Non-Conservatives like to create a narrative of a downtrodden Tory left who are friendly, humane and progressive, just like them: but it hasn't been real for years
The early 90s recession led to really interesting election outcomes in the anglosphere
All of the UK, US, Australia and Canada went into that election with remarkably similar incumbents, they all had long term incumbent governments with relatively new leaders but led to a split in results
Bush (replacing Reagan) and Campbell (replacing Mulroney) were blamed for the recession and crushed in the election after long term government from their party) This has led to a narrative, especially in the US that the winning party could have been led by anyone and won as the recession guaranteed a win for the challengers
But
Major (replacing Thatcher as PM from the position of Chancellor) and Keating (replacing Hawke as PM from the position of Treasurer) both led their party’s to historic victories both in terms of historic lengths of time in office and both with increased majorities, hell Keating in the silliest comment of his otherwise stellar political career had taken complete ownership of the recession when as Treasurer he called it ‘the recession Australia had to have’
I’m not sure what it means exactly but it is a very strange split/piece of history and one thing it definitely does mean is the people who say Clinton didn’t need to tack to the centre as anyone could have won in those economic times are totally and completely wrong
The early 90s recession led to really interesting election outcomes in the anglosphere
All of the UK, US, Australia and Canada went into that election with remarkably similar incumbents, they all had long term incumbent governments with relatively new leaders but led to a split in results
Bush (replacing Reagan) and Campbell (replacing Mulroney) were blamed for the recession and crushed in the election after long term government from their party) This has led to a narrative, especially in the US that the winning party could have been led by anyone and won as the recession guaranteed a win for the challengers
But
Major (replacing Thatcher as PM from the position of Chancellor) and Keating (replacing Hawke as PM from the position of Treasurer) both led their party’s to historic victories both in terms of historic lengths of time in office and both with increased majorities, hell Keating in the silliest comment of his otherwise stellar political career had taken complete ownership of the recession when as Treasurer he called it ‘the recession Australia had to have’
I’m not sure what it means exactly but it is a very strange split/piece of history and one thing it definitely does mean is the people who say Clinton didn’t need to tack to the centre as anyone could have won in those economic times are totally and completely wrong