Where do you see the Isle of Man in 10 years

[The Phantom]

16 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

The Tories won’t possibly win but this time round Labour isn’t going to be the traditional threat we think it is. The UK economy is in the toilet and Brexit has crippled things even worse. In 2 years time almost the entire focus of the UK Government will be managing all those infrastructure contracts they’ll be handed out to rebuild Ukraine in return for all the military support they given in the last year. That is the entire Brexit economic counter play they’ve managed to come up with so far. 

Did it used to be the case that the opposition party would get voted in because of their popularity and policies rather than the incumbent being shit? 

It would be a good time to set up a viable alternative party in the UK. 

[WTF]

i  answer to the OP question, still in the shitter.

[Declan]

9 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Did it used to be the case that the opposition party would get voted in because of their popularity and policies rather than the incumbent being shit? 

It would be a good time to set up a viable alternative party in the UK. 

Largely, the British public votes for the devil you know until it perceives they've been in too long. It's easier to imagine the government governing than the opposition, so a vote for them looks like a risk. 

The Tories snuck into power in 2010 with the Lib Dems help when Labour became jaded. It wasn't a vote for them, but they consolidated 5 years later because it was easier to imagine Cameron as PM (he'd been doing the job for 5 years) than Milliband. And obviously the press exaggerated that impression. Hindsight suggests a Milliband premiership would have been a duller than the omnishambles of the second Cameron ministry, and the  May, Johnson, Truss, Sunek years, but the unknown looks risky. 

It's difficult to think of the last time the public voted for change alone when the predecessors didn't look washed out. 

1945 - Labour were part of the governing coalition during the war and had run the home front while Churchill ran the war effort. So this wasn't as much of a leap into the unknown as it seems. 

1950's - Tories came back into power when Labour's top team looked burnt out after governing through much of the war, the reconstruction and setting up the NHS. They didn't promise to scrap Labour changes or make grand developments of their own (before Thatcher the Tories normally just kept the status quo of the moment and let occasion Labour and before that Liberal or Whig governments do the reforming). 

1960's - Wilson promised the White Heat of Technology but was also up against a tired scandal hit Tory party on their 4th PM

1970's - I can't imagine anyone voted for Heath's vision, they voted against Labour. But Wilson was still popular and returned only to be replaced by a lesser successor.

1979 - Labour looking tired and with the chaos of the Winter of Discontent. Thatcher was promising change but ran against a weak government. 

1997 - Tories looking surrounded in scandal, the big beasts replaced by lesser figures, really they should have lost in 1992 but the same thing happened to Kinnock as Milliband. New Labour were shinny and promised change but against a government that had become stale ... only for the same thing to happen to them ...

[The Phantom]

30 minutes ago, Declan said:

Largely, the British public votes for the devil you know until it perceives they've been in too long. It's easier to imagine the government governing than the opposition, so a vote for them looks like a risk. 

The Tories snuck into power in 2010 with the Lib Dems help when Labour became jaded. It wasn't a vote for them, but they consolidated 5 years later because it was easier to imagine Cameron as PM (he'd been doing the job for 5 years) than Milliband. And obviously the press exaggerated that impression. Hindsight suggests a Milliband premiership would have been a duller than the omnishambles of the second Cameron ministry, and the  May, Johnson, Truss, Sunek years, but the unknown looks risky. 

It's difficult to think of the last time the public voted for change alone when the predecessors didn't look washed out. 

1945 - Labour were part of the governing coalition during the war and had run the home front while Churchill ran the war effort. So this wasn't as much of a leap into the unknown as it seems. 

1950's - Tories came back into power when Labour's top team looked burnt out after governing through much of the war, the reconstruction and setting up the NHS. They didn't promise to scrap Labour changes or make grand developments of their own (before Thatcher the Tories normally just kept the status quo of the moment and let occasion Labour and before that Liberal or Whig governments do the reforming). 

1960's - Wilson promised the White Heat of Technology but was also up against a tired scandal hit Tory party on their 4th PM

1970's - I can't imagine anyone voted for Heath's vision, they voted against Labour. But Wilson was still popular and returned only to be replaced by a lesser successor.

1979 - Labour looking tired and with the chaos of the Winter of Discontent. Thatcher was promising change but ran against a weak government. 

1997 - Tories looking surrounded in scandal, the big beasts replaced by lesser figures, really they should have lost in 1992 but the same thing happened to Kinnock as Milliband. New Labour were shinny and promised change but against a government that had become stale ... only for the same thing to happen to them ...

I've always thought the 1945 loss of the Tories and Churchill a bit weird. 

[genericUserName]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

The Tories snuck into power in 2010 with the Lib Dems help when Labour became jaded.

Plus Labour specifically turned down going into coalition with the Lib Dems. They then turned left and then further left. Retreating into their unelectable but ideologically pure happy place. And creating a situation in which the Conservatives no longer needed to defend the centre ground.

[quilp]

34 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

I've always thought the 1945 loss of the Tories and Churchill a bit weird. 

Nothing weird about it, really. The country wanted a fresh start, a clean sweep following 6 years of war. This included Churchill and co. for all their efforts. 

[Declan]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

Nothing weird about it, really. The country wanted a fresh start, a clean sweep following 6 years of war. This included Churchill and co. for all their efforts. 

It's a bit more nuanced than that. The war was a communal effort, it was won by people from all walks of life coming together to solve a problem. Labour offered a Health Service in the same spirit. The country felt it deserved a better deal as a reward for the war. (Simillarly, universal suffrage (well for men and some woman) and old age pensions followed WWI - it's easier to empathise with the poor when you've shared a trench). 

Plus the British Economy was at it's most centralised during the war, more than ever in history. And Labour ministers ran the Home Front. 

And whilst Churchill was a hero  Attlee was his deputy and in 1945 able and experienced. Also Labour support helped oust Chamberlain and install Churchill in 1940 and they opposed appeasement in 1938. So Labour like Churchill had been on the right side of history, unlike some Tories.

[quilp]

35 minutes ago, Declan said:

It's a bit more nuanced than that. The war was a communal effort, it was won by people from all walks of life coming together to solve a problem. Labour offered a Health Service in the same spirit. The country felt it deserved a better deal as a reward for the war. (Simillarly, universal suffrage (well for men and some woman) and old age pensions followed WWI - it's easier to empathise with the poor when you've shared a trench). 

Plus the British Economy was at it's most centralised during the war, more than ever in history. And Labour ministers ran the Home Front. 

And whilst Churchill was a hero  Attlee was his deputy and in 1945 able and experienced. Also Labour support helped oust Chamberlain and install Churchill in 1940 and they opposed appeasement in 1938. So Labour like Churchill had been on the right side of history, unlike some Tories.

Yes, it was a more nuanced situation. Churchill was hailed a war hero, a strong leader, saviour etc., but after the conflict his ability to run the country on its domestic front didn't sit easy with the British public, a doubt exploited by members of his own party as well as the opposition. Churchill's obsession with foreign affairs at the time didn't help his popularity either.

I wonder what Aneurin Bevan would think of how things have evolved in the NHS. 

[The Phantom]

44 minutes ago, quilp said:

Yes, it was a more nuanced situation. Churchill was hailed a war hero, a strong leader, saviour etc., but after the conflict his ability to run the country on its domestic front didn't sit easy with the British public, a doubt exploited by members of his own party as well as the opposition. Churchill's obsession with foreign affairs at the time didn't help his popularity either.

I wonder what Aneurin Bevan would think of how things have evolved in the NHS. 

Kinda like Boris. I reckon if Ukraine had kicked off a year earlier, he'd probably still be in No. 10. 

[CallMeCurious]

8 hours ago, Declan said:

It's a bit more nuanced than that. The war was a communal effort, it was won by people from all walks of life coming together to solve a problem. Labour offered a Health Service in the same spirit. The country felt it deserved a better deal as a reward for the war. (Simillarly, universal suffrage (well for men and some woman) and old age pensions followed WWI - it's easier to empathise with the poor when you've shared a trench). 

Plus the British Economy was at it's most centralised during the war, more than ever in history. And Labour ministers ran the Home Front. 

And whilst Churchill was a hero  Attlee was his deputy and in 1945 able and experienced. Also Labour support helped oust Chamberlain and install Churchill in 1940 and they opposed appeasement in 1938. So Labour like Churchill had been on the right side of history, unlike some Tories.

I read somewhere that soldiers left out in the Far East long were very militant after all they endured came close to mutiny in some places as it was taking so long to repatriate them after the horrors of jungle warfare against the japs.

  https://www.marxist.com/forgotten-mutiny.htm

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, The Phantom said:

Kinda like Boris. I reckon if Ukraine had kicked off a year earlier, he'd probably still be in No. 10. 

I know that the last year in UK politics seems to have gone on forever, but the Russians invaded Ukraine (or at least the bit they hadn't already seized in 2014) less than a year ago and Johnson stayed in power for seven months afterwards and played the Ukraine card for all it was worth during that time.  So I doubt it would have made much difference.

[Major Rushen]

Ghost town!

[Moghrey Mie]

In 10 years' time the Isle of Man will be wondering how to diversify the economy and considering reform of the rating system.

[NoTailT]

Tim Johnston appointed as Minister for the Starship.

[Roger Mexico]

I pointed to Johnston as a possible DfE Minister back in July, but presumably it would annoy all the other newbies to see one in CoMin so quickly. 

Still a Chief Minister from a rural constituency putting a farmer, who went to the same public school and represents the same constituency, in charge of the Ministry for Handing Out Money.  Who could have guessed?