I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
So Johnson's October 2019 'deal' wasn't a deal then?
The Supreme Court has ruled it was.
I'm not arguing it wasn't; Barty's saying it doesn't meet his criteria.
Is that a new constitutional test ?
Barty, the Norman St John-Stevas de nos jours.
Indeed so. No matter that Sunak might sign his so-called 'deal', no matter that he might get said 'deal' through a Commons vote, if the DUP and SF don't agree to it, it's not a proper Barty deal.
(News for Barty: the DUP and SF will never agree on any deal.)
If the DUP and SF never agree, then Stormont never reopens. That's the Good Friday Agreement, which the Protocol was supposedly designed to protect, and that's been a part of our constitutional arrangements since 1998.
(News for you: the DUP and SF have agreed on deals in the past)
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Protocol does not breach UK law. The Good Friday agreement is enshrined in UK law. It therefore follows that changes to the Protocol agreed by the UK government do not breach UK law.
That misses the point. The Good Friday Agreement means that either of the two large parties can shut down Stormont, if they are deeply unhappy about something.
Sinn Fein as second party did that for many years, a few years ago. The DUP are doing that today.
Whether something is legal, and whether something is a deal, are two completely different things.
Any changes to the Protocol may be legal, but if either the DUP or Sinn Fein find them completely unacceptable then they have the democratic prerogative within the Good Friday Agreement to shut down Stormont.
So any deal needs to be more than just legal, it needs at the minimum to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
That’s politics, not law.
The UK government’s job is to act in the national interest. If its job was to prioritise Northern Ireland over the rest if the UK we would not have Brexited.
I frigging said it was politics, not law. 🤦♂️
The national interest was served in the 2019 deal, yes, getting a good deal for GB rather than putting the NI cart before the GB horse like Theresa May's backstop did.
This deal is supposedly an NI-specific deal. If it is, it needs to serve the interests of both the DUP and Sinn Fein politically. If it does not, what exactly is it supposed to be dealing with? We already have a deal working for Britain, this is whether it works for Northern Ireland or not and the DUP and Sinn Fein represent Northern Ireland.
Part of the deal is the withdrawal of the NIP Bill. If there is no deal that proceeds and the whole UK risks a trade war with the EU and a deterioration in its relationship with the US. And if there is no deal there will be no power sharing in any case. So it is in the UK national interest to do the deal.
I hope Humza will reflect that merely to say this is to be “transphobic” in terms of the (unlawful) definition of “transphobia” adopted by the NEC & would potentially open him up to a charge of hate speech under his own, as yet not in force, #HateCrimeBill 🤷♀️
Such a pity that Sturgeon managed to keep Cherry in the Commons when she wanted to come to Edinburgh. She would have been a formidable candidate if she was in the right Parliament.
All done so Angus Robertson could be assured of an easy entry to Holyrood - and he’s not standing!
So much for succession planning….
He i sprobably hoping to keep his head down as the knives start going in , be a good few of them scared it is all going to come out now the wicked witch has jumped. Who will be left holding the baby one wonders.
Speaking off the top of my head, and possibly simultaneously out of my backside (*), I wonder if two factors have provided some much-need lube for this deal:
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
The question has always been how much poorer are you willing to be because of Brexit? You can tell that the Brexiteers know that the answer for many Leave voters is "not very" from the fact that their entire campaign was based on the lie that there would be zero economic cost.
Hence the current polling. Those of working age are increasingly convinced this is a mistake (and Brejoin is becoming popular much faster than I expected, or think is particularly helpful). But Brexit is still popular amongst the retired, who are much more shielded from the hassles and economic hit.
But I think some on the right really believed the "there are easy wins outside the EU" stuff.
I hope Humza will reflect that merely to say this is to be “transphobic” in terms of the (unlawful) definition of “transphobia” adopted by the NEC & would potentially open him up to a charge of hate speech under his own, as yet not in force, #HateCrimeBill 🤷♀️
Such a pity that Sturgeon managed to keep Cherry in the Commons when she wanted to come to Edinburgh. She would have been a formidable candidate if she was in the right Parliament.
Still, she’s backing the formidable Regan..
She found it incredibly hard to find anyone that actually wanted to push independence, Regan is only one not scared to voice an opinion. Useless wants to wait to 2050 , no word from Forbes and all Sturgeon lickspittles are punting 2050 if England permits.
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
Exactly so. The real negotiations that need to happen are between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
The perfect scenario, would have been for the EU to have delegated their role over agreements on NI to the Irish government - with the Irish government, British government, and the various NI parties, sitting down to work out a deal acceptable to everyone.
My ideal scenario would have had the Stormont Executive agree a common negotiating position between all its parties and then for the Executive to have participated in negotiations with the EU and Britain on an equal basis.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Speaking off the top of my head, and possibly simultaneously out of my backside (*), I wonder if two factors have provided some much-need lube for this deal:
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
(*) Which is quite a feat...
Both probably true.
A German colleague mentioned a third and fourth point
Third - Because of Sunak’s ethnicity, it gives a certain element of pause - a space, so to speak - among those seeking to be liberal in Europe.
Fourth - the Ukraine war has massively shifted the dominant feature of European politics from pure economics (wholly owned by Germany) towards security. Which is/was U.K. and France as the main participants.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
So Johnson's October 2019 'deal' wasn't a deal then?
The Supreme Court has ruled it was.
I'm not arguing it wasn't; Barty's saying it doesn't meet his criteria.
Is that a new constitutional test ?
Barty, the Norman St John-Stevas de nos jours.
Indeed so. No matter that Sunak might sign his so-called 'deal', no matter that he might get said 'deal' through a Commons vote, if the DUP and SF don't agree to it, it's not a proper Barty deal.
(News for Barty: the DUP and SF will never agree on any deal.)
The DUP and SF agreed to a deal on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, which enabled power-sharing to happen following an earlier impasse. If they can get a deal on that then they can get a deal on anything.
Buckingham Palace is considering officially describing Camilla as Queen rather than Queen Consort after the coronation in May.
The change could be reflected on the Court Circular, the official register of royal engagements, and would take effect after the King is crowned as monarch.
Speaking off the top of my head, and possibly simultaneously out of my backside (*), I wonder if two factors have provided some much-need lube for this deal:
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
(*) Which is quite a feat...
Both probably true.
A German colleague mentioned a third and fourth point
Third - Because of Sunak’s ethnicity, it gives a certain element of pause - a space, so to speak - among those seeking to be liberal in Europe.
Fourth - the Ukraine war has massively shifted the dominant feature of European politics from pure economics (wholly owned by Germany) towards security. Which is/was U.K. and France as the main participants.
Yes, the NI issue is a fracture that bad actors could use to create problems within both the UK and the EU. The last thing anybody really wants is a return to high-level violence (witness the sad events last week).
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
Exactly so. The real negotiations that need to happen are between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
The perfect scenario, would have been for the EU to have delegated their role over agreements on NI to the Irish government - with the Irish government, British government, and the various NI parties, sitting down to work out a deal acceptable to everyone.
My ideal scenario would have had the Stormont Executive agree a common negotiating position between all its parties and then for the Executive to have participated in negotiations with the EU and Britain on an equal basis.
But clearly I'm more of an idealist than you are.
I’m sorry, do you mean that you would like liberal social democracy in Northern Ireland?
Ha ha ha ha….
The Good Friday Agreement specified rule by people who aren’t violent, no sir, and don’t know anyone violent, no sir, but know people who know people In The Community who are violent.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Speaking off the top of my head, and possibly simultaneously out of my backside (*), I wonder if two factors have provided some much-need lube for this deal:
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
(*) Which is quite a feat...
Both probably true.
A German colleague mentioned a third and fourth point
Third - Because of Sunak’s ethnicity, it gives a certain element of pause - a space, so to speak - among those seeking to be liberal in Europe.
Fourth - the Ukraine war has massively shifted the dominant feature of European politics from pure economics (wholly owned by Germany) towards security. Which is/was U.K. and France as the main participants.
Yes, the NI issue is a fracture that bad actors could use to create problems within both the UK and the EU. The last thing anybody really wants is a return to high-level violence (witness the sad events last week).
The attack was because of the arrogant and disgusting behaviour of a section of the Northern Ireland Police Service.
They actually thought their job was to catch murderers and drug dealers. And actually caught some.
Instead of opening the car doors for the murders and drug dealers to go to their non-jobs as Community Leaders.
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
Exactly so. The real negotiations that need to happen are between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
The perfect scenario, would have been for the EU to have delegated their role over agreements on NI to the Irish government - with the Irish government, British government, and the various NI parties, sitting down to work out a deal acceptable to everyone.
My ideal scenario would have had the Stormont Executive agree a common negotiating position between all its parties and then for the Executive to have participated in negotiations with the EU and Britain on an equal basis.
But clearly I'm more of an idealist than you are.
I’m sorry, do you mean that you would like liberal social democracy in Northern Ireland?
Ha ha ha ha….
The Good Friday Agreement specified rule by people who aren’t violent, no sir, and don’t know anyone violent, no sir, but know people who know people In The Community who are violent.
Think the Sopranos, but with less pasta.
Like I said, I'm an idealist.
Also, like everyone to one extent or another, I selective deny reality in order to reconcile myself to it's disappointments, and this involves a convenient amnesia relating to situations where my optimism has proven unfounded.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
Phone masts next please, no planning permission should be required
Phone masts without planning permission would not go down well with the average voter, even if relaxing planning rules for areas outside greenbelt might do with non Nimbys
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Yep, Brexit might make us poorer and less influential in the world but the upside is we can get cracking to create the Soviet Republic of Britain or Cowboy Capitalist Island. This would have been damn tricky as an EU member. But all it needs now is a party to win a general election on either of those platforms. So, something to look forward to there.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Eurovision?
2001 and 2005, both 55+ voted Tory, and Labour won.
Got to say I rather like that Ukrainian bank note. If anyone can find where to buy it, let me know (I did find the bank notes section of the Ukrainian bank using my half-forgotten memory of Cyrillic but it doesn't appear up for sale yet, and it'd be rather more reassuring if there's an English page as there is for the news section).
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
So Johnson's October 2019 'deal' wasn't a deal then?
The Supreme Court has ruled it was.
I'm not arguing it wasn't; Barty's saying it doesn't meet his criteria.
Is that a new constitutional test ?
Barty, the Norman St John-Stevas de nos jours.
Indeed so. No matter that Sunak might sign his so-called 'deal', no matter that he might get said 'deal' through a Commons vote, if the DUP and SF don't agree to it, it's not a proper Barty deal.
(News for Barty: the DUP and SF will never agree on any deal.)
The DUP and SF agreed to a deal on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, which enabled power-sharing to happen following an earlier impasse. If they can get a deal on that then they can get a deal on anything.
Indeed, there's a remarkable amount of disdain for the politics of Northern Ireland, and disrespect for the Good Friday Agreement, from people who spent years banging on about how important the Good Friday Agreement is.
Its almost as if they never actually understood what the Good Friday Agreement was and thought it was merely a tool to use to further their own agenda, rather than a delicate cross community compromise.
Getting the DUP and Sinn Fein and Brussels and London all on the same page with a deal would be difficult, but that's the entire point of the GFA. Getting the IRA, UVF, London and Dublin all on the same page wasn't easy either.
Do that and you've got yourself a deal, just like the original GFA, or the St Andrews Agreement that followed it. Fail, and you haven't, as per the GFA itself.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Eurovision?
2001 and 2005, both 55+ voted Tory, and Labour won.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Like everyone else I have not got the foggiest idea what the negotiations will bring but:
We must understand that whatever it is (unless it is in effect rejoining the EU) there will still be a NI problem as this is otherwise insoluble. But let's be more positive:
On that more positive note we can make it a lot better and what is more I note on the Today programme they were talking about improving stuff that was not NI specific (they were maybe just getting carried away). Great if they are. Notably musicians instruments were mentioned and of course the issue isn't just musicians instruments (that is just one people can understand easily), but all temporary exports. If we can sort that it will be a great step forward. Ian was also talking about the pet passport loophole re NI earlier. Yes it should go, but because the whole pet passport issue is actually resolved. I mean that one isn't rocket science and makes people's lives (and border control operations) easier. There is lots more.
Let's knock all the crap easy to fix bureaucratic nonsense on the head.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
Mmm ... I think there is some truth in that.
Except, it seems to have been a phenomenon in many countries -- attitudes to e.g., homosexuality / gay marriage just changed through the West dramatically.
E.g., the Republic of Ireland is unrecognisable now from the RoI thirty years ago when divorce was not possible and contraception barely obtainable.
I am not sure whether it was more to do with the decline of religious thinking & influence throughout the West. But, Blair gave a push, for sure. He was good at pushing a rapidly moving wagon.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
I can't comment on the deal, not knowing about it, but any deal needs to have both the DUP and Sinn Fein on board.
If they are, he's got a deal.
If they're not, its not a deal.
That's the Good Friday Agreement. Majoritarianism doesn't apply to Northern Ireland unless you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
So Johnson's October 2019 'deal' wasn't a deal then?
The Supreme Court has ruled it was.
I'm not arguing it wasn't; Barty's saying it doesn't meet his criteria.
Is that a new constitutional test ?
Barty, the Norman St John-Stevas de nos jours.
Indeed so. No matter that Sunak might sign his so-called 'deal', no matter that he might get said 'deal' through a Commons vote, if the DUP and SF don't agree to it, it's not a proper Barty deal.
(News for Barty: the DUP and SF will never agree on any deal.)
The DUP and SF agreed to a deal on the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, which enabled power-sharing to happen following an earlier impasse. If they can get a deal on that then they can get a deal on anything.
Indeed, there's a remarkable amount of disdain for the politics of Northern Ireland, and disrespect for the Good Friday Agreement, from people who spent years banging on about how important the Good Friday Agreement is.
Its almost as if they never actually understood what the Good Friday Agreement was and thought it was merely a tool to use to further their own agenda, rather than a delicate cross community compromise.
Getting the DUP and Sinn Fein and Brussels and London all on the same page with a deal would be difficult, but that's the entire point of the GFA. Getting the IRA, UVF, London and Dublin all on the same page wasn't easy either.
Do that and you've got yourself a deal, just like the original GFA, or the St Andrews Agreement that followed it. Fail, and you haven't, as per the GFA itself.
A number of people think that the GFA is about giving Republicans whatever they want to turn them into Nationalists. The Unionists part in this is to give up whatever is asked of them.
The Unionists (DUP) have decided they don’t like that version of the story. So they are using the power give to them under the GFA to demand concessions.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Good for Sunak if he stands up to Johnson and the ERGers. I still won’t vote for him, but hope to see the party rebuild without the ERG. They can join reform / ukip or whatever they’re called now
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
2001 and 2005
Don't think that quite works. The boomer generation seems to be defined as those born between 1946 and 1964. So in 2001, they were 37-55 years old, and in 2005, they were 41-59. I think they overall wanted Blair and got Blair.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never have introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
Some of his Home Secretaries made Suella Braverman look like Roy Jenkins.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
Yes, and I can't count either. I think in this context, boomer is generally thought of as being those born in the decade after the war, but I take your point.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Devolution could have been a change for the better in Wales. And should have been.
In practice, it has not (at least in Wales). It has been a huge missed opportunity.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
The Wilson governments, when Jenkins was HS did considerably more on that front. (Although that may not be your lifetime).
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Most of the good that Labour did after 1999 involved spending more money, and so was rapidly undone during the Coalition and afterwards.
The biggest, and most lasting, legislative change I can think of was the Gambling Act of 2005, but I would say that had a mostly negative effect.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
That is a very good point.
I note Rachel Reeves swerved the Oxford and Cambridge lab and warehouse issue several times on the Today programme this morning.
PS worth noting I am biased against Rachel Reeves. On a non party political campaign I am involved in, of all MPs (and I mean the lot) she came out bottom by some margin in terms of incompetence in dealing with the issue. Anneliese Dodds wasn't far behind. And bizarrely unlike most MPs they had a reason to be interested so had an incentive to be more proactive.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
Some of his Home Secretaries made Suella Braverman look like Roy Jenkins.
Speaking off the top of my head, and possibly simultaneously out of my backside (*), I wonder if two factors have provided some much-need lube for this deal:
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
(*) Which is quite a feat...
Good points which I agree with . Johnson wasn’t seen as acting in good faith and Sunak was always viewed as less divisive and more pragmatic .
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
That is a very good point.
I note Rachel Reeves swerved the Oxford and Cambridge lab and warehouse issue several times on the Today programme this morning.
PS worth noting I am biased against Rachel Reeves. On a non party political campaign I am involved in, of all MPs (and I mean the lot) she came out bottom by some margin in terms of incompetence in dealing with the issue. Anneliese Dodds wasn't far behind. And bizarrely unlike most MPs they had a reason to be interested so had an incentive to be more proactive.
Being bottom in incompetence is a good thing, surely?
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
I dimly recall reading a piece saying they haven't ever really. Can't remember where or when though. They've always been a huge swing cohort, so have got what they wanted. Up till now. Because they aren't the swing cohort any more.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.
Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory
Got to say I rather like that Ukrainian bank note. If anyone can find where to buy it, let me know (I did find the bank notes section of the Ukrainian bank using my half-forgotten memory of Cyrillic but it doesn't appear up for sale yet, and it'd be rather more reassuring if there's an English page as there is for the news section).
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Most of the good that Labour did after 1999 involved spending more money, and so was rapidly undone during the Coalition and afterwards.
The biggest, and most lasting, legislative change I can think of was the Gambling Act of 2005, but I would say that had a mostly negative effect.
I would posit that any good of spending more money was reversed by running out of money to spend in 2007.
If you keep spending on everything, eventually there'll be no money left. So just spending on all isn't sustainable and failed during Labour's term not after it.
The paucity of Labour's legacy from 1999 onwards is quite remarkable, especially considering the landslide majorities.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.
The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
Phone masts next please, no planning permission should be required
Further overheating the south-east will make life even harder in the red wall and left-behind coastal towns.
Suppressing growth in the SE does them no favours.
Well, even that reductio ad absurdum would slow the hollowing out of poorer towns as people are forced to leave.
We need to return to the concept of new towns, with major employers as well as people are incentivised to move in, except this time we can refurbish towns.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.
Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory
Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.
The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?
Since Gove and the government are protecting renters, it is the least Starmer can offer.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I would say the Blair government made the UK into a socially liberal place, which looks to be lasting despite efforts from some in the current government.
Mmm ... I think there is some truth in that.
Except, it seems to have been a phenomenon in many countries -- attitudes to e.g., homosexuality / gay marriage just changed through the West dramatically.
E.g., the Republic of Ireland is unrecognisable now from the RoI thirty years ago when divorce was not possible and contraception barely obtainable.
I am not sure whether it was more to do with the decline of religious thinking & influence throughout the West. But, Blair gave a push, for sure. He was good at pushing a rapidly moving wagon.
Half a tick for Blair.
Though Blair was of course a churchgoing Anglican now Roman Catholic.
Even the Church of England will now bless homosexual couples and the Church of Scotland will perform homosexual marriages.
Kate Forbes is a minority of even UK Christians today
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Most of the good that Labour did after 1999 involved spending more money, and so was rapidly undone during the Coalition and afterwards.
The biggest, and most lasting, legislative change I can think of was the Gambling Act of 2005, but I would say that had a mostly negative effect.
I would posit that any good of spending more money was reversed by running out of money to spend in 2007.
If you keep spending on everything, eventually there'll be no money left. So just spending on all isn't sustainable and failed during Labour's term not after it.
The paucity of Labour's legacy from 1999 onwards is quite remarkable, especially considering the landslide majorities.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Crises happen. Competent governments prepare for them.
Labour were running a deficit before the crisis hit, despite the country having had a budget surplus only a few years prior and no crisis in-between to justify deficit spending.
Had they been running a surplus when the crisis hit, as the Tories were when the last recession before that hit, then the country would have had the slack to cope with a deficit within the bounds of typical economic cycles. The only reason we didn't, was because of Gordon Brown.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Most of the good that Labour did after 1999 involved spending more money, and so was rapidly undone during the Coalition and afterwards.
The biggest, and most lasting, legislative change I can think of was the Gambling Act of 2005, but I would say that had a mostly negative effect.
I would posit that any good of spending more money was reversed by running out of money to spend in 2007.
If you keep spending on everything, eventually there'll be no money left. So just spending on all isn't sustainable and failed during Labour's term not after it.
The paucity of Labour's legacy from 1999 onwards is quite remarkable, especially considering the landslide majorities.
It was a frustration at the time to those of us on the left who saw the chance to improve the country being frittered away. The debacle over Iraq is partly to blame, but generally the public service reforms of the Blair-era were ill-conceived and certainly haven't stood the test of time. And there was a general unwillingness to interfere in the market, so things like leasehold were left to fester.
The best-case scenario for a Starmer government is that the obvious lack of money forces them to be more creative, and they tackle some of the long-standing problems in the UK - like leasehold - that can improve people's lives without requiring greater government spending.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Brown / Blair didn't build up surpluses when they should have done plus rather stupid decisions like selling off the UK's gold stocks.
I disagree with the Tories' austerity programme more on the grounds I have a lot of sympathy for the MMT theory but there is no doubt Labour did not manage the UK's finances well.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.
Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory
Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.
Can anyone tell me why our nuclear generation is down by 50% on six weeks ago? It isn't exactly helping with our gas reserves.
Nuclear plants tend to have quite a lot of unscheduled maintenance downtime.
It's the inevitable consequence of having (and containing) radioactive material. All those alpha and beta particles and gamma rays are energy. As they bump into things, they are absorbed, and that (over time) makes said things brittle and prone to leak.
This is also why, after a certain age, nuclear plants end up being decommissioned - simply maintenance cost overwhelms any benefits from abundant fuel.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
Or the Tories could have grown the economy, building on the recovery inherited from Labour, instead of Osborne's austerity which failed even on its own terms.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
That is a very good point.
I note Rachel Reeves swerved the Oxford and Cambridge lab and warehouse issue several times on the Today programme this morning.
PS worth noting I am biased against Rachel Reeves. On a non party political campaign I am involved in, of all MPs (and I mean the lot) she came out bottom by some margin in terms of incompetence in dealing with the issue. Anneliese Dodds wasn't far behind. And bizarrely unlike most MPs they had a reason to be interested so had an incentive to be more proactive.
Being bottom in incompetence is a good thing, surely?
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.
If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
Or the Tories could have grown the economy, building on the recovery inherited from Labour, instead of Osborne's austerity which failed even on its own terms.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.
The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?
The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.
The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.
Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.
Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.
The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.
But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.
Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.
EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.
The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.
So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.
For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.
Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.
That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.
That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.
Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.
First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?
Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?
Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.
Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory
Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.
Labour leads with 59 to 65 year olds
Which is only one-third of the age range of the cohort overall. (Plus, I didn't think anyone broke the age range didn't to five year intervals. Where do you get those figures from?)
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
That is a very good point.
I note Rachel Reeves swerved the Oxford and Cambridge lab and warehouse issue several times on the Today programme this morning.
PS worth noting I am biased against Rachel Reeves. On a non party political campaign I am involved in, of all MPs (and I mean the lot) she came out bottom by some margin in terms of incompetence in dealing with the issue. Anneliese Dodds wasn't far behind. And bizarrely unlike most MPs they had a reason to be interested so had an incentive to be more proactive.
Being bottom in incompetence is a good thing, surely?
Interesting. It has seemed to me for ages that Rachel Reeves is significantly weak. She does not exude competence.
On Today this morning when asked about any specifics about planning when it came to pushy people in posh places she very clumsily avoided the question.
Failing to answer of course is essential in any politician, but the really good ones manage to both swerve the exact question, divert attention and look as is they are answering it all at the same time. At the real top table, including CoE this is essential. Blair should be running courses for these people.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.
If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.
If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.
I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.
2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
Or the Tories could have grown the economy, building on the recovery inherited from Labour, instead of Osborne's austerity which failed even on its own terms.
They did. The economy grew faster in the UK in the 2010s than in the Eurozone despite either Tory austerity or Brexit.
It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.
It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.
That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.
Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?
You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.
If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.
I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.
If I had to choose just one thing to sum up the New Labour era it would be buy-to-let.
New Labour were so relaxed about a minority becoming filthy rich that they didn't care if they did so at the expense of a larger group of people.
Only joking. Couldn’t find a turnip for love or money mind..
This message explains in detail how it's all to do with brexit.
The great tomato shortage is not "all to do with Brexit", it is true. But as the government has conceded, it is partly to do with Brexit. Faced with high demand from both Britain and (say) Germany, farmers take the easier option of supplying places that do not demand a ton of paperwork to export. That's the ones still in the EU as opposed to the one that Brexited.
Comments
You're so fine, you blow my mind
Hey Rishi, hey Rishi...
Which makes you a Man of Violence.
Also sexist, misogynistic, transphobic and racist (TM FM Sturgeon, 2023, all rights reserved)
(News for you: the DUP and SF have agreed on deals in the past)
*) Johnson going, and Sunak having much less baggage wrt the EU.
*) The Ukraine war showing that our differences are fewer than our similarities.
(*) Which is quite a feat...
If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.
But I think some on the right really believed the "there are easy wins outside the EU" stuff.
But clearly I'm more of an idealist than you are.
A German colleague mentioned a third and fourth point
Third - Because of Sunak’s ethnicity, it gives a certain element of pause - a space, so to speak - among those seeking to be liberal in Europe.
Fourth - the Ukraine war has massively shifted the dominant feature of European politics from pure economics (wholly owned by Germany) towards security. Which is/was U.K. and France as the main participants.
Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.
As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.
By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.
Ha ha ha ha….
The Good Friday Agreement specified rule by people who aren’t violent, no sir, and don’t know anyone violent, no sir, but know people who know people In The Community who are violent.
Think the Sopranos, but with less pasta.
Dahl a supporter of cancel culture!!!!
YES, FINALLY.
Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules
Phone masts next please, no planning permission should be required
They actually thought their job was to catch murderers and drug dealers. And actually caught some.
Instead of opening the car doors for the murders and drug dealers to go to their non-jobs as Community Leaders.
Also, like everyone to one extent or another, I selective deny reality in order to reconcile myself to it's disappointments, and this involves a convenient amnesia relating to situations where my optimism has proven unfounded.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2001
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005
https://coins.bank.gov.ua/banknoti/c-440.html
Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.
Its almost as if they never actually understood what the Good Friday Agreement was and thought it was merely a tool to use to further their own agenda, rather than a delicate cross community compromise.
Getting the DUP and Sinn Fein and Brussels and London all on the same page with a deal would be difficult, but that's the entire point of the GFA. Getting the IRA, UVF, London and Dublin all on the same page wasn't easy either.
Do that and you've got yourself a deal, just like the original GFA, or the St Andrews Agreement that followed it. Fail, and you haven't, as per the GFA itself.
So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs
https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/chapters/the-scale-of-the-defeat
Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.
We must understand that whatever it is (unless it is in effect rejoining the EU) there will still be a NI problem as this is otherwise insoluble. But let's be more positive:
On that more positive note we can make it a lot better and what is more I note on the Today programme they were talking about improving stuff that was not NI specific (they were maybe just getting carried away). Great if they are. Notably musicians instruments were mentioned and of course the issue isn't just musicians instruments (that is just one people can understand easily), but all temporary exports. If we can sort that it will be a great step forward. Ian was also talking about the pet passport loophole re NI earlier. Yes it should go, but because the whole pet passport issue is actually resolved. I mean that one isn't rocket science and makes people's lives (and border control operations) easier. There is lots more.
Let's knock all the crap easy to fix bureaucratic nonsense on the head.
Except, it seems to have been a phenomenon in many countries -- attitudes to e.g., homosexuality / gay marriage just changed through the West dramatically.
E.g., the Republic of Ireland is unrecognisable now from the RoI thirty years ago when divorce was not possible and contraception barely obtainable.
I am not sure whether it was more to do with the decline of religious thinking & influence throughout the West. But, Blair gave a push, for sure. He was good at pushing a rapidly moving wagon.
Half a tick for Blair.
Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.
What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?
The Unionists (DUP) have decided they don’t like that version of the story. So they are using the power give to them under the GFA to demand concessions.
I have to say as someone with few nationalistic views I was rather proud of seeing the Union Jack at the top.
EDIT: Though it was quite close for the 1951 to 1960 cohort, so maybe anyone born before 1955 broke for the Tories.
Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.
I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.
It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.
On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.
In practice, it has not (at least in Wales). It has been a huge missed opportunity.
The biggest, and most lasting, legislative change I can think of was the Gambling Act of 2005, but I would say that had a mostly negative effect.
I note Rachel Reeves swerved the Oxford and Cambridge lab and warehouse issue several times on the Today programme this morning.
PS worth noting I am biased against Rachel Reeves. On a non party political campaign I am involved in, of all MPs (and I mean the lot) she came out bottom by some margin in terms of incompetence in dealing with the issue. Anneliese Dodds wasn't far behind. And bizarrely unlike most MPs they had a reason to be interested so had an incentive to be more proactive.
Up till now. Because they aren't the swing cohort any more.
Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory
That said, Mrs Sandpit might be going there in the summer, so long as the war stays where it is now.
Perhaps a few could be bought back and saved for PBers, in exchange for a donation to a Ukranian aid charity?
Like this post to register your interest, I’ll refer back to it later.
If you keep spending on everything, eventually there'll be no money left. So just spending on all isn't sustainable and failed during Labour's term not after it.
The paucity of Labour's legacy from 1999 onwards is quite remarkable, especially considering the landslide majorities.
Only joking. Couldn’t find a turnip for love or money mind..
We need to return to the concept of new towns, with major employers as well as people are incentivised to move in, except this time we can refurbish towns.
Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?
Even the Church of England will now bless homosexual couples and the Church of Scotland will perform homosexual marriages.
Kate Forbes is a minority of even UK Christians today
bid?
Labour were running a deficit before the crisis hit, despite the country having had a budget surplus only a few years prior and no crisis in-between to justify deficit spending.
Had they been running a surplus when the crisis hit, as the Tories were when the last recession before that hit, then the country would have had the slack to cope with a deficit within the bounds of typical economic cycles. The only reason we didn't, was because of Gordon Brown.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Sqa8Zo2XWc4
27 minutes best watched under the influence of Tramadol.
The best-case scenario for a Starmer government is that the obvious lack of money forces them to be more creative, and they tackle some of the long-standing problems in the UK - like leasehold - that can improve people's lives without requiring greater government spending.
I disagree with the Tories' austerity programme more on the grounds I have a lot of sympathy for the MMT theory but there is no doubt Labour did not manage the UK's finances well.
It's the inevitable consequence of having (and containing) radioactive material. All those alpha and beta particles and gamma rays are energy. As they bump into things, they are absorbed, and that (over time) makes said things brittle and prone to leak.
This is also why, after a certain age, nuclear plants end up being decommissioned - simply maintenance cost overwhelms any benefits from abundant fuel.
The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.
Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.
This message explains in detail how it's all to do with brexit.
On Today this morning when asked about any specifics about planning when it came to pushy people in posh places she very clumsily avoided the question.
Failing to answer of course is essential in any politician, but the really good ones manage to both swerve the exact question, divert attention and look as is they are answering it all at the same time. At the real top table, including CoE this is essential. Blair should be running courses for these people.
2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.
So how much faster were you expecting?
New Labour were so relaxed about a minority becoming filthy rich that they didn't care if they did so at the expense of a larger group of people.