other parties have had that shown even more decisively, and that certainly includes the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon promised to lock the Conservatives out of power but what she actually achieved was to put them back in Downing Street with more seats and an absolute majority.
A Lib/Dem council candidate said to me yesterday that if he had not been a party member and personally involved he would have been tempted to vote Conservative to avoid the prospect of Ed Miliband in Downing Street and the SNP calling the shots. The Conservatives and their allies in the press exploited that concern after discovering on the doorstep and from polling evidence that it was one of our strongest cards, but neither the Conservatives or the press created that fear - the SNP did that themselves.
During the Scottish IndyRef, there was a massive amount of anti-English hatred stirred up by some - not all - SNP supporters and "Yes" campaigners. I and many others commented at the time that it was fortunate there had not been more of a backlash from the English.
On Thursday the English backlash against the SNP - not against all Scots, just against the SNP - materialised big-time and manifested itself through the ballot box.
There are millions of English voters who were prepared to put up with being governed by Scottish Labour figures like Gordon Brown, even when they strongly disagreed with them, as part of the turnabout which goes with democracy but who were not prepared to extend that principle to people who don't believe in the United Kingdom and appear to hate the English.
There are SNP members who have argued and campaigned for their case in a civilised and respectful way and this does not apply to them. But the kind of angry intolerance which has been on display far too frequently by some nationalists does not advance their cause and has the potential to do great harm to everyone in these islands.
For much of my political life I saw many Lib/Dems campaigning using what I thought were dirty, dishonest tactics and get rewarded for it by the electorate.
But then five years ago the Lib/Dems and the Conservatives took the brave decision to work together in the national interest when our country was facing a disastrous economic situation. Five years on, though there is much to do, that coalition has made significant progress including two million new jobs, a return to growth, and a reduction in the deficit. One party in the coalition has been rewarded for those achievements and the other has been crucified.
I do not regret any of the Conservative wins in this election, but I do think that some of the Lib/Dems defeated by various parties will be a loss to the country. I suspect the Lib/Dems will be more careful about some of their promises in future: I hope the greater realism and responsibility they often displayed during the last five years will not be a casualty of the inevitable soul-searching following their disappointing election result.
And as for Labour: to reverse Bruce Forsythe's catchphrase, didn't they do badly!
Tony Blair had many, many faults, and he will never be forgiven - or should be - for his handling of the Iraq war - but his three election victories were built on a few things he got absolutely right.
Blair understood that to win elections in Britain you must reach out to and beyond the centre, and try to appeal to everyone, not just your own core supporters.
Unlike far too many socialists, Blair had some understanding of the fact that creating wealth is not a dirty word, and that good schools and hospitals have to be paid for out of the money earned by large and small businesses.
Ed Miliband rejected that, claiming that "The era of New Labour has passed."
Miliband's belief that Gordon Brown was not left-wing enough led him to an election strategy which was nearly as insane as the late Tony Benn's similar belief thirty years before that voters re-elected Margaret Thatcher because Michael Foot was not left-wing enough.
I hoped and thought that the British people would not be stupid enough to buy this prospectus, and I am desperately relieved to find that I was right.
A few people on the left have some understanding of where their party went wrong, and I particularly welcome - because good government requires a good opposition - a couple of pieces on the Labour uncut site: their Editor Atul Hatwal has reposted an article by former Labour general secretary Peter Watt which was first posted after Labour's 2010 defeat and is still relevant today: it is called
We don't see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening.
Perhaps Labour is not the only party which needs to make efforts to avoid that particular trap, but they are especially prone to it.
Atul Hatwal has also written that: The Labour party is responsible for this defeat. It's our fault. Nobody else's.
It would be healthy for democracy if other people in the Labour party show the same degree of intellectual honesty. I suspect this may require another defeat, as it has taken some parts of both the Conservative and Labour parties three defeats to get the message from voters in the past.
A final lesson is that if we want to preserve the union, the Unionist parties need to be, and be seen to be, interested in the concerns of the people of Scotland - which does not have to mean pandering to the SNP.
The Labour party ran on a programme more out of touch with the needs of modern Britain than any that they had offered since 1983, when their manifesto was called "The longest suicide note in history."
Labour received, and very richly deserved, their biggest humiliation at the ballot box since 1983.
But however vital for Britain I may think the rejection of that Labour programme was, it appears to have been practically at the very last minute, often in the very voting booth itself, that the British electorate could bring itself to reject that programme by voting Conservative.
This in turn suggests that many of those who voted Conservative on Thursday did so reluctantly on the basis that the alternatives were much worse, and that we need to listen more and build a much better rapport with people if we want to have any chance or retaining that support.
But if even the Conservatives need to recognise that they are not popular with the electorate, all the other parties have had that shown even more decisively, and that certainly includes the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon promised to lock the Conservatives out of power but what she actually achieved was to put them back in Downing Street with more seats and an absolute majority.
A Lib/Dem council candidate said to me yesterday that if he had not been a party member and personally involved he would have been tempted to vote Conservative to avoid the prospect of Ed Miliband in Downing Street and the SNP calling the shots. The Conservatives and their allies in the press exploited that concern after discovering on the doorstep and from polling evidence that it was one of our strongest cards, but neither the Conservatives or the press created that fear - the SNP did that themselves.
During the Scottish IndyRef, there was a massive amount of anti-English hatred stirred up by some - not all - SNP supporters and "Yes" campaigners. I and many others commented at the time that it was fortunate there had not been more of a backlash from the English.
On Thursday the English backlash against the SNP - not against all Scots, just against the SNP - materialised big-time and manifested itself through the ballot box.
There are millions of English voters who were prepared to put up with being governed by Scottish Labour figures like Gordon Brown, even when they strongly disagreed with them, as part of the turnabout which goes with democracy but who were not prepared to extend that principle to people who don't believe in the United Kingdom and appear to hate the English.
There are SNP members who have argued and campaigned for their case in a civilised and respectful way and this does not apply to them. But the kind of angry intolerance which has been on display far too frequently by some nationalists does not advance their cause and has the potential to do great harm to everyone in these islands.
For much of my political life I saw many Lib/Dems campaigning using what I thought were dirty, dishonest tactics and get rewarded for it by the electorate.
But then five years ago the Lib/Dems and the Conservatives took the brave decision to work together in the national interest when our country was facing a disastrous economic situation. Five years on, though there is much to do, that coalition has made significant progress including two million new jobs, a return to growth, and a reduction in the deficit. One party in the coalition has been rewarded for those achievements and the other has been crucified.
I do not regret any of the Conservative wins in this election, but I do think that some of the Lib/Dems defeated by various parties will be a loss to the country. I suspect the Lib/Dems will be more careful about some of their promises in future: I hope the greater realism and responsibility they often displayed during the last five years will not be a casualty of the inevitable soul-searching following their disappointing election result.
And as for Labour: to reverse Bruce Forsythe's catchphrase, didn't they do badly!
Tony Blair had many, many faults, and he will never be forgiven - or should be - for his handling of the Iraq war - but his three election victories were built on a few things he got absolutely right.
Blair understood that to win elections in Britain you must reach out to and beyond the centre, and try to appeal to everyone, not just your own core supporters.
Unlike far too many socialists, Blair had some understanding of the fact that creating wealth is not a dirty word, and that good schools and hospitals have to be paid for out of the money earned by large and small businesses.
Ed Miliband rejected that, claiming that "The era of New Labour has passed."
Miliband's belief that Gordon Brown was not left-wing enough led him to an election strategy which was nearly as insane as the late Tony Benn's similar belief thirty years before that voters re-elected Margaret Thatcher because Michael Foot was not left-wing enough.
I hoped and thought that the British people would not be stupid enough to buy this prospectus, and I am desperately relieved to find that I was right.
A few people on the left have some understanding of where their party went wrong, and I particularly welcome - because good government requires a good opposition - a couple of pieces on the Labour uncut site: their Editor Atul Hatwal has reposted an article by former Labour general secretary Peter Watt which was first posted after Labour's 2010 defeat and is still relevant today: it is called
We don't see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening.
Perhaps Labour is not the only party which needs to make efforts to avoid that particular trap, but they are especially prone to it.
Atul Hatwal has also written that: The Labour party is responsible for this defeat. It's our fault. Nobody else's.
It would be healthy for democracy if other people in the Labour party show the same degree of intellectual honesty. I suspect this may require another defeat, as it has taken some parts of both the Conservative and Labour parties three defeats to get the message from voters in the past.
A final lesson is that if we want to preserve the union, the Unionist parties need to be, and be seen to be, interested in the concerns of the people of Scotland - which does not have to mean pandering to the SNP.
Comments
But the real reason so many people held their nose and voted conservative was simply because they want a referendum on the EU, and to vote conservative was the only way to get it.
That fact will have turned many who would have voted UKIP too. UKIP had a lot of second places, but we can see as they are away from the target seats that UKIP was used as a dustbin for protest votes.
The referendum is the key thing. I too saw Nicola sturgeon on the Marr show, all about how "scotland can not be ignored, and how they have spoken" well thats fine. give them financial indepedence, let them end austerity at the cost of only the Scottish taxpayer, lets see how that works out.
The EU Referendum must now be the only game in town. It is why the Conservative party were elected and its got to be at the forefront of every discussion until the 2017 date has passed.
There are going to be a lot of issues around making sure the referendum is seen to be fair, with equal opportunities for "IN" and "OUT" to put their case. I am sure they can be managed. But you are right that we need to start the debate.
Firstly its typical of the FUD I expect to see flowing from the "IN" campaign, when there is no reason that leaving the political EU, yet retaining the trading single market via the EEA would trigger a second referendum, actually many Scots would prefer it to full Political EU membership anyway.
But secondly, how that very same "this will trigger a second scottish referendum and will lead to the break up of the UK" will be tirelessly used as a threat to the government from the SNP opposition. It cant be used as a threat, and my answer to anonymous is this.
Well if it does cause a second scottish referendum and break up of the UK, then what? if its going to happen, then its going to happen, Now are Scotland going to apply to join the EU? they could I guess, I will even help you, you need Article 49 TEU. There you are, happy to help.
I think that people have to vote In or Out according to what they think is in the best interests of the UK as a whole. If Scotland then decides to have another referendum to leave the UK the Scots will have to vote on that according to what they see as the best interests of Scotland.
I don't know whether the electorate will vote to stay In or come Out of the EU, I think we have to be ready for either possibility and whichever is the result, try to make it work.
In reference to your "time passing Post" today I think it was a very very quick gerneration that passed between the two Irish Lisbon referendums.
I dont think a referendum should be the perogative of a government. At the moment we have a system where by enough people on a petition triggers a debate in parliament. well that should be enough people on a petition triggers a referendum.