Neil Kinnock on the 1992 Election: I'd already lost before the Sheffield Rally
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Neil Kinnock reflects on the infamous Sheffield Rally and admits that he had already lost the election.
Watch the next instalment of our Unlocked series, as Professor Anand Menon sits down with former Labour leader, European Commissioner and stalwart of British politics, The Rt Hon Lord Kinnock.
Neil will be joining us to reflect on his time as Labour leader and assess Keir Starmer’s chances of getting the keys to number 10 at the next election, consider Britain’s place in the world after Brexit, and give his take on the state of British politics.
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
His performance at the rally was ridiculous, he didn't seem to realise the electorate don't appreciate these American over the top celebrations. He is a failed politician.
… Except Britain has always had “over the top” prime ministers way more compared to US presidents.
Look at Churchill or Thatcher, not subtle folks.
@@fshoaps Churchill never won an election.
We're alright !! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ha ha ha , He knows it had an effect not massive but enough
Listen to Dennis Skinner on the Sheffield rally
@@stephenholmes1036What does he say because I can't find anything
He might have lost but when he became Labour leader the Conservatives had a 144 seat majority and after 1992 it was cut to 20 seats, he’d also increased Labour vote share by 8% in that time. He provided the springboard for the 1997 landslide and that’s why Starmers job of unseating the Tories will be so much harder, he’s going to have start where Kinnock was in 1983.
Are you trying to say labour is going to lose next year's general election and that Keir starmer is the new Kinnock
@@IbrahimMohamed-kw7vi Labour may very well lose the next General Election. It's by no means cut and dried. Many people genuinely like Sunak - even those who would violently disagree with his hard right wing politics. The thing is, the packaging is pleasant enough that they either ignore or are completely unaware of this.
Keir Starmer's problem is that he's uninspiring (to those that don't understand the economy), unconvincing (to those that do), lacks any charisma or "star quality", failing to excite or give genuine hope to the masses. To many (who would otherwise vote for Labour) he comes across as a cynical but cowardly bureaucrat of a politician. Many of those people come from within his own party.
Now you might say that what he lacks in "gloss" he makes up for in substance. The gap between his vision (and this doesn't really particularly sell itself convincingly either) and the means to get there given the economic and political handicaps he's saddled himself with as a supporter of the hardest of hard Tory Brexit almost completely undermines that notion. The fact that he was formerly a Remainer - and actually knows that what he's trying to sell to the public is complete garbage - shreds his credibility entirely. To respect a referendum result is one thing. To fully embrace the most extreme and damaging outcome and interpretation of that vote is quite another.
By many voters Labour is seen as the lesser of two evils. But not by much. Starmer is neither a person that appeals to the left wing of his own party, nor particularly those who traditionally vote Liberal Democrat or Conservative. His appeal to Conservatives is that he may deliver a largely Conservative set of policies while being less sleazy than than the Tories. His appeal to everyone else is that he's not the Tories and no other party will be able to form a government. That's not much of a foundation to build upon.
For those Labour supporters who tell us that "Keir knows what he's doing and appreciates that you can't do anything without power... but under the covers he's not changed at all and is still the good man that he always was" aren't telling us some hidden secret that gives hope. Quite the opposite, because this guy is anything but a political master-strategist and doesn't have the personal armoury to be so - serially failing to turn serial Tory disasters, U-turns and own goals into a commanding and convincing lead in the polls. Instead, they're telling us that Keir Starmer is dishonest, cowardly and lacks the authority and confidence to be truthful and trustworthy with an inspiring vision that we can all identify with. They're telling us that this won't win elections and that we should "get real". What they seem to forget is that this already has won elections and moreover led to serial general election wins, whether you're talking about the Tories under Thatcher or Labour under Blair.
When you vote for those who plan on lying constantly and tell yourself that this is a virtue then you get the kind of politicians that you deserve. Starmer has made sure that he is far closer to Boris Johnson than he is to anyone that I'd chose to vote for. This is, after all, his strategy for getting elected: lying. And doing so blatantly while expecting - magically - that he'll avoid the same fate as Mr Johnson. All this while lacking Johnson's undoubted flair (and desperate need) for being liked.
Labour under Starmer is destined for failure. The party is going to need someone like Kinnock to repair the damage in the eyes of the voter. That's an unglamorous decade-long task that is unlikely to yield short-term electoral wins. As it was for Kinnock. But if Labour really does want to be a party of government than is capable of winning multiple terms then you need someone like Kinnock to make the hard yards. Starmer certainly isn't your man.
@@appstratum9747 ok then if that is the case why are we constantly being told by pollsters and the media that starmer and labour are on course for a majority at the elections next year, something is not adding up here, literally everyone even Tories believe that labour will win next year and here your telling they will lose, does that mean labour will be in opposition for 18 years just like under thatcher and major.
@@IbrahimMohamed-kw7vi I didn't tell you Labour will lose, sport. I told you they well might and that it's not yet cut and dried. Please do appreciate the important difference.
Please also recognise that a government in mid term is always at its most unpopular. This is after 13 years of Tory government and seemingly endless scandals. Yet the polls still don't show Labour with an unassailable lead. Most expect them to win. And yet that's not always how it turns out. The Tories have plenty of time left to run and are not averse to axing whomever - including their leader - to stay in power. And they haven't yet started handing out electoral sweeteners that the government can't afford. They will. It still can't. And Labour will have to pay for it all and reap the whirlwind and public discontent as all responsible governments do when giving the public the bad news and taking all those sweeties back. Assuming Labour wins.
Don't underestimate the ruthlessness of Tories, the poor record of Labour winning elections, the fickle nature of the electorate and rapid swings either way due to the UK's archaic electoral system.
The point is this: with all the electoral ammunition and policy failure that the Tories have handed Starmer, Labour should be completely out of sight. It's not. Not at all.
The point you must recognise (or have a nasty shock in 5 to 6 years time) is that winning the next election is a poisoned chalice for whoever takes power. Starmer has been topping that chalice up with his policy commitments. If he wins the next election he will fully deserve what comes next with victory. And I don't mean that in a good way.
The Tories are counting on being out of power for the next Parliament. Which means that they won't really mind throwing everything at the next election, no matter how irresponsible that may be. Being irresponsible doesn't really bother them when push comes to shove. If it did then Brexit would never have happened.
And let's be straight: the only reason Labour is likely to form the next government...not necessarily a majority government...is that the Tories have been so bad. It's not because Labour actually has a viable programme of government to offer. Polls also show public indifference on that front, since you've brought polls up. Nobody is brimming with hope and optimism when the core of Labour's pitch is: "...we will make Brexit less bad but because things are so bad there's only so much we can do"
Being the only alternative to a sh&t government doesn't make you flavour of the month. And won't when most people understand that you lied to get into power with a set of policies that you know won't work (because you can't afford them) or can't work because they incoherent given the handicaps you have saddled yourself with. The economically literate already understand that.
I am not a Tory, by the way. Frankly you really do have a dire choice either way and it really isn't going to make much of a difference who wins the next election given the central policies both parties are pursuing (that really aren't substantially different at the moment). In either case the British people are going to suffer more bad than good. I wish it weren't so.
It sounds as if you have your hopes up. Whereas I am just relieved I don't live in the UK anymore.
@@appstratum9747 so are you trying to tell me that next year will be a repeat of 1992 the election that was unlosable for labour and they still lost, and that Keir is the new Kinnock. And that the way labour is very triumphant now just like Kinnock in his Sheffield rally we all right and being referred to as the next prime minister. What if theres a chance there will be a hung parliament with labour as the largest party
Its not a myth i know of myself and at least 7 of my siblings said NO!
Kinnock complaining about the rally when he was the one in charge of the party at the time!
The rally was nothing to do with the election defeat. Tory lies about Labour's tax plans were primarily responsible as well as the fact Major was not Thatcher, which persuaded many that his government had detoxified the Tories. That is not possible in reality but the public were stupid enough under FPTP to elect the Tories again after all the damage they had done since 1979. The 1992 election was one of the most consequential of the last 100 years because it gave the voters a clear choice between Thatcherism and democratic socialism. So many of the dreadful things that have happened since could easily have been avoided.
he thought he was a rock star he blaming everyone else for his mistakes.
I remember that day, and it was given pride of place in the BBC reporting, as I remember, and it was a polished event with the 4 nations of the United Kingdom represented. I took it to mean he thought the election was about to be won, and he did indeed confidently declare, more than once, that Labour would win with a "majority of 15-20 seats" based on internal polling. One thing that got me was that he was so dismissive towards the Libdems (portently, as it turned out) mentioning that the Tories wouldn't be able to govern with the help of "a few liberals" and proudly declaring that Labour wouldn't need them - when even in 1992, people were mostly tactically voting Libdem to get the Tories out.
Lord and lady kinnock.😂😂😂😂 socialists through and through.
Lord Kinnock betrayed the miners.
Sorry, but it looked like Kinnock was well into it
Right. He expected to be PM. During a PMQs, Major asked Kinnock a question. Kinnock said that it wasn't the leader of the opposition's questions and that he would be answering questions from the government benches soon.
The entrance from the back, Glenda Jackson, the music, were only part of it. His performance on the stage was a bigger part of it.
Kinnock should've advised Jo Swinson before doing her 'candidate for prime minister' speech.
Still talking nonsense. The worst Prime Minister we never had 😂
Do you still think that now?
I assume that the 2 main parties’ tax policies, and the fact that Major was so much more popular individually than Kinnock (Major had only been PM for 18 months while Kinnock had been leader of the opposition for 9 years) were bigger factors.
Tory tax lies. They claimed taxes would go up for typical families whereas, in fact, the average family would have been slightly better off under John Smith's shadow budget proposals.
John Major was not popular by any means but, he was one of Thatchers trusted 2nd generation cronies and had been a chancellor, he was not voted in as Prime Minister but given the job. True enough Labour probably should have looked for a different leadership strategy (John Smith, Scottish MP, was the main man before Blair that offered hope, great guy who sadly died of a heart attack before the 97 election). Major was dull, weak and useless and the tory majority was wafer thin after 92, the game was almost up. John Redwood attempted a leadership challenge before 97 but Major held on and got smashed in 97. The great mystery was why Thatcher picked him over some far stronger candidates, Ken Clarke probably would have done better but he was pro Europe which Thatcher loathed.
@@joebryant5722 he was individually popular in April 1992, at the time of that year's election, far more popular than Kinnock, and far more popular than his party. The fact that he was so different to Thatcher, meant that he was well received early on as PM (despite dislike of his party as a whole), and Labour strategists at the time found that frustrating.
His individual popularity tumbled 5 months later following Black Wednesday.
Scargill destroyed the NUM by starting a fight he could not win& all the workers suffered & one poor fella died plus
At least he's honest
He lost because he was bloody useless.
No, due to Tory lies about Labour's tax plans. Also, the fundamental selfishness and stupidity of the voters under FPTP. We live in Thatcher's Britain due to the egregious effects of her policies that have been enacted ever since 1979. Kinnock would have made a good Prime Minister. I disagree with him on some issues such as the Miners' Strike and I think he moved the party too far to the right, but he was not a Tory and the next thirty years in Britain would have been very different if Labour had won in 1992. Better.
Lot of bollocks that rally did have a negative result for Labour...
It did trust me!
It's silly to attribute to a single chance cause like that the continuation of a trend of voter fear that had run through 4 elections that all went the same way. The cause rationally has to be attached to that continuum.
There remained voter fear from the left + CND line taken in the 80s elections, and the polls were affected by a "shy Tories" effect, a peer pressure against saying Tory to pollsters because Thatcher had been so awful, which has recurred several times in recent history since the 50s
I remember watching it on the news on the night and thought it didn't give a good impression.
It was cringeworthy but then so is kissing babies pretending to be "down with the kids" or when Blair was heading a football with Kevin Keegan... didn't do him any harm I seem to recall.
Point is, if you're the sort of person who votes against a candidate based on a public appearance rather than the policies they actually stand for, you have absolutely no credibility and the vote is wasted on you
a diffrent approach to dissarmament
but why was it lost, Neil. Why?
Yeah okay...we believe you 😂
the media did not want him he never had any hope of pulling back the huge majority but why cant we put this man back in polotics he could do well under stammer after all look at david cameron in rihi goverment
Cameron is another kiss of death for the tories - I won't vote labour either. Reform I think may shock all the pollsters as everyone just wants a change. Our politics seems broken.
blaming other people--remind you of anyone?
How can he blame others when he was the leader of the party? He called the shots.
maybe neil kinnock could join the cabinet look at david cameron as foreign minmister
I think you need more spaces between words.
THANKYOU ANYWAY
I despised thatcher. But I actually voted Tory in 92 purely because of Kinnocks performance from Sheffield which I saw either live or on the news at ten.
His performance and the whole tone of triumphalism is up there in my mind with the first time the David Brent dance was broadcast. Just sheer cringe and proof to me that labour was still not ready for government
Bloke was rubbish and a total sell out. Didn't know what the hell he stood for, oh and he was pure cringe.
neil kinnock so close and yet so far book how it pull labour back from dissaster to the almost to the brink of victory
he was verry unlucky he could not pull it off i think stammer will win it
he was verry unluck y not to pull it off
perhaps we should become jehovah witness and not vote
I despised thatcher. But I actually voted Tory in 92 purely because of Kinnocks performance from Sheffield which I saw either live or on the news at ten.
His performance and the whole tone of triumphalism is up there in my mind with the first time the David Brent dance was broadcast. Just sheer cringe and proof to me that labour was still not ready for government